Session 10
Ted Robert Guss and Barbara Harff, Ethnic Conflict in World Politics, 1994,
pp. 1-26
Ethnic Conflict and the Changing World Order
Maps with neatly divided countries convey a misleading image of people’s political identities.
Even in France with one of the oldest centralized governments, one-tenths of the population
thinks of themselves first as Bretons, Maghrebins, or members of other nationalities.
Contemporary Examples of Ethnopolitical Conflict
Since 1960s, more ethnic groups have begun to demand more rights and recognitions, a major
source of domestic and international conflict in the post-Cold War world. As in East Timor, the
protagonists want to establish their autonomy or independence. Others, such as Black South
Africans, Turks in Germany, and Native Americans, want to improve their status within the
existing boundaries of a state.
The international community has an obligation to protect the rights of minorities,
beginning with protecting the most basic rights to life and security from attack. [According to the
authors,] the civil wars and ethnic killings in the former Yugoslavia should have been preemted by
early and active international mediation. But the international community is only gradually
acquiring the legal principles, political will, and foresight to respond effectively to such conflicts.
Although belated, Yugoslavia received considerable international assistance. On the
other hand, there was no serious international effort to check the Ethiopian civil war which lasted
from early 1960s to 1991. No major power recognized Eritrea’s independence, the conflict was
considered to be an internal matter, and there was no media-inspired publicity of atrocities.
Although Eritrea gained independence in 1991, without long-term political and material support
from the international community, civil peace might not remain.
Conflicts over group demands for better treatment are seldom as deadly as civil wars, nor
are they likely to have serious international repercussions. However, they can be as fateful for
the people caught up in them.
Defining and Mapping the World of Ethnic Groups
Ethnic groups are “psychological communities,” or identity groups, whose members share a
persisting sense of common interest and identity that is based on some combination of shared
historical experience and valued cultural traits – beliefs, language, ways of life, homeland. Few
have their own internationally recognized state or states – e.g. Koreans and Icelanders.
Many ethnic minorities coexist amicably with others within the boundaries of established
states. If peaceful relations prevail among peoples for a long times, their separate identity may
eventually weaken – e.g. the Irish-Americans.
The ethnic groups whose status is of greatest concern in international politics today are
those that are the targets of discrimination and that have organized to take political action to
promote or defend their interests. In 1980s, a study identified 233 sizable groups. Most larger
countries have at least one such ethnic group. When the USSR dissolved in 1991, the political
demands of ethnonationalists like the Latvians, Ukrainians, and Armenians were met. But
additional ethnic groups have begun to make political demands in the new republics – e.g.
Abkhazians in Georgia.
Nearly 80 percent of the politicized ethnic groups live with the consequences of historical
or contemporary economic and political discriminations, often practices which violate human
rights standards. Ethnic groups that are treated unequally resent and repeatedly attempt to
improve their condition. In almost all cases, they began with peaceful political protests that
sometimes gave way to rioting and terrorism, and in at least 80 cases, escalated into guerrilla and
civil wars. These protracted communal conflicts over the rights and demands of ethnic groups
have caused more misery and loss of human life than any other conflict since the end of WWII.
1
The Changing Global System and Ethnic Conflict
Ethnic conflict is not solely or even mainly a consequence of domestic politics. The potential for
ethnic conflict, the issues at stake, and even the lines of cleavage between contending groups
have been shaped and re-shaped by international factors – the tension between state system and
ethnic identity, the end of the Cold War, and the changing nature of international responses.
States or Peoples? Historically, ethnic groups coexisted with nations, states, empires, and other
forms of social organizations. Since the 17th century, the state system emerged as the dominant
form of social organization. The ascendance of state system has meant the states are parties to
the most deadly conflicts. Prevailing ideologies and political movements within the state system
have dramatically influenced ethnic conflict – anti-Semitic doctrines in Germany, the Communist
doctrine in the Soviet Union, anticolonialism against European domination in Asia and Africa.
At times, throughout the 20th century, ethnic people have coalesced across boundaries to
join in common causes – pan-Islamic, pan-Arab, and an indigenous peoples’ movement.
However, a common ethnic background has been insufficient to cause people to subordinate the
interests of states to a greater transnational identity or cause.
At present, we see two trends – a reemergence of xenophobia in long-established
countries, and oppressive leaders defending existing boundaries at all costs, despite historically
justified claims by national peoples such as Eritreans and Kurds.
