Containing Fear: The Origins and Management of Ethnic Conflict

ContainingFear The Origins and Management of Ethnic Conflict Cold War, a wave of ethnic conflict has swept across David A.Lake and Donald Rothchild S i n c e the end of the parts of Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union, and Africa. Localities, states, and sometimes whole regions have been engulfed in convulsivefits of ethnic insecurity, violence, and genocide. Early optimism that the end of the Cold War might usher in a new world order has been quickly shattered. Before the threat of nuclear armageddon could fully fade, new threats of state meltdown and ethnic cleansing have rippled across the international community. The most widely discussed explanationsof ethnicconflict are, at best, incomplete and, at worst, simply wrong. Ethnic conflict is not caused directly by inter-group differences, "ancient hatreds" and centuries-old feuds, or the stressesof modem life within a global economy.Nor were ethnicpassions, long bottled up by repressive communist regimes, simply uncorked by the end of the Cold War. We argue instead that intense ethnic conflict is most often caused by collective fears of the future. As groups begin to fear for their safety, dangerous and difficult-to-resolve strategic dilemmas arise that contain within them the potential for tremendous violence. As information failures, problems of credible commitment, and the security dilemma take hold, groups become apprehensive , the state weakens, and conflict becomes more likely. Ethnic activists and political entrepreneurs, operating within groups, build upon these fears of insecurity and polarize society.Political memories and emotions also magnify these anxieties, driving groups further apart. Together, these between-group David A. Lake is Professor of Political Science at the University of California, Sun Diego, and Research Director for International Relations at the Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation.Donald Rothchild is Professor of Political Science at the University of California, Davis. This is an abridged version of two chapters by the authors that will appear in David A. Lake and Donald Rothchild, eds., Ethnic Fears and Global Engagement:The International Spread and Management of Ethnic Conflict (forthcoming). This research was sponsored by the Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation (IGCC)at the University of California and supported by a generous grant from the Pew Charitable Trusts. An earlier draft o f this paper was discussed by IGCC's Working Group on the International Spread and Management of Ethnic Conflict. We are indebted to the members of the working group for many productive discussions over a two-year period. We would especiallylike to thank MilesKahler,Arnold Kanter,Charles Kupchan, Charles WilliamMaynes, Bamett Rubin, Timothy D. Sisk, Stephen JohnStedman, and JohnSteinbruner for comments on an earlier draft of this paper. International Security, Vol. 21, No. 2 (Fall 1996), pp. 41-75 0 1996 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology 41 International Security 21:2 I 42 and within-group strategic interactions produce a toxic brew of distrust and suspicion that can explode into murderous violence. Managing ethnic conflicts, whether by local elites and governments or concerned members of the international community, is a continuing process with no end point or final resolution. It is also an imperfect process that, no matter how well-conducted, leaves some potential for violence in nearly all multiethnic polities. Ethnic conflict can be contained, but it cannot be entirely resolved. Effectivemanagement seeks to reassure minority groups of both their physical security and, because it is often a harbinger of future threats, their cultural security. Demonstrations of respect, power-sharing, elections engineered to produce the interdependence of groups, and the establishment of regional autonomy and federalismare important confidence-buildingmeasures that, by promoting the rights and positions of minority groups, mitigate the strategic dilemmas that produce violence. International intervention may also be necessary and appropriate to protect minorities against their worst fears, but its effectivenessis limited. Noncoercive interventions can raise the costs of purely ethnic appeals and induce groups to abide by international norms. Coercive interventions can help bring warring parties to the bargaining table and enforce the resulting terms. Mediation can facilitate agreement and implementation. A key issue in all interventions, especially in instancesof external coercion, is the credibilityof the international commitment. External interventions that the warring parties...