Copyright (c) Stefan Wolff. All rights reserved.
Ethnic Conflict
A Global Perspective
Stefan Wolff
1
FROM: Ethnic Conflict. Oxford University Press 2006.
No reprint without permission.
Copyright (c) Stefan Wolff. All rights reserved.
Why do the nations so furiously rage together,
and why do the people imagine a vain thing?
Georg Friedrich Händel, The Messiah
FROM: Ethnic Conflict. Oxford University Press 2006.
No reprint without permission.
Copyright (c) Stefan Wolff. All rights reserved.
Contents
xi
xiii
Illustrations
Maps
Introduction. Ethnopolitics: Conflict versus cooperation
1
1. The human dimension: Facts, figures, and stories
of ethnic conflict
9
2. Ethnicity and nationalism
25
3. What causes ethnic conflicts?
58
4. Who fights in ethnic conflicts and how?
89
5. Managing and settling ethnic conflicts
123
6. Post-conflict reconstruction
155
7. The future of ethnic conflict: Possibilities
and probabilities
188
Endnotes
Index
208
215
FROM: Ethnic Conflict. Oxford University Press 2006.
No reprint without permission.
Copyright (c) Stefan Wolff. All rights reserved.
Introduction
Ethnopolitics: Conflict versus cooperation
On 18 April 2005, the BBC reported several pieces of good news.
Voters in the Turkish Republic of northern Cyprus had voted for
Mehmet Ali Talat, the (non-recognized) country’s Prime Minister
and a strong supporter of reunification with the south, in presidential elections. Talat had campaigned on a platform of reconciliation
and rapprochement with the Greek-dominated part of the island
and promised to initiate fresh talks with Greek Cypriot leaders.
Thousands of miles to the east, peace talks were reported to have
resumed between the government of the Philippines and the Moro
Islamic Liberation Front. Held at a secret location in Malaysia,
negotiations centred on finding workable compromises on issues
such as access to land and a fairer distribution of the income generated from the natural resources in the southern Philippines. In
Helsinki, meanwhile, former Finnish president Martti Ahtisaari let
it be known that talks to end the conflict in Aceh of over three
decades had ended on a positive note, with another round scheduled for May. Finally, at the conclusion of an Indo-Pakistani summit in New Delhi, the Pakistani President and the Indian Prime
Minister released a statement saying that peace between the two
countries would be irreversible and agreed to open more trade and
transport links in Kashmir, with the aim of bringing this dispute of
more than half a century to a permanent and peaceful settlement.
What all these developments have in common is that they are
meant to address long-running conflicts that have seen more than
their fair share of human suffering. Generally speaking, the term
FROM: Ethnic Conflict. Oxford University Press 2006.
No reprint without permission.
Copyright (c) Stefan Wolff. All rights reserved.
Ethnic Conflict
‘conflict’ describes a situation in which two or more actors pursue
incompatible, yet from their individual perspectives entirely just,
goals. Ethnic conflicts are one particular form of such conflict: that
in which the goals of at least one conflict party are defined in
(exclusively) ethnic terms, and in which the primary fault line of
confrontation is one of ethnic distinctions. Whatever the concrete
issues over which conflict erupts, at least one of the conflict parties
will explain its dissatisfaction in ethnic terms—that is, one party to
the conflict will claim that its distinct ethnic identity is the reason
why its members cannot realise their interests, why they do not
have the same rights, or why their claims are not satisfied. Thus,
ethnic conflicts are a form of group conflict in which at least one of
the parties involved interprets the conflict, its causes, and potential
remedies along an actually existing or perceived discriminating
ethnic divide.
Empirically, it is relatively easy to determine which conflict is an
ethnic one: one knows them when one sees them. Few would dispute that Northern Ireland, Kosovo, Cyprus, the Israeli–Palestinian
dispute, the genocide in Rwanda, the civil war in the Democratic
Republic of Congo (DRC), Kashmir, and Sri Lanka are all, in one
way or another, ethnic conflicts. This is so because their manifestations are violent and their causes and consequences obviously
ethnic. Yet, although all of these conflicts have been violent, violence in each of them was of different degrees of intensity. Leaving
aside, for the moment, considerations of relativity (Cyprus is, after
all, smaller and has fewer inhabitants than the DRC), in 30 years
of violence, some 3,500 people were killed in Northern Ireland,
roughly the same number during three months of conflict in
Kosovo after the start of NATO’s air campaign, and a single day
during the genocide in Rwanda could have easily seen that many
people killed in just one place.
