To what extent is it useful to consider violent conflict in developing states as being different to
violent conflict in more developed states? What are the implications of doing so?
It is very useful to distinguish the difference between violent conflict in developed countries and
violent conflict in developing countries. When there is a ‘blanket’ picture of what violent conflict
looks like, it is easy to believe that it only happens in developing states. Which is not the case,
violent conflict happens in developed states it just looks different. Encouraging a distinguishing
allows the academic conversation around violent conflict, international intervention and the
accountability required from governments to change. This essay will look at what violent conflict is
and give examples of developing countries that have experienced it. This will lead into a discussion
about the shared characteristics these countries have and how they cannot be found within
developed countries which could explain why conflict manifests differently within those countries.
The essay will also look at media coverage of violent conflict events and the international response
to them and how they vary. This comparison will open up the discussion about the politicalization of
discourse in the field of development and why some states experience more intentional intervention
than others. Lastly the essay will address the implications of understanding that violent conflict looks
differently in developed states in comparison to developing states.
One of the widely accepted definitions of violent conflict is “an activity involving at least two parties
using physical force as a way to resolve opposing and competing interests” (Frère and Wilen, 2015).
The government can either be one of the parties within the violent conflict or it could be between
non-state actors (Reyntjens, 2009). According to Wallensteen and Axel (1994) there has to be at
least 25 battle-related deaths to meet the criteria of being a violent conflict. Conflict can take place
between states or internally within a state (Kalyvas and Balcells, 2010). Conflicts can be rooted in
political, social, religious and ethnic issues (Kalyvas and Balcells, 2010) .
The continuous violent conflict between Israel and Palestine was intently followed by many and
continues to be, it has seen numbers as large as 1000 being killed between 2008 -2009. The conflict
began in the mid-20th century and is rooted around land ownership (BBC NEWS, 2018). It is branded
as the world's most intractable conflict (Munayer and Loden, 2014). Some of the key issues are
around security, boarders, control of Jerusalem, mutual recognition, mutual distrust and water
rights (GAC, 2018). The conflict has been the centre focus of many international conferences
attempting to peace build, with very little success (Latimes, 2018) Between October 2015 and
November 2015, BBC’s news outlets both radio and TV covered the conflict for 29 days (Mediadiversity.org, 2018) Although the coverage received criticism for showing bias favour towards Israel,
it was commendable how much exposure the conflict was given (Media-diversity.org, 2018).
Another well known violent conflict is the xenophobia attack outbreaks that occurred in South Africa
in 2015. Prior to 1994, foreigners in South Africa experienced xenophobia in the form of
discrimination and even violence (Neocosmos, 2010) Attacks continued in between 2000 and 2008,
but the attacks in 2015 allthough significantly fewer, prompted public outcry and international
responses from government officials, especially those repatriating their citizens (Dixon, 2015) .This is
likely due the amount of social media coverage of the attacks, so although the attacks were fewer,
they had more exposure. A Government-commissioned report actually suggested that the media
played a role in the attacks and heightened the widespread panic due to spreading misinformation
(News24, 2016). The underlining issue of the violent conflict was the inability of multiply ethnicities,
identities and nationalities to peacefully co-live and share scarce resources within a land. The violent
conflict led to several thousand protestors marching through Johannesburg singing songs that
denounced xenophobia and holding banners saying "We are all Africans" (Arab News, 2015).
Members of Parliament in Nigeria spoke up and demanded the African union to intervene and
threatened to sever diplomatic ties with South Africa (Ebrahim, 2015). The Malawian government
condemned the attacks and called on to the AU to intervene. Whilst Zambia’s biggest radio station
protested by not playing any South African music and calling on its citizens to organise marches
(Ebrahim, 2015). Both Zimbabwe and London cancelled concerts by South African artists that were
meant to take place (Ebrahim, 2015).
When a state is experiencing a violent conflict it is normal for international leaders to either
intervene or to step in and demand that the government of that country takes accountability and
responds to the conflict. This is has been the case with the Syrian civil war. The multi-sided armed
conflict consists of the the government of President Bashar al-Assad and several opposing groups
such as alliance of Sunni Arab rebel groups, Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces and international
countries who are either directly involved, or support one of the actors with the conflict(
Aljazeera.com, 2016). The conflict grew due to the discontentment people had towards the
government. It eventually escalated into an armed conflict when protestors felt that their call for the
removal of President Assad was being ignored (BBC News, 2016). A UN commission of inquiry states
that they have evidence that all actors have committed war crimes including blocking access to
water, food, and water and health services as a method of war (BBC News, 2016) The conflict has
caused a sever amount of deaths, displacements and a major refugee crisis(Magnus, 2016) .The UN
and many International organizations and government have demanded for all actors to be held
accountable for the many massacres and severe human rights violations (Barnard, 2016). There has
been several peace initiatives launched by the international community, including the March 2017
Geneva peace talks on Syria led by the United Nations (Magnus, 2016)
The case studies above illustrate a diverse picture of violent conflict, with different drivers and
actors, media coverage and international responses and intervention. What is interesting to note is
that all the countries mentioned have shared characteristics; they are developing countries, meet
the criteria of a fragile state, have weak institutions and bad governance and have experienced some
form of colonialism or Western control. These traits and drivers of violent conflict separate
developing states from developed states (Marker, 2013). Therefore the physical manifestation,
trends and patterns that we see in the violent conflicts that occur in developing states are not likely
to occur in developed states. Armed conflicts are more likely to occur in countries with low income,
visible unbalanced and unfair distribution of resources, slower economic growth and high rates of
poor health, hunger and poverty (Krug et al. 2002; Pinstrup-Andersen and Shimokawa 2008; Stewart
2002). If the picture of violent conflict is limited to the events in Israel and Palestine, South Africa
and Syria, then the discourse and narrative of violence will always be limited and revolving around
developing states. This is why it is useful for us to consider that violent conflict in developed
countries is different to violent conflict in developing countries.
