The role of Propaganda in conflict

Akrasia

(the following is a (very) short essay I wrote a few weeks ago.)

Conflict is a normal factor in change. People and societies are in a constant state of flux, always trying to improve their own conditions, and when there is a scarcity of resources or a difference in strategic or ideological opinions, then there is competition for the power and resources necessary to maintain or improve one's own lot in life. This conflict is usually resolved through civil and cultural institutions without any resort to violence and a new temporary balance is reached until the next minor conflict emerges.

Conflict expands when individuals group together and act collectively to maintain or improve the conditions of their faction as a whole, especially when the group is acting to maintain a dominant position, or to overthrow what they perceive as an oppressive elite. This collective action is often exclusive, sectarian and divisive when the interests are split along racial, religious or class lines. It can lead to a spiralling of the conflict as increasing power from one side threatens the existence or the property of the others.

As a result of this form of collective action and the requirement for each faction to mobilise as much support as possible, there is a very strong incentive for those most dedicated to pursuing violence as a tactic (usually those with the most the gain from winning or from the prevalence of said violence) to recruit more support for their faction in order to boost their numbers and their pool of resources, and it is this propaganda and populist manipulation that does the most to breed the conditions for large scale long term conflict around the world.

Traditionally, wars have been seen to be clear cut top down affairs where the State/King/Tribal leaders decides to invade a neighbouring region for a clear objective, (security, conquest or glory), and academics like Kaldori claim that we are now into an era of new wars that blur the traditional differences between crime, insurrection, and war. There is a strong case to support this claim, but perhaps there never really was that distinction in the first place. It takes a twist of logic to claim that colonialism was anything other than theft of the natural resources from the weak by the strong, or that the murder and rape carried out by colonial armies was any different from the behaviour of the militias in Darfur and Rwanda in recent years. Of course, in recent decades, the focus has shifted from colonialism (the acquisition of land and natural resources) to neo-colonialism which seeks to merely control them using a proxy state to reduce the colonialists exposure to the worst effects of a modern day peasant uprising. In this way, the current fractured violent conflicts around the world are not as different from the anti imperial movements of the 19th and 20th centuries as it might first seem.

I don't think it's too controversial to claim that most of the people involved in armed conflicts around the world believe very strongly in what they are fighting for (with the exception of conscripts and those forced to join paid combat for economic circumstances) and that most people are rational agents who will make decisions based on their own experiences and the best information available to them at the time. However, an independent analysis of many global conflicts would probably reveal that the optimal course of action for most of the individuals that make up these warring factions would be to simply stop fighting and work together to build an inclusive society for the long term, but unfortunately, many conflicts are beyond the point where reason can defeat emotion. In such a divided society, even when there are no major acts of on-going violence, there is at best a 'negative peace'ii while the root of the conflict remains to be addressed.

One way to explain this is through the discourse of propaganda that exists in all zones of conflict. The first casualty of any war is the truth, and this is carefully tailored to insight violence against the enemy while claiming the high moral ground for one's own position. The examples of this propaganda are everywhere. From small localised conflicts like in Northern Ireland or the Basque region of Spain, to the global scale where for example, during the cold war, western propaganda spoke of an eternal and potentially fatal threat to our security and our (superior?) way of life from the soviet threat which allowed and continues to allow governments to pursue a strategy of nuclear proliferationiii and preventive warfareiv with the tacit support of the institutions of the state and a significant proportion of the population. The propaganda machine requires a gatekeeperv to filter the information and communicate it to the members of the faction. This is usually accomplished through the media and education systems in the case of state or tribal propaganda, or through more grassroots methods for the less powerful factions.

