• DOI:10.1017/S0020818309090080
• Corpus ID: 143365639

Hobbes and the Congo: Frames, Local Violence, and International Intervention

@article{Autesserre2009HobbesAT,
  title={Hobbes and the Congo: Frames, Local Violence, and International Intervention},
  author={S{\'e}verine Autesserre},
  journal={International Organization},
  year={2009},
  volume={63},
  pages={249 - 280}
}

• Séverine Autesserre
• Published 1 April 2009
• Political Science, Sociology
• International Organization

Abstract Why do international peacebuilders fail to address the local causes of peace process failures? The existing explanations of peacebuilding failures, which focus on constraints and vested interests, do not explain the international neglect of local conflict. In this article, I show how discursive frames shape international intervention and preclude international action on local violence. Drawing on more than 330 interviews, multi-sited ethnography, and document analysis, I develop a case study of the Democratic Republic of Congo's transition from war to peace and democracy (2003–2006). I demonstrate that local agendas played a decisive role in sustaining local, national, and regional violence. However, a postconflict peacebuilding frame shaped the international understanding of violence and intervention in such a way that local conflict resolution appeared irrelevant and illegitimate. This frame included four key elements: international actors labeled the Congo a “postconflict” situation; they believed that violence there was innate and therefore acceptable even in peacetime; they conceptualized international intervention as exclusively concerned with the national and international realms; and they saw holding elections, as opposed to local conflict resolution, as a workable, appropriate, and effective tool for state- and peacebuilding. This frame authorized and justified specific practices and policies while precluding others, notably local conflict resolution, ultimately dooming the peacebuilding efforts. In conclusion, I contend that analyzing discursive frames is a fruitful approach to the puzzle of international peacebuilding failures beyond the Congo.