Bakke, K.M.

Gallagher Cunningham, K.

Seymour, L.J.M.

English

International Migration, Integration and Social Cohesion online publications

UvA-DARE is a service provided by the library of the University of Amsterdam (https://dare.uva.nl)UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository)The problem with fragmented insurgenciesBakke, K.M.; Gallagher Cunningham, K.; Seymour, L.J.M.Publication date2015Document VersionFinal published versionLink to publicationCitation for published version (APA):Bakke, K. M. (Author), Gallagher Cunningham, K. (Author), & Seymour, L. J. M. (Author).(2015). The problem with fragmented insurgencies. Web publication or website, TheWashington Post: Monkey Cage. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/05/13/the-problem-with-fragmented-insurgencies/General rightsIt is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s)and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an opencontent license (like Creative Commons).Disclaimer/Complaints regulationsIf you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, pleaselet the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the materialinaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: https://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letterto: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Youwill be contacted as soon as possible.Download date:10 Mar 2023Monkey CageThe problem with fragmented insurgenciesBy Kristin M. Bakke, Kathleen Gallagher Cunningham and Lee J. M. Seymour  May 13United Nations Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura recently announced that his schedule for the U.N.-backed “peace consultations” in Geneva includes over 40 one-on-one meetings representing an array of externalstates, non-jihadist armed factions, opposition groups and civil society actors with a stake in the Syrian conflict.Expectations for the process are dim, not least given the exclusion of the jihadist armed groups that have madeimportant battlefield gains and the wider disarray in the opposition camp. Frustrated diplomats are right to notethe problems posed by a fragmented insurgency: A large body of conflict research demonstrates that suchfragmentation makes conflict more violent, longer lasting and harder to resolve.Events in Syria reflect the wider fragmentation of Middle Eastern states and societies, as evidenced by ongoingconflicts in Syria, Iraq, Libya and Yemen. A prominent feature of these conflicts is the inability of movements toremain united, both during and after civil wars. In Syria, the opposition has fragmented repeatedly – and morerecently, so have the various forces aligned with the government. Militias have proliferated in Iraq,compounding the country’s already fractured politics. In Libya, fighting among the various factions has dividedthe country into rival camps and provides a telling example of how tenuous the unity of armed groups can be. InYemen, an unlikely series of alliances has seen yesterday’s foes become today’s friends as political order hasfragmented across the country’s divided regions and in the capital of Sanaa. These examples are not exceptional.Many opposition movements change over time and few remain cohesive, or unitary, over their lifespan. In arecent book, Kathleen Gallagher Cunningham documents that from 1960 to 2005 just 10 percent of nationalistopposition movements remained cohesive over time.Fragmented movements are characterized by competition between multiple organizations, weak institutionallinks among organizations and a diffusion of power among them. Indeed, fragmented movements are a diverselot, with clear differences in the number of factions, but also in how they are linked by institutional structures orpower relations. As Peter Krause notes, the hegemony of a powerful group improves the effectiveness of dividedmovements, but this is easier said than done.So what are the pernicious effects of such fragmented movements?First, fragmentation makes conflicts more violent and messier. This is because each faction finds itself in a “dualcontest,” pitted against both the state and other factions in a struggle for political power within the movement.Factions that dominate the opposition generally reap wartime benefits and have better access to power and abigger say in post-war politics. This increases violence against the state, as competing factions use violence tosignal that they cannot be ignored. Fragmentation also increases the chance of violent infighting among factions.Infighting is particularly likely during “windows of opportunity” that factions exploit to eliminate rivals, arguesCostantino Pischedda. Unfortunately, opposition fragmentation also appears to increase risks to civilians, whobecome targets of violence as factions target the support bases of their rivals. Together, these dynamics producemultifaceted violence. A recent study highlights this in Darfur, for example, where killing involved “battlesbetween the major combatants [and] among [allied] subgroups of combatant coalitions… inter-tribal conflict…one-sided violence against civilians by different parties… and banditry.”Second, in addition to these patterns of multifaceted violence, fragmented oppositions are susceptible todefection to the state – fostering uncertainty about allegiances and potentially prolonging the war. Recentresearch has suggested several mechanisms that give rise to defection. Defections can result from infightingwithin fragmented groups, generating what Paul Staniland calls “fratricidal flipping.” Similarly, Sabine Ottofinds that splinter factions are the most likely to defect to fight alongside their former enemies, as a means to“survive” as an actor in the civil war. In Iraq, for example, infighting between al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) and Sunninationalists, ostensibly on the same side, along with proliferating points of contact marked by the “surge” andthe Anbar Awakening, helped push Sunni insurgent leaders over to the U.S. and Iraqi government side between2004 and 2007. These flipped “co-ethnics” can make for effective counterinsurgents, as Jason Lyall argues,although side switching can increase the chance that civilians become the targets of insurgent violence, as theydid at the hands of AQI.In some conflicts, rather than increasing the chances for counterinsurgency success, repeated defections lockviolence into a country’s politics. Fotini Christia suggests that wartime shifts in power that exacerbated concernsabout the division of power in post-war Afghanistan and Bosnia prolonged violence there. Lee Seymour showsthat motives for defection are sometimes more local and immediate. Examining cycles of war in Darfur andSouth Sudan, Seymour shows that factions might align with the other side if it provides them with resourcesboosting their power vis-à-vis local rivals. Indeed, states such as