Causes of Conflict

“Neither from itself nor from another, Nor from both, Nor without a cause, Does anything whatever, anywhere arise.” – Nāgārjuna in Mūlamadhyamakakārikā The quest for the causes of conflict is a labyrinth of interconnected and overlapping phenomena that have been addressed by scholars within various schools of thought in international relations (IR) (Gat, 2009). However, very few, if at all, have actually dealt with it directly. In this essay, the realist approach will be explored and eventually other notions will be invoked to expand, critique and complement the realist approach. Finally a meta-level analysis shall be presented to understand the multivariate causes of conflict/war. Before we begin, it might be interesting to ponder about the above mentioned quote by Nāgārjuna, the great Buddhist philosopher, sometimes considered only next to the Buddha. In his fundamental wisdom of the middle way (Mūlamadhyamakakārikā), a translated version of which is by Garfield (1995), Nāgārjuna speaks of the interconnectedness of cause and effects from several angles. One, effects are not self-caused and neither caused by other phenomena. Two, effects are self-caused, e.g. the seed and the sprout. Three, cause and effect are separate entities, e.g. the parent and the child. Four, effects are the consequence of both the effects themselves and the potential conditions that facilitate the effects. Five, there is no particular reason behind phenomena and events are not connected. We shall see, in the course of this essay, that the types of causes explained by the scholars of IR may be thought to fall into at least one or more of the five categories drawn by Nāgārjuna. This system of ideas can act as a guideline or a tool to further help answer the many questions surrounding the problem of finding a plausible explanation to the causes of conflicts. Let us start with the realist approach to understand causes of conflict. Realism is the dominant tradition in IR and its key concern is war and the application of force (Nye, 2005). States are the key agents of war; states are individualistic and are in interaction with other states. International politics is anarchic since there is no higher over-arching government to control the individual states. Realism interprets anarchy pessimistically (Nye, 2005). Thucydides, Machiavelli and Hobbes, along with Morgenthau (Lebow, 2010; p74), are considered realists. Thucydides, the father of realism, concluded that the growing power of Athens, resulted in insecurity in the Spartans, and this resulted in the Peloponnesian War (Nye, 2005; p15). The ‘other’ is either neutral or a threat, and never to be mistaken as beneficial (Abizadeh, 2011).This is the essence of realism. Realism is again subdivided into classical and structural realisms. In classical realism, emphasis is on ‘egoism’ and ‘anarchy’ (Donnelly, 2005; p34). According to classical realist Morgenthau, states are power hungry because of the need to dominate others (Gat, 2009). In structural realism, the power structure of states is very important and security threats are not the sole cause to wage wars; ideological and economic reasons play a vital role (Mearsheimer, 2010). The structure of power or hierarchy of power of the international system is of key importance. Waltz argues that it is the anarchic state that forces states to be power hungry, only to defend oneself, and not an element of human nature to be power hungry (Gat, 2009). Polarity of states in the international system, the distribution of power among influential states and the power dynamics determine the initiation of conflicts/wars (Mearsheimer, 2010). E.g. The Cold War was not the result of some key actors but of the ‘nature’ of bipolarity of states (Donnelly, 2005). Here again, one can try to be guided by the five possibilities proposed by Nāgārjuna, in trying to analyse the causal relationship. The polar opposite to realist traditions of viewing anarchy is the liberalist one (Nye, 2005). While Hobbes emphasised on insecurity, force and survival, according to liberalist John Locke, people are capable of developing ties and making contracts, resulting in a less threatening anarchy. Liberalism sprouts from western political philosophy and can be stretched to Baron de Montesquieu and Immanuel Kant in eighteenth century France and Germany, and nineteenth century British philosophers such as Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. Liberalist view of anarchy is more optimistic. Liberalists criticise realists for exaggerating threats and extreme situation, but Hobbes argues that a state of war does not mean constant war. Liberalists bring light upon ‘growth of economic interdependence and the evolution of a transnational global society’ (Nye, 2005; p5). E.g. after the failure of 1930s, Japan concentrated on building its economy and thus establishing power in East Asia devoid of military force. Although Hobbes is largely considered as a classical realist (Donnelly, 2005; Nebow, 2010; Nye, 2005), Abizadeh (2011) argues that Hobbes’s ‘competition’ and ‘glory’ arguments emerge from the classical realist tradition, whereas his ‘diffidence’ argument is from the structural realist tradition, and that Hobbes seems to dangle loosely on the constructivist notions, which is a key critique to realist notions. Realism is criticised for neglecting the role of ideology, culture and identity in conflict, which is advocated by constructivist approaches. According to