Conflict Prevention - Early Warning Indicators and Signs

Models
Types
Effectiveness

Lack of political will or urgency are often presented as the main reasons why countries fail to act decisively to reverse incipient conflicts around the world. However, while admitting that these factors may play a role, Michael Lund claims that they are not of primary importance. Rather, the most fundamental factor, he explains, is that politicians and middle-level elites in the US and elsewhere, have very little knowledge and understanding of the nature of post-Cold war conflict, as well as the mechanisms that can be used to reduce them. In order to promote effective preventive diplomacy, policy makers need to know a number of things about the potential real cost of conflict, the risks and effectiveness of preventive action, and the mechanisms and ways by which prevention can be implemented.

Developing frameworks that can predict conflict and devise the most effective operating procedures on the basis of the nature of the conflict, its context, and dynamics, is therefore vital for policymakers to feel confident enough to support preventive initiatives. Further, organizing and synthesizing pre-conflict information into meaningful categories that clearly indicate threat levels in each unique case, will be needed in order for such initiatives to be implemented.

In order for third parties and the international community to better be able to predict and prevent violent conflict, we have to know the warning signs that precede it. The earlier the reaction to an incipient conflict, the greater the opportunity of reversing a deteriorating situation. We can be forewarned of impending crises through early warning indicators or signs:

Indicators are certain figures or groups of figures that, when monitored over time, tell about changes in political and economic conditions of a country or group. They are long-term in perspective and include issues such as crime rates among certain groups, trends in unemployment, negative attitudes, forms of expression, and political association.
Signs are more short-term indices that do not necessarily appear regularly but whose appearance signals fundamental changes in a country’s situation or the deterioration of inter-group relations. They are, for example: sharp increases in violent crime, vandalism, protest, threats and/or rhetoric, as well as increases in ethnically or religiously motivated attacks.

Models

There are numerous early-warning systems at work in conflict-prone regions around the world. The Clingendael Institute of International Relations in the Netherlands, has made an effort to track these systems in their report "Conflict Prognostication: Toward a tentative framework for Conflict." In contrast to early warning systems in other fields (such as agriculture or meteorology) early warning models on conflict differ in that the phenomenon to be warned about involves human decisions, thoughts and behaviors. The report creates a three-fold typology of Conflict Prevention models: the correlation model, the sequential model, and the response model.

Whereas the correlation model focuses on structural indicators and causality and how these will help us understand why conflicts occur, the sequential model focuses on shorter-term early warning by studying the sequence by which events that can trigger conflicts have occurred in the past. The response model is different in that it is "policy-driven” or "consumer-driven." Rather than trying to understand the causes of conflict, it identifies the points in a conflict process in which strategic interventions are likely to make a difference in outcomes.

Early-warning models differ in terms of their objective, structure, manner in which data is collected, and mandate of the monitoring authorities. When choosing a methodology each system has to determine whether to use short-term or long-term indicators, take a qualitative or quantitative approach, or collect generic vs. specific information. Most of these choices have to be adapted to the specific context of the region where the data is collected, as well as to the availability and reliability of information. In addition, the task of setting up an early warning structure is far from simple: it requires a comprehensive and exhaustive strategy for the employment of the mechanisms. Early warning projects should prioritize putting in place short-term systems that can provide information on the most immediate threats of the escalation of violence.

Types of Indicators and Signs

Monitoring programs have to be formulated so as to provide us with the knowledge needed to tackle the issues that eventually lead to violent conflict. General indicators-- such as economic, social, legal or environmental-- are monitored by most governments (and often by international organizations) in most areas of the world. However, information-collection requires resources and coordination, two aspects that are often missing in poorer countries, or in countries plagued by violence or conflict. Some indicators may be harder to track than others and in many cases governments even make an intentional effort to disguise certain conditions that could put them in a bad light or give credit to a political opposition. Political or security-related indicators are typical in this regard.

