Alex Veit

Intermediaries of Intervention: How Local Power Brokers Shape External Peace- and State-Building in Afghanistan and Congo

ABSTRACT Why do international peace- and state-building interventions regularly fail to transform conflict-ridden countries into liberal states? This paper argues that interventionists’ practices and dependency on local intermediaries help explain the disappointing outcomes of intervention. Based on a relational theoretical approach and original empirical material, the paper compares two of the largest peace- and state-building interventions in recent years. For practical and normative reasons, peacebuilders need to find local partners who help them instil change. However, as partners of peace- and state-building interventions, local elites may appropriate international resources and use them to strengthen their own positions. Interventionists abstain from sanctioning such appropriation as long as their own short-term and purpose-oriented goals are not undermined. Contrary to assumptions in much of the literature, interventionists do not eagerly defend their alleged liberal agendas. Instead, their pragmatism strengthens existing neo-patrimonial figurations rather than fostering fundamental transformation. The paper argues that research should focus on peacebuilders’ actual practices rather than normative statements. Such an approach allows for a better understanding of evolving political orders in conflict societies.

The Social Question and State Formation in British Africa

The paper explores governmental perceptions and reactions to “social questions” in British colonial Africa, c. 1880-1950. By comparing three different political entities, Egypt, South Africa and Uganda, we find that authorities across cases have been acutely aware of potentially destabilising social change. Some social problems actually resulted from colonial projects themselves, giving rise to rather contradictory interpretations and policies. However, the intensity of political reactions to social questions varied widely, ranging from a largely passive approach in Egypt to the introduction of modern welfare in South Africa. We argue that perceptions and responses to social dislocation had a long-term impact on patterns of state formation and social policy development.

Warlord: Nutzen und Mängel einer negativen Kategorie

Der Begriff Warlord hat seit etwa zwei Jahrzehnten Konjunktur in Medien und Wissenschaft. Er dient zur Bezeichnung von Burgerkriegsakteuren, die sich anderen Analysekategorien entziehen. Der Begriff des Warlords definiert sich demnach vor allem durch die Negation. Er dient zur Abgrenzung von genauer definierten Kriegsakteuren, er ist ein Luckenfuller, eine Nicht-Kategorie. Warlords qualifizieren sich nicht als Rebellen, denn sie stehen einem staatlichen Regime oder Gesellschaftssystem nicht revolutionar oder sezessi-onistisch gegenuber. Warlords sind auch keine Paramilitars oder Soldner, denn ihre Gewaltmacht erhalten sie durch aktive Aneignung, statt durch Delegation staatlicher Aufgaben. Warlords vertreten uber offenbare Lippenbekenntnisse hinaus keine politischen Ideologien. Sie gelten aber nicht einfach nur als Anfuhrer von Rauberbanden, Mafiagruppen oder Gangs, denn hierfur ist der politische Kontext ihres Wirkens wiederum zu evident. Damit bezeichnet der Begriff vor allem dasjenige, was Warlords nicht sind.