Unravelling Liberal Interventionism

Local Critiques of Statebuilding in Kosovo

Gëzim Visoka, Vjosa Musliu

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9780429017933
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Despite calls for the decolonisation of knowledge, scholars who come from conflict-affected societies remained marginalised, excluded from the examination of the politics and impacts of liberal interventionism. This edited volume gives local scholars a platform from which they critically examine different aspects of liberal interventionism and statebuilding in Kosovo.

Drawing on situational epistemologies and grounded approaches, the chapters in this book interrogate a wide range of themes, including: the politics of local resistance; the uneven relationship between international statebuilders and local subjects; faking of local ownership of security sector reform and the rule of law; heuristic and practical limits of interventionism, as well as the subjugated voices in statebuilding process, such as minorities and women. The book finds that the local is not antidote to the liberal, and that local perspectives are not monolithic. Yet, local critiques of statebuilding do not seek to generate replicable knowledge; rather they prefer generating situational and context-specific knowledge be that to resolve problems or uncover the unresolved problems. The book seeks to contribute to critical peace and conflict studies by (re)turning the local turn to local scholars who come from conflict-affected societies and who have themselves experienced the transition from war to peace.

This book, voted one of the top 10 books of 2020 by International Affairs, is essential reading for students and scholars of peace- and state-building, conflict studies and international relations.

1 Introduction

Local critiques of intervention and statebuilding

Vjosa Musliu and Gëzim Visoka

Can the local speak?

Global efforts to rebuild societies ruined by violent conflict are influenced first and foremost by the type of knowledge produced for and about these societies. Since the inception of statebuilding studies as a scholarly field, knowledge production for conflict-affected societies has been based predominantly on Western epistemologies – which are shaped by particular cultures of thought, self-perpetuated epistemological superiority, and codified academic practices (see Tickner and Blaney 2012). The same can be said for International Relations (IR) work done on conflict-affected societies in other disciplines, which has systematically failed to consider non-Western discussions on the matter (Shilliam 2010). Western IR has acquired a hegemonic status. It dominates not because it is equipped with the analytical tools for finding the truth – rather, it is because it has been carried by the dominance of Western power over recent centuries that Western IR operates unconsciously in the minds of others in a way similar to colonised knowledge (Acharya and Buzan 2010). Academics specialising in IR and its subdisciplines have been cognisant for some time of the presence of Western-centrism and the limits of IR and its subfields (conflict and peace studies, development studies, European studies) (see Hobson 2012).

The politics of knowledge are inextricably linked to power, intervention, and domination in world politics. When it comes to local perspectives in the knowledge production of conflict-affected societies, IR debates have only sporadically engaged with the dynamics of the local, the subaltern and other critical forms of agency (see Richmond 2018). Most of the international scholarship on these societies tends to come from an unrepresentative body of knowledge, which tries to mediate, deviate, reinterpret and, consequently, construct a different social reality, which is interpreted through different measurements, reference points and analytical concepts (Visoka 2017b). Compared with this self-proclaimed universal knowledge, local knowledge has been called particularistic, and susceptible to biases (Musliu 2014). The work of local scholars is very limited, overshadowed by that of foreign scholars who have better analytical and writing skills, better institutional support and better access to research resources and publishers (see Visoka 2017b). This does not mean that the local scholar is unknowledgeable. Amitav Acharya and Barry Buzan (2010: 18) argue that “non-Western IR theories do exist, but … they are hidden from the Western discourse by language barriers or other entry difficulties and therefore do not circulate in the global debates”. Indeed, local scholars often have a wealth of knowledge, but it is not primarily used for instrumental purposes or for transferral to and sharing with outside audiences. Local knowledge is very much used to meet narrow, practical, everyday interests and needs, and as such is embedded in a logic of generating sufficient knowledge to respond to societal situations. The often-cited reasons for the lack of local scholars in statebuilding debates are weak educational and institutional foundations, and the socio-economic and material constraints imposed by the legacy of the conflict and by governmental mismanagement of the knowledge economy in post-conflict societies. Local scholars are also affected by the high thresholds for language quality set by publishing outlets (in terms of quality of writing and language), driven undoubtedly by fierce competition to publish impactful research by Western scholars. Short of resources and proper guidance, and in some cases even short of academic tradition, local scholars are misled and forced to publish in dubious journals and non-credible commercial publications. Lack of institutional incentives and an inability to travel abroad for research, or to participate in academic conferences and join research networks, have also lessened the capacity of local scholars in post-conflict societies. In the “local turn”, what is missing from existing research is a thorough examination of what local scholars think about statebuilding processes.

