Stephen Saideman

	Photo: Claudio Calligaris

The holder of the Canada Research Chair in International Security and Ethnic Conflict has garnered some pretty hands-on work in his field. Unlike many academics, political science professor Stephen Saideman has had a direct effect on policy making -- he served a one-year fellowship on the Joint Staff, the body that advises the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and therefore the U.S. Secretary of Defense and the President on military matters.

His office for this period was in the Pentagon. September 11, 2001, was the first day of his second week of work.

"I was in the building before and after, but not during. I was on the way to a meeting at the State Department, on the shuttle the government runs between the two buildings," he explained. He had seen coverage of the World Trade Centre attack before leaving, but as flights were still leaving Washington National Airport, he didn't think the Pentagon would be a target.

"I got into the shuttle with the Colonel and Lieutenant Colonel who were my superiors and we noticed the explosion when I was on the bridge. I called my wife and told her I was OK and she said 'why wouldn't you be? You're not in New York.'"

Saideman's work in the Pentagon focused on the Balkans. His research interest is on different manifestations of ethnic conflict, and how to reduce it.

"I've always been interested in international security issues. When I was working in grad school I became interested in the international politics of succession in comparison to international politics of revolution -- why do countries treat secession movements differently than they do revolutionary movements?" he explained.

It isn't an academic question. In the last decade the world has seen ethnic conflicts in the Balkans and Rwanda lead to the deaths of thousands. Bloody as the results of these conflicts are, Saideman looks to fairly dry means of containing them. He is researching how different electoral systems and constitutions can help make ethnic groups feel secure in a state.

"The major emphasis is on security concerns -- I'm trying to puzzle through how different kinds of institutions can enhance or decrease a groups sense of security. Proportional representation should increase security because you have a better chance of being represented," he said.

"Parliamentary and presidential systems are more or less a wash, because with parliamentary systems you can have coalitions so minority parties can get into power. On the other hand, you can have a system like in Canada or Britain where a party doesn't get a majority of the votes but gets a majority of the seats, and that can be very bad for ethnic groups. They used to have that system in Sri Lanka -- the two major parties would compete for the Sinhalese votes, and how do you do that? You promise to discriminate against the Tamils."

An American-style presidential system has the disadvantage of the executive branch being mono-ethnic -- there can be only one president, after all. It has the advantage of "checks and balances," meaning a political action can be stopped at several points along the legislative chain.

Another aspect of ethnic politics he is interested in is "irredentism" -- the drive to re-unite ethnic groups separated by borders, which differs from country to country.

"The classic case I studied was Somalia," said Saideman. Somalia, he explained, has a common language and ethnicity, but is divided by clans.

"From 1960 to 1990, support for Somalis in Ethiopia, Kenya and Djibouti varied depending on which clan was in power and who they needed for support. Somali foreign policy was inconsistent -- it didn't support all Somalis everywhere."

In Europe in the nineties irredentism took a more destructive form.

"I've looked at why groups decide to become separatist, and why countries support irredentism -- like why Serbia tried to enlarge its territory to include other Serbs."

One area of his research will strike a familiar chord with Canadians -- Saideman is also studying the effect federalism has on exacerbating or calming ethnic conflict.

"There's one argument that says if you reduce the stakes in the centre, and if you give ethnic groups more power over their own lives, then groups will work with the political system. The fear is that if you give people any autonomy at all then they'll push for more; the argument is that federalism destroyed Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union. It gave politicians the opportunity to play to mono-ethnic audiences."

Saideman said that his research hasn't shown this to be a clear link. Nonetheless, they're crucial questions to ask, and will probably become more urgent soon.

"What role should Canada play in Bosnia? Given that we're there, playing a major role, and could play a role in Afghanistan down the road or in post-war Iraq, these issues are very live issues. If we had a better way to handle these situations we could come up with better solutions and policies," he said.

Mark Reynolds