|
Article Excerpt
In 1995-1996 the hemisphere's multilateral forum, the Organization of American States, launched a conflict prevention and management program in Guatemala entitled "Culture of Dialogue: Development of Resources for Peacebuilding in Guatemala." The overarching goal was to help Guatemalans address ongoing tensions and political disputes, particularly related to the implementation of the historic peace accords. This article provides a detailed account of this OAS attempt to prevent and diffuse conflict, suggesting that it represents a novel effort that draws heavily on the conflict transformation approach to conflict management. Still, it argues that, at the conceptual level, there appears to be a disconnect between this approach to conflict prevention and the Organization's broader approach to peacebuilding, which embraces a free-market path to development, including the implementation of market-oriented economic reforms. KEYWORDS: conflict prevention, Guatemala, Organization of American States, peacebuilding, reconstruction.
**********
Since the signing of the historic Guatemala Peace Accords (1) in December 1996, the hemisphere's multilateral political forum, the Organization of American States (OAS), has supported the country's fledgling democracy through various peacebuilding initiatives. Particularly relevant to the Guatemalan situation is the fact that the OAS recently expanded its peacebuilding agenda to include conflict resolution and prevention programs. (2) It is during the phase following the signing of peace accords that activities aimed at preventing a renewed outbreak of violent conflict are considered especially valuable. With this in mind, the Organization established a special program to help Guatemalans address ongoing tensions and political disagreements, particularly those related to the implementation of the peace accords. The program entitled "Culture of Dialogue: Development of Resources for Peacebuilding in Guatemala" (OAS/PROPAZ or PROPAZ) focused primarily on strengthening the capacities of governmental, civic, and community institutions to manage and resolve disputes in collaborative ways. (3)
This article explores OAS efforts to expand its peacebuilding work into the area of conflict prevention and management through an examination of the PROPAZ program (1995-2003). I do not set out to evaluate PROPAZ's empirical record per se, although I will offer a judgment in this regard. I provide, instead, an informed account of the program's work in order to highlight a shift in OAS peacebuilding theory and practice. I argue that, although the OAS continues to practice conventional peacebuilding work that emphasizes technical assistance to member states, it recently has adopted conflict management approaches that entail greater engagement with civil society actors. Still, at the conceptual level, there appears to be a disconnect between this newer conflict prevention work and the Organization's broader peacebuilding approach, which Roland Paris has termed liberal internationalism. (4) The PROPAZ approach, which places emphasis on the question of social justice and rejects the objective of restoring the status quo ante, sits uncomfortably within a paradigm that privileges order and stability and views social justice as a low priority. Finally, I argue that, although the adoption of this new more comprehensive approach to conflict prevention is praiseworthy, it was not systematically applied in the case of Guatemala. Crucial societal actors related to land conflicts (the private sector and the military) were not invited to participate in the intersectoral or zonal components of the program. While large landowners were invited, they could not be persuaded to participate. Given the critical role of these actors in past and current conflicts, their absence reduces PROPAZ's ability to act as an agent of lasting change.
This article serves one other purpose. Andy Knight has rightly noted the lack of conceptual clarity when it comes to peacebuilding. (5) The degree of conceptual and definitional imprecision in the area of conflict management is no less daunting. Indeed, a variety of programs and strategies are slotted almost interchangeably under the rubrics of conflict management, conflict resolution, and conflict transformation. Therefore, I explore the assumptions that underlie the PROPAZ program in order to determine the theoretical approach that has informed its practice on the ground. Situating the program within the conflict prevention literature makes it easier to track the evolution of OAS work in this area.
I begin by discussing the Organization's approach to peacebuilding. I then situate the PROPAZ program within the conflict management literature, suggesting that it draws on the conflict transformation approach. I conclude by arguing that PROPAZ sits uncomfortably within the overall peacebuilding framework employed by the OAS because a conflict transformation approach (with its focus on social justice and structural change) is unlikely to thrive within a liberal internationalism paradigm.
The OAS and Peacebuilding
One of the principal objectives of peacebuilding in countries torn by internal conflict is to improve their capacity to manage future conflict without violence. The peacebuilding exercise is a complex one that can include activities related to disarmament, supporting democratic governance, human rights, the rule of law, and sustainable development. While there remains continued disagreement regarding the empirical and theoretical boundaries of the peacebuilding exercise, what has become clear is its decidedly political nature. The fact that peacebuilding encompasses such a wide assortment of activities across such a broad spectrum of developmental fields (political, social, and economic) has led some practitioners and analysts to suggest that many countries are being forced into embracing a set of economic and social policies that are not of their choosing, and which, in some cases, could be "contradictory to the very values and aims of peace building." (6) Paris has suggested that the peacebuilding efforts of international agencies are guided by a paradigm of liberal internationalism that champions liberal democracy and market-oriented economics. Compliance with these prescriptions is ensured by "imposing conditionalities requiring states to undertake specific economic and political reforms in exchange for economic aid, and by taking on quasi-governmental functions in war-shattered states." (7)
The OAS approach to peacebuilding has been informed by the assumptions and prescriptions contained in liberal internationalism. The Organization has identified the liberal paradigm (market-oriented reforms, representative democracy, civil society building, and good governance) as the most fitting form of economic and political governance, and as the most promising approach to reducing social tensions and preventing violent conflict. Predictably, the Organization has advanced a blend of market-friendly economic reforms and liberal political policies for the hemisphere, persuaded that they will result in a stable and lasting peace. In fact, in the early 1990s, the OAS established the Unit for the Promotion of Democracy (UPD) and OAS member states enthusiastically embraced a US proposal for a Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), signalling the consolidation of a new hemispheric consensus based on transitions...
|
