What are the causes of contemporary international conflicts? How does current perception of them affect international conflict resolution efforts? This paper by Manchester University suggests that internal conflict is a ‘normal’ aspect of weak state politics. It argues that conflict resolution must be focused on state reconstruction activities, rather than on saving failing states. It also suggests that there are likely to be many more internal conflicts that demand international action in the future.
Internal conflicts have their origin in domestic rather than systemic factors and involve politically-motivated violence, primarily within the boundaries of a single state. They can become a threat to international peace and security when the fighting spills over into neighbouring states or refugee flows upset regional stability. Once confined to ‘area studies’, research into the causes and outcomes of internal conflicts has recently emerged as an important focus of international relations. Today, internal conflicts are conceived of as irrational outbursts of ‘ethnic’ hatred, or the breakdown of normally peaceful political systems. However, internal conflicts are, in fact, located in the structures of weak states and the actions of weak state elites, who may deliberately engender conflict as a rational response to the internal and external demands brought on by the intrusive processes of globalisation.
The weak state framework not only provides a more satisfying explanation of internal conflict, but it has profound implications for conflict resolution.
- Internal conflicts are now the primary security threat in international relations.
- The international conflict resolution system, based as it is on diplomacy, intergovernmental organisations, and international legal processes, is proving inadequate for dealing with internal conflicts.
- The present system is state-centric in focus and so poses formidable problems for dealing with conflicts involving non-state actors.
- It is also oriented towards the short-term goal of conflict management, rather than the more durable long-term goal of conflict resolution.
- The most important consequence of this approach is the frequent failure of negotiated political settlements— conflict management—to prevent the continuation or re-eruption of internal violence in the political life of weak states.
- Presently, Sudan, Angola, Sri Lanka, Sierra Leone, Somalia, and Israel are in the grip of post-settlement conflict. Bosnia, Georgia, Cambodia, Mozambique, and Chad, exist in a precarious condition, perpetually on the brink of a return to large-scale conflict.
It is now clear that what is required is an integrated approach which can deal with both the manifestations of conflict (e.g. the violence) and its underlying cause—the weak state.
- Getting to the root of internal conflict involves reconstructing weak states and weak state politics.
- Clearly, such an approach entails the commitment of vast amounts of resources, not to mention political will.
- However, in the long run, such an effort would prove more cost-effective than mounting numerous costly humanitarian interventions of the kind attempted in Somalia and East Timor.
- Although many of the strategies are already being tried in internal conflicts around the world, they are being undertaken as adjuncts to diplomatic efforts, and in a piecemeal manner.
- As long as state reconstruction strategies are secondary to international conflict resolution efforts in weak states, durable peaceful solutions will continue to remain elusive.
