Dr. Filipe Vasconcelos, a researcher at the Observatory of Foreign Relations at the Autonomous University of Lisbon and a visiting professor at the university, who led the seminar “Political and Economic Conflicts in the International System” for executives, spoke about new types of international conflicts and specifically mentioned Africa, which, he said, has been systematically sidelined by the West.
-What knowledge did you try to impart to the students?
-The goal was to analyze the changes in political and economic conflict within the international system over the past few decades. The idea was to offer a practical course with a strong emphasis on case studies. The course aimed to examine what are now referred to as “new wars,” new forms of conflict, the world’s growing interdependence, and the gradual decline or disappearance of traditional wars.
-What is the reason for this decline?
-There are two or three cumulative effects at play here. Up until World War II, we saw extremely high levels of conflict and a highly anarchic system of international relations in which states were free to invade other states and seize territory and natural resources. The end of World War II brought about the Cold War and a certain freeze on large-scale conflict due to the nuclear powers’ mutual assured destruction; there were still some wars in various parts of the world, but fewer than in the 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries.
The second reason is that after World War II, the United Nations (UN) was established, and it has sought to establish a legal framework—an international legal order—to prevent armed conflicts.
Third, in chronological order, is globalization—greater integration of markets and nations. Borders are becoming more porous, allowing for greater interaction among citizens of different countries. The similarities between people from different countries are becoming more apparent, highlighting that there are fewer differences than there were when states were closed off from one another. Finally, we have the end of the Cold War, the defeat of the Eastern Bloc, and the widespread adoption of a liberal system—a liberal market democracy—which has its downsides, such as the social issues faced by countries left out of globalization. On the other hand, the Western world is becoming more integrated, and there is a growing trend toward less confrontation among its nations.
However, a new source of conflict is emerging in less developed countries, and its significance cannot be downplayed. We see it every day in Africa, with countries experiencing coups d’état—as was recently seen in Mali. We have seen it with the conflicts and the U.S. response in Iraq or Afghanistan. There are new problems, but the international system has stricter rules, and in terms of major challenges, large-scale conflict is on the decline.
-What are the main challenges facing the international system?
-In my opinion, the major problems are these new conflicts. We have terrorism on a global scale, with the developed world struggling to understand, for example, the Muslim world, and this leads to more violent clashes. Then there is a whole complexity arising from reactions to this deregulation of capital flows and the movement of people. This globalization has very positive aspects, but it requires us to reflect on different worlds coexisting—worlds that are difficult to integrate—and thus new wars emerge. The situation in Yugoslavia in the 1990s was an example of that. There are also differences that, when brought to light, generate conflicts.
-What solutions are there, for example, to the conflicts you mentioned in Africa?
-Unfortunately, Africa has been systematically sidelined in the resolution of international conflicts. We saw this in Rwanda in 1995, where a genocide claimed nearly 1,000,000 lives while the West and the rest of the world looked the other way. We continue to see this in several African countries, where levels of corruption are absolutely outrageous, but the West looks the other way because it suits its interests to make a series of agreements and deals with those very same countries. Whenever there is a conflict in Africa, the response is often ill-prepared and poorly supported, consisting of hasty and unstructured actions, which hinders a lasting resolution of the conflicts.
-It suggests that these conflicts serve the West's interests. How does the West benefit from allowing what is happening in Africa?
-There are two types of expediency. One is to avoid confronting the leaders who control certain energy resources. The other is to ensure stability; colonization and decolonization imposed a Western system on places that did not have one and were not prepared for it. Centuries of colonization and decades of decolonization have created confusion among peoples and ethnic groups in Africa, because the countries were practically drawn up with a pencil.
On the one hand, there is an effort to secure energy resources, and on the other, to maintain a degree of stability, because it is well known that trying to impose a democratic system overnight can lead to major problems and cause significant regional instability. I believe there is a great deal of pragmatism on the part of Western countries when they deal with and discuss Africa.
-What do you mean by pragmatism?
-It is pragmatism driven by self-interest, not concern for the public good.
-What are the chances of resolving those conflicts or turning them into peaceful ones?
-That’s the million-dollar question, because in some regions it was possible to bring about peace—to end armed conflicts and create the right conditions for political, social, and economic stability. This was achieved in places like Bosnia and Herzegovina, in the former Yugoslavia. Africa remains a great enigma from this perspective. While coups have been prevented, structured programs to develop the country and resolve its problems have not been implemented. On the other hand, the West should realize—which it does not—that it has no right to impose a universal truth on others.