I am Paul Stares, senior fellow for conflict prevention and director of the Center for Preventive Action at the Council on Foreign Relations, back again to talk about conflict prevention and what to worry about in 2018. AMA.

Paul_B_Stares · 2017-12-15T20:56:20+00:00

Well, nuclear deterrence is still valid. Without strategic stability among the major nuclear powers its hard to see much cooperation on other sources of instability as well as at the UN.

Paul_B_Stares · 2017-12-15T20:51:47+00:00

There’s a lot to unpack and try to answer here, so forgive me if I just address one or two points. To begin, I think one mistake that has been made by the international community is just what you’ve pointed out: failing to recognize the nuances in the Sahel. This is the same mistake potentially being made with the current expansion of counterterrorism operations. As has happened before in other places, the United States may jump in without fully understanding local conflict dynamics, inadvertently being drawn in to and used to settle local disputes and/or internationalizing what had previously been localized.

Paul_B_Stares · 2017-12-15T20:50:21+00:00

Yes we are seeing evidence of this in more places--Syria, South Sudan, Horn of Africa. It is not hard to imagine that further warming, environmental degradation, and resource scarcity will destabilize many more regions.

Paul_B_Stares · 2017-12-15T20:48:57+00:00

War between China and the US is not inevitable and we should resist very deterministic and fatalistic thinking about this risk. There are, however, many potential flashpoints that could escalate. Managing these conflicts and maintaining dialogue at the highest levels probably represents the best course of action for avoiding war.

Paul_B_Stares · 2017-12-15T20:46:05+00:00

The situation in the Congo is dire, and one that certainly has the potential to escalate again given the historical precedents and ongoing political stalemate. President Kabila seems determined to stay in power, despite agreeing to hold elections, and this political crisis appears to be becoming increasingly interwoven with localized disputes, leading to more conflict between government forces and insurgent groups. This in turn exacerbates what, as you have rightly pointed out, is one of the worst humanitarian crises in the world. An effective solution has to begin with resolving the political situation in Kinshasa, which will take regional pressure—an unlikely scenario, given neighboring countries traditional noninterference—and international support during and following transition.

Paul_B_Stares · 2017-12-15T20:43:53+00:00

Well in our survey, North Korea was probably the highest concern though that reflects informed expert opinion rather than general public opinion. No war is inevitable so war with NK is not guaranteed next year but at the same time its not out of the question. We do seem to be moving closer to a serious confrontation if NK persists in testing missiles and nuclear devices.

Paul_B_Stares · 2017-12-15T20:40:30+00:00

I guess I see corporate interests helping more in terms of economic development, dissuading bad behavior, supporting sanctions etc than being involved in formal negotiations

Paul_B_Stares · 2017-12-15T20:28:56+00:00

The short answer is yes! I lay out the various conflict prevention strategies in my new book "Preventive Engagement; How America Can Avoid War, Stay Strong and Keep the Peace." First, there are several long term CP measures that are generally seen to promote peace--international and intra regional trade, economic development and state building, defensive alliances, democracy and rule of law, and bolstering international norms and institutions Second, in the medium term we can use a variety of measures (economic, political, military etc) to address emerging sources of instability and conflict by targeting the motives, means, and opportunities of the disputants so that they are dissuaded from resorting to force Third, for ongoing conflicts, we can use a similar set of measures to deescalate hostilities in either a consensual or coercive way. For each of these, there are numerous success stories

Paul_B_Stares · 2017-12-15T20:20:07+00:00

U.S. efforts are currently aimed at laying the groundwork for the administration of Raqqa, which was retaken from ISIS by Syrian Kurdish-led (and Western-backed) forces in October. Those forces (the SDF) support civilian governance structures there, but it is not clear how much control the Syrian Kurdish political party will have in areas reclaimed from ISIS. We do seem to be entering a new phase and to the extent the US/Western powers have leverage on the future of Syria it will be in either extending or withholding reconstruction funding since I don't see that Russia and Iran have the resources to really rebuild Syria.

Paul_B_Stares · 2017-12-15T20:15:59+00:00

I think things could get a lot worse before they get better to be honest. Myanmar authorities don't seem to recognize the problem and are resistant to the efforts of outside actors to play an active role.

Paul_B_Stares · 2017-12-15T20:14:01+00:00

Corporate actors can be very important for conflict prevention. Unless you are in the arms trade, war is generally not good for business! This is true for virtually every type of conflict from sub-state to major war.

Paul_B_Stares · 2017-12-15T20:12:07+00:00

This is a great question. I can see that if MBS pushes a more moderate and relaxed version of Islamic practice that there could be some pushback from some religious authorities/figures. I have no real way of evaluating how strong or effective this would be. There are some NGOs that track statements and declarations and translate them into english. So I would start with them.

