APCJ_1528_Win2010_00i_122_4 12/30/10 3:22 PM Page 49 Gaps in the Eastern Congo Peacebuilding Process 49 about the effectiveness of diplomatic and military interventions to deal with intra-state conflicts, such as in eastern DR Congo. The conflict resolution approach seeks to address the root causes of conflict and reconstruct broken relationships between parties. For this school, the peacebuilders are mainly (western-based) NGOs, who lead workshops with non-official actors close to the conflicting parties, especially elite-based civil society and grassroots associations.32 Although this school has contributed significantly to development of the peacebuilding discourse, it has been criticized from a conflict management perspective on the ground that improving communication and building relationships between conflicting parties do not necessarily lead to an agreement to end war.33 The approach is also criticized for its assumption that work with civil society and at the grassroots will naturally have an effect at the national level.34 The complementary school is built upon the critical nexus of the conflict management and conflict resolution schools. Given the strengths and limitations of these two schools, complementary discipline evolved as the next logical approach, assuming peacebuilding requires simultaneous efforts based on top-down and bottom-up approaches.35 The main criticism against this school is that the issue of coordination is not seriously addressed. The transformation-oriented school promotes targeting the root causes of armed conflicts by replacing conflict management and conflict resolution with conflict transformation.36 Building on the complementary school’s position, it tries to fill the gap between short-term conflict management and long-term relationship building, as well as the transformation of the underlying causes of conflict.37 The ultimate goal is to establish and construct long-term infrastructures for peacebuilding by supporting the reconciliation potential of the society.38 Like the conflict resolution approach, the transformation-oriented model recognizes the need to rebuild destroyed relationships by focusing on reconciliation.39 Assuming a tripartite conception of society—consisting of a top level (leadership), middle range (civil society leaders), and grassroots—the transformation-oriented school differs from the conflict resolution approach in that it considers the workings at the leadership level and the society as a whole, rather than only those at the grassroots and middle range. From the transformation perspective, third-party (outside) intervention should concentrate on supporting internal actors and coordinating 32. R. Fisher, ‘Integrative conflict resolution’ in I. William Zartman and J. Lewis Rasmussen (eds.), Peacemaking in International Conflict: Methods and Techniques (Washington, D.C., United States Institute of Peace Press, 1997), 100–121. 33. J. Bercovitch, Social Conflict and Third Parties (Boulder, Westview Press, 1984). 34. Oliver P. Richmond, ‘Rethinking conflict resolution: The linkage problematic between “Track I” and “Track II”’, Journal of Conflict Studies, 21:2 (2001), 155–61. 35. Wolfgang Heinrich, Building the Peace: Experiences of Collaborative Peacebuilding in Somalia in 1993–1996 (Uppsala, Life and Peace Institute, 1997); Bo Wirmark (ed.), ‘Government-NGO relations in preventing violence, transforming conflict and building peace’, conference report, Mariefred, Sweden, 1997. 36. K. Rupesinghe, Conflict Transformation (London, St. Martin’s Press, 1995); John Paul Lederach, A Little Book of Conflict Transformation (Intercourse, Pennsylvania, Good Books, 2003). 37. Lederach, Building Peace; John Paul Lederach and Michelle Maiese, ‘Conflict transformation: A circular journey with a purpose’, New Routes, 14:2 (2009), 7–10. 38. Paffenholz, ‘Understanding peacebuilding.’ 39. Ibid.