what may be called as Hobbes’s ‘disagreement theory’, the primary cause of conflict is disagreement; glory and disagreement inevitably leads to war and the primary source of war is ideology, not competition over material resources. Hence, Hobbes’s realist inclinations can be considered rather problematic. He came up with an integrated theory of conflict that includes ‘psychological’, ‘systemic-structural’ and ‘social levels’ of conflict analysis. Hobbesian war, thus, emerges from the idea that human beings are weaklings that are ‘existentially fragile’ (i.e. mortality giving us a ‘natural equality’) and are also ‘epistemologically fragile’ (i.e. beliefs based on a system of ‘signs’ and their fluid interpretations), and not because of egoism or competition for scarce resources. Yet, the causes of conflict remain fairly dispersed in the IR literature, and are not directly quested upon. Gat (2009) complains that even van Evara (1999) only speaks of conditions that may influence the chances of occurrence of conflict but does not deal with the root of the quest directly. Here, the knowledge of Nāgārjuna can come in handy once again, for he distinguishes ‘causes’ from ‘conditions’ (Garfield, 1995). For Nāgārjuna, ‘cause’ refers to an event or state, which possesses a kind of power, and by essence such that effect is actuated; ‘condition’ merely refers to the event/state/process that is devoid of any obligation to be directly or by way of occult be responsible for the actuation of effect. This may help scholars to ask the right questions and look for the right avenues in unravelling the causes of conflicts. In his book “Causes of War”, van Evera (1999) emphasises on the dynamics of power in understanding wars. He mentions Thomas Schelling, who says that weaponry, military power and geographical locations have something inherent in them that propagate war or peace. Schelling proposes five hypotheses, which may have not been well tested, but can be a good start-off point for one who wants to understand the dynamics of war: “1. War is more likely when states fall prey to false optimism about its outcome. 2. War is more likely when the advantage lies with the first side to mobilize or attack. 3. War is more likely when the relative powers of states fluctuates sharply – that is, when windows of opportunity and vulnerability are large. 4. War is more likely when resources are more cumulative – that is, when the control of resources enables a state to protect or acquire other resources. 5. War is more likely when conquest is easy” (van Evera, 1999; p4). Here, if we apply Nāgārjuna’s philosophy, for the above mentioned hypotheses, at least most of them would not really come up with a direct causal link to war, but only pose a strong correlation to the occurrence of wars. As Gat (2009) also confirms, Thayer (2000) explores deeper into the causes behind the issues raised in realism. Evolutionary theory enables the deeper understanding of the origins of egoism and domination. Darwinian “survival of the fittest” and Richard Dawkin’s “selfish gene theory” both are used to explain egoism. According to Darwinian evolutionary theory, in harsh environmental conditions, living beings satisfy their minimum physiological needs for survival. In times of crisis or emergency, an organism’s behaviour can be quite altruistic towards its own tribe or group. There is a masochistic, egoistic quality to this behaviour and is rendered as a sign of fitness. According to Dawkin’s theory, at the level of genes, without any prior intention, evolution occurs in a way to support the dominant genes and characteristics to survive with or without the intention of the organism itself. In that way, dominant and fit genes are more likely to survive and reproduce themselves and adapt themselves to better traits. As a result, the behaviour that supports the functions of the dominant gene spreads more into the gene pool. Evolutionary theory is also good at explaining the origins of domination. Some individuals of the gene pool have better access to resources necessary for survival in the midst of competition. A dominance hierarchy develops in social mammals. Two behavioural types develop in the hierarchy, one dominant and the other submissive. Dominant individuals show more aggression. This dominance is then translated into a status symbol. This surely gives a socio-biological insight into how wars originated. Application of evolutionary theory has a significant contribution to realism and IR. Not only does it provide a scientific foundation, but allows empirical predictions to be made that can be verified against anthropological proofs. (Thayer, 2000). There are some other ways of analysing causes of conflict that do not adhere to a definite realist or other traditions, but they definitely overlap in ideas pertaining to the realist or other traditions in one way or another. Ohlson (2008) conceptualised the cause of war as an outcome of interactions among elements of the Triple R Triangle: ‘reason’, ‘resources’ and ‘resolve’. The three elements represent three key questions: “do we want to do it?”(=reason), “can we do it?”