Frank Bekkers

Tim Sweijs

Stephan de Spiegeleire

National security starts with strategic anticipation: what are the risks for the Dutch national security? How can the Netherlands prepare for this, and what choices and investments are needed in order to do so?

Up and down, round and round, faster and faster

The wheel of fortune

Willem Oosterveld 

After the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry expressed his indignation by stating that: “You just don’t in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pre-text,” This statement reflected a widely held view in the West that territorial conflict belongs to the past. The reality, unfortunately, is that territory is still seen by some to be at a premium for strategic, economic and other reasons. Territorial disputes continue to fuel contemporary militarized conflicts,1 and can be found in all parts of the world. Territory and war have been inextricably linked throughout the history of the Westphalian world system. Four out of every five wars fought between the end of the Thirty Years War (1648) and the Cold War (1989) involved territorial disputes. From the Congress of Vienna (1815) to the attacks of 9/11 (2001), almost one third of all interstate conflicts involved territorial conflict.2 In 2013, 51 out of 89 ongoing interstate conflicts involved territorial disputes.3 Indeed, in modern times, territorial ambitions do not cease to stir the hearts and minds of combatants from Latin America to East Asia. They have even been eating away at the fringes of Europe itself, seen by some as an island of ‘post-Westphalian’ tranquility.

Territorial Conflict in Today's World

Pushing the Boundaries

Kamal Eldin Salah

Willem Th. Oosterveld

Marjolein de Ridder

Dana Poláčková

Scott Ward

Rik Rutten

Nathalie Olah 

Analyses of the international security environment typically provide somber overviews of the various drivers and manifestations of conflict and instability around the world. Recent developments such as the terrorist attacks in Paris, Beirut and elsewhere, a Middle East in flames, a resurgent Russia, incessant violence in West Africa or turmoil in South China Sea only reinforce this view. By framing our analysis of the security environment in these terms, debates about how to anticipate and respond to these current and future threats invariably focus on those forces of instability and conflict: how to identify threats and enemies and then eliminate them. This report is based on the premise that this conflict-centric mindset has led to portfolio choices in terms of strategies (‘what do we do and how do we do it?’), capabilities (‘what do we do it with?’), and partners (‘who do we do it with?’) that have been excessively onesided. This report argues that there is an alternative, complementary way of framing security that is equally real and equally actionable for defense and security organizations (DSOs4 ): a resilience-centric one.

INDIVIDUAL EMPOWERMENT, SOCIETAL RESILIENCE AND THE ARMED FORCES

SI VIS PACEM, PARA UTIQUE PACEM

Stephan de Spiegeleire

About

Books

Join the club