Home Blog Page 84

Bridging the gap between peacebuilders and environmentalists

By
Tia Savarese
-
0

Conflict, environmental threats and disasters, climate change, and food insecurity are often considered separate issues with separate solutions. These issues are, in actuality, all directly related and it is essential to remove the divisions between these fields to collaboratively create solutions. 

There is often a division between the environment, natural resource management, and climate, versus conflict and peacebuilding. According to Carl Bruch of the Environmental Law Institute, many peacebuilders have historically viewed environmental issues as an afterthought; to be considered after achieving peace. Similarly, many environmental workers fail to understand the nuances of conflict and peacebuilding. They seek to urgently pursue large-scale projects, such as those involving renewable energy, to combat carbon emissions. In many cases, they neglect to understand the potential negative impacts this could have on conflict-fragile countries completely reliant on fossil fuels. 

Yet, this view has changed dramatically in recent years. The war in Ukraine has clearly shown the direct relationship between conflict and food security. The war constrained supply chains and exacerbated food inflation in developing countries. The global hunger crisis that resulted is further compounded by climate shocks that affect food distribution and transport, crop yields, and livestock.

Development and aid programs must work to incorporate thorough conflict analyses before conducting their work. According to Ted Holmquist of Mercy Corps, these analyses were originally seen as only conducted in the realm of the peacebuilding practitioner, but if food security and other development programs fail to understand the dynamics of a conflict, it can exacerbate tensions. For instance, if local communities perceive an aid program as being too closely linked to one side of the conflict, it can become mistrusted and eventually expelled. If food distribution programs are inequitable and fail to reach all communities, they can instigate divisions between communities. Aid programs must hire a balanced staff that represents the local population and incorporate community-based approaches. It can be quite difficult to meet these requirements during emergency situations, thus it is important to consider the minimum standards of participatory approaches and conflict analyses that are needed to promote peace.

Experts discussed these findings during the session “Breaking Barriers, Building Connections: How to Achieve Synergy Between the Fields of Peacebuilding, Climate Change, Environment, and Food Security,” during the 10th PeaceCon Conference held in Washington DC during May 3-5, 2023.

Panelists:

Carl Bruch, Environmental Law Institute

Ted Holmquist, Mercy Corps

Celestine Procter, Alliance for Peacebuilding

The Humanitarian Imperative in Disaster and Conflict: the case of the Turkiye-Syria Earthquake

By
Chas Morrison
-
0

On 6 February 2023, a devastating earthquake impacted Turkiye and Syria. The destruction was enormous, and it took several days for the extent of the damage to become clear. In total, 57,759 people died across the two countries, with around 130,000 injured. Almost 18 million people were directly impacted. Here, a clear opportunity was presented for governments and the international community to put into practice the ‘humanitarian imperative’. This holds that the essential principle of responding to disaster and conflict is to prevent and alleviate human suffering, and that politics should not be allowed to hinder this endeavour. As a corollary, there are also increasing calls for greater recognition of the principles of dignity and autonomy in humanitarian response. Unfortunately, this terrible event and the responses to it were politicised.

There is a tendency in crisis response to treat conflict and disaster as separate fields. However, reconstruction following civil war and reconstruction following disaster have much in common. For both, the social and political rupture needs to be addressed, in addition to the physical destruction. Just as failing to address the causes of conflict is associated with renewed outbreaks of violence, failing to address hazard vulnerabilities can lead to continued disaster risks. Disaster and conflict are caused by complex interacting variables and tipping points and defy simplistic causal explanations. Many of these causal variables are structural and political, and form a complex interlocking set of vulnerabilities that reduce disaster resilience, but also hamper social development more broadly.  

Turkiye was hit harder by this earthquake, but in many ways is better positioned to organise humanitarian recovery and reconstruction activities. Syria has been devastated by civil conflict since 2011, and state power has been contested and rule of law weakened. It has been said that “all disasters are political”, but adhering to the humanitarian imperative does not imply ignoring the political complexities. People’s survival and wellbeing should come first, before tackling the political conditions associated with disaster occurrence and conflict outbreak. 

