April 5, 2010

International Politics and Conflict Resolution

José Manuel Pureza

In the current study of conflicts, priority is often given to interpretations that underline the crucial, if not decisive, role of primordial ethnic or religious identities. This primordial view, however, is a very limited one since it takes attention away from other multiple causes and dimensions that contribute to the emergence and perpetuation of conflict, namely the existence of deep rooted socio-economic inequalities among groups. Alternative interpretations of conflict contribute to recognising the instrumentalized and constructed nature of those identities by some actors, towards others. In response to this reinterpretation of conflict dynamics and their more multidimensional nature, a more multidimensional type of response also put forward, mainly characterised by specific tools and priorities geared to conflict and post-conflict scenarios in order to achieve long -lasting peace. Despite helping create awareness for the multiple and more complex causes of conflict, these strategies and models ended up crystallising a very unbalanced agenda of priorities, clearly favouring civil and political rights and institutions and neglecting economic, social and cultural guarantees. As a result, the application/implementation of such models and strategies in developing countries experiencing violent and enduring conflict has had mixed results and became under intense criticism due to their apparent ineffectiveness in achieving sustainable peace.

Departing from this scenario, the aim of this thesis is twofold: first, to identify and discuss the dominant explanations on the origins of violent armed conflict; secondly, to critically analyse the changes and evolution in the traditional and dominant models to resolve conflicts and build peace, by stressing their limited agenda and priorities and the way in which they tend to obscure much more complex inequalities and dynamics that sustain and reproduce conflict. With this analysis, we aim to argue that effective and sustainable strategies imply recognising and addressing the more complex inequalities at stake, suggesting the need for deconstructing simplistic views of ethnicity, religion and of the multiple actors involved in conflict.
For this purpose, we focus on the North-South conflict in Sudan where the traditional narratives evolved from a simplistic interpretation of conflict based on religious differences between a Muslim North and a Christian South to one that added the importance of more structural and visible inequalities of the Southern population and where resolution efforts culminated with the signing of a Comprehensive Peace Agreement (2005). According to our analysis, however, these strategies are still based on general and flawed assumptions that end up reproducing and perpetuating more invisible and complex group inequalities in the South and that render peace in Southern Sudan extremely fragile.