Focusing on different aspects of statebuilding in Kosovo, this edited book seeks to explore the “local” as a subject cultivating knowledge on international interventions. It does not seek to create a new IR theory, but to give a voice and broader circulation to local perspectives from Kosovo, a country widely influential in shaping IR debates. After the conflict ended in 1999, Kosovo received a “whole package” of international missions and structures. Since then, democracy building has been the focal point for all the international structures deployed in Kosovo, including, inter alia, NATO’s deployed troops known as KFOR, the United Nations Interim Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), and the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (EULEX). To this end, international intervention in Kosovo includes statebuilding, peacebuilding and post-conflict reconciliation agendas, to name but a few. Alongside the work on international intervention and missions in Kosovo, there has been a plethora of literature that analyses the deployment, performance and problems of intervention and statebuilding there. Much like the “mission”, the “missionised” – the local in Kosovo – has been extensively studied, examined and problematised. A small portion of this literature has also engaged in a fundamental critique (including post-colonial and post-structuralist accounts) of the international missions’ entitlement, legitimacy and ethics. Not being rooted in the lived experience of war, disintegration and missions, however, the critique that emanates from accounts seeking to empower the local tend to re-inscribe and rehearse imperatives of political domination and cultural erasure. Much like the subaltern, which refers to the populations that are socially, politically and geographically outside the structures of hegemonic powers, the local is disenfranchised from the mechanisms that conceptualise, implement and legitimise the project – but also, and most importantly, disenfranchised from the knowledge created on international peacebuilding and statebuilding missions. Unlike the subaltern in a “subaltern research project”, the local is not a reified concept, in that there is no assumption of an existing cultural or epistemic solidarity among Kosovar scholars.

This book explores a fundamental question: can the local speak, and if so, what does it say about international statebuilding? The added value of promoting local voices is that it pluralises our knowledge about statebuilding and brings in geo-epistemological positionalities, which are aspects overlooked in peace and conflict studies. The book is driven by a conviction that a genuine, critical, local epistemology should engage in trying to decolonise knowledge from Western and Eurocentric frameworks, interrogate the decolonised knowledge and agencies, and explore the mutual constitution of international and local processes (see Smith 2012; Memmi 2006). The book moves the local Kosovar from being an object of research and a passive recipient of international and European practices to being a subject who cultivates and produces knowledge and, ultimately, who challenges and responds to these practices and knowledges. It is long past time for Western scholars to cease studying the local – in this case, Kosovars – and instead consider studying with the local. The aim of this edited book is to let the local speak about a wide range of themes that concern local society and are also closely interlinked with broader debates in statebuilding studies. Taking local scholars seriously does not mean allowing them to speak in separate platforms. It means engaging with them and with their critical agendas and their concepts. Accordingly, the book seeks to contribute to critical peace and conflict studies by expanding the scope of local epistemologies and to interrogate, from the bottom up, dominant perspectives on peacebuilding, statebuilding, democracy building, minority representation, security sector reform and economic recovery. Before exploring the contribution made by this book, a nuanced overview of existing literature on the local turn in statebuilding studies is offered, to situate the themes and purposes of this book in wider scholarly debates.

