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 makes sense to distinguish between underlying and proximate causes of armed conflict.

Underlying 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."1 They relate to the characteristics of the political, economic and social structure of the state or the international system. Underlying causes of armed conflict explain why some states or regions are more susceptible to armed conflict than others. They are sometimes referred to as "permissive causes" or "background causes".

Proximate causes of armed conflict are also called conflict triggers. Triggers are events and actions that explain why an armed conflict erupts at a particular time. While underling causes tend to develop over long periods of time, triggers are characterized by their short-term impact - they cause changes in the conflict situation in a single act. In general, the body of research on explaining 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. 2

System: war occurs as a result of events and conditions that are related to the international system. State/society: the causes of war can be found in the structure of a state's political, economic, and/or social system. Individual: armed conflict is the result of individual behavior and processes. Underlying causes of armed conflict are normally associated with system and state characteristics, while triggers are more often attributed to the behavior of individuals. However, 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 Neo-realism, a dominant international relations theory in the second half of the 20th century, underscores the importance of self-help by states and the consequent 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. States build up their armies and engage in alliances in order to deter an attack 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 characterized 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: 1. According to the balance-of power theory, war is most likely where large differences in power exist. States form alliances and build up armies to minimize 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.

2.

Power-transition theory, in contrast, maintains that war is most likely when states possess equal capacities.3 Hegemony 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 overextension of the hegemonic state, challengers will rise over time and threaten the position of the leader. War is most likely, when a challenger has developed enough power to overcome the hegemonic state.

Resource Scarcity and Population Growth Rapid population growth and urbanization, coupled with resource scarcity, i.e. the lack 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 (oil, grain fields) lead to competition over those very resources. This systemic problem generates famines, social and economic problems, and political instability.4As a result, there can be armed conflicts over scarce resources, i.e., one state or sub-national group attacks another to gain access to economic resources. The conflicts in Sierra Leone and Liberia have both been linked to the control and trade of resources. Liberian armed factions fought to gain hegemony over trade in diamonds, timber, rubber and coffee. Sierra Leone 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 market system have provided income for states and rebels alike. Liberia has supported the Revolutionary United Front in Sierra Leone with weapons in exchange for diamonds, which were then sold on the international market. Weapons proliferation and technology innovations. Research on weapons proliferation, technological innovation and the likelihood of war is not conclusive. However, the Global War on Terrorism, the invasion of Iraq as well as the potential nuclear capabilities of Iran and North Korea indicate that weapons proliferation of the nuclear, chemical and biological type may increase the chances for armed conflict. The argument made by the U.S. before the United Nations Security Council regarding the necessity for armed intervention in Iraq explicitly referred to the link between terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. The possibility of Saddam Hussein passing on nuclear material and technology to al Qaeda, according to the argument, warranted a pre-emptive military campaign.

Society and State Level Causes of Armed Conflict

Underlying causes of armed conflict at the state or societal level can be divided into four categories: 1. 2. 3. 4. Structural factors Economic/social factors Political factors Cultural factors

Structural Factors Weak, failed or failing states lack a central authority that is able to control its territory. Such states are often the result of the dismantling of colonial empires. Many of these states lack sensible borders, inherited inadequate political institutions and lack legitimacy. Some states become weak and subsequently 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 networks. 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. Weak states are of rising concern because terrorists may operate, train, recruit and plan attacks there without interference. Somalia is portrayed as being the failed state. The 14th attempt in 15 years to create a Somali government is on the verge of falling apart. The country remains in turmoil without a workable government and no rule of law. The transitional federal government brokered by Kenya at the beginning of 2005 consists of Somali 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. Regional experts fear that the existing instability and power vacuum provide an ideal space for Islamic terrorists to operate. Somalia is portrayed as being the failed state. The 14th attempt in 15 years to create a Somali government is on the verge of falling apart. The country remains in turmoil without a workable government and no rule of law. The transitional federal government brokered by Kenya at the beginning of 2005 consists of Somali 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. Regional experts fear that the existing instability and power vacuum provide an ideal space for Islamic terrorists to operate.

Ethnic geography, the way ethnic groups are distributed within or across borders, has an impact on the likelihood of conflict and on the issues that the conflict is about.

Ethnically homogenous states are less prone to war than multi-ethnic societies. However, the former are not immune to armed conflict, as Somalia has shown. Multi-ethnic societies, where ethnic groups live in separate regions of the state are likely to experience armed conflicts over issues of secession. The conflict in Sri Lanka between the government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) is about the secession and independence of the Tamil region in the Northeast of the island.

