Conflict prevention and conflict management–the former elusive, the latter all too familiar. Over the last two decades, the instances where the first has been achieved to any degree of success runs to less than single figures; the instances of the second almost into the hundreds. There are many reasons for this; foremost amongst them must be the deepening complexity of the nature of crisis, balanced against the effectiveness of the tools available to the international community to address such events. Conflict has changed in character, its ways and means less obvious than before. Threats are more
diverse, their aims more irrational. The manner in which we counter them lacks the sureness of the past. Today, policies such as preemption and prevention, coercion, and deterrence are prompting more questions than answers, as new thinking emerges on the utility of the use of force and the application of hard and soft power. For these reasons, the articles in the first edition of this new publication are important. They contribute to a debate that is crucial to the major security issues of our age.

Today’s strategic setting does not stand still, and the world in which we live is becoming inherently more dangerous. There are some who suggest that a period of order has passed and chaos will be tomorrow’s key determinant, and others who predict that the Iraq experience has so chastened a global community that more order will inevitably result. Either way, the reality of tomorrow would seem to suggest that the complexity of the security scene will become ever more challenging. The impact of Islam, the leadership of the United States, China’s emergence, nuclear proliferation, energy and global warming, and the pace of technology–these are but some of the key elements that will shape the future World. Already, new pressures and tensions are making themselves felt. The price of oil is foreshadowing competition for energy that will drive interests and influences in widely different directions from today. An emboldened Iran has placed nuclear ownership at the top of the international security agenda. Economic globalization threatens to empower the rich and diminish the poor. Even the prospect of an Avian Flu epidemic looks set to challenge the government machinery to the limit. These are not easily manageable issues, but ones that will demand collective approaches across national and international boundaries on an unprecedented scale.

Over the last decade, the models for crisis management–conflict and confrontation–have been continuously evolving. Allied to this, the international institutions with responsibilities for security issues have sought to keep pace by instituting reform. But events have driven this agenda, and international capability has lagged as a result.

An intervention model in Bosnia that envisaged respect for international borders, a ceasefire in place, and an invitation to intervene has migrated through Somalia, Haiti, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq to a model that pre-empts or prevents to effect regime change and embed a democratic process. On the way, the lessons have been legion, not least that there has to be a better marriage of hard and soft power to achieve the desired end. And of equal significance, that intervention, stabilization, and reconstruction
takes time. Time that is invariably measured in decades, and which involves
significant cost–in human and financial terms. Against this background, the major international institutions have been severely challenged. The United Nations’ searing experience in Bosnia has had far reaching effects upon the institution’s credibility and relevance. NATO has been a key player across the Balkans, and has now extended its mandate to an Afghanistan mission. Whilst it remains the security institution of preferred choice for its membership, it is unlikely to be the institution of first choice in all circumstances. The European Union’s capacity for intervention is limited, as is the African Union in African contexts. So different structures are beginning to emerge, illustrated most vividly in Afghanistan where coalitions within an Alliance construct seem to be the unfolding model.

A critical issue to arise in Afghanistan and Iraq has been that of post- conflict. Whilst military warfighting clearly has a place in the intervention context, notably where regime change may be the strategic aim, and also in ensuring a security framework thereafter, the totality of the problem in bringing about stabilization, reconstruction, and nation building has to rest with a wider framework of non military institutions, organizations and interests. Put simply, any intervention has to be viewed as a continuum of activity where military, economic, diplomatic, political, and humanitarian interests all have to play a part, not necessarily sequentially but in some circumstances simultaneously. This presents challenges across government and also across international boundaries of a totally new dimension, embracing coordinating functions that have to cut through institutional cultures and bureaucracies to be effective. The debate has begun in respect of this, with nations setting in place arrangements that are designed to address pre and post conflict issues, but they have yet to reach full maturity. It will take time and considerable political will to bring this about.

At the very heart of this is the re-invigoration of an international dialogue that identifies common interests, values and perceptions in reviewing the global security agenda. For a while there has been a global consensus of view, particularly in the context of terrorism, however, there has been less cohesion regarding Iraq and its aftermath. What is quite clear in terms of looking to the future world is that the United States will remain the most influential global actor, but it needs to be one that demonstrates moral authority and enjoys the support of the majority of the global community. In this, a true strategic dialogue across international boundaries—one that can be mutually supportive—is essential if we are to tackle tomorrow’s challenges with decisive effect. The previous U.S. model of leadership by assertion has been overtaken by events—a new pattern of leadership with dialogue and consultation as its key instruments have to be developed.

Looking to this new landscape, its demands and its management present major challenge. The kaleidoscopic nature of future events and the pace of change they will demand threaten to outstrip the procedures and practice that our organizational fabric currently has in place.

Prediction is more indistinct, preparation less sure as a result. Long held beliefs and principles find themselves rubbing against new realities, invariably against the pressure of events. Technology changes with the moment but the psychology necessary to exploit it always takes time. In such an environment, it is absolutely crucial to ensure a full and constructive engagement of opinions and views, for it is only by capturing all aspects of the problem in an open and transparent manner that it can be comprehensively addressed.  And in this, the luxury of time is no longer with us.

The Diplomatic Courier is a new contribution to this debate–but it is one with a difference. We are living with accelerated change–now and in the future. It requires in all its aspects intellectualism and thence education, of a very high order. It aims to educate and provide youth with a forum for conceptual understanding and wider thought about conflict and post conflict situations.  Its input and readership will range from policy makers at government level to practitioners in the field of operations. As such, it will touch all aspects that prevail upon conflict resolution, be they political, economic, military or humanitarian.  Essentially, the Courier will seek to focus hard on the realities associated with conflict, pointing to key issues that characterize conflict prevention and conflict management. In a time when so much is in a state of flux, it will bring a fresh voice to the global security debate. This first edition offers new perspectives that look across a range of traditional barriers and challenge current thinking.  I commend it to you.

Sir Ian Forbes
Published September 2006