Unpacking the local turn in statebuilding studies

In the past three decades, the rise of intra-ethnic conflicts and the limits of preventive diplomacy have given birth to new interventionary practices, including statebuilding and peacebuilding missions, which seek both to intervene in conflict-affected and turbulent societies, reconstructing state institutions there, and to engineer new social norms, values and relations between identity groups in conflict. This development has stemmed from an overwhelming international consensus that building state institutions is an appropriate method for reaching a peaceful resolution of conflict, by channelling political interests through institutionalised processes, promoting political moderation, and encouraging compromise under democratic rules. Statebuilding has come to be defined as “an externalized process focused on the role of external actors, organisations, donors, IFIs, agencies, and INGOs and their key role in building liberal institutions for security, democracy, markets, and creating basic infrastructure and public services” (Richmond 2014: 178). Despite extensive investment, international statebuilding has not managed to achieve its intended goals. In conflict-affected societies that have been subject to external statebuilding, peace continues to be fragile, and there are growing authoritarian tendencies among the local actors, rendering newly established institutions dysfunctional to the detriment of socioeconomic development and ethnic reconciliation. The inability of international interventions to achieve their desired goals raises questions as to their viability, and has mobilised various epistemic communities to rethink the statebuilding strategy.

Scholarly debates initially attempted to tackle the fallacies of statebuilding by trying both to identify operational and normative flaws, such as fluctuating effectiveness strategies and resources, and to offer solutions for overcoming global and context-specific challenges. This wave of statebuilding literature mainly blamed local warlords and political actors for capturing the state and failing to comply with liberal norms and rules. Later on, as the crisis of statebuilding interventions worsened and problem-fixing efforts failed, the debate moved on to seeking new sources of legitimacy. The limits of Eurocentric approaches to statebuilding were gradually identified as one of the conceptual problems undermining effective solutions for building successful states after violent conflict. In this context, the local turn in statebuilding studies has emerged as one of the most significant advancements in peace and conflict studies. It has been invoked widely to signify local actors, community engagement, community ownership of peace processes, and the spaces of conflict-affected societies, as well as the alternative and post-colonial subjects, agencies and subjectivities of bottom-up resistance to international intervention. Roger Mac Ginty (2015: 840) considers that “the term ‘local’ has become a central feature in prescriptions on how to make and build peace”. Similarly, Thania Paffenholz (2015: 868) claims that the local turn in statebuilding studies “advocates a major shift in focus from international peace builders to local people as the most important drivers of peace”. Among problem-solving and policy-oriented scholars, the local turn has become instrumental for enhancing the legitimacy and effectiveness of interventions. The mainstreaming of the local turn in statebuilding can be traced back to the growing realisation of policy makers and peace scholars of the limits of institution-centric forms of peacebuilding and the promise of bottom-up, peoplecentred approaches to conflict resolution. The growing role of international NGOs in post-conflict societies, and the mainstreaming of human security, have also been important in actualising the crucial part played by local actors and recipient communities in peace processes and socio-economic development. Paffenholz (2014: 19) finds that “there is now a general acceptance among international actors of the key role of local actors in peacebuilding”.

Since then, the local turn has attracted extensive attention in peace and conflict studies. Among scholars, early attempts to promote the local is evident in the work of John Paul Lederach, who advocated the inclusion in peacebuilding processes of not only elites, but also communities affected by the conflict. As the problematic of statebuilding for critical scholars has been the ineffectiveness of hegemonic, top-town interventionism, as an alternative they have suggested a contextualised, hybridised peace that would be more “locally sustainable, resilient, and legitimate” than existing praxis (Richmond 2009: 572). The local represents an alternative epistemological site for seeking justice and emancipation, and recognition of local agency, needs, culture and rights. Oliver P. Richmond (2011: 3–10) argues that as a result of focusing on peace at the international, regional and state levels, liberal peacebuilding has failed to engage with the local context, or to explore everyday forms of peace, care, empathy or emancipation. For Mac Ginty and Richmond (2013: 764), unpacking the local conditions shaping post-conflict societies helps us understand critical and resistant agencies, unexplored views of peace and cohesion, the contradictions and tensions of social norms, and structural blockages and the drivers of violence. Critical scholars argue that emancipatory peacebuilding and statebuilding efforts should have a detailed understanding of local cultures, traditions and needs. Richmond (2011: 112) suggests that “local decision making processes should determine the basic political, economic, and social processes and norms to be institutionalized in context”. The local turn has been a by-product of debates on hybrid forms of peace and political orders, which have proved a useful analytical device for revealing the weaknesses of externally imposed, top-down interventions in the area of statebuilding, reconciliation, peacemaking and development, and which highlight the power of local resistance and indigenous forms of governance, justice and welfare. Richmond (2011) coined the concept of “local-liberal hybridity” to describe the interaction between “the local” and “the international”, where the two co-exist rather than assimilating or dominating, and where the locals resist, modify or adapt to the liberal peace. For Richmond (2011: 151), hybridity represents “a transmutation of both the liberal and the local discourses of peace, even in view of their relatively unequal material relations and of course, their differences and similarities”. Through the lens of hybridity, they seek to weaken the hierarchical order of Western political agencies, cultures and modes of knowledge and they seek to show how in practice they and local, transitional and non-Western knowledge and practices are mutually constitutive and interact with one another.

