| The end of the Cold War brought contexts of violence often protracted over time, along ethnic or other cultural divisions, addressing levels of society above and below that of the nation-state and cited variously as "complex humanitarian emergency" or the "failing state". The same turbulent global changes loosened roles previously performed by institutions and states within the international system. International Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO) primarily engaged in supplying relief supplies during times of emergency or economic development assistance during stable times, and began to assert their abilities in conflict management and peace-building. Such work was complemented by theoretical models or conflict mitigation and resolution (such as multiple-track diplomacy or conflict transformation) which placed NGOs as a bridge between the needs of a conflict's "grassroots civil society" and the resources of states and international organizations. Using five NGOs in three such conflicts (Liberia, Rwanda, the Sudan) since 1989, this study examines the relationship of an NGO's performance along a typology of peace-building, with specified markers of its internal capacity (mission and policy statements, past issue history, personnel and training, resources provided, and leadership) and external structure to the conflicted setting (operationality, history of engagement, type of partnership, singular or multiple program presence). The typology provides a dynamic of NGO behavior looking at its engagement entrance (pre, during, post-conflict), levels of conflict and engagement, intervention strategies and aims while offering a profile of any changes in the NGO's response. Questions tested include whether NGOs have increased (changed) their programming in conflict mitigation and resolution since 1989; whether and how they act as bridging agents during the conflict; and whether changes in the NGO's internal capacity or external structures result in a fuller range of typology interventions. Though efforts at peace-building programs have increased for some NGOs, their abilities at bridging conflicted levels of society and issues remains targeted (as opposed to holistic) but is positively influenced by investments in internal capacity, longer issue and setting history, and multiple interventions in the conflict. |
