Conflicts can be defined as a form of disagreement or antagonism between two or more parts, which may be individuals, societies, communities or nations. Differences in political structures and in the levels of power and access to technology, together with the ability to project that power and technology, has resulted, however, in some striking differences.
Global look at Conflict Situation
Some of the other conflicts that occurred (or continued) in the post-Cold War era were, like those in Africa, fought largely within the territory of a state that was not in complete control over its territory, and were linked to grievance or greed (or a combination of the two) with regards to power and access to resources. As in Africa, the end of the Cold War factor allowed the conditions for certain conflict to end, as in El Salvador and Nicaragua. Elsewhere, decreases in Cold War arms and financial support also forced parties to the conflict to find other means to continue fighting, although these means may have already been utilised for some time.
In several conflicts, trading in illicit drugs was a key ‘source of revenue for various factions and warlordism thrived. This was particularly seen in connection with the trade in cocaine from Colombia, and in opium from Afghanistan and Myanmar, (otherwise known as Burma). On top of the drug trade in Colombia, kidnapping for ransom also became unusually common, and was seen as another means used by parties to conflict. Support from diasporas was also a crucial source of funding for armed groups, as seen in the rebel movement in Sri Lanka.
In certain parts of the former Soviet Union and in the former Yugoslavia, conflicts broke out as various factions jostled to fill the power vacuum left by the collapse of the Soviet Union and of communism as an ideology. These were seen in Tajikistan, Georgia, Bosnia, Kosovo and even within Russia itself, in Chechnya.
As in many African conflicts, factions struggling to gain power and influence attempted to raise and promote ethno-nationalist identities, which were then propagated through the local media. This eventually resulted in conflict, which cemented many so-called ethnic identities, but as in many African conflicts noted in unit one, conflict was largely the result of elite manipulation of ethnic identity, not a spontaneous outburst of age-old ethnic violence that had been suppressed by the Cold War environment.
Major differences in the nature of conflict can be seen, however, when looking at conflicts involving Western powers, such as those in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq. Three key differences in conflicts waged by Western countries can be noted here.
1) Such conflicts generally occur in locations far removed from the countries that wage them. The US and the UK fight in Iraq, not in the US or the UK. The conflict is likely to have considerably less effect on their home countries.
2) The technology available and use of force is far superior to that of their enemies. Cruise missiles can now accurately target a specific room in a building from thousands of kilometers away, and entire campaigns have been conducted without the use of ground troops.
3) Governments are more accountable to the people they represent. Those engaged in conflict need to heed, to a certain degree, the will of their constituencies on decisions regarding conflict, they conduct their conflict under heavy media spotlights, and are highly sensitive on any troop losses.
The terrorist attacks on the USA on 11 September 2001 were seen as a turning point for Western involvement in conflict. They raised the West’s tolerance for casualties in conflict, and their willingness to initiate or involve themselves in conflict. The US government declared a ‘war on terror’ using the attacks as the justification for the invasions of Afghanistan and, in large part, Iraq (although no link between Iraq and the terrorist attacks was ever credible).
Leaders in other Western countries announced their participation in this ‘war’. Other countries (including some in Africa) also began using the phrase to describe their role in local conflicts, in an effort to gain foreign support and legitimacy. Despite having become a high-profile issue, the term ‘terrorism’ is used in a highly subjective and selective manner, and it is not clear if the so-called ‘War on Terror’ should be more of a policing matter or a military matter.
Looking At Conflict Scale
Having looked at similarities and differences in the nature of conflict between Africa and the rest of the world, let us now turn to comparisons of scale. Scale will help us determine the severity of conflicts, and lead to some of the ‘hotspots‘ in the world. There are several studies that attempt to map trends in conflict in the world, answering such questions as: has conflict increased or decreased in recent years, or which regions in the world are most prone to conflict?
They set criteria for what counts as a conflict (such as, a death toll of more than, 1,000) and then count the numbers of conflicts. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) and Project Plough shares conduct such studies. They have found Africa and Asia to be host to the most number of conflicts. Project ploughshares also looks at the number of countries in a particular region with conflicts, and in 1999 found the Middle East to be the most conflict-prone region in that sense.
The problem with such methods of measuring conflict is that they count all conflicts as equals. Thus, the conflict in East Timor, which resulted in roughly 1,000 deaths would be counted at the same level as the conflict in the DRC, which cost 4,000,000 lives and involved troops from as many as 8 different countries.
Should Asia be considered a more conflict-prone area than Africa simply because it has a greater number of conflicts, regardless of the size? Others, such as journalists and analysts, formulate trends in conflict (somewhat arbitrarily) based on their perceived political importance. Terrorism against the West thus features in very prominently in such analyses, despite the relatively minor death tolls from such attacks. Comparing the actual scale of conflicts may be a more useful method of gaining insights into trends in conflicts.
The next question is: how do we measure the scale of conflicts? There are a number of factors that we can look at to determine scale or severity of a conflict. The number of deaths caused by conflict is probably the most representative, although as noted in unit one, it is extremely difficult to determine with any accuracy the actual death toll from a conflict. The number of refugees (those who cross borders to flee from conflict) and internally displaced persons, or IDPs (those who flee conflict but remain within their own country) is another indicator.
A third indicator may be the level of humanitarian suffering associated with the conflict – is there adequate food, water, medicine, shelter and sanitation, or is there starvation and rampant disease? A fourth indicator of conflict scale may be the spillover (or danger of spillover) from the conflict to a neighbouring state.
