A European diplomat once explained to me the logic behind his government's approach to the Democratic Republic of Congo: “It is a bit like with a teenager – someone who is 18 or 20; you want to help them, but you have to mind your manners and build the trust that enables you to do so.” Indeed, the diplomat and his international colleagues – other diplomats, African Union and UN officials, and members of NGOs – all wanted to help a much-affected population by facilitating the re-establishment of peace on Congolese territory. However, not only did these foreign interveners regularly forget to “mind their manners and build trust,” but their perception that Congo was like an adolescent who needed to be manipulated into accepting assistance often precluded them from treating the Congolese people as equal partners in the peace process. When the United Nations elaborated a plan to stabilize eastern Congo in 2008, for instance, its expatriate staff designed the strategy without actually involving national or local representatives in the drafting process. The implementation of this initiative suffered multiple setbacks, as well as considerable resistance from local authorities and communities, but UN officials still neglected to invite Congolese stakeholders to participate in the meetings devoted to discussing and revising the stabilization strategy. It took three years for the United Nations to finally do so.

This mode of operation is not limited to Congo. According to several interviewees, there was a similar situation in Timor-Leste for several years after the 2006 riots. International interveners met on a bi-weekly basis in the UN compound. There, they planned the future of the country without communicating with, or involving, any local partners. A Kosovar government official and a Sri Lankan civil society leader deplored similar phenomena in their own countries, where international actors coordinated among themselves without inviting any members of the host population.

What all of these anecdotes have in common is that they show international interveners acting with the best of intentions – to improve the welfare of others by re-establishing peace in conflict zones – but without the input or consent of the intended beneficiaries.