INTERNATIONAL POLICY ANALYSIS Understanding»Local Ownership« in Peacebuilding Operations in Afghanistan MARIKA THEROS* DECEMBER 2012  In Afghanistan, political authority is fragmented across an array of external and in­ternal actors, each with their own interests and agendas. It is increasingly difficult to locate where ownership, power, and accountability lie. The lack of clarity in roles and responsibilities allows international and domestic elites to shift responsibility and escape accountability in the event of negative outcomes.  Tensions between external and local interests have deepened over time and mu­tual suspicions increasingly characterize relations between and among the different actors populating the post-2001 space. While there is a broad, official consensus among international and domestic actors on the overall goals of the intervention, there are considerable differences over what a logical end-state that can assure sus­tainable peace looks like and how it will be achieved.  In a country where decades of war destroyed social trust and capital, the inter­national community’s approach towards»local« ownership appears paradoxical: on the one hand, it implanted into the new government and power elite a narrow group of unpopular political and military figures without a local consensus, while at the same time, attempting to create a more inclusive political landscape.  Ordinary Afghan citizens have become profoundly alienated from the impunity that characterizes the post-2001 era and describe the prevailing order as a»co-produc­tion« between external and domestic forces. External players are seen as part and parcel of the domestic political landscape, able to shape internal affairs and change local dynamics of power through their vast resources, questionable partnerships with key internal actors, and unaccountable aid practices. * With the research support and assistance of Dr. Saeed Niazi, the founder and executive director of the Civil Society Devel­opment Centre(CSDC) in Afghanistan.