"Ethnic Byman: Conflict in Today's World" and "Causes of Ethnic Conflict" Key Definitions: Ethnic Group a group of people bound together by a belief of common kinship and group distinctiveness, often reinforced by religion, language, and history. -also one that numbers, or has numbered, over ten thousand people -ex: Russians (a common language, perceptions of a shared history) -ex: Jews (belief in common ancestry reinforced by a common religion and history) Ethnic Conflict a violent conflict between ethnic groups or between an ethnic group and government forces that consist of one or more different ethnic groups. Ethnic conflict also embraces sectarian conflict as long as the religious groups in conflict operate essentially as a community. -An ethnic conflict can be considered terminated when deaths fall below a hundred per year for a minimum of 20 years (although rape, riots and other forms of violence should also be considered). -Two main types of conflict: 1. group versus group conflict, with the government acting as a third party (ex: Hindu-Muslim riots in India) 2. group versus government conflict, where the government is an active party acting on behalf of one ethnic group (ex: Tamil rebellions against the Sinhalese-dominated central government in Sri Lanka) Byman examines four theories of the causes of ethnic conflict: the ethnic security dilemma, staus concerns, hegemonic ambitions, and the aspirations of elites. -Byman notes that the one similarity between these four causes is the necessity of organization for a sustained campaign or violence (must have some established leaders, an intelligence network, a recruitment arm, sources of money, and perhaps links to outside supporters). -These four causes can coexist. -Identifying the causes of ethnic conflict is useful when delving into the broader question how to keep the peace. Ethnic Security Dilemma: -Seeking to enhance one's own security causes reactions that, in the end, can make one less secure -Groups war when no sovereign authority can ensure a group's security -Particularly important when explaining conflicts where governments are absent or weak, but can be applied to all cases where groups feel threatened -There doesn't have to be anarchy for this theory to apply, it can also come into play where sovereign authority is weak (like it was in many traditional monarchies before colonialism), where the central government is a party to conflict (as in Ba'athist Iraq with the repression of the Kurds), or in situations of sudden change (like a shift in the political balance among groups or the demobilization of group military forces). -Perceptual security dilemmas emphasize the role that malleable factors such as group norms about the use of force, the degree of ethnic chauvinism, and elite manipulation of information play in leading to a security dilemma. Certain institutional structures can make it easier for elites to foster the perceptions necessary to trigger a security dilemma. -Structural security dilemmas emphasize a lethal mix of geography, weapons technology, and population dispersion which can make a security dilemma inevitable. -Necessary conditions for the security dilemma to function: 1. groups must have a reason to fear one another or at least to be uncertain about another group's intentions. This fear can come from historical quarrels (not necessarily "ancient hatreds", but the past is not irrelevant), a group's concern about its status being degraded, when the same ethnic group lives in multiple states, or from deliberate distortions by group leaders 2. there must be a weak or biased central government
3. when there is incomplete information Ethnic Status Concerns: -Status causes conflict when one distinguishable group blocks another's quest for recognition or social legitimacy. Questions of group worth easily become political. -Status concerns differ from those of the security dilemma in that groups fear not only for their survival but also for their own cultural or social domination (but once a conflict begins, status concerns and security fears often become interwoven) -For status to be a source of conflict, groups must be able to compare their relative positions in society. Five complementary (and often concurrent) events bring groups into positions where they can compare their status: Migration, Modernization, Colonization, Education, and the Collapse of an empire. (p. 24) -Conflict is particularly likely between "advanced" and "backward" groups. Advanced groups tend to be tied to a modern sector of the economy, while backward groups strive to ensure their fair share in society and government and fear being overwhelmed by the advanced group. -Conflict is also likely when central authority collapses, or another event occurs that brings groups into competition (like migration and modernization). -Symbols are important in status conflicts, such as citizenship, official languages, distinctive dress, or education (as a source of new elites). -Intellectuals, such as teachers, writers, artists and historians, who help form and transmit cultural identity play a vital role in status conflicts. They can create a durable culture that demands recognition or helps meld the dominant and non-dominant cultures. -Rival nationalism can spur a growth in ethnic status concerns, particularly if it is made up of a single rival ethnic group. Hegemonic Ambitions: -Hegemonic groups want to ensure their status and security to a degree that subordinates that of other communities -Hegemonic elites often believe that their narrow is group the legitimate