In the run-up to the 1997 general election in Britain, the Prime Minister-in-waiting, Tony Blair, coined the phrase "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime". It was a typical media soundbite that lacked a verb and, unfortunately, has lacked the policies and programme to make it a reality.
Internationally, there has been a similar failure to identify and address the causes of violent conflict. A major problem has been that old stereotypes of violent conflict still predominate, typified by images of military battles between states at war. But these by no means represent the typical conflicts of our time.
More typical are conflicts within states rather than between them, involving civilians and militias rather than professional soldiers.
At the beginning of the 20th century, around 90 per cent of the victims were soldiers, now 90 per cent are civilians; previously wars were between adults, now children are frequently not only the victims but also the protagonists; and short, sharp wars have been replaced by prolonged, intractable conflicts, marked by atrocities and huge suffering.
The duration of conflicts now is twice as long as those that started before 1980.
The last decade has seen the re-emergence of terrorism as another form of conflict, closely related to guerrilla warfare but usually with civilians as the targets. The global scale of terrorism reflects an internationalisation of conflict and its impact.
Governments and international institutions have been obsessively pursuing policies to facilitate worldwide finance, trade and multinational investment. It is not surprising that these same policies have enabled the globalisation of systems of conflict, such as money laundering and arms exports. These have been crucial in the establishment of multinationals such as the al Qaeda network.
International terrorism has spawned a global war on terror. Civilians have been the victims (collateral damage) of both. Also sacrificed have been crucial international standards on human rights and protections for civilians under International Humanitarian Law (the rules of war).
These have been swept aside in Iraqi prisons, Guantanamo Bay and counter-terrorism operations in countries such as Nepal and Indonesia. A narrow concept of containment and security has seen Israel erecting a massive wall constructed across Palestinian land, alienating people from their families, medical services, water and land. Governments around the world criminalise refugees and migrants.
The record of success for military intervention in resolving conflicts or stamping out terrorism has been mixed at best.
The paradox is that, in an era of a single unrivalled superpower, the US and its allies have repeatedly failed to achieve their intended consequences through military means - Somalia 1993, Haiti 1994, Bosnia 1995, Kosovo 1999, Afghanistan 2001 and Iraq 2003.
Only in the Balkans is there cause for optimism, and there are more than 15,000 troops still in Bosnia and thousands in Kosovo. Winning the war in military terms has become much easier than winning the peace.
It is clear that long-term solutions to conflict are not possible without addressing its root causes, and security will not be achieved without understanding and addressing the cause of insecurity.
Inevitably, those causes are far more complex than the usual characterisations such as tribal warfare, corrupt government or failed states. There are some underlying factors that increase the likelihood that states will suffer conflict.
Firstly, it is difficult to see how conflict can be prevented while a large proportion of a population are denied their basic rights.
Poor countries are overwhelmingly more prone to conflict; 80 per cent of the world's poorest countries have experienced a major conflict in the past 20 years.
There is a miserable, vicious cycle that operates - the failure of development in the poorest countries creates the conditions that result in violent conflict, which in turn destroys the productive base of the society.
Conflict prevention is inextricably related to the development challenge. Oxfam and allied organisations are pressing for sufficient resources and political will from the rich nations to achieve the Millennium Development Goals, building on the foundations laid by the Jubilee and aid campaigns in New Zealand and internationally.
Secondly, the erosion of the capacity and authority of the state opens up space for militias and warlords to compete for power.
In many countries, the role of the state has been sharply reduced through fiscal austerity introduced by the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and regional development banks, supported by rich world governments.
The imposition of conditions on opening up trade, privatising utilities and services and cutting subsidies has resulted in riots and widespread unrest, further marginalisation of the poor and significant weakening of the functions, capacity and legitimacy of government.
There is a growing international campaign calling for an end to the imposition of damaging conditionalities.
Thirdly, as the scale of inequity between the rich and the poor has risen, those who do not have productive opportunities seek other avenues that feed conflict.
As the eminent Indian academic Deepak Nayyar explains: "Those excluded from the paradise of consumerism experience frustration and alienation. Without opportunities to participate in legal markets, they seek short cuts through drugs, crime or violence. Others seek refuge in ethnic identity, cultural chauvinism or religious fundamentalism."
The expansion of employment opportunities in the developing world remains the major priority for development. Oxfam's Make Trade Fair campaign is linking from sustainable livelihoods projects in the Pacific and other regions to fundamental reform of the rules of the World Trade Organisation. The campaign is part of a worldwide mobilisation to end food dumping and protect the livelihoods of nearly one billion smallholder farmers in the developing world.
Fourthly, countries with rich natural resources are more likely to experience conflict, typified by the recent experiences in Angola, Nigeria, Sudan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Sudan and Iraq.
Conflicts in these countries have been supported through the capture of resource revenues, often paying for weapons purchases on both sides of the conflict.
Closer to home, mining has been a trigger point for conflict in Bougainville and West Papua, logging companies have exploited vulnerable communities and land rights are a flashpoint across Melanesia.
Oxfam supports NGOs and communities in advocacy on mining in PNG and, with the support of NZAid for the past five years, has supported peace building through livelihood development in Bougainville (soon to be launched as a local NGO, Osi Tanata).
Fifthly, the flood of weapons, particularly small arms, has become a destabilising force in numerous countries, spilling blood on killing fields in countries such as the Congo and Sudan.
There are, as yet, no controls on the trade of weapons internationally, partly because the permanent members of the UN Security Council account for around 90 per cent of the world's arms trade.
At the international level, Oxfam has joined with Amnesty International and International Action Network on Small Arms to press for a UN Arms Trade Treaty to stop the growing numbers of small arms that are going into conflict areas, including PNG and the Solomon Islands.
A far more exhaustive analysis of the roots of conflict would include other factors, including corruption by companies, governments and international donors.
The point is that preventing conflict is not only a matter of sending in an intervention force, overthrowing a corrupt regime or killing terrorists. The challenge is far wider. Building the base for peace and security is inextricably related to achieving development rights and building the institutions of civil society.
If a fraction of the money that the world spends on military equipment was spent on poverty reduction, the world would be a safer place. A fairer, safer and more sustainable world is possible.
* Barry Coates is Executive Director of Oxfam New Zealand.New Zealand Herald:
