Kaufmann--"Possible 29. and Impossible Solutions to Ethnic Civil War" The three ways ethnic war ends is either victory by one side of the conflict, temporary military suppression by a third party, or self-governance of separate communities. Kaufmann concludes that the best action to take is to demographically separate the ethnic groups because an intermingled population causes a security dilemma in which identities would be further hardened and the chances for ethnic cleansing and opportunity for combat are most likely to occur. Kauffman examines the significant role identity plays in ethnic wars, in comparison to ideological wars. Unlike identity in ideological wars, ethnic identity is the most rigid and is unchangeable. Because it is fixed by birth and can depend on religion, culture, parentage, or language, trying to persuade loyalty at the individual level does not play a factor in ethnic war. There is no shared mobilization between the warring ethnic groups. Each group is separated by their ethnicity. People of the other group cannot be swayed because identity is rigid. Identity can also be created. People who are not directly involved in combat or may not categorize themselves strongly with the group will be brought into the conflict. On the one end, strong rhetoric by extremists may put sanctions on those who "do not contribute to the cause." Secondly, the radical members of the opposing group can impose identity on another group. They themselves with mobilize and define themselves in terms of what the other group is not, then in turn create mobilization of the other group that may not have been strongly united. Because these identities are hardened, the control of territory is essential, and every piece of land has to be fought for. In an intermingled society this creates a security dilemma. Groups in ethnic war have everything to lose and will fight for their land. Because the groups have clear membership and its mobilization is limited to certain members, the overpowering opposing group's people will reduce its mobilization base. This is a security dilemma for both sides because there is constant battle, especially when the government cannot take control of the situation. Strong rhetoric is in place, and military offense is more prevalent than defense. There is no clear offense or defensive line. Thus, the separated smaller communities are most easily taken in an intermingled society because it is difficult to set up a defense. There is a continual mutual threat under these circumstances. Kauffman argues that separation will reduce the security dilemma because the groups are less inclined to fight, and fighting will not be an obligatory element in the conflict. Alternatives to inaction: - the successful domination of one group over the other. - the reconstruction of ethnic identities, especially aimed at implementing a nationalistic identity to end the conflict - is power-sharing in which each group would have joint control in the government and autonomy on ethnic issues. Although a good attempt at peace, Kaufmann argues again The common theme under which these alternatives are unable to work is the existence of the security dilemma. As long is it there, none of these solutions will work and the only way to improve it is to demographically separate the groups through international intervention. Kaufmann proposes that international intervention based on this strategy is the best solution to ethnic war. Separation of the groups and reaching between the groups, which would give them incentive to stop fighting, and secondly to provide military aid to the weaker side to stop or prevent genocide.. To sum it up, the interventionist should create a balance between the groups and borders should be drawn up in terms of defense. There's the existence that partition does not resolve ethnic hatred. While this may be true, separation will reduce the security dilemma, and distinguish the need of each group to keep perpetuating crimes each other.