“Asian” Approaches to Peacebuilding?: Modalities, Convergences, and Differences in...


Author: Monalisa Adhikari

Key Findings

  • A coherent “Asian model” of peacebuilding does not exist, but there are common features which characterize the international conflict management practices of China, Japan, and India.
  • Understanding the specificities of the engagement of Asian states in international conflict management requires mapping their engagement at different levels – global, national, and local – as well as contradictions at the various levels.
  • Commonalities between Asian states’ engagement in conflict-affected states include features such as a focus on peacemaking, stability focused state-centric engagement, and a developmental approach to addressing conflicts.
  • Differences among Asian states are evident in the levels of institutionalization within peace-related engagement, their approach to multilateral cooperation to supporting conflict-affected states, and their individual capacities to engage internationally.
  • The differences are accentuated by intense geo-strategic competition between these Asian states themselves, especially with the rise of China and the growing India- China, and China-Japan rivalry.
  • Such differences between Asian states, especially as India and Japan seek to counterbalance China in the region, and such shared anxiety regarding China’s rise has created convergence between India, Japan, and Western states. Such convergence is creating a nascent momentum for further partnerships and coordination with Western states on issues related to peace and security.

About the Series: The Global Transitions Series looks at fragmentations in the global order and how these impact peace and transition settlements. It explores why and how different third-party actors – state, intergovernmental, and non-governmental – intervene in conflicts, and how they see themselves contributing to reduction of conflict and risks of conflict relapse. The series critically assesses the growth and diversification of global and regional responses to contemporary conflicts. It also asks how local actors are navigating this multiplicity of mediators and peacebuilders and how this is shaping conflict outcomes and post-conflict governance. Explore the full series.