While propaganda can not be described as a root cause of any conflict, it is without doubt one of the most important mobilizing factors. Those in a dominant position need to be constantly reminded that they are entitled to that position, and to de-humanise those who are suffering from repression. In order for a conflict to sustain itself for decades, new generations must be brought up with an ingrained negative opinion towards the other side, there needs to be a distinct separation between the different factions, even if that separation needs to be carefully manufactured and nurtured to survive, and the individual participants of a conflict need to believe that they are fighting for a better future for themselves and their own children, and not just to increase the wealth and power of a small political economic or religious elite (as is usually the case). I would tend to agree with Michael Brown when he rejects ancient hatredsvi as a significant cause of conflicts. In Iraq for example, Sunnis and Shias had lived side by side in relative harmony until they were torn apart by the invasion of their country. The current civil war is divided along religious lines because the religious leaders of these separate faiths are fighting for their own political power and using the ordinary men and women on the street as weapons against their political opponents. And of course, there is the traditional 'Divide and Rule' strategy that has been tried and tested for thousands of years since the Macedonian figured out how to manipulate the more powerful Greek armies to fight each other instead of uniting against the external threat. In this instance, a political elite manufactures conflict between two or more minorities in their own rule in order to stop them uniting and demanding better conditions for all. This was a common strategy used during colonialism and is still common practise today.vii

Goodhand and Hulmeviii are correct when they assert that there are very good economic and political incentives for some people to support war and conflict. War is good for business, it's good for the economy and it's very good for building political or religious/political power if you can make sure that your own particular message is spoken loudest and most clearly. The top industrialised countries in the world all have massive arms industries and all have a long history of violating UN arms embargoes in order to fuel conflicts abroad. This is an example of an external influence that compounds local conflicts, but even within the local conflicts themselves, violence creates huge opportunities for warlords or politicians to grab power and control economic resources. Aside from weapons sales, there can be a huge amount of money to be made in reconstruction and development projects post conflict resolution, not to mention the political opportunities if you can build yourself a client state.

According to Frerksix, development projects can be a method of promoting conflict resolution by providing alternative avenues through which people can mobilise their energy and talents to improve their lives. The arrival of neutral third parties to act as intermediaries can facilitate growth and dialogue in areas of conflict or where there are serious grievances, especially if the development agencies are careful to pursue projects that have clear and immediate benefits to both sides equally. Unfortunately, if there is one sided development this can lead to resentment from those left out and actually fuel future unrest. Even if the intentions of the development agency are entirely benevolent, propaganda can easily be produced to to turn their activities into a sectarian project aimed at supporting one side over another. Unfortunately, this is often not far from the truth. Development is very often designed to direct people towards a particular style of economic or political system which favours one faction over another. This can lead to the ludicrous situation where we have two sides engaged in development warsx trying to bribe people to stop fighting, while those same powers are still selling weapons and supporting different sides of the conflict as part of a global ideological power struggle. Even where there aren't competing development ideologies, western led development is usually in direct competition with the indigenous lifestyles and culture of local people. There is an inherent arrogance and attitude of superiority from the west directed at those in receipt of development assistance. Despite repeated and dramatic failures, development agencies are often very dogmatic and inflexible to change, especially when these agencies are bureaucratic sub divisions of much larger institutions with very specific political and economic agendas.

The future role for development agencies in conflict zones might very well be in providing better access to natural resources for future victims of the effects of climate change. According to Nils Petter Gleditsch'sxi research, environmental concerns are rarely a primary cause of armed conflict even when there is a serious dispute over access to or pollution of a scarce and essential resource such as water or clean air, however, we are now entering a new era of rapid change and clean drinking water is becoming one of the most valuable, and monopolised resources on the planet. Resource wars have been a big feature of modern history (although they're usually thinly disguised as humanitarian missions) and these wars are only going to get worse in the medium term as neo-malthusian economics experiences a revival in the midst of environmental disaster.

In all violent conflicts there is propaganda. I am not a pacifist, I believe that there are some causes that are worth fighting for, these include the fight for freedom from slavery and oppression, but even in these rare just causes, propaganda plays a huge role, because while one side is suffering from immense oppression, the ordinary people in the realm of the oppressor need to be fooled into thinking that they are engaged in a straight fight against a determined enemy who is seeking to destroy them. Even when this is a plainly ludicrous proposition, such as with the United States' invasion of Panama, the power of propaganda means that a sufficient proportion of the population will be sufficiently convinced or confused so to allow the elites engage in unjust warfare. Without this tool at their disposal, without the ability to control the ideas and discourse in a society, neo-colonial powers and beligerant armies would have a much harder time pursuing violent conflict as a first option instead of the last resort that violence should only ever be.