Return to [previous page]
Arndt HUSAR
on Mon, March 17, 2014 at 03.44 am

[Talk] Accounting for Endings to Mass Violence in Southeast Asia: Military, Civilian and International Models Compared

Start date: 
Mon, 2014-04-07
End date: 
Mon, 2014-04-07
Organizer: 
UNDP Global Centre for Public Service Excellence (GCPSE) and Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS)
Venue: 
Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS), 30 Heng Mui Keng Terrace, Pasir Panjang, Singapore 119614

"Accounting for Endings to Mass Violence in Southeast Asia: Military, Civilian and International Models Compared"
in collaboration with the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS)
Monday, 7 April 2014, 4pm
at ISEAS, 30 Heng Mui Keng Terrace, Pasir Panjang, Singapore 119614 (directions)
 

Dr. Smith will present research to challenge the notion that liberal - or internationally UN sponsored - endings to mass violence have more success in establishing long-run stability and peace rather than outright military victories or mediated states created by political patronage networks and bargains.  However, while the latter models have led to longer-run political stability, they suffer in terms of the democratic transition process, as well as community justice. 

Abstract

It is often assumed that liberal - or internationally UN sponsored - endings to mass violence have more success in establishing long-run stability and peace. However, research by civil war scholars finds that outright military victories, rather than negotiated peace processes, tend to be more stable in the long run (Sambanis 2011). De Waal (2009) and Menkhaus (2005) have also shown that political marketplaces - or mediated states - tend to secure peace in contested states much more successfully than liberal interventions. In my comparative research on Indonesia and Timor-Leste I have found that illiberal types of peace process, involving either the use of military victory, or the use of political patronage networks and bargains, have tended to bring more successful ends to mass violence, when measured in terms of longer-run political stability. But these models have come at a high cost to the democratic transition process, as well as community justice. In contrast, internationally sponsored endings have been less stable, but they have secured more democratic and just endings. In my talk, I will outline a comparative range of endings to mass violence in Indonesia and Timor-Leste, to explore how and when militarized, civilian and international means have most successfully ended mass violence. I will also consider the longer-run impacts and costs these different peacbuilding models have had on local politics, economies and societies in those regions recovering from mass violence.

Biography

Dr Claire Smith (B.A. Hons (Oxford), MIA (Columbia), Ph.D. (LSE)) is a Lecturer in Politics in the Department of Politics at the University of York. Prior to that she was a Teaching Fellow at the London School of Economics (LSE) and the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS). She also held a Visiting Fellowship at the Crisis States Research Centre at the LSE in 2010.

Claire specialises in the comparative politics of democratic transition and regime change, with a particular interest in development, local governance, civil war, ethno-religious conflict and state building. She has a special interest in Southeast Asian politics, and has published on the politics of democratic transition and post-conflict reconstruction in Indonesia and Timor-Leste.

Claire is currently working on her book manuscript, "The Dark Side of Democratisation in Indonesia". She also holds a research grant from The World Peace Foundation at Tufts University for her current project "How Mass Atrocities End: Military, Civilian and International Peacebuilding Models in Southeast Asia". Claire has worked as a research fellow and consultant with The Asia Foundation, the World Bank, UNDP, UNHCHR and UNICEF in Southeast Asia.

Please or to post a comment.