Ethnic Conflict in IR
What is ethnic?
• Ethnic conflict is a phenomenon in the international affairs
that is almost equally difficult to understand as its is to
define.
• Who fight in the ethnic conflicts, and why do they do it?
• Why do ethnic conflicts cause cruel violence to civilians?
• What drives people to inflict such suffering?
• What is it that makes many an ethnic conflict so difficult to settle?
What is ethnic?
• The origins of the term “ethnicity” go back to the
Greek word for nation – “ethnos”. In Ancient
Greek this term described a community of
common decent, a kinship group linked by ties of
blood.
• The term “ethnicus” was also used in order to
define “people from elsewhere” and to describe
“primitive” or “archaically” non-European nonwestern
societies.
What is ethnic?
• Yet, because of its increasingly politicizes nature, and its
implications for the relationships between people and between
them and the states in which they live, definitions of ethnicity
vary greatly and are hotly disputed among academics as well as among
politicians. Its political consequences may be intriguing in itself
and it is hard to clarify what lies at the heart of ethnicity and if
and how its core components relate to ethnic conflicts.
• In order to achieve some clarity on these matters, it is useful to
make some basic distinctions between different schools of
thought on ethnicity.
What is ethnic?
• Ethnic group - no universally excepted definition.
• In the United States ethnic is a group, which has its own
identity and cultural traditions, but is a part of bigger
society – that means that ethnic group is associated with
minority. In Eastern Europe this term is used to describe
society, which hasn’t reached the level of “nation” or
doesn’t have its own state. In communist states the status
of nation was recognized only to the people who had its
own states, the others were ethnic groups.
What is ethnic?
• Anthony D. Smith - as a named population sharing
common myths about its origins, historical memories, and
cultural features and is associated with a certain territory
and has a sense of solidarity.
• According to Richard Jenkins ethnicity is mainly about
collective identification which is based on the perception of
cultural differences; ethnicity concerns culture but stems
from social, especially intergroup interactions; ethnicity is
not fixed and static; ethnicity is collective and individualistic
at the same time.
What is ethnic?
• Ethnicity as a neutral term, without any
pejorative elements. Ethnicity will be mainly
linked to habits, language, origins, collective
experiences and group solidarity.
• This means that ethnic within this course will be
understood as group who has its own culture
and shares perception about their past which
have created the sense of solidarity and
association to the certain territory.
What is ethnic conflict?
• Ethnic conflict is a term loaded with negative associations
and entirely unnecessary confusions. The most important
confusion is that ethnic conflicts are about ethnicity –
“ethnicity is not the ultimate, irreducible source of violent
conflict in such cases”. Alternatively, ethnicity may provide
the mobilization basis for collective action, with violence
being used as a tactic. It often forms an important part of
the explanation, but we do not know of any conflict than
can be explained solely by reference to ethnicity.
What is ethnic conflict?
• Ethnic conflict is a situation “in which the goals of
at least one conflict party are different in
(exclusively) ethnic terms, and in which the primary
fault line of confrontation is one of the ethnic
distinctions.”
• This means that we speak about ethnic conflict
“when at least one group defining the causes, fault
lines, and potential solutions of the conflict along a
real or perceived ethnic divide”.
What is ethnic conflict?
• Ethnic conflict are a form of group conflict in
which at least one of its parties involved
interprets the conflict, its causes, and potential
remedies along an actually existing or perceived
discriminating ethnic divide
• It involves at least one conflict party that is
organized around the ethnic identity of its
members.
What is ethnic conflict?
• Abkhazia, South Ossetia and NagornoKarabakh
– ethnic conflicts?
• The term “ethnic conflict” may be quite
misleading. Georgia is not fighting specific
ethnic groups but “separatists” – that is, people
who are challenging its territorial integrity,
whatever their ethnic origin”.
• On the other side for separatists the conflicts are
about self-determination and reinforcement of
their political rights on their ethnic home.
What is ethnic conflict?
• Thus we can claim that the conflicts inside Georgia with
separatists were not caused by ethnic hostility. They were rather
struggles about the national-state, over status of some specific
groups and were caused by contradictions between their national
projects.
