Objectives of the Study
The purpose of this study is to contribute to the current discussion on hybrid peacebuilding with an aim of transforming it to a more practical concept. Mac Ginty and Richmond (2016) put forward an argument about the nature of hybrid peacebuilding as a process of continuous interactions of different actorsâboth locals and internationals. They have highlighted the utility of the concept of hybridity as an analytical lens, which helps us to understand peacebuilding processes and dynamics more appropriately and allows us to describe them in a more realistic manner.
However, they warned about the dangers of using the concept as a tool for prescribing a blueprint of the best mix of hybrid peacebuilding between the Western/liberal norms and the local/traditional values. While recognising such a risk, and echoing their argument that it is impossible to predict such complex interplays so that outsiders can plan and design a proper intervention strategy from the outset, this study seeks to explore ways to improve our understanding of hybrid peacebuilding, by introducing relevant perspectives mostly presented by Lederach (1997, 2005) such as âmulti-level peacebuilding,â âmiddle-out approachâ and âplatforms for dialogue.â
This study also employs an agent-oriented view which sheds light on the functions of what Mitchell (2012: 4â5) calls âlocal influentialsâ in a peace process. In this study, the term âpeace processâ encompasses a wider range of activities than peace negotiation, and includes peacemaking, peacekeeping and peacebuilding efforts. Local influentials are sub-national power-holders/brokers such as tribal elders, religious leaders, politicians, government officials, businessmen, landowners, field commanders, civil society activists and diaspora, who have the direct access to and great influence upon ordinary people in a given society as well as their national/top leaders. They are identified as gatekeepers in this study. By examining dynamic and multiple functions of gatekeepers, this study explores their potential role as bridge-builders who serve as an interlocutor in a series of dialogues that determine the contents and process of hybrid peacebuilding, by crossing boundaries, building bridges and leading change in a society (Williams, 2015).
By doing so, this study seeks to contribute to an ongoing debate about post-liberal peacebuilding, by examining conditions and processes in which âmid-space local bridge-buildersâ can fill the gap that exists between local stakeholders and outside intervenors (diagonal divide). This is done through developing a typology of âmid-space local bridge-buildersâ and applying it to several case studies of peacebuilding in Asia. The mid-space exists between contending parties (horizontal divide), as well as between the national/top leadership level and the grassroots/bottom of the society level (vertical divide). The assumption is that the contexts and features of peacebuilding in Asia, where states seem to have firmer grips on outside intervention, are distinct from those of a typical case of hybrid peacebuilding where a host state is so fragile that it is susceptible to outside intervention. Hence, the geographical focus of the study will be on Southeast Asia, such as Indonesia, the Philippines and Cambodia, but it will also include South Asia, such as India and Sri Lanka, where localised inter-communal conflicts erupted while the state maintained its control over the most of its territories. Northeast Asia, Central Asia and West Asia are placed outside the scope of this study as we are interested in identity-based inter-communal conflicts which are the most dominant types of protracted conflict in the region.
In short, the objective of the study is threefold: (1) to advance the theory of hybrid peacebuilding by introducing an agent-orientated (people-centred) approach in the discourse; (2) to offer a new outlook on the roles of an under-studied group of mid-space intermediaries in peacebuilding; and (3) to contribute to the discussion on post-liberal peacebuilding from a perspective of Asia.
Focus of the Study: Ethos of Asia
Historically, Asia has been the intersection of different civilisations via both sailing lines and overland routes. All the major civilisations such as European/Christian (including influence of ancient Greeks and Romans), Arab/Islam (including before the founding of Islam by Muhammad, such as the Mesopotamian civilisation), Indian/Hindu/Buddhism, Chinese/Confucians/Buddhism/Taoism, and others such as Persian, Ottoman/Turkish, Mongolian/Tartar, and Japanese, met with each other, crisscrossed and blended together dynamically to constitute a diverse and colourful set of cultures in Asia. In modern times, territories and peoples of Asia were colonised by the West for over several centuries, which added another layer of cultural complexity in these territories and people in Asia. These ancient traits and modern trends in Asia made the people in Asia to believe that âeverything is evanescentâ and ânothing is entirely pure.â Such a view about the society is well captured and represented in a mandala, which is a spiritual symbol in Hinduism and Buddhism. Mac Ginty (2010: 396) caricatures this by saying that âeverything is the result of hybridity, everything is a hybrid.â Hybridity is the natural consequence of inter-cultural, inter-tribal, inter-ethnic and international interaction and contacts. In essence, hybridity is a mandala which enlightens us about the ârelationalâ dimension of peacebuilding in Asia. This is the fundamental philosophy of Asia which serves as a fertilising ground for hybrid peacebuilding approaches to emerge as a dominant regional ethos of peacebuilding.
While there are many differences between the cultural, historical, social and political ethos of Asia and those of other regions, this study maintains that those outlooks in a socio-cultural dimension of a society in Asia have not affected the core dynamic of hybrid peacebuilding. At the same time, however, it does argue that the existing discussion on hybrid peacebuilding has not paid sufficient attention to unique features of Asia vis-Ă -vis peacebuilding practices in other regions, which will be briefly presented below and more extensively in Chap. 2.
During the Cold war, the United States and the Soviet Union played a hegemonic role in Asia. After the Cold war, the United States, Japan and Australia have exercised their influence over Southeast Asia, particularly to the Philippines and Indonesia. In South Asia, the influence of India has been and is considerable. Recently, as China expands its role as a regional hegemon in Asia, it is difficult to neglect the influence of China in this region. Although Chinaâs presence has been expanded also to Africa, its influence over Asia is significantly stronger due to its geographical proximity. We have witnessed this implication in Sri Lanka in 2009 when the government of Sri Lanka ousted an anti-government elementâLiberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)âin the civil war with support from China. Hence, it can be argued that the impact of geostrategic interests of regional (i.e., non-Western) actors such as Japan, China and India has given and will give a distinctive outlook for the challenge of hybrid peacebuilding in Asia. This background feature will be treated as an underlying assumption in this volume, and it will not be articulated in the forefront of discussions in the subsequent chapters.
Peacebuilding efforts (including those of external intervention) in Asia, except for the cases of Cambodia (1992â1993), Timor-Leste (1999â2012) and Nepal (2007â2011), can be characterised as ânonâUnited Nations ledâ approaches. The role played by the United Nations as a third-party in the identity-based conflicts in Sri Lanka, India, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines was quite limited. This indicates that peacebuilding efforts in Asia did not involve a massive intervention by the United Nations aimed at state-building, because in these countries there exist an already functioning state. In stark contrast, many peacebuilding efforts in Africa such as Liberia, Sierra Leone, Central African Republic and Democratic Republic of Congo, to name but a few, were dominated by the state-building endeavour led by the United Nations. This suggests a strong sensitivity to national sovereignty issues is shared by the governments concerned in Asia. One exception to this feature in Asia can be found in the case of Timor-Leste, where the United Nations and its agencies played a significant role in the state-building process in the form of so-called âneo-trusteeshipâ (Uesugi, 2017: 109). In other words, peacebuilding in Asia is often carried out under strong control of the existing state, and thus disconnected from state-building which is often carried out un...