70369618

Conflict, Option

Scholars of International Protection have been planning to develop a theoretical approach to explain the causes of ethnic conflict for a long period. These studies have triggered contentious arguments but have as well probed therefore deeply that their findings help shed new light on problems, providing better understanding and possible alternatives. Ethnic groups are defined as a community of people who share ethnical and linguistic characteristics including religion, terminology, history, traditions, myth, and origin.

This paper will check out the realist explanations of ethnic issues and then observe how critical theory explanations provide new information and answers to puzzles that could not be previously be explained. It will then simply explore several of the likely solutions used to end happenings of ethnic violence. Finally, it will focus on the argument surrounding rupture as a possible way to ethnic issue, concluding that it is in fact an affordable option for peace when executed judiciously.

According to realist explanations, cultural conflicts happen to be deeply grounded in intellectual and situational needs. In the article, “The Security Problem and Cultural Conflict,  realist scholar Barry Posen claims that anarchy creates competition and hostility among ethnic, religious and social groups. Ethnic fractions work to preserve all their identity and physical protection through the build up of assets and army power. Strangely enough, Posen remarks that cultural cohesion is viewed as a larger menace than material assets in military competition.

Social combination, he claims, comes from famous accounts of identity building which often are inaccurate and biased, therefore perpetuating social differences and hatred of some other. [1] Consequently, ethnic tensions are unavoidable but can easily magnify to warfare when ever one group coerces or dominates the other militarily or ideologically. Realists, just like Posen will not ignore the fact that “ideas are essential elements of cultural conflict, but instead use them support the demands of power and shared deterrence.

In his article, “Symbolic Politics or perhaps Rational Decision?,  Stewart Kaufman tries to deconstruct realist details of cultural conflicts by introducing his own theory called “symbolic politics.  According to the theory, symptoms of extreme ethnic violence are caused by, “[ G]roup myths that justify hostility, fears of group extinction and a symbolic politics of chauvinist mobilization.  [2] Kaufman feels that these misguided beliefs produce “emotion-laden symbols that will make mass hostility easy for chauvinist elites to provoke and make extremist policies well-liked. [3] Both equally Posen and Kaufman utilize the situation in former Yugoslavia to validate their respective theories. In accordance to Posen’s realist reason, the origin with the conflict was a primordial contentious relationship involving the Croats and Serbs. Because of the past violence and aggression inflicted after them by Croats, the Serbs had been justifiably fearful for their security.

Their capability to mobilize and slight armed forces advantage caused mutual dread and competition from the Croats, which in turn triggered the Serbs launching what they perceived as a preventative battle. 4] Kaufman’s representational politics theory suggests that the conflict was not one based upon group hobbies or materials factors, but instead, “the have difficulty for family member group worth[5] and that charming leaders including Milosevic and Tudjman exploited pre-existing misconceptions and icons which appealed to the emotions of the community, in order showcase their own, expansionist agendas. [6] Upon thorough analysis of both scholars’ explanations, I discovered each to become very similar and plausible.

I believe, Kaufman’s “symbolic politics theory does not undermine Posen’s realist explanation from the conflict, but rather supports and expands into it. Kaufman’s description appears to be mare like a critical research which combines elements of realist explanations (power), liberal answers (elite manipulation of ethnic differences simply by leaders) and constructivist explanations (ethnic details are created by historic “myths. ) In the same article, Kaufman examines the ethnic disputes of Sudan and Rwanda as circumstance studies to help support his symbolic national politics theory.

The most dominant description for cultural conflict in these areas had been the realist account, which usually claimed that European colonialism created conflict, disturbance, fighting, turmoil by rebuilding African identities and exploiting their methods, forcing these people the take on each other intended for survival. While I do believe that these realist explanations will be legitimate elements, I do not think these are the only ones. After examining Stuart Kaufman’s in depth explanations, I i am now certain that value systems”or none whatsoever, lie at the root of ethnic conflict.

