Networked Regionalism as Conflict Management

Anna Ohanyan

• Publisher: Stanford University Press
• Year: 2015
• ISBN:
  9780804794947
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Peace & Global Development
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Most regions of the world are plagued by conflicts that are made insoluble by a confluence of complex threads from history, geography, politics, and culture. These "frozen conflicts" defy conflict management interventions by both internal and external agents and institutions. Worse, they constantly threaten to extend beyond their local geographies, as in the terrorist bombings in Boston by ethnic Chechens, or to escalate from skirmishes to full-scale war, as in Nagorno-Karabakh. Consequently, such conflicts cry out for alternative approaches to the classic, state-focused, and sovereignty-based conflict management models that are practiced in traditional diplomacy—which most often produce rather short-term, ad hoc, fragmented interventions and outcomes.

Drawing upon the cases of the South Caucasus, the Western Balkans, Central America, South East Asia, and Northern Ireland, Networked Regionalism as Conflict Management offers a theoretical and practical solution to this impasse by arguing for regional collective interventions that involve a long-term reengineering of existing conflict management infrastructure on the ground. Such approaches have been attracting the attention of scholars and practitioners alike yet, thus far, these concepts have rarely involved more than simple prescriptions for regional cooperation between grassroots actors and traditional diplomacy. Specifically, says Anna Ohanyan, only the cultivation and establishment of regional peace systems can provide an effective path toward conflict management in these standoffs in such intractably divided regions.

1

Regional Theory for Conflict Areas

Sarajevo is a confusing place. Nearly twenty years after the war ended, the physical traces of war are still visible everywhere, side by side with the new, glitzy shopping malls. In fact, as I made my way to a state-of-the-art fitness club, I became accustomed to the traces of bullet holes on the sidewalks and buildings. The newly built memorials to the war victims create public spaces of reflection and melancholy, right across from cafes, fountains, and shopping centers. Actually, this scene is quite indicative of the many contradictions that characterize postwar societies engulfed by the rapid spread of the global forces of commerce and trade. The question remains, though, about whether the new forces of commerce can weave a blanket thick enough to cover up, contain, or, dare I say it, heal the deep wounds of war and violence in such multiethnic and politically polarized societies.

The state and extent of regional integration in southeastern Europe, and in Bosnia and Herzegovina in particular, stand out with similar contradictions that escape traditional theorizing from the top down or the ground up. The presence of the great powers is visible in Bosnia and Herzegovina but is not omnipresent by any means. Although European structures have made great strides in blanketing the region with integrative networks, it is crisscrossed as well with transnational criminal networks, thereby corroding the very structures of the administrative state the European Union is seeking to build. The country is seeking to enter the European Union, which would dramatically reduce the political and economic significance of its borders, but the secessionist moods, continually fueled by the ethnonationalist political parties in Republika Srpska, are still prevalent. As one governmental official put it, there is still an ongoing fight between the rational forces of integration and business, on the one hand, and the retrograde groups of ethnic nationalism, on the other (Kapetanovich interview 2012)

Against this backdrop, this chapter begins with a brief overview of the main theoretical pathways in defining “region” and “regionalism.” Understanding the conceptual map of this research and clarifying definitional issues are important here because this study bridges interdisciplinary divides between international political economy and conflict resolution/peace and conflict studies.

This chapter also delineates the key debates within regional studies, tailoring them to the specific context of politically divided areas (PDAs), and it underscores the limits of the existing regional theories as they apply to these areas. The specific debates in regional studies examined here are the importance of territoriality versus functional ties in defining regions; the importance of state versus nonstate actors in region formation processes; the role of conflict or cooperation as a regional marker; and the issue of regional autonomy relative to great power influence over a region and its member states. Any effort to address the main debates within regional studies makes possible their translation into the field of conflict management. One of the main purposes of the next section, then, is to expose students of conflict management and peace and conflict studies to some of the existing fault lines in the regionalism literature within international political economy.

Political Economy of Regional Integration

The significance of regional studies, and the regional level of analysis, ebbed and flowed in the twentieth century. Although regionalism experienced a revival in the 1970s, analysts argue that it did not get much traction because researchers were unable to transcend the definitional issues. Kelly (2007) argues that the definitional wrangling slowed down the process of consolidating the subfield and building a coherent research program. In addition, the Cold War was blanketing the world, leaving little room, if any, for state independence and region formation. Today, regional studies are experiencing a revival, largely because of globalizing economies and the revolutions in communication technologies that are connecting people and communities in qualitatively new ways. However, getting into the definitional debate is not the purpose here. And yet understanding the key fault lines in the definitional debates is important for the purposes of this study: the ultimate goal of this research is to contribute to public policy in conflict areas, and understanding how regions are defined is important when developing a policy framework for conflict management. It is also essential for facilitating interdisciplinary dialogue between studies in international political economy and those on conflict management and peace and conflict.

Perhaps the biggest definitional challenge in regional studies has been identifying the variables of most use in defining regions, and geographic proximity has been one of the most contested ones. Are regions defined by their geography and the territorial proximity of the states to one another, or are they shaped in terms of functionality, be it shared security or environmental concerns?

