From the advices of Sun Tzu, to the Congress of Vienna of 1815, to the principles that guided the foundation of the United Nations, the idea of preventing the outbreak of violent conflict has a long history of underpinning political thought and action (1). In the bipolar world of the Cold War, conflict prevention became a matter of avoiding mutually assured destruction. In this context, a main concern was to keep regional conflicts localized and avoid direct confrontation between the superpowers (2). Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, greater opportunities for international cooperation, the instability in regions where new states were being established and the persistence of inter- and intrastate armed conflict were factors which contributed to a burgeoning interest in conflict prevention both in scholarly and in policy-making circles. In particular, the destructiveness of the conflicts in the Balkans and in Rwanda incentivized a desirability for stemming conflicts rather than dealing with their economic and human costs (3). As a result, since the 1990’s conflict prevention features prominently in the policy agenda of states and of various international organizations, such as the United Nations (UN), the European Union (EU), the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the African Union (AU).
The idea of preventing conflicts is firmly embedded in the notion that it is a morally, financially and strategically preferable option than to tackle violent clashes after they have already erupted (4). For one, impeding violent conflict to unfold spares people from suffering. Furthermore, the financial costs of war itself, of post-conflict reconstruction and the losses derived from economic disruption are far greater than the costs of funding conflict prevention mechanisms(5). Additionally, once a conflict has erupted and intensified, the required actions to de-escalate it might exceed the capabilities of international organizations and conflict resolution is complicated when “blood has been spilled, passions have been aroused and resultant cognitive rigidity prevents the disputants from pursuing non-violent options” (6).
What is then understood by “conflict prevention”? Lund (2002) defines conflict prevention as “any structural or intercessory means to keep intrastate or interstate tensions and disputes from escalating into significant violence and use of armed forces, to strengthen the capabilities of potential parties to violent conflict for resolving such disputes peacefully and to progressively reduce the underlying problems that produce these issues and disputes” (7).
Thus, one crucial element of what constitutes conflict prevention is the time at which it comes into play. Most analysts agree that conflict prevention are pro-active measures adopted before the eruption of violent dispute, at a stage of the ideal model of a conflict cycle referred to as unstable peace(8), a stage characterized by heightened tension between parties, which has not yet translated into an open conflict (9) (see graph below).
A second crucial element regards the methods employed by conflict prevention. These can be classified in two categories:
- Direct: direct methods target manifest hostilities and are, thus, of a more immediate nature and focused on specific actors or events. They include early warning, mediation, diplomatic missions, training in non-violence and preventive deployment.
- Structural: structural conflict prevention targets underlying causes of conflict, such as societal disparities and a government’s capacity of channelling popular demands. Actions include enhancing effectiveness of governmental institutions, reforming exploitative regimes and reducing regional disparities in living standards. Their goal goes beyond simple negative peace, a situation where violent conflict is absent, it includes fostering the conditions of a positive peace, where societal changes can be brought about through peaceful means (10).
The application of the concept of conflict prevention in real life is problematized by the intricate complexities of conflict causation and dynamics. Decision-makers must navigate these complexities in order to assess risk, determine which issues are contentious, what their root causes are and which actors are involved, and, finally, choose which instruments are likely to produce the most effective outcomes. These decisions are aided by the advances in conflict analysis, however, there is no “one-size-fits-all” approach and each conflict situation requires a tailor-made strategy that takes its specificities into account (11). Furthermore, the expansion of conflict prevention initiatives promoted by various international organizations, as well as states and civil society, gives rise to challenges in coherence and coordination. This highlights the need for actors engaged in conflict prevention to exchange their analyses and strategies, avoiding duplicated effort or, even more damagingly, the undermining of each other’s efforts (12).
ENDNOTES
- Swanström, Niklas L.P. and Mikael S. Weissmann, “Conflict, Conflict Prevention, Conflict Management and Beyond: A Conceptual Exploration”, Concept Paper, Summer 2005, Central Asia-Caucasus Institute, Silk Road Studies Program, 19.
- Ackermann, Alice, “The Idea and Practice of Conflict Prevention”, Journal of Peace Research, 40.3 (2003): 339-347, 340.
- Stewart, Emma, “Conflict Prevention: Consensus or Confusion?”, Peace, Conflict and Development, 3 (2003): 1-17, 2.
- Woocher, Lawrence, “Preventing Violent Conflict: Assessing Progress, Meeting Challenges”, Special Report 231, September 2009, United States Institute of Peace, 3.
- Lund, Michael S, “Conflict Prevention: Theory in Pursuit of Policy and Practice”, Ed. Jacob Bercovitch et al, The Sage Handbook of Conflict Resolution, London, Sage, 2009, 287-321, 287.
- Clingendael Institute, “Conflict Prevention and Early Warning in the Political Practice of International Organizations”, 1996, Clingendael Institute, 1.
- Lund, Michael S., “Preventing Violent Intrastate Conflicts: Learning Lessons From Experience”, Searching for Peace in Europe and Eurasia, Ed. Paul van Tongeren et al, Boulder, Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2002, 99-119, 117.
- Lund, Conflict Prevention 289.
- Swanström and Weissmann, 11.
- Lund, Conflict Prevention 289-291.
- Ackermann, 342.
- Muggah, Robert and Natasha White, “Is There a Preventive Action Renaissance? The Policy and Practice of Preventive Diplomacy and Conflict Prevention”, Report, February 2013, Norwegian Peacebuilding Resource Centre, 8.
S
