Cause Of Conflict: The Four Causes Of Ethnic Conflict

His approach attempts to consider deeper causes of intrastate violence than traditional case-studies have done (Newman 2014, 63). Newman identifies four general types of civil war: ethnic, political-ideological, weakened or failed state, and resource-based (Newman 2014, 63-65). Most intrastate conflicts can be characterized by a combination of these classifications and their influences. Newman defines four loose requirements for a conflict to be considered using this model. First, a conflict must mainly occur within the borders of an internationally recognized state to be considered “civil” rather than interstate (Newman 2014, 62). Secondly, civil wars are fought between organized groups rather than individuals or unorganized affiliates (Newman 2014, 62). Governmental military forces fit this mold, but are not required for a conflict to be deemed as intrastate. Third, there must be evidence of sustained violence. Newman defines this threshold as 1,000 fatalities (Newman 2014, 62). Last, belligerents must be fighting with a political objective in mind (Newman 2014, 62). This requirement is given a wide range of applicability, as almost any objectives of a group can be defined as political. The Nigerian civil war of the late 1960s fits all of these parameters, and can therefore be analyzed using the typologic system devised by

Huntington’s initial article argued that in the post-Cold War era the fundamental source of conflict would not be ideological or economic, but cultural. He continues by arguing that nation states will continue to be the most powerful actors in global affairs, but the conflicts of global politics that are to occur in the future will happen between

In fact, while the distinctive ideologies and religious groups still exist, the clear boundaries of different civilizations characterized by Huntington have blurred. When this dichotomy to recognize the world as direct confrontations between ideology and culture groups becomes no longer valid, the theory of the inevitability of the clash of civilization, thus, are now flawed, because it is realistically unreasonable, ethically wrong, conceptually biased and historically inaccurate. These problems regarding the clash of civilizations embody a misleading western supremacy shown in Bush’s speech as well as the war on terror on a larger

Theoretically significant to conflict is social identity theory. It allows “predictions to incorporate who is likely to perceive and act in group terms, to remain committed to the group in times of crisis” Turner (1999), Doosje & Ellemers, (1999). Bar-Tal stresses conflict exists when an incompatible goal exists between two groups. The question of when incompatibility sets become important in understanding the cause of inter-ethnic or communal conflicts for instance, even more importantly; conflict within ingroup. Inter-ethnic or communal conflict because within the scope of peacebuilding, that is the point where building peace thrives the most. There is an assumption that for peacebuilding to be

Political violence in violence outside of state control that is motivated by politics. The three main explanations for political violence are institutionally, ideationally, and individually. An institutional explanation focuses on how institutions of the state contribute to political violence. Ideationally, political violence can be explained by political or even religious ideas or beliefs. Individual motivated political violence focuses on the internal factors that make individuals seek out violence. Political violence can be sponsored by state organizations and non-state organizations and can target both civilians and the state itself. Some factors that play into political violence are ethnicity, nationalism, religion, ideology, political

The ongoing conflict between India and Pakistan has been the subject of speculation and study by political scientists and historians for a number of years. The ethnic conflict seems to have been sparked at the very beginning in 1947, when the British used Muslim and Hindu mercenaries against each other before the area finally split into today’s countries of India and Pakistan (Spiegel et al. 2015, 185). The timeline since then has been full of conflicts, both major and minor. Brutal tactics used by security forces and a high rate of unemployment have added to the issue (BBC News 2016).

With a long stemming past of ethnic conflict within Yugoslavia, the country at long last disassembled over what historians would argue was “The bloodiest war in Europe since World War II” (Multi-Ethnic Conflict: Yugoslavia.). Yugoslavia was a country composed of six republics- The socialist republic of Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia, and Slovenia. The country was created after world war one in 1929 and was under the control of the Soviet Union up until 1991 when the Soviet Union broke apart. With the fall of the Soviet Union came the inevitable turmoil, violence and destruction within Yugoslavia- the country began to fall apart. Ethnic conflict had been the root of war and violence through out numerous countries all around the world for centuries. The ethnic conflict of Yugoslavia was caused by differences in religion and ethnicity, different perspectives on government and politics, and disagreements over territory. Yugoslavia was just far too small for the different nationalities and government structures within it.

