Polarization, Escalation & the Security Dilemma
Countering Escalation
Timing the Action
Short-term and Long-term Perspectives

Polarization, Escalation and the Security Dilemma

Polarization first emerged in the international relations debate in connection with the study of the international system, the impact of military alliances on war and peace, and the Balance of Power. Most realist research on the issue focused on how the degree of polarization in a system would influence the incidence, severity and magnitude of great wars and arms races. Polarization between great powers was also seen as the main element driving the security dilemma, where the process of polarization was reinforced by increased pre-emptive militarization accompanied by socio-psychological development of misperception, rising stereotypes and distorted enemy images. Much like the security dilemma however, polarization has been revived in the study of internal or internal or inter-group conflicts, where it more visibly contributes to the intensifying stages of escalation before, or during, the outbreak of violence.

In its most general terms, polarization can be described as the intensified separation and segregation of conflicting groups, caused by a number of related psychological, sociological and political processes. When polarization occurs, the relationship between the adversaries is threatened through the emergence of enemy images, stereotypes and lack of trust, cutting off important links of communication and interaction that are normal for peaceful relationships. If this process continues, parties are often further segregated, the conflict escalates, the relationship being marked by increasing levels of hostility and competition. Conflict escalation generally refers to an increase in the severity of coercive inducements used, and to increases in the scope of participation within a conflict. In his book Constructive Conflicts, Louis Kriesberg, writes that escalation may occur inadvertently, in steps without the opponents having considered the implications of their acts, or it may be calculated and driven by change in each party, by evolving patters of interaction between opponents, or by measures to involve third parties.

Polarization of peaceful (normal) relations and the increasing isolation between groups, are therefore often seen as the major factors leading to the escalation of conflict. As parties begin to attribute their grievances to the other side, they often reduce the number of non-conflicting relations and interactions that they have with the other party. As tensions rise and inter-group communication becomes channeled through more antagonistic lenses, members are less constrained by cross-pressures and crosscutting ties, allowing for the employment of ever more severe means in the violence. Polarization is aggravated by the tendency of partisans to try to win by-standers to their side, forcing people to take sides and engage in mobilization. Inadvertent escalation thus occurs when polarization is high and very little trust or communication exists between the parties.

Often when power issues are involved between two ethnic groups the dominant group may provoke resistance from the exploited by acts of repression intended to put them in place. Aggressive policies are common as a means to subjugate groups or put down resistance, especially because of the belief that lenient policies will be perceived as weakness and taken as an opportunity to initiate conflict. According to Rubin, Pruitt and Kim, escalation occurs when a group is faced with aggression, or when one side perceives the other as the cause for loss or unfulfilled aspirations. Whether conflicts are internal or external, responses to such situations most often lead to actions, which exacerbate tensions and result in violence.

Escalation of violence is often described as a security dilemma, the situation that occurs when both sides attempt to pre-empt aggression by the other. Information failures, in which neither side is precisely sure of the plans or intentions of the other, lead defensive actions by one side to be perceived as offensive by the other. Leaders believe that they have no other choice than to match or surpass actions taken by the other, leading to a cycle that can quickly spin out of control (Posen). Kriesberg attributes such a spiral of violence to the logic of contentious interaction; a mutual expectation by the conflicting parties that the other side is only guided by power and therefore, the only way they can be prevented is by even greater coercion. As each side thus increases the pressure, such expectations become self-fulfilled. The rise in tensions and the toll of violence also leads to the expansion of the issues (or the addition of new issues) under contention. Whereas before violence begins a disputed territory can seem perfectly divisible, as a result of the fighting the disputed land may be endowed with symbolic value and be prized even more since denying it to the enemy is in itself gratifying.

Thus, polarization and escalation are intimately linked so much that it is difficult to ascertain if one process is the cause of the other. Fred Charles Ikle writes that as soon as two adversaries have initiated violence, their stakes and expectations change making it impossible to retract to a peacetime relationship without first repairing the damage. Escalation has multiple dimensions; it could be a shift or change in the pattern of the violence, but Ikle notes that it also usually prolongs the war by default. In most cases escalation does not lead to the defeat of opponent but rather the opposite - it usually just raises their ambitions and their acceptable standards for any peace accord. Negotiating preventively to defer an escalation is therefore usually better than waiting until violence has already taken place and the threat of escalation is better than its execution.

Countering Escalation

Scholars who study the phases of escalation and de-escalation suggest that preventive measures in conflict management need to be geared specifically towards the problems that arise in each phase. Donald Rothchild suggests that polarization happens especially in the first two stages of conflict that he calls the potential conflict phase and the gestation phase. Because violence is still not present, preventive action at this point is not as risky and has high potential payoffs. Issues such as popular discontent and increased mobilization need to be addressed while issues are still negotiable and before elites break off crosscutting linkages. Michael Lund suggests problem solving negotiation, increased communication, integrating strategies, and pre-emptive engagement (by third party) as preventive measures to reverse this process.

