Understanding global security - Peter Hough

MILITARY THREATS TO SECURITY FROM STATES
posed about the recent wars could also be countered by clearer international
legal guidelines. Yugoslavia and NATO could simultaneously point to UN Charter
articles to support their positions that the other side was at fault in the 1999 war.
A retreat from total war and the strengthening of a legal and ethical framework
for fighting future wars in the human interest is surely something to be welcomed.
The International Criminal Court provides some evidence that this is the way the
international community is evolving (see Chapter 5).
Conflict resolution
A central feature of the New World Order was an increased commitment by the
international community to work towards resolving violent conflicts. There was scope
for optimism in the 1990s that the open sores that were the late twentieth century’s
‘proxy wars’ could be allowed to heal now that the superpower interest in their
maintenance was removed. Additionally, it was hoped that the ‘peace dividend’ of the
East–West thaw could now be allocated to restoring order to militarized disputes
unrelated to the Cold War. The results of this have been quite impressive. Research
suggests that twice as many conflicts based on self-determination (both inter-state
and civil) were resolved in the 1990s than in the whole Cold War era, with 14 such
conflicts being ‘contained’ and 17 ‘settled’ in the New World Order era as opposed
to six and nine, repsectively, between 1945 and 1990 (Gurr et al. 2001: 17). A more
proactive UN and the determination of the USA to utilize their power in order to
play the world policeman role in a diplomatic context have been key factors. US
presidents played pivotal roles in the negotiation of settlements for the resolution
of the Yugoslav wars of secession (in 1995 at Dayton), Northern Ireland ‘troubles’
(in 1998 at Belfast) and the ultimately unsuccessful Oslo Accords (1993) aiming to
resolve the Palestinian–Israeli conflict.
Post-1990 conflict resolution has not, however, just been about a revival of
collective security and superpower policing – less powerful actors and more subtle
techniques have been an additional feature. Less powerful states have played arbitration
roles, such as the government of Norway, which has played a role in
encouraging peace in the inter-state conflicts between Israel and the Arab states,
India and Pakistan and civil wars in the Philippines and, most notably, Sri Lanka.
Humanitarian pressure groups have become an increased factor in promoting
negotiation and compromise. International Alert have been prominent in instigating
peace processes in many conflict areas and the Norwegian government have
developed partnerships with groups such as the Norwegian Institute of International
Affairs to lend assistance to the resolution of persistent armed conflicts such as in the
Congo. Pressure groups cannot bring force to resolve disputes but stand a better
chance than governments of being considered as impartial by those embroiled in
conflict and can use their expertise to suggest innovative solutions to complex
disputes.
Post-Cold War conflict resolution has been marked by the use of strategies
going beyond straight mutual compromise. ‘Conflict transformation’, in which
common ground is found among warring parties by encouraging them to redefine
their interests, is an increasingly prominent strategy, promoted by the UN and
39