Home

Donate

The Paradox of PeaceTech: Agency or Alienation?

Poorvi Yerrapureddy, Amrita Nanda / Jan 16, 2025

​​In the evolving landscape of post-conflict recovery, technology has increasingly been heralded as a critical tool for maintaining peace and fostering societal stability, with builders promising on-the-ground solutions facilitated by technology. Peacebuilding and peacekeeping have long been integral components of international relations and conflict resolution. The advent of technology has catalyzed a transformative shift in these practices, culminating in what is now referred to as “PeaceTech.” This evolution reflects not only the changing landscape of conflict but also the increasing reliance on digital tools to facilitate peace processes.

Solutions like PeaceTech are frequently introduced to mitigate the immediate effects of conflict, focusing on ceasefires and conflict resolution through digital infrastructure. While the intention behind PeaceTech is often noble—aiming to create tools that facilitate peace and reconciliation—the reality of its implementation reveals significant shortcomings. The reliance on digital tools, particularly when not designed with active community participation, can inadvertently reinforce existing power dynamics and inequalities, and by centering on peace as the ultimate goal, these technologies risk entrenching the very imbalances they aim to resolve.

There is a pressing need for innovative solutions that prioritize community agency and address the unique challenges faced by these populations. We argue that PeaceTech is not the solution for post-conflict societies in crisis contexts. Instead, it provides “Resistance Technology” (ResTech) — a digital layer in the human migration ecosystem that is community-led and acts as an alternative resistance system to rebalance power dynamics and enable negotiating power for people on the move — as an alternative. Through ResTech, the focus is shifted from maintaining peace to fostering justice, exploring how this alternative model fills gaps in existing systems and creates new pathways for resilient, equitable recovery.

What is PeaceTech?

Peacetech represents a movement that harnesses technology to support peacekeeping and peacebuilding efforts. The term encompasses a range of definitions, reflecting the diverse interpretations of peace itself. This broad conceptualization allows for various types of technology to fall within its scope, making it essential to critically examine what types of technology constitute Peacetech.

Peacetech encompasses a range of digital tools and technologies designed to promote peace, stability, and social cohesion in conflict-affected areas. The ambiguous definitions of peace, peacebuilding, and peacekeeping lead to a lack of clarity surrounding the impact and value of PeaceTech, without a shared understanding of these terms, difficulty arises in identifying the impact and value of various PeaceTech systems.

PeaceTech is predominantly developed and deployed by communities in the Global North, while its operational focus often centers on the Global South. This geographical disparity raises critical questions regarding the inclusivity and relevance of PeaceTech initiatives. For instance, reliance on digital systems in refugee camps may exclude those without access to technology or digital literacy, thereby perpetuating inequalities. As these technologies are introduced to address the complexities of conflict, they must be scrutinized for their alignment with the needs and aspirations of the communities they aim to serve.

The NYU Center on International Cooperation’s Ecosystem Map provides a critical visualization of the current PeaceTech landscape by illustrating the complex network of actors, technologies, and interventions across different regions. The visualization reveals the structural inequalities inherent in current peacebuilding approaches, highlighting how technological resources and decision-making power are disproportionately concentrated in the Global North despite the inventions targeting communities in the Global South.

The phenomenon of dual-use technologies—those designed for both commercial and defense applications—poses additional complexity, as these tools are often repurposed for peaceful objectives, effectively transforming them into what can be termed triple-use technologies. This includes, for instance, the recent collaboration between Anthropic, Palantir, and AWS to sell AI solutions to defense clients.

This raises important questions about the ethical implications and impact of such technologies on impacted communities. To fully grasp the relevance and necessity of PeaceTech, it is crucial to engage with the broader conceptualization of peace and to examine whether it aligns with the needs and aspirations of those affected by conflict and violence.

Reconceptualizing peace beyond the absence of conflict

The present imagination of peace is multifaceted, with numerous definitions reflecting its complexity. The most pertinent definitions for analyzing PeaceTech are those of positive peace and negative peace. Negative peace refers to the absence of violence, a state often achieved through ceasefires or conflict cessation. In contrast, positive peace refers to the presence of justice, equity, and harmonious relationships, fostering an environment where conflicts are managed constructively.

At its core, peace is not a static virtue but rather an ongoing performance shaped by social, political, and technological forces. While peace is often conceived as an ideal end-state, it is a performance that unfolds within complex socio-political landscapes. A sufficient conceptualization of peace requires cognizance of its dynamic nature, contingent on various contexts and necessarily unique to the cultural and moral universe of communities it seeks to repair and often intertwined with systems of governance and control.

In many post-conflict or war-torn societies, manifestations of peace can mask deeper power structures, where the absence of violence may still coexist with oppression. In Myanmar, the military coup in 2021 led to a temporary cessation of violence, yet the Rohingya population continues to face severe oppression, including statelessness and systemic discrimination.