In states where ethnic groups are intermingled, conflicts are more likely to be about values and identities. Because each group will seek to establish control over contiguous territory, attacks on civilians, ethnic cleansing and genocide are more likely as well. This was the case in former Yugoslavia.

In regions where decolonization has led to artificial borders that ignore and divide ethnic communities, an armed conflict involving ethnic groups in one country may spread across borders. Security Dilemma. The security dilemma suffered by states at the international level can also be experienced by sub-national groups in cases where the state is weak or failed, or where empires break up. Sub-national groups take independent security measures because the state is no longer able to provide security or may even be the source of insecurity. Other groups may see a threat in this defensive posture and take similar measures to bolster their security, leading to a spiral that can quickly lead to armed conflict. Transitional States. States that undergo transitions towards democracy and free market economies are found to be especially vulnerable to conflict.

Transitions from planned to market economies, are almost always accompanied by some economic shock, 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. 5

Democratization brings new social groups with sometimes very different interests into the political process, which causes a shift in the power distribution among subnational groups. In multi-ethnic societies where one ethnic group has dominated others, the newly found power may lead the formerly oppressed to seek revenge. In cases of parallel economic turmoil, elites competing for popular support may blame other ethnic groups for the problems, a phenomenon known as "scapegoating." Political factors Discriminatory political institutions. In many states that experience internal armed conflict, the causes can be traced back to discriminatory access to the political institutions of the government where certain groups of people are inadequately represented or even prevented from participating. This may include inadequate representation in the:

Federal, regional and local administration Cabinet of the government Court system Military Police

Because democratic regimes distribute access to political institutions equally among citizens, some people argue that they are less likely to engage in armed conflicts with each other. This has been termed the 'democratic peace' theory. There are three arguments that may explain this phenomenon:6 1. 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. Peace 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.

2. The `institutional constraint' argument focuses on the system of checks and balances that prevent the military and political leadership from taking unilateral military action that will burden citizens.

3.

The `signaling' 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 backing. The adversary knows this and will avoid confrontation in cases where domestic backing is high in the rival state.7 Empirical analysis supports the democratic peace theory, democracies have been nearly immune from war among themselves. However, 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: 8 1. The more authoritarian a regime the greater is the probability of provoking a crisis through the use of violence. 2. There is a higher frequency of violent response by military regimes than by democratic regimes. 3. Non-violent military responses were most often employed by democratic regimes. 4. Generally, the more authoritarian a regime the more likely 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. However, 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 nondemocratic states. Exclusionary national ideologies are based on an ethnic notion of citizenship, which denies ethnic minorities the rights and duties enjoyed by citizens.9 Civic nationalism in contrast extends citizenship to all individuals who live on the state territory and is based on institutions rather than ethnicity. Socio-economic causes of armed conflict Unemployment and high inflation contribute to societal tensions and frustration among the population, especially if some groups suffer more from these economic problems than others. Discriminatory economic systems . Unequal economic opportunities and access to resources leave people feeling disenfranchised and lead them to question the legitimacy of the structures and policies in place. Frustration and resentment are the first signs in a process that ultimately leaves people in fear for their livelihoods. Many researchers have cited development and modernization as an underlying cause of armed conflict.10Economic development and industrialization result in profound changes that undermine traditional social systems and political institutions. 11 Urbanization 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 expectations. 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". 12 Cultural discrimination 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 extreme form, cultural discrimination leads to forced assimilation of minority groups and/or the relocation of large ethnic groups into minority areas. Some researchers make 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. 13

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 think that human nature tends towards aggression, and those who think that humans are sociable and seek cooperative relationships. In both cases, human nature is a constant characteristic and therefore cannot explain variations of war and peace. Bad Leadership Bad leaders are concerned with their personal status and well being rather than the well being of the people they represent. They seek to:

Strengthen their personal status vis--vis other leaders;

Influence and decide how the political, economic, social and religious affairs of a state should be run; Enrich themselves through criminal assaults on the state, including corruption. The role that leaders play in decisions about war and peace has not received sufficient attention in the literature on conflict.14 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. "Bad neighbors," as one conflict researcher calls bad foreign leaders, take 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.15 Misinterpretation War is often the result of misperceptions because individuals are limited in their cognitive capacity to process information. Perceptions are influenced by the: 16

Conflict environment Prior beliefs and experiences Objective evidence

The most important misperceptions occur when assessing the capabilities and intentions of adversaries and third parties. Individuals tend to exaggerate the hostile intentions and engage in actions that result in the security dilemma. The reasons for this misperception are: 1. 2. 3. Lack of understanding of the adversary's values and interests Misperception of the situation Wrong expectations about the future Domestic bureaucratic constraints17

4.

