DOCSLIB.ORG

Tracing Varieties of Peace

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Tracing Varieties of Peace A case study on three approaches to peace in a frozen conflict Johanna Kolli Master’s thesis, 30 credit Master’s Program in Crisis Management and Peacebuilding, 120 credit Spring semester 2020 Abstract Scholars in the peace and conflict field oftentimes argue that peace is somewhat under- conceptualised. The Varieties of Peace network has made a substantial effort in furthering the conceptualisation of peace by creating a comprehensive framework, theorising peace as three different approaches: situational, relational and ideational. In this thesis, I explored how this framework can be applied in an empirical context and how the approaches relate to each other; testing the internal validity and assumptions of the framework. By shifting the common focus of peace from stability to a dynamic process of change, I studied how peace changes in an empirical context that is typically understood as static: frozen conflicts. In a case study on Abkhazia from 1994-2008, I used process-tracing to study how the three approaches relate to each other, either harmoniously or with dissonance, and to describe the changes of peace in a frozen conflict. I conclude that the Varieties of Peace framework has proven to be useful when studying the dynamics of peace and how it changes in a post-conflict setting. It has been especially useful in capturing the cyclical dynamic of change in a frozen conflict. The framework has comparative and comprehensive advantages in studying the peace as a complex, dynamic process, but inhibits some issues regarding the trade-off between complexity and parsimony and concerning the internal validity. Further research is needed in order to utilise its full potential as a framework that can be used to systematically study the varieties of peace in the world. Key words: Varieties of Peace, three approaches to studying peace, frozen conflicts, Abkhazia Table of content List of abbreviations ................................................................................................................................................ i 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Purpose and research questions ............................................................................................................ 3 2. Theoretical framework ................................................................................................................................. 4 2.1. Three approaches to studying varieties of peace .................................................................................. 4 2.2. Peace as a situation ............................................................................................................................... 4 2.3. Peace as a relation ................................................................................................................................ 5 2.4. Peace as an idea .................................................................................................................................... 7 2.5. The problem of ontology and epistemology when studying peace ........................................................ 9 2.6. Operationalisation ............................................................................................................................... 10 2.6.1. Situational peace ............................................................................................................................. 11 2.6.2. Relational peace .............................................................................................................................. 12 2.6.3. Ideational peace .............................................................................................................................. 13 3. Methodology and material ......................................................................................................................... 14 3.1. Qualitative research and case studies ................................................................................................. 14 3.2. Case selection ...................................................................................................................................... 15 3.3. Studying change: process-tracing ....................................................................................................... 17 3.4. Theoretical assumptions: how do the three approaches relate to each other? ................................... 17 3.5. Analysing ideas .................................................................................................................................... 19 3.6. Material ............................................................................................................................................... 20 4. Results and analysis .................................................................................................................................... 21 4.1. Contextual background ....................................................................................................................... 21 4.2. The first period: 1994-1999 ................................................................................................................ 22 4.2.1. Situational peace ............................................................................................................................. 23 4.2.2. Relational peace .............................................................................................................................. 26 4.2.3. Ideational peace .............................................................................................................................. 29 4.3. The second period: 1999-2003 ............................................................................................................ 31 4.3.1. Situational peace ............................................................................................................................. 31 4.3.2. Relational peace .............................................................................................................................. 35 4.3.3. Ideational peace .............................................................................................................................. 37 4.4. The third period: 2004-2008 ............................................................................................................... 39 4.4.1. Situational peace ............................................................................................................................. 40 4.4.2. Relational peace .............................................................................................................................. 44 4.4.3. Ideational peace .............................................................................................................................. 46 4.5. Harmonious and dissonant changes in the Abkhaz frozen conflict ..................................................... 48 5. Lessons learned from studying three approaches to peace ..................................................................... 51 6. Conclusions .................................................................................................................................................. 54 7. References .................................................................................................................................................... 56 Annex 1 ..................................................................................................................................................................... i Annex 2 .................................................................................................................................................................... ii Annex 3 .................................................................................................................................................................... v Figure 1: GGCT model of ideal types of peace by Sahovic (2007; 2018) ............................................................... 9 Table 1: the two dimensions of situational peace (Jarstad et al. 2019, 8). .............................................................. 5 Table 2: relational peace approach, summarising table (Söderström et al. 2019, 21)............................................ 7 Table 3: operationalisation of the ideal types of peace based on Sahovic (2007). ................................................ 14 Table 4: summarising table of the three approaches to peace in 1994-2008. ....................................................... 51 List of abbreviations CBM – Confidence-building measures CIS – Commonwealth of Independent States CPKF – CIS Peacekeeping Forces CSO – Civil society organisation IA – International Alert ICU – University of California, Irving NGO – Non-governmental organisation OSCE – Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe SSR – Soviet Socialist Republic UN – United Nations UNOMIG – United Nations Observer Mission in Georgia i 1. Introduction Peace and conflict scholars have argued that peace in general is somewhat under- conceptualised. In contrast to research about conflict, there is far less comprehensive and systematic work on understanding of what peace actually is and how it should be studied (Jarstad et al.
Recommended publications
  • Foreign Observation of the Illegitimate Elections in South Ossetia and Abkhazia in 2019

