Strategic Conflict Analysis
Strategic conflict analysis is a part of comparative politics. It is a very simple idea in theory, where a specific conflict is analyzed relative to its causes and possible consequences. The analysis must be specific to the conflict and should include a substantial amount of historical data to ground the present grouping of combatants.
Other People Are Reading
-
Types
-
There are four types of analysis based on theoretical models that can be applied to different kinds of conflict. One is economic analysis. This assumes that the motives for violence are based on a sense of economic discrimination or disadvantaged status. Another approach deals with a more general sense of grievance. Violence occurs because groups feel themselves second-class citizens, ruled by a government that is alien in some sense.
Many approaches also seek to combine different levels where applicable. Lastly, there is the dynamic model that posits that causes for violence and the positions of actors change as the war continues. What began the conflict gets placed into the background as the body count rises. This requires a close watch over the actors and their stated (and often unstated) purposes and agendas.
Features
-
There are generally three features to any conflict analysis. The first feature is the accounting of causal factors. These can be racial or ethnic, economic or religious. They can also be any combination of these.
The second feature requires that the combatants in the conflict be identified, and their specific grievances and positions outlined. Lastly, the dynamics of the conflict should be noted. The main issues here are triggers for violence, the response of other actors and the concept of escalation. Importantly, this factor also includes any outside intervention in the conflict in terms of supplies or safe havens.
-
Function
-
The main purpose of this analysis is to provide expert advice to policymakers. This is particularly useful in areas not known to the average politician, such as Central Asia or Eastern Europe. The main questions here concern the possibility of intervention, the effect on other states, economic questions and the interests of the sponsoring state.
Benefits
-
Without a detailed analysis, it would be very difficult to assist in peacemaking, peacekeeping or humanitarian assistance. Strategic analyses should be drawn up from different points of view to promote sensitivity on all sides. The real purpose here is to create peace and lasting, legitimate institutions, not to intervene on one side or another. Ultimately, the strategic analysis is meant to understand conflict and prevent outbreaks of violence in the future.
Considerations
-
This sort of analysis is difficult to do, since states and other agencies who sponsor these have agendas. The U.S. government has, for example, officially condemned Burma, Belarus and China on many occasions over the past decade (2000-2010). When conflict breaks out in these areas, the bias against the state has already become such a part of the corporate and bureaucratic culture that it is hard to break through. Therefore, the analysis from official sources (such as governments or corporations) might be taken with a grain of salt in states long condemned by these same sources.
-
References
Resources
- Photo Credit war & children image by Anton Baranovsky from Fotolia.com