• Conflicts in South Caucasus were about defending territory,
ethnic homes and independence. However it should be said that
nowadays mutual relation of conflict parties are ethnically
hostile. This can lead us to the conclusion that ethnic animosity
was not the cause, but the result of the frozen conflicts in South
Caucasus.
Theories of Ethnicity
• There is no comprehensive and widely accepted empirical theory to
explain ethnic conflict. Rather, each of the explains a particular aspect
of ethnic confrontation.
• There is an ongoing scholarly debate over the study as to whether
ethnic diversity breeds armed conflict (Wimmer, Cederman and
Min 2009), what is the relationship between ethnicity and the
duration of armed conflict (Cederman and Girardin 2007, Collier,
Hoeffler, and Sodernborn 2004, Fearon and Laitin 2003, Sambanis
2001), and if ethnic conflicts are more violent in comparison to
non-ethnic conflicts (Eck 2009, Kalyvas 2001, 2007).
• Some scholars argue about the “banality” of ethnic conflict (Mueller
2000) and emphasize the role of violence as a central component of
both ethnic and non-ethnic conflicts (Kalyvas 2001). The major
shortcoming of such approaches lies in their linking ethnicity and
armed conflict in a problematic way—as if all ethnic conflict had
uniform causes.
Theories of Ethnicity
• Qualitative research highlights the need to “scale down” and trace
the bellicose aspect in the relationship between ethnicity and
violent conflict (Beissinger 2007, Evera 1994).
• What marks ethnic conflict as different from other types of conflict
is that the interests and claims of ethnic groups are based on ethnic
affinities rather than material payoffs (Sambanis 2001).
•
Ethnicity “as thought and action stemming from identification with a
community of putatively shared ancestry that exceeds the scale of
face-to-face gemeinschaft” (Kaufmann, Conversi 2012).
Aspects like a common proper name, the myth of common ancestry,
shared historical memories, elements of common culture, a link to
homeland and a sense of solidarity are used by ethnicities to
demarcate their boundaries (Hutchinson, Smith 1996: 6-7).
Theories of Ethnicity
• An influential piece of conventional wisdom
about ethnic conflict is based on the
assumption that ethnic composition of a
society influences the probability of ethnic
conflict due to tensions across ethnic lines.
• Many theories—primordial, instrumental, and
constructivist—have proposed the explanation
of ethnic conflict.
Theories of Ethnicity
• Primordialists argue that ethnicity is rooted in historical
experience and that ethnic identity does not change over time
( Weber, Geetz 1996).
• Primoridalist is an umbrella term, which, according to one of
the most prominent scholars, Adam Smith (1994, 1995, 1998),
involves three different approaches: (1) “naturalist”, (2)
“evolutionary,” and (3)“cultural” determinants.
• 1. The naturalist approach emphasizes that the nation or
ethnic group to which one belongs is “naturally fixed” (Smith
1995: 31). Naturalists do not differentiate between nations and
ethnic groups. All nations have a distinctive way of life,
“natural frontiers,” specific origins, a golden age, “as well as a
peculiar character, mission and destiny” (Hutchinson, Smith
1994).
Theories of Ethnicity
• 2. According to one of the main representatives of the
evolutionary approach, Van den Berghe, a human society is based
on three principles: kin selection, reciprocity, and coercion.
(Berghe 1978: 403). This involves more “intergroup than
intra-group variance” (Berghe 1978.: 406-407) based on
kinship and loyalties of “inclusive fitness” (Smith 1998,
Thayer 2009).
• A similar combination of ethnic affiliation with kinship ties is
presented in Donald Horowitz’s very influential work Ethnic
Groups in Conflict: “ethnicity is based on a myth of collective
ancestry, which usually carries with it traits believed to be
innate. Some notion of ascription, however diluted, and
affinity deriving from it are inseparable from the concept of
ethnicity” (Horowitz 1985: 52).
Theories of Ethnicity
• 3. Cultural primordialist, goes beyond pure
primordialism and is based on a combination
of three major ideas: primordial identities are
(1) a priori given and static, (2) coercive, and
(3) emotional (Eller and Coughlan 1993). The
most prominent representatives of cultural
primordialism are scholars Edward Shils and
Clifford Geertz, who emphasize the power of
cultural perception and a belief in
“sacredness” by ethnic groups.
