Editor's Foreword
In the decade since the end of the Cold War, the frequency of intrastate conflicts around the world has increased immensely relative to that of interstate conflicts. Traditional power struggles between countries vying for regional or global hegemony have certainly not been eliminated, and weapons of mass destruction remain a constant security risk. However, now more than ever before, the greatest security threats to individuals are internal wars and insurgencies, perpetrated by governments or fellow citizens, and involving small conventional arms rather than nuclear-tipped missiles.
Most of the physical suffering from war now occurs among those men, women and children whose involvement in the fighting is peripheral at best. During the first half of the 20th century, nine out of ten casualties in war were uniformed soldiers. By the 1990s, however, the statistic had reversed, and only 10 percent of casualties involved soldiers.
In addition to this disproportionate number of civilian casualties, civilians who might have been innocent bystanders decades ago are becoming combatants themselves. This issue's cover photo of an armed six-year-old boy epitomizes this phenomenon. The boy does not have to be Croatian; he could be anything from Afghani to Rwandan. A clear global trend has emerged: civilians are increasingly fighting, and dying in, the wars of the 21st century.
This issue of the Stanford Journal of International Relations examines current global conflicts. It includes essays analyzing why conflicts begin, how they can be resolved, and how the international community can prevent them in the future. TQ Shang argues that the Palestinians have initiated their Intifadas as part of a strategic bargaining process with Israel. William Ratliff, a research fellow at the Hoover Institute, contends that U.S. policies towards Kosovo, China, and Colombia are exacerbating conflicts around the world. Former South African President F.W. de Klerk provides insight as to how the conflict over apartheid in South Africa was resolved. In response to de Klerk, Professor Ebrahim Moosa argues that in many cases, old wounds are difficult to heal, and that conflicts can continue among people long after their leaders have signaled an official resolution. Mirna Galic uses Sierra Leone as an example of the difficulties involved in conflict resolution and peacekeeping. Grace Kang, a former political analyst and human rights lawyer for the United Nations peacekeeping missions in Bosnia, offers suggestions as to how the international community can continue to help piece together Bosnia's war-torn society. Vikas Kapur and Vipin Narang contend that a political, rather than legal or military, approach can help prevent a disastrous war between two nuclear powers over Kashmir. Finally, Robert Person analyzes Sino-Russian relations and their potential for preventing, or provoking, future conflict.
Though no formula can be developed for predicting and solving contemporary global conflicts, it is our hope that this issue of the Journal can at least shed some light on their transforming nature. The variety of views expressed in these articles demonstrates the ongoing uncertainty surrounding the motives and potential resolutions for current wars. But despite the varying circumstances of these wars, one conclusion is evident: the international community cannot simply ignore a conflict now because it appears to be self-contained or because it does not involve a state that possesses weapons of mass destruction. The task of the international community is to learn from the past in order to more effectively address today's conflagrations and those that are certain to arise in the future.