- Title: [SW Country] (Study-Bernhard Helander) Some Problems in
African Conflict Resolutions
- Posted by/on:[AMJ][Thursday, October 5, 2000]
This is the original English version of a paper that
appears in translation in the last issue of the Danish journal Den
ny verden, Vol 28 No 2, 1995, p 41-54.
Some Problems in
African Conflict Resolution:
Reflections on
Alternative Reconciliation Work and Research
by
Bernhard
Helander
Department
of Cultural Anthropology
Uppsala University
This paper seeks to characterize and define some of the general
failures in external parties' attempts to achieve reconciliation in
African civil wars. It is argued that while so-called top-down
approaches continue to dominate the thinking of external bodies'
intervention in African conflicts, the alternatives remain poorly
defined and insufficiently researched. Anthropology, a discipline that
potentially could contribute much-needed case studies as well as
theoretical models for alternative routes to reconciliation, have
failed to produce studies that relate to the realities of current
reconciliation work.
A continent at war
It has been said that the kind of low-intensity conflicts now
characteristic of much of the African continent test the idea of
society to destruction (Richards 1993:4). With countries like Somalia,
Rwanda, the Sudan and Liberia devastated by seemingly irresolvable and
brutal 'dirty wars' and with countries like Nigeria, Ethiopia, Kenya,
Djibouti and Zaire on the verge of outright civil conflict, the very
relevance of having states in Africa has begun to be questioned. We
have come far beyond the point when it could be argued that with the
end of the cold war's super-power competition, war in Africa and other
'peripheral' areas would eventually end, too. Rather, Creveld
suggests, African low-intensity armed conflicts are not exceptions in
global strategic developments, but the order of the day and, he
claims, they have a propensity to spread and may therefore eventually
engulf us all (Creveld 1991:192-219).
The international system's ability to handle this situation seems
strained beyond its limits. The costs for the United Nations'
Operation in Somalia (UNOSOM) alone has been more than 3 billion
dollars and yet, critics would argue (Lewis 1993; Menkhaus 1994), the
amount of success is negligible. Even though it may be argued that
bodies like the Organization of African Unity (OAU) during the initial
decades after independence were able to impose a considerable degree
of stability, the OAU has been conspicuously absent from some of the
most dramatic war scenes during the 1990's.
It is sometimes argued that African civil wars may be part of a
process leading to consolidation or reformation of national states
(Ali Mazrui quoted in Tvedt 1993:12; May 1988-89). But the very
character of the armed conflicts that the African continent has seen
during the past 10 years makes that view and much of the conventional
theorizing on warfare seem hopelessly Eurocentric and out of date. For
instance, as van Creveld points out (1991:193), von Clausewitz's
(1976) view that war is waged by governments to attain political goals
is clearly insufficient when dealing with combatants thriving on what
Richards call Schadenfreude ('lust for destruction') (Richards
1993:5).
Two problems in current approaches to resolution
of low-intensity conflicts
The shortcomings of the international system's mediation attempts
in the current war scenes of Africa are related to at least two major
problems. The first problem is that these conflicts have a
clearly different nature than 'ordinary', inter-state, border disputes
and armed conflicts. Conventional mediation designs presuppose
centralized deals between neatly circumscribed and clearly delineated
groupings that, in most contemporary African armed conflicts, have
proven to be non-existent. The need to seek new and unconventional
approaches to mediation and conflict resolution has been repeatedly
stressed. Yet, nearly all such influential proposals (e.g. Ury, Brett
and Goldberg 1989; Vayrynen 1991) continue to be based on centralist,
'top-down', notions that, in von Clausewitz's vein, assumes that one
is dealing with more or less well-organized armies, with clear lines
of command from the political leadership down to the actual fighters.
However, trying to apply such principles to the rag-tag militias that
reign in, say, the streets of Mogadishu or Kinshasa has been
demonstrably fallacious (Marchal 1993a; Prendergast 1994a; 1994b). The
goals and immediate concerns of soldiers at best described as
'irregulars' are often of an entirely different nature than those that
occupy the self-appointed leaders of their respective militias, let
alone that the fighters themselves have little or no confidence in
what they regard as illegitimate leaders (Devish n.d.; Marchal 1993b).