Sudan actively exploit local rivalries to splinteropposition movements through transfers of guns and money, a pattern William Reno observes in the recenthistory of warfare in Africa. But far from hastening an end to violence, these practices diffuse it acrosscommunities recruited into the war by states and rebels. These back-and-forth dynamics may prolong theconflict and increase violence, as well as complicate any outside actors’ assessment of “sides” according to ethnicor ideological cleavages.A third consequence of opposition fragmentation is that it complicates attempts at bringing the conflict to anend. In the Israeli-Palestinian case, Wendy Pearlman has shown how peace settlements acceptable to somePalestinian factions have been unacceptable to others because they empower rival factions, not because thefactions are innately opposed to the terms of the settlement. As such, some factions turned to violence to derailpeace because of how it would impact their own position within the Palestinian movement. New research isbeginning to further examine the conditions under which so-called radical flanks hurt or help movements inreaching their objectives. On a brighter note, Cunningham shows that governments are more likely to giveconcessions to fragmented oppositions that seek self-determination. However, concessions made to such groupsrarely lead to total settlement of the dispute.For these reasons – and as further illustrated by the previous failure of international mediation efforts in Syria –opposition fragmentation makes it hard to reach a mediated settlement. Research by Govinda Clayton suggeststhat conflicts featuring strong opposition movements, cohesion being one indicator of strength, are more likelyto see both the onset of mediation and a mediated settlement. The stronger the rebels are vis-à-vis the state, theless likely the state is to think that it can beat them on the battlefield, and stronger and more cohesiveoppositions stand a better chance of finding a solution to conflict when negotiations ensue.What explains this fragmentation? The structure of armed groups might reflect pre-war political networks,influencing the degree to which there are strong ties among commanders and strong ties between commandersand local communities. The domestic politics of states also complicate the efforts of would-be rebels to organizecohesive groups. Livia Schubiger argues that indiscriminate state violence against civilians increases thefragmentation of armed groups, in part by disrupting their organizational coordination and strategic unity. Wehave recently argued that movement divisions are shaped both internal competition within movements thatarise through interactions with the state and outside actors, and Henning Tamm shows how state sponsorsshape cohesion in the Second Congo War in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. By channeling resources toopposition leaders’ internal rivals, outsiders can trigger fragmentation. Similarly, Kristin M. Bakke argues thatforeign fighters tend to come with different ideas about what the struggle is for and how it should be fought,which together can foster splits in armed groups.           Whatever the causes, these internal dynamics of opposition movements have clear policy implications. First, thisresearch suggests that how conflicts and their outcomes are labeled matters. The short-hand labels given toactors and conflicts seldom reflect the complexity of the organizations, incompatibilities and identities aroundwhich violence is organized. So while we might talk about Sunnis vs. Shiites in Iraq, such labels should betreated with caution. Mahmood Mamdani, for instance, has critiqued uncritical portrayals of violence in Darfuras a one-sided genocidal campaign pitting “African” rebels vs. an “Arab” government. Far from reflectingrealities on the ground, this discourse was the product of rebels and advocacy groups seeking to legitimizeWestern intervention. The very act of labeling certain communities as groups, identifying organizations as theirrepresentatives and pinpointing what a conflict is not trivial. As Séverine Autesserre has shown, the U.N.’sframing of a conflict or post-conflict situation shapes the policies it adopts – which can be detrimental if theframe is incorrect.Second, the internal dynamics of opposition movements and armed groups matter for a range of internationalinterventions, including mediation success. Mediating a settlement goes beyond mediating between the two“sides” in a conflict. Indeed, this research suggests the dangers of further fragmenting movements throughpeace, the need to look beyond the armed groups who have fought their way to the bargaining table and theurgency of fostering cohesiveness among the relevant actors. As repeated failed mediations among factionalizedmovements in Darfur, Syria and Mali evidence, these objectives are difficult to achieve.Third, internal dynamics also matter for military interventions and external support aimed at bringing the warto an end by force. In fragmented oppositions, intervention might mean supporting one faction over others. Thishas consequences, partly related to intra-movement power relationships that have downstream effects oninfighting, side switching and the eventual durability of peace. Policymakers need to think through how thoseconsequences might affect their aims.Finally, the internal dynamics of opposition movements and armed groups matter for humanitarianinterventions aimed at protecting civilians in war-zones. They influence whom the civilians need to be protectedfrom, how aid can be delivered and the prospects for post-intervention political order.All of this means that we – researchers, policymakers, journalists and analysts – cannot ignore the complexity ofopposition fragmentation. Focusing on the “sides” of a conflict can actually decrease our understanding of it andlead to misguided inferences and policies. Nor should we throw our hands up, declaring such conflicts socomplicated as to be unresolvable. There is a growing body of research demonstrating predictable effects offragmentation and, increasingly, we know more about its causes – both of which can translate to better policy.AdvertisementKristin M. Bakke is a senior lecturer in political science at University College London. Kathleen GallagherCunningham is an associate professor in the Department of Government and Politics at the University ofMaryland. Lee J. M. Seymour is an assistant professor in political science at the University of Amsterdam.

The problem with fragmented insurgencies

https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/2409454/161178_The_problem_with_fragmented_insurgencies_The_Washington_Post.pdf

The problem with fragmented insurgencies

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

International Migration, Integration and Social Cohesion online publications