Local NGOs in national development: The case of East Timor

Pearce suggests that CPEs of the 1990s are quite different from the conflicts of the
Cold war era in Central America which arose in a context of strong and repressive
states and an era of state led development. More recent CPEs emerged in contexts of
weak states unable to maintain territorial control, in an era of globalisation and a
reduced role for the state (Pearce 1999:54). The East Timor conflict, emerging at the
end of 1999, was certainly an eventual outcome of the impact of global processes in
Indonesia (the ‘Asian crisis’) (Nyman 2006), but in other ways it emerged from a
repressive state context and was about the universal principle of self-determination.
The state, initially very strong, collapsed in September 1999, and the UN took over its
role.
However, Pearce argues that peacebuilding in Central America has nevertheless been
negatively affected by the same processes which have led to the 1990s CPEs. In
particular she highlights the failure of national elites to take responsibility for a more
inclusive form of national development, and the persistence of now weak states which
reflect elite interests. The welfare of poorer people has been left to NGOs and
international actors, but remains aid dependent and hence, unsustainable. Thus donor
support for civil society and local peacebuilding initiatives is having limited impact in
the absence of strong national development goals and strategies. Donors also found it
difficult to work with the popular civil society organisations who had mobilised and
empowered people, were sceptical about donor motives, and lacked technical project
management skills. Donors transferred support to new, less politicised NGOs who
developed those skills. Divisions between NGOs and grassroots groups also emerged
due to the latter’s resentment about the funding flowing to the former.
Debates in the literature about the humanitarian emergency responses to these CPEs
have frequently related to the politics of humanitarian intervention, the right to
intervene and the issue of sovereignty. They have also focussed on the relationship of
largely international humanitarian actors with military actors, issues of coordination,
effectiveness and accountability for the quality of the response to a humanitarian crisis,
and issues of protection and human rights in the response (Minear 2002, Quinn 2002,
40