THE CAUSES OF ARMED CONFLICT The majority of research on the causes of armed conflict has focused on interstate conflict

even though their number has declined dramatically since the end of World War II. During this period intra-state conflicts have become increasingly common and today outnumber interstate wars by a large margin. The literature on the causes of intra-state conflict has made significant advances since the end of the Cold-War. There are very few necessary causes of armed conflict and many sufficient conditions. Accordingly it ma!es sense to distinguish between underlying and pro"imate causes of armed conflict.

#nderlying causes of armed conflict are the fundamental lines of $political

economic or national cleavage % found at the level of the group rather than the individual.$& They relate to the characteristics of the political economic and social structure of the state or the international system. #nderlying causes of armed conflict e"plain why some states or regions are more susceptible to armed conflict than others. They are sometimes referred to as $permissive causes$ or $bac!ground causes$.

'ro"imate causes of armed conflict are also called conflict triggers. Triggers are

events and actions that e"plain why an armed conflict erupts at a particular time. While underling causes tend to develop over long periods of time triggers are characteri(ed by their short-term impact - they cause changes in the conflict situation in a single act. In general the body of research on e"plaining why wars occur can be divided into three categories) theories that locate the causes of armed conflict at the level of the system the state and the individual. *

+ystem) war occurs as a result of events and conditions that are related to the +tate,society) the causes of war can be found in the structure of a state-s political Individual) armed conflict is the result of individual behavior and processes.

international system.

economic and,or social system.

#nderlying causes of armed conflict are normally associated with system and state characteristics while triggers are more often attributed to the behavior of individuals. .owever

fast and significant changes in the international system such as changes in commodity prices or at the state level such as a drought may constitute triggers as well.

SYSTEMIC LEVEL CAUSES OF CONFLICT Anarchy and Power /eo-realism a dominant international relations theory in the second half of the *0th century underscores the importance of self-help by states and the conse1uent drive to maintain or increase power and security in a system devoid of laws or other instruments capable of constraining the actions of other states. The anarchic nature of the system compels states to maintain or increase their power because they fear domination by others. +tates build up their armies and engage in alliances in order to deter an attac! by others. This defensive posture however can be interpreted as a threat by other states leading to compensatory measures and an ensuing arms race. This is the origin of what has been characteri(ed as the $security dilemma$. The relationship between the distribution of power and the inclination of states to go to war has given rise to two theories within the neo-realist paradigm) &. According to the balance-of power theory war is most li!ely where large differences in power e"ist. +tates form alliances and build up armies to minimi(e power disparities especially with regard to those states that threaten to achieve a hegemonic position. Wars occur either because a more powerful state prevents the formation of a countering alliance or because the deterrence provided by such an alliance fails. *. 'ower-transition theory in contrast maintains that war is most li!ely when states possess e1ual capacities.2 .egemony by one state is a normal condition in the international system. In order to protect and advance their interests hegemonic states establish a set of political and economic institutions and norms which enhance the stability of the international system. Due to growth differentials among states and eventual overe"tension of the hegemonic state challengers will rise over time and threaten the position of the leader. War is most li!ely when a challenger has developed enough power to overcome the hegemonic state. Resource Scarc !y and Po"u#a! on $row!h

3apid population growth and urbani(ation coupled with resource scarcity i.e. the lac! of food or wood resource degradation i.e. deforestation or desertification and the territorial concentration of resources i.e. goods that are only available at certain locations 4oil grain fields5 lead to competition over those very resources. This systemic problem generates famines social and economic problems and political instability. 6As a result there can be armed conflicts over scarce resources i.e. one state or sub-national group attac!s another to gain access to economic resources. The conflicts in +ierra 7eone and 7iberia have both been lin!ed to the control and trade of resources. 7iberian armed factions fought to gain hegemony over trade in diamonds timber rubber and coffee. +ierra 7eone has suffered the same problem compounded by the fact that it possesses much larger and richer deposits of diamonds. Diamonds and other resources traded in a free mar!et system have provided income for states and rebels ali!e. 7iberia has supported the 3evolutionary #nited 8ront in +ierra 7eone with weapons in e"change for diamonds which were then sold on the international mar!et. %ea"ons "ro# &era! on and !echno#o'y nno(a! ons) 3esearch on weapons proliferation technological innovation and the li!elihood of war is not conclusive. .owever the 9lobal War on Terrorism the invasion of Ira1 as well as the potential nuclear capabilities of Iran and /orth :orea indicate that weapons proliferation of the nuclear chemical and biological type may increase the chances for armed conflict. The argument made by the #.+. before the #nited /ations +ecurity Council regarding the necessity for armed intervention in Ira1 e"plicitly referred to the lin! between terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. The possibility of +addam .ussein passing on nuclear material and technology to al ;aeda according to the argument warranted a pre-emptive military campaign.

