International conflict analysis: the 2011 Libya crisis

International Conflict Analysis

Nations have gone to war against each other for millennia for a wide array of reasons, but most causes of conflict appear to be related to many of the same things, including scarcity of resources, powerful notions of nationalism and the vain quest for power over others. In the past, most wars involved a few thousands troops at the most, and the carnage that was wrought was relatively limited by modern standards. Beginning in the 19th century, though, technological innovations in warfare and transportation created an environment in which hundreds of thousands and even millions of combatants were involved with a concomitant increase in the number of casualties that resulted from international conflicts. While many of the wars in the past have been fought to a bloody conclusion with a clear-cut victor and defeated loser, there have been increasing efforts beginning in the 20th century to identify ways to resolve international conflicts without the actors becoming actively involved in a shooting war. Most of these efforts have been met with mixed results, with the failed League of Nations and its successor in the United Nations struggling to cope with the relentless conflicts that continue to mar a peaceful world. To determine what progress has been made in the field of international conflict resolutions, this paper provides a review of the relevant literature concerning international conflict analytical models, followed by a summary of the research and important findings in the conclusion.

Review and Discussion

During the 19th and 20th century, geopolitical borders were drawn and redrawn in sometimes unfathomable ways by the victors of wars. The outcome of these redesigned territories was predictable enough, with people who had little or nothing in common being thrust together in newly formed countries being forced to live alongside others with whom they may have had longstanding grievances. Even in countries where borders remained essentially the same over time, people found reason enough for conflicts to erupt, in some cases internally but more commonly with people of other countries. While it is possible to discern the reasons for international conflict based solely on such geopolitical boundaries, Goertz and Diehl suggest that a more informed analysis is required in order to understand international conflicts. According to these authorities, "At one time, some scholars argued for geographic determinism, believing that a state's location, resources, and climate dictated what actions that state took. Recognizing that international behavior is a complex phenomenon, scholars no longer adopt such a determinist position" (1992, p. 3). A more robust analysis of international conflicts, Goertz and Diehl, maintain, can be gained through alternative analytical models such as the "ecological perspective" developed by Harold and Margaret Sprout (1965).

From the Sprouts' perspective, "International actions are conditioned by the environment or milieu that a given state faces. This environment includes demographics, technology, and resources, as well as geography. The Sprouts emphasize that states respond to their environment, but the environment does not compel policymakers to perform particular actions" (Goertz & Diehl, 1992, p. 3). The primary factors involved in international conflict analysis from the ecological perspective are the perceptions of the external environment by a country's decision-makers, and it is these perceptions that drive the actions taken by a given state in the international arena (Goertz & Diehl, 1992). While geopolitical borders are not the sole factor involved in ecological perspective analyses of international conflicts, geography clearly plays an important part in the perceptions held by key decision-makers. In this regard, Goertz and Diehl add that, "The Sprouts' framework suggests that geography does not dictate that war occur between two states. Indeed, it might be said to be only one of several factors that constitute the environment in which states decide to use military force or not. Nevertheless, the location, size, climate, and natural resources of a state are a function of its geography" (1992, p. 4). According to the Sprouts (1962), "The general concept of environment is defined as all empirical factors that set limits to human activities. So defined, environment includes not only tangible objects, human as well as nonhuman, at rest and in motion. Environment also includes institutions, laws, customs, and other social patterns as well. Defined in this way, environment is equivalent to the French word milieu" (p. 46).

Clearly, though, whenever researchers seek to evaluate "all empirical factors" that limit human activities, the task quickly becomes enormously complex. Despite this challenging aspect of this type of analytical technique, the Sprouts maintain that it is generally possible to isolate those environmental factors that are most salient in contributing to international conflict. For instance, the Sprouts add that, "In analyzing a particular outcome, performance, or state of affairs, it is generally possible to identify certain elements of the total environment that appear to be strategic (that is, very immediate and important)" (1962, p. 46). In order to make such a determination, though, researchers must identify the most salient environmental factors from the perspective of the actors involved as well. This can be a more challenging enterprise since it requires a more subjective analysis of the situation from the perspective of others that might not be readily discernible. In this regard, the Sprouts distinguished the objective analysis as being the operational environment in which the conflict takes place and the more subjective analysis of the actors' perspective as the psychological environment. According to the Sprouts, "These specific elements constitute the operational environment of the actor in that situation. The operational environment (the factors which an outside observer judges to be relevant and significant in explaining an event or state of affairs) should be distinguished from the environment as it appears to the actor in the situation. His image of reality we shall call his psychological environment" (1962, pp. 46-47). The Sprouts suggest that by examining the environmental and psychological factors that are involved in international conflicts, it is possible to identify causes and potential resolutions that might otherwise be overlooked.