However, the alternatives to centralized negotiations appear far
from clear. While enjoying a good deal of support among
non-governmental organizations, so-called bottom-up approaches to
peacemaking remain burdened by the fact that they have to be based in
particular local situations. Tailored on culturally specific needs,
their ad-hoc appearance tend to be dissuasive for international
organizations like the UN. In one of the very few close accounts of
modern warfare that anthropologists have written, Loizos (1981:54)
describes this point very well in his report of how Greek and Turk
inhabitants in one Cypriot village were able to use "home-made
rules of village political life" to ensure a local truce.
Typically for this type of local conflict resolution, this hard-won
victory was impossible to enforce outside of the village. A similar
example of successful local conflict resolution is Farah and Lewis's
(1993) lucid description of the role of the lineage elders in northern
Somalia. While the rest of the country plunged deeper into chaos in
1991, the northern elders initiated a cycle of local, regional and
eventually national conferences that led to the secession of their
area and the formation of a modern government and the writing of a
constitution. Despite the fact that this newly formed African state
has remained an oasis of relative tranquillity throughout the Somali
civil war, this initiative has remained unrecognized by the UN.
Commenting on this fact, Bradbury points out that the UN is an
organization made up of governments and in its peacemaking endeavours
it will always strive to establish central governments, not to
contribute to what may appears as fragmentation of states (Bradbury
1993). Makinda even goes as far as hinting that centralization of
reconciliation processes sometimes may be an end in itself for the UN
(Makinda 1993:85ff.). While the mechanisms for bringing about
reconciliation have proven insufficient, there has also been an
increased amount of external involvement in local conflicts over the
past thirty years. The role NGOs, UN-agencies, governmental and
bilateral agencies as well as charities and research institutes have
"not only expanded in scope, but also increased in
importance" (Bergman 1994:21).
Yet, it is not only the centralized, or 'top-down', approach to
reconciliation that impedes successful conclusion of international
efforts in peace making in contemporary Africa. The second problem
is the failure to address the composite nature of African conflicts.
One cannot view armed conflicts in isolation from, at least, two other
types of major problems that currently scourge the African continent;
political turbulence and resource depletion. As Timberlake points out,
there has been a 'drought' or a 'famine' associated with every African
civil war during the last 15 years (1988:162-165) and this association
was also highlighted at the Rio summit on environment and development
in 1992. Yet, while concepts like 'early warning' are now frequent in
the rhetoric of governments and international organizations working
with environmental issues, the Rwandan political crisis
was allowed to sail up in front of the world's television cameras
despite a comparably successful aversion of a similar crisis in
neighbouring Burundi in 1993 (Waal 1994). It may be argued that
"the only early warning system... needed is lists of which
governments are spending disproportionate amounts of their GNP on
military activities" (Phil O'Keefe, quoted in Timberlake
1988:164). But disproportionate military spendings may, in turn, be
just an indication of an extremely low degree of what political
scientist now call 'civicness', i.e. the extent to which populations
are involved in, and engaged by, the political events of their
societies (Putnam 1993). Despite increasing popularity of concepts
like 'civil society' and 'empowerment', Gibbon hits an open wound when
he writes that
[i]t is ironic that discussion of popular empowerment in Africa
has become widespread only in an era when firstly there are a
decreasing number of public institutions in relation to which power
can be exercised by anyone, and secondly in which the power of those
institutions which remain to effect any kind of outcome has become
rather limited (Gibbon 1994:19).
Unfortunately, some case studies that have been conducted, indicate
that increased involvement of local communities in national political
affairs result in ethnic crystallization or the formation of new
'ethnic' groups, ethnogenesis. Where such processes combine with
systems of political patronage, as in contemporary Kenya and in
Somalia during the 1960's, a breeding ground for uncontrollable
conflicts may emerge. In brief, settings where local groups' interests
are intertwined with more inclusive political ambitions would deserve
a great deal of attention before armed conflicts emerge (cf.
