Diasporas as peacemakers: third party mediation in homeland conflicts.(Report)

Most recent violent conflicts are intrastate conflicts, and a majority are deterritorialized through the involvement of diaspora groups. Much existing research criticizes diaspora communities for financing war efforts, promoting extremism, and holding uncompromising political views. However, diasporas have also contributed to peacemaking efforts in their homelands' conflicts. Through lobbying governments and international organizations and aiding transition and post-conflict reconstruction, diasporas are increasingly playing an important role in mediation and peacebuilding. This paper explores and analyzes the potential positive contributions of diasporas to resolving conflicts in their homelands.

INTRODUCTION

In today's world, mediation offers a decent feasible method of managing conflicts and building peace. It is considered a rather low-cost and respectable option for a third party compared to not intervening at all or engaging in a costly military involvement. That is why many scholars and practitioners from various disciplines have attempted to further our understanding of how mediation works and under what conditions it becomes successful. (1) Regularly, new research emerges on various aspects of mediation, its composition, timing, and impact, etc. One of the genres of this research describes simultaneous involvement of several actors in mediating a conflict to bring a peaceful settlement. In this paper, an exploration has taken place to map out whether diaspora can possibly contribute as an external actor to third party mediation efforts in their homeland conflicts.

Studying the attitude and behavior of diasporas is not an easy task. The concept of "diaspora" itself is a controversial issue since there is no commonly accepted definition of what a diaspora is. Moreover, there is no doubt that diasporas are not alike and their different histories, generations of exit, their cultures and trajectories mark them out as somewhat unique. (2) Shain and Barth make an attempt to define diaspora as "a people with a common origin who reside, more or less on a permanent basis, outside the borders of their ethnic or religious homeland." (3) Totolian also combines the term diaspora within the transnational community by describing diaspora as "the exemplary communities of the transnational moment." (4) In the past, the term "diaspora" applied primarily to Jews, and occasionally to Greeks, Armenians and Africans. However, recently, at least thirty ethnic groups declare themselves or are described by others as diaspora. (5)

It does not matter whether the diasporas concept of homeland is an actual homeland or just a symbolic attribution. In today's world, it is evident that the diaspora members have a tendency to keep their attachments to the homeland one way or another. As Vertovec argues, "Belonging to a diaspora entails a consciousness of, or emotional attachment to, commonly claimed origins and cultural attributes associated with them." (6) These origins and attributes may represent ethnic, religious, linguistic, regional, national, or other traits. Their empathy for economic development of the homeland, and support to the other members of their group living in other parts of the world, originate from their emotional connection. Nevertheless, due to this sentimental attachment, diasporas are gradually becoming crucial links between immigrant receiving countries and political developments in countries of origin.

Numerous researches on diaspora establish that its members may actively contribute to violent conflicts in their homelands. They primarily are blamed for financing war efforts and promoting extremist and uncompromising political views. Periodically they participate in the conflict as armed combatants. Concurrently, there are several cases where diasporas have purposefully contributed to peacemaking endeavors in their homeland conflicts as well.

DIASPORAS AND THEIR ROLE IN HOMELAND CONFLICTS