An alternative but somewhat related approach to international conflict analysis was developed by Kenneth Boulding (1962) who maintains that states differ in their capacity to influence events within specific geographic regions that he terms "zones of viability." In some cases, states enjoy unconditional viability but in other cases, states possess limited or no such viability to affect circumstances in a given geographic region. This analytical approach contrasts with the ecological model but still retains the geographic relevance element. In this regard, Boulding suggests that there is a powerful geographic element involved in the manner in which zones of viability are delineated. According to Boulding, states are most likely viable in those regions where they enjoy sovereignty and become less viable as geographic regions become more distant. Based on this analysis, Boulding describes as so-called "loss-of-strength gradient" which relates to the extent to which a given state's political and military power decreases as the state seek to exert its will on other states and circumstances more distant from its sovereign base. As an example, Goertz and Diehl cite the case of "the ability of the United States to carry out the Grenada invasion was much easier than the aborted hostage rescue mission in Iran, in part because of the ease of logistics given the proximity of Grenada to the United States" (1992, p. 4). This approach to international conflict analysis can help researchers better understand the environmental factors that facilitate or restrict their ability to exert their will on others based in large part on their political will and logistical capabilities. Obviously, countries with the political will to engage in conflicts with others may be constrained by the lack of an ability to do so, such as landlocked countries with no navies or intercontinental ballistics missile technology to efficiency carry the conflict beyond a certain geographic range. This type of analysis might be useful, say, for gaining a better understanding of the scenario playing out in North Korea where, lacking a strong standing navy, the impoverished country has invested enormous amounts of scarce resources into its nuclear power and missile programs.

Other theorists have applied game models to analyze international conflicts. According to Beach, Hammer, Hewitt, Kaufman, Kurki, Oppenheimer and Wolf, game theorists have examined international conflict from a number of perspectives, with one of the more well-known approaches being the two-person Prisoner's Dilemma game (2-PD). In such games one can examine the relationship between cooperation, self-interested behaviour, and efficiency (2000, p. 32). In this scenario, first-moving players that act more generously and employ a cooperative strategy throughout the game and never initiate an attack on their opponents will achieve superior results over time. Unfortunately, this best case scenario is rarely seen in this pristine fashion, with the "game" being played in international conflicts being far more complex. In this regard, Beach et al. note that, "In practice, the games being played between competing nations are far more complicated and the ensuing relationship between cooperative stances and receipt of rewards may be far weaker: A strong positive relationship exists between tendencies to initiate and to receive international conflict. The correlation between cooperative initiation and receptive tendencies, however, is much weaker" (p. 32).

The overriding theme that emerges from all of the foregoing analytical models is the fact that although international conflicts and be effectively modeled and deconstructed in order to gain a better understanding of the precipitating factors and how they play out in real-world settings, they do not necessarily provide the insights needed to develop resolutions to these conflicts nor do they provide preemptive alternatives that could stop the conflict from starting in the first place. Indeed, epidemiologists use comparable techniques to understanding how disease processes evolve and spread throughout a human population, but different techniques are required to develop corresponding cures and treatments for their diseases. Similarly, the analysis of international conflicts that is needed to help decision-makers identify viable solutions will require an additional and supplemental type of analytical methodology.

Given the potential for death and destruction that goes hand-in-hand with wars, there is an important cost-benefit analysis that countries must make in formulating their decisions to take up arms and use a military option to prosecute their will on others. After all, the outcomes of wars are always uncertain even when everything seems to point to victory and the costs that are involved in military action mean that there is always a great deal at stake beyond the human toll wars exact. Therefore, the decision to engage in military action at any level, ranging the continuum from minor border incursions to full-scale world war, will ultimately be based on the perceptions of the country's leadership with respect to the external environment which may not be the same of those of its neighbors or outside observers. It is in this area that the various analytical tools discussed above can help outside observers gain a better understanding of how the belligerents involved perceived their environment. It is clear that any country that initiates military action believes it can benefit from the aggression in some way (whether to achieve permanent territorial gain, to probe the opponent's defenses, or simply as a way to "rattle the cage" and make a point), so this represents a good starting point for international conflict analysis. Determining what the military aggressor really wants can provide the information needed to develop potential resolutions to international conflicts that may be able to avoid bloodshed and establish long-term peace.

