In the Sudan, Israel–Iran and Libya conflicts, diverse actors and interests compete and cooperate in military-economic networks or ‘ecosystems’. Each network operates beyond the bounds of formal institutional control, making policy interventions far more challenging.
Policymakers who operate in peacebuilding and related domains are confronting a rise in prolonged conflicts, in a global order that no longer fits neatly into rigid spheres of influence characteristic of the Cold War era. Many armed conflicts, regardless of their apparently local nature, occur within transnational political, economic, ideological and military ‘ecosystems’ that connect a diverse array of institutions, actors, commodities and even abstract ideas, and that are characterized by fluid and pragmatic relationships between direct participants, their associates and external sponsors. Such dynamics are inherently impervious to traditional peacebuilding interventions.
If stabilization and peacebuilding in conflict zones are to become more effective, policymakers must identify key entry points for understanding conflict dynamics. One approach is to ‘follow the money’: in other words, tracing the circulation of capital, goods and people to reveal the forces that fuel conflict and to identify those who benefit from its persistence. Beyond just tracking transactions and mapping transit routes, such analysis can offer broader insights into the nature of conflict ecosystems.
Some scholars have used the concept of ‘assemblages’ to overcome the limitations of viewing dynamic systems as mere supply chains. Goodhand and Pain, for example, demonstrate how the drugs trade relies on a complex assemblage of laboratories, production plants, institutions, actors, processes and resources. According to this model, the trade operates on a self-sustaining basis and has its own internal logic. A range of actors pursue profit and power at different points within this system, thereby competing and coming into conflict with one another.
Similarly, the gold trade from Sudan, oil exports originating from Iran, and human smuggling networks through Libya involve more than just physical supply chains and financial transactions. They consist of complex and dynamic webs of relationships, in which actors, infrastructure, regulations, local economies and geopolitical forces all interact in different ways. Understanding the challenges of peacebuilding in these contexts requires examining the many variables at work and the relationships between them.
Our research reveals a world that increasingly eludes categorization according to nation states or spheres of influence. Formal and informal actors, and adversaries and allies, work together, much to the frustration of Western policymakers who are tasked with designing interventions on a country-specific basis and still engage primarily with formal state interlocutors.
To explain the nature of these networks, Deleuze and Guattari use the analogy of a rhizome. Unlike a tree, which has a singular trunk and branches, a rhizome is a root system that spreads horizontally, lacking a clear beginning or end. When applied to conflict economies, the analogy emphasizes connectivity and the potential for continuous change and reconfiguration, challenging conventional notions of order and stability. In a changing global order lacking a singular hegemonic authority, this flexibility is a defining feature of transnational conflict ecosystems and is part of what causes today’s conflicts to spread so effectively. It also enables conflict ecosystems to adapt, for example to expand or contract as circumstances dictate. These features have significant implications for policymakers trying to address protracted conflicts, in which actors exploit the fluidity of global rivalries to secure resources, capital, weapons and political authority from a range of external partners.
In a changing global order lacking a singular hegemonic authority, this flexibility is a defining feature of transnational conflict ecosystems and is part of what causes today’s conflicts to spread so effectively.