Theories of Ethnicity
• The second approach, which is in
contradiction with primordialism, is
instrumentalism.
• The instrumentalist approach explains ethnic
conflict as rooted in (1) modernization, (2)
economic indicators, and (3) the role of
political leaders (Laitin, Fearon 1996; Brass
1996; Laitin 1998).
Theories of Ethnicity
• Through the process of modernization, which
involves better education, urbanization, the
creation of better communication channels
and mass media, ethnic groups become more
aware about their disadvantages, distinctions
between them and others, and a need to
compete with other ethnic groups (Connor
1972).
Theories of Ethnicity
• Political leaders manipulate ethnic identities
for their own interests, for example to stay in
power. Accordingly, political leaders may occur
as supporters of conflict across ethnic lines “in
order to protect their well-being or existence
or to gain political and economic advantages
for their groups as well as for themselves”
(Brass 1991: 111).
Theories of Ethnicity
• “Third way” in the study of the causes of ethnic conflict
represented by such outstanding scholars as Anthony
D. Smith, John Hutchinson, John Armstrong, Stuart
Kaufman, Daniele Coversi, and Andreas Wimmer.
• Ethno-symbolism is a more homogeneous category,
involving the elements of both previous approaches. It
allows us to capture the complex nature of ethnic
identity formation, which “can be located on a
spectrum between primordial historic continuities and
instrumental opportunistic adaptations” (Connor
1993).
Theories of Ethnicity
• According to this approach, the causes of ethnic
conflict are rooted in (1) myths and symbols, (2) fears,
and (3) opportunity for mobilization.
• Myths and symbols are significant in an ethnic group’s
construction process. Memories, myths, symbol values,
common feelings and opinions may justify a collective
behavior. It may take different forms, such as, for
example, flags, language, rituals, hymns, special food
and costumes, banners, coins, and representations of
ethnic heroes and the glorious past (Smith 1999: 16).
The core meaning of these symbols represents
“inclusive fitness” (Smith 1998: 146-150) to one group,
its legitimacy for existence and fear of other groups.
Theories of Ethnicity
• The next necessary condition for ethnic
conflict is fear for the existence, security, and
status of the ethnic group. As is very rightly
stated by David Lake and Donald Rothchild,
“ethnicity is not a cause of violent conflict …
But when ethnicity is linked with acute social
uncertainty, a history of conflict and, indeed,
fear of what the future might bring, it emerges
as one of the major fault lines along which
societies fracture (Lake, Rothchild 1998: 7).
Theories of Ethnicity
• The causes of ethnic conflict stem from
“emerging anarchy” when a weakening state is
unable to provide security guarantees for ethnic
groups within the state (Posen 1993). Barry
Posen’s neorealist assumption is based on the
ethnic security dilemma explanation. According
to this logic, the incentives to use preemptive
offensive strategies are high, and factors like
emotions, historical memories, and myths
exacerbate the escalation of tension to armed
conflict.
Theories of Ethnicity
• To sum up, ethnic conflict is a conflict in
which the key causes of confrontation run
along ethnic lines, which involve some
elements of ethnic identity, the status of
ethnic groups, and the opportunity to mobilize
violent confrontation. At the outset of a
conflict, ethnic conflict could be identified by
the observable pattern of rebel recruitment,
while ethnicity by itself could be a motivation
to mobilize forces.
The Security Dilema and Ethnic Conflic
– Barry R. Posen
• End of the Cold War – nationalist, ethnic and religious
conflicts in Eurasia.
• Collapse of imperial regime – problem of „emerging
anarchy.“
• Security dilemma:
• 1. when offensive and defensive military forces are
indistinguishable, any force on hand are suitable for
offensive campaingns.
• 2. effectiveness of the offense versus the defense.
Preemtive action in the event of political crisis.
Offense and Deffense Strategies
• Groups have to determine whether neighboring
groups are a threat.
• Nature of military technology and organization
• Strong national identity – key ingredient of the
combat power of armies – groupness.
• Military capabilities – often unsophisticaed,
infantry-based armies.
• What methods are available to a newly
independent group to assess the offensive
implication of another‘s sense of identity?