Bayart 1993). This type of situations brings to mind some of the
current tendencies in the South African Republic, but the ingredients
are all too familiar on the African political arena. As recent studies
by Tiedemand and others (1994) show, the interfaces between more
inclusive national politics and local interests is an extremely
complex area. Conversely, we need to know more of cases where
different local groups co-reside peacefully. The very mechanisms by
which such interrelations are negotiated are likely to be akin to
those that could be relied upon to foster local reconciliation when/if
civil conflict emerge. Such a perspective would place conflict
resolution in a broader framework and help to focus on the social
mechanisms that maintain peace and avoid conflict.
There is a strong, almost indisputable, relation between local
struggles for control of resources and political instability. There is
not, however, as Tvedt and others have shown in the volume Conflicts
in the Horn: Human and Ecological Consequences of Warfare (Tvedt
1993), an indisputable direction in which this relation flows. Soil
degradation, diminishing grazing lands and water scarcity may just as
well be part of the underlying causes of a civil war as the outcome of
it (Hjort af Ornäs and Lodgaard 1992:v). Indeed, most African civil
wars leave a trail of displaced and dispossessed people behind. At the
root of such crises are complex disturbances in local land tenure
systems that, combined with e.g. rapid population movements, may
threaten to escalate and become articulated along, e.g., ethnic lines.
However, while, as for instance Wallensteen (1992:44-45) argues,
studies of war focus perhaps too much on power issues and leave
environmental problems aside, it is not just an environmental
awareness that is needed. Rather, the perspective that appears to be
lacking is one that is fully cognizant of the importance of local land
tenure systems. Land tenure is the 'bundle of rights' which a person
or group holds in natural resources such as land and water. Land
tenure is ultimately to be regarded as the complex net of
relationships that exist between persons and social groups in relation
to these resources (Goheen and Shipton 1992). Consequently, changes in
tenure regimes have implications for these relationships. One obvious
implication of this is that land loss, environmental degradation and
shrinking resource bases may lead to the development of social
conflict.
Anthropological approaches to conflict resolution: a theoretical
void?
Anthropological approaches are potentially in a position to supply
the much-needed material on local conflict resolution. The major
advantage provided by anthropology is its ability to look beyond the
artificial isolation of armed conflicts from resource related disputes
and politically turbulent situations that currently is one of the
shortcomings of international conflict resolution designs.
Anthropologists working in small-scale African communities have shown
that the local political mechanisms that one day deal with land
disputes, on other occasions may be those that rally support for an
'ethnic' cause.
Yet, bearing this potential in mind, it needs to be said that
anthropology's concrete contribution to the understanding and
resolution of contemporary African armed conflicts has been meagre. As
Turton points out, the literature is "ethnographically impressive
but theoretically stultifying" (1993:167). One extremely
influential trend sets out to see warfare in relation to cultural
and/or biological selection mechanisms (McCauley 1990). Proponents of
this view tend to represent warfare as ultimately goal-oriented and
the character of combat itself linked to the evolutionary stage
occupied by the society in question (Ferguson and Whitehead 1992).
Some would even have it that, at certain stages of societal
development, warfare or 'Warre' as Hobbes called it is intrinsic to
human nature and only mitigated by a semblance of social order or by
brute force (Sahlins 1968:77ff.; Carneiro 1994). While classification
of types of armed conflicts constitutes an important task for many
anthropologists that belong to this tradition, it is unfortunate that
most, like Otterbein, argue that "theories derived from the
analysis of Western military history" can be applied to the study
of conflicts in small-scale societies of the Third World (Otterbein
1994:63). The major importance of this, admittedly rather varied, set
of approaches, is that they direct attention to the material
conditions accompanying the rise of conflict and to the internal
workings of the social organization of societies in conflict.
A more recent trend among anthropologists has been to focus on the
cultural, social and psychological consequences and collaterals of
armed violence. This incipient interest is perhaps best represented by
Nordstrom and Martin's important volume The Paths to Domination,
Resistance and Terror (1992), but writers like Gluckman (1956),
Turton (1989; 1991; 1993) and James (1988; 1994) have also since long
focused on issues like the local conceptualization of violence and the
culturally constructed relations between conflict and power.