(=resources) and “do we dare to do it?” (=resolve). Reason can be either ‘background’ or ‘proximate’. Structural conditions as well as remote causes comprise of background reasons. Asymmetric structure and dynamics of the international system, economic and political discrimination, socio-economic inequality, and demographic or environmental stress fuel conditions for war. Long-term exclusivism gives rise to group identity and historical antagonism between groups. E.g. a colonial past may contain seeds of intra-state conflicts in the present/future. Such a state goes weak. Weakening states tend to politicize identity. Another variable that explains the strength or weakness of a state is the legitimacy. Legitimacy can be either vertical or horizontal. Vertical legitimacy exists between the state and the citizens. Horizontal legitimacy exists between the elites and the masses. Now, ‘legitimacy gap’ is the difference between what the people or civilians expect from the state government and what or how much the latter is able to deliver the former; or the difference between what different groups in the society expect from each other and what they actually get/give. The wider this legitimacy gap, the more is the risk of intra-state conflict. Background reasons require high value of inertia over time and space, slowly, to bring about conflict. The Hindu-Muslim conflict in the Indian subcontinent around 1947 and also afterwards, can be thought of as a good example of conflicting arising out of background reasons. Once again, it is proved that culture, identity, ideology (here, religion coupled with nationalism) provide ample ripeness for outbreak of war, when many thought that the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 saw the end of religious warfare (Stoessinger, 1993; p133). Proximate reasons involve shocks or sparks that makes conflict to stay at temporal closeness (Ohlson, 2008). Resources involve manpower, training, weapons, money, geographical location and leader(s), in short, the ‘opportunity structure’. With the advent of globalization, more non-state actors are acting in wars and these wars are actuated to satiate greed. Resolve includes ‘will-power’, ‘alternatives’ and their ‘underpinnings’. It is the ‘collective mobilized mental readiness’ to go to war, with the sufficient resources and reasons. Resolve is a special case among the three since it can be a result of or a cause to the other two R’s. There is distillation of ‘self’ from the ‘other’. Then mobilization is done to complete the resolve. A high level of Resolve is essential to bring about organized, large-scale physical violence. A higher degree of Resolve can result into concrete changes in the other two R-clusters in the manner of a feedback mechanism (Ohlson, 2008). Stoessinger (1993) stresses that ultimately ‘misperceptions’ result in wars, whereas Black (1998) suggests that it is the acknowledgement of differences aided by the ‘bellicosity’ of the key actors which enables them to fight for their convictions that lead to war. Black’s typology of wars include: ‘wars across cultures’, ‘wars within cultures’, and ‘civil wars’, based on the concept of culture. He warns the reader of the changing meaning of culture over time. He uses a historical perspective in answering the question of causes of war. Thus, one can start off with the dominant tradition in IR, i.e. realism, to understand the causes of war and then move on to a study of ideas behind the key issues of the realist tradition, that is, the evolutionary theories. A study of notions critiquing realism is also essential to understand the limitations of realism in finding the answers. Then, a number of meta-level analyses of conceptual framework in understanding the causes of wars is also important to take into consideration. Since there is no straightforward approach to finding the root causes of war, a philosophical guideline (here I used the ways of looking at causal relationships as in the scriptures of the Buddhist philosopher Nāgārjuna) can be called upon from time to time to keep the quest on track, to check if the quest is not digressing from its fundamental positions of query. BIBLIOGRAPHY Abizadeh, A., 2011. ‘Hobbes on the Causes of War: A Disagreement Theory’, American Political Science Review 105(2), pp. 298-315. Black, J., 1998. Why Wars Happen. London: Reaktion Books Donnelly, J., 2005. Theories of International Relations. 3rd Ed. Edited by Scott Burchill et al. New York: Palgrave Macmillan Garfield, Jay L., 1995. The fundamental wisdom of the middle way: Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā. New York: Oxford University Press. Gat, A., 2009. 'So Why Do People Fight? Evolutionary Theory and the Causes of War', European Journal of International Relations, 15 (4), pp. 571-599. Lebow, Richard N., 2010. International Relations Theories, Discipline and Diversity. 2nd Ed. Edited by Tim Dunn et al. Oxford: Oxford University Press Mearsheimer, John J., 2010. International Relations Theories, Discipline and Diversity. 2nd Ed. Edited by Tim Dunn et al. Oxford: Oxford University Press Nye, Joseph S., 2005. Understanding International Conflict: An Introduction to Theory and History. 5th Ed. New York: Pearson Education Ohlson, T., 2008. ‘Understanding Causes of War and Peace’, European Journal of International Relations, 14(1), pp. 133-160. Stoessinger, John G., 1993. Why nations go to war. 6th Ed. New York: St. Martin’s Press Thayer, Bradley A., 2000. ‘Bringing in Darwin: Evolutionary Theory, Realism, and International Politics’, International Security, 25(2), pp. 124-151. Van Evara, S., 1999. Causes of War: Power and the Roots of Conflict. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press Critically assess one theoretical approach to the causes of conflict Conflict Theory and Analysis By ANANYA DAS Page 1 of 9