Citation

Höglund K, Orjuela C. Contemp. Soc. Sci. 2011; 6(1): 19-37.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2011, Informa - Taylor and Francis Group)

DOI

10.1080/17450144.2010.534491

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

How can a relapse into violent conflict be prevented in Sri Lanka? This article examines how the case of Sri Lanka effectively exposes the limitations of the international discourse and practice of conflict prevention. Conflict prevention in Sri Lanka has to take place within a global and domestic context which is largely unaccounted for in the conflict-prevention literature and policy discourse. Changes in the international power balance over the last decade have decreased the room of manoeuvre for actors such as the United States and European Union while giving Asian powers such as China--with a different approach to conflict prevention--more influence over domestic policies in countries like Sri Lanka. Moreover, the conflict prevention discourse and "tools" tend to assume a negotiated peace agreement where the conflict parties have an interest in preventing conflicts rather than merely suppressing them. The significant power asymmetry between the winning and the losing sides in the Sri Lankan conflict, coupled with the lack of power or interest of international actors to influence Sri Lanka's domestic affairs?have rendered ?conflict prevention? a tool for continued domination and containment of conflicts. The article further highlights the risks that conflict-prevention measures may exacerbate conflict or undermine other conflict-prevention measures. A number of challenges for conflict prevention--in the areas of (1) demilitarisation/militarisation, (2) political power sharing, (3) justice and reconciliation, and (4) post-war reconstruction and economic development--are addressed.