![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
Abstract
This article examines the relationship between orthodox terrorism discourses and liberal peacebuilding, particularly where states are being reconstituted after a conflict. Drawing upon fieldwork in Sri Lanka, Palestine, Kashmir, Nepal, and Northern Ireland, our findings suggest that conflicts in which orthodox terrorism theory is deployed to explain violence are those in which there is little interest (by all parties) in dealing with root causes or achieving mutual compromise. This is so even though the liberal peace is commonly a claimed aspiration for most parties, apart from the most radical of non-state actors or authoritarian of states. They effectively reify both terrorism and state securitisation. The aspired to internalisation of the liberal peace framework has instead been supplanted by the politics of state securitisation and violent resistance. Liberal peacebuilding has become a nominal exercise in constructing virtually liberal states in which the security and integrity of core groups are partially maintained by orthodox terrorism praxis. To counter these dynamics, critical positions need to engage with agendas beyond liberal or cosmopolitan frameworks.
Acknowledgements
This article forms part of a broader research project run by the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of St. Andrews, funded by the British Academy, to whom the authors are grateful. The authors would like to thank our many interviewees, some of whom could not be identified. We would also like to thank two anonymous reviewers for Critical Studies on Terrorism. This article represents the authors' own views, and any errors are the authors' own responsibility.
Notes
1. We assume orthodox terrorism theory informs most liberal analyses. The term ‘peace process’ is used here to denote formal negotiations and the linked informal discussions which may take place around them in the context of liberal states. Liberal peacebuilding is used to indicate the broader project of solving conflict by building these liberal states.
2. We recognise that orthodox terrorism theory and liberal peacebuilding frameworks are to some extent broad categories that mask internal differences, but we use them because they are probably the most significant theoretical frameworks in each area at present.
3. The conservative form of the liberal peace rests on security issues, securitisation, and the production of a negative peace. The emancipatory form engages with human security issues at the grassroots as well as the construction of liberal institutions and a liberal state.
4. We note that findings from such a comparison should not be generalised across all types of conflict or terrorism.
5. Confidential Source, Centre for Policy Alternatives, Personal Interview, Colombo, 4 April 2007.
6. Confidential Source, Peace Council, Personal Interview, Colombo, 6 April 2007.
7. Dr Wonakoon, Personal Interview, Colombo, 5 April 2007.
8. Confidential Source, Peace Council, Personal Interview, Colombo, 6 April 2007.
9. Confidential Source, Peace Council, Personal Interview, Colombo, 6 April 2007.
10. CHA
11. Confidential Source, Centre for Policy Alternatives, Personal Interview, Colombo, 4 April 2007.
12. Confidential Source, Centre for Policy Alternatives, Personal Interview, Colombo, 4 April 2007.
13. Professor Margalitt, Personal Interview, Jerusalem, 27 June 2007.
14. Kadura Fares, Fateh – National Leader, Personal Interview, Ramallah, 30 June 2007.
15. Ibrahim Salameh, Fateh – Local Activist, Personal Interview, Ramallah, 30 June 2007.
16. Jessica Montell, Director – BT'Selem, Personal Interview, Jerusalem, 26 June 2007.
17. Dr Gershon Baskin – Director IPCRI, Personal Interview, Jerusalem, 29 June 2007.
18. Confidential Source – IDF, Personal Interview, Jerusalem, 1 July 2007.
19. It was suggested that the way the concept of terrorism was deployed in Israel was unhelpful, generally populist, and designed to prevent progress and to protect a conservative version of the state. Confidential Source, Peace Now, Personal Interview, Tel Aviv, 20 June 2007.
20. Wilson John, Terrorism Analyst, Personal Interview, Delhi, 11 September 2007.
21. Radhavinod Raju – Indian Police Force, Personal Interview, Delhi, 10 September 2007.
22. Prof Chari – Director - Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, Personal Interview, Delhi, 10 September 2007.
23. Wilson John, Terrorism Analyst, Personal Interview, Delhi, 11 September 2007.
24. Yassin Malik – JKLF Leader, Personal Interview, Srinagar, 17 September 2007.
25. Sajad Lone, Kashmir political leader, Personal Interview, Srinagar, 14 September 2007.
26. Wilson John, Terrorism Analyst, Personal Interview, Delhi, 11 September 2007.
27. Prof Radha Kumar – Jamia Millia, Personal Interview, Delhi, 10 September 2007.
28. Suba Chandran – Researcher – Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, Personal Interview, Delhi, 10 September 2007.
29. Brigadier General Ramindra Chhetri – Nepalese Army, Personal Interview, Kathmandu, 26 September 2007.
30. Most of our interviewees agreed on these general points, though they have held different views on how they viewed the causes, process, and current situation.
31. This was the case in our meetings with policy-makers, ex-prisoners, NGOs, politicians, and a group of scholars at INCORE, University of Ulster, Londonderry, 4 December 2007.
32. IMC Focus Group, Belfast, 3 December 2007.
33. See a series of confidential interviews conducted around the various institutions of the UN relating to terrorism and peacebuilding. Confidential Sources, Personal Interviews, New York, February 2007.
34. Confidential Source, UNMIN HQ, Personal Interview, Kathmandu, 25 September 2007.