In the argument “Clash of Civilians” written by Samuel Huntington, he states that Western conflicts arose between nation states and ideologies. During the cold war the First, Second, and Third Worlds were divided by their status. Post Cold War it no longer mattered. International policies shift from Western being the main focus to focusing on the West and non-Western civilizations. The differences in civilization when it comes to their culture, customs, religion, ethnicity, have been there for centuries and after the Cold War the politics among states is much less fundamental. Civilization is far more fundamental today and throughout time, civilization identity will continue to be a major component.

Reasons for ethnical tension between the Hutus and Tutsis have been the subject to several studies. “Historian have purported “ethnic hatred” as the cause of the Rwanda Genocide and while an ethnic divide was indeed present in Rwanda around the time of the conflict, the reasons for the genocide are multiple and far more complex.” (Hain 5) The Hutus were the original inhabits of Rwanda, but in the 15th century the Tutsis peacefully took over Rwanda and

Conflict between and within nations is proven by history to be expected, but the answer to which countries are at a higher risk for conflict depends on whom you are asking. The reading “Ethnicity, Insurgency and Civil War” by James D. Fearon and David D. Laitin, argues that the conditions that favour insurgency are better predictors of which countries are at risk for internal conflict. Determining which countries are at a higher risk depends on multiple logical factors for the perfect environment for rebellion to occur. These factors are based on the political, economic, and organization of the state in question. Fearon and Laitin dissect the formula for rebellion piece by piece over the course of the entire article. By the end it left me in

With this conceded class distinction came the fight for reigning ability, and amidst this power vacuum, Rwandans fell victim to conflicting groups and crime, the eventual building blocks that lead to the massacre of 800,000 civilians. The origins of this ethnic loathing and in turn ethnic genocide can be secured to European colonialism, where those who arrived to colonize and yield the wealth of western knowledge, instead carried racist beliefs. Through this haunting event in history, when foreign governments unfittingly place their ideologies in unknown territory, revealed is how uninvited nations can destabilize a state by stimulating ethnic warfare, causing it to collapse and crumble through conflict.

Samuel Huntington sees an emerging world organized on the basis of "civilizations". Societies that share cultural affinities cooperate with each other and the efforts to force a society into another civilization will fail; countries gather around the leading States of their civilization. This description of the process of new structures of international relations that Huntington sees developing, leads him to consider that the greatest risks of violence and confrontation lie in the Westerns’ claims to universality, which are leading them to increasingly get into conflict with other civilizations, particularly Islam and China; local conflicts, especially between Muslims and non-Muslims, generate new alliances and lead to an escalation of violence, which will usually lead the dominant states to make an attempt to stop them.

Lately there has been a thought that the difference in Civilizations is another issue that may cause a conflict. Starting from World War I the arguments raised by nations were over an ideology: fascism vs. communism, communism vs. democracy. Some people believe that the next step would be a war based on a cultural sense and religion. Such war would unite people with similar beliefs, views on the world, language, tradition and history. They believe the conflict of the future will occur along the cultural fault lines separating civilizations [1].

Leonard Binder states, "Most observers see little good coming out of an ethnic narcissism that conduces to the demonization of the other." (p. 6) These conflicts often escalate to the point where the original crisis fades into the background, and the participants lose sight of it altogether. Each group believes that when one gains, the other loses automatically. Similarly, when one group compromises, it is also a loss. This is particularly difficult when religion is involved because groups will not compromise their beliefs and ethnic loyalties are very strong. Additionally, nation-states include ethnic strategies into their government, foreign policy, and politics in general. (Binder 8)

In The Clash of civilizations Huntington argued that the future conflict would be different in the Post-Cold war era. In which different ideologies would not be the main reason for world problem but instead it would be because of the differences between cultures. The division of power would be placed in the civilizations that have the similar cultural norms. Huntington states that the “most dangerous enmities occur across fault lines between major civilizations” (20). This argued that foreign affairs cannot be peaceful or accommodating rather that these affairs go onto the basis of the influence of power based on different civilizations societal norms. The major societies that Huntington included were the western, Sinic, Islamic and Orthodox civilizations. The “ fault lines” between these societies