United States Secretary of State Colin Powell addressed the United Nations on February 5, 2003 presenting evidence of Iraq's secret weapons program and links to terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda. In the terrorist training camp pictured on the left, U.S. intelligence reported to have found a production site for chemical weapons. The information provided by the U.S. to the UN Security Council has since come under scrutiny and the U.S. may have overestimated the extent of both Iraq'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 quick victory dwindle when the other party's resolve and capabilities turn out to be much greater than anticipated. On the other hand, a party may belief to be in the weaker position and decide to build up its army initiating an arms race. 18

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 deescalation: 19

1.

Durable peace : Peace 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 taking place, and non-violent ways for preventing, managing, and resolving disputes are institutionalized. Due to social, political, and economic integration and the high level of trust, there is no perceived conflict and the outbreak of violence is highly unlikely.

2.

Stable peace : The level of communication and cooperation within and among nations is still high and conflicts are resolved in a non-violent manner. However, there are areas of latent conflict where people perceive incompatibilities but do not act in a violent way outside the institutionalized mechanisms for preventing, managing, and resolving conflicts.

3.

Unstable peace : Rising levels of suspicion between parties characterize unstable peace. Previously latent conflicts emerge and result in isolated and low-level violence.

4.

Crisis : At this stage, hostility and violence escalate in a volatile environment. Communication and cooperation breaks down or is strained. Initially, the hostility may only involve a limited number of parties and issues, but in an attempt to raise the stakes or project power other parties and constituencies are mobilized and issues are superimposed or added. The stage is also characterized by increased polarization of the parties, which forces previously neutral actors to take sides.

5.

War : As polarization continues, the parties enter the state of armed conflict and violence escalates. Militaries 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. Fear of loosing face, influence or status, unwillingness to admit mistakes, and a desire to exact revenge or recoup losses contribute to continued violence despite heavy losses.

The graph illustrates the stages of the conflict cycle, the corresponding conflict management tools, and the dynamics of the conflict: (Image Source: Adapted from figure 2.1 in Michael S. Lund, Preventing Violent Conflict: A Strategy for Preventive Diplomacy (Washington, D.C.: United States Institute for Peace, 1996), pp. 38)

Escalation and de-escalation of conflict 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. Escalation may occur progressively with the parties being unaware of the implications of their actions, or as a result of calculated steps taken by the parties to increase violence, extend participation, and broaden the issues.20 Progression from one stage of the conflict to the next is influenced many factors including:

Identity:

Number and intensity of incompatibilities Parties' awareness of their differences, attitudes and perceptions toward each other Amount of direct interaction and communication between the parties Level of mobilization and organization behind the parties' positions Cohesion between the leadership and its constituencies Use and degree of violence used by the parties

Another key element in the escalation of conflict is the formation of identities. Perceived threats encourage people to seek their security in increasingly narrow identity groups.21 Leadership, whose legitimacy is threatened, can manipulate the identity of its population and mobilize it along ethic and/or religious lines for collective action. Polarization: Polarization can be described as the intensified separation and segregation of conflicting groups. Polarization 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-escalation of conflict: 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, polarized communities, and weapons availability related to the dynamic of the conflict cycle. Measures 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 looked at the causes of armed conflict and distinguished between permissive causes and triggering causes of conflict. Our 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. Finally, the lesson illustrated the various stages of the conflict cycle, from stable peace to crisis to war and back, and explained the characteristics of each phase. We then outlined the critical roles that identity and polarization play in the escalation as well as de-escalation of conflicts.

Quiz
Why do some armed conflicts seem to arrive unexpectedly? Ethnic conflicts can flare up for no reason at all. Countries can fall apart very quickly and often there are no warning signs. Usually the conditions for conflict exist, but are not recognized by outsiders. Most conflicts are caused by a single violent act. In periods of significant societal transitions, the use of violence is: A choice made by leaders to achieve their goals. Necessary to remove all traces of the previous regime. Avoidable with foreign intervention. Unavoidable because those who stand to lose from transitions will fight to preserve the status quo. Which of the following is not a permissive cause of armed conflict? Poverty Discriminatory economic institutions Rapid collapse of commodity prices Resource degradation Leaders have become an important subject of conflict analysis because: Their personal agenda has an impact on the choice between war and peace. They play a critical role in mobilizing society for war. Conflict is often the result of misperceptions by leaders. All of the above. States that are ethnically heterogeneous and intermingled are: Not likely to experience conflict. Likely to have conflicts over secession. Experiencing lower levels of violence during conflict. None of the above.