SOCIETY AND STATE LEVEL CAUSES OF ARMED CONFLICT #nderlying causes of armed conflict at the state or societal level can be divided into four categories) &. +tructural factors *. <conomic,social factors

2. 'olitical factors 6. Cultural factors S!ruc!ura# Fac!ors Wea! failed or failing states lac! a central authority that is able to control its territory. +uch states are often the result of the dismantling of colonial empires. =any of these states lac! sensible borders inherited inade1uate political institutions and lac! legitimacy. +ome states become wea! and subse1uently fail to assume their role in protecting their territorial integrity and monopoly on the use of force. The absence of strong state structures leaves space for competing political and economic interests including warlords and transnational criminal networ!s. Without the possibility of state intervention regional leaders may establish de facto control over parts of a state. Criminal enterprises drugs and arms trade thrive. Wea! states are of rising concern because terrorists may operate train recruit and plan attac!s there without interference. +omalia is portrayed as being the failed state. The &6th attempt in &> years to create a +omali government is on the verge of falling apart. The country remains in turmoil without a wor!able government and no rule of law. The transitional federal government bro!ered by :enya at the beginning of *00> consists of +omali warlords who are preparing for a violent showdown with other members of the cabinet. The country has already become a transitory for arms trade and a recruiting ground for mercenaries. 3egional e"perts fear that the e"isting instability and power vacuum provide an ideal space for Islamic terrorists to operate. <thnic geography the way ethnic groups are distributed within or across borders has an impact on the li!elihood of conflict and on the issues that the conflict is about.

<thnically homogenous states are less prone to war than multi-ethnic societies. =ulti-ethnic societies where ethnic groups live in separate regions of the state are

.owever the former are not immune to armed conflict as +omalia has shown.

li!ely to e"perience armed conflicts over issues of secession. The conflict in +ri 7an!a between the government and the 7iberation Tigers of Tamil <elam 47TT<5 is about the secession and independence of the Tamil region in the /ortheast of the island.

In states where ethnic groups are intermingled conflicts are more li!ely to be about

values and identities. ?ecause each group will see! to establish control over contiguous territory attac!s on civilians ethnic cleansing and genocide are more li!ely as well. This was the case in former @ugoslavia.

In regions where decoloni(ation has led to artificial borders that ignore and divide

ethnic communities an armed conflict involving ethnic groups in one country may spread across borders. Secur !y D #e**a) The security dilemma suffered by states at the international level can also be e"perienced by sub-national groups in cases where the state is wea! or failed or where empires brea! up. +ub-national groups ta!e independent security measures because the state is no longer able to provide security or may even be the source of insecurity. Ather groups may see a threat in this defensive posture and ta!e similar measures to bolster their security leading to a spiral that can 1uic!ly lead to armed conflict. Trans ! ona# S!a!es) +tates that undergo transitions towards democracy and free mar!et economies are found to be especially vulnerable to conflict.

Transitions from planned to mar!et economies are almost always accompanied by

some economic shoc! leaving some people worse off than before. International financial institutions that support economic transitions often demand cuts in state assisted health care welfare and subsidies for certain industries. As a result the safety net for those who are unemployed or become unemployed disappears which adds to the discontent about the economic situation. >

Democrati(ation brings new social groups with sometimes very different interests

into the political process which causes a shift in the power distribution among sub-national groups. In multi-ethnic societies where one ethnic group has dominated others the newly found power may lead the formerly oppressed to see! revenge. In cases of parallel economic turmoil elites competing for popular support may blame other ethnic groups for the problems a phenomenon !nown as $scapegoating.$ Po# ! ca# &ac!ors

Discriminatory political institutions. In many states that e"perience internal armed conflict the causes can be traced bac! to discriminatory access to the political institutions of the government where certain groups of people are inade1uately represented or even prevented from participating. This may include inade1uate representation in the)

8ederal regional and local administration Cabinet of the government Court system =ilitary 'olice

?ecause democratic regimes distribute access to political institutions e1ually among citi(ens some people argue that they are less li!ely to engage in armed conflicts with each other. This has been termed the -democratic peace- theory. There are three arguments that may e"plain this phenomenon)B &. The -democratic culture and norms- argument posits that democratic societies are inherently adverse to armed conflict and the casualties of war. The understanding that conflicts may be resolved through democratic mechanisms leads to a similar perception of conflict resolution among states. 'eace would prevail or war would be obsolete in a system comprised of democratic states only because those states would reject war as a means to resolve conflict. *. The Cinstitutional constraint- argument focuses on the system of chec!s and balances that prevent the military and political leadership from ta!ing unilateral military action that will burden citi(ens. 2. The Csignaling- argument is based on the notion of transparency i.e. free press and open political competition. The model stipulates that the political leadership will not engage in hostile actions unless it has domestic bac!ing. The adversary !nows this and will avoid confrontation in cases where domestic bac!ing is high in the rival state.D <mpirical analysis supports the democratic peace theory democracies have been nearly immune from war among themselves. .owever democracies go to war with non-democratic states as often as other regimes and the topic is currently hotly debate - at least one study suggests that democracies are generally more peaceful than authoritarian regimes not just in their relationships with other democracies. Its findings concluded) E