In Northern Sudan, Islamic beliefs encouraged aggressive expansionism of Sharia regulation, which insecure the endurance (identity) of the Southern Sudanese who were not willing to submit to it. In the same way, the creation of inhospitable myths against the Tutsi group and large scale acceptance of the use of violence against these people in Rwanda shows just how easily populations lacking solid value devices can be altered by political elites in justifying one of the most heinous functions of assault against other human beings. Just like there are many possible theories that explain the causes of ethnic disputes worldwide, presently there too are many possible solutions.

Although he could be a realist scholar, Craig Posen confesses that peacekeeping can sometimes be achieved through diplomatic measures, mainly by motivating groups active in the conflict to reexamine their very own past background from a much more objective standpoint. Other 3rd party options consist of: the creation of foreign institutions directed at rebuilding household institutions, intercontinental treaties such as the non-proliferation coverage, the use of economical sanctions, and the use of peacekeeping forces. All of these solutions have gotten success in some areas and failures in other places.

When intercontinental diplomatic peacekeeping efforts fail and the cultural conflict remains, outside forces are sometimes forced to implement materials methods of assistance including armed service support and weaponry. Because warfare is often a last resort, the utilization of partitions has changed into a highly effective but equally questionable method accustomed to suppress cultural violence. In respect to some realist scholars, the separation of ethnic identities serves a necessary purpose, it provides people with meaningful associations and security.

Chaim Kaufmann, even though a visible proponent of the use of partitions in pervasive interethnic conflict, even now acknowledges that they should be employed as a last resort and that the hazards of rupture and human population transfers are only worth undertaking if they are conserving the lives that would have been completely sacrificed if they happen to have not took place. [7] Critics of the utilization of partitions including Radha Kumar argue that they do little to mitigate violence, but instead escalate worries and cause mass motions of required migration. 8] In his article, “When All Else Neglects: Ethnic Population Transfers and Partitions in the Twentieth Century,  Chaim Kaufmann does a good job for deconstructing this myth.

States that consistent violence makes refugee moves because people are afraid to stay wherever they are, and/or at times forced to leave by simply opposing militant forces. Consequently , intermixed masse will unavoidably become separated and the make use of partitions only serves as a great organizational motor vehicle which might enable them to resettle within a structured and protected manner. 9] Kumar’s arguments will be further refuted by Kaufmann’s use of scientific data which usually prove that incidents of physical violence actually diminished when partitions were built in Ireland in europe, India and Cyprus which marginal boosts of physical violence in these regions weren’t a result of the partition, but rather the lack of complete separation between rival groupings within those regions. Kaufmann concedes which the case with Israel and Palestine is known as a special circumstance due to the fact that Palestinian threats are incredibly pervasive that Israel’s presence is dependent around the partition.

In comparison, Kumar’s most effective argument is that partition has rarely been anything more than a brief solution to turmoil, but its mental effects are permanent. [10] After taking into consideration both sides from the argument, I believe the benefits of applying partitions far out way the costs. While the emotional barriers that partitions generate are an regrettable reality, the numbers of lives they preserve are more essential.

In closing it is vital to understand that every case of ethnic turmoil studied offers individual attributes which make it unique and so the causes and solutions to every situation happen to be unique as well. Despite their variance, there is certainly still something that can be learned and utilized by learning each circumstance. The realist explanation claims that electrical power and protection factors will be the motivating cause of conflict, although new important theory answers help us to see that physical and psychological protection alone are certainly not enough to deter episodes of cultural violence.

While it has been proven that material factors just like military and nuclear functionality and partitioning are effective deterrents, they should just be used since last effect methods. Intercontinental institutions, treaties and post conflict reconstruction initiatives are all instrumental inside the peacekeeping work. But in my opinion, the most effective method used for reducing incidences of ethnic physical violence is that of land building.

I’ve arrived at this conclusion, not merely through scholarly analysis nevertheless also through personal knowledge. As a 4th generation Judaism American who also grew up inside the “melting pot of New You are able to City, Plus fortunate to witness the success of democratic values first hand. While I understand that building civic identities based on widespread values of “liberty and justice for all might seem like an overly idealistic idea, I need just to look at the success of my personal country and my city to know that it can be done.