In the aftermath of the 2006 Israeli-Hezbollah War in Lebanon, the Gulf States and Jihad Al Bina, Hezbollah’s reconstruction wing, undertook significant post-war reconstruction activities. This article from ‘Conflict, Security and Development’ examines the extent to which these reconstruction activities constitute an alternative to the liberal peace. While they do not have the critical mass or ambition to constitute a fully-fledged alternative, they reveal limitations in the liberal peace approach to reconstruction.
The liberal peace approach to post-war reconstruction prioritises Western politico-cultural norms and liberal economics and risks becoming increasingly monopolistic, top-down and formulaic. The reconstruction efforts of the Gulf States and Jihad Al Bina do not constitute a fully-fledged alternative to the liberal peace. The coalition of actors supporting the liberal peace is too powerful, while the approach itself constitutes a comprehensive programme of political, economic, and social change. Jihad Al Bina, as a non-state actor, has limited ambition and capabilities, while the Gulf States have been careful to cooperate with official reconstruction efforts.
Aspects of divergence from, as well as conformity to, the liberal peace are evident in the activities of Jihad Al Bina and the Gulf States:
- The Gulf States’ cultural and political outlooks differ markedly from Western views, although the Gulf States share with the Western worldview an emphasis on stability.
- The worldview of Jihad Al Bina differs radically from that of supporters of the liberal peace. Jihad Al Bina is sect-based, opposes Israel and the US and displays no interest in good governance and open economies.
- Jihad Al Bina and the Gulf States have spent significant amounts of money on reconstruction, in contravention of the norms and controls governing financial assistance.
- The Gulf States do not share the liberal peace approach’s preference for local participation in reconstruction efforts, although their efforts have included some participative aspects.
- Community participation is central to Jihad Al Bina’s operations, although the notion of local participation is problematic in Lebanon’s confessionally divided society.
Jihad Al Bina and the Gulf States’ reconstruction activities in Lebanon prompt several observations on the nature of the liberal peace and reconstruction efforts:
- The activities of Jihad Al Bina and the Gulf States show that alternative approaches are possible. Post-war reconstruction must not be the preserve of Western agents. Alternative sources of funding, modes of operation and motivations are possible.
- The activities of Jihad Al Bina and the Gulf States reveal the limitations of the liberal peace. Perhaps the most important of these are selectivity and lack of ambition in reaching war-affected areas.
- The multiplicity of reconstruction actors in Lebanon encouraged comparisons between different actors’ effectiveness and motivation. In Lebanon, the government and, by extension, the international community fared badly in these comparisons.
- Many internal and external reconstruction actors by-passed the state, reflecting a consensus that it was an inefficient vehicle for reconstruction efforts. This conforms to the liberal peace’s preference for small government and non-state actors.
- Post-war reconstruction is a political activity, relating to the aspirations, cultural norms and worldview of reconstruction actors. Reconstruction and development activities risk being regarded as extensions of conflicts.
