Comparative analyses have confirmed the positive impact of local contributions to state building in a post-conflict context. Despite this approval of success, international state building initiatives still insufficiently integrate local approaches. The article argues that the cooperation between internal and external actors is often hampered by diverging perceptions of state-building as well as by dichotomist portrayals of each other. Taking the DR Congo as a case study, the proposed article seeks to add to the still relatively scarce literature on the topic. Drawing on empirical data gathered in spring 2011 in the eastern district of Ituri, it proposes to look at how differences in internal and external actors’ perceptions have shaped the interaction between them and the legitimacy of their programs. In a first part, the article looks at their different approaches to state-building. It explores how an insufficient international understanding of the meanings that internal actors’ associate with the reconstruction of the state can hamper the legitimacy of the institutions promoted. The second part of the article assesses how internal and external actors engaged in state building portray themselves as well as each other. It argues that these perceptions are dichotomist in character, creating an “us” and “them”, thereby hampering constructive cooperation. The article defines cooperation as partnerships which do not deny inherent power asymmetries, but in which differences between the various actors are seen as potential source of success, rather than an obstacle to cooperation. Thus, in its third part, it shows that both, the international community as well as internal actors, have had their distinct comparative advantages in the calming of the district since the outbreak of violence. However, if these advantages are not capitalized on, the entanglement in rivalries risks dominating over the goal that both set of actors proclaim to pursue: peace.