The End of the Cold War – The demise of Soviet Union has left a political and ideological
vacuum that is yet to be filled. Without the ideology that bound peoples together, old rivalries
have reemerged and neighbors have again become antagonists. The transformation of socialist
societies into a precapitalist society has led to a sense of alienation and an increased emphasis
on narrow group interests.
On the positive side, ethnic awareness may be the first step towards a new national
identity that will unite different peoples. However, the possibilities are greatly diminished by the
economic stress.
Enduring Conflicts, Changing International Responses – The number of ethnic conflicts increased
steadily from 1950 to 1989. The question is whether or how the international community – the
UN, regional organizations, and major powers – has responded to these conflicts. In the 1970s,
when Idi Amin (Uganda) and Macias Nguma (Equatorial Guinea) sought to consolidate their
power by killing thousands of their ethnic and political rivals, there was no substantive response
from the United Nations. Their countries were of little consequences to either of the superpowers.
The impotence of Third World regional organizations combined with the reluctance of the
superpowers during the Cold War era to interfere in the internal affairs of states virtually ensured
that most ethnic conflicts would remain domestic affairs, even if they led to gross violations of
human rights.
Since 1991, the United Nations and the US have taken more vigorous action against
human rights violators and aggressive states. The UN, with encouragement from the US
government and other states, has expanded its peacekeeping role – the biggest and most
expensive peacekeeping operation in Cambodia in 1991-1993.
The US has also expanded its role – US-led mobilizations in Iraq and Somalia. European
countries have been divided and paralyzed over the issue of whether and how to respond to
escalating ethnic tension in Eastern Europe [Bosnian case in 1994]. Regional organizations in the
Third World are also taking more active role in response to internal conflicts. NGOs such as
Amnesty International and International Alert also play a role by calling attention to ethnic conflict
and repression, and by lobbying governments and the UN to take active roles in supporting
humanitarian efforts.
Conclusion
Recent developments send encouraging signals to those who are concerned about checking the
rise of ethnopolitical conflict and human rights abuses such as ethnic cleansing. A consensus is
emerging that the UN should establish minimum standards of global security through collective
decision-making.
2
The World of Ethnopolitical Group
There are four types of politically active ethnic groups within modern states.
1. enthonationalists
2. indigenous people
3. communal contenders
4. ethnoclasses
The first two want autonomy from states that rule them, the latter two seek greater access to
participation within existing states.
The World Historical Background to Contemporary Ethnic Conflicts
Contemporary conflicts are a part of a heritage of historical processes – imperial conquest,
colonial rule, slavery, frontier settlement, and the international migration of labor. Empires were
established at the expense of weaker and less fortunate people.
Local economies were undermined by colonial rule, and new economies favored the
dominant groups, often dividing colonized people along ethnic lines. The resulting sense of
grievances can persist for many generations, providing fuel for contemporary movements.
Ethnically divided and stratified societies became fertile ground for conflict in the post-WWII
independence in Asia and Africa.
Colonial policies that encouraged immigrants to work in plantations or new commercial
activities created groups that were neither assimilated nor incorporated into the indigenous social
structure. In some cases where the immigrants were used staff colonial bureaucracy, giving them
privileged status, provoked discriminatory measures against their descendants in
postindependence period.
In the Americas and Australia, Europeans settled in large numbers with devastating
consequences for indigenous peoples – victory often accomplished through the slaughter,
enslavement, forced assimilation, or forcible removal. Another practice was importation of
Africans as slaves – in some societies they were eventually incorporated into the dominant
society, whereas in the United States, they were rarely given opportunity to achieve higher status.
Each of the major historical processes left legacies of antagonisms and inequalities that
fuel contemporary ethnic conflict. Not all ethnic peoples with heritages of discrimination are
pursuing political objectives today, but most have done so in the past or have the potential to do
so in the future.
Ethnonationalists
Ethnonationalists are relatively large and regionally concentrated ethnic groups that live within the
boundaries of one state or of several adjacent states. They seek greater autonomy or
independent statehood. Most have historical tradition of autonomy that is used to justify their
current demands.
Most people with nationalist aspirations live in the Third World – e.g. southern Sudanese,
Palestinians, Kurds, and Tibetans. They have fought persistent wars of secession, but few have
won political independence. Other ethnonationalists live in developed countries – Scots,
Basques, French-Canadians, Slovenes, Latvians, Armenians. Their campaigns have been mostly
nonviolent, although some have used terrorist means.
