A Journal of Foreign Policy Issues
New Regimes Bring Ethnic Conflict
Since the end of the Cold War "it is argued that ethnic conflict is among the world's greatest killers" (1). It has been estimated that more than 26 million refugees were fleeing the 50 major 'ethnonational conflicts' that were occurring in 1993 and 1994, with each conflict responsible for an average of 80,000 deaths (2). While transformation was, and still is, in process, striking differences arose between the old and the new system of management which resulted to an alienation of the separate groups of people that originally constituted the society.
The collapse of the communist regimes released the iron grip that kept all the conflicting interest groups together. Following this event violent crises emerged within the post-communist states, based along ethnic, religious, or even linguistic lines. Samuel Huntington has already called them, "civilizational fault lines" (3). In this analysis, Huntington suggested, that in the new era, violence across ethnic, linguistic, and religious borders of the interstate system will be the most prevalent form of global conflict. He also predicts an increase of violence and a clash of civilisations within states, often resulting in civil wars. He argues in his analysis, that civilisations tend to use violence against other civilisations that do not share their views, their culture or their values. During the Cold War, everyday strains were under strict control by the system. In the transforming period these strains have been left without any control, on the one hand because they were always there, and on the other because there is still not enough governmental power to keep them restrained.
A Model with Two Hypotheses
Huntington presents a model with two hypotheses concerning the likelihood of conflict. The first hypothesis states that the likelihood of war and conflict is lower in states with cultural similarities. The second hypothesis asserts that the greater the dissimilarity, the greater the likelihood of war and conflict. Cultural differences and similarities are still a major reason for the formation of tensions that lead to conflict.
It is generally accepted as a universal truth, that when conflict arises in a democratic society between government and opposition parties, or societal groups, democracy is not endangered. A democratic society remains stable, through the mutually accepted rules, which secure the continuity of the state. Political parties, for example, contribute to the peaceful resolution of ethnic tensions, which if left uncontrolled would lead to ethnic conflict. In the case of advanced industrial democracies the choices that exist and are made available by the democratic party systems, influence to a substantial degree the form and the direction of ethnic tensions.
On the other hand, when crisis arises in the transformation period of a state, it may take the form of conflict which focuses toward secession. To this extent, one faces different approaches to problem solving mostly from the understanding of and approach to conflict solving.
The confrontation of separate groups of people, begins with the difference in the conception of the conflict itself. The outcome of this conception creates dynamics with unexpected consequences.
Ethnonational Elites and Economic Interests
The interaction of groups from a diverse ethnic background often is accompanied by intolerance and ethnic conflict. It is often argued that Òthat cultural or ethnic differences are at the heart of these ethnic conflictsÓ4. Nevertheless, there are common traits, a common historical background and common values that the present day enemies, shared in co-existence before a not so distant past. Within this analytical framework, the task of explaining the nature of conflict arises, along with a search for the reasons that caused it. This brings along the next stage which is to define the necessary steps that have to be followed in order to stop the conflict. This characteristic debate, over the nature of the conflict and defining the actors involved has puzzled scholars, political analysts and commentators alike.
It is well known, that "Serbs and Croats hardly fought each other prior to this century. In fact, intermarriage rates were quite high even up to the 1980's. In addition, the former Yugoslavia never witnessed the 'religious wars' that were visited on Western and Central Europe" (5). Based on this context, there is an assumption that the conflicts which arose in the former Yugoslavia, are neither religious nor historical, but they are rather based in ideological differences substantiated by economic interests. In fact, the conflicting groups usually viewed politics from a different perspective. However, the cost incurred to any society from such a conflict is usually enormous. The loss of human lives, the denial of human rights, the breakdown of political order, the decline of the economy, most of the time the destruction of the economic infrastructure, are the main victims of such a conflict.
The unique nature of the conflicts in the Balkan region is mostly centred around specific issues. It is often argued that at the root of the problems are ethnonational elites, who are interested for their own power-seeking ends, and they exploit and hyperbolise ethnic divisions in order to achieve their goals. This analysis, though seems to overlook the fact that most of these conflicts are fundamentally based in the material interests of the groups involved in the conflict. The group of people who feel deprived from the participation in the decision making process or even from material gains, eventually become marginalised and thus grow a sense of ghettoisation. This alienation process takes a number of years to accumulate, while economic deprivation causes divisions based on ethno-nationalistic lines.
In order to prevent the formation of negative feelings, a stable and democratic society separates race and ethnicity, protects the basic human rights of its citizens leaving no space for discrimination, based on race, religion, ethnic origin or even cultural preference. In a democratic state, where the fundamental human rights are protected and freedom is guaranteed, the above mentioned differences are politically irrelevant.
A number of scholars have argued that ethnicity problems reflect the state of a traditional society. In other words, the reduction of ethnic consciousness is usually the result of industrialisation in the problem areas, the urbanisation, even the spread of education and technology. It is argued that Assimilation of minorities into a large integrated whole was viewed as the inevitable future. It is now clearly established that the assimilationist assumptions are not valid. Most parts of the globe have been touched by ethnic conflict (6).
