ABSTRACT
The chapters in Part I of this book took care to try to create and analyze the existing body of business-based peacebuilding literature. The purpose of this chapter is different. Its goal is to create a map of the possible approaches to business-based peacebuilding, including those known to have been used and others that have not, at least not yet. While Chapter 3 divided the types of business-based peacebuilding efforts by the instigating actor, this chapter looks at a more thorough taxonomy of possible actions. The differentiation in forms that was attributable to the instigating actor was a surprising finding, but this was ultimately shaped by the haphazard development of business-based peacebuilding over the past twenty years or so and not fundamental requirements of the practice. If the goal now is to map the future of business-based peacebuilding efforts, a different approach is needed, one that is not tied to the existing biases of those who have come before. As mentioned before, Nelson’s (2000) work included a taxonomy of business-based actions that was built around the idea that interventions need to be tailored to the type of conflict in which a business is operating. This approach was shown in Chapter 3 to be insufficient as an analytical tool (a purpose for which it was most assuredly not intended in the first place), and also as one that presumes that the best interventions are those conceived around the idea of the initial causes of conflict. It was noted in Chapter 8 that a growing body of work indicates that focusing on “true causes” is appropriate only very early in conflict, if at all. Instead, a map of possible interventions is needed that is not tied to notions of causes, following the perspective of pragmatic peacebuilding. Even if a true root cause could be determined and the perfect intervention for that cause designed, the conflict resolution actor would still be faced with the need to mobilize resources and expertise in the real world, and these will result in compromises and improvisation. Presuming a normative obligation to intervene where possible, which is a foundational idea of the conflict resolution perspective as defined here, the question is not “What is the optimal possible intervention?” but “What is the best that can be done with the resources we have available?” Facing a conflict in the present, anyone hoping to intervene will be limited by a lack of
total information about what is happening and why. What is needed at that moment is a map – some way to gain one’s bearings and chart a path ahead. It will be important to determine if opportunities were missed, or missteps taken, but that is the province of assessment, to be incorporated into refining the map for those who come later. Mapping is an adequate metaphor here. The intent of this chapter is to chart out the range of possible actions that would fall within the boundaries of business-based peacebuilding. Some of these will be well-known and well-traveled, while others will become evident only through their absence once this known territory is charted. In the end, we should be able to see not only the relationships between the forms discussed in Chapter 3, but also recognize where our current horizons lie and, possibly, what may be beyond them. This approach is influenced by Lang and Taylor’s (2000) call for conflict resolution practitioners to recognize their constellation of theories: a virtual map of the tools, experience, and theoretical baggage they carry into conflict work. The authors argue that understanding and appreciating this constellation of theories not only keeps a practitioner from forgetting resources he or she has available at the time of intervention, but also makes more clear what blind spots might be affecting their approach to conflict. This discussion will attempt to work from those forms of business-based peacebuilding most widely understood and utilized by and with businesses in conflict areas to those less familiar and even in some cases simply hypothetical. A thorough map should point us beyond what is known to what is possible. One primary conclusion of Chapter 8 was that the best method for selecting peacebuilding practice is not to look at the causes of the conflict, but instead to focus on what is needed by the participants in it to be able to move toward resolution and reconciliation. Following this suggestion, the map of business-based peacebuilding is divided into regions by the type of need that motivates the particular types of peacebuilding practice. This approach may seem like an alien taxonomy at first, but its utility should become evident in the discussion. In addition to providing clear lines between types of practice, it has the benefit of uncovering relationships that are not regularly noticed. Two peacebuilding projects may seem quite different in form and function, but if they share a common presumption of the practical needs in the conflict there is a chance for them to become collaborative and reinforcing. Similarly, if none of the practices utilized in a conflict share a single idea about what is needed, cooperation is going to be much more difficult.
