This study proposes an analytical framework of "compactness" to examine variation in civil wars by victorious insurgents and post-war governance through a case study of the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), National Resistance Movement (NRM), and Seleka in the CAR. The authors argue that insurgent victories attained by fighting in compact territories are more likely to result in post-war stability. This assertion is premised on the notion that conflicts fought in concentrated areas offer greater opportunities for the development of cohesive leadership and the establishment of effective structures of command and control. Furthermore, the authors contend that different experiences in governing territories with different degrees of compactness during civil wars provide insurgency groups with diverse opportunities to engage with civilian populations, laying the groundwork for managing post-war societies.

This chapter considers proxy dynamics in the Horn of Africa. Sponsor-proxy relationships operate at a variety of levels, shaping international, regional, and domestic interactions. This chapter's discussion of the history of such relationships in the region, with special attention to Ethiopia's experience with these dynamics, also underscores that the traditional conceptualizations of proxy-sponsor dynamics are insufficient to explain political dynamics in the region. The line between proxy and sponsor is often blurred, and shifting political winds in the region can make fast friends of once-adversarial groups. The dynamics of alliances, cooperation, representation, and political violence in the Horn underscore the importance of a rethinking of the dynamics and dimensions of proxy warfare.

SUMMARY Ethiopia’s 2021 elections have been overshadowed by the brutal civil war that has raged since November 2020. The elections may not have been competitive but they reveal important dynamics about institutions and the competition for power in Africa’s second most populous state. These were the first elections under Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, who came to power in 2018 insisting that legitimacy comes through elections. By 2021, however, repression and boycotts resulted in the ruling party winning 97% of the seats where voting took place. Beneath this national result were patterns of asymmetric electoral authoritarianism. Some regions experienced heavy-handed political domination and voting with only the ruling party competing. Others had circumscribed political space and opportunities for the opposition to win votes. Local dynamics challenge assessments that only look at the national outcome, missing important differences between types of electoral authoritarianism.

How did a group with its origins in a small Marxist-Leninist insurgency in northern Ethiopia transform itself into a party (the EPRDF) with eight million members and a hierarchy that links even the smallest Ethiopian village to the center? How do the legacies of protracted civil war and rebel victory over the brutal Derg regime continue to shape contemporary Ethiopian politics? And can the EPRDF, after widespread protests and a state of emergency, transform itself under new leadership to meet popular demands? Answering these questions in his comprehensive study of nearly three decades of Ethiopian politics, Terrence Lyons argues that the very structures that enabled the ruling party to overcome the challenges of a war-to-peace transition are the source of the challenges that it faces now. While the new political leadership has promised dramatic reforms, Lyons observes, the powerful authoritarian ruling party remains in place, unreconstructed.

This paper presents the historical development of the authoritarian Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) with particular attention to its origins in civil war and its use of multi-national federal structures to balance centralizing dynamics and demands for regional autonomy. It argues that the reform process launched by Prime Minister Abiy and the formation of the successor Prosperity Party failed to overcome the challenges and political logics that undermined the EPRDF. The article concludes by examining the prospects of the center to manage these contradictions and bind together the distinct and highly polarized regions and political interests.

This report summarises the interdisciplinary seminar hosted by the Jean Monnet Chair in Transatlantic Relations at City Law School and the Institute for the Study of European Law (ISEL). The event consisted of three sessions: The Transatlantic Relationship; Transatlantic Defence, Security and Civil Liberties; Transatlantic and Global Trade. It examined topical issues in transatlantic relations across a range of subjects and issues, from trade, security and data, to defence. The seminar reflected upon the state of the art in transatlantic relations, with speakers from a broad variety of disciplines and practice. It considered inter alia: How should we understand the future of ‘American First’ at the end of the Trump Presidency? What is the current state of the US-Sino tech war and what are its implications for EU-US relations? How do UK-US relations impact upon this equation, in light of the Huawei 5G affair? What is the future of the EU-UK-US triangle in international security, where the EU loses the heft of one of its largest members? Will the UK increasingly align in sectoral fields to the US? What do the negotiation objectives of the EU-US and UK-US indicate to us about the future of the special partnerships? With the world’s largest sanctions regimes, the EU and US will pose a challenge for the UK to alignment purposes- will it inevitably be the EU first? What are its implications for a more significant FTA between the respective parties? How does the rise of the EU as a global data actor influence contemporary politics? Has the US succeeded in taming the global mobility of its social media giants through taxation threats? How does a multilateralist such as the EU deal with the future of American First after the next US election and the development of the uncertain path of Global Britain? Does Churchill’s call for a United States of Europe with the UK outside but closely aligned within the Commonwealth of Nations have any resonance going forward? In any field at all? What developments in the breakdown of the WTO DS system can occur with the aid of the EU, US and UK? Is the US sincere about its reform? Can Global Britain survive a shift outside of the EU without a WTO DS?