Defining Ethnic Conflict
Certainly there are different theories of what constitutes ethnic conflict, but the concept still remains unclear. There are a number of definitions that suggest a typology, as for example the following approach: "ethnic conflict is a confrontation (at any level: political, social, military) in which the contending actors or parties identify themselves or each other (or are so identified by outsiders) in ethnic terms, that is, using ethnic criteria" (7). Another approach defines conflict as a dispute about important political, economic, social, cultural, or territorial issues between two or more ethnic communities (8). Another more operational definition suggests that conflicts comprise threats to valuesÓ based on an ethnic boundary between in-groups and out-groups, which has the potential to give rise to group mobilisation and politicisation to separate community, society or state (9). The feeling which is derived from the interpretation of the above definitions is the vague approach of war. Nevertheless, accepting these definitions, it seems that all wars are based in ethnic conflicts, which is not valid.
In the societies which are in transition, the concept of conflict is not necessarily inherent. During the society's re-constructing period, the number of different approaches to problem solving differ from population to government and vice versa. A valid hypothesis would mention that violent political interactions will break out not only where there is a manifest lack of authority, but also when a sufficient opposition exists to threaten the government in power. On the other hand, a powerful opposition group is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for the occurrence of a violent revolution. To this extent the balance of power and might very probably changes continuously.
In these early stages, the balance of power between competing groups usually prevents any further evolution of the conflict. Nevertheless, it remains difficult to estimate the extent of responses from the societal groups that form the conflict. It is true that disputes over territory have been of major concern for all analysts, who deal with human nature. It remains the major conflict in all aspects¯issue, and the reasoning usually deriving from the relevant analysts, does not produce coherent answers to the conflicting partners.
During the transitional period, the ongoing struggle for power gains, could proceed with difficulties to a democratic process, even if the intra-societal problems seem at first, quite unsolvable. This process requires agreement between high-level members of a political party and decision-making groups. The case of Slovakia, for example, has proved the possibilities of a peaceful approach to ethnic differences. Solutions are not considered ideal, but nevertheless seem to be acceptable by all partners and conflict is far behind. In these cases old parties and new parties seem to find a modus operandi toward conflict management, before tension escalates.
Conflict Management
Generally, the role of the managers in managing ethnic conflicts is considered to be of great importance. The personality characteristics of the people involved has historically been a determining factor for the outcome of tensions. Their ability to dominate or to spread power where is necessary is a key element to manage a tension area. As it is known, Blake and Mouton were the first to classify personality traits and strategies of conflict resolution, and they gave the five basic types: forcing, withdrawing, soothing, compromising and problem solving (10). If added to the desire of the community to proceed peacefully is the interests of all parties involved which will be at stake if conflict arises then the negotiations are peace and cooperation oriented.
The personalities involved in a conflict management situation is important, depending on the type of conflict, the place, and eventually the partners who participate positively or negatively in the crisis. In the case of Yugoslavia, the personality of the leader in command, has been perceived as the causative factor of a conflict which was escalated not so much by national or other divisions among the minorities or nationals involved, as by scheming elites, who manipulate the masses for reasons of their own interest.
This is an exemplary case, which has been seen from the rival leaders as an opportunity to gain power by stirring up national antagonism. Although it is generally accepted that the ruling elites are often held responsible for creating tension between communities, once the tension is ignited, it is not easily extinguished. In other words, the elites may reflect the divisions but they do not necessarily create them. At the same time, when they wish to underestimate tension, they face a quite difficult situation. Usually emphasis is placed on moderation, in order to appease the extremists. This technique has not worked so far.
While all these are, as mentioned, very important, at the same time the external factor remains quite important. Any third power, either in the form of negotiator, advisor, peacemaker, or even peace provider is regarded as an external factor. While it remains a fact that ethnic conflicts entail international complications, as they continuously and repeatedly provoke military intervention by outside powers, these interventions eventually create a number of problems. The role of the third parties involved into domestic tensions has been scrutinised by a number of analysts, who feel that the solutions to ethnic grievances, are a priority of the inflicted by the problem state and its actors. The Yugoslav case has shown the differences in the understanding of a multiethnic, multicultural country, and at the same time the difficulties faced in accepting the sovereignty of the country's decisions.
Misperceptions and Media
The Yugoslavian problem with the disputes, the conflicts, the continuous instability and the violent outbreaks that produced, along with the eventual war that has savaged the area for quite some time has provided the best case for research concerning conflict management and conflict prevention in a transforming society. In this particular case, western conflict researchers have looked at this warring situation with immense interest. However, they were equipped with only little knowledge concerning the actual inhabitants and the problems that exist or the problems that could be created by intermingling factors other than the people who were immediately concerned.