Three months after the earthquake, attention has turned to the longer-term reconstruction needs and how this process should be implemented. Post-conflict or post-disaster reconstruction is challenging enough, but this context faces additional complexities. President Bashar al-Assad has declared victory in the Syrian Civil War, but Idlib governorate is de facto controlled by Turkiye, and Kurdish groups have significant control over Northeast Syria. The range of armed groups operating across Northern Syria compounds the logistical challenges in securing humanitarian access and reaching the most affected populations. There is antagonism from different non-state actors who feel the humanitarian needs of their people were ignored during the conflict. Now, there appears to be a clear international mandate for earthquake assistance and reconstruction activities. Large numbers of disaffected (mostly young) men have been influenced by extremist ideologies, and feel excluded from mainstream state priorities and development agendas. These grievances have been deepened by perceived inequalities and hypocrisies in the post-earthquake environment, and by different levels of international support for the two countries.

A comprehensive reconstruction process must be sensitive to extremism, through understanding the priorities of young people whose educational and economic needs are vital, and without whom a durable peace process is unlikely. The 2023 earthquake has reignited international political concern about Syria, both for its own suffering and potential regional knock-on effects. The triple challenge in Syria is to formulate and implement earthquake recovery and reconstruction strategies that address hazard vulnerability and impact, civil conflict, extremism and power vacuums. Binary framings around deserving and undeserving victims are likely to deepen grievances, and may impede peacebuilding and reconstruction programmes.Whether addressing conflict, disaster or any other crisis, the humanitarian imperative should come first. Saving lives should take precedence over solving complex political problems, such as statebuilding, confronting extremism and reintegrating non-state actors (which are fraught, lengthy and challenging processes). By conflating humanitarian interventions with political and military interventions, the international community has missed opportunities to adhere to a coherent humanitarian prioritisation. Ensuring a robust and equitable reconstruction process in the region will involve sensitive understanding of the interlinked challenges in post-conflict environments, extremism and failed state dynamics, as well as seismic rehabilitation and earthquake-resistance building codes. But the humanitarian principle of saving people should be foremost.

Featured image: Earthquake (Flickr)

How effective Green Energy projects can reduce conflict

By
Tia Savarese
-
0

Green energy is essential to limiting global warming and working toward a sustainable future. However, without improved consideration of conflict dynamics, the implementation of green energy programs risks ineffective results and opposition by local communities. 

800 million people in the world do not have access to energy. Of that number, 85% are living in fragile states. According to Riccardo Ridolfi of Equatorial Power, there is a direct relationship between resource scarcity and conflict. If entrepreneurs can invest in energy projects and reduce resource scarcity, it will improve economic development and reduce conflict. Providing more equitable access to energy can increase gender equality and empowerment, promote public service delivery, reduce inequalities, increase human capital, and increase perceived personal safety. However, it is important to consider the potential risks of energy projects. Energy projects can instigate conflict if they lack consent and meaningful engagement with the local communities, provide few benefits to the affected community, or reinforce existing power structures. 

Reflecting on energy projects from her hometown in Marsabit County, Kenya, Hon. Waqo Naomi Jillo of the Committee on Justice, Legal Affairs, and Human Rights for Marsabit County describes the importance of wind energy projects for local development and prosperity. The project, which was one of the largest private investments in Kenya, expanded the construction of roads and infrastructure which provides residents with access to markets, schools, tourism, and overall improved livelihoods. The project sought to increase involvement with the local community over time and has, since then, employed many young residents. Hon. Waqo Naomi Jillo thus argues that effective energy projects should prioritize consultation with local communities, consistent communication regarding the goals of operations, employment of local residents, and support for the rights of local land users.

Catriona Gourlay of Peace Nexus argues that one of the most important prerequisites for energy investments is to incorporate a conflict and context analysis into the design process. It is important to understand the drivers and actors of conflict before beginning energy investments. Furthermore, it is critical to engage local communities throughout the process. This can be done in a number of ways, such as promoting increased collaboration between climate teams, conflict teams, government officials, and community members. Local engagement should also ensure access to benefits for the affected communities through access to jobs and energy. Similarly, Saw John Bright of the Karen Environmental and Social Action Network argues that there should be greater investments into people and community-led projects, cultural values must be prioritized, and energy projects should have improved legal mechanisms to ensure accountability.

Energy experts discussed these findings during the session, “Peaceful Just Transition: Unpacking the Impacts of Renewable Energy Projects on Peace and Conflict,” during the 10th PeaceCon Conference held in Washington, DC during May 3-5, 2023.

