![Sample our Global Development journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5929/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Global-Development.jpg"})
Abstract
This article challenges the notion of the ‘local’ as a static identity or set position and argues for a processual understanding of localisation, in which constant processes of delocalisation and (re-)localisation serve as tools by which peacebuilding actors position themselves in the political economy and the social landscape of peacebuilding. Peacebuilding agency and -identity are viewed as situated in time and space and subject to constant transformation. Using the cases of Bosnia-Herzegovina and Cyprus, I argue that the positionality of local identity is contingent on the ever-changing social context and political economy of peacebuilding. By viewing processes of (re-)localisation and delocalisation as markers of agency, we can overcome the binary between local and international and investigate more subtle forms of agency in a fluid peacebuilding environment. The article identifies the ways in which peacebuilding agency facilitates the creation of a particular set of identities (identification), before investigating the processes of delocalisation and (re-)localisation in detail. The article goes on to argue that, rather than being mutually exclusive, these two processes tend to happen in parallel and thus challenge the seemingly neat binary between local and international peacebuilding identities.
Notes
1. Mac Ginty and Richmond, “The Local Turn in Peacebuilding.”
2. Many thanks to Neil Cooper for pointing this out to me.
3. Richmond, “The Romanticisation of the Local.”
4. Kappler, Local Agency and Peacebuilding, 38ff.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. Dević, “Transnationalization of Civil Society”; and Hellmüller, International and Local Actors.
8. Cf. Pouligny, “Civil Society and Post-conflict Peacebuilding.”
9. Kappler, “Liberal Peacebuilding’s Representation.”
10. Bhabha, “The Other Question,” 18.
11. Brown, “Cultural Representation and Ideological Domination,” 662.
12. Said, “Representing the Colonized,” 224.
13. Bourdieu, “The Social Space,” 734.
14. Clifford, “Introduction,” 10.
15. Brown, “Cultural Representation and Ideological Domination,” 658.
16. Fabian, “Presence and Representation,” 754.
17. In the context of ethnicity, Barth claims that the boundaries of ethnic groups are social boundaries. Barth, “Introduction,” 15.
18. Sen, Identity and Violence, 19.
19. Ibid.
20. Hall, “Introduction,” 2.
21. Ibid., 4.
22. Bakić-Hayden, “Nesting Orientalisms.”
23. Kusow, “Beyond Indigenous Authenticity.”
24. Kappler, Local Agency and Peacebuilding, 165.
25. Said, Orientalism.
26. Bjelić, “Introduction.”
27. Autesserre, “Hobbes and the Congo.”
28. UNDP, “An Architecture for Building Peace,” esp. 36.
29. Oberschall, “The Manipulation of Ethnicity”; MacDonald, Balkan Holocaust?; Bozić-Roberson, “Words before the War”; Kaplan, Balkan Ghosts; Sekulić et al., “Ethnic Intolerance”; and Slack, “Population Dynamics and Susceptibility.”
30. Ramet, Thinking about Yugoslavia.
31. On outsiders, see, for instance, Doyle and Sambanis, “International Peacebuilding.” On insiders, see, for instance, The East Timor National NGO Forum, “ET NGO Paper.”
32. International Crisis Group, Bosnia’s Stalled Police Reform.
33. Paffenholz, Designing Transformation and Intervention Processes, 7, 8.
34. Costas Shammas, Peace Centre Cyprus, personal interview, Larnaca, September 22, 2012.
35. See Kusow, “Beyond Indigenous Authenticity.”
36. Confidential source (EU official), Sarajevo, March 23, 2010. It is important to be aware that Bosnia-Herzegovina has, since the Dayton Peace Accords in 1995, been divided into two entities (the Federation and Republika Srpska), as well as one self-governing district (Brcko). The division between the entities is deep in that they have separate political systems (with one overarching structure at national level).
37. Ibid.
38. Cf. Donais, “Empowerment or Imposition?,” 6.
39. Cf. Gifford and Kestler, “Toward a Theory of Local Legitimacy.”
40. Confidential source (architect), Nicosia, July 8, 2014.
41. Political analyst, EU Delegation to Nicosia, personal interview, Nicosia, September 20, 2012.
42. Talentino, “Perceptions of Peacebuilding.”
43. Political analyst, EU Delegation to Nicosia, personal interview.
44. Papadakis, “Greek Cypriot Narratives.”
45. Spencer, Anthropology, Politics, and the State, 63.
46. Appadurai, Modernity at Large, 178, 179, 185.
47. Nikos Trimikliniotis, University of Nicosia, personal interview, Nicosia, July 9, 2014.
48. Ahmet Soezen, Eastern Mediterranean University, personal interview, Famagusta, July 10, 2014.
49. Richmond, “Beyond Local Ownership,” 362.
50. Chandler, “The Liberal Peace,” 87.
51. Cf. Kappler, Local Agency and Peacebuilding.
52. Cf. Cooke and Kothari, “The Case for Participation.”
53. Naef, “Touring the Traumascape”; and Björkdahl and Mannergren Selimovic, “Spaces of Appearance.”
54. Cf. Wiedenhoft Murphy, “Touring the Troubles.”
55. Latour, Reassembling the Social.
56. Said, Orientalism.
57. Richmond, “The Romanticisation of the Local.”
58. Mac Ginty, International Peacebuilding and Local Resistance.
59. Project officer, personal interview, Sarajevo, March 24, 2010.
60. Jukić, “Report”; Warshauer et al., “Growing up during the Balkan Wars,” 69; and Council of Europe, “The Congress/Recommendation 339.”
61. Jansen, “Can the Revolt in Bosnia and Herzegovina?” See also Chandler, Bosnia.
62. Jansen, “Can the Revolt in Bosnia and Herzegovina?”
63. Ley, “Transnational Spaces and Everyday Lives.” What Ley refers to as ‘global’ is what I refer to as ‘international’ in this paper. A conceptual differentiation requires more nuance than this article can achieve. See, for instance, Brühl and Rittberger, “From International to Global Governance.” In this context, it should suffice to say that peacebuilding has, up to now, remained dominated by state-led policies and has therefore been framed as ‘international’ rather than ‘global’ in this article.