EU support to civil society organizations in conflict-ridden countries: A governance perspective from Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cyprus and Georgia

ABSTRACT

From a peacebuilding perspective, EU support for civil society organizations (CSOs) in conflict-ridden countries can be criticized for artificially boosting a liberal, ‘bourgeois’ civil society at the expense of more representative initiatives at the grassroots level. Seen from a governance perspective, however, this criticism is lacking in nuance and conceals the actual rationale and effects of the support. To advance a realistic debate on international peacebuilding as a form of governance, this article investigates what the character and effects of EU support for CSOs in conflict-ridden countries actually are: how does it affect the relations between the supported organizations and (1) the wider society, (2) the state and (3) between the recipient country and the EU? We consider four ideal types of EU conflict governance: ‘liberal peace’, ‘hollow hegemony’, ‘vibrant hegemony’ and ‘post-liberal peace’ and compare them to empirical data from Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cyprus and Georgia. We find that while the objectives of promoting peace and democracy through CSO support tend to fail, the strategic interests of the EU are still maintained.

Acknowledgements

We have presented earlier drafts of this article in September 2013 at the International Association for Peace and Conflict Studies’ Peacebuilding conference in Manchester and at the ISA convention 2014 in Toronto. We would like to thank all participants for their constructive feedback and comments.

About the authors

Birte Vogel is a post-doctoral researcher at the Humanitarian and Conflict Response Institute, University of Manchester, UK. She is Assistant Editor of the Taylor and Francis journal Peacebuilding. Her PhD research was funded through the EU FP7 project ‘Cultures of Governance and Conflict Resolution in Europe and India’, and focused on spatial dimensions of peace in Cyprus.

Kristoffer Lidén is a Senior Researcher at the Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO), working on topics of peacebuilding, security and humanitarianism within the disciplines of Philosophy and International Relations.

Nona Mikhelidze is a Senior Fellow at the IAI, Italy, and holds a M.A. in Regionalism: Central Asia and Caucasian Studies from the Humboldt University Berlin (HU) and was awarded with the Volkswagen Foundation Scholarship as a Research Fellow at HU. She holds also M.A. and B.A. degrees in International Relations from the Tbilisi State University.

Elena B. Stavrevska is a PhD candidate in International Relations at the Central European University. Her work focuses on conceptualisation of agency, in particular local agency, in (post-)conflict societies.

Notes

1. The authors have equally contributed to this article and are therefore listed in alphabetical order.

2. On EU conflict management, see, for example, Tocci, The EU and Conflict Resolution; Gross and Juncos, EU Conflict Prevention.

3. Conflict governance generally refers to the governing of a society that has experienced violent conflict.

4. European Commission, “The Roots of Democracy,” 3.

5. Ibid.

6. Ibid.

7. E.g. Paffenholz, Civil Society and Peacebuilding; Cubitt, “Constructing Civil Society”; Miklian et al., “The Perils of ‘Going Local.'”

8. Paffenholz, Civil Society and Peacebuilding, 428.

9. Council of the European Union, A Secure Europe, 7–8.

10. This research was part of a larger EU-funded project entitled “The Role of Governance in the Resolution of Socioeconomic and Political Conflict in India and Europe.” For more information on the project, its case selection and outcomes see www. http://core.prio.org.

11. For a comprehensive critique, see Jahn, Liberal Internationalism. Concerning the strategic implications of this outlook for foreign policy, including peacebuilding, see Doyle, “A Liberal View.”

12. Russett and Oneal, Triangulating Peace. See also MacMillan, The Liberal Peace.

13. See, for example, Merlingen and Ostrauskaite, European Union Peacebuilding. See also Chandler, “EU Statebuilding” and Chandler, “Democratization in Bosnia.”

14. For central contributions to this debate, see, for example, Campbell et al., A Liberal Peace?; Tadjbakhsh, Rethinking the Liberal Peace. On the notion of global governance, see, for instance, Wilkinson, The Global Governance Reader; Cochrane et al., Global Governance. On the connection between liberal internationalism, global governance and conflict management, see, for example, Duffield, Global Governance; Dillon and Reid, “Global Liberal Governance”; Campbell et al., A Liberal Peace?; Tadjbakhsh, Rethinking the Liberal Peace.

15. This approach is inspired by the ‘analyticist’ strand of IR outlined in Jackson, The Conduct of Inquiry, ch. 5.

16. Paris, At War's End, 5; Doyle and Sambanis, Making War.

17. Chandler, International Statebuilding; Chandler, “EU Statebuilding.”

18. Chandler, International Statebuilding, 3–4.

19. Chandler, Hollow Hegemony.

20. Chandler, “EU Statebuilding,” 605–6. In this analysis of statebuilding in the context of EU governance in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Chandler observes that the result is far from a sovereign state.

21. Chandler, Empire in Denial; Chandler, Hollow Hegemony.

22. Hameiri, Regulating Statehood. This perspective resembles what it resembles what Barnett and Zürcher call a ‘captured’ form of peacebuilding in which local elites redirect the assistance to their own advantage: Barnett and Zürcher, “The Peacebuilder's Contract,” 24–5.