In contrast to such violent ethnic conflicts, relationships between
Estonians and Russians in Estonia and the complex dynamics of
interaction between the different linguistic groups in Canada,
Belgium, and France are also predominantly based on distinct
ethnic identities and (incompatible) interest structures, yet their
2
FROM: Ethnic Conflict. Oxford University Press 2006.
No reprint without permission.
Copyright (c) Stefan Wolff. All rights reserved.
Ethnopolitics: Conflict versus cooperation
manifestations are less violent, and it is far less common to describe
these situations as ethnic conflicts. Rather, terms such as ‘tension’,
‘dispute’, and ‘unease’ are used. Finally, there are situations in
which various ethnic groups have different, and more or less frequently conflicting, interest structures, but hardly ever is the term
‘tensions’, let alone ‘conflict’, used to describe them, such as in
relation to Switzerland or Catalonia, where conflicts of interest are
handled within fairly stable and legitimate political institutions.
Thus, not every ethnic conflict is characterized by violence, but, as
we will see in the following chapters, inter-ethnic violence is
always a sign of underlying conflict.
Violence does not spontaneously erupt between otherwise peacefully coexisting ethnic groups. However, ‘ethnicity is not the
ultimate, irreducible source of violent conflict in such cases’.1
Power and material gain can be equally strong motivations, for
leaders and followers alike, to choose conflict over cooperation,
violence over negotiations. For a proper understanding of the
dynamics of different ethnic conflicts it is, therefore, not enough
simply to look at the degree of violence present. Rather, it is necessary carefully to analyse the different actors and factors that are at
work in each conflict and the way in which they combine to lead to
violent escalation or constructive conflict management and
settlement. Thus, it would be mistaken to assume that ethnopolitics is only a matter of confrontation between different politically
mobilized groups and states. On the contrary, there is a range of
examples where ethnopolitics is pursued in a spirit of compromise
and cooperation. This is a generally hopeful indication that
the presence of different ethnic groups in the same country or
region does not inevitably have to lead to violent conflict, and it
is therefore useful to explore briefly the reasons for interethnic
cooperation.
At the most basic level, it is often the realization of different ethnic
groups that cooperation is more beneficial than conflict, i.e. that
the diverse aims that each of the groups has are more easy to achieve
in a joint effort. For obvious reasons, this limits cooperation to
cases where political agendas are not mutually incompatible, where
3
FROM: Ethnic Conflict. Oxford University Press 2006.
No reprint without permission.
Copyright (c) Stefan Wolff. All rights reserved.
Ethnic Conflict
they can be transformed into a state of compatibility, or where the
groups at least agree to put incompatible aims to one side and not
to seek to realize them at all cost, while focusing on those elements
of their individual political agendas that can be pursued jointly and
with mutual benefit. This does not mean that ethnic identity has
lost its salience; on the contrary, it often continues to play an
important part in day-to-day politics and has often even been politically institutionalized through different systems of proportional
allocation of funds, jobs, and seats in parliaments, and/or through
qualified voting procedures in legislative and executive organs at
the relevant national and regional levels. Although these examples
underline the fact that ethnicity-based politics is not in itself a
source of conflict and violence, it leaves open the question of why
its ‘civilized’ conduct is possible in some cases but not others.