Similarly, Comaroff (1985) in her critique of Bourdieu's vague
conceptualization of violence, has made a great contribution to the
understanding of the cultural dimensions of political violence. Yet
there is, as Davis remarks, a notable absence of a type of
anthropology that combines anthropology's expertise in the study of
small scale social organizations with an interest for the urgencies of
"disruption and despair" (1992:149).
It is indeed surprising that, given anthropologists' traditional
infatuation with every aspect of small-scale societies, there is
to-date no systematic account for local conflict resolution systems.
There is a number of case studies of conflicts in small-scale
societies that has been collected by anthropologists from a broad
variety of settings (Comaroff and Roberts 1981) and many of these seem
to suggest that conflict resolution mechanisms are deeply embedded in
the normal functioning of local social systems (Comaroff and Roberts
1981; Gluckman 1956:51). The view that conflict resolution forms part
of a society's normal decision-making procedures is perhaps best
articulated in Gulliver's (1979), more generally held, so-called
processual approach to conflict resolution. While Gulliver carefully
distinguishes negotiation from adjudication on the basis
that the latter involves the mediation attempts by parties external to
the conflict, he concentrates nearly exclusively on self-contained
conflict resolution mechanism. In other words, there has been no
modern anthropological attempt to look at the broader context of
relations that allow or encumber locally brokered conflict resolutions
to succeed. A useful point of departure for new research in this field
could therefore be that one cannot view local conflict resolution
systems in isolation from the governmental agencies and the
international organizations that work actively to see them resolved.
Nor can locally established peace accords in low intensity conflicts
be expected to hold unless they are understood and supported by the
measures taken by the external actors.
Anthropology fares better in the study of resource-related
disputes. Since Garett Hardin wrote his widely cited article 'Tragedy
of the Commons'(1968) the concept of control of the use of
natural resources has come in the forefront for debate. Hardin's main
argument is that when a resource is held in common, the rational
economic behaviour of the individual will lead to an over-all
deterioration of the resource base; "freedom in a commons brings
ruin to all" (ibid.:1244). Hardin's argument has been rejected by
a wide range of empirical evidence, showing that there exist local
systems for the control of the resource use in most societies. The
concept of control is important since it relates the study of land
tenure to studies of order and dispute (Roberts 1979; Moore 1986). The
concept of control of resource use is also essential in studies of
what more recently has become known as 'legal pluralism,' i.e., the
acknowledgement of the existence of more than one legal system. This
concept directs attention to the interaction between the national
legal system and local, 'informal' systems of rules. The latter
perspective has of course an immense applicability in situations that
feature rapid population movements with conflicting interests in a
limited number of resources like in many of the countries of the Sahel.
In anthropological studies of land tenure there is also a growing
awareness that local systems cannot be approached in isolation from
the wider national legal and social structures with which they are
intertwined (Goheen and Shipton 1992). Recent years have seen a wealth
of studies that, carried out in that spirit, address issues like
officially issued land titles and land distribution, landlessness and
famine, and competition for land and the Structural Adjustment
Programme (Waal 1989; Gladwin 1990; Downs and Reyna 1988). Yet, there
is an overwhelming theoretical need to highlight the issue of conflict
within and between different tenure regimes. Roberts argues that there
are three ways to approach this type of anthropological data the study
of prescriptive rules, the study of observable regularities in
everyday human behaviour, and the study of instances of dispute
(Roberts 1979:185). But, he claims, "more often than not one
dimension has been emphasized" (ibid.), yet all three dimensions
are equally justified and relevant.
Much of current non-anthropological writings on both low-intensity
conflicts and resource related disputes in Africa approaches the
subject from a perspective that presupposes that one is dealing with
fairly stable, 'ethnic', identities. If that is the way 'ethnicity'
has become regarded by other disciplines, the invention of the concept
may well be anthropology's greatest disservice to the social sciences.