In many cases of international conflicts, though, despite the complexity of the environmental factors that are involved, the reasons for a conflict are readily apparent and do not necessarily require any type of in-depth analysis to understand. When these precipitating reasons are based on factors that lend themselves to resolution, it may be possible to forge compromises that will withstand the test of time. In many other cases, though, international conflicts involved longstanding issues that are not amenable to easy resolution, and some, such as the Palestinian-Israeli or North Korea-South Korean conflicts, have defied all resolution efforts by the international community.

These types of intractable conflicts demand solutions that may not be possible to achieve without an entire change of mindset on the part of the belligerents. The stated goal of many of Israel's neighbors, Iran in particular, is to destroy Israel; likewise, many countries in the Arab world feel the same way in varying degrees. In this environment, while the causes for conflicts are readily discernible, the barriers to their resolution can preclude the most well-intentioned efforts on the part of the international community. Indeed, it is disingenuous to believe that people can know the mind of God just as it is foolhardy on the part of the international community to think that it is possible to persuade people to feel differently just by understanding what is causing their problems. Nevertheless, these are the very forces fueling conflicts between nations, as the Balkanization process in Europe so clearly showed, and conflicts based on powerful religious, cultural, political and socioeconomic factors all combine to create a powder keg in many regions of the world today.

Despite these constraints, the analytical methods described above and other game models can and have been used successfully as models of international conflict analysis in ways that can help identify potential solutions. For instance, Beach et al. conclude that, "In these and other essays it can be seen that game theory offers a framework for some level of analysis that might shed light on international conflicts" (2000, p. 33). As an example, Beach and his associates describe a vignette involving conflict over water resources, a particularly timely issue in many parts of the world, with three alternatives being available to the stakeholders that are involved as follows:

1. They can work unilaterally within the basin (or state) to increase supply -- through wastewater reclamation, desalination, or increasing catchment or storage -- or decrease demand, through conservation or greater efficiency in agricultural practices.

2. They can cooperate with the inhabitants of other basins for a more efficient distribution of water resources. This cooperation usually involves a transfer of water from the basin with greater resources.

3. They can make no changes in planning or infrastructure and face each cycle of drought with increasing hardship. This is the option most often chosen by countries that are less developed or are racked by military strife. (Beach et al., 2000, p. 33).

One of the strengths of this model is the universality of the alternatives for any type of conflict resolution between countries (i.e., work unilaterally, cooperate, do nothing). It is in this fashion that the analysis of international conflicts may be able to help identify potential resolutions. For instance, according to Beach and his colleagues, "These options are equally applicable to the problems facing inhabitants of a single basin that includes two or more political entities. Each can be modelled. Although the last alternative may seem unreasonable, game theoretic models can help to explain how nations may make choices based on their underlying interests and the strategic structure of the game itself" (2000, p. 33). By understanding international conflicts from this perspective, these authors suggest that it will be far easier to model potential alternatives that will provide the long-term solutions that are needed for peaceful and mutually beneficial outcomes. This aspect of international conflict resolution is described by Beach et al. thusly: "The modeller can then try to make prescriptions in such cases to change the contexts so as to lead to more efficient and welfare enhancing outcomes" (2000, p. 33).

To illustrate how this approach operates, Beach and his colleagues cite the example of any type of international conflict and its contributing factors and how game theory can be used to analyze the process:

1. In international contexts, each sovereign party is free to break any agreement at little cost. Hence any engineered solution must be sensitive to the stability aspects of the proposed outcomes.

2. For cooperation to occur, the parties must have some incentive which can justify the cooperation.

In order for the environment to be conducive to cooperation, though, there are other preconditions including a mutual acceptable by all participants that:

1. The joint cost or benefit is partitioned such that each participant is better off compared to a non-cooperative outcome;

2. The partitioned cost or benefit to any subset of participants (in the cooperative solution) are preferred by the subset to any other possible outcome they can guarantee themselves; and,

3. In the real world of international relations, it also must be that all the costs are allocated (Beach et al., 2000, p. 33).

These best case outcomes, though, are rarely achieved without other complications, many of which are impossible to predict and difficult to model. Indeed, who could have foreseen the catalyst that actually sparked World War I? Likewise, as chaos theory holds, the mere flapping of a butterfly's wings in one part of the world can have unforeseen effects on global weather patterns and ultimately human history, models are useful but potentially unreliable in the analysis of international conflicts, particularly when information is faulty or otherwise flawed in some fashion. This need for timely and accurate information is a prerequisite to developing the analysis of how the participants view their respective environments, and this is a challenging enterprise by any measure.