    Foreign Observation of the Illegitimate Elections in South Ossetia and Abkhazia in 2019

    FOREIGN OBSERVATION OF THE ILLEGITIMATE ELECTIONS IN SOUTH OSSETIA AND ABKHAZIA IN 2019 Anton Shekhovtsov FOREIGN OBSERVATION OF THE ILLEGITIMATE ELECTIONS IN SOUTH OSSETIA AND ABKHAZIA IN 2019 Anton Shekhovtsov Contents Executive summary _____________________________________ 4 Introduction: Illegitimacy of the South Ossetian “parliamentary” and Abkhaz “presidential elections” ___________ 6 “Foreign observers” of the 2019 “elections” in South Ossetia and Abkhazia ____________________________ 9 Established involvement of “foreign observers” in pro-Kremlin efforts __________________________________ 16 Assessments of the South Ossetian and Abkhaz 2019 “elections” by “foreign observers” _____________________ 21 Conclusion ___________________________________________ 27 Edition: European Platform for Democratic Elections www.epde.org Responsible for the content: Europäischer Austausch gGmbH Erkelenzdamm 59 10999 Berlin, Germany Represented through: Stefanie Schiffer EPDE is financially supported by the European Union and the Federal Foreign Office of Germany. The here expressed opinion does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the donors. Executive summary The so-called “Republic of South Ossetia” and “Republic of Abkhazia” are breakaway regions of Georgia that are recognised as independent sovereign states only by five UN Member States: Russia (which supports their de facto independence by military, economic and political means), Nauru, Nicaragua, Syria and Venezuela. Other entities that recognise South Ossetia and Abkhaz- ia as independent
  • Russia, Georgia and the Eu in Abkhazia and South Ossetia

    Russia, Georgia and the Eu in Abkhazia and South Ossetia

    PUBLIC DIPLOMACY AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION: RUSSIA, GEORGIA AND THE EU IN ABKHAZIA AND SOUTH OSSETIA Iskra Kirova August 2012 Figueroa Press Los Angeles The views and opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author and cannot be interpreted to reflect the positions of organizations that the author is affiliated with. PUBLIC DIPLOMACY AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION: RUSSIA, GEORGIA AND THE EU IN ABKHAZIA AND SOUTH OSSETIA Iskra Kirova Published by FIGUEROA PRESS 840 Childs Way, 3rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90089 Phone: (213) 743-4800 Fax: (213) 743-4804 www.figueroapress.com Figueroa Press is a division of the USC Bookstore Copyright © 2012 all rights reserved Notice of Rights All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmit- ted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior written permission from the author, care of Figueroa Press. Notice of Liability The information in this book is distributed on an “As is” basis, without warranty. While every precaution has been taken in the preparation of this book, neither the author nor Figueroa nor the USC Bookstore shall have any liability to any person or entity with respect to any loss or damage caused or alleged to be caused directly or indirectly by any text contained in this book. Figueroa Press and the USC Bookstore are trademarks of the University of Southern California ISBN 13: 978-0-18-214016-9 ISBN 10: 0-18-214016-4 For general inquiries or to request additional copies of this paper please contact: USC Center on Public Diplomacy at the Annenberg School University of Southern California 3502 Watt Way, G4 Los Angeles, CA 90089-0281 Tel: (213) 821-2078; Fax: (213) 821-0774 [email protected] www.uscpublicdiplomacy.org CPD Perspectives on Public Diplomacy CPD Perspectives is a periodic publication by the USC Center on Public Diplomacy, and highlights scholarship intended to stimulate critical thinking about the study and practice of public diplomacy.
  • The View from Abkhazia of South Ossetia Ablaze