Micronationalism is often used to describe the independence movements of numerically
small groups – like the Abkhazians in northwestern Georgia. Ethnonationalists usually have
organized leadership and occupy substantial territory. They often straddle international
boundaries, and thus their conflicts are likely to have international repercussions. Major powers
and international organizations often attempt to contain nationalist wars through diplomatic
support, humanitarian assistance and peacekeeping forces.
Indigenous Peoples
Indigenous peoples are the descendants of the original inhabitants of conquered regions. Before
their conquest, most lived close to the land. Their concern about autonomy is different from
ethnonationalists. Until recently, few had a strong sense of collective identity. Discrimination and
3
exploitation by the more technologically advanced people have caused a growing sense of
common identity and purpose.
Most indigenous peoples live in the peripheral regions of modern states, and have faced
severe political and economic pressures. They have lost traditional lands and resources to
settlers and developers, and have been victims of ethnocide/cultural genocide – destruction of
their culture.
For centuries, indigenous peoples have resisted dominant groups through sporadic and
uncoordinated uprisings and attempts to migrate to more remote regions. But a global indigenous
rights movement, which started in 1970s, has been an important development affecting
indigenous peoples. E.g. the World Council of Indigenous Peoples, UN Working Group on
Indigenous Populations. The latter has prepared a draft Universal Declaration of Indigenous
Rights. The movement has not only encouraged political activism among previously passive
groups, but also affected government policies towards them by softening public and official
resistance against their demands.
Communal Contenders
Communal contenders are ethnic groups whose main political aim is to share power in the
governments, rather than gain autonomy. For example, the state governments of Lebanon,
Pakistan, and Malaysia are plural societies made up of an assemblage of competing
ethnopolitical groups. The government arrangements are based on coalitions among leaders of
major ethnic groups. Such arrangements can become unstable if one ethnic group’s leader
attempts to improve his or her relative position at the expense of others, and often lead to
conflicts that can become full-blown warfare. However, war is not inevitable in such situations.
For example, the white-dominated South African government accepted the right of the Black
population to participate in governance.
In some cases, the ethnopolitical group that finds itself losing shifts to a strategy of
autonomy. The distinction between ethnonationalists and communal contenders is not rigid – a
communal group that demanded secession could be convinced to join a governing coalition.
There are two strategies for accommodating the interests of large ethnopolitical minorities – to
persuade communal leaders to accept a share of power in the governing elite, or to grant
communal groups regional autonomy within a federal political system.
Ethnoclasses
Ethnoclasses are distinct minorities who occupy distinct social strata and have specialized
economic roles in the societies in which they now live. They are ethnic groups that resemble
classes. Most ethnoclasses in advanced industrial countries are descendants of slaves or
immigrants brought in to do menial labor – Africans in Britain and North America, Turks in
Germany, and Koreans in Japan. The ethnoclasses in the Third World also have immigrant
origins, but often tend to be economically advantaged merchants and professionals who are
subject to political restrictions – Chinese in Southeast Asia.
The distinction between ethnoclasses and communal contenders is also blurred. Both
want to improve their status within an existing political system. Some ethnoclasses – Maghrebins
in France, Koreans in Japan, many African Americans – are also trying to protect and promote
their cultural traditions. Ethnoclasses are usually widely dispersed within a larger population, and
virtually never use the language or demands of nationalists.
Dominant minorities is a distinct ethnoclass – distinct ruling groups like the Afrikaaners
and the Tutsi that governed over subordinate majorities by using the power of state to maintain
political and economic advantages.
International factors, like transnational movement of immigrants and refugees, continue
to shape ethnoclass formation. Most are visible minorities who are subject to special, often
discriminatory treatment in their host countries. One of the modern shared values is the principle
that people of all ethnic and religious backgrounds within each society should enjoy equal
economic and political opportunities. Thus, countervailing international factors are at work on
ethnoclasses – migration is creating new ethnoclasses and advantaged groups are being
pressured to incorporate them on an equal basis with others.
4
Politically Active Religious Minorities
Much attention has been given in the past two decades to the resurgence of religious-based
conflict, especially conflicts involving Muslims. Religious differences create a special intensity in
conflicts between peoples when a dominant group attempts to impose rules based on its religious
beliefs on others. However, differences of religion are seldom the only or even the most important
cause of ethnic conflict. The relative significance of religious versus other factors in a particular
conflict can change over time.
5