Even after the cessation of hostilities, power dynamics forged in war perpetuate systemic inequalities; conflict typically resolves with a newfangled social and political order. Communities are typically fragmented and face profound socio-political disarray, leading to challenges in survival, loss of cultural ties, and the struggle to redefine identities in new contexts. Given these realities, it is critical to question if peace (as purely the absence of conflict) can be a sufficient goal in creating repair for communities.

While digital technology is often touted as a solution, it has a marked propensity to carry over these inequalities and power imbalances, mirroring oppression in the digital realm. Double and triple-use technology also raises ethical questions on how we envision technological ‘solutions’ for a group of people and a lack of transparency for data subjects on how these reuses take place, and to what ends (purpose itself is often loosely defined and obfuscates individual agency over multiple uses).

Technologies like facial recognition and data tracking systems, originally developed for commercial or defense purposes, can be repurposed to monitor and control marginalized populations, effectively transforming digital tools into instruments of state surveillance and social control. This is seen in examples across data mining that is later used for law enforcement and criminal identification. For example, Palantir's involvement in immigration enforcement when US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) used Palantir technology to plan mass raids, leading to the separation of children from their parents and caregivers.

Conceptualizing Peacetech as post-conflict or conflict-repair technology may obscure the complexities of the environments in which these technologies are deployed. Seeking peace through technology without addressing the root causes of power imbalances may reinforce rather than resolve deep-seated injustices. In a world that is perpetually in a post-conflict state, technologies designed to achieve ‘peace’ risk entrenching these inequalities further.

Another significant pitfall of PeaceTech lies in its tendency to center conversations around ‘how’ peace can be achieved, often neglecting the critical question of ‘who’ the technology is being built for. Crucially, an overt focus on technical solutions can obscure the fundamental needs and aspirations of the communities affected by conflict. Creation of technologies while prioritzing methodologies over those directly impacted, tends to risk the creation of technologies that, at worst, do not align and are diametrically opposed to local contexts and needs and, at best, have failed to consider these needs or involve impacted communities at all.

A paternalistic difference exists between technology developed with and for multilaterals versus technology created by communities. Technologies designed by multilaterals often reflect external agendas and priorities, which can lead to a disconnect from the realities faced by local populations and not reflect lived experiences. In contrast, community-developed technologies are more likely to be attuned to the specific needs and dynamics of those they serve, fostering a sense of ownership and empowerment.

While some forms of PeaceTech demonstrate potential for fostering positive change, others raise concerns, particularly those that can be classified as triple-use technologies. These technologies are often designed for commercial and defense interests, then repurposed toward peacebuilding activities, critically blurring the lines between peace and conflict deployment.

Instead, post-conflict technology must be proactively need-based, developed only when there is a clear requirement, and should prioritize the repair and agency of the community for whom it is intended. Such an approach is essential to ensure that technological interventions are not merely imposed solutions but rather are responsive to the specific challenges faced by affected populations.

Ensuring that the voices and needs of impacted communities are at the forefront of technological interventions enhances the relevance of technological solutions and reinforces a sense of ownership among community members. PeaceTech, in its current form, proves insufficient in addressing the comprehensive needs of conflict repair technology.

Aspiring for justice: Reimagining technology’s potential in post-war contexts

The post-war imagination of technology requires a shift in its focus from merely maintaining peace to enabling greater justice. This would require equitable access to technology, ensuring that it is used to remedy, rather than deepen, societal inequalities, particularly in post-war contexts where recovery and rebuilding are crucial. Moreover, it is important for post-conflict methods to actively support the agency of people, and their ability to self-determine various aspects of long-term resilience and repair.

Metrics for success in evaluating post-conflict technology may be nuanced by giving greater weight to community satisfaction, uptake, and resilience building, rather than technological solutions alone, while adopting a risk-based approach that prioritizes potential harm prevention and carefully assesses unintended consequences before deployment. Traditional measures of success often emphasize the quantity of technology distributed or the speed of implementation, overlooking the essential question of whether or how well these interventions meet the needs of the communities they intend to serve.

Technology implementation and building processes around it in post-war contexts must first gauge whether digital technology is an answer to the situation at hand. Only then can solidarity-building through technology enhance networks that enable communities to resist and recover from systemic challenges.

Community satisfaction reflects the immediate impact of technological solutions and their long-term viability and relevance. Measuring resilience building emphasizes the capacity of communities to adapt and thrive in the face of ongoing challenges, reinforcing the notion that technology should facilitate agency rather than dependency.

This involves a focus on data justice, which advocates for fair data distribution and eliminating biases in data usage, particularly by involving communities in data governance. Ideally, technology must address historical injustices, actively work against perpetuating existing disparities, and promote inclusion, making it essential for rebuilding trust and fostering long-term equity.

The decolonization of technology is increasingly recognized as a vital framework for justice in post-war and post-oppression contexts, particularly relevant as impacted communities strive to rebuild their lives while reclaiming agency over the tools that shape their futures. The decolonization of technology in post-war contexts must emphasize community governance, data justice, and data solidarity to foster resilience and agency. It calls for community involvement in data governance, ensuring that all voices are heard and represented, which is vital for rebuilding trust in post-war societies.

