Séverine Autesserre’s research while affiliated with Columbia University and other places

The Frontlines of Peace tells the stories of the ordinary yet extraordinary individuals and communities that have found effective ways to confront violence. Drawing on twenty years of work in peacebuilding, including in-depth research in twelve conflict zones around the world as well as comparisons with social initiatives in North America and Europe, it shows that peace can grow in the most unlikely circumstances, with the help of the most unlikely heroes. The book opens our eyes to the well-intentioned but systematically flawed peace industry, shedding light on how typical aid interventions have been getting it wrong, and—more importantly—how a few of them have been getting it right. Contrary to what most politicians preach, resolving conflicts doesn’t require billions of dollars in aid or massive international involvement. Real, lasting peace requires giving the power over to ordinary citizens. There have been many successful examples of peacebuilding in the past few years, all involving innovative grassroots initiatives led by local people and at times supported by foreigners, often using methods shunned by the international elite. So, rather than focusing on handshakes between presidents, abstract peace agreements, and endless negotiations between governments and rebel leaders, The Frontlines of Peace details the concrete, everyday actions that make a difference on the ground. The implications are clear: We must radically change our approach if we hope to end violence from war, address conflicts in our communities, and build lasting peace around us—whether we live in Congo, the United States, or elsewhere.

Existing research on war and peace lacks analysis of what allows peacebuilding to succeed at the subnational level. Instead, most scholars focus on peacebuilding failure and macro-level dynamics. This is unfortunate because the obstacles to peacebuilding are such that the most puzzling question is why international efforts sometimes succeed, rather than why they fail. The lack of focus on success is also problematic because it results in ambiguous findings. On the one hand, there is an emerging consensus that local conflict resolution is crucial to building peace. There is also an agreement that, all else being equal, international support tends to increase the chances of successful peacebuilding. On the other hand, when international actors have tried to back local initiatives, they have often generated counterproductive consequences and worsened the situation. Should international actors support local peacebuilding processes? If so, how can they actually do this? Drawing on in-depth interviews, field and participant observations in nine different conflict zones, and document analysis, this article takes the first step in explaining whether, how, why, and under what conditions international interveners (including donors, diplomats, peacekeepers, and the foreign staff of international and non-governmental organizations) can contribute to successful local and bottom-up peace efforts. It makes three central contributions. First, it shows that the policy and scholarly literatures suffer from a dearth of findings on successful international support to local conflict resolution. Second, it emphasizes the critical—and under-researched—role of assumptions in shaping peacebuilding initiatives. Third, it develops a theoretical framework to analyze how assumptions influence international peace efforts. By way of illustration, the article analyzes three widespread assumptions about peacebuilding and the role of peacebuilders. In each case, it challenges assumptions that international interveners take for granted but that are actually unfounded and detrimental, while identifying assumptions that promote peacebuilding effectiveness. © The Author (2017). Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Studies Association. All rights reserved.

Prevention was the most important dimension of the Responsibility to Protect's foundational documents and subsequent advocacy efforts. However, the actual implementation of protection on the ground has focused on reacting to crises. This article develops a case study of war resumption in Congo in 2008 to understand why and how this happened. International peacebuilders took preventive action in Congo, but not as part of the protection efforts. Peacebuilders focused on preventing renewed national and regional wars, and they ignored the local conflicts that fuelled these broader tensions. The reason for this lies in a dominant culture of international peacebuilding. This culture shaped international efforts in such a way that the three essential conditions for effective prevention – political will, early warning and the preventive toolbox – were present for the prevention of renewed national and regional fighting but absent for the prevention of local violence. The resulting strategy allowed a crisis localized in the province of North Kivu to escalate into a full-scale war. The same type of effect appears generalizable across several recent interventions.

In the past 15 years, scholars have started studying the local and micro-level dimensions of peacekeeping. They have investigated the nature and effectiveness of bottom-up peacebuilding, assessed the local versus national impacts of peacekeeping interventions and studied the decentralized actions of international peacebuilders on the ground. This commentary shows that, despite the approach's limitations, delving into these three topics opens up fruitful areas for further research, in particular analysing micro-to-macro linkages, evaluating peacekeeping's subnational impacts across cases, explaining peacebuilding successes and understanding the causes of peace itself.

