Trends in armed conflicts

since 1945
Lecturer: Mr Junaid Jhandad
 Trends in armed conflicts since
1945
• Although the threat of major war between the great powers has receded
with the end of the Cold War.

• Yet, many parts of the world are still suffering from ongoing armed conflicts
or trying to overcome the legacies of old ones.

• Particularly in parts of the developing world, war remains a considerable

source of insecurity.

• Students of security/strategic studies cannot afford to ignore warfare: it

has caused huge amounts of suffering but it has also prompted
technological innovation and sometimes acted as a catalyst for social and
political reforms.
 Trends in armed conflicts since 1945
• Sometimes Warfare is considered a necessary part of maintaining what
the United Nations (UN) Charter refers to as ‘international peace and
security’.

• Some people study wars in order to help their side win them. (Imp
Point)

• Others draw an analogy with medical science’s approach to disease

and argue that one must study war in order to eradicate it. (Imp Point)

• Whatever one’s motivation, a concern with war has formed the

traditional core of strategic studies; and some analysts think it should
stay that way.
 Trends in armed conflicts since 1945

• Although recent decades have seen wars decline in

both their number and intensity.

• Huge sums of money are still spent on waging them

and developing weapons systems to win future ones.

• By late 2006, for instance, the US government was

spending approximately $8 billion per month in Iraq
alone.
 Trends in armed conflicts since 1945

• While the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute

estimated that by 2005 worldwide military expenditure had
reached $1,118 billion in current US dollars.

• Although the end of the Cold War has reduced the threat of
major war between the great powers, many parts of the
developing world in particular still suffer from the effect of
(past and present) armed conflicts. (Imp Point)
 Trends in armed conflicts since 1945
• From the data compiled by the Uppsala Conflict Data Program,
four main trends can be identified in armed conflicts since 1945.

• First, particularly from the mid-1970s there has been a

significant decline in interstate armed conflict with internal
conflicts accounting for the vast majority of organized violence.

• This trend has also encouraged the collection of new data about
non-state conflicts. The early results reveal that a significant
proportion of contemporary armed conflicts are now of the non-
state variety.
 Trends in armed conflicts since 1945
• A second major trend is that since reaching a
peak of 52 state-based armed conflicts in
1991 to 1992, the number of these conflicts
has dramatically declined, by some 40 per
cent between 1992 and 2005.

• The post-Cold War period has also seen a

dramatic fall in the intensity of armed conflicts
around the world.
 Trends in armed conflicts since 1945

• According to Andrew Mack (2007), the lower levels of armed conflict today
as compared to the Cold War period may be explained with reference to
four main factors.

1) First, the end of colonialism removed a major source of political violence

from world politics. In one sense, however, colonialism has not been
completely eradicated inasmuch as many groups still waging state-formation
conflicts see their struggle in terms of freeing themselves from imperial rule.

2) The second key factor was the end of the Cold War. This encouraged the
superpowers to stop fueling ‘proxy wars’ in the developing world.

3) The third, and for Mack the most important factor, was the increased level
of international activism led by the UN that followed the end of the Cold War.
This activism involved more serious efforts at preventive diplomacy,
 Trends in armed conflicts since 1945
• With greater engagement, international
society has become better at ending wars.

4) A final factor that provides some grounds for

optimism about the future is the increasing
popularity of global norms that proscribe the
use of military force in human relationships.
 Trends in armed conflicts since 1945
• A third significant trend in armed conflicts since 1945 is the decline in
battle-deaths.

• Whereas the average number of battledeaths per conflict, per year was
38,000 in 1950, by 2005 it had fallen to just 700 – a 98 per cent decrease.

• Battle-death counts do not include either the intentional killing of

civilians, or so-called ‘indirect deaths’ from war exacerbated disease or
malnutrition. (Very Imp Point)

• In relation to non-state armed conflicts a similar trend is emerging:

between 2002 and 2005, the decline in battle-deaths in non-state
conflicts was 71 per cent
 Trends in armed conflicts since 1945
• The final trend worth identifying here is the shifting
regional spread of armed conflicts.

• Since 1945, it is clear that at different times, different

regions have experienced far more wars than others.

• Until the mid-1970s East and Southeast Asia suffered

the most battle-deaths whereas during the latter stages
of the Cold War most such casualties were spread
between the Middle East, Asia and Africa. (IMP POINT)
 Who fights? Who dies?

• As already noted, the belligerents in contemporary armed conflicts

are not just states; political units come in many shapes and sizes.

• The other main actors engaged in warfare are international

organizations and a variety of armed non-state actors.

• Various international organizations have engaged in contemporary

armed conflicts for several reasons but primarily as a result of fielding
peace operations in zones of ongoing conflict.

• The UN, European Union, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and
the African Union among others have all fielded forces that have
engaged in combat
 Who fights? Who dies?

• As far as armed nonstate actors are concerned, the most common

participants in the world’s contemporary armed conflicts have been
mercenaries, private military companies, insurgents and a wide variety
of paramilitaries, militias and self defence forces as well as the
infamous suicide bombers.

• An additional recent trend is the increasing number of child soldiers in

contemporary armed conflicts. They have been recruited by both states
and most of the non-state actors.

• Estimates suggest that there are about 300,000 child soldiers currently
fighting or recently demobilized, and another 500,000 in armies currently
at peace (Singer 2005).
 Who fights? Who dies?
• With the reduction in the number of major engagements and the
subsequent drop in the number of battle-deaths, it is not surprising
that civilians account for a greater proportion of those killed in
contemporary armed conflicts.

• One recent study suggested that between 30 and 60 per cent of

violent deaths in today’s armed conflicts are civilians (Human
Security Centre 2005: 75).

• Ultimately, however, the difficulty of extracting reliable and

systematic information from the world’s war zones makes it
impossible to know for sure how many civilians have been killed.
(Imp Point)
 Who fights? Who dies?

• Part of the explanation for the rise in civilian deaths is that according
to UCDP (Uppsala Conflict Data Program) data there has been a 56
per cent increase in the number of campaigns of one-sided violence
(i.e. massacres) against civilians since 1989.

• These have been perpetrated by both governments and non-state

actors. Humanitarian aid workers have also found themselves more
likely to become the targets of intentional violence.

• After decades of relative immunity, one study found that between

1997 and 2005 the number of humanitarian workers killed each year
increased from 39 to 61.
 Who fights? Who dies?
• The vast majority of fatalities in contemporary armed conflicts
are so-called ‘indirect deaths’. This refers to those people
(mainly children, the elderly and women) who die from war-
exacerbated disease and malnutrition, usually brought on
and/or intensified by the process of displacement. (IMP POINT)

• Despite being the biggest single category of war deaths, this

type is arguably the least well documented and understood.

• This is because measuring ‘indirect deaths’ is filled with

problems, not least those concerning methodology (especially
how to measure and compare ‘normal’ as opposed to
‘abnormal’ mortality rates).