Enabling solidarity among communities can enhance resilience, as technology can facilitate networks of support and collaboration, which is essential for recovery in post-war contexts. A notable example is the use of WhatsApp groups in various conflict-affected regions, such as Syria and Venezuela. These groups, initiated by local communities, facilitate communication among community members, allowing them to coordinate aid distribution, share information about safety, and provide emotional support during crises.

By centering community-led initiatives, post-colonial technology can contribute to the resilience of impacted communities, ultimately leading to justice in post-war societies. The Refugee Buddy Project exemplifies community-led resilience by connecting refugees with local volunteers, facilitating support networks, and empowering displaced individuals through direct, compassionate assistance.

This shift in focus, from a narrow conception of peace to a more holistic understanding of justice, can help shape technology in a way that aids impacted communities, fosters social cohesion, and lays the foundation for resilience and recovery in the aftermath of conflict.

Rethinking migration tech: A ResTech approach

In conflict-ridden contexts, the concept of Resistance Technology, or ResTech, emerges as a vital digital layer in the migration sphere. ResTech is fundamentally community-led and aimed at bridging critical gaps in information, welfare, and development. In conflict and crisis contexts, where traditional systems may fail to serve vulnerable populations, ResTech not only acts as a resistance mechanism and rebalances power dynamics in migration data infrastructures.

The framework for ResTech is anchored in four fundamental principles: resistance, resilience, responsiveness, and responsibility.

  • Responsibility emphasizes the need for technology that upholds human dignity through principles of privacy, transparency, and trust while actively prioritizing the mitigation of digitally mediated harms. It also necessitates direct community involvement beyond mere user participation, ensuring that individuals retain autonomy over their data and digital presence, fostering data sovereignty.
  • Resilient technology adopts a dual-modality, facilitating sustained self-determination across social, cultural, economic, and political dimensions while enabling communities to navigate new environments and identities. This technology must be agile, modular, and interoperable, allowing for adaptable solutions that swiftly respond to evolving needs.
  • Responsiveness refers to technology that is adaptable and accessible, tailored to the unique socio-cultural contexts and immediate needs encountered during migration, and centered around community interests and aspirations by providing viable alternatives to existing infrastructure.
  • Resistance focuses on countering power asymmetries that result in exclusion, discrimination, and abuse by highlighting and addressing structural and direct injustices, reducing risks and harms along migratory routes, and fostering collective solidarity and preserving socio-cultural cohesion.

Technologies that embody responsibility and resistance must be fundamentally designed to prioritize community-driven principles, ensuring that the needs and voices of impacted communities are at the forefront of their development. They aim to counteract systemic injustices and empower users through data sovereignty. In contrast, technologies characterized by resilience and responsiveness shift their focus towards enhancing community-centric principles and supporting bottom-up initiatives. This approach recognizes that the design and implementation of technology must not only address immediate challenges but also aid communities in shaping their own narratives and futures.

Together, these principles create a framework for ResTech that fosters solidarity and contributes to a more equitable digital landscape in the context of migration. This shift towards community-centric technology is essential for rebuilding trust and ensuring that the benefits of digital systems are equitably distributed, thereby enhancing the resilience of communities navigating the complexities of post-war recovery. Aligning technological development with community needs and aspirations, we can create systems that not only resist oppression but also promote justice and equity.

Conclusion

In the evolving landscape of post-conflict recovery, technology can be a double-edged sword, and it requires a collective consciousness to balance the pursuit of peace with the need to address underlying power dynamics and systemic inequalities. While PeaceTech may be well-intentioned, it often falls short in addressing the intricate realities faced by affected communities. The reliance on digital tools, particularly when not required or not designed with active community participation, risks reinforcing existing power dynamics and inequalities. The focus on how peace can be achieved frequently overshadows the crucial question of who benefits from these technologies.

This top-down approach, dominated by multilateral and private entities, risks entrenching existing power dynamics rather than dismantling them. In contrast, Resistance Technology (ResTech) emerges from a bottom-up framework, prioritizing community-led initiatives that directly address the unique challenges those impacted by conflict face. This grassroots approach not only fosters agency but also ensures that technological solutions are tailored to local needs

By shifting the emphasis from mere peacekeeping to fostering resilience and addressing systemic inequalities, technology can be harnessed as a catalyst for meaningful social transformation where required. This transition ensures that technological interventions become forces for inclusion and self-determination, ultimately paving the way for sustainable recovery in post-conflict contexts.

Authors

Poorvi Yerrapureddy
Poorvi Yerrapureddy works as a Research Analyst at Aapti Institute. She aims to understand how inclusive participation can enrich the quality of technology, fostering a sense of ownership and accessibility among communities. Poorvi focuses on enhancing governance and public systems through effective...
Amrita Nanda
Amrita Nanda is a former senior manager at Aapti Institute. She looks closely at how communities and individuals negotiate with digital ecosystems, the power dynamics entrenched across stakeholders, as well as instantiations of data stewardship models that serve to rebalance power, and what kinds of...

Related

Can Tech Promote Social Cohesion?

Topics