Search

Begin New Search Topic Conflict Prevention

161. Is sectarian balance in the United Arab Emirates, Oman, and Qatar at risk?

Author:
Ahmad Khalid Majidyar
Publication Date:
10-2013
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research
Abstract:
The Persian Gulf states of Oman, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) have largely been immune to the rising tide of sectarianism that has rocked the Middle East in the wake of the Arab Spring. The three monarchies have successfully integrated their Shi'ite minority populations into their countries' sociopolitical and economic spheres, giving those populations little reason to engage in violence or seek political guidance from Iran or Iraq. Omani, Qatari, and Emirati Shi'ites strongly identify themselves as citizens of their respective countries and remain loyal to their ruling regimes. However, the spillover effects of the Syrian civil war—a sectarian conflict between the Shi'ite Iran-Hezbollah-Assad axis and the opposition groups backed by regional Sunni governments—are threatening Sunni-Shi'ite stability in the UAE, Qatar, and to a lesser degree, Oman. The United States should help maintain harmony in these states by reaching out to independent Shi'ite business communities and by working with regional leaders to ensure equal citizenship, political rights, and religious freedom among minority populations.
Topic:
Conflict Prevention, Security, Islam, Post Colonialism, Insurgency, and Sectarian violence
Political Geography:
Iraq, Middle East, Arabia, Oman, and United Arab Emirates

162. Saudi Arabia's forgotten Shi'ite Spring

Author:
Ahmad Khalid Majidyar
Publication Date:
08-2013
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research
Abstract:
For decades the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has been America's indispensable ally in the Middle East, and the ­Kingdom's stability remains vital for US strategic interests in the region. While antigovernment protests in the Kingdom's Sunni-majority regions have been small and sporadic in the wake of Arab Spring, there has been an unremitting unrest in the strategic Eastern Province, home to Saudi Arabia's marginalized Shi'ite minority and major oil fields. As in the 1980s, if government repression and discrimination push the Shi'ites to extremes, some may resort to violence and terrorism, jeopardizing American interests in the region, benefitting Iran and ­al-Qaeda, disrupting the equilibrium of global oil markets, and adversely affecting economic recovery in the West. To ensure lasting stability in the Kingdom, the United States must work with the Saudi government to achieve gradual but meaningful reforms that include integrating the Shi'ites into the Kingdom's sociopolitical system.
Topic:
Conflict Prevention, Security, Islam, and Sectarian violence
Political Geography:
United States, Middle East, Arabia, and Saudi Arabia

163. Has Kuwait reached the sectarian tipping point?

Author:
Michael Rubin
Publication Date:
08-2013
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research
Abstract:
Kuwait is perhaps America's closest Arab ally; it remains the only country in the Middle East on whose behalf the United States went to war. Although the Islamic Republic of Iran has at times tried to leverage Kuwait's large Shi'ite minority against the Kuwaiti state, it has mostly been unsuccessful. Indeed, Kuwait's Shi'ite ­community has repeatedly worked to prove its loyalty to Kuwait. Recent political instability, however, is again opening the door for sectarian forces to undermine Kuwait and, by extension, an important pillar of US defense strategy.
Topic:
Conflict Prevention, Defense Policy, Islam, Bilateral Relations, and Sectarian violence
Political Geography:
United States, Iran, Middle East, and Arabia

164. Is there a preventive action renaissance? The policy and practice of preventive diplomacy and conflict prevention

Author:
Robert Muggah and Natasha White
Publication Date:
02-2013
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Norwegian Centre for Conflict Resolution
Abstract:
Preventive diplomacy and conflict prevention are intended to stop armed conflicts before they escalate. Conflict prevention is a broader concept referring to the monitoring, containment, and reduction of risk factors that shape war onset, intensification, and spread. Both constructs were conceived in the latter half of the 20th century, which was characterised by a sizeable array of international or interstate wars. There has since been a growth in capacities to anticipate and prevent conflicts before they erupt. This report considers historical trends, emerging opportunities, and recurrent challenges associated with preventive diplomacy and conflict prevention. Recommendations for future conflict prevention activities include sharing but not aligning conflict analyses, aligning conflict analyses with local understandings and terminology, researching drivers of peace separately from drivers of violence, studying the micro-determinants of success in preventive action, beginning a dialogue on the co-ordination of preventive action, and ensuring sufficient and flexible financing for preventive action.
Topic:
Conflict Prevention, Foreign Policy, Political Violence, Diplomacy, and Peace Studies

