Ethnic Conflicts1
Ethnic Conflicts: The Impact of Localized Conflicts on the International Community
Jessica Pilarski
POLS 260, Section 01 Doctor Sooh-Rhee Ryu 25 March 2014
Ethnic Conflicts2
Numerous political science theories argue that international peace is impossible due to the current system of anarchy; the realist perspective, to name one, argues the point that each individual country is primarily concerned with their own self-interests. These interests vary depending on the country and may include a need for resources, a need for a trade agreement, a need to expand, a need to acquire allies to halt the offensive country’s attack, and a need for a partnership of some sort. In all of these instances, the self-interests of individual countries are met through interacting with other actors in the international community. Some countries share similar interests or needs and so the interactions remain peaceful; usually, however, opposing forces are pit against one another in what results in a conflict involving multiple actors. In a winner-take-all situation, inevitably someone ends up the loser. As the world becomes more interconnected, these smaller, localized conflicts are beginning to have a larger impact on the international community. What makes ethnic conflicts stand out from other sources of conflict is that these conflicts are stationary, so to speak. A country is not pitted against another country but rather ethnic groups engage with others in a negative manner, creating at best tension between the groups and at worst creating a civil war. As authors Ed Cairns and John Darby write, “In ethnic conflicts, unlike international wars, the combatants permanently inhabit the same battlefield.” In some instances that will be discussed later in this paper, the country splits itself up to settle the dispute between warring ethnic groups. In others, attempts to completely wipe out the opposition are made. On occasion an effort is made to reach peace and keep the country – and its alliances – intact. An example of a country splitting into two to resolve tension between two ethnic groups would be that of Ireland. In the article “The Conflict of Northern Ireland: Causes, Consequences,
Ethnic Conflicts3
and Controls,” authors Ed Cairns and John Darby summarize the conflict by saying that “… at its most basic [it is] a struggle between those who wish to see Northern Ireland remain part of the United Kingdom and those who wish to see the reunification of the island of Ireland.” Presently Ireland is split into two separate countries: Northern Ireland, which remains part of the United Kingdom, and the Republic of Ireland in the south, which is independent. In this case, the two opposing forces were based on religion, though the dispute itself was not over religious differences: Catholic Nationalists, who wished to see a unified Ireland, and Protestant Unionists, who wish to “maintain the legal, economic, and political link with the UK” (Cairns & Darby, 1998). The two sides both had militant groups that gained notoriety during the times of conflict, which reoccurred during the 1920s, 1940s, and 1950s, with a twenty-five year-long period of uninterrupted violence from 1969-1994; these groups were the Irish Republican Army for the Catholic Nationalists and the Ulster Volunteer Force for the Protestant Unionists. The conflict began as a result of England’s control of the Irish people and their resources. Cairns and Darby write that the “Plantation of Ulster introduced to the North of Ireland a community of foreigners… By the 18th century, the colonists occupied 95% of the land which they had confiscated from the natives.” These foreigners settled mainly in the northern part of Ireland. They were Protestant and liked the ties with the United Kingdom; the natives, Catholics, remained in the south opposed the occupation of their land. The country split itself into two nations in an attempt to appease the ethnic differences but to no avail. The 1920s was when the violence first became paramount, with the Irish Republican Army launching attacks against Northern Ireland forces in an attempt to force reunification. The twenty-five year stretch results in over three thousand dead and over thirty thousand injures. Two thousand of those deceased were innocent civilians
Ethnic Conflicts4
What resulted from this conflict is that Northern Ireland is dependent upon England economically, especially so when it joined the European Union in 1973. This is an interesting point given that the economic inequality in Northern Ireland; according to Cairns and Darby, Catholics have a higher rate of unemployment and a higher rate of reliance on social welfare programs. Since joining the European Union it has remained a neutral country in foreign affairs and is the most pro-European of the EU member states – 77% of citizens approving of the membership. The Republic of Ireland has since gone on to forge strong partnerships with the United States and, surprisingly, the British. China is also a key trade partner with the Republic of Ireland. In a similar situation is Scotland and its relations with the United Kingdom. Scotland has, since 1707, tried to gain independence from the United Kingdom. Scotland first became unified with England in 1707 due to a failing economy and it being a poor country; at the time, the country needed England’s backing in order to support itself. This move is disputed however by opponents that argue those who signed the Act of Union – the agreement that bound Scotland and Ireland together – were bribed by England. Robert Burns, a famous poet of the time, wrote, “We are bought and sold for English gold.” This move for independence has gone on since then but has gained traction in recent years, with the Scottish National Party gaining a huge majority in the Scottish Parliament in 2011. In November of 2013 the leader of the SNP Alex Salmond announced a referendum to be dated on September 18, 2014, for citizens to vote whether Scotland should remain tied to the United Kingdom or become an independent nation. Polling shows that citizens are divided over the decision, making predicting independence difficult to do.
