Contours of Conflict in the 21st Century

CROSS-LANGUAGE DOMAIN PERSPECTIVESbetween the domains with respect to the set of sources that were collectedin this project. We will then proceed with a comparative analysis of firstthe parameters and then the drivers, before moving to some final takeaways.If you want to go directly to the main take -aways of perspectivesacross languages, please jump to page 140.The future nature of conflict continues to fascinate experts across alllanguage domains. The fact that the HCSS team was able to collecta sizeable number of different views about this topic in all languagedomains testifies to this fact. At the same time, we observe distinctdifferences across the sets of documents in each different languagedomain:• The Arab set was disappointing in quality. HCSS was unable – despitesignificant efforts that greatly exceeded the efforts in other languagedomains – to identify any studies that corresponded to the qualitycriteria we imposed on the three other language domains. They aretherefore not included in this report. We have to conclude that theoverall research infrastructure remains weakly developed in the Arabworld and that there appears to be little room for serious forwardlookingsecurity research. What is most striking about the Arabliterature we scanned is the extremely presentist tenor of the debate onconflict. Given the importance of the region, the authors continue tofeel that we have to make a differently designed effort to identify (andtake seriously) the views of local elites.• The Chinese studies were a revelation to the team. Although there ismuch discussion in the strategic community about the rise of Asia (andof China in particular), our knowledge of Chinese views of the futureremains patchy (and quite derivative – whereby the same sources thatare cited in a few Western studies keep getting regurgitated in theWestern debate). But the significantly expanded set of documents wecollected show that there is a growing strategic community that isactively discussing these matters. It also demonstrates that – despiteconcerns about (self-) censorship – there is a remarkable amount ofdiversity within the debate, with some quite distinct views on variousaspects of the future of conflictHCSS Report 127