Back in the 1970s, Thompson (1973) tried to produce an inventory of the most common characteristics of regions as highlighted by various analysts at the time. He constructed an index that he then applied to the literature on regionalism with the goal of listing the most commonly cited features of regions. The aggregate list is rather long, indicating that there was little consensus among the scholars on the definitional attributes of regions. Of the twenty-one characteristics most commonly cited by researchers, the top five were (1) proximity or primary stress on a geographic region; (2) regular and intensive patterns of interactions; (3) interrelatedness, indicating that a change at one point in the regional system would affect other points; (4) internal recognition as a distinctive area; and (5) external recognition as a distinctive area.

All of these factors revolve around either geography or functional ties as a major regional marker. The emphasis on geographic proximity as a regional marker elevates geopolitical interests and great power politics as important variables in regional studies. Territory and geographic location as fixed factors reduce the bargaining potential between the states in PDAs. Theoretical approaches that define regions as geographic constructs tend to reflect the neorealist position on interstate relations, which emphasizes the role of the great powers in shaping regional dynamics. By contrast, the importance of functional ties and the intensity of interactions between states are better explained through neoliberalism, which focuses on factors such as interpersonal, interorganizational, intersocietal, and interstate contact. The bargaining power of each state is not fixed, and when viewed through such functional lenses, the opportunities offered by regionalism for conflict management processes are varied. The fourth and fifth variables—the internal and external recognition of the region—indicate the importance of region building as a social construction project. Constructivism as a theoretical tool is valuable in this context, which in regional studies is represented by the critical theorists who call for region building as a normative initiative (Hettne 1999, 2000; Hentz and Bøås 2003; Pugh and Sdhu 2003; Farrell, Hettne, and Langenhove 2005).

In politically divided areas, the salience of each of the regional characteristics and markets as discussed by Thompson (1973) tends to be different from the regional dynamics in settings with no major political tensions and protracted conflicts. In particular, in PDAs the social construction of a region is very limited because the conflicts in such regions are often fueled by or facilitated by nation-building initiatives. As a result, the regional identity is of marginal value. This marginality is often reflected in the small number of civil society groups with a focus on regional initiatives. Moreover, identity politics matters as a force that hinders enhanced cooperation around economic issues. Constructivism as a theoretical tool can help to explain how social fragmentation and nation building develop and flourish in parallel with the integrative forces of commerce and trade. Indeed, in terms of regional identity, politically divided areas are understandably less integrated after a conflict than before. The social fabric of the geographic region is torn apart, and the nation-building processes associated with the conflict make it almost impossible for the societies to envision a broader and more comprehensive identity for their nation as well as the region. For example, currently there is much deliberation about whether the countries in the Balkans should be considered part of the Balkan region or part of southeastern Europe (Bechev 2011; Tamminen 2004). The war has stigmatized the Balkan region, and with European integration on the table, the economic and political needs of regional integration in the Balkans are still recognized unevenly across the society.

Although in terms of identity geographic regions in politically divided areas are poorly integrated, if at all, the real material interests and stakeholders for enhanced regional cooperation are quite solid. Indeed, the economic interactions can have a more pronounced regional dimension. In this context, the functional approach to defining a region in politically divided areas can be useful, whether for the study of international organizations involved in such areas for security management and economic development, or for the use of business sector stakeholders reaching out to counterparts across the border.

The fieldwork and prior research conducted for this study indicate that in PDAs the functional ties are easier to develop among neighboring states that have relatively evolved administrative structures and governance practices. Issue-based cooperation across conflict lines is largely subject to both the political will of the conflict parties and the strength of the administrative structures in the respective governments (Ohanyan 2007). Therefore, in PDAs the limits of functional cooperation as a regional marker should be acknowledged, and the power of territorial proximity as both a source of conflict and cooperation recognized.

In theoretical terms, in politically divided areas in the developing world the issue is not whether territory or functional interaction is the key regional marker. Instead, it is how territory and functionalism interact that matters in forming regions. In the aftermath of war, often the conflicting parties find themselves in a similar situation of physical destruction and weakened institutions of governance. War legacies engulf all states in the region. Therefore, territory and geography tend to remain an important marker of regions in PDAs. Geography matters in such areas as a source of conflict and a factor in insecurity. Territory is also often a factor in the solution in peace-building efforts. As I argue later in this chapter, international organizations with specialized agencies for peace building and governance often develop aid packages for whole regions as opposed to countries. The country offices of these organizations regularly share best practices and coordinate their programmatic efforts. At least externally, geography and territory emerge as important regional markers for international organizations and multilateral aid agencies.

The key characteristic of regions in politically divided areas is the cohabitation of integrative and fragmenting forces. The lack of a shared identity in PDAs and intense nation-building processes often emerge in the presence of the more subtle integrative forces from the economic sector. The theoretical tools need to reflect this duality.

