Conversation with Professor Fearon

Members of the Ta’ang National Liberation Army in Shan State, Myanmar in 2023

Discussion Report

In a recent conversation with Professor Fearon, Theodore and Frances Geballe Professor in the School of Humanities and Sciences at Stanford, Khushmita Dhabhai from SIAS explored rebel groups and conflict dynamics.

Our discussion revolved around the pivotal role of rebel groups, armed entities challenging governments due to various grievances. We delved into factors like state capacity and social structures shaping their formation and efficiency. Additionally, we examined varied counterinsurgency strategies, discussed the impact of third-party support on conflicts, and pondered challenges in post-conflict transformation. Professor Fearon's insights enriched our understanding of insurgency dynamics and the complexities of achieving lasting peace.

Factors Impacting Rebel Group Formation and Efficiency

The conversation initially centered on the pivotal role of state capacity in shaping the emergence and characteristics of rebel groups. Prof. Fearon noted that countries with weaker governmental structures often witness the swifter formation of rebel groups, albeit lacking organizational discipline. Conversely, in states with robust military and intelligence capabilities, rebel groups face hurdles in their formation but can evolve into more efficient and structured entities if they manage to establish themselves. This underscores how the strength of the state significantly impacts the nature and behavior of rebel groups within specific contexts.

The discussion then shifted to explore how social structures impact the effectiveness of rebel groups, referencing Roger Peterson's argument regarding the influence of social factors like strong communities and kinship ties on rebel group efficiency. Drawing parallels with Ashutosh Varshney's research on ethnic violence in India, it was suggested that groups composed of individuals from similar ethnic or kinship backgrounds might exhibit lower effectiveness due to potential homogeneity in skill sets or training.

A case study focusing on the 'Kuki' rebel organization in north-eastern India was examined. Despite engaging in violence, this group's efficiency and impact were observed to be relatively lower compared to other rebel groups in the region. This was attributed to its limited ethnic diversity and potentially similar skill sets among members. However, Prof. Fearon acknowledged the complexities within the group's dynamics and its cross-border relations, emphasizing the need for a nuanced understanding of the situation.

While recognizing the importance of social cohesion and trust within homogeneous societies, Prof. Fearon cautioned against oversimplifying the relationship between diversity and rebel group effectiveness. He suggested that while diversity could influence interpersonal trust, its direct impact on rebel group efficiency is multifaceted and context-dependent.

Explaining Sub-National Variation in Counterinsurgency

The conversation then delved into the complexities of sub-national variations in counterinsurgency efforts, even within regions characterized by robust state capacity, using India's historical context, particularly focusing on the 1990s, as a case study. Diverse strategies adopted by the Indian state to address insurgencies across different regions were scrutinized. For instance, while a harsh military campaign was employed in Kashmir to suppress separatist movements, Punjab saw a more nuanced approach involving police force reform and rebel rehabilitation. Meanwhile, insurgencies in the northeast and Andhra Pradesh were largely overlooked, with minimal state support provided.

Recognizing the intricate nature of the issue, Prof. Fearon underscored the infrequency of states undertaking counterinsurgency efforts across multiple regions concurrently. India's expansive size and diverse socio-political landscapes demanded tailored approaches, making it a compelling case study. Insights from Paul Staniland's work were suggested to offer valuable insights into this question.

Further exploration delved into the contributing factors to sub-national variation in counterinsurgency efforts despite strong state capacity. Geographical considerations, coupled with the proximity of regions to central power, emerged as significant influences on the state's priorities in addressing insurgencies. For example, Prof. Fearon suggested Punjab's relative proximity to the centre might have necessitated a more cautious approach. Drawing parallels to Philip Roessler's theory of coup displacement, Prof. Fearon  suggested that internal power struggles within a central government could manifest as insurgencies on the periphery, although India's dynamics diverged from this model. Additionally, deliberation ensued regarding whether the ethnic status of insurgent groups influenced the state's response, with the relative importance of Sikh insurgents in Indian society potentially prompting a more nuanced approach compared to other groups.

Third Party Support for Rebel Groups

Prof. Fearon then delved deeply into the intricacies of international intervention in civil conflicts, particularly emphasizing the impact of third-party support on negotiations between rebel groups and states. He explained the potential repercussions of foreign aid, such as arms transfers, on the dynamics of negotiating an end to conflict between the state and rebel group. This initial inquiry sparked a discussion on correlational studies examining 'internationalized civil wars,' revealing a notable correlation between third-party support and the prolonged duration and heightened intensity of conflicts. Prof. Fearon underscored the tendency for conflicts with multiple external backers to persist for extended periods and experience escalated levels of violence.

As the conversation unfolded, Prof. Fearon explained how third-party support could extend conflicts by diminishing the costs of combat for both rebel groups and states, thereby adding complexity to the negotiation process. This idea was clarified using illustrations such as the conflict in Ukraine, where external support significantly impacted the negotiating power of the conventionally weaker state vis-à-vis the stronger state. Furthermore, Prof. Fearon referenced scenarios in which specific third parties might lack an interest in resolving the conflict, consequently impeding negotiations until a regional diplomatic consensus is reached.

One key aspect discussed was the idea that third-party support could inadvertently lead to a stalemate in conflicts, rather than solely extending their duration. In this scenario, third parties might back rebel groups to prevent their direct involvement and to mitigate the escalation of conflict. This concern over escalation could lead third parties to limit the support provided to either the state or a proxy group, inadvertently prolonging the conflict. However, Prof. Fearon noted it's essential to recognize that while this concept aligns well with the context of the ISI and Pakistan, its applicability to other situations may necessitate additional exploration and analysis.

Throughout the conversation, there was speculation regarding the motives driving third-party support for rebel groups. Prof. Fearon referenced the concept of "civil war as foreign policy by other means", proposing that such support could be an extension of foreign policy agendas. This prompted consideration of whether discrepancies in overt and covert third-party support might indicate variations in third-party foreign policy preferences. For instance, examples like Rwanda and Uganda's participation in the conflict in eastern Congo were cited to illustrate instances where overt support was publicly disowned to alleviate criticism from major donors.

Post-conflict Transformation of Rebel Groups

The discussion concluded with an in-depth exploration of the intricate dynamics prevalent in post-conflict environments, with a particular emphasis on the motivations driving certain rebel factions to resume hostilities, while others opt for dissolution or transformation into socio-political entities. It underscored a broad spectrum of viewpoints and academic contributions within the realm of civil conflicts, rebel movements, and the intricacies of peacebuilding processes.

A significant point that Prof. Fearon raised centered around the significance of electoral involvement within post-conflict contexts. Specifically, Ayala Matanak's research on the participation of rebel factions in electoral processes was referenced, emphasizing the critical need to comprehend the ramifications of such involvements on endeavors aimed at building peace. Prof. Fearon underscored that the resolution of civil conflicts significantly molds the direction of rebel groups. Whether through clear-cut military triumphs or mediated settlements facilitated by international actors, the manner in which peace negotiations unfold profoundly influences the subsequent behavior of these factions.

Security guarantees were referenced as a crucial element for maintaining peace following demobilization. The conversation delved into the notion of credible commitment, wherein states provide assurances to dissuade rebel groups from resuming conflict. Nonetheless, skepticism was voiced regarding the effectiveness of such guarantees, especially in contexts where the outcomes of demobilization are uncertain. The potential disruption of social networks and the ambiguity surrounding post-conflict reintegration pose significant challenges to viewing credible commitment as a universal solution for averting a relapse into violence.

Barbara Walter's research on the pivotal obstacles to civil war resolution was cited to shed light on the inherent challenges of peace negotiation. Concerns about potential deception during the demobilization phase, coupled with the resulting distrust between opposing factions, exacerbate the complexities of attaining enduring peace. The discussion further underscored real-world instances, such as Colombia, where perceived breaches of trust by the state have significantly complicated post-conflict transitions.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the dialogue with Professor Fearon illuminated the complex interplay of factors influencing rebel group dynamics and conflict resolution. From the pivotal role of state capacity and social structures in shaping rebel group formation to the nuanced variations in counterinsurgency strategies and the impact of third-party support on conflict dynamics, our exploration provided valuable insights. Moreover, our discussion underscored the challenges of post-conflict transformation, highlighting the importance of electoral involvement and security guarantees in achieving lasting peace. Professor Fearon's expertise enriched our understanding of insurgency dynamics, emphasizing the need for nuanced approaches and interdisciplinary collaboration in addressing conflict and fostering sustainable peace.