    The View from Abkhazia of South Ossetia Ablaze

    Central Asian Survey Vol. 28, No. 2, June 2009, 235–246 The view from Abkhazia of South Ossetia ablaze Paula Garbà Department of Anthropology, University of California, Irvine, USA The Abkhazian and South Ossetian perspectives on the fighting between Georgians and South Ossetians in August 2008 could not be heard above the noise generated around the geopolitical implications of the larger Russian–Georgian clash. The population of Abkhazia experienced the violence in South Ossetia as though it was occurring on their own territory. This confirmed their complete lack of trust in the Georgian government’s commitment to peaceful resolution of the conflicts. In addition, they were disappointed with what they regarded as the international community’s absence of criticism of Georgia’s actions and lack of concern for the safety and well-being of the South Ossetians. Russia’s recognition of South Ossetia’s and Abkhazia’s independence has taken the question of Georgia’s territorial integrity off the negotiation table indefinitely. It also has set back the formal peace process with both South Ossetia and Abkhazia. An essential way forward, toward establishing trust as a necessary foundation for progress in the political negotiations, would be for the US and other interested countries to engage with the people of Abkhazia and South Ossetia at all levels, demonstrating credible and consistent concern for the safety and well being of all the people affected by the conflict. Keywords: conflict; culture; Abkhazia; South Ossetia Introduction Georgian–Abkhazian official relations since the end of the 1992–1993 war have offered little common ground for a mutually acceptable resolution.
  • Failed Prevention 35

    Failed Prevention 35

    Table of Contents Foreword by the Editors 5 PART I: CONCEPTS IN CONFLICT PREVENTION 9 Concepts and Instruments in Conflict Prevention 11 Frida Möller PART II: CONFLICT DEVELOPMENT AND FAILED PREVENTION 35 The Georgian-Abkhaz Conflict 37 Sabine Fischer Missed Windows of Opportunity in the Georgian-South Ossetian Conflict – The Political Agenda of the Post-Revolutionary Saakashvili Government (2004-2006) 59 Doris Vogl Failures of the Conflict Transformation and Root Causes of the August War 79 Oksana Antonenko PART III: VIEWS FROM THE REGION 95 Frozen Conflicts: The Missed Opportunities 97 Salomé Zourabichvili Failure to Prevent Violence – Lessons Learnt from the Georgian- Abkhazian Conflict Resolution Process 113 Liana Kvarchelia Missed Chances in the Georgian-South Ossetian Conflict – A View from South Ossetia 131 Alan Parastaev 3 PART IV: THE INTERNATIONAL INFLUENCE 139 OSCE Early Warning and the August Conflict in Georgia 141 Dov Lynch The Role of the United Nations in Abkhazia, Opportunities and Missed Opportunities between 1992 and 2009 151 Charlotte Hille United States’ and NATO’s Role in Georgia’s Territorial Conflicts August 1992-July 2008 169 Eugene Kogan Used & Missed Opportunities for Conflict Prevention in Georgia (1990-2008) – The Role of Russia 187 Markus Bernath Russia and South Ossetia: The Road to Sovereignty 207 Flemming Splidsboel Hansen PART V: CONCLUSIONS 235 Some Lessons Learnt in Conflict Prevention from the Conflicts in the Southern Caucasus 237 Predrag Jurekovi ć List of Authors and Editors 243 4 Foreword by the Editors The violent escalation of the Georgian/South Ossetian and Georgian/Abkhazian conflict in the summer of 2008 resulted in a significant deterioration of the regional security situation in this part of the Southern Caucasus.
  • Abkhazia: Deepening Dependence

