Peacebuilding necessitates a re-evaluation of the Western/liberal, non-Western/illiberal dichotomy. After numerous failures in liberal peacebuilding and the lack of innovative intervention approaches, scholars sought potential alternatives in emerging powers' involvement in post-conflict reconstruction. However, the debate often oversimplifies the issue, categorizing Western peacebuilding as inherently liberal and non-Western peacebuilding as illiberal. This dichotomic understanding is problematic and hinders progress in the analysis of the subject. We contend that peacebuilding has become institutionalized as a foreign policy tool driven by national interests, with similar strategies employed by different governmental actors irrespective of their stated objectives.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Levorato et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: