Peacebuilding: Lessons for Afghanistan? - CMI

• there is no obvious country model for peacebuilding in post-Taliban Afghanistan
• the effectiveness of particular strategies varies from one country context to
another
• the lack of a tried-and-tested blueprint justifies innovation, risk-taking and
flexibility in formulating strategies for peacebuilding
At present, the international community is simultaneously waging war and building
peace in Afghanistan. The only comparable case from collective peacebuilding
missions in the 1990s is Somalia (1993). That experience, as well as the logic of
conflict resolution, suggests that war-related activities will undermine efforts to build
peace.
In the absence of good blueprints or obvious models, the report has adopted a macroperspective
designed to provide general insight from the history of peacebuilding
since the early 1990s. The review helps to answer some central questions regarding
peacebuilding strategies for Afghanistan at present:
1. Is the structure and mandate of the mission being prepared for Afghanistan in early
2002 appropriate
A large international presence for peacebuilding purposes can severely distort the
economy and politics of the country in question. In poor and divided countries the
effect is magnified. Large missions with ambitious agendas typically have a magnetlike
effect on local politics as the various factions compete for foreign support. The
economy typically develops in a dual and unsustainable fashion. The dynamic has
been repeatedly observed (Somalia, Cambodia, Kosovo, East Timor). To dampen the
distortion effect, a low-visibility, limited presence and a long-term perspective are
essential.
The modest UN mission planned for Afghanistan therefore suggests the UN is doing
the right thing, but not for the right reasons. The decision is not primarily a result of
institutionalised learning about the appropriate size and scope of peacebuilding
missions, but reflects security considerations and the continued military campaign.
The general lesson therefore has to be reiterated in the UN and to other actors.
2. What are the criteria for success in peacebuilding and what are realistic
expectations
“Peacebuilding” is usually understood as a transitional activity designed to prevent the
recurrence of past violent conflict and to lay the foundation for (re)building political,
economic and social systems that in the longer run will prevent new wars. To assess
what works therefore involves several criteria. A minimal test is that past violence
does not recur. A more ambitious threshold is that democratic processes are seen to
take hold, that economic recovery financed by donors gives way to self-sustained
growth, that divided societies start to deal collectively with memories of the past as
well as visions for the future, and that a state of law emerges.
xii