    Abkhazia: Deepening Dependence

    ABKHAZIA: DEEPENING DEPENDENCE Europe Report N°202 – 26 February 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................. i I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 II. RECOGNITION’S TANGIBLE EFFECTS ................................................................... 2 A. RUSSIA’S POST-2008 WAR MILITARY BUILD-UP IN ABKHAZIA ...................................................3 B. ECONOMIC ASPECTS ....................................................................................................................5 1. Dependence on Russian financial aid and investment .................................................................5 2. Tourism potential.........................................................................................................................6 3. The 2014 Sochi Olympics............................................................................................................7 III. LIFE IN ABKHAZIA........................................................................................................ 8 A. POPULATION AND CITIZENS .........................................................................................................8 B. THE 2009 PRESIDENTIAL POLL ..................................................................................................10 C. EXTERNAL RELATIONS ..............................................................................................................11
  • Abkhazia to Be Included in Even More Distant

    Abkhazia to Be Included in Even More Distant

    caucasus analytical caucasus analytical digest 07/09 digest rity? Which flexible arrangements are conceivable for zia, whether in the framework of a common state or the issuing of visas for Abkhaz holders of Georgian as two cooperating independent states, have become passports that would allow Abkhazia to be included in even more distant. The same is true to an even greater European education and exchange programs? extent for the possible integration of both into a “polit- Which measures would allow the EU to enhance ical Europe” expanded to include the Black Sea region. the efficiency of its necessary long-term engagement on Nevertheless, that seems to be the only alternative to the behalf of political and legal reforms in Georgia? The suc- development that currently seems to be the most likely cess of these reforms is a precondition for the country’s one, namely a factual annexation of the small Abkhaz peaceful domestic consolidation and thus also for greater state by Russia in a Southern Caucasus that will likely flexibility towards the secessionist republics. be afflicted by geopolitical confrontation and instabil- Since the events of August 2008, the prospects of ity for a long time to come. peaceful reconciliation between Georgia and Abkha- Translated from German by Christopher Findlay About the Author Walter Kaufmann is an independent analyst and the former director (2002–2008) of the Heinrich Böll Foundation South Caucasus. Opinion Georgia’s Relationship with Abkhazia By Paata Zakareisvili, Tbilisi Abstract The August 2008 conflict between Georgia and Russia fundamentally changed the situation regarding the separatist territories in Georgia, fundamentally strengthening Russia’s position.
  • An Ambivalent 'Independence'

    An Ambivalent 'Independence'

    OswcOMMentary issue 34 | 20.01.2010 | ceNTRe fOR eAsTeRN sTudies An ambivalent ‘independence’ Abkhazia, an unrecognised democracy under Russian protection NTARy Wojciech Górecki Me ces cOM Abkhazia – a state unrecognised by the international community and depen- dent on Russia – has features of a democracy, including political pluralism. This is manifested through regularly held elections, which are a time of ge- tudies nuine competition between candidates, and through a wide range of media, s including the pro-opposition private TV station Abaza. astern e The competing political forces have different visions for the republic’s deve- lopment. President Sergei Bagapsh’s team would like to build up multilateral foreign relations (although the highest priority would be given to relations 1 Despite the lack of with Russia), while the group led by Raul Khajimba, a former vice-president international recognition, entre for it seems unreasonable c and present leader of the opposition, would rather adopt a clear pro-Moscow to use the form ‘self- orientation. It is worth noting that neither of the significant political forces appointed’ or ‘so-called’ president, or to append wants Abkhazia to become part of Russia (while such proposals have been inverted commas to the term (which also con- made in South Ossetia), and a majority of the Abkhazian elite sees Russia’s NTARy cerns other Abkhazian recognition of the country’s independence as a Pyrrhic victory because Me officials and institutions) it has limited their country’s room for manoeuvre. However, all parties are because Bagapsh in fact performs this agreed in ruling out any future dependence on Georgia.
  • My Dissertation4