Since its inception, however, the local has become an essentially contested concept. Different waves of statebuilding critique have concluded that the local has become a metaphor for a recipient of foreign intervention and development assistance, and is also associated with static, indigenous, non-Western and illiberal perspectives on identity. The discourse on local statebuilding has been co-opted by the predatory practices of international statebuilders. Roger Mac Ginty (2015: 840) argues that “local legitimacy, partnership and ownership of international peace interventions are seen as a fast track to success, sustainability and exit”. While the discourse of local ownership is evident in the UN’s landmark reports, it has been appropriated by state-centric paradigms and is now invoked under the principle of “national ownership”, which seeks to blend the eroded norm of state sovereignty with the emerging norm of the responsibility to protect. For instance, UN Security Council Resolution 2282 (2016) on the new agenda for sustaining peace “reaffirms the importance of national ownership and leadership in peacebuilding, whereby the responsibility for sustaining peace is broadly shared by the Government and all other national stakeholders …”. The UN’s new agenda for sustaining peace stipulates that: “the United Nations system’s efforts must continue to be oriented around three key principles reinforcing national ownership; developing country-contextual responses; and ensuring the effective delivery of development results on the ground” (UN Secretary-General 2018: 10). For many critics, however, the discourse of local or national ownership is seen to disguise the asymmetric power of international organisations and maintain local legitimacy. Under the disguise of local ownership, the international missions have consulted only certain political institutions and actors at the expense of the wider population, which is bypassed. Local legitimacy is seen as a legitimation of statebuilding by representatives of the people, and the distance between the external interveners and local subjects is thus maintained.

These epistemological anomalies have prompted growing calls from scholars to decolonise knowledge, to move from Eurocentric and Western dominance to more pluralist and particularistic modes of knowledge (Musliu 2014; Rutazibwa 2013; Smith 2012). The realisation is gradually growing that anthropological and sociological perspectives, and especially the interactions between insider and outsider agents, need to be incorporated into the study of post-conflict societies (Mazurana, Jacobsen and Gale 2014). Critical scholars argue that in order to engage with local agents, their context and the everyday manifestation of statebuilding, there ne...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• List of figures
• List of tables
• Notes on contributors
• Acknowledgements
• 1 Introduction: local critiques of intervention and statebuilding
• 2 International statebuilding and local resistance in Kosovo
• 3 From Kosovo with hospitality: rethinking hospitality beyond Westphalia
• 4 The hyperreality of EU enlargement: a Baudrillardian critique of the European Union in Kosovo
• 5 Local inclusion or exclusion? Security sector development in Kosovo
• 6 Making the law, ruling the law: international statebuilding and the rule of law in Kosovo
• 7 Local voices and agency in statebuilding: perspectives from life stories
• 8 Voices of the Serb minority in the Assembly of Kosovo
• 9 Inside-out and outside-in on dealing with the past in Kosovo: actors, voices and practices
• 10 The subaltern of the local: the Roma, Ashkali and Egyptian women and statebuilding in Kosovo
• 11 The politics of citizenship, social policy, and statebuilding in Kosovo
• 12 Conclusion: after local critiques
• Index