Multimethod analysis of earthquakes’ effects in two enduring rivalries demonstrates that natural disaster can promote rapprochement, political steps toward warmer relations that make it difficult for interstate rivalry to continue. Public expression of compassion and support for rapprochement create audience costs for leaders who otherwise would maintain hostile policies toward the rival state. However, routine violence, including communal violence, discourages public support for postdisaster cooperation and rapprochement. Content analysis and time-series analysis of rivalry change in two cases, India—Pakistan and Greece—Turkey, demonstrate these phenomena, and comparative case study analysis shows that communal violence helps account for divergent outcomes between the two cases.
Abney, F. Glenn, and Larry B. Hill .1966. Natural disasters as a political variable. American Political Science Review60:974-81.
2.
Athens News. February 2, 1999-February 25, 2000. http://www.athensnews.gr/.
3.
Aydin, Mustafa.2004. Contemporary Turkish-Greek relations: Constraints and opportunities. In Turkish-Greek relations: The security dilemma in the Aegean , ed. Mustafa Aydin and Kostas Ifantis, 21-52. New York: Routledge.
4.
Aydin, Mustafa, and Kostas Ifantis, eds. 2004. Turkish-Greek relations: The security dilemma in the Aegean. New York: Routledge.
5.
Bahceli, Tozun.2004. Turning a new page in Turkey’s relations with Greece? The challenge of reconciling vital interests. In Turkish-Greek relations: The security dilemma in the Aegean, ed. Mustafa Aydin and Kostas Ifantis, 95-121. New York: Routledge.
6.
Bennett, D. Scott.1996. Security, bargaining, and the end of interstate rivalry . International Studies Quarterly40:157-84.
Bowers, Paul.2004. Kashmir. London: House of Commons Library, International Affairs and Defence.
9.
Box, George, Gwilym Jenkins, and Gregory Reinsel .1976. Time series analysis: Forecasting and control. San Francisco: Holden Day.
10.
Brancati, Dawn.2007. Political aftershocks: The impact of earthquakes on intrastate conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution51:715-43.
11.
Brass, Paul R.1997. Theft of an idol: Text and context in the representation of collective violence. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
12.
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce, Alastair Smith, Randolph M. Siverson, and James D. Morrow .2003. The logic of political survival . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
13.
Chakravarty, Uma.1994. Building consent: The middle classes, violence and Hindutva . In Communalism in India: Challenge and response, ed. Mehdi Arslan and Janaki Rajan, 98-117. New Delhi: Manohar .
14.
Colaresi, Michael.2001. Shocks to the system: Great power rivalry and the leadership long cycle. Journal of Conflict Resolution45:569-93.
15.
Colaresi, Michael.2005. Scare tactics: The politics of international rivalry. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
16.
Colaresi, Michael, Karen Rasler, and William R. Thompson .2007. Strategic rivalries in world politics: Position, space and conflict escalation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
17.
Das, Veena.1998. Specificities: Official narratives, rumor and the social production of hate. Social Identities4:109-31.
18.
Dawn . March 27, 2005-April 21, 2006. http://www.dawn.com/2008/01/09/index.htm.
19.
Demographic and Statistical Sources for India. 2001. http://www.demographie.net/demographicdata/ (accessed February 18, 2006).
20.
Diehl, Paul F., and Gary Goertz.2000. War and peace in international rivalry . Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
21.
Disaster Database Project. 2009. http://learning.richmond.edu/disaster/index.cfm (accessed August 6, 2009).
22.
Ember, Carol R., and Melvin Ember.1992. Resource unpredictability, mistrust, and war: A cross-cultural study. Journal of Conflict Resolution36:242-62.
23.
Evin, Ahmet O.2004. Changing Greek perspectives on Turkey: An assessment of the post-earthquake rapprochement. Turkish Studies5:4-20.
24.
Fearon, James.1994. Domestic political audiences and the escalation of international disputes. American Political Science Review88:236-69.
25.
Fish, Thomas E., Heidi Recksiek, and David P. Fan .2002. Uses, values, stakeholders, and opinions associated with marine protected areas: A content analysis of news media, 1995-2001. NOAA Technical PaperNOAA/CSC/20215-PUB. http://www.mpa.gov/pdf/helpful-resources/mpamedia-content-analysis.pdf (accessed September 28, 2008).