As Handler argues, there is a great deal of cultural objectification
intrinsic in the very term 'ethnic' which tends to overshadow the fact
that discontinuity and construction may be a more characteristic trait
than continuity and tradition in ethnic groups (Handler 1984). Current
approaches to inter-ethnic conflicts in anthropology are informed by
an ambition problematize ethnic identities. In a seminal essay
entitled The Internal African Frontier, Kopytoff uses the
American historian Turner's concept of 'the frontier' to highlight the
shifting nature of African ethnic history (Kopytoff 1987). Kopytoff's
use of the concept suggests an image of the development of African
ethnic groups that constitutes a definite break with an older, static
image. In Kopytoff's view, break-up, discontinuity, formation of
entirely new polities, and reformation of older ones, are regular
events in the culture of traditional African politics. His theoretical
inclination draws him close to the so-called interest-group analysis
of Cohen et al. (Cohen 1974), in that Kopytoff, too, allows for the
integration of subjective expression of ethnic awareness into his
model. Yet, his focus on the regional setting for ethnic processes of
competition and resource exploitation, parallels the 'boundary'
approach to ethnicity represented by, among others, Barth (1969). In
Kopytoff's view, the regional patterns of communication, trade and
exchange between ethnic groups, to a large extent accounts for the
regional similarities in ethnic form and procreation of new polities.
Kopytoff's regional perspective offers a number of advantages over
more conventional, static approaches to ethnicity. Interest-group
analysis and other resource-competition approaches, often fail to
incorporate the role of "the state as the purveyor of the
policies and constraints that both formally define and informally
direct politically and morally acceptable forms of competition and
co-operation" (Williams 1989). Moreover, Kopytoff's emphasis on
the way in which ethnic groupings constitute to borrow a worn-out
phrase of Anderson's 'imagined communities', points to the volatility
of ethnic identities. At the same time Kopytoff's article is
disappointing in that it avoids to penetrate the current
state-of-affairs of African politics in the aftermath of colonial
liberation and with so much current attention directed to both
'democratization' and economic 'structural adjustment'. As a number of
social historians have pointed out, the colonial history of many
African states, implied a tampering and bending of ethnic, race, and
other social labels, much of which has created long-lasting effects on
these states and the relations between ethnic groups therein. As often
pointed out, the Rwandan tragedy may be the most recent example of the
effects of colonial policies (Waal 1994) and we have only begun to see
the consequences of multi-party systems in countries like Kenya. Yet
if one seeks to reconcile anthropological analysis of ethnic micro
events with the constraints of the larger context of state penetration
within which ethnic units operate (Cliffe 1977), it is not sufficient
to highlight only the 'state-side' of the relation as Bayart's recent
political history of Africa has made clear (1993). Ethnic identities
are indeed constructed (or 'instrumental' as political scientists
would have it), as for instance Handler's sensitive writings on Quebec
has shown (see Handler 1988), yet that does not make them seem less
primordial from the point of view of their members (cf. Eriksen 1993;
Comaroff and Comaroff 1992).
Conclusion
This article has argued that there are at least two major problems
that may be identified in the current approaches to resolve
low-intensity conflicts in Africa: 1) There is a failure to address
the specific character such conflicts have and an entire absence of
attempts to seek to ground reconciliation efforts in the established
sphere social relations and institutions of local communities; 2)
Low-intensity conflicts are viewed in a narrow, Eurocentric fashion
and without appreciation of the composite nature of such conflicts.
Resource-related disputes and politically turbulent situations are
regarded as conflicts of a different order than armed conflicts, yet
such problems may be what provide the fuel for local conflicts to
continue even if centralized peace accords have been reached.
Related to these problems, there is a failure of researchers to
define clear and sustainable alternatives to the conventional routes
to reconciliation. While the study of small-scale social and political
organizations has long constituted one primary focus of anthropology,
and although there is a broad set of varied approaches to the study of
war, there are comparably few studies of how modern conflicts are
resolved. In particular one may note the absence of studies that
combine a small-scale focus with an awareness of the larger structures
that local communities are linked to. Anthropology has a better record
in the study of resource related disputes, and a growing trend of
interest link the study of resource control to the rise of low
intensity conflicts. Similarly, current approaches to ethnicity focus
on the way that ethnic identities are constructed within the
parameters of the larger socio-cultural context. However, on the
whole, international organizations cannot be expected to follow poorly
defined "bottom-up" approaches to reconciliation unless a
large number of case-studies as well as more theoretical work is
devoted to such issues.
