Ethnic Conflict

Ethnic Conﬂict

A Global Perspective

Stefan Wolff

Why do the nations so furiously rage together, and why do the people imagine a vain thing? Georg Friedrich Händel, The Messiah

Contents

Illustrations xi Maps xiii

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 208 Index 215

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 presiden- tial 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 gener- ated 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 sched- uled for May. Finally, at the conclusion of an Indo-Pakistani sum- mit 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

‘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

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 neces- sary 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

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 com- mitment 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 warn- ing 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 overwhelm- ing majority of this same people want nothing more than an end to the senseless violence?

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 explan- ations 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

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

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 inter- ested 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 out- side help? Is it the lack of resources and skills to find and imple- ment 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 increas- ing 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 trans- ition 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

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 fam- ilies 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 perpet- rators 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.

FROM: Ethnic Conflict. Oxford University Press 2006. No reprint without permission.