In previous publications, we described a chain of nations in tension, like a “fuse” along which war could spread in either direction. (Newcombe, A. and H., International Interactions, Vol. 7, No. 1, 1980, pp. 1-32; Bulletin of Peace Proposals, 2/1980, pp. 124-130.) The chain extends from the Southern tip of Africa, through East Africa and the Horn, to the Middle East, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, China, and USSR, with branches to Southeast Asia and Korea. It encompasses almost all the world’s crisis regions except Central America.
In the 1970s, all along this chain, neighbouring nations were hostile to each other, for various local reasons, while each nation’s neighbours on both sides in the chain were allies; so that each nation could consider itself surrounded by enemies. This structure formed a series of linked cognitively balanced triangles (+—) according to Heider’s theory; a pattern in which “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” and “the friend of my enemy is my enemy”. Such patterns are cognitively balanced, i.e. feel comfortable in that everyone knows exactly who is a friend and who is an enemy; but are also tension-producing and war-prone. Nations along this chain were also over-armed (higher arms expenditures per GNP than the world average) and many were potential nuclear proliferators or actually possessed nuclear weapons (USSR, China, India, Israel). A large proportion of the post-1945 wars in the world actually occurred along this chain, although spreading was not observed.
The pattern was disrupted by the Iranian revolution in the early 1980. It is debatable whether this was good or bad for war prediction along the chain; it broke the deadly line-up of friends and enemies, but it also introduced confusion and uncertainty. It depends on whether you believe that wars are fostered by the certainties of polarization or the uncertainties of confusion. The Iran-Iraq war occurred more because of the uncertainty (Saddam Hussein’s miscalculation).
Most parts of the fuse chain’s pattern still exist in the greatly changed world of the 1990s, although the super-powers are not longer aligned on the opposing sides of the numerous local hostile dyads. This should help dampen down the volatility of the relationships; but there is now a new danger.
The new centre that is beginning to link to the old earthquake fault in the world’s political landscape is in the Balkans, a traditional war-breeding area from the late 19th and early 20th century. The civil war in the former Yugoslavia may become linked to the Middle East crisis area, which is still inflamed, through the involvement of the Muslims in Bosnia. It can be expected that Muslim fundamentalists from the Arab world will want to help their beleagered brethren in Bosnia. Will Israel than be constrained to line up with the Serbs? It might help that the Croats collaborated with the Germans in World War II…
This is still speculation; but let us construct some possible cognitive-balance triangles that could reach across these two regions. One example is represented in the diagram at the end of this article. Israel’s conflict with the Muslim fundamentalist organization (expulsions into Lebanon and the resulting impasse when Lebanon would not admit them) is an element in this; it seems that Israel’s hostility is shifting from the PLO which has recognized Israel’s right to exist, to Hasad which does not.
Our new world order may be just as war-prone as the old. This is not good news; but we cannot be sure of it yet.