Building Peace after Self-Determination and Partition: Faulty Assumptions?

Abstract

Abstract Since the 1990s, scholars have debated whether partition, the most radical solution to ethnic conflicts, promotes peace or not. Drawing on the peacebuilding and war recurrence literature, I contribute to this debate by theorizing reasons that newly independent states emerging from partition are likely to suffer from new conflicts between former pro-independence allies. At the domestic level, former pro-independence groups, assumed to be a unitary actor by partition proponents, are likely to fragment as their unity was based on achieving the goal of independence. Furthermore, newly independent states tend to suffer from very weak institutions, and citizens develop strong frustrations toward their new states because their unrealistically high expectations are unmet. At the international level, international peacebuilders tend to wrongly assume that the unity within the pro-independence camp will last after independence and that the pro-independence people are essentially “good guys.” As a result, they often misunderstand the post-conflict political dynamics of new states, which reduces the effectiveness of their peacebuilding efforts. My arguments are illustrated through analyzing why Timor-Leste and South Sudan, the closest to typical partition cases in the twenty-first century, faced the 2006 Crisis and the 2013 Civil War, respectively.