Pros And Cons Of Peaceland

Peaceland outlines the conventional structural flaws in the present blueprint of international peacebuilding. The community populated by expatriates is one with its own “time, space and economics.” The occupants are inducted from organizations across the globe with distinctive philosophies and ideologies. Accordingly, they are not homogeneous. They form transnational affiliations who have more in common with each other than with host nations.
Very seldom are the expatriates’ habits questioned or acknowledged. Peaceland’s fundamental subculture -- its sheer identity -- is the leading culprit of the perpetual failure of international interventions. Subsequently, “well-meaning and intelligent people” are often led “to contribute to less than optimal outcomes.” Though counter-productive, the preeminent operation methods endure because they are part of the intervention “culture.” According to the words of a Cypriot NGO director, the most dangerous thing is somebody
Although pragmatic and sensible, Autessere insinuates that her conclusions are merely fortuitous. But to a significant degree, they already existed in Peaceland’s dialogue. Thus, negative outcomes should be balanced against their advantages: an impartial class of professionals capable of working under difficult conditions. By trial-and-error, it suggests that agreeable alternative practices could be found -- hardly an argument against the proposed changes. Contrarily, her abstract notions forge a dynamic argument, validated by sound, observational evidence.
I would recommend Peaceland to those interested in peacebuilding studies and implementation. Autessere intently describes how institutions, rhetoric, and policies are facilitated and managed. For political scientists, understanding why dysfunctional intervention routines continue, and how they are molded from the bottom-up is a novel and worthwhile