&. The more authoritarian a regime the greater is the probability of provo!ing a crisis through the use of violence. *. There is a higher fre1uency of violent response by military regimes than by democratic regimes. 2. /on-violent military responses were most often employed by democratic regimes. 6. 9enerally the more authoritarian a regime the more li!ely its response to a crisis will be violent. The three arguments of democratic peace presented above are not by themselves able to identify the causes of armed conflict. .owever they illustrate that a certain combination of institutions transparency of the political process and accountability of the leadership are related to peace and the prevention of conflict. As a result there has been a push for democratic transitions in non-democratic states. E+c#us onary na! ona# deo#o' es are based on an ethnic notion of citi(enship which denies ethnic minorities the rights and duties enjoyed by citi(ens. F Civic nationalism in contrast e"tends citi(enship to all individuals who live on the state territory and is based on institutions rather than ethnicity. Soc o,econo* c causes o& ar*ed con&# c! Une*"#oy*en! and h 'h n&#a! on contribute to societal tensions and frustration among the population especially if some groups suffer more from these economic problems than others. D scr * na!ory econo* c sys!e*s . #ne1ual economic opportunities and access to resources leave people feeling disenfranchised and lead them to 1uestion the legitimacy of the structures and policies in place. 8rustration and resentment are the first signs in a process that ultimately leaves people in fear for their livelihoods. =any researchers have cited development and moderni(ation as an underlying cause of armed conflict.&0<conomic development and industriali(ation result in profound changes that undermine traditional social systems and political institutions. && #rbani(ation and migration are just two of the driving forces which also include higher education levels and a media presence.

As a result individuals and groups are more aware of their position in society and they raise their political and economic e"pectations. According to a respected analyst) $The result is instability and disorder. The primary problem . . . is the lag in the development of political institutions behind social and economic change$. &* Cu#!ura# d scr * na! on- d && cu#! 'rou" h s!or es Cu#!ura# d scr * na! on focuses on the limitation and in some cases prohibition of the use and teaching of minority languages and puts significant constraints on religious freedom. In its e"treme form cultural discrimination leads to forced assimilation of minority groups and,or the relocation of large ethnic groups into minority areas. +ome researchers ma!e the argument that $ancient hatreds$ and grievances for crimes committed in the past together with the glorification of heroes are underlying causes of armed conflict. &2

INDIVIDUAL LEVEL CAUSES OF CONFLICT There is a long tradition of attributing the occurrence or absence of war to the very nature of human beings. There are those who thin! that human nature tends towards aggression and those who thin! that humans are sociable and see! cooperative relationships. In both cases human nature is a constant characteristic and therefore cannot e"plain variations of war and peace. .ad Leadersh " ?ad leaders are concerned with their personal status and well being rather than the well being of the people they represent. They see! to)

+trengthen their personal status vis-G-vis other leadersH Influence and decide how the political economic social and religious affairs of a <nrich themselves through criminal assaults on the state including corruption.

state should be runH

The role that leaders play in decisions about war and peace has not received sufficient attention in the literature on conflict.&6 In the presence of permissive causes of armed conflict the

decisions and actions of domestic elites often determine whether a political dispute is resolved peacefully or results in armed conflict. The influence of leaders is not limited to domestic leadership. $?ad neighbors $ as one conflict researcher calls bad foreign leaders ta!e deliberate actions to incite conflict in a neighboring country for their own political economic or ideological purpose. This includes direct military intervention in support of one or the other faction within a state.&> M s n!er"re!a! on War is often the result of misperceptions because individuals are limited in their cognitive capacity to process information. 'erceptions are influenced by the) &B