Ethnic Conflicts5
Currently England refers to Scotland as a “region” in a general sense, according to Murray Pittock, author of the book The Road to Independence?: Scotland Since the Sixties, yet he points out when Scotland is mentioned in regards to sporting events England refers to it as a nation. Scotland still uses the British pound and has stated they would like to continue doing so, something that the three main political parties in England have stated opposition to. The UK Treasury published an analysis by member Sir Nicholas Macpherson who wrote that “Currency unions between sovereign states are fraught with difficulty. They require extraordinary commitment, and a genuine desire to see closer union between the peoples involved” (Macpherson, 2014). Given that Scotland is seeking independence, England’s reluctance to share its currency is somewhat understandable. Macpherson also cites the fact that Scotland has expressed an openness to creating their own currency, thus eliminating the necessity of the pound in that nation, as well as the fact that “Scotland’s banking sector is far too big in relation to its national income, which means that there is a very real risk that the continuing UK would end up bearing most of the liquidity and solvency risk which it creates.” Indeed, Scotland’s banking sector is large enough already, but separating from the United Kingdom could potentially make Scotland one of the richest nations in the world due to its oil and gas reserves. Its proximity with the North Sea, an area rich with oil, would enable Scotland to drive up oil prices in the surrounding region. Opponents of the Scottish National Party, however, argue that this reliance on oil and gas reserves may be the nation’s undoing; these reserves are limited, with approximately thirty to forty years of drilling left, according to a graphic posted in the article “Scottish independence: What’s going on in Scotland?” What Scotland’s potential independence means, according to the aforementioned article, varies depending on where a person lives. For someone in Scotland, the author Severin Carrell
Ethnic Conflicts6
writes that “it should mean greater direct say over one’s government and more political freedom, but also greater economic risks, less security, and more differences with England.” The rest of the world is not expected to be majorly impacted as Scotland intends on remaining a member of the European Union, but its prominence with oil may influence gas prices in other regions of the world, and new alliances may be forged or broken. For a non-Scottish resident of the United Kingdom, not much will change aside from England’s economy downsizing, rising prices in oil and whiskey, and England’s overseas status potentially weakening. This overseas status is of relative importance considering England’s long history of colonization, the most well-known of which is the colonization of India. India gained independence in 1947 and since then has engaged in a civil war with Pakistan, a region of land that was once a part of India but split off shortly after India became a sovereign state. This division was suggested by a student by the name of Caudhuri Rahmat Ali because the northwest region of India was predominantly Muslim and what is now India predominantly Hindu. This divide led to riots when Muslims, Sikhs, and Hindus were “on the wrong side of the fence,” as the timeline on BBC entitled “India-Pakistan: Troubled Relations” describes, meaning that the divide separated minorities from their majority counterparts due to the new border. These riots led to an estimated half million deaths. The violence would not end there but rather span over to two regions: Kashmir and Jammu. Originally under Sikh rule in the early 19th century, these regions were lost to the British, who then gave the regions to India. The new state of Pakistan felt this was a poor decision for a majority of the population in those regions were predominantly Muslim and India was a Hindu country, but India maintained its position and authority of the regions by citing the fact that the rulers of those regions had sided with India. A war broke out in 1947 and bled into 1948 when
Ethnic Conflicts7
Pakistan supported a Muslim insurgency. This war ended only after the United Nations intervened and mandated a ceasefire. Fights broke out once more in 1965 between border patrols and, “when the Indians withdrew, Pakistan claimed victory.” Later that year another fight broke out, this time over the ceasefire line, and resulted once more with the United Nations intervening. In 1966 Pakistan and India signed a declaration stating their intentions to end the disputes. This ended five years later when, once again, war broke out, this time between West Pakistan and East Pakistan, India being caught in the middle and siding with East Pakistan, which after the war became an independent country – now Bangladesh. The violence continued on and off from 1989 to 2001. The continued involvement of the United Nations, as well as the tense relations Pakistan shares with India and Afghanistan both, makes this a particularly volatile region in an isolated area of the world that has a much larger impact on the international community. These relations aside, one of the disputed regions – Kashmir – is today split into three areas controlled by India, Pakistan, and China, thus involving yet another actor in an already chaotic plot. The continued violence has resulted in numerous human rights violations, with civilians being the main victims. According to the study “Conflict in the Indian Kashmir Valley II: psychosocial impact,” a majority of those surveyed had experienced exposure to crossfire (86%), raids (83%), and “high numbers of people reported being subjected to maltreatment (44%), forced labor (33%), kidnapping (17%), torture (13%), and sexual violence (12%)” (2008). These human rights violations nearly guarantee the involvement of the humanitarian groups around the world, thus involving players from numerous states with the potential for more concrete involvement should these humanitarian groups become threatened or injured.
Ethnic Conflicts8
As isolated as these incidences may seem, especially to our relatively blinded western society that places an emphasis on local, domestic issues over worldwide issues, the examples of Ireland, Scotland, and the Kashmir region show that these seemingly isolated issues are not nearly as isolated as they may seem. Their impacts may not be felt as concretely as they are in the immediate area but are nonetheless felt in some way. As the realism theory states, these conflicts will continue as long as the international community remains under anarchy. The United Nations, though it does intervene at times, does not have the capabilities to ensure that peace reigns, especially when so many states fight for such a variety of reasons.
Ethnic Conflicts9
Bibliography Black, A. (2013, November 26). Q&A: Scottish independence referendum. BBC News. Retrieved March 26, 2014, from http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-13326310 Black, A. (2014, March 18). Scottish independence: What's going on in Scotland?. BBC News. Retrieved March 25, 2014, from http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics26550736 Cairns, E., & Darby, J. (1998). The conflict in Northern Ireland: Causes, consequences, and controls. American Psychologist, 53(7), 754. de Jong, K., Kam, V. D. S., Ford, N., Lokuge, K., Fromm, S., van Galen, R., ... & Kleber, R. (2008). Conflict in the Indian Kashmir Valley II: psychosocial impact. Confl Health, 2(11). Macpherson, N. (2014). Scotland and a Currency Union. Personal communication. Pittock, M. (2008). The road to independence?: Scotland since the sixties. London: Reaktion.