There is no consensus over what type of indicators most accurately predict the emergence of a conflict, and in some cases findings are contradictory. Studies done by the Clingendael Institute show that whereas military/political conditions serve as triggers for the outbreak of violent conflict, economic and social indicators are important for the structural background conditions within societies that provide a potential breeding ground for discontent and political mobilization. Some examples of typical signs and indicators:

Demographic	Sudden demographic changes and displacement/movements of people Increasing "territoriality" of groups/peoples
Economic	Short-term and long term changes in economic performance of a country or a region Increase in poverty or inequality Rise of unemployment rate Economic shocks or financial crises.
Policy-Related	Deliberate acts of governments against a specific group or region Destruction or desecration of religious sites Active discrimination or legislation favoring one group over another Potentially destabilizing referendums or elections Government "clamp-downs"
Public Opinion or "Social Factors"	A rise in "societal" intolerance and prejudice An increase in numbers of demonstrations or rallies
External	Intervention or support on behalf of one of the parties/groups by an external actor "Diffusion" or "contagion" of ideologies or conflicts in neighboring regions An influx of refugees from a conflict in a neighboring country

Along with typical indicators or signs to be monitored by different systems, there should also be room for creative ways to pinpoint problems that may be specific to the local society/culture in question. Some examples may be the increase in the sales of spray paint (political graffiti), rising copying or printing costs (used for creating pamphlets), children’s art (can show levels of exposure to street violence or domestic violence), or gun-holsters (mobilization of arms).

The Minorities at Risk Project is a quantitative system that analyses and monitors the state of minority groups around the world, in order to determine whether or not they are “at risk.” Once developed and functioning, a project like this may serve as an effective way to predict and prevent the onset of genocide and rising inter-group tension. The following summation of the Minorities at Risk project is taken from Gurr’s book, People versus States.

Minorities At Risk Project

Ethnic violence happens when the group forms a basis for political mobilization and action in defense or promotion of its self-defined interests. Within this group there is an entity or association that claims to act on behalf of the group. The groups included in the MAR study had to meet one of various sets of operational criteria, such as:

A group had to be in a country where the population in 1995 numbered at least 500,000.
A group had to number 100,000 or, if fewer, exceed 1 percent of the population of at least one country in which they resided.

According to the MAR dataset, there are 275 minorities at risk in the world, constituting about 17.4 percent of the world’s population. There are two categories in which minorities are divided:

Ethnic Groups - people who share a distinctive and enduring collective identity based on a belief in common descent and on shared experiences and cultural traits. Sometimes also referred to as communal and identity groups.
Ethnopolitical Groups - identity groups, whose ethnicity has political consequences, resulting in differential treatment of group members or in political action on behalf of group interests.

Considered as National Peoples are three subheadings:

Ethnonationalists - regionally concentrated peoples with a history of organized political autonomy with their own state, traditional ruler, or regional government who have supported political movements for autonomy at some time since 1945. (Out of Gurr’s 275 groups, 41 classify as ethnonationalists.)
National Minorities - segments of a trans-state people with a history of organized political autonomy whose kindred control an adjacent state, but, who now, constitute a minority in the state in which they reside.
Indigenous Peoples - conquered descendants of earlier inhabitants of a region who live mainly in conformity with traditional social, economic and cultural customs, different from those of the dominant ethnic groups. Some indigenous people, due to their past political experiences are classified as ethnonationalists.

Considered as Minority Peoples are the following:

Ethnoclasses - ethnically or culturally distinct peoples usually descended from slaves or immigrants, most of whom occupy a distinct social and economic stratum or niche. If an ethnoclass is a politically organized contender for a share in state power, it is classified a communal contender.
Communal Contenders - culturally distinct peoples, tribes, or clans in heterogeneous societies who hold or seek a share in state power. They can be advantaged, disadvantaged or dominant.

The Effectiveness of Early Warning Systems

Many practitioners and academics question the relevance and the efficacy of early warning systems due to the problems inherent in the development of mechanisms for information collection, and the implementation of such systems. Local networks of civil groups or associations, educational institutions or non-governmental organizations can be effective in monitoring day-to-day changes in a society, since they are familiar with the context that they are working in. International Non-governmental Organizations or International Organizations are often essential both in monitoring activities and providing resources for local activities. In order for early warning systems to function properly, they must be integrated into the international framework and preferably the UN system. However, even more importantly they have to be visible for local politicians and elites in order for them to access the information and address the situation themselves.

After gathering data, a number of additional problems may arise: where does the information go once it has been collected? Who has the mandate, willingness or resources to act in those cases where the risks of impending conflict are unambiguous? Even if systems of early warning are in place there is still often a general absence of political capabilities, resources and willingness to get involved on the part of international actors. Any Conflict Prevention system therefore has to be designed and institutionalized in such a way as to commit politicians and governments to certain responses that become part of a routine. There also has to be a clear method of distinguishing between “noise” and real indicators, as well as a way to avoid reactions to false incomplete information.

The long-term has to be weighed against the short-term: the question is whether preventing violent conflict with all its repercussions is worth a few mistakes? More importantly, is preventing violent conflict a political priority? The answers to these questions will determine if the risks and costs outweigh the benefits.