|
Most approaches to the study of internal conflict and state
collapse fall into four general categories.
First, there is a broad array of academic studies ranging
from works on nationalism to the theory and practice of
conflict resolution. In addition, there have been many
scholarly works on area-specific case studies and global
trends. Examples include the seminal work of Donald Rothchild
and I. William Zartman on Africa and the pathbreaking work
of Ted Robert Gurr and Barbara Harff on minorities.
Surveys and anthologies have covered a wide scope of issues
dealing with political chaos, such as the excellent anthology
edited by Chester A. Crocker and Fen Osler Hampson with
Pamela Aall. An interesting survey of the range of scholarly
research and analysis that has been undertaken in the field
over the last twelve years was summarized by the United
States Institute of Peace, the leading research institute
devoted to issues of post-Cold War conflict,
in Anne-Marie Smith's Advances in Understanding International
Peacemaking.
Second, a variety of government-sponsored work has used
primarily intelligence sources to develop operational
guidelines for government analysts and military commanders.
An example is the Department of Defense Master
Instability Indicators List/Matrix, which predicts the
threat of low-intensity conflict through the use of
547 indictors. A larger effort that included a number of
leading academic researchers is The State Failure Task
Force, initiated by Vice President Al Gore, which was
produced under contract for the CIA.
Using exclusively quantitative methods to analyze 113 cases over
a forty year period, this study found two key indicators
of state collapse: high infant mortality and low trade openness.
A worldwide case-by-case survey by the CIA of global
humanitarian emergencies in 1996 produced an assessment of
countries at risk at a fixed point in time, but provided
no universal indicators.
A third category of work, conducted by think tanks and
research institutes, is geared to the objectives of funding
agencies. For example, Creative Associates produced a volume
entitled, "Preventing and Mitigating Violent Conflict: A Guide
for Practitioners" for The Greater Horn of Africa
Initiative, sponsored by the Department of State and
the US Agency for International Development. It discusses a
variety of concepts and offers a useful checklist of the
policy tools for conflict prevention and mitigation, such
as the use of special envoys or professionalizing the media,
but no general indicators for assessing states at risk.
Another study produced by Defense Forecasts International
(DFI) for the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense,
Peacekeeping and Humanitarian Affairs, examined the
requisites of effective peace operations. Based on comparative
case studies of fourteen peace operations, interviews and
statistical methodologies, the project provided general
operational recommendations, such as minimizing the
role of spoilers, adopting a holistic approach and
getting political support from stakeholders to ensure
the success of peacekeeping missions.
Finally, there are high profile commissions and studies
that aim to influence elites and strengthen public
awareness. The Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict,
a three-year project comprising a blue ribbon international
panel, was designed to be partly educational and partly
motivational. It resulted in a series of studies and
initiatives to raise the level of commitment and
understanding of the problem of "deadly conflict" by
leaders and interested publics. The final report endorsed
the establishment of a UN rapid reaction force and an
expansion of the membership of the Security Council,
but offered no methodologies or analytical tools for early
warning or policy assessment.
Each of these approaches has enriched our understanding of
the phenomenon of international conflict and the range
of possible international responses. But none have created
a generic model that decision-makers, international organizations
and humanitarian organizations may use to anticipate and
assess the course of such conflicts. Existing works tend
to be too general, lack policy-relevance, verify the obvious
or are of limited practical utility. Studies that rely
exclusively on quantitative techniques fail to capture
key variables that are not subject to statistical verification.
They often oversimplify complex situations, lack the
texture of "ground truth" in countries at risk, and do
not provide an overall analytical framework.
|