The forms of violence that occur within developed countries lean more to Galtung’s definition of
structural violence. Galtung (1971) explains that whilst direct physical violence is instantly
recognizable, there is a hidden form of violence that manifest through social structures. Galtung
(1971) created a violence typology so that non-direct forms of violence wouldn’t be missed .
According to Galtung (1969) "I understand violence as the avoidable impairment of fundamental
human needs or, to put it in more general terms, the impairment of human life, which lowers the
actual degree to which someone is able to meet their needs below that which would otherwise be
possible."
Whilst direct violence is one or more persons inflicting violence on other people, structural violence
is embedded into the structures of society and manifest in the unequal distribution of power,
opportunities and access to human needs and rights (Galtung, 1971). Structural violence not only
harms the physical body, it also harms the soul and mind (Galtung, 1971). Galtung’s typology is
important and noteworthy within the discussion of conflict and peace because it encourages us to
stop viewing peace as the absence of direct physical violence and expand our definition to the
absence of structural violence too.
Galtung’s view of social inequality as a form of violence is not new; Martin Luther King Jr.
(1966) referred to what he saw in black neighbourhoods as “the violence of poverty”. Whilst Gilligan
(1997) described the inequality he saw black citizens experience as “the violence of racism”. Brown
(1989) encouraged people to think of violence as more than just a physical act but the violation of a
person’s fundamental human rights. The feminist movement also challenged the mainstream
understanding of violence and contended that violence was not always physical but could be
emotional and psychological (Morgan and Björkert 2006).
This essay is not arguing for social inequality to be interchangeably used with violent conflict.
Understandably there needs to be a distinguishing between physical violent conflict and structural
violence. If violent conflict becomes a fluid concept that is not easily delineated, then we will no
longer be able to measure it, making it harder to control or intervene. Rather this essay is suggesting
that we have to view violence in different states differently and encourage violence typologies so we
can better understand how violence may manifest in different environments. Whilst the violence we
see in a developing country like Syria looks like the government using weapons to harm its citizens.
Violence in America looks like government policies that lead to the contamination of the water
supply of the entire city of Flint and inadequate subsequent support and intervention leading to
multiply deaths.
In April of 2015 the water supply in Flint was switched from Detroit to the Flint River, this was done
in an attempt to save money. The water was inadequately treated, resulting in lead contamination
(Sanburn, 2017). “For months, residents complained about the smell and discoloration of the water
even as government officials told them it was safe to drink.” (Sanburn, 2017). The contamination
lead to the outbreak of Legionnaire’s Disease and killed 12 people (Sanburn, 2017). What makes the
water crisis a form of state terrorism is that, the water was poisoning the residents and the
government knew about it but did not notify them or offer intervention (Sanburn, 2017). According
to Giroux (2016) Flint’s poisoning should be viewed as domestic terrorism, a view affirmed by Judge
Mathis who likened the poisoning of Flint water to a terrorist attack (News One, 2018)
Terrorism is the violent action by non-state or state elites who purse illegitimate aims by adopting
unjustifiable means that violate human rights (Scherrer, C. (2003). Unfortunately the water crisis
situation matches this very definition. Yet the incident did not receive adequate media coverage or
international response from neighbouring countries. The crisis happened in April 2014 and received
coverage from local press yet only received any attention from national media in it March 2015.
(Media Matters for America, 2016) The crisis didn’t receive widespread media attention until the
state of Michigan was declared an emergency, in early 2016. The crisis received zero minutes of
coverage on big new outlets like CNN, Fox News and ABC prior to the declaration (Media Matters for
America, 2016). People have questioned what catastrophes could have been avoided and what help
could the citizens of Flint have received if the national and international media have covered the
crisis earlier (Shorenstein Center,2016) .
Another instance in America of structural violence is the continuous policy brutality against the
African American community. This is a great example of structural violence resulting in conflict
violence. Out of 718 people killed by the police in 2017, African Americans accounted for 27 %. Out
of the unarmed victims of police brutality , African Americans blacks accounted for 37 %, which is
alarmingly , almost three times their percentage as a population. These statistics have resulted in
civil unrest and protests which some have turned into violent riots. Many within the African
American community view Police brutality as a form of political violence; a term used
for violence perpetrated by either non-state or state actors to achieve political goals.[1] Another
controversial view has labelled police brutality on the African American society as genocide.
