Ways To Prevent War Essay, Research Paper

To prevent and resolve violent conflict we must understand the sources and logic

of war. Two schools of thought currently dominate thinking on the causes of

contemporary conflict. The first sees violence as a response to a range of

grievances including systematic discrimination and human rights violations,

inequalities in wealth and political power, or a scarcity of resources,

particularly where these fall along existing social cleavages such as ethnicity

or religion. The second characterizes war as irrational either originating in

“ancient hatreds,” causing a needless disruption along the normal path to

development, or simply as “mindless violence.” These schools recognize that

leadership can play an important role in stoking the embers of conflict, but

both nevertheless see the principal dynamics of conflict resulting from popular

sentiment. But what if the principal motive behind conflict is greed not

grievance? Profit rather than political power seems to be a growing motivation

for violence in civil wars.

If economic rationales do play a major role in the motivations of the warring

factions, this represents a profound challenge to both prevailing schools of

thought. If we recognize that the longevity of conflict can be the result not of

anarchy but of economic gain, then there may be method to the perceived madness

after all. For those that see grievance or a fundamental conflict of interest at

the root of violent conflict the challenge is more profound. If economic gain is

a prominent motivation for armed conflict, the very basis for the resolution of

violent conflict through negotiation is undermined and the search for a

political settlement may be futile. Some argue that economic motivations are

critical to understanding the causes or origins of violent conflict.

Economic motivations play an important role in the persistence of violent

conflict. For regardless of whether economic motivations have played an

important role in motivating armed conflict in the past, if they do so now they

deserve attention. While the international community stresses the need to halt

the disintegration of states and stem the tide of communal violence, the

effectiveness of outside powers in both regards is seriously constrained by

their inability to examine the incentives and disincentives for violence from

the perspective of the aggressors themselves@ (King 1997, p. 81).

The motivation for fighting can easily change over the course of the conflict.

While the origins or root causes of war may in fact lie in some genuine sense of

grievance, over the course of the conflict greed can become a more prominent

motivating factor. Obviously in practice these distinctions are seldom neat or

clearly identifiable, and it is not difficult to envisage the process through

which a transition from collective political objectives to elite private

objectives occurs. The real fuel for economically driven warfare however comes

from natural resources including tropical hardwood, gems, minerals, oil, and the

illicit trade in narcotics.

The challenge is to restructure economic incentives and disincentives to

encourage conflict resolution and to ensure that future conflict is managed

without recourse to violence. Securing peace after years of war also requires

limiting the benefits that some derive from the continuation of hostilities. In

short, effective peace building must make peace pay and take the profit out of

war. Acting on this conclusion requires a reorientation of our peace building

efforts. First we must ensure that our external interventions do not have

counter-productive consequences, however unintended. Second, the international

community must specifically target their interventions to address the economic

dimensions of contemporary conflicts. Most peacebuilding activities are, in one

way or another, an attempt to strengthen the hand of those that want peace,

particularly civil society organizations. Close cooperation between police and

intelligence services is critical as shadowy networks and complex corporate

relationships must be disentangled before any effective responses can be

considered. Ultimately, profiteering in the midst of conflict cannot be stopped

entirely. As particular routes and networks are closed new ones are sure to

open. What can be done is to routinely disrupt established channels and thereby

reduce profits. And it is here that globalization is of direct benefit. For

while the global transfer of money and resources creates opportunities for

entrepreneurial warlords, it also increases international leverage over them.

Economic sanctions and trade embargoes are one of the principal tools at the

disposal of the international community for ending conflict and maintaining

peace and security. However, sanctions are a form of economic warfare and

economic warfare inevitably promotes economic crime. Fortunately, three

prominent trends evident in the evolution of sanctions policy will also help in

addressing the criminal activity that inevitably follows: an emphasis not only

on the imposition but also on the enforcement of sanctions; a shift from

broad-based sanctions to specifically targeting key leaders; and finally,

attention to restricting the actions of non-state actors. International efforts

are required to restrict profiteering during war and to seize ill-gotten assets,

and opportunities exist.

A particular challenge for the international community is addressing the role

of the international private sector in war economies. Nevertheless, where

international trading networks are used by warlords to launder stolen resources,

multinational corporations may share some of the responsibility for prolonging

civil wars. Several remedies are currently being pursued to some degree. One is

to develop voluntary codes of conduct for companies engaged in commercial

activity in war zones, much as they have been developed for labor and

environmental practices. A second option, raising the profile of corporate

responsibility in zones of conflict, is likely necessary, including pressure

from shareholders and, in extreme cases, consumer boycotts.

Understanding the economic motivations underlying contemporary conflicts

appears increasingly necessary for effective interventions to resolve conflicts

and build peace. World s aging international security architecture is struggling

to come to grips with the challenge of non-state actors and commercial agendas.

And in the face of failed and failing states, remedies are lacking to police

criminal states that facilitate and even promote the extraction of profit from

war.

Bibliography

1. http://www.comw.org/rma/ strategy and tactics

Modern Conflict: The Reality

2. world politics. A quarterly journal on international relations

http://www.wws.princeton.edu/world_politics/

3. http://www.emergency.com/Emergent-thrts.htm

Anticipating the Nature of the Next Conflict George J. Tenet

4. http://www.nationalstrategy.com/nsr/v10n2Winter00/100202.htm

Asymmetric Warfare David L. Grange

5. Development, Peace and Security:

the Possibilities and Limits of Convergence

by Jean-Franзois Rioux and Robin Hay*

http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/xpress/dex/dex9606.htm

6. A Note on Interests, Values, and the Use of Force

JEFFREY RECORD

http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/01spring/record.htm

7. Some Reflections on the Future of War

Martin van Creveld

http://www.nwc.navy.mil/press/Review/2000/autumn/art2-a00.htm

8. Battlefield of the Future

21st Century Warfare Issues

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/battle/bftoc.html

9. ILLUMINATING TOMORROW’S WAR

MARTIN LIBICKI

http://www.ndu.edu/inss/macnair/mcnair61/m61cont.html

10. The Future of Warfare:

Issues from the 1999 Army After Next Study Cycle

Walter Perry, Bruce Pirnie, John Gordon IV

http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1183/