165. Cooperative Security: A New Paradigm for a World Without Nuclear Weapons?

Author:
Marc Finaud
Publication Date:
02-2013
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The Geneva Centre for Security Policy
Abstract:
If there is a loose consensus on aiming at a world free of nuclear weapons in the future, there are clear oppositions as to the time-frame as well as the means for achieving this goal. The approach to nuclear disarmament followed to date has only yielded limited success because it has been conceived in isolation of global and regional security environments and threat perceptions. A new paradigm should thus be sought in order to reconcile nuclear powers' security doctrines with the global aspirations for a safer world, and ensure that nuclear powers derive their security less from others' insecurity but from mutually beneficial cooperative security. This should not become a pretext for preserving nuclear weapons for ever. It will on the contrary require parallel tracks addressing the initial motivations for acquiring nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction (WMD), in particular in the context of regional conflicts, as well as dealing with the current issues necessarily related to nuclear disarmament (missile defence, weaponization of space, conventional imbalances and future weapon systems). Ultimately in a globalised nuclear-weapon free world, state security will not require nuclear weapons because it will be inserted into a broader network encompassing all aspects of security addressed in cooperative and multilateral approaches.
Topic:
Conflict Prevention, Security, Arms Control and Proliferation, Nuclear Weapons, Treaties and Agreements, and Weapons of Mass Destruction

166. States Will Not Give Nuclear Weapons to Terrorists

Author:
Daryl Press and Keir A. Lieber
Publication Date:
09-2013
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University
Abstract:
Nuclear terrorism is often described as the single biggest threat to U.S. national security. The fear is that a hostile state could surreptitiously transfer a nuclear weapon or fissile material to a like-minded terror group, thus orchestrating a devastating attack on the United States or its allies while remaining anonymous and avoiding retaliation. This fear served as a key justification for the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and it helps drive current arguments in favor of a military strike against Iran's nuclear program.
Topic:
Conflict Prevention, Security, Arms Control and Proliferation, Nuclear Weapons, Terrorism, and Weapons of Mass Destruction
Political Geography:
United States, Iraq, and Iran

167. Changing US Security Strategy: The Search for Stability and the "Non-War" against "Non-Terrorism"

Author:
Anthony H. Cordesman
Publication Date:
09-2013
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Abstract:
More than a decade into the “war on terrorism,” much of the political debate in the US is still fixated on the legacy of 9/11. US politics has a partisan fixation on Benghazi, the Boston Marathon bombing, intelligence intercepts, and Guantanamo. Far too much US attention still focuses on “terrorism” at a time the US faces a much broader range of threats from the instability in the Middle East North Africa (MENA) and Islamic world. Moreover, much of the US debate ignores the fact that the US has not actually fought a “war on terrorism” over the last decade, and the US failures in using military force and civil aid in Afghanistan and Iraq. The US has not fought wars as such, but rather became involved in exercises in armed nation building where stability operations escalated into national building as a result of US occupation and where the failures in stability operations and nation building led to insurgencies that forced the US into major counterinsurgency campaigns that had little to do with counterterrorism. An analysis of the trends in the Iraq and Afghan conflicts shows that the US has not been fighting a war on terrorism since Bin Laden and Al Qaida Central were driven into Pakistan in December 2001. The US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq and then made stability operations and armed nation building its key goals. It was US mishandling of these exercises in armed nation building that led to major counterinsurgency campaigns although – at least in the case of Afghanistan --the US continued to label its military operations as a struggle against “terrorism.” By 2013, the US had committed well over $1.4 trillion to these exercises in Afghanistan and Iraq. At the same time, the US made massive increases in its domestic spending on homeland defense that it rationalized as part of the fight against terrorism but often had little or nothing to do with any aspect of counterterrorism. At the same time, the US failed to develop consistent or useful unclassified statistics on the patterns in terrorism and its counterterrorism activities. The US government has never provided a meaningful break out of federal activities and spending at home or abroad which actually focus on terrorism, or any unclassified measures of effectiveness. The OMB has lumped a wide range of activities that have no relation to terrorism it its reporting on the President's budget request – activities whose total cost now approach $60 billion a year. The Department of Defense has never provided a meaningful estimate of the total cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, or a break out of the small portion of total overseas contingency operations (OCO) spending actually spent on counterterrorism versus counter insurgency. The State Department and US intelligence community provide no meaningful unclassified data on the cost of their counterterrorism effort and it is unclear that they have developed any metrics at any level that show the cost-benefits of their activities. The annual US State Department country reports on terrorism come as close to an unclassified report on the status of terrorism as the US government provides. While many portions are useful, the designation of terrorist movements is often political and shows the US designation of terrorist movements conflates terrorism and insurgency. The closest the US has come to developing any metrics on terrorism has been to develop an unclassified database in the National Counter-Terrorism Center (NCTC) that never distinguished terrorism from insurgency. This database formed the core of the statistical annex to State Department reporting, but has since been withdrawn without explanation. As this analysis shows in detail, it now has been replaced by a contractor effort that makes all of the previous mistakes made by the NCTC. The end result is a set of official reporting and statistics in the annex to the State Department report where “terrorism” remains remained poorly defined, badly structured, ignored in parts of the world, and conflates terrorism with counterinsurgency, instability, and civil war. A review of the Afghan, Iraq conflicts, and other recent conflicts in the MENA region shows just how serious these problems are in distorting the true nature of the wars the US is fighting and the threats it faces. The same is true of the unclassified reporting the US government provides on terrorism. A detailed review of the most recent State Department report on terrorism provides important insights into key terrorist movements, but the narratives generally ignore their ties to insurgent movements, their statistical data include some major insurgent movements and exclude others, and many of the data seem to include violence that is not truly terroristic in character.
Topic:
Conflict Prevention, Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, Islam, Terrorism, and Counterinsurgency
Political Geography:
Afghanistan, United States, Middle East, and North Africa