In dealing with the specific problem of the disputes in the Yugoslav conflict, western researchers have devoted substantial time in analysing the case through a historical perspective. Phrases like ancient hatred, or warlike people, have been used to point at the anachronistic or irrelevant disputes.
In actual terms, part of the problem with these theses on the cases of conflict has a lot to do with the way that the media and the half knowledgeable journalists, who correspond from the conflict areas, transmit as an indisputable fact. The formula that is considered seriously is that the cases are hopeless and outside assistance is necessary in order to help these backward societies enter the modern era. Thus, it is considered as a necessary step to enter the conflict-ridden regions either way possible in order to teach these people the art of compromise, how to leave behind their antagonisms, how to live like civilised people. On the other hand, the Northern Ireland case can continue the way it has started centuries ago, without much of outside interference and without any other country pressing England to solve the problem any other way.
It has already been mentioned that a conflict has partly its roots into the economic divisions of a society. In other words, this kind of conflict is fundamentally rooted into materialism and has basically nothing to do with abstract ideologies. This school of thought, which bases its analysis on the economic and material foundations of the conflict problems, applies to most of the conflicts that have occurred after the end of the Cold War.
Despiration and Economic Factors
The groups of people who feel deprived of any kind of material gains, could fall under many different categories of possible recipients. The argument of pure materialism has many flaws, as recent examples in Bosnia have proved. Even when the economic restrictions seized to exist, the conflict has continued. In other words, material factors play an important role but they are not the determining factor.
As a leading analyst states: Serbia has let prosperous Slovenia go peacefully but has participated in a war to prevent less prosperous Bosnia from leaving and has signalled its stalwart opposition to the secession of an economically destitute Kossovo. The reason for this differential response has nothing to do with economics. Rather it can be explained in terms of the relative ethnic homogeneity of Slovenia relative to Bosnia (the latter had large numbers of Serbs, the former did not) and by the fact that Kossovo is considered the ancestral heartland of Serbs, the site of their sacred religious institutions (11). In any way, the approach of a single aspect to define conflict is not sufficient.
Knowledge of Sharing and Problem Solving
Having accepted the principle of studying the conflict evolution through a multitude of reasons, especially in transforming societies, we should bear in mind the constant evolution of the human factor that determines the relations between conflicting communities. Individuals are not solely for a personal gain, but they consider themselves as members of specific national communities, which will claim their rights as a whole.
Engaging in ethnic violence, the actors involved participate in competition that leads to violent acts, thus creating a non-ending violent circle.
While studying the phenomenon of conflict in the transforming societies, in the midst of post-communism, the classical formulas dealing with conflict resolution seem to lose interest. The usual approach like integration, individual human rights, economic growth, etc., become meaningless words as conflicts continue in an escalating manner. In this process, it is only in the interest of every involved group, the recommendation of power-sharing, participation in the decision process, federalism and other forms of government. Whenever power is shared, intergration could be achieved through education, sharing cultural and individual rights and via other forms of collective approaches to the problem.
It is expected that the practical approaches that will provide the involved groups with an exit from the deadend will trouble the international community in the years to come. These thoughts could provide essential help to the democratic countries through knowledge of sharing, problem solving, help in the managerial sector and helping to build stable and coherent democratic societies which are not necessarily the mirror images of their benefactors.
Endnotes
1 Kegley C., and E. Wittkopf, World Politics, Trends and Transformation, 5th ed., New York: St. Martin's, 1995, p. 498.
2 Gurr T., People Against States: Ethnopolitical Conflict and the Changing World System, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 38, 1994, pp. 347-78.
3 Huntington S., The Clash of Civilizations, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 72, No. 3, 1993, pp. 22-49.
4 Henderson A. Errol, Culture or Contiguity, Ethnic Conflict, the Similarity of States, and the Onset of War, 1820-1989, Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 41, No. 5, October 1997, pp. 649-668.
5 Cagnon V., Ethnic Nationalism and International Conflict, In Global Dangers: Changing Dimensions of International Security, edited by S. Lynn-Jones and S. Miller, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995, pp. 331-67.
6 Jalali Rita & Lipset M. Seymour, Racial and Ethnic Conflicts: A Global Perspective, American Leadership, Ethnic Conflict, and the New World Politics, The Academy of Political Science, New York, 1997, pp. 77-98.
7 Stavenhagen R., The Ethnic Question, United Nations University Press, Tokyo, 1990, p. 15.
8 Brown M., Causes and Implications of Ethnic Conflict, in Ethnic Conflict and International Security, edited by Brown M., NJ: Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1994, pp. 3-26.
9 Carmen D., The International Dimension of Ethnic Conflict: Concepts, Indicators and Theory, Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 30, 1993, pp. 137-50.
10 Robert R. Blake and James S. Mouton, The Managerial Grid, TX: Gulf, Houston, 1964.
11 McGarry John, Explaining Ethnonationalism: the Flaws in Western Thinking, Nationalism and Ethnic Politics, Vol. 1, No. 4, Winter 1995, pp. 121-142.