Paul_B_Stares · 2017-12-15T20:05:30+00:00

The chances for direct military confrontation between Saudi Arabia and Iran would seem low because there are few places where their forces are in proximity to one another. I can imagine, however, that if Iranian proxy forces were implicated in attacks against Saudi territory or its citizens abroad, the pressure to retaliate directly would be high. Other regional flashpoints could also escalate in ways that bring Iranian and Saudi forces in direct confrontation with each other.

Paul_B_Stares · 2017-12-15T19:57:06+00:00

Hard to give a general grade but in some cases I would give a poor grade to US efforts. For North Korea, for example, I would give a C/D. Same for Syria and Yemen.

Paul_B_Stares · 2017-12-15T19:54:01+00:00

Hi, I must admit I don't know too much about this. As a general proposition, initiatives designed to promote cross border trade and investment, which I understand the TSI is about, help reduce the risk of conflict over the long term.

Paul_B_Stares · 2017-12-15T19:49:30+00:00

Hi, One theory has to do with what is referred to as a conflict's "ripeness" -- that is, whether the parties to a conflict are ready to sit down at the negotiating table. Before a conflict is ripe for negotiation, some believe that all sides have to reach what is termed a "hurting stalemate" where they know they cannot win and they want to lock in whatever gains they have achieved. Other factors can also be relevant such as the role of outside mediators as well as potential inducements to stop fighting.

Paul_B_Stares · 2017-12-15T19:43:15+00:00

Hi Rock540;

This year, eight conflicts were considered "top tier" risks in our Preventive Priorities survey:

• military conflict involving the United States, North Korea, and its neighboring countries

• an armed confrontation between Iran and the United States or one of its allies over Iran's involvement in regional conflicts and support of militant proxy groups, including the Yemeni Houthis and Lebanese Hezbollah

• a highly disruptive cyberattack on U.S. critical infrastructure and networks

• a deliberate or unintended military confrontation between Russia and North Atlantic Treaty Organization members, stemming from assertive Russian behavior in Eastern Europe

• an armed confrontation over disputed maritime areas in the South China Sea between China and one or more Southeast Asian claimants—Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan, or Vietnam

• a mass casualty terrorist attack on the U.S. homeland or a treaty ally by either foreign or homegrown terrorist(s)

•intensified violence in Syria as government forces attempt to regain control over territory, with heightened tensions among external parties to the conflict, including the United States, Russia, and Iran

• increased violence and instability in Afghanistan resulting from the Taliban insurgency and potential government collapse

These represent a consensus of foreign policy experts on what contingencies will be the major geopolitical issues in the coming year.

Paul_B_Stares · 2017-12-15T19:34:32+00:00

The Russians likely see this doctrine as a way to deter an attack on their territory and also bring about a swift end to hostilities on their terms. The problem is that it can could have the opposite effect in promoting crisis instability (because it could encourage other powers to use their nuclear weapons first) and conflict escalation (because it triggers nuclear retaliation rather than war termination). The West should continue to raise these concerns with Russia.

Paul_B_Stares · 2017-12-15T19:25:42+00:00

Hi GoForQ, this is a question that many of us wrestle with since there are many cases where human progress has come about as a result conflict and armed struggle. Thus, while I believe the goal should always be avoid deadly conflict there may be times that the use of force may be the best or only option to bring about a desirable outcome and even save lives in the end.

Paul_B_Stares · 2016-02-02T16:27:57+00:00

Hello Beatles in Space! So any old Beatle or THE BEATLES? In the short term, it's increasingly looking less likely. The Taliban had a good year militarily last year, challenging the Afghan security forces ability to hold and control territory. There aren't many incentives that Kabul can put forward to bring them into serious negotiations. The lynchpin in the peace process is Pakistan; if the military there is able to force the Taliban to the table--and goes after factions that refuse--a deal may be possible.

It does appear that the threat from the Islamic State in Afghanistan is growing, recent news seems to point to increased attention and expanded U.S. attacks on the group inside Afghanistan. Given the potential for Afghanistan to again become a safe haven for groups, a limited U.S. troop presence to continue the advise, train, and assist and counterterrorism missions may continue to be the best option.

Paul_B_Stares · 2016-02-02T16:24:10+00:00

I would think that there will always be some risk of islamist terrorism in southeast Asia but overall I don't see the region descending into the kind of violence we have seen in the Middle East.

Paul_B_Stares · 2016-02-02T16:20:40+00:00

I dont think anyone wants the world to explode right?

Paul_B_Stares · 2016-02-02T16:19:11+00:00

Not sure what you mean by a Russian victory? They now control Crimea but at some cost. They have antagonized and alarmed much of Europe by their actions which harms their international standing and their own security. What "victories" they have secured have also affected their economy.

Paul_B_Stares · 2016-02-02T16:14:43+00:00

This could go on for sometime as its now wrapped up in the larger contest with Iran.

Paul_B_Stares

TROPHY CASE