The lack of clarity in the new "security and development" approach created a potential for consensus and an opportunity for cooperation among stakeholders in the security and development fields. However, the content of that "consensus" is unsubstantial and the meaning of the term constantly shifting. Different ways to appropriate or to resist the expression "security and development" reflect existing conflicts of interests. By mapping out the consensus and its limits, this paper highlights conflicting visions and interpretations on what international interventions in conflict zones can and should be.