Intra-state conflicts in the post-Cold War era.

Publication: International Journal on World Peace

Publication Date: 01-DEC-07

Bookmark this article Print this article Link to this article Email this article Digg It! Add to del.icio.us RSS

COPYRIGHT 2007 Professors World Peace Academy

This article provides an analytical discussion of the dynamics of intra-state conflicts that seem to have replaced the ideological clashes of the Cold War as the principal sources of current conflicts. By looking through major ethnopolitical conflicts around the globe and trying to find out some main points in common, the study reaches the conclusion that such conflicts are correlated with, but not limited to, the desire to express cultural identity, discrimination, anti-democratic political system, economic underdevelopment and unjust distribution of national wealth, unresolved past traumas, as well as external support. The study also reveals that ethnopolitical conflicts cannot be resolved through force only. In the resolution process, multi-level efforts are needed by domestic and international actors to be responsive to the underlying causes of intra-state conflicts.

INTRODUCTION

Until the end of the Cold War, the conventional wisdom in the world was that ethnicity and nationalism were outdated concepts and largely resolved problems. On both sides of the Cold War, the trend seemed to indicate that the world was moving toward internationalism rather than nationalism. As a result of the threat of nuclear warfare, great emphasis on democracy and human rights, economic interdependence, and gradual acceptance of universal ideologies, it became fashionable to speak of the demise of ethnic and nationalist movements.

Despite expectations to the contrary, however, a fresh cycle of ethnopolitical movements have re-emerged recently in Eastern Europe (including the Balkans), Central Asia, Africa, and many other parts of the world. In fact, with the end of the Cold War, which clearly increased international cooperation while decreasing the possibilities of inter-state wars, the main threat to peace does not come from major inter-state confrontations any more, but from another source: intra-state conflicts, conflicts that occur within the borders of states. These conflicts have replaced the Cold War's ideological clashes as the principal sources of current conflicts. To be sure, from May 1988, when the Cold War was coming to its end, to the present day, there have been 47 conflicts in which the United Nations (UN) intervened (1) and only three of them were inter-state in character (Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990, Chad-Libya border dispute in 1994, and Ethiopia-Eritrea border dispute in 1998-2000). If we add the latest Iraqi invasion by the United States, the total number of inter-state conflicts during the whole post-Cold War period is only four, whereas 44 overt internal conflicts have occurred in the same period.

The era of intra-state conflicts appears to be holding. However, the international community cannot be said to be well prepared for this trend. Major international organizations, including the UN, were designed to cope with inter-state problems, historically the main source of threat to global peace and security. On the other hand, the fact that internal conflicts occur within the borders of states made major international actors reluctant to intervene as well, either for legal concerns or concern to avoid probable loses. (2) Thus, unless conflicts really escalate, the international community has preferred not to get involved in intra-state conflicts.

But such conflicts are as serious, costly, and intense as any in the past. And somehow they need to be managed and resolved, or else international peace and security will not be in a stable situation. Even if intra-state conflicts appear to be local, they can quickly gain an international dimension due to global interdependence and to various international support. In fact, when external parties provide political, economic, or military assistance, or asylum and bases for actors involved in local struggles, these conflicts inevitably assume an international dimension. Undoubtedly, effective management of intra-state conflicts by domestic and international authorities presupposes an understanding of their nature and causes. This article attempts to provide some explanations about the causes of such conflicts by observing points that major internal conflicts around the globe have in common.

INTRA-STATE CONFLICTS AND ETHNIC IDENTITY: AN OVERVIEW

Before getting into a detailed discussion, a few points need to be clarified regarding the scope of intra-state conflicts and the relevance of ethnic identity in them.

The essence of intra-state conflicts involves inter-group rivalries between two or more ethno-cultural groups that feel different from each other. But this rivalry can be translated into an overt conflict when the groups (or at least one of them) view their relationship as unfair under the existing political order. The groups that perceive themselves as underprivileged, then, would seek changes through conflict, ranging from recognition of cultural rights to autonomy, to political separation or full independence. The conflict is usually directed towards the members of dominant group(s) or to the state authority dominated by them. Thus, in almost all intra-state conflicts, the very legitimacy of the state is under question and domestic law is considered breakable as it is perceived to be in favor of dominant groups.

The ethnic criteria used by conflicting groups to define themselves may include common descent, shared historic experiences, or valued cultural traits. In some cases, race and blood ties may also be very important, but in general, there is no basis for assuming that any one basis for ethnic identity is inherently more important than any other. In the final analysis, self-attachment to a group is a matter of personal feeling, which may be subjectively defined based on different criteria.

As we learn from research on human development, no one is born with a distinct identity. One's sense of self, or identity, is slowly developed as the individual enters into a wide variety of social interactions with other individuals in a given environment. Thus, in this process of socialization, the factors impacting on the crystallization of ethnic identity may vary. While some social environments give more weight to race or common descent, some others may emphasize other bases for ethnic identity, such as religion, language, or shared culture.

But what we know for sure is that, once one's ethnic identity is formed, it becomes resistant to change. Although change and mutability are endemic in all social identities, hypothetically speaking, we observe that this happens only exceptionally. The reason for this lies in the fact that there usually is a very strong relationship between ethnic identity and one's sense of self. Since an established ethnic identity satisfies the individual's need to know who s/he is and who others are, as well as the need to belong, to love and to be loved, it is rather inflexible to change. Indeed, the self-esteem of individuals often rises and falls with the fate of their group. A group success uplifts the individuals in that group and a failure hurts them.

While ethnic identity would be a natural phenomenon, it would be erroneous to assume that ethnic identity itself is a direct cause of ethnic conflicts. If that were the case, then many ethnic groups around the globe would be in constant conflict just on the ground of their differences. But we observe that this is not the case and indeed, cooperation among diverse ethnic groups is as common as inter-group conflict, if not more common. In...

Read the full article for free courtesy of your local library.