References
Barth, F. (ed.) 1969. Ethnic Groups and Boundaries. Oslo:
Universtitetsforlaget.
Bayart, J. F. 1993. The State in Africa: The Politics of the
Belly. London: Longman.
Bergman, M. 1994. Non-governmental organizations caught up in the
conflict. Anthropology in Action, 1 (3).
Bradbury, M. 1993. The Somali Conflict: Prospects for Peace. Oxfam
Research Paper, No. 9.
Carneiro, R. L. 1994. War and Peace: Alternating Realities in Human
History. In Perspectives , S. P. Reyna and R. E. Downs (eds.).
Langhorne: Gordon and Breach. Studying War: Anthropological
Clausewitz, C. von. 1976 (1915). On War. M. Howard and P.
Paret (eds.). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Cliffe, L. (ed.). 1977. Hague: Mouton. Government and Rural
Development in East Africa : Essays on Political Penetration. The
Cohen, A. (ed.) 1974. Urban Ethnicity. London: Tavistock
Comaroff, J. 1989. University of Chicago Press. Body of Power,
Spirit of Resistance: The Culture and History of a South African
People. Chicago:
--- and J. L. Comaroff. 1992. Ethnography and the Historical
Imagination . Boulder: Westview.
Comaroff, J. L. and S. Roberts. 1981. Chicago: Chicago University
Press. Rules and Processes: The Cultural Logic of Dispute in an
African Context.
Creveld, M. van. 1991. On Future War. London: Brassey's.
Davis, J. 1992. The Anthropology of Suffering. Journal of
Refugee Studies, 5 (2).
Devish, R. n.d. The shattered mirror. Unpublished manuscript,
Department of Anthropology, University of Leuven, Belgium.
Downs, R. E. and S. P. Reyna, (eds.) 1988. University Press of New
England. Land and Society in Contemporary Africa. Hanover, New
Hampshire:
Eriksen, T. H. 1993. Ethnicity and Nationalism: Anthropological
Perspectives. London: Pluto Press.
Farah, A. Y. with I. M. Lewis. 1993. Contemporary Lineage
Leaders: A Survey of Grassroots Peace Conferences in
"Somaliland." London: ActionAid. Somalia: The Roots
of Reconciliation. Peace Making Endeavours of
Ferguson, R. B and N. L. Whitehead (eds.). 1992. Santa Fe: School
of American Research Press. War in the Tribal Zone: Expanding
States and Indigenous Warfare.
Gibbon, P. 1994. Introduction. In Report No. 95. Uppsala:
Scandinavian Institute of African Studies. The New Local Level
Politics in East Africa, K. Kanyinga et al. (eds.). Research
Gladwin, C. (ed.) 1990. African Women Farmers and Structural
Adjustment. Gainesville: University of Florida Press.
Gluckman, M. 1956. Custom and Conflict in Africa. Oxford:
Basil Blackwell.
Goheen, M. and P. Shipton. 1992. Understanding African Landholding:
Power, Wealth, and Meaning. Africa, 62:307-325.
Gulliver, P. H. 1979. Disputes and Negotiations: A
Cross-Cultural Perspective. New York: Academic Press.
Handler, R. 1984. On Socio-Cultural Discontinuity: Nationalism and
Cultural Objectification in Quebec. Anthropology , 25:55-71. Current
--- 1988. Nationalism and the Politics of Culture in Quebec. Madison:
University of Wisconsin Press.
Hardin, G. 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science
162:1243-48.
Hjort af Ornäs, A. and S. Lodgaard. 1992. Preface. In and S.
Lodgaard (eds.). Uppsala: EPOS. The Environment and International
Security, A. Hjort af Ornäs
James, W. 1988. Clarendon Press. The Listening Ebony: Moral
Knowledge, Religion and Power among the Uduk of Sudan. Oxford:
--- 1994. War & 'Ethnic Visibility': The Uduk of the
Sudan-Ethiopia Border. In Africa, K. Fukui and J. Markakis
(eds.). London: James Currey. Ethnicity & Conflict in the Horn
of
Kiondo, A, S. Z. 1994. The New Politics of Local Development in
Tanzania. In Africa, K. Kanyinga et al. (eds.). Research Report
No. 95. Uppsala: Scandinavian Institute of African Studies. The New
Local Level Politics in East
Kopytoff, I. 1987. The Internal African Frontier. In University
Press. The African Frontier, I. Kopytoff (ed.). Bloomington:
Indiana
Lewis, I. M. 1993. Misunderstanding the Somali crisis. Anthropology
Today, 9 (4).