ruler of the polity -No compromise and adherence to a Jacobin, integrationist model of the state -The need for cultural validation through dominance has proven a potent cause of exclusive and violence-oriented policies -Quest for communal hegemony (and resistance to it) was a major contributor to the post-Cold War conflicts that broke out in Georgia, Indonesia, Russia, and the former Yugoslavia -When the government is controlled by a hegemonistic majority, it creates a security threat to minorities. Under these circumstances, the minority not only cannot rely on the government to prevent violence but rather must immediately defend itself or risk defeat and slaughter. In contrast to the standard security dilemma dynamic, it is not state weakness that produces this, but rather a strong state in the hands of a group's enemies. -Minority resistance to attempted hegemony is made more likely by three factors: past bloodshed; a strong, established culture; and progress on minority rights elsewhere. -Perhaps the most difficult type of conflict to solve because either other groups must subordinate their own status or and security concerns, or the hegemonic group must change its ambitions. -Hegemonic beliefs can inspire three attitudes that engender conflict: the right to rule; the right to assimilate others and impose the dominant group's way of life; and the right to kill or mistreat other groups on the grounds of their supposed inferiority. Elite Competition: -A group's leaders often have agendas of their own that lead to conflict or increase the scope and scale of existing tensions. When elites compete for power they often seek to outbid one another, promoting chauvinistic positions to gain popular support.
-Elites seek to make ethnicity and, more important, their interpretation of what ethnicity means the dominant political issue in order to increase their own power. They try to manipulate existing identities, making some more politically salient and weakening national or other identities that might bring people together. Elites can also exploit existing ethnic tensions, claiming that opposition leaders will sell out to ethnic enemies. -Control over information is essential elites exploit basic democratic freedoms, particularly freedom of expression but also freedom of assembly, to spread their message. If the elites control the state, this includes the exploitation of government propaganda resources such as the education system. -Elite competition can create a security dilemma: elites can portray aggression as more likely to succeed, and other groups as more threatening, than a dispassionate analyst would suggest. -When ethnic outbidding becomes intense, moderates or those who call for compromise are often threatened with violence, silenced or killed. -Ethnicity also empowers and rival set of elites. -Elite competition is more likely to occur when the status quo is in flux (i.e. when a country's political leadership is eroding, as it was in Yugoslavia after Tito's death). The dynamic of elite competition often leads to a competitive mobilization process: as one form of legitimacy decays, all individuals in power suffer; and when one group organizes along ethnic lines, security dilemma and status concerns makes playing the ethnic card attractive to leaders, who must shore up their declining power. -Elite competition assumes that identities are at least somewhat malleable Byman also notes the role of outside powers in ethnic conflict because the causes of conflict are not confined within a state's borders. -Outside powers can trigger the security dilemma by threatening groups' future security (likely if an outside power has historic ties to one group in particular). -Outside support can make resistance a more plausible option, increasing an ethinc group's expectation that it will achieve its goals in spite of opposition from the state (ex: outside support to the Kurds in Iraq made them much more likely to rise up against the central government because they were able to make a more credible attempt at gaining power). -Outside Powers can also highlight the weakness of a central government, thus reducing its credibility regarding the enforcement of peace and the ability to protect one group from the hegemonic predations of another (ex: after the first Gulf War the Iraqi regime suffered a blow and the Shi'a and Kurds rose up almost immediately. -Outside powers can foster disputes over a group's relative status and can publicize claims of discrimination or subordination, thus heightening awareness of potential slight. -Outside powers can also alarm rival communities and heighten their fears (ex: the eager reception of Egyptian president Nasser's pan-Arabism by the world's Sunni Arab population heightened tensions with non-Sunni Arab groups in the Arab world Jews, Berbers, Kurds, and even Shi'a all feared Arab nationalism). -The same outside influences that inspire status and security concerns can also prompt hegemonic conflict because they can change the ambitions of ethnic groups and increase fears of hegemony by rival social groups (ex: Iraq and Syria when Arab nationalist regimes took over). Outside powers can promote these changed attitudes by making hegemony more plausible through their example or by providing a group with material aid. -Outside powers can also make elite competition more likely and more dangerous, for elites often use public space provided by outside powers to promote their agendas (ex: India supported Tibetan dissidents, including the Dalai Lama, in order to weaken China's hold on Tibet).