Recognizing the grave consequences of ethnic conflicts for
civilians directly affected by them, as well as for regional and
international security more generally, the international donor
community has, over the past decade alone, pledged some $US60
billion on a vast range of projects to settle ethnic conflicts and help
rebuild war-torn societies. Despite this significant financial commitment and the involvement of many highly skilled people, ethnic conflict remains a threat to peace, stability, and prosperity. But
why is it that Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland have
been in perpetual conflict over the past several decades, when they
can live and prosper together elsewhere? Why was there a bloody
civil war in Bosnia when Croats, Serbs, and Muslims had lived there
mostly peacefully over centuries, with their ethnicity hardly a matter at all in daily life? Why did nobody see and act upon the warning signs of an ensuing genocide in Rwanda that eventually killed
close to a million people in a matter of weeks? What is it that
makes Kashmir potentially worth a nuclear war between India and
Pakistan? Why do a few militants in the Basque country reserve
the right for themselves to carry out a campaign of killing and
maiming in the name of the Basque people, when the overwhelming majority of this same people want nothing more than an end to
the senseless violence?
4
FROM: Ethnic Conflict. Oxford University Press 2006.
No reprint without permission.
Copyright (c) Stefan Wolff. All rights reserved.
Ethnopolitics: Conflict versus cooperation
The picture painted above seems bleak, but there is another way
of looking at ethnic conflict, one that is more optimistic. Between
1946 and 2001, there have been around 50 ethnically motivated
conflicts worldwide; by 2003, all but 16 of them had been settled.
What has made it possible for so many conflicts to be resolved?
Ethnic conflicts in the Balkans—from Bosnia to Kosovo to
Macedonia—were hailed as successes of international intervention
without border changes, whilst the secession of East Timor from
Indonesia and of Eritrea from Ethiopia indicated that the creation
of new states to settle ethnic conflicts was, in specific cases, still
accepted as a potentially viable solution. More recently, ethnic
conflicts in southern Sudan and Senegal are among those that
appear to have been resolved, similar conflicts in Bougainville and
Mindanao seem to be nearing settlements, and violence has at least
been suspended in Aceh, Indonesia, and Sri Lanka. What accounts
for these successes? Are there lessons from the resolution of these
conflicts that could be applied elsewhere? Why and where and how
are they applied or not?
To find answers to these questions will be the main task of this
book. This is neither easy nor straightforward, for there is no single
explanation of the dynamics of ethnic conflict and its management, settlement, and prevention. Although there are some general
trends and commonalities that cut across a whole range of different
conflicts, it is often very specific local dynamics that provide the
key to understanding a particular conflict. Both aspects, however,
need to be understood to offer at least some satisfactory explanations about ethnic conflicts, and the chapters that follow will,
therefore, combine general analysis with specific cases. We shall
first examine the historical origins and contemporary manifestations of the ideas of nationalism and ethnicity. This will help us
understand why and how ethnicity has become such a powerful
mobilizing force that can plunge societies into years of civil war and
what, if anything, distinguishes it from nationalism.
Neither ethnicity nor nationalism in itself causes ethnic conflict.
Rather, the stakes in ethnic conflicts are extremely diverse, ranging
from legitimate political, social, cultural, and economic grievances
5
FROM: Ethnic Conflict. Oxford University Press 2006.
No reprint without permission.
Copyright (c) Stefan Wolff. All rights reserved.
Ethnic Conflict
of disadvantaged ethnic groups to predatory agendas of states and
small cartels of elites, to so-called national security interests, to
name but a few. As organized ethnic groups confront each other,
minorities and majorities alike, with and without the backing of
state institutions, an important question is to what extent ethnic
conflicts are actually about ethnicity and to what extent ethnicity
is merely a convenient common denominator to organize conflict
groups in the struggle over resources, land, or power.
Understanding the causes of ethnic conflicts will help in some
way to explain who fights in ethnic conflicts and how. It is important to bear in mind that ethnic conflicts do not just exist or come
into being. They are the product of deliberate choices of people to
pursue certain goals with violent means. This is true for domestic
conflict parties, as much as for the actors involved in ethnic conflicts that are external to the country or region in which the conflict
emerges. As a result of the threat to international security and
stability, international organizations, neighbouring states, and
regional and world powers may all have their own interests in
particular conflicts. The range of conflict parties extends further
beyond states and state organizations to diasporas of economically
better-off brethren elsewhere in the world, willing and able to support their ethnic cousins’ struggle with money, arms, and political
lobbying. More recently, ‘religious cousins’ have become significant players in many ethnic conflicts as well. The menace of
al-Qaeda and the terrorist cells that it has created around the world
has become an additional complicating factor in a number of ethnic conflicts. Legitimate grievances that many Muslim minorities
have in non-Muslim countries have been hijacked by religious
fundamentalists, whose long-term agenda is often very different
from those of local insurgents fighting for political rights, civil
liberties, and equal economic opportunities.
