Contested Urban Futures and the Role of Militaries
Whether controlling violence in Rio de Janeiro, or carrying out relief operations after floods in Karachi resulting from heavy rains, poor infrastructure and contested governance, militaries operating in cities is not a new phenomenon. The presence of militaries in cities, as well as their lasting effects on local politics, societies, and governance, have long been a topic of heated debate. Yet, in an increasingly urban world marked by risks associated with climate change, flows of migrants and refugees, and resource scarcity, militaries may be called upon more frequently. In a conversation hosted at the Institute of Future Initiatives, I discussed these themes with John Spencer of the Modern War Institute at West Point, and Prof. Kiichi Fujiwara of the Institute of Future Initiatives at the University of Tokyo (summary of the event here).
From the discussion, two themes stood out.
One, what is the nature of emergent social and political instability in cities where challenges of climate change, resource scarcity, and flows of people (both internal displacement/movement and migration) are contributing to larger populations, and shaping urban spaces? The short answer is that while we can identify that cities are changing; more research needs to be done on understanding the nature and trajectory of these changes. The longer answer is that, keeping in mind the nature of these complex problems and their convergence in cities, in many ways, this is an anticipatory exercise, as we map emergent and potential trajectories of social and political instability before the problem becomes intractable. The challenge, however, for scholars and policymakers is that within the wide-ranging scholarship of cities itself, conversations revolve in separate orbits. For instance, perspectives in urban planning may differ widely from political scientists making sense of cities, which in turn may be different from those held by sociologists, political ecologists, and anthropologists, and the rest. Similarly, disparate understandings of the processes of urban conflict and violence, not to mention different (possibly, irreconcilable) methodological approaches they employ, may make developing a clear understanding of the phenomenon difficult. While each of these perspectives brings forth incisive knowledge, dialogue among these approaches is necessary. Moreover, there is no one-size-fits-all approach; each city is different. This calls for developing a rich repertoire of deep knowledge of cities.
Two, are we prepared? For both theory and policy, more needs to be done.
Based on his experience of conflict-prevention and peace-building in military deployments in Iraq, Spencer pointed out that, organizations engaged in conflict prevention and resolution are structured along a country-centric view. One may find country-level expertise but not much on cities. The challenge, then, is to develop a city-centric perspective. A focus on producing an understanding of the micro-dynamics of violence, politics, and governance of cities is needed. Bereft of a high-resolution picture, policies are bound to exacerbate situations. What are the implications from a policy standpoint? Gaps in knowledge build into emergency responses. It took the destruction of Marawi or Mosul to save them, but left lasting effects on cities and civilian populations in its wake.
From the academic standpoint, not only is there a woeful lack of attention on defining what one may mean by urban conflict, or conflict in cities. There is a dearth of institutional resources invested in the topic. Students of contentious politics and civil conflict already know that origins of an armed struggle are most effectively traced to individual grievances by analyzing the micro-dynamics of conflict. In cities, however, the challenge lies in connecting these micro-dynamics of conflict to dynamics in urban contexts. In other words, as climate change and demographic changes in cities, be it a result of the changing climate or some other internal or external factors, worsen resource scarcity, strain service provision and governance, and contribute to social and political unrest, how (or, if) may they contribute to contention, or, even conflict? How urban challenges may contribute to warfare and fragility of society, thus, could shape much-needed research, as also noted by Prof. Fujiwara.
The gaps in interdisciplinary knowledge have real-world implications as they fail to prepare policymakers for informed interventions. Traditionally, militaries are trained to fight external enemies, and thus, are ill-equipped to fight in urban terrains. As a result, engaging military action in cities may lead to steep human costs.
Lastly, risks related to climate change, migration and resource scarcity, each of them a complex phenomenon in its own right, may or may not lead to conflict in cities. Instead, they may contribute to challenges in governance, vulnerability of local populations, and increasing inequality. Developing an understanding of local contexts, as well as micro-dynamics may lend important insights. And in the process, possibly lead to effective, and less expensive policy interventions helping people that need it the most.
