Building on What's Already There

Abstract

Twenty years have passed since release of Boutros Boutros-Ghali's influential agenda for The publication of this document coincided with a rapid expansion in United Nations -mandated complex humanitarian interventions, as well as with new efforts to apply postconflict as an operative framework for restoring and wellbeing to societies fractured by armed conflict. The present anniversary provides an opportunity not just for retrospective thinking about impact of past international efforts, but also for prospective thinking about how next 20 years might be more dynamic and sustainably effective.The advent of as an evolving practice supported by United Nations has created new opportunities for coordinating constructive responses to protracted conflict. Given its aspiration to develop instrumentalities for addressing root causes of violence and establishing foundations for stable peace, represents a significant development in thinking about problems of human insecurity, and helps to shape collective intentionality in ways that support lasting solutions. Nonetheless, deficits and challenges in contemporary practices must be faced squarely if we are to define a new or renewed agenda for decades ahead. Increased international capacity to mitigate organized violence and provide relief to suffering populations has not yet been matched with a corresponding ability to make stick or to avoid dangers and pitfalls associated with large-scale external intervention in fragmented and frague societies. Activities undertaken in name of have often marginalized local actors, proceeded in ways that did not adequately respond to local expectations and needs, and at times replaced one set of problems with another. In many cases, efforts to transplant through international efforts yield disappointing results - a temporary reduction in armed violence, but not a robust and deeply rooted process of reconstruction and social transformation.In light of these challenges, there is a need to acknowledge local agency and empowerment as one of foremost challenges of contemporary practice. If a special commission were to rewrite agenda for peace to incorporate lessons from last 20 years of experience, its authors would be well advised to localize peace - that is, to partner with local actors to tap indigenous resources and energize context- specific processes - as a central goal of 21st century efforts.FROM GALTUNG TO BOUTROS-GHALI AND BEYONDPeacebuilding is a subject and activity that predates work of United Nations' sixth secretary-general, but that was nonetheless substantially influenced by his contributions. In its early uses, term peacebuilding held currency almost exclusively among academic specialists in enterprise known as research. Though research tradition is seldom credited for its impact on Boutros Boutros-Ghali' s formulation, intellectual fingerprints of scholars are readily apparent. An early usage of term can be found in writings of Johan Gaining, who conceptualized it as one of three approaches to peace, alongside peacekeeping and peacemaking. Like Boutros-Ghali, Galtung contrasts with both peacekeeping and peacemaking. He describes peacekeeping as a dissociative path to peace: the antagonists are ktipt away from each other under mutual threats of considerable punishment if they transgress, particularly if they transgress into each other's territory.1 In contrast, Galtung designates peacemaking as the conflict resolution and as the associative approach.2 Critical of traditional approaches to keeping through threat and coercion, Galtung offers a qualified endorsement of conflict resolution approach - provided it is not merely an effort to paper over deep inequalities and divisions - and presents a case for as a process of change that seeks to redress global as well as intra-national structural violence by building nonexploitative structures and infrastructures of peace. …