A history of ethnic conflict in the twentieth century illustrates
that there are only very few cases of such conflict that permanently
elude any, even temporary, resolution. But this does not mean
that solutions are always self-evident, readily embraced by the
conflict parties, and easily implemented, even with significant
6
FROM: Ethnic Conflict. Oxford University Press 2006.
No reprint without permission.
Copyright (c) Stefan Wolff. All rights reserved.
Ethnopolitics: Conflict versus cooperation
international aid and assistance. Why is it that resolution of ethnic
conflicts is such a complicated process, fraught with difficulty and
often frustration for those offering their good offices in support? Is
it the unreasonable intransigence of individual agents, more interested in their aggrandizement than in peace and prosperity for their
followers? Why the lack of attention of the international community to conflicts where the parties are entrapped in a vicious
cycle of violence from which they cannot break free without outside help? Is it the lack of resources and skills to find and implement solutions that satisfy all parties? These are the questions that
need to be addressed in order to understand different approaches to
how best to solve ethnic conflicts, the strengths and weaknesses
that they have, and above all their dependence upon the concrete
situation to which they should be applied.
Settlement agreements and peace deals supposedly signed by the
conflict parties in good faith are many; those that are successfully
implemented and lead to stable peace are far fewer. In many cases,
the settlement achieved is only a temporary reprieve before violence escalates anew. As a consequence, there has been an increasing realization that ethnic conflicts do not simply end whenever
a peace agreement has been concluded. Rather, the international
community has been confronted by complex post-agreement
scenarios in the Balkans, the Middle East, Northern Ireland, Africa,
and south-east Asia, but success in sustaining peace has often
eluded those who managed to forge the original agreement.
Increasingly, therefore, post-conflict reconstruction is seen as an
integral part of the conflict settlement process. Once an agreement
has been signed, especially if it was reached with international
mediation, programmes and projects are launched to aid the transition from war to peace, democracy, and prosperity. This involves
building acceptable, accountable, and transparent institutions, to
generate self-sustaining economic growth, and to create a civil
society with free and independent media, civic organizations, and a
general climate in which people once again begin to trust each
other and are willing to live together peacefully.
No journey to explore ethnic conflict would be complete without
7
FROM: Ethnic Conflict. Oxford University Press 2006.
No reprint without permission.
Copyright (c) Stefan Wolff. All rights reserved.
Ethnic Conflict
highlighting its human dimension—a dimension that is primarily
one of endless, and often senseless, suffering. People who die in
ethnic conflict are more than just statistics. They often die horrible
deaths. They leave behind grieving and frequently vengeful families who have to try to survive amid continuing violence that
gradually but surely destroys the very social, political, and economic foundations of their lives. Yet, human beings are not only
the passive, innocent, and unfortunate victims of torture, rape,
looting, and killing in ethnic conflicts. They are also the ones who
commit these very atrocities, leading others (by example) and following often too willingly. The accounts of victims and perpetrators often provide disturbing testimony to the depths to which
human beings can sink. Yet if there is anything optimistic in the
realization that ethnic conflict is not a natural but a man-made
disaster, it is the fact that human beings are able to learn—not only
about how to kill and torture more effectively, but also about
tools to resolve ethnic conflicts and help the societies in which
they occur to rebuild and embark on a road towards sustainable
peace and development. Ethnic conflicts are likely to stay with
us for some time, but understanding their causes, consequences,
and dynamics can equip us to deal with them earlier and more
effectively in the future.
8
FROM: Ethnic Conflict. Oxford University Press 2006.
No reprint without permission.