Rethinking International Assistance for Peace-building

By Jeevan Baniya

Nepal’s peace-building was described as a success story within and out of the country –and international community including United Nations was praising the pace of the process. I was also one of those many who had a similar view. But paradoxically and unfortunately, the hopes generated then have been eclipsed and the peace-building process is standing now at the crossroad if we frankly acknowledge the fragility and the complexities associated with this process.

While various actors including the international community have gained open space to operate in the peace-building process after the People’s Movement II, almost everyday we hear about seminars, workshops and other activities that are concerned with demobilizing Maoists combatants and providing training and so on and so forth. Around time this experts and project developers have been working hard to use up the aid money in Kathmandu valley – the city that never got seriously affected from the violent conflict even when the conflict was in the climax.

It is not strange that the peace-building discourse that has attracted donors, international peace experts and local elites, tend to direct the peace process to ‘peace dividend’ as they are focused only in Kathmandu valley to find remedy to the conflict dynamics and complexities that the country had inherited. The initiatives such as the workshops, seminars, interaction programs, discussions on policies that are limited in the capital seem very unlikely to build a sustainable peace in Nepal unless a holistic vision is adopted.

Although the peace-building practices came into effect since the then Secretary General of UN Ghali Boutros’ ‘An Agenda for Peace after the end of Cold War in 1992’, and various empirical evidences and experiences so far have influenced international actors to rethink their policies and strategies for building peace in conflict or post conflict countries, the short-cut strategies employed in peace building process in Nepal indicate that it will surely fall short of creating sustainable peace in the country given the fact that the conflicts of the country are very dynamic, complex and multilayered.

It is worth mentioning however that the international community has played a considerable role in conflict management phase by facilitating the main conflicting parties in the past when the tides of conflicts were in the course of wiping away our faith of peace. And it is always the matter of appreciation that our well-wishers and international friends, who have come up with the idea to support the peace process with their funds and their knowledge, have somehow contributed in one or other way manage the conflict.

In Nepal’s peace building process, assistance has come through various programs for the purpose of reestablishing and reconstructing the infra-structures destroyed and damaged during the conflict, which is also aimed at contributing to the management of Maoist combatants.

We find differences on how one should understand peace-building and there are various theoretical approaches developed – and the assistance of international community in Nepal’s peace-building might have its own framework. But, considering the dynamics of the conflicts in Nepal, just limiting ones only in conflict management strategies is not going to be enough to establish long-term stability. Thus, it demands very serious and careful attention to better addressing the deep causes of conflicts that exist in Nepalese societies. Without addressing the underlying causes, just building up of relationship between top leadership of conflicting parties will not be enough. It is therefore a necessary task for all to work at the grassroots level. The actors need to orient their activities on the ground with local communities and people. There is an urgent need of regular interaction and assistance to local communities as they lack some capacity and skills to enhance the peace building in the country.

In other words, the policies and goals should be directed towards long-term peace-building; and to reach this end, building infrastructures in grassroots is a must. The country can not always rely on international actors for peace-building, hence, the country needs to enable the societies’ potentials within Nepal so that they will resolve the conflicts effectively, as, they better know the sensitivity of their societies. Community-based bottom-up peace-building approach yields enormous potentials, which needs some back-ups from our true well-wishers.

Peace-building should be directed towards creating the favorable conditions where economic development and democratization can be realized. And, full democratization in the country is not possible without socio-economic reforms socio-cultural and power relation change. Thus peace building and conflict resolution should go together with solving main political issues, social problems and development.

In order to reach this goal, everyone should realize the historical facts as to why and how Nepalese societies are full of vices such as inequality, injustices, underrepresentation and disempowerment of large communities. And it is not difficult for our lawmakers and political parties as well as international community to understand the characteristics of these vices.

We can just live with the hope that the future course of peace-building will be directed towards holistic approach and international assistance will support it.

(Baniya is a PhD candidate at the University of Oslo, Norway. He can be reached at: baniyajeevan@hotmail.com)

This article was originally published in www.neplnews.com
http://www.nepalnews.com/main/index.php/component/content/article/13-top-column/4364-rethinking-international-assistance-for-peace-building.html