![]() ![]() This in and of itself is not a bad thing, but the uncertainties such a shift throws up are cause for concern. In the balance between soft and hard power, the latter currently is dominant.Īll this, of course, is playing out against – and in part driven by – a growing diffusion of power globally. ![]() And it is manifested in some actors resorting too readily to the rallying cry of counter-terrorism, with its playbook of repressive measures and eschewing the very inclusivity invariably essential to sustained peace. It can be witnessed in the resort to muscular security responses that can neither fully contain the threat nor address its underlying causes. This can be seen in burgeoning intolerance to the mass movement of people, as actions are taken to stem or push back the flow without trying adequately to address the reasons why such movement is underway on such an unprecedented scale. This increasing fusion of local and global is reflected further in heightened nationalism and ideological dogmatism, with – as things stand – the triumph of policies designed to cater to short-term tactical imperatives as much if not more than preserving or ensuring long-term stability. The growing prevalence of non-state armed groups and in some instances their propensity to fracture, together with the blending of licit and illicit economies, churns yet more this complex terrain. ![]() In such crowded landscapes – with a multitude of actors and equally broad range of motivations – navigating a route to peace becomes immeasurably more difficult. And third, growing uncertainty about hitherto assumed structures and institutions to collectively manage danger.Īll ten conflicts possess international dimensions, in many instances overwhelmingly so. First, an increasing fusion of the domestic with the international. Essentially, these can be distilled down to three. Percolating through it are the range of interlinked dangers and stresses that makes this era so perilous. Second, the list can be read as one document. An underlying premise of this report is our belief that the EU has the potential – indeed faces an imperative – to bring to bear all the tools at its disposal fully to do its bit, in concert with others, to preserve the threatened field of conflict prevention. In putting forward tentative prescriptions, our principal target is the European Union (EU), its institutions and member states, whether working directly or in conjunction with others. ![]() That we could provide a rival, equally valid list is itself cause for concern.įor each conflict, we seek to indicate the contours of possible policy responses based on ground-up analysis. A case could be made, too, for the Western Balkans, perhaps, or Central Asian states. But even so, strong arguments can be made for the inclusion of others: examples include Afghanistan, Ukraine, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the South China Sea and Democratic Republic of Congo. For that reason we place them explicitly in their regional contexts. Inevitably perhaps, the countries selected represent a partial snapshot. First, it aims to highlight those conflicts which Crisis Group believes threaten to worsen significantly unless remedial action is taken. Greater efforts are needed, and urgently, both to understand better the growing dangers of conflict seeping from one arena to another and to engage a broader array of actors with the capacity to effect positive change. Increasingly, too, its self-projected image as an unalloyed force for good is becoming exposed. Much of that premise still holds, but for us, as for others, it is no longer sufficient: the West can no longer be viewed either as homogenous or an oasis of tranquility. When Crisis Group was founded, its premise was that bringing field-based expert analysis to the attention of (principally) Western policymakers could effect positive change in both preventing and ending situations of deadly conflict. These overlapping risks, unchecked, could coalesce into a major crisis – indeed we are currently experiencing a spike in global conflict violence – without the safety net of solid structures to deal with it. It is difficult to think of a time in recent history when there has been such a confluence of destabilising factors – local, regional and global – hindering collective capacity to better manage violence. Whether unprecedented or not, the challenges currently facing our global security are immense and cause for considerable alarm. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |