A new study suggests foreign financing helps ignite civil war

Jonathan Kay
National Post

What causes armed rebellions in places such as Sri Lanka,
Colombia and Chechnya? The mainstream view in the West is that
they are the product of longstanding inequality and repression. And
many of us assume the violence would stop if the rebels' grievances
were dealt with fairly.

But recent research casts doubt on this charitable attitude.
According to a 35-year survey of 161 countries released on
Thursday by the Development Research Group of the World Bank,
economic inequality has no statistically discernible effect on the
ignition of civil war. Nor does a nation's political system: All other
factors being equal, a country that provides citizens with democratic
rights is no more or less susceptible to civil war than one that does
not.

And where predicting future conflict is concerned, the World Bank
study shows that a "grievance-based" model of civil war is less
accurate than a "greed-based" model. Under the latter, armed
rebellion is analyzed strictly by reference to objective factors that
affect a rebel group's ability to seize power and assets. These
include the wages rebels are required to pay soldiers, the availability
of favourable terrain and the group's access to plunderable
resources such as diamonds and cocaine.

Of course, when they solicit funds, rebels always speak the
language of grievance, not greed. As the report notes, "where
rebellions happen to be financially viable, wars will occur. As part of
the process of war, the rebel organization must generate group
grievance for military effectiveness. The generation of group
grievance politicizes the war. Thus, the war produces the intense
political conflict, not the intense political conflict the war." The
report also notes that "if the society in which the rebellion occurs is
ethnically diverse ... the obvious discourse for the rebel leadership
to adopt with its recruits is that of ethnic grievance."

If you don't recognize Sri Lanka's civil war in these words, you
should. Although the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) plant
their bombs and solicit funds under the claim that Tamils are
oppressed in that country, there is little evidence to support their
position. Most of the government's anti-Tamil policies were
repealed -- rightly -- years ago. In 1987, for instance, Tamil
became an official language alongside Sinhala. And in 1988, the
government ended university affirmative action programs that
favoured the majority Sinhalese. Since British rule ended in 1948,
elections have been largely free. And in a recent ballot, fewer than
half the Tamils in the LTTE's declared "homeland" supported the
separatist Tamil United Liberation Front. Although Sri Lanka's
colonial history sowed the country with the seeds of ethnic
grievance, the LTTE now answers to the "greed" model of rebellion.

And if Canadians take a closer look at that model, they should be
greatly alarmed about the fundraising performed in this country on
behalf of the LTTE. Two months ago, the Development Research
Group published data suggesting that diaspora remittances
substantially increase the risk of conflict in war-torn countries. For
instance, researchers found that, all other factors being equal, the
risk of conflict starting after at least five years of peace is six times
greater in nations with the largest diasporas as compared to those
with the smallest. The report's observation that "after peace has
been restored, the legacy of conflict-induced grievance enables
rebel movements to restart conflict by drawing on the support of
their diasporas" describes Sri Lanka's war with great precision. In
November of last year, the LTTE launched its most recent major
campaign, deploying anti-aircraft missiles purchased in large part
with foreign remittances.

But I do not mean to unduly demonize the Tamils. As the
Development Research Group notes, countries with a single
dominant ethnic group accounting for between 45% and 90% of the
population -- such as Sri Lanka -- exhibit double the normal risk of
conflict. Moreover, Sri Lanka's is but one of 73 civil wars that
rocked the world in the last 35 years. The phenomenon described
by the "greed" model is generic, and it does not apply only to the
LTTE.

On the other hand, Minister of Finance Paul Martin, who appeared
at a dinner recently on behalf of an organization linked by the U.S.
State Department to the LTTE (and who then branded those who
took him to task as "anti-Canadian"), should not deceive himself. As
last week's World Bank report tells us, "rebel leaders have always
sought outside supporters -- 'useful idiots' in Lenin's telling phrase.
Among the people who are most susceptible to the discourse of
grievance are those who care most passionately about oppression,
inequality and injustice."

"Those who care most passionately about oppression, inequality
and injustice?" That sounds a lot like Canadians. Let us be careful,
therefore, that neither we -- nor our politicians -- become the
well-meaning dupes of the LTTE or anyone else.