26.
Gaillard, Jean-Christophe, Elsa Clavé, and Ilan Kelman.2008. Wave of peace? Tsunami disaster diplomacy in Aceh, Indonesia. Geoforum39:511-26.
27.
Gamson, William A., and Andre Modigliani .1989. Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructivist approach. American Journal of Sociology95:1-37.
28.
Gibler, Douglas.1997. Control the issues, control the conflict: The effects of alliances that settle territorial issues in international rivalries. International Interactions22:341-68.
29.
Gizewski, Peter, and Thomas Homer-Dixon.1995. Urban growth and violence: Will the future resemble the past?Occasional paper, Project on Environment, Population, and Security, American Association for the Advancement of Science and the University of Toronto.
30.
Goertz, Gary, and Paul F. Diehl .1995. The initiation and termination of enduring rivalries: The impact of political shocks. American Journal of Political Science39:30-52.
31.
Gundogdu, Ayten.2001. Identities in question: Greek-Turkish relations in a period of transformation. Middle East Review of International Affairs5. http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2001/issue1/jv5n1a8.html (accessed September 20, 2008).
32.
Hensel, Paul R.1999. An evolutionary approach to the study of interstate rivalry . Conflict Management and Peace Science17:175-206.
33.
Heraclides, Alexis.2004. The Greek-Turkish conflict: Towards resolution and reconciliation . In Turkish-Greek relations: The security dilemma in the Aegean , ed. Mustafa Aydin and Kostas Ifantis, 67-94. New York: Routledge.
34.
Hurriyet. February 2, 1999-February 25, 2000. http://www.hurriyet.com.tr.
35.
Ikonomaki, Maria, and Genco Orkun.2000. Greek-Turkish rapprochement: The role of decision makers. La Stampa, July 20.
36.
Kakar, Sudhir.1996. The colors of violence: Cultural identities, religion, and conflict. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
37.
Kapur, Ashok.2005. Major powers and the persistence of the India-Pakistan conflict. In The India-Pakistan conflict: An enduring rivalry , ed. T. V. Paul, 131-55. New York: Cambridge University Press.
38.
Kelman, Ilan.2003. Beyond disaster, beyond diplomacy. In Natural disasters and development in a globalizing world, ed. Mark Pelling, 110-24. London: Routledge.
39.
Kelman, Ilan.2006. Acting on disaster diplomacy. Journal of International Affairs59:215-40.
40.
Kelman, Ilan, and Theo Koukis , eds. 2000. Disaster diplomacy. Symposium . Cambridge Review of International Affairs14:214-94.
41.
Ker-Lindsay, James.2000. Greek-Turkish rapprochement: The impact of disaster diplomacy ? Cambridge Review of International Affairs14:215-32.
42.
Ker-Lindsay, James.2007. Crisis and conciliation: A year of rapprochement between Greece and Turkey. London: I. B. Tauris.
43.
Keyder, Caglar.2005. A history and geography of Turkish nationalism. In Citizenship and the nation-state in Greece and Turkey, ed. Faruk Birtek and Thalia Dragonas , 3-14. New York: Routledge.
44.
King, Gary, Robert Keohane, and Sidney Verba.1994. Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
45.
Klein, James P., Gary Goertz, and Paul F. Diehl .2006. The new rivalry dataset: Procedures and patterns. Journal of Peace Research43:331-48.
46.
Leeds, Brett Ashley.1999. Domestic political institutions, credible commitments, and international cooperation. American Journal of Political Science43:979-1002.
47.
Miguel, Edward, Shanker Satyanth, and Ernest Sergenti .2004. Economic shocks and civil conflict: An instrumental variables approach. Journal of Political Economy12:725-53.
48.
Mill, J.S.1843/1970. A system of logic. London: Longman.
49.
Millas, Hercules.2004. National perception of the other and the persistence of some images. In Turkish-Greek relations: The security dilemma in the Aegean, ed. Mustafa Aydin and Kostas Ifantis, 53-66. New York: Routledge.
50.
Mor, Ben D.1997. Peace initiatives and public opinion: The domestic context of conflict resolution. Journal of Peace Research34:197-215.
51.
Most, Benjamin, and Harvey Starr.1989. Inquiry, logic, and international politics . Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
52.