Conflict environment 'rior beliefs and e"periences Abjective evidence

The most important misperceptions occur when assessing the capabilities and intentions of adversaries and third parties. Individuals tend to e"aggerate the hostile intentions and engage in actions that result in the security dilemma. The reasons for this misperception are) &. 7ac! of understanding of the adversary-s values and interests *. =isperception of the situation 2. Wrong e"pectations about the future 6. Domestic bureaucratic constraints&D #nited +tates +ecretary of +tate Colin 'owell addressed the #nited /ations on 8ebruary > *002 presenting evidence of Ira1-s secret weapons program and lin!s to terrorist organi(ations including Al ;aeda. In the terrorist training camp pictured on the left #.+. intelligence reported to have found a production site for chemical weapons. The information provided by the #.+. to the #/ +ecurity Council has since come under scrutiny and the #.+. may have overestimated the e"tent of both Ira1-s weapons program and the regime-s ties to terrorism. In contrast the capabilities and resolve of an adversary are most often underestimated. As a result a state or group may initiate armed conflict in the belief of being the stronger party. The hopes of achieving a 1uic! victory dwindle when the other party-s resolve and capabilities

turn out to be much greater than anticipated. An the other hand a party may belief to be in the wea!er position and decide to build up its army initiating an arms race. &E CONFLICT CYCLE Conflict is most often described as a cyclical progression that involves various stages of escalation and de-escalation. The following list identifies five stages of conflict escalation and conflict de-escalation) &F &. Dura/#e "eace) 'eace at this stage involves cooperation and trust within and between nations and a high degree of social justice. Cooperation on a wide range of issues is ta!ing place and non-violent ways for preventing managing and resolving disputes are institutionali(ed. Due to social political and economic integration and the high level of trust there is no perceived conflict and the outbrea! of violence is highly unli!ely. *. S!a/#e "eace) The level of communication and cooperation within and among nations is still high and conflicts are resolved in a non-violent manner. .owever there are areas of latent conflict where people perceive incompatibilities but do not act in a violent way outside the institutionali(ed mechanisms for preventing managing and resolving conflicts. 2. Uns!a/#e "eace) 3ising levels of suspicion between parties characteri(e unstable peace. 'reviously latent conflicts emerge and result in isolated and low-level violence. 6. Cr s s) At this stage hostility and violence escalate in a volatile environment. Communication and cooperation brea!s down or is strained. Initially the hostility may only involve a limited number of parties and issues but in an attempt to raise the sta!es or project power other parties and constituencies are mobili(ed and issues are superimposed or added. The stage is also characteri(ed by increased polari(ation of the parties which forces previously neutral actors to ta!e sides. >. %ar) As polari(ation continues the parties enter the state of armed conflict and violence escalates. =ilitaries and armed groups occupy center stage and the parties become entrapped in a course of action that involves the continuation and intensification of the conflict. 8ear of loosing face influence or status unwillingness to admit mista!es and a desire to e"act revenge or recoup losses contribute to continued violence despite heavy losses.

Esca#a! on and de,esca#a! on o& con&# c! Conflict escalation involves an increase in the severity of coercive inducements used an increase in participation and often an increase in the scope of issues. <scalation may occur progressively with the parties being unaware of the implications of their actions or as a result of calculated steps ta!en by the parties to increase violence e"tend participation and broaden the issues.*0 'rogression from one stage of the conflict to the ne"t is influenced many factors including)

/umber and intensity of incompatibilities 'arties- awareness of their differences attitudes and perceptions toward each other Amount of direct interaction and communication between the parties 7evel of mobili(ation and organi(ation behind the parties- positions Cohesion between the leadership and its constituencies #se and degree of violence used by the parties

Iden! !y0 Another !ey element in the escalation of conflict is the formation of identities. 'erceived threats encourage people to see! their security in increasingly narrow identity groups.*& 7eadership whose legitimacy is threatened can manipulate the identity of its population and mobili(e it along ethic and,or religious lines for collective action. Po#ar 1a! on0 'olari(ation can be described as the intensified separation and segregation of conflicting groups. 'olari(ation of peaceful relations is therefore often seen as the major factor leading to the escalation of conflict. As parties begin to attribute their grievances to the other side they often reduce the number of non-conflicting relations and interactions that they have with the other party. As tensions rise and inter-group relations are seen as more antagonistic members are less constrained by crosscutting ties allowing for the employment of ever more severe means of violence. De,esca#a! on o& con&# c!0 De-escalation of conflict normally initiated through a peace process or conflict prevention must therefore not only deal with the underlying issues that caused the conflict but

also with the formation of negative group identities polari(ed communities and weapons availability related to the dynamic of the conflict cycle. =easures to deconstruct narrow group identities in favor of a national identity as well as measures to facilitate group interaction and rapprochement are characteristics of the de-escalation phase of conflict.

SUMMARY In this lesson we loo!ed at the causes of armed conflict and distinguished between permissive causes and triggering causes of conflict. Aur analysis identified causes at the systemic state and individual level. We specifically pointed out the effect of resource degradation state failure democratic governance and economic integration. We concluded that misperceptions and bad leadership contribute to the causes of armed conflict at the individual level. 8inally the lesson illustrated the various stages of the conflict cycle from stable peace to crisis to war and bac! and e"plained the characteristics of each phase. We then outlined the critical roles that identity and polari(ation play in the escalation as well as de-escalation of conflicts.