168. Arctic Conflict Potential: Towards an extra-Arctic perspective

Author:
Juha Käpylä and Harri Mikkola
Publication Date:
09-2013
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Finnish Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:
According to a popular notion, huge natural resource reserves located in the Arctic region will lead to a conflictual “gold rush” when Arctic states compete to claim these reserves for themselves. More precisely, there is the potential for interstate conflict in the Arctic area related to unresolved border issues, control of the Arctic maritime routes, and demarcation of the resource-rich continental shelves under the Arctic Ocean. However, Arctic states have little to gain by letting the Arctic dynamics slip into a conflict state that would create an unfruitful investment environment in the region. Relatively well-functioning regional and international governance mechanisms further defuse the interstate conflict potential in the region. Despite the divergent political interests of various players, the intra-Arctic conflict potential remains low. Should interstate conflict surface in the Arctic, the source is most likely to be related to complex global dynamics that may spill over to the region and which cannot be addressed with existing Arctic governance mechanisms. This extra-Arctic perspective should be increasingly taken into consideration by scholars and policy-makers.
Topic:
Conflict Prevention, Climate Change, International Trade and Finance, Oil, and Natural Resources

169. New Report Examines How to Enhance Training for UN Peacekeepers

Author:
Alberto Cutillo
Publication Date:
08-2013
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
International Peace Institute
Abstract:
Among the many elements that determine the success or failure of United Nations peacekeeping operations, the effectiveness of individual peacekeepers plays a prominent, though often underestimated, role. But “effectiveness” is an elusive concept. It is the product of a number of factors, ranging from the will of peacekeepers to the quality and suitability of their equipment; from timely deployment to strategic planning; from logistics to financial support. Ongoing efforts to improve the effectiveness of UN peacekeeping cover all these areas and more, including training, as a means to ensure that UN peacekeepers are adequately prepared to accomplish their tasks.
Topic:
Conflict Resolution, Conflict Prevention, Arms Control and Proliferation, Development, Humanitarian Aid, Armed Struggle, and Peacekeeping
Political Geography:
United Nations

170. Linking instruments in development and foreign policy: Comprehensive approaches in the EU

Author:
Christel Vincentz Rasmussen
Publication Date:
08-2013
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Danish Institute for International Studies
Abstract:
The EU is currently working at defining a comprehensive approach linking development and other instruments in external action. The Lisbon Treaty has contributed to a reorganisation of the institutions in Brussels, affecting crisis management structures and the organisation of external relations. Comprehensive approaches are not new in the EU system, in particular an integrated approach for conflict prevention and a concept for civil–military coordination were developed in the 2000s. However, a forthcoming communication on a comprehensive approach in external action constitutes an occasion to clarify and operationalise the approach in a new, post-Lisbon, institutional setting as well as consolidating the formal EU commitment to working comprehensively.
Topic:
Conflict Resolution, Conflict Prevention, Security, Foreign Policy, Development, Human Rights, Humanitarian Aid, and Foreign Aid
Political Geography:
Europe and Brussels