It is often claimed that integration and inter-group communication produce crosscutting ties that reduce violence and conflict means among potentially hostile groups. Violence tends to destroy much more than just the other side's army, such as valuable economic and social structures, thus raising the cost of conflict significantly. Building or restoring crosscutting ties between potential adversaries is therefore imperative for addressing and preventing the process of polarization in conflict escalation. Integration also provides the basis for applying negative sanctions rather than to apply force. According to Louis Kriesberg three important conditions for peaceful inter-group relations are nurtured through integration: First, the compatibility of major values related to political decision making, second, a greater capacity to respond to actions of the other party and finally, increased predictability of actions of the other side.

Timing the Action

Volumes upon volumes have been written about the progression or timeline of the conflict, attempting to identify the chronology of a conflict from the first outbreaks of violence to its resolution. Most theories of conflict stages portray an orderly evolution from peaceful relations through escalation, de-escalation and finally, termination. Identifying the stages can be essential for designing successful strategies for prevention or third party intervention. Most conflicts however, do not follow a prescribed trajectory. If they did, it would still be difficult to identify when the conflict advanced from one stage to the next. Some authors have developed time lines that are more dynamic than a straight progression, attempting to catch some of the additional complex dimensions of conflict.

Some authors have developed time lines that are more dynamic than a straight progression, attempting to catch some of the additional dimensions of conflict. One such example is Kriesberg & Thorson's two-dimensional Conflict Progression Cycle. It illustrates a conflict as progressing through a series of common points on a circle while being interspersed with the context and conditions that are unique to every conflict. It indicates that a conflict emerges, manifests, escalates, de-escalates, and terminates, resulting in an outcome that also can become the starting point for another circle of renewed conflict.

One of the greater challenges for researchers is to try to integrate either the phases, or the time-line of conflict with the different tasks of prevention and intervention into a complex framework of conflict management strategies. One of the most influential conceptual approaches to this challenge is I. William Zartman's Ripe Moment Theory. Zartman says that intervention is rarely successful unless it happens when the conflict is at the point of a Mutually Hurting Stalemate. This happens when violence is in a deadlock and parties see negotiations as a better outcome than continued fighting. At such points, third parties can take important steps to facilitate a negotiated outcome. Important to remember is that a Mutually Hurting Stalemate is ostensibly perceptive - in other words, if the antagonists can be convinced that their present course of action is taking them to an "impending catastrophe," they may perceive an alternative short of violence as more desirable than continued fighting.

Another scholar who matches the stages of conflict with third party intervention is Donald Rothchild. He suggests that conflicts move through a dynamic process of five phases in terms of levels of conflict activity in an adversary relationship. For each phase (the potential conflict phase, the gestation phase, the triggering and escalation phase, the post-conflict phase, and the military/security phase), Rothchild identifies specific problems that third parties should target. Further, he suggests corresponding coercive and non-coercive incentives that third parties can use in order to turn the conflict around.

Similarly, Michael Lund attempts to combine conflict progression with different strategies of management and prevention. In his book Preventing Violent Conflicts, he presents a diagram called "The Life History of a Conflict," where different measures are proposed depending on the intensity of violence and the progression of deteriorations in a conflict relationship. It includes three dimensions: the progression of conflict and the inherent problems to each stage, its duration, and a chronology of corresponding conflict management strategies to be implemented. Because conflict progression is described in Lund's diagram by a curve rather than by a one-dimensional continuum, it is more flexible, making possible a description of the ups and downs of most conflicts. Whereas an escalation described on a one-dimensional continuum takes you back in time to an earlier point on the graph, the curve allows you to see escalations and de-escalations as new phases with new opportunities for action.

Short-term and Long-term Perspectives

Conflict management practitioners are often torn between the task of addressing immediate needs of war victims and the long-term investments needed for building sustainable peaceful communities that can withstand threats of conflict in the future. Practitioners of different conflict management initiatives therefore often find themselves "competing" for space and resources when they should be cooperating. Having a holistic view of the five approaches to conflict managements described here is therefore essential in order to avoid wasted time and efforts caused by unnecessary competition.

The five approaches suggested by the SAIS Conflict Management Toolkit can never be perfectly tailor-made to fit the specific problems of each phase in a conflict cycle. At best, they can perhaps help us identify some of the most common and general elements that occur in most conflicts at each escalation phase. Combined however, the five approaches provide a conceptual framework that can be used as a flexible tool for analyzing the unique needs and problems of each conflict context, assess the measures that need to be taken to counter negative processes (both long-term and short-term), and evaluate the possible alternatives for third party intervention.