Two working definitions of regionalism are proposed in this study, specifically developed for PDAs. Under the first definition, a region in a PDA is a system of geographically proximate states with deep security and economic interdependencies, but one that may not broadly be seen as a region from the respective populations in the member countries yet receives strong recognition as a region by outside actors. Such regions also possess a layer of international institutions engaged in state-building and region-building projects of various sorts. Such regions are characterized by a weak cross-border interface and yet are open to international actors for state-building purposes or are vulnerable to external power penetration. Often, having weak governance/administrative structures and poorly consolidated democratic institutions, states in a politically divided region have functional ties that are embryonic and uneven. Cooperation in “practical” and nonsecurity areas is more pronounced than ties related to the security environment (Andreev 2009). In short, the economic and political interdependencies realized at least by one state in the region, or an external power, are an important steppingstone toward greater regional integration.

This observation leads to a second definition of regionalism that is more normative. Regional cooperation “does not spring magically out of the existence of common interests even if there is compatibility between each country’s perceptions of its interests as well as its neighbors” (Trimçev 2009, 32). Instead, the economic and political interdependencies among the states and societies become an important ingredient of effective regional collective action, either domestically nurtured or externally imported. From a normative perspective, such regions are the sites of the centrifugal forces of nation building and the centripetal forces of economic globalization. The dynamic interplay between the stakeholders supporting these forces provides a key opportunity for peace building as region building. The critical perspective sees regions as dynamic constructs, effectively cultivated by internal or external action with the specific objective of enhanced security and peace in the region. Regionalism in this framework becomes a policy initiative rather than just an analytical concept.

Within the critical framework of regional studies, regionalism becomes an important normative tool with a strong policy focus that is particularly relevant for PDAs. Regionalism is understood as a tool (1) to establish a regional order to mitigate local instabilities and conflicts (Pugh and Sdhu 2003) and (2) to prevent the possibility of new penetration into the region in the post–Cold War period (Falk 1999). Kelly (2007, 213), in defining regionalism, cites Fawcett (2004): “Regionalism is a policy and project whereby states and nonstate actors cooperate and coordinate strategy . . . to create an interlocking web of regional governance structures such as those already found in Europe.” Others define regionalism as a tool of institutional cooperation (Swanström 2002), whether in the form of preferential trade agreements or in the form of other types of institutional integration (Soesastro 1994). Another definition highlights the changed political context in the post–Cold War period and the political nature of multifaceted regionalism (Hettne and Inotai 1994). In this context, regionalism is treated as a structure for cooperation that is cultivated by internal or external actors. Regionalism is understood to be institutionalized cooperation among states within a given region (Acharya and Johnston 2008; Swanström 2002). In all of these perspectives, regionalism is a process strategically cultivated by political actors.

This is in contrast to regionalization, which usually refers to the “largely uncoordinated consequence of private sector–led economic integration” (Beeson 2003, 253). Regionalization is characteristic of the uncontrolled and unmediated efforts led by the private sector and civil society to achieve greater regional integration. In PDAs, where intergovernmental links are weak or nonexistent, such regionalization efforts are likely to produce regional spaces that are even more fragmented than in regions without major conflict fault lines. This is not to underestimate the political and economic significance of regionalization, which in essence is built around the real and realized material interests of organized stakeholders. Instead, it is simply to highlight that on its own, without the support of state and state-centric international institutions, regionalization will remain limited in its added value.

Critical theories on regionalism assume that (1) regions are dynamic; (2) they can evolve along a continuum from less to more integration; and (3) such regional cooperation should be fostered in order to address conflicts and instabilities in PDAs. Considering the scholarship produced by critical theories, the second working definition of regionalism developed in this study treats it as a political project with the concrete policy aim of mitigating and addressing conflicts that are frozen or postwar societies that are still engulfed in war legacies and interstate and intrastate societal divisions.

Both definitions introduced here are intimately intertwined. Although the second definition highlights region building as a peace-building approach, to be elaborated later in this book, the first one underscores the importance of existing material interdependencies between the states and societies, patterns of enmity and comity, and flows of threats and friendship (Kelly 2007). The objective basis of interaction is crucial, and latent interests and passive stakeholders are characteristic of regional dynamics in PDAs.

As I argue in this study, regionalization is quite variable, and in PDAs it is likely to be quite low. However, regionalism is of crucial importance in supporting nascent efforts at regionalization. The comparative regional studies indicate the variance in regional arrangements around the world, and the levels of institutionalization are a key variable in this regard. Similar to domestic processes of institution building for the purposes of enhanced governance, the states in PDAs need to develop a regional strategy, which I argue they should view as the external dimension of internal state-building efforts.

Key Debates within the Regionalism Literature

This section reviews the literature on regionalism in terms of its relevance to politically divided conflict areas, such as the Balkans and the South Caucasus. The starting point in building a literature on regional studies focused on PDAs is the fact that, contrary to the assertions of the promoters of commercial pacifism, rapidly globalizing forces and the spread of commerce around the world have failed to pacify hot spots and suppress conflicts. Conflicts in the twenty-first century manifest themselves in a dramatically different context: intrastate and interstate conflicts in the contemporary world are unfolding against the steady spread and mobility of capital ...