Newman, Paris, and Richmond 2009; Paris 2004), while the promotion of market liberalization aggravates socioeconomic problems( Richmond and Franks 2009; Paris 2004; Pugh 2005; Tadjbakhsh 2011). Another unsupported but“ widespread, overarching assumption” is that microlevel peace will lead to macro-level peace( Ernstorfer, Chigas, and Vaughan-Lee 2015, 73). Drawing on forty-two case studies, the Reflecting on Peace Practice Program has shown that, for most peacebuilding agencies,“ local-level work, by definition, is assumed to be relevant to peacewrit-large”( Ernstorfer et al. 2015,72). In fact, grassroots initiatives may have a significant impact on a specific village or district, preventing or avoiding violence and tremendously improving the lives of the inhabitants, but carry no influence on macro-level peace( Ernstorfer et al. 2015).
Conversely, most international interveners believe that undesirable things( like drugs and corruption) run counter to peacebuilding objectives( author’ s interviews, 2001 – 2016). As a result, numerous peacebuilding programs focus on fighting undesirable phenomena like drug cultivation, corruption, and illicit businesses. In actuality, such undesirable things do not necessarily undermine peace. In some parts of Afghanistan, drugs and corruption have in fact contributed to political order and statebuilding( Goodhand 2008). Corruption has also contributed to short-term stability in other postwar environments, such as Liberia( Cheng and Zaum 2012; Le Billon 2003). In the Balkans, the arms trade and illicit businesses helped“ break a stalemated military situation” and“ create the necessary conditions for a negotiated peace” in Bosnia-Herzegovina( Andreas 2009, 38). These industries also strengthened economies throughout the region and supplemented inadequate humanitarian aid( Andreas 2009; Hoare 2015). In other words, contrary to the dominant assumption among peacebuilders, all good things do not necessarily work together. Education, employment, democracy, and micro-level stability do not necessarily promote peace, while bad things( like drug trafficking, corruption, and arms trade) do not necessarily undermine peacebuilding efforts; in some cases, they can actually promote short-term or long-term peace.
Conclusion
Violence disrupts the lives of close to one and a half billion people( International Dialogue on Peacebuilding and Statebuilding 2016); it damages the fabric of their societies and shapes the political institutions that govern them. Most of these people yearn for the day peace will eventually prevail. International interventions can help achieve this goal, but they often fail to make their intended impact, and they sometimes worsen the situation. It is therefore crucial to increase the effectiveness of international peace efforts.
Since we started working on war and peace issues, we have heard a constant refrain: Policymakers and practitioners deplore that many of their standard peacebuilding templates and techniques are ineffective, but that they nevertheless have to continue using these models because no one has yet offered a convincing alternative. Recipients of intervention lament that, although international support could help decrease ongoing tensions, it rarely reaches its full potential. As a result, peacebuilders often request research on initiatives that have succeeded in promoting peace in other parts of the world and that could serve as models for their own efforts. Further investigation of successful local peacebuilding initiatives, the contributions of foreign actors to such processes, and the elements that shape effective international action at the grassroots level is necessary to build the credible alternatives that are so sorely needed.
This article the first of a broader project nevertheless provides a jumping-off point. In order to help change the basic premises on which many programs rely, we have emphasized the role of assumptions in influencing the effectiveness of international peacebuilding. Many international programs in support of local conflict resolution rely on unsupported and flawed assumptions, such as: Good things always go together; peacebuilding efforts are always necessary; and insiders lack the capacity and knowledge to resolve their own predicaments. As a result, these international