    My Dissertation4

    Armenians and Abkhaz Ethnic Democracy – Current Trends, Future Prospects “The Armenians in Abkhazia have only three members of parliament and no church” 1 these are the words of Diana Kerselyan, ethnic Armenian and member of the Sukhumi City Council. The aim of this dissertation is to ascertain why the Armenians, which by most measures are the second largest ethnic group in Abkhazia,2 are less involved in political processes and institutions in the territory than their numbers should suggest, as well as try to determine which factors hinder or facilitate their participation in Abkhazian politics. This work will look at current political reality in Abkhazia regarding the Armenians chiefly through the framework of Abkhazia as an ethnic democracy, and will rely on empirical data from field work, as well other relevant theories of democracy and political participation to provide an answer. This work will be divided in three parts. The first part will discuss the theoretical framework of ethnic democracy, and determine how it can be relevantly applied to the situation in Abkhazia. The second part will look at the present day situation of the Armenian minority as situated within Abkhaz ethnic democracy, with specific reference to specific factors that affect their ability to play a role in Abkhazian society, be these legal, organisational, socio-economic factors etc. An attempt will also be made to determine to which degree the lack of Armenian participation in Abkhazian politics can be put down causes related directly or indirectly to the structure and practice of ethnic democracy. In the third part, the perspectives for the Armenian minority in Abkhazia in the future will be looked at, including which paths could be chosen, both by the Armenian community itself 1 “Armenians of Abkhazia have three parliament members but not one church”, by Emil Sanamyan, Armenian Reporter, Paramus, NJ: Apr 28, 2007, Issue.
  • Post-Conflict Elections”

    Post-Conflict Elections”

    POST-CONFLICT ELECTION TIMING PROJECT† ELECTION SOURCEBOOK Dawn Brancati Washington University in St. Louis Jack L. Snyder Columbia University †Data are used in: “Time To Kill: The Impact of Election Timing on Post-Conflict Stability”; “Rushing to the Polls: The Causes of Early Post-conflict Elections” 1 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. ELECTION CODING RULES 01 II. ELECTION DATA RELIABILITY NOTES 04 III. NATIONAL ELECTION CODING SOURCES 05 IV. SUBNATIONAL ELECTION CODING SOURCES 59 Alternative End Dates 103 References 107 3 ELECTION CODING RULES ALL ELECTIONS (1) Countries for which the civil war has resulted into two or more states that do not participate in joint elections are excluded. A country is considered a state when two major powers recognize it. Major powers are those countries that have a veto power on the Security Council: China, France, USSR/Russia, United Kingdom and the United States. As a result, the following countries, which experienced civil wars, are excluded from the analysis [The separate, internationally recognized states resulting from the war are in brackets]: • Cameroon (1960-1961) [France and French Cameroon]: British Cameroon gained independence from the United Kingdom in 1961, after the French controlled areas in 1960. • China (1946-1949): [People’s Republic of China and the Republic of China (Taiwan)] At the time, Taiwan was recognized by at least two major powers: United States (until the 1970s) and United Kingdom (until 1950), as was China. • Ethiopia (1974-1991) [Ethiopia and Eritrea] • France (1960-1961) [France
  • News Digest on Georgia

    News Digest on Georgia

    NEWS DIGEST ON GEORGIA August 4-12 Compiled by: Aleksandre Davitashvili Date: August 13, 2020 Occupied Regions Abkhazia Region 1. Abkhaz Leaders at Odds over Restoring Travel to Russia On August 3, Alexander Ankvab, prime minister of Kremlin-backed Abkhazia, called on several Abkhaz health executives, concerned by the region‟s instant and unconditional reopening to the Russian Federation, to “resign immediately.” In a starkly worded message, Ankvab slammed the health ministry and ad hoc coronavirus task force representatives, including deputy ministers Alkhas Konjaria and Alisa Ardzinba for disseminating “provocative” and “panicky” statements. Ankvab‟s anger followed the August 2 emergency meeting of Abkhaz medics and health ministry representatives over the abrupt resumption of travel between Sokhumi and Moscow a day earlier (Civil.ge, August 4, 2020). 2. Sokhumi Opens Humanitarian Corridor with Tbilisi Moscow-backed authorities in Abkhazia have allowed passage to resume through Enguri crossing point, connecting Sokhumi and Tbilisi administered territories from 5 to 9 August, local media reported. Sokhumi now permits holders of Abkhaz „passports‟ and residence permits to return to the region after checking their medical conditions at the crossing point. Fearing the coronavirus outbreak, Sokhumi first imposed travel restrictions with Georgia proper on February 27. On March 14, Sokhumi said the crossing point would remain closed until further notice in a bid to stem the spread of the virus. Since then, Kremlin-backed Abkhaz authorities
  • Secession and Survival: Nations, States and Violent Conflict by David S