23. Hameiri, 22–4. In this connection, Hameiri also refers to Marina Ottaway's related argument that international donors can establish organizations, but not institutions – that the transformation of organizations into institutions relies on domestic political processes that donors only have a limited influence on. Ottaway, “Rebuilding State Institutions.”

24. Hameiri, Regulating Statehood, 6.

25. Richmond, A Post-Liberal Peace.

26. While Chandler uses the term ‘post-liberal’ in a philosophical sense as the departure from truly liberal principles, Richmond conceives it as the departure from a hegemonic, exclusive and divisive ‘liberal’ political world order that betrayed its philosophical self-justification in practice.

27. Richmond, A Post-Liberal Peace, 206.

28. European Commission, “Turkish Cypriot Community.”

29. EU Civil Society Support Team, “Cypriot Civil Society in Action IV – Europa.”

30. European Commission, “Seventh Annual Report.”

31. Foreign Affairs Committee, “Third Report Visit.”

32. Lortkipanidze and Pataraia, “Mapping Study.”

33. COBERM-2: Call for Project Ideas, COBERM – a Joint EU-UNDP Initiative. Available online at http://www.undp.org.ge/index.php?lang_id=ENG&sec_id=22&info_id=11669 (accessed 26 May 2013).

34. Delegation of the EU to BiH, “Civil Society.”

35. Delegation of the EU to BiH, “European Instrument.”

36. Ibid.; Delegation of the EU to BiH, “Civil Society.”

37. Interview with a CSO representative, Sarajevo, 13 November 2011.

38. Interviews with Occupy Buffer Zone Activists and EC employees, Nicosia, 27 February 2013.

39. Vogel and Richmond, “A Viable Peace Process.”

40. Interview with a UNDP representative, Nicosia, 12 October 2012.

41. Interview with CSO representative, Tuzla, 14 November 2011; this point has been confirmed in the research of van Leeuwen, Partners in Peace Discourses; Choudry and Kapoor, NGOization.

42. Interviews with international organizations’ representatives, Sarajevo, 15–16 November 2011.

43. Interview with a CSO representative, Sarajevo, 15 November 2011.

44. Interviews with CSO representatives, Sarajevo and Tuzla, October–November 2011.

45. Lortkipanidze and Pataraia, “Mapping Study.”

46. Interview with a CSO representative in Georgia, Tbilisi, April 2013.

47. Lortkipanidze and Pataraia, “Mapping Study.”

48. Interview with NGO founder, Nicosia, 15 October 2012.

49. Ibid.

50. This comment has been made in diverse interviews with NGOs and donors: fieldwork notes, Cyprus, September–December 2012.

51. Cubitt, ‘Constructing Civil Society’, 92; Paffenholz, International Peacebuilding Goes Local.

52. Popescu, “The EU and Civil Society.”

53. Vogel, “Civil Society.”

54. Field notes, Sarajevo, Tuzla, Brčko, Banja Luka, October–November 2011, May–July 2012.

55. Field notes, Sarajevo, Brčko and Banja Luka, May–July 2012.

56. Paffenholz, Civil Society and Peacebuilding.

57. For a comprehensive overview of civil society functions see Dudouet, Surviving the Peace.

58. Field notes, Sarajevo and Banja Luka, May–July 2012.

59. Field notes, Sarajevo, November 2012.

60. Bajrovic et al., Better Local Governance, 65.

61. Arnautovic, “The Non-Governmental Sector.”

62. See, for instance, SEEbiz, “Conspiracy Theories.”

63. Tocci and Mikhelidze, “The European Union.”

64. Interview with a representative of an international organization in Georgia, Tbilisi, May 2013.

65. Freedom House, “Freedom in the World.”

66. In general, any kind of interaction with Georgians is seen with suspicion. Even ill persons needing to cross the border and enter Georgian territory in order to receive the free health care services provided by the Georgian Government have to get permission from ‘above’.

67. Clearly and Tkeshelashvili, “Final Evaluation.”

68. Vasilara and Piaton, “The Role of Civil Society”; interview with an NGO employee, Nicosia, 15 October 2012; interview with a Cypriot activist, Nicosia, 12 October 2012.

69. Vogel, “The Cyprus Conflict”; Katsourides, “‘Couch Activism.'”

70. Katsourides, “Political Parties.”

71. Vogel, “The Cyprus Conflict.”

72. Interview with Cyprus Community Media Centre, Nicosia, 25 October 2012.

73. Vogel, “The Cyprus Conflict.”

74. Fieldnotes, Sarajevo, June 2013.

75. Živković, “The People's Uprising.”

76. Latal, “Ignoring Protests.”

77. “Time to End Western Meddling in Bosnia,” Guardian, 3 March 2014, available online at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/03/end-western-meddling-bosnia.

78. Kaymak, “Why the EU Catalyst.”

79. Interview with an EC representative, Nicosia, 1 March 2012.

80. Interview with a CSO representative actively engaged in the project, Tbilisi, May 2013.

81. Foreign Affairs Committee, “Third Report Visit.”

82. Valha, “Civilno društvo.”

83. Delegation of the EU to BiH, “Civil Society.”