The Causes and Solutions to Ethnic Conflicts

When a researcher studies the causes of most wars, the causes for nearly any war are usually innumerable. However, there are a select few wars that even in the presence of several different motives, one underlying object or ideal seems to always be the root of the problem. One prime example of this idea is the American Civil War wherein almost every individual soldier had a different reason for being on the battlefront. One nation whose people had grown into a melting pot had slowly been torn down the center for several decades before the inevitable war came. Slavery seemed to affect everything in the United States during the time leading up to, during, and even after the Civil War. Thus, the issue was unavoidable, and whatsoever conflict

Throughout history, our world has constantly been bruised and battered by civil turmoil. Today, the civil war in Syria decimates the country; the Israeli and Palestinian conflict rages on; tens of thousands of people have been killed in South Sudan's ongoing civil war. It is not always easy to isolate what exactly ignites the flames of war, but, whenever possible, finding a workable, calm and satisfying solution to a potential uprising is preferable.

The largest cause of ethnic violence seen worldwide is internal ethnic strife brought about from physical and cultural differences. Typically, one notable difference is simply the language in which certain groups speak.

War is easily explained through the lens of social conflict theory, a sociological theory that suggests society tends toward conflict because it is made up of groups with competing interests and unequal resources. The theory proposes that a

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

The second Part of Jonathan R. White’s ninth edition Terrorism and Homeland Security deals with the national and ethnic movements of international terrorism, their emergence as well as well as motifs. Ideological terrorist and ethnic separatists are hard to differentiate since they use the same procedures and tactics to get their demands. Although both fall under the definition of terrorism, there is a difference in the definition of their goals and demands. While separatists have defined, achievable goal, religious terrorists have a nihilistic ideology that are from a rational point of view not feasible. Therefore, it is impossible for satisfactorily negotiation

In the world today, ideological differences are the root causes of many conflicts between individuals or nations and if allowed to aggravate, it becomes the brush strokes for a canvas that turn out to be the portrait of an all-out warfare. However, before countries engage in militarism, it is prudent that the leadership takes pragmatic steps towards a peaceable resolution because the misconception among architects of conflict is to further private agenda for their personal benefit. In a blind quest for gratification, these benefits are an opportunity cost for the larger society who is the unfortunate recipient of the ensuing anarchy. Nothing is fair in war; casualties caught up within the crossfire

With the great diversity in the world disagreements over race and religion are ubiquitous. Consequently, opinions over these subjects are the biggest contributors to war and bloodshed. Changes made in long standing traditions were greeted with hostility. Religion and Absolutism caused disharmony in European countries as well as strife over religion and government.

Realists’ argue, “Relations amongst human groups revolve around conflict” (Sens & Stoett, 2014, p.14). In America’s stance, this has been true to a certain extent. For example, the Libyan revolution would not have been possible without U.S. intervention.

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).

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

Since ethnicity is closely tied with religious purposes, many groups, particularly terrorist groups, inflict their perspectives upon others for the sake of their religion. They are not interested in power, although such prospects no doubt play a part, nor are they concerned about things like wealth and freedom. Fareed Zakaria explains, in their article “Why do they Hate Us?” that “They don’t blow themselves up to kill thousands of civilians…There is something stronger at work here than deprivation and jealousy. Something that can move men to kill but also to die” (260). More often than naught, ethnic groups harbor ill will towards other ethnicities, while terrorists are more focused on targeting random areas, not particular concerned by whom is targeted, ethnic conflicts have lead to intrastate violence replacing interstate

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.

Is there a difference between genocide and war? The idea and concepts of conflict are often misunderstood. To many, any form of conflict is war. War can be defined as a direct violent encounter between two or more opposing parties with a view to gaining access to an object of their mutual interests. It is usually accompanied by the use of weapons such as guns, bows and arrows, machetes, sticks, biological weapons, and weapons of mass destruction. (Insert bibliography #1). Genocide has been described as a specific term, referring to violent crimes committed against particular groups, with the intent to destroy the existence of such groups (insert bibliography #1). Having said that, one common factor often exhibited by genocide perpetrators is to destroy a group perceived to be a threat to the ruling power. The purpose of this paper is to take a look at both the historic and political causes for the Rwanda Genocide, and to distinguish whether ethnicity was the cause or was it the aspect of the conflict.

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)