    Secession and Survival: Nations, States and Violent Conflict by David S

    Secession and Survival: Nations, States and Violent Conflict by David S. Siroky Department of Political Science Duke University Date: Approved: Dr. Donald L. Horowitz, Supervisor Dr. David L. Banks Dr. Alexander B. Downes Dr. Bruce W. Jentleson Dr. Erik Wibbels Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Political Science in the Graduate School of Duke University 2009 abstract (Political Science) Secession and Survival: Nations, States and Violent Conflict by David S. Siroky Department of Political Science Duke University Date: Approved: Dr. Donald L. Horowitz, Supervisor Dr. David L. Banks Dr. Alexander B. Downes Dr. Bruce W. Jentleson Dr. Erik Wibbels An abstract of a dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Political Science in the Graduate School of Duke University 2009 Copyright c 2009 by David S. Siroky All rights reserved Abstract Secession is a watershed event not only for the new state that is created and the old state that is dissolved, but also for neighboring states, proximate ethno-political groups and major powers. This project examines the problem of violent secession- ist conflict and addresses an important debate at the intersection of comparative and international politics about the conditions under which secession is a peaceful solution to ethnic conflict. It demonstrates that secession is rarely a solution to ethnic conflict, does not assure the protection of remaining minorities and produces new forms of violence. To explain why some secessions produce peace, while others generate violence, the project develops a theoretical model of the conditions that produce internally coherent, stable and peaceful post-secessionist states rather than recursive secession (i.e., secession from a new secessionist state) or interstate dis- putes between the rump and secessionist state.
  • Electoral Politics in the De Facto States of the South Caucasus

    Electoral Politics in the De Facto States of the South Caucasus

    No. 94 28 April 2017 Abkhazia South Ossetia caucasus Adjara analytical digest Nagorno- Karabakh www.laender-analysen.de/cad www.css.ethz.ch/en/publications/cad.html POLITICS WITHIN DE FACTO STATES Special Editor: Donnacha Ó Beacháin (Dublin City University) ■■Introduction by the Special Editor 2 ■■Electoral Politics in the De Facto States of the South Caucasus 3 By Donnacha Ó Beacháin (Dublin City University) ■■The External Relations of De Facto States in the South Caucasus 8 By Giorgio Comai (Dublin City University) ■■Public Opinion in the Eurasian De Facto States 15 By Gerard Toal (Virginia Tech, Alexandria, VA) and John O’Loughlin (University of Colorado Boulder) ■■DOCUMENTATION Basic Data and Political Systems of South Caucasus De Facto States 20 This publication has been produced within the Initial Training Network ‘Post-Soviet Tensions’, which has received funding from the EU FP7/2007-2013 under grant agreement No. 316825. This publication reflects only the authors’ views. The funding body is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains. Research Centre Center Caucasus Research German Association for for East European Studies for Security Studies Resource Centers East European Studies University of Bremen ETH Zurich CAUCASUS ANALYTICAL DIGEST No. 94, 28 April 2017 2 Introduction by the Special Editor In a global order composed of recognised states, which enjoy membership of international organisations such as the United Nations, de facto (or unrecognised) states are pariahs that have proven surprisingly durable. Though the unrec- ognised states of Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Nagorno-Karabakh have existed for almost a quarter-century, their internal dynamics remain largely unexplored.