Loizos, P. 1981. Press. The Heart Grown Bitter. A Chronicle of
Cypriot War Refugees. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Makinda, S. 1993. Academy. Seeking Peace from Chaos:
Humanitarian Intervention in Somalia. Boulder: International Peace
Marchal, R. 1993a. Somalie: Autopsie d'une intervention. Politique
International, 6:191-208.
--- 1993b. Formes de la violence dans un espace urbain en guerre:
les africaines, 117. mooryaan de Mogadiscio. Cahiers
d'études
McCauley, C. 1990 Conference overview. In Press. The
Anthropology of War, J. Haas (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge
University
Menkhaus, K. Getting Out Vs. Getting Through: U. S. and U. N.
Policies in Somalia. Middle East Policy, 3(1):146-162.
Moore, S. F. 1983. Law as Process. An Anthropological Approach. London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Nordstrom, C. and J. Martin (eds.) 1992.California Press. The
Paths to Domination, Resistance and Terror. Berkeley: University
of
Otterbein, K. F. 1994. Feuding and Warfare. Langhorne:
Gordon and Breach.
Prendergast, J. 1994a. Human Rights Abuse in Somalia. New
York: Center of Concern. The Bones of Our Children Are Not Yet
Buried: The Looming Spectre of Famine and Massive
--- 1994b. Concern. The Gun Talks Louder Than the Voice:
Somalia's Continuing Cycle of Violence. New York: Center of
Putnam, R. et al. 1993. Making Democracy Work. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Richards, P. 1993. Famine (and war) in Africa. Anthropology
Today 8 (6).
Roberts, S. 1979. Order and Dispute. An Introduction to Legal
Anthropology. Middlesex, England: Penguin Books Ltd.
Sahlins, M. 1968. Tribesmen. Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice-Hall.
Tiedemand, P. 1994. New Local State Forms and 'Popular
Participation' in Buganda, Uganda. In Politics in East Africa,
K. Kanyinga et al. (eds.). Research Report No. 95. Uppsala:
Scandinavian Institute of African Studies. The New Local Level
Timberlake, L. 1988. Earthscan Publications Ltd. Africa in
Crisis: The Causes, the Cures of Environmental Bankruptcy. (New
Edition). London:
Turton, D. 1989. Warfare, Vulnerability and Survival: A case from
Southwestern Ethiopia. (Special Issue: Local Warfare in Africa), 13
(2). Cambridge Anthropology
--- 1991. Movement, Warfare and Ethnicity in the Lower Omo Valley.
In Africa. Boulder: Westview Press. Herders, Warriors and
Traders: Pastoralism in
--- 1993. "We must teach them to be peaceful": Mursi
views on being human and being Mursi. In Africa: Human and
Ecological Consequences of Warfare, T. Tvedt (ed.). Uppsala: EPOS.
Conflicts in the Horn of
Tvedt, T. 1993. Introduction. In Tvedt (ed.). Uppsala: EPOS. Conflicts
in the Horn of Africa: Human and Ecological Consequences of Warfare,
T.
Ury, W. L., J. M. Brett and S. B. Goldberg. 1989. Conflict.
San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Getting Disputes Resolved: Designing
Systems to Cut the Costs of
Vayrynen, R. 1991. To Settle or to Transform? In Transformation .
London: Sage Publications. New Directions in Conflict Theory,
Conflict Resolution and Conflict
Wallensteen, P. 1992. Environmental Destruction and Serious Social
Conflict. In Security, A. Hjort af Ornäs and S. Lodgaard
(eds.). Uppsala: EPOS. The Environment and International
Waal, A. de. 1989. Famine that Kills: Darfur, Sudan 1984-85 .
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
--- 1994. Genocide in Rwanda. Anthropology Today, 10 (3).
[Country] |