Murshed, Mansoob, and Zulfan Tadjoeddin .2008. Is fiscal decentralization conflict abating? Routine violence and district level violence in Java, Indonesia . Research Working Paper7, MICROCON, Brighton, UK.
53.
Mutz, Diana, and Joe Soss.1997. Reading public opinion: The influence of news coverage on perceptions of public sentiment. Public Opinion Quarterly61:431-51.
54.
Nel, Philip R., and Marjolein Righarts .2008. Natural disasters and the risk of violent civil conflict. International Studies Quarterly51:159-84.
55.
Öniş, Ziya, and Şuhnah Yilmaz .2008. Greek-Turkish rapprochement: Rhetoric or reality?Political Science Quarterly123:123-49.
56.
Ozkaya, Abdi Noyan.2006. The people’s speech and the Turkish press. Journal of Turkish Weekly Opinion, September 16.
57.
Parikh, Manju.2006. India-Pakistan rapprochement: A cautious optimism. April 18. http://www.worldpress.org/Asia/2320.cfm (accessed September 10, 2008).
Quarantelli, E.L., and Russell R. Dynes .1976. Community conflict: Its absence and presence in natural disasters. Mass Emergencies1:139-52.
60.
Rasler, Karen.2000. Shocks, expectancy revision, and the deescalation of protracted conflicts: The Israeli-Palestinian case. Journal of Peace Research37:699-720.
61.
Ridge, Mian.2008. Kashmir violence reignites sectarian tensions. Christian Science Monitor, August 14.
62.
Sherif, Muzafer.1966. In common predicament: Social psychology of intergroup conflict and cooperation. Boston: Houghton.
63.
Singh, Rahul.2005. 1965 Indo-Pak War was too short. Times of India, August 1.
64.
Thanki, Pratiksha.2005. A passage to India. Times of India , July 18.
65.
Theodossopoulos, Dimitrios.2007. Politics of friendship, worldviews of mistrust: The Greek-Turkish rapprochement in local conversation. In When the Greeks think about the Turks: The view from anthropology, ed. Dimitrios Theodossopoulos, 193-210. London: Routledge.
66.
Thompson, William R.2001. Identifying rivals and rivalries in world politics. International Studies Quarterly45: 557-86.
67.
Times of India. March 27, 2005-April 21, 2006. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/advancesearch.cms .
68.
Tunc, Asli.2003. Faustian acts in Turkish style: Structural change in national newspapers as an obstacle to quality journalism in 1990-2003. Quality Press in Southeast Europe.http://soemz.euv-frankfurt-o.de/media-see/qpress/articles/atunc.html (accessed June 25, 2009).
69.
Van Evera, Stephen.1997. Guide to methods for students of political science. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
70.
Varadarajan, Siddharth.1999. Dawn website blocked as VSNL plays Big Brother. Times of India, July 3.
71.
Volkan, Vamik D., and Norman Itzkowitz .1994. Turks and Greeks: Neighbors in conflict. Huntington, UK: Eothen Press.
72.
Weber, Steve.1992. Does NATO have a future? In The future of European security, ed. Beverly Crawford , 360-95. Berkeley, CA: International and Area Studies Publication .
73.
Weeks, Jessica.2008. Autocratic audience costs: Regime type and signaling resolve . International Organization62:65-101.
74.
Wike, Richard, and Brian J. Grim .2007. Widespread negativity: Muslims distrust Westerners more than vice versa. Washington, DC : Pew Global Attitudes Project.
75.
Wilkinson, M. James.1999. Moving beyond the conflict prevention to reconciliation: Tackling Greek-Turkish hostility. Report to the Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict, New York.
76.
Wilson, Andrew.1984. The Aegean dispute. In Greece and Turkey: Adversity in alliance, ed. Jonathan Alford , 90-130. New York: St. Martin’s.
77.
Wisner, Ben, Piers Blaikie, Terry Cannon, and Ian Davis.2004. At risk: Natural hazards, people’s vulnerability, and disasters. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.
78.
Yalcinkaya, Alaaddin.2003. From disaster solidarity to interest solidarity: Turkish-Greek relations after the Marmara and Athens earthquakes within the concept of game theory. Turkish Review of Balkan Studies2003:149-202.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