Peaceocracy: Peace as a strategy to suppress

By
Gabrielle Lynch
-
0

In the wake of Kenya’s 2013 elections, the term “peaceocracy” was used to capture claims that the victor had prioritized peace to the detriment of substantive democracy. Prior to the election, there were widespread fears that the country might experience similar violence to that witnessed during the country’s post-election violence of 2007/2008, in which over 1,000 people were killed and almost 700,000 others were displaced.  As a result, establishment elite emphasized the need to protect a fragile peace as a way to legitimize certain activities, such as the strategic placement of security forces, and to delegitimize others, such as public protest or open debate of potentially divisive topics. While some aspects of this campaign were unique to Kenya and its 2013 election, an emphasis on the need for order to maintain a fragile peace has long been used across Africa and beyond to suppress critical voices. 

Peaceocracy can be defined as a situation in which an emphasis on peace is used to prioritise stability and order to the detriment of democracy. The term can be used to refer to a short-lived or longer-term strategy whereby a prioritisation of peace—understood as the absence of widespread direct violence and/or the presence of unity and cohesion—is used to legitimize authoritarian practices such as repressive media laws and a heavy-handed state security response to protest, and to delegitimize other democratic practices such as the public criticism of incumbents and peaceful protest. Critically, this strategic use of peace can be felt not only through outright repression, but also through more subtle disciplinary techniques that seek to determine what is good and acceptable behaviour that should be encouraged and rewarded, and what is bad or unacceptable behaviour that should be avoided and punished. 

Key characteristics of peaceocracy include: the presentation of an existing peace as under constant threat; a state discourse of incumbents as the unrivalled guardians of order and stability; and a normative notion of citizenship that casts the “good citizen” as someone who actively takes care to uphold and protect a fragile peace and the “bad citizen” as someone who does anything to potentially threaten the same. 

These foundations ensure that while peaceocracy refers to a strategy of leadership, rather than to a discreet regime type, it is a strategy that tends to be adopted and to be most effective in post-conflict countries characterized by hybrid regimes—regimes that are neither fully democratic nor classically authoritarian. The reasons are simple. The idea of a fragile peace post-conflict can be used to help justify a prioritization of peace. A state security narrative can help incumbents to present themselves as the rightful guardians of peace. Hybridity provides a context in which incumbents are motivated to use every means available to win and are well placed to manipulate an emphasis on peace to suppress opposition activities if they so choose. 

The concept of peacecroacy is thus important as it adds to our understanding of the potential violence of peace, the advantages of incumbency, and the potentially negative democratic impacts of internal conflict by highlighting the implications of conflict for discursive politics and understandings of (il)legitimate action. The concept demands that we pay more attention to how peace-messaging and building are conducted and with what potentially perverse consequences for democracy and substantive peace.

Featured image: Election (Flickr)

Grassroots Peacebuilding in Indonesia  

By
Sumanto Al Qurtuby
-
0

Addressing communal violence requires a strategic collaboration of diverse actors in the state (government) and society (civil groupings). Without state-society synergy, attempts at peacebuilding can be fruitless. The problem is that some factions within the state (“uncivil government”) and society (“uncivil society”) also contribute to exacerbating tensions and violence, making peacebuilding processes an uneasy task. Religion plays an ambivalent role. When misused, it can be a source of conflict and violence. Otherwise, it can be a resource for peacebuilding and reconciliation. In the Indonesian context, religion has played a role in both violence-building and peace-building. Accordingly, it is important to not neglect it’s roles or contributions. 

In some parts of Indonesia, the role of interfaith peacebuilding, particularly that initiated by grassroots interfaith dialogue activists, is significant to maintaining interreligious harmony and healthy interreligious relations. Equally important, my research findings show that significant contributions have been made by female grassroots peacebuilding practitioners and interfaith activists in efforts to establish peace and harmony even during the massive communal riots in Ambon, Poso, and other locations in the past. 

Grassroots peacebuilding is important because grassroots people are the “foot soldiers” of any conflict, tension, and violence in post-Suharto Indonesia. During the Suharto era, state violence dominated, but since his dictatorial government collapsed in 1998, violence has become more nuanced and varied. With few exceptions, mass/collective violence takes place at the grassroots level between communities. Accordingly, dealing with contemporary grassroots violence requires grassroots peacebuilding. Grassroots peace activists and practitioners work tirelessly to reconcile conflicting groups and preventing tensions or violence from escalating, thus keeping sustainable peace in their areas and societies.        

In Indonesia, it is important not to ignore the power of faith, women, and grassroots action. It is also important to work strategically and synergically between actors in the state and society. Last but not least, peacebuilders need to approach and involve “violence-builders” in the peace process. 

Featured image: UN Women (Ryan Brown)

1...838485...188Page 84 of 188