R i s k , t r a n s p a r e n c y a n d s e c u r i t y Civic or ethnic? Commonwealth Governance Handbook 2014/15 112 Linking diversity and development The literature on post-conflict reconstruction merges into a third relevant set of writing on the link between diversity and international development. We can see two streams of work here. First, beginning in the early 1990s, academics and policy-makers explored the role that ethnic diversity played in mediating the link between underdevelopment and violent conflict, and how development aid can affect that dynamic. A second stream focused on the way that community development projects could take advantage of pre-existing ethnic identities and ethnic solidarities as a source of ‘social capital’. This idea, sometimes known as ‘ethnodevelopment’, turns on ethnic group leaders and organisations as actors and partners in the process of formulating and implementing development. Both streams are important, but again they tend to be restricted to the development field (economically conceived), disconnected from larger debates about the role of ethnic diversity in democratisation and human rights. We argue that the insights of these different literature silos should be brought together. Each captures an important part of the story of how international actors can contribute to the peaceful and democratic governance of ethnic diversity, but each on its own also threatens to prejudge that question, offering one-sided and incomplete interpretations of international involvement. More research is needed to map the full range of international actors and approaches. Even based on a small sample of case studies, however, we can draw some preliminary conclusions. One finding concerns the actors involved. A diverse group of international actors are involved in the governing of ethnic diversity, often in an ad hoc and unco-ordinated way. There is no single position or institution that serves as the dominant voice or authority on issues of diversity in the way that, say, the World Health Organization dominates international discussions of public health. This partly reflects the fact that few if any of these organisations were initially designed and mandated to deal with issues of ethnic diversity. In that sense, concern for ethnic diversity is almost always an afterthought, a contingent result of personalities and events. To the extent that changes of mandate are an arduous undertaking, we might say that these organisations are not ‘fit for purpose’ in relation to the governing of ethnic diversity. But the Among the contributions to our co-edited volume, International Approaches to Governing Ethnic Diversity, Raffaele Marchetti and Nathalie Tocci assess the EU’s approach to peacebuilding in ethnically divided societies. The EU’s involvement in conflict resolution is driven by its belief in the ‘liberal peace’ principle: peace is achieved through the consolidation of liberal democracy and human rights. This has led the EU to pursue peacebuilding, not only or primarily through agreements between armed groups, but rather by supporting and empowering local civil society actors, who are seen as the most likely bearers of liberal values. However, not all civil society groups are seen as worthy of support. Rather, the EU privileges those groups it sees as ‘civic’ in their orientation, focusing on individual rights, rather than ‘ethnic’ organisations or movements defined on an ethnic or religious basis that demand collective rights. Civic groups are seen as most likely to contribute to the desecuritising of ethnic relations, whereas ethnic organisations are seen as likely to securitise the conflict. Drawing on four case studies – Israel/Palestine, Turkey, Bosnia and Cyprus – Marchetti and Tocci demonstrate that this choice has a number of detrimental consequences. First, as has often been noted, EU funding leads to the development of an artificial civil society, a proliferation of professional NGOs that are disconnected from ordinary citizens and grass-roots movements. Second, the authors suggest that the approach can backfire because it rests on false views about the link between ‘civic’ and ‘ethnic’ organisations, and about the link between individual and collective rights in the sequencing of conflict resolution. It ignores both the dangers of majoritarianism hiding behind socalled ‘civic’ NGOs, and the democratic potential contained within so-called ‘ethnic’ organisations or movements. A more effective approach to conflict resolution and peacebuilding, they argue, needs to overcome some of the conceptual blinders associated with the ‘liberal peace’. Elisabeth King examines a related conceptual blind-spot in the way international development organisations think about postconflict development. In poor, conflict-affected and ethnically divided societies, she argues, international development donors and practitioners have largely ignored ethnicity in what she calls a form of ‘wilful ignorance’, working on the assumption that economic growth is conducive to inter-ethnic peace. Donors are often aware that development aid can have disparate and distorting effects on ethnic relations in divided societies, but are reluctant to explicitly add any form of ‘ethnic sensitivity’ or ‘ethnic auditing’ to their programmes. The UN Security Council Jane Boulden argues that although the council was designed with state-to-state conflict in mind, over time it has increasingly taken action in intra-state conflicts, particularly since the end of the Cold War. Since the council’s involvement in ethnic conflict occurs in a reactive and ad hoc way it does not operate on the basis of any explicit principles or policies on issues relating to the governance of ethnic diversity. As one would expect, in responding to conflict situations that are ethnically divisive its prime concern is to choose solutions that favour international stability and order, rather than to promote any particular model of how ethnic diversity should be governed. In that context, however, the council’s decisions reveal a trend towards endorsement of the principles of liberal peace, a commitment to human rights, accompanied by opposition to non-consensual secession. Through its creation of international criminal tribunals in the aftermath of the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, the council has played an important role in establishing greater accountability for individual violations of international humanitarian law, including ethnic cleansing. And its increased attention to the humanitarian consequences of war has led it to take the lead in developing principles and practices focused on the protection of civilians in conflict.
CEP template 2012
To see the actual publication please follow the link above