This State of the Field is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal by an authorized editor of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact scholarcommons@usf.edu. Recommended Citation Lyons, Terrence (2019) "Transnational Advocacy: Genocide or Terrorism?," Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal: Vol. 13: Iss. 2: 14-21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5038/1911-9933.13.2.1702

Political outcomes in Africa are increasingly shaped by ideas, actors, and processes that are transnational in character. Diasporas and transnational communities living in new host countries but still connected to homelands provide resources, leadership, and other forms of support that shape political outcomes in the country of origin. African politics take place in these transnational spaces, less restricted by the need to be close geographically. From civil war in Burundi and Somalia, electoral outcomes in Liberia, Ghana, and Kenya, and civil society initiatives in Zimbabwe and the Democratic Republic of Congo, actors and processes that are globally distributed and linked through transnational networks are increasingly at the center of African politics. Much of the literature on diasporas emphasizes cultural links or specific forms of identity whereby residents at a distance remain deeply connected with their kin back home in a form of “long-distance nationalism.” From the perspective of seeking an understanding of the transnationalization of African politics, however, it is more useful to see diasporas as the outcomes of processes of political mobilization, constituencies activated by political entrepreneurs to advance specific political agendas. Leaders invest in creating and sustaining diasporas because these networks are strategic assets that allow them to deploy specific identity frames and categories, to make claims for resources and loyalty, and to engage in diverse activities in dispersed locations to maximize impact. In many cases African governments wish to engage with diasporas in order to encourage remittances and investments in the homeland. Many have created special directorates for diaspora affairs and some have considered different forms of dual citizenship or overseas voting in order to build these linkages. Diasporas play important roles in lobbying new host governments to either increase pressures on homeland regimes or to increase donor support. In addition, politically mobilized populations in the diaspora often play key roles as sources of financial support for opposition political parties and through diaspora media that can shape the nature of political debates. Liberian and Ethiopian politicians often campaign and fundraise in the United States. In authoritarian settings such as Zimbabwe and Togo, the closing of political space at home makes the diaspora even more important as a means to fill the vacuum. Civil wars always have transnational dimensions as both rebels and incumbent regimes reach beyond their borders for political support and resources. Whether it is African National Congress’s (ANC’s) de facto embassies during apartheid, diaspora support for the Eritrean People’s Liberation Front, refugee recruits to rebel movements in the Mano River region of West Africa, or exiled politicians attempting to stage-manage peace talks in Darfur from Paris, the contentious politics of armed conflict is rarely contained by borders. Extended civil wars and political crises that generate substantial refugee flows, particularly to Europe and North America, have created cases where transnational politics is most pronounced. “Conflict-generated diasporas” may be more categorical in their political positions and therefore limit options for homeland politicians dependent on the diaspora’s support. A complete analysis of African politics therefore requires consideration of how transnational mobilization can shape outcomes. Political actors on the continent, whether they are governments, opposition parties, civil society organizations, or rebels, recognize that linking their goals to the resources and ideas based in diasporas provides advantages in their struggles at home. Increasingly, scholars have recognized that understanding political processes and outcomes in Nigeria, Cameroon, or Zimbabwe entails consideration of transnational dimensions. This seems to be even more the case in countries that have experienced conflict, such as Liberia, Somalia, or Eritrea.

In this tribute to the 2001 International Association for Conflict Management Lifetime Achievement Award recipient, we recognize and celebrate the work of I. William (Bill) Zartmana prolific scholar who has offered understanding and insight about conflict, negotiation, and peace throughout a remarkable career. We specifically highlight Zartman's substantial contribution to scholarship, knowledge, and understanding in four areas: international negotiation; negotiation and conflict in Africa; negotiation complexity and its analysis; and his work as a teacher and educator. The article closes by providing Bill Zartman with an opportunity to reflect and impart words of wisdom to negotiation and conflict management students and scholars.

Why do victorious rebels sometimes form powerful postwar political parties and other times collapse into weak, factionalized organizations? This paper examines cases of rebel victories in civil wars in Africa and traces the links between war duration, the extent of external intervention, and whether or not the war was fought in a compact area with the nature of the postwar political parties. It argues that protracted wars in confined territory with little external assistance have different organizational legacies than quick wars fought over expansive territory with significant international involvement. Four cases - Uganda, Ethiopia, Democratic Republic of Congo, and Libya - are used to illustrate the argument.

Abstract: Ethiopia’s 2015 elections confirm that the ruling Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF)—having won 100 percent of parliamentary seats—has chosen to entrench an authoritarian system. We argue that this total election victory was meant as a signal to party cadres that defection is not tolerated. Our analysis of intra-regime dynamics shows how the EPRDF has responded to the death of Meles Zenawi through greater reliance on trusted party stalwarts for high-level posts. We conclude that growing demands from lower-level party cadres threaten to transform the ruling party from a disciplined national organization into a patronage-based alliance of ethnic factions.