Offense and defense startegies
• What methods are available to a newly
independent group to assess the offensive
implication of another‘s sense of identity?
• History
• 1. multiethnic empire supressed or
manipulated the facts of previous rivarlies to
reinforce their own rule. (Soviet Union and
Yugoslavia lacked any systemic commitment to
truth in historical scholarship.
Offense and defense strategies
• 2. the members of ethnic groups did not forget the record of
their old rivalries.
• 3. Because, their history is mostly oral, there is no other view
of the past.
• 4. The central authority begins to collapse and local politicians
begin to struggle for power, they will begin to write down
their version of history in political speeches.
• Result: one group is likely to assume that another group’s
sense of identity, and the cohesion that it produces, is a
danger.
Offensive over defensive action
• Two factors: technology and geography.
• Technology – military capabilities with
exception of nuclear weapons.
• “islands” of settlement across the nominal
territory of another group – irredenta.
• Economically autonomous, military defensible,
nearby brethren.
- preemtive war more attractive.
International relations of ethnic
conflict
- Vulnerability vs. ethnic ties argument
Vulnerability argument:
- States vulnerable to secession do not support separatists in other
states – ethnic conflict: sufficient condition for not support.
- On systemic-level – high level of international cooperation
- Common vulnerability of states and the insecurity of statesmen
creates a common interests to build international institution.
- International system protects stability of boundaries and territorial
integrity – any violation of the boundary regime may undermine
the entire system.
Spread of Ethnic conflict
Stephen M. Saideman
Ethnic-ties counter-argument:
-Domestic level more important: such variable as 1. motivation of
political leaders, 2. the supporter’s preferences and 3. ethnic
identities influence on foreign policy.
-States support those actors internationally that share ethnic ties
with decision-makers’ supporters.
-States oppose those actors that share a history of enmity with the
political leaders’ supporters.
-States will be neutral or ambivalent toward those conflict where
decision-makers’ supporters have ties to both sides.
Spread of ethnic conflict
• Military interventions against another state are acts of
aggression and multiethnic states that have problems with
minority issues must typically think twice before supporting
rebellions in neighboring states. “Even where ethnic affinities
relate, not to peripheral minorities in the external state, but
to centrally influential groups, support is byno means
automatic.”
• Cross-border assistance may likewise lead to unwanted
turmoil spreading across state borders into the territory of the
intervening state. While these are strong arguments for
supporting nonintervention, there is empirical evidence
pointing in the opposite direction.
Spread of ethnic conflict
• Most of the internal armed conflict has notable implications
for regional stability and have “spill-over“ effect. Some
neighboring states can trigger the conflict by supporting
different groups. This strategy is based on interests of
particular state. Conditions under which the spillover effect
can transmit the violence to different places occur then
internal tension and instability in one country gives the
opportunity to external power to intervene in order to
maximize its interests and gain power.
Spread of ethnic conflict
• The greater the level of instability in one
country the more significant the risk of a spill
over effect into the neighboring state.
• The probability of conflict increases with the
external group support.
• The risk of conflict increases if the kin group is
governmental rather than another peripheral
group.
Spread of ethnic conflict
• Steven E. Lobell and Philip Mauceri
Diffusion – spillover effect
Escalation – other ethnic groups, other states or
non-state actors participating in the ethnic
conflict.
- Weakening state – escalation- when outside
ethnic groups have opportunities in order to
capture the spoils.
- Diffusion – Barry Posen security dilemma
logic.
Spread of Ethnic conflict
• Non-state actors role – escalation – when ethnic group is
struggling for its status – support of neighboring kin.
• Diffusion- Ethnic kin appeal through IGOs and NGOs to
destabilize the majority ethnic group.
• Escalation and diffusion when there is some change in the
ethnic balance of power and in the competition for the
distribution of social, economic and political resources.
• Degree of economic, social and cultural integration within
regional and global system.
• 2 schools:
• Affective school: existnce of etnic kin in neighboring state –
outside intervention.
• Instrumentaliar school – political leaders to obtain scared
resources.
• Ethnic domination vs. diversity – the extent to which
political institution are in hand of a single ethnic group
• High vs. law institutional constraints – the extent to which
leaders posses power over states policies.
Domestic determinants of ethnic
intervention