Peacebuilding necessitates a re-evaluation of the Western/liberal, non-Western/illiberal dichotomy. After numerous failures in liberal peacebuilding and the lack of innovative intervention approaches, scholars sought potential alternatives in emerging powers’ involvement in post-conflict reconstruction. However, the debate often oversimplifies the issue, categorizing Western peacebuilding as inherently liberal and non-Western peacebuilding as illiberal. This dichotomic understanding is problematic and hinders progress in the analysis of the subject. We contend that peacebuilding has become institutionalized as a foreign policy tool driven by national interests, with similar strategies employed by different governmental actors irrespective of their stated objectives.
