SEPARATING FACT FROM FICTION AFTER 9/11: INSIGHTS FROM CONFLICT AND INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT SCHOLARSHIP

A Workshop organized by the

Center for International Developmentand Conflict Management of the

University of Maryland

and supported by

the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation

Tuesday, February 12, 2002

Tawes Hall 1208 University of Maryland, College Park

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The conference brought together experts on issues of international development and conflict management to address issues surrounding 9/11. The major points to come out of our discussions were as follows.

The Scholarly-Policy Nexus:

Most research on conflict and conflict processes have been ignored by policy makers and political pundits. The asymmetry of information and the difference in tasks make the building of bridges difficult. The special skills and talents required to translate academic findings to policy makers must be carefully cultivated. While the gap between the policy community and the scholarly community could be bridged by one-shot conferences, like this one, that bring together scholars and policy makers, a better approach is an ongoing consultative relationship under the auspices of, say, the UN.

The Etiology of 9/11:

Seeking the root causes of 9/11 is challenging because neither academic nor policy consensus exists on the etiology of violent protest and militant revolution. Possible explanations include material conditions such as poverty and inequality; social-psychological states such as humiliation and dishonor; developmental characteristics of Arab regimes such as authoritarianism, repression, and corruption; developments in Islam in the 20th century, such as the nature of transnational contacts among Islamist groups; and U.S. foreign policy toward Arab regimes and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Scholars disagree, for example, about the significance of Huntington's clash of civilizations, the moderate-extremist divide in the Middle East, the outcome of democratizing Arab regimes, and the role of U.S. foreign policy toward the conflict. To further illustrate the difficulties: While the losers under globalization are a likely source of instability, how do the losers understand their situation and how do they mobilize? Since their responses are diverse, academic studies of framing and mobilizing of grievances offer complex explanations of protest and rebellion. Context, for example the democratic nature of the regime, matters.

The Responses to 9/11:

If the causes are multidimensional, so must be the responses; and if dissidents change and adapt issues and tactics, governmental and intergovernmental response strategies must be equally flexible. Several promising areas of academic research and policy response exist.

Force.

Law enforcement officials in the U.S. are developing a variety of techniques to deal with the threat of terrorism that balance the cost-effectiveness of various tactics with their impact on civil liberties.

Democracy.

Marginalized elites, whether nationalist and/or Islamic, must be given reformist rather than revolutionary outlets in progressive, democratic contexts.

Dialogue.

While the linkage between threat perceptions, group identities, political action, and tolerance are not clear, increasing tolerance and reducing prejudice probably mitigates social conflicts; materialist and scientifically oriented scholars and policy makers should therefore recognize that interfaith dialogue is an essential way to deal with clashes of religious civilizations.

Internationalism.

Zones of conflict that cross national boundaries are the responsibility of the international community and must be carefully monitored.