The purpose of this study was to investigate the causes and the ramifications of the political conflict in Ivory Coast from 2002 to 2009. A purposive sampling was used to select fourteen respondents. Qualitative methodology was used for the study. The data collection instruments were semi-structured interview questions, open-ended Semi-structured questionnaire and documentary analysis. The analysed data revealed that the causes of the conflict were: competition for scarce resources, bad governance, media incitement, xenophobia, incessant political power struggle and the proliferation of small fire arms entering the country. The effects experienced during the conflict were human rights violation, destruction of property including UN premises and displaced people both internally and externally. Some recommendations made include: Efforts should be made by the Government to strengthen good relationship among different ethnic groups and help them adapt to new challenges that confront democratic developments in the country. The Government should organise the South African style of Truth and Reconciliation Commission to revisit the horrors of the past in order to heal wounds and prevent future occurance of the conflict. Employment opportunities and other income generationg ventures for Ivorian should be created by the Government by attracting local and foreign investors. The numerous rebels should be given special skills training in other for them to be able to live among the communities in Ivory Coast. Government of national unity should be encouraged in situation like this. ECOWAS as well as AU should make sure that when disarmament instituted, it should be done properly. They should always monitor it and not to allow the arms to get into the country again. It is the hope of the researcher that this study makes a contribution towards the prevention of similar conflicts in Africa in the future.

When do militias---whose power, riches, and legitimacy depend on the continuation of civil wars---accept negotiated settlements? An unexplored and crucial dimension of militia decision-making is the process of militia institutionalization. Militias create institutions to improve their odds of winning the war and project legitimacy internally as well as externally. / Militia institutions affect the strategic choice of decision-makers. They create financial and organizational interests that modify the preferences of the militia leadership. The modified preferences increase the win-set of militia leaders at the negotiating table. Militia institutions also change the decision-making context. Institutions unleash three dynamics that decrease a militia's ability to withstand fluctuations in the military balance of forces. Institutions can lead to factionalism, increased visibility (and hence vulnerability to attack), and strains in relations with patrons. / Using the logic of two-level games, I argue that leaders evaluate peace settlements with an eye on two boards. Externally, they evaluate their position vis-a-vis other protagonists in the conflict. Internally, leaders are concerned with their positions in power. Institutionalization results in a tension between "raison de la revolution" (ideological motivations) and "raison d'institution" (institutional preservation). Embattled leaders who increasingly find it difficult to withstand changes in the balance of forces find that their institutional interests are better preserved by peace. They agree to compromise on their ideological preferences thus opening a window of opportunity for the attainment of sustainable peace settlements. / Employing the comparative case-study method, the dissertation examines the attitudes of the Lebanese Forces and the Bosnian Serbs respectively toward conflict-resolution schemes that sought to bring the Lebanese and Bosnian civil wars to an end. / By focusing on leaders' incentives to settle, the research allows us to predict a priori which settlements are more sustainable. Theoretically, it refines the concept of "ripeness" for negotiations by specifying both its intra-communal and its extra-communal dimensions. In terms of practical policy implications, the research argues that militias are prime candidates for the role of spoilers. Thus, it is important not only to understand their incentives to settle but also to craft peace agreements that give even such radical factions a vested interest in peace.

No description available.

In protracted international conflicts, truth is often sacrificed in the name of victory. Political realists see international politics as a competition to win power, retain power, and demonstrate power; misleading the enemy in the name of strategy and misleading the public in the name of security are necessary elements of the game. A less obvious condition is that those caught in the cycle of intergroup conflict also withhold truths from themselves. This denial of truth and reality--to the Other, to the public, and to the self--is especially prevalent in the communicative relationship between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. This study explores the communicative relationship between the United States and Iran via mass media with a particular focus on propaganda as "natural." The literature review explains how conflict-conditioned communication grows and operates within the context of intergroup conflict, including the significance of globalization and information technology. The communicative relationship between the United States and Iran is used as a case study to explore conflict-conditioned communication. A snapshot of the U.S.-Iran communicative relationship was taken from May 1, 2005 - May 1, 2008. Articles from three print and online media sources were combed and analyzed for examples and patterns of conflict-conditioned communication. The method is based on an approach to understanding conflict-conditioned communication that was developed by Dr. Harry Anastasiou, a conflict resolution professional and educator. The method additionally utilizes the work of Dr. William O. Beeman, an expert on misperceptions between the United States and Iran. The conflict-conditioned communicative relationship between the United States and Iran shows how legitimate concerns and human needs are filtered through collective psychology, history, and national identity and absorbed into misperceptions. These misperceptions are perpetuated through propaganda and lead to unyielding political positions. The dual phenomena of globalization and advanced information technology amplify these unyielding political positions by spreading propagandized misperceptions faster and farther than ever before. As the United States and Iran become more entrenched in unyielding political positions, communication reduces to competing systems of propaganda, thus making peaceful conflict resolution less likely.