In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Editors'Note T h i s issue begins with several articles on the causes of ethnic wars. First, Jack Snyder, Director of Columbia's Institute of War and Peace Studies, and Karen Ballentine, a doctoral candidate in Columbia University's Political Science Department, agree with the conventional wisdom that media manipulation often plays a central role in promoting nationalist and ethnic conflict. However, they take issue with the antidote usually prescribed. "Promoting unconditional freedom of public debate in newly democratizing societies is, in many circumstances, likely to make the problem worse." Developing the parallels between economic competition and the political "marketplace of ideas," they argue that "increased debate in the political marketplace leads to better outcomes only when there are mechanisms to correct market imperfections." They test their arguments against the cases of ethnic conflict in the former Yugoslavia and in Rwanda,and conclude with suggestions for improving the quality of public debate in new democracies. A n explanation of the origins of ethnic conflict based on a "rational choice" approach is offered by David A. Lake, of the Institute for Global Conflict and Cooperationat the University of California at Sun Diego, and Donald Rothchild of the Department of Political Science at the University of California at Davis. They argue that intense ethnic conflict is most often caused by collectivefears of the future, which give rise to dangerous and intractable strategic dilemmas. Lake and Rothchild draw lessonsfor the effective management of ethnic conflict. In 1989, ethno-religious discontent in Kashmir erupted into a full-blown violent insurgency. Sumit Ganguly of the Department of Political Science at Hunter College, City University of New York, examines the causes of the insurgency. He argues that the Kashmir insurgency demonstrates the dangers of political mobilization against a backdrop of institutional decay. As economic modernization proceeds, increasing literacy , education, and media exposure contribute to increased political mobilization and political demands. "Attempts to fend off such demands through coercive means can only contribute to political deinstitutionalization," with high risks and costsfor states. Stuart Kaufman of the Department of Political Science, Universityof Kentucky uses Moldova's 1991-92 civil war to illustrate the spirals to ethnic war. He argues that under certain preconditions, three factors join to cause ethnic war: hostile masses, belligerent leaders, and inter-ethnic security dilemmas. "The standard explanations of the Gulf War's outcome are wrong," argues Stephen Biddle of the Institute for Defense Analyses. It was not the Coalition's advanced International Security, Vol. 21, No. 2 (Fall 19961,pp. 3 4 0 1996 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 3 International Security 212 1 4 technology, nor Iraq's poor morale, training,or leadership,nor its numerical inferiority, that explain the historically unprecedented one-sided outcome. Biddle draws on newly available detailed histories of the war along with counterfactual analysis using computer simulation techniques, and concludes that the Gulf War shows that modern warfare provides increasing penalties for error, but little ability to prevail cheaply over skilled enemies. Thus, the much touted "revolution in militay affairs," which claims that precision air and missile strikes and the struggle for information supremacy will be decisive in future wars, is not supported by the Gulf War evidence on which it purports to be based. Biddle argues for alternative implications of the Gulf War victory for U S .force and doctrine planning. As China's size and growing power alter the contours of Asian security, international commerce, and the global balance of power, other nations debate and ponder how best to deal with the "awakened dragon." David Shambaugh of the Sigur Center for East Asian Studies at the George Washington University,notes that projections of size and strength are not as difficult as predictions about China's internal political and social cohesion, and how it will wield its strength on the world stage. He argues that "containment" of China is a badly flawed policy option, and that engagement, even though it will not be fully reciprocated by China, is the best way to integrate China into the international system. NOTE TO CONTRIBUTORS International Security welcomes submissions on all aspects of security affairs. Manuscripts should be typed, double...

pdf

Share