Explanations for the persistence of violence in the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of Congo blame the incendiary actions of domestic and regional leaders, as well as the inefficacy of international peace-building efforts. Based on several years of ethnographic research, this article adds another piece to the puzzle, emphasizing the perverse consequences of well-meaning international efforts. I argue that three narratives dominate the public discourse on Congo and eclipse the numerous alternative framings of the situation. These narratives focus on a primary cause of violence, illegal exploitation of mineral resources; a main consequence, sexual abuse of women and girls; and a central solution, extending state authority. I elucidate why simple narratives are necessary for policy makers, journalists, advocacy groups, and practitioners on the ground, especially those involved in the Congo. I then consider each narrative in turn and explain how they achieved prominence: they provided straightforward explanations for the violence, suggested feasible solutions to it, and resonated with foreign audiences. I demonstrate that the focus on these narratives and on the solutions they recommended has led to results that clash with their intended purposes, notably an increase in human rights violations.

This book suggests a new explanation for why international peace interventions often fail to reach their full potential. Based on several years of ethnographic research in conflict zones around the world, it demonstrates that everyday elements - such as the expatriates' social habits and usual approaches to understanding their areas of operation-strongly influence peacebuilding effectiveness. Individuals from all over the world and all walks of life share numerous practices, habits, and narratives when they serve as interveners in conflict zones. These common attitudes and actions enable foreign peacebuilders to function in the field, but they also result in unintended consequences that thwart international efforts. Certain expatriates follow alternative modes of thinking and acting, often with notable results, but they remain in the minority. Through an in-depth analysis of the interveners' everyday life and work, this book proposes innovative ways to better help host populations build a sustainable peace. © Séverine Autesserre 2014 and David Lewis / Reuters / Corbis.

The trouble with the Congo suggests a new explanation for international peacebuilding failures in civil wars. Drawing from more than 330 interviews and a year and a half of field research, it develops a case study of the international intervention during the Democratic Republic of Congo's unsuccessful transition from war to peace and democracy (2003–2006). Grassroots rivalries over land, resources, and political power motivated widespread violence. However, a dominant peacebuilding culture shaped the intervention strategy in a way that precluded action on local conflicts, ultimately dooming the international efforts to end the deadliest conflict since World War II. Most international actors interpreted continued fighting as the consequence of national and regional tensions alone, and diplomats and United Nations staff viewed intervention at the macro level as their only legitimate responsibility. The dominant culture constructed local peacebuilding as such an unimportant, unfamiliar, and unmanageable task that neither shocking events nor resistance from certain individuals could convince international actors to reevaluate their understanding of violence and intervention. Through this in-depth analysis, The trouble with the Congo proposes innovative ways to address civil wars in Africa and beyond.

This symposium has been tremendously rewarding. Not only do the commentators generally agree with the central claims of the book, but my argument has also generated a great deal of debate. The reactions focus on three main questions. First, do top-down or bottom-up causes drive the violence in the Congo? Second, should the international response to continuing violence be top down or bottom up? Finally, do constraints, vested interests or cultural frames best explain why international interveners have thus far neglected to support local peacebuilding? My response addresses each of these questions in turn. First, I use the data presented in the commentaries to buttress the central claim of the book: that local conflicts were significant causes of violence during the transition to peace. Second, I elaborate on my policy recommendations. I demonstrate that a bottom-up approach would have been an essential complement to the top-down strategy, and I clarify the role that international interveners could have played in the bottom-up process. Third, I explain how the dominant international peacebuilding culture constituted the constraints and interests that prevented international action on local conflict. I conclude by briefly discussing the suggestions for further research present in the commentaries.

¿Por qué los constructores internacionales de la paz no toman en consideración las causas locales de los procesos de paz que fallan? A través del presente artículo demuestro cómo las agendas locales jugaron entonces un rol decisivo en fomentar la violencia a nivel local, regional y nacional. Sin embargo, la existencia de un marco de construcción de la paz posbélica configuraba la visión internacional de la violencia y de la intervención de tal manera que la resolución del conflicto local era considerada como irrelevante e ilegitima. Este marco incluyó enseguida cuatro elementos fundamentales: los actores internacionales etiquetaron la situación en Congo de “postconflicto”; estos mismos actores creyeron que la violencia constituía un componente innato en la sociedad congolesa y, por lo tanto, aceptable incluso en tiempos de paz; conceptualizaron la intervención internacional como un asunto exclusivo de la esferas nacional e internacional; y consideraron la celebración de elecciones, en lugar de la resolución del conflicto local, como una herramienta viable, apropiada y efectiva para la construcción del estado y de la paz. Este marco, al autorizar y justificar prácticas y políticas específicas mientras impedía otras, en particular la resolución de conflictos locales, acabó condenando en última instancia los esfuerzos para la construcción de la paz. Para concluir, sostengo que el análisis de los marcos discursivos es un enfoque fructífero para intentar resolver los puzles de los fracasos internacionales en la construcción de la paz que se dan, también, más allá de las fronteras del Congo.