Genocide is "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of
an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group",[6] Genocide usually takes place with either the covert
of overt support of the government.[7]
Although there have been protest intentionally in support of movements like Black Lives Matter who
speak out on police brutality. There hasn’t been much public response from international world
leaders. The U.S. did receive backlash at the Human Rights Council; the French delegation
recommended the U.S. to “take necessary measures to fight against discriminatory practices of the
police based on ethnic origin,”. Whilst Namibia told the US “to fix the broken justice system that
continues to discriminate against [marginalized communities], despite recent waves of protest over
racial profiling and police killings of unarmed black men.”. Malaysia echoed this sentiment by
suggesting the U.S. “double its efforts in combating violence and the excessive use of force by law
enforcement officers based on racial profiling through training, sensitization and community
outreach, as well as ensuring proper investigation and prosecution when cases occur.” With a more
pessimistic outlook, Antonio Ginatta, the advocacy director for the U.S. program at Human Rights
Watch, spoke out on his uncertainty on whether that the U.S would actually act upon these
recommendations. The U.S has failed to implement any of the previous 171 recommendations given
to them in a previous report regarding the human rights practices of the state.
The US fails to be accountable to the unjust deaths of African Americans, yet takes the moral
responsibility of intervening in Syria on the alleged grounds that the Syrian government is
obstructing human rights and killing its citizens with chemical attacks. President Donald Trump has
recently ordered strikes on Syria as retaliation for a chemical attack on Syrian citizens, yes not on
American citizens but rather Syrian. The president justified his actions in a statement “The purpose
of our actions tonight is to establish a strong deterrent against the production, spread, and use of
chemical weapons. Establishing this deterrent is a vital national security interest of the United
States.” Trump went on to say of the chemical attack “The evil and despicable attack left mothers
and fathers, infants and children thrashing in pain and gasping for air”. Ironically this fits the
description of the streets of Ferguson as citizens were tear-gassed as they protested against police
brutality.
It is significant to note that Flint is a city, and episodes of unjust police killings of African Americans
are sporadic and across states, therefore the violence taking place is on a small geographical scale in
comparison to what is witnessed in some developing countries. Nonetheless the essay has
demonstrated that there is an unbalance in how violence in developing countries is treated in
comparison to developed countries. The current situation in Flint Michigan arguably can be seen as
state terrorism yet the US government has not received the same scrutiny as developed states who
withhold basic needs from their citizens as an act of terror. More importantly the citizens of
developing countries, who are experiencing the violence, have not received the same media
attention, public outcry or international intervention. The hypothesis this essay poses as an
explanation is that the violence occurring in the West is not being held to the same level of
seriousness because it looks different. Headlines that say ‘Chemical attacks on hundreds of Syrian
woman and children’ cause more of a reaction than ‘Unarmed black man killed by police’. The
mental image of the former headline produces a more violent picture. The second hypothesis is that,
there is politics in the way things are labelled and the discourse used when referring to different
countries. The same reason why mass killings by Caucasian males are called mass shootings and
terrorist attacks when done by non-European looking shooters. The last hypothesis is this;
accountability is hard when governments are increasingly operating within intergovernmental
coalitions () and international interferences are globally discouraged and in many cases illegal (). As a
result, international responses and interventions are minimal within developed countries.
One of the implications of considering that violent conflict in developing states is different to violent
conflict in developed states is that it allows for a better understanding of the drivers and root causes
of the conflict, for example the conflict we see in developed states isn’t rooted in colonial history but
rather structural inequalities. The best way to control conflict is to understand what is causing it. A
better understanding of how violence manifest in different countries, may also encourage more
research to be down on violent conflict in the west and widen the depth of the limited current
literature available. A natural implication of research is advancement in discourse; the conversation
around peace as an absence of direct physical violence needs to change. A change of thinking within
academia may result to a change in intervention and development practice when dealing with
violence within developed states.
In conclusion both developing countries and developed countries experience violence. Violence
looks different under different circumstances, which explains why violence in developing states
manifest differently to developed states. Whilst we may witness more conflict violence with direct
physical deaths in developing states, structural violence appears to be more prominent in
developing states. The reason why understanding this is important, is because the narrative around
violence and conflict and peace has to change. News coverage is saturated with images of Syria and
Israel whilst there is barely any coverage of the violence taking place within western countries. This
paints an unbalanced picture of the violence happening globally. Violent conflict is given the lime
light within media, which impacts international responses and accountability to structural violence.
As a result Western governments are not held to the same standards of accountability in regards to
protecting the human rights of their citizens. The implication of understanding violence typologies
and how they manifest in different countries is that, more research will take place around structural
violence in the West. Resulting in expanded discourse around violence, potentially more media
coverage of different types of violence and most importantly increased government accountability.