Chapter 4: The Politics of Cultural Pluralism and Ethnic Conflict

-beginning of 21st century 3rd world suffered from ethnic, racial and religious tensions -led to outbreaks of brutality -where progress in one area, deterioration in another -i.e. 2005, Sudanese gov’t signed peace accord granting south autonomy (self-rule) treaty ended 21 yr. civil war that left 2 million dead after ending conflict gov’t intensified “ethnic cleansing” in West; supported Arab militias (Janjaweed) killed thousands of Muslim Blacks and drove 1 million into refuge -i.e. in Rwanda, Hutus massacred 800 000 Tutsi -i.e. in Yugoslavia, Serbian militias initiated “ethnic cleansing” of Muslim and Croat neighbours -20th century: religious conflicts (India, Lebanon), tribal animosities (Nigeria, Rwanda), racial prejudices (South Africa) led to violence, civil wars, genocides -wars b/w “peoples” will outnumber wars b/w nation-states -for hundreds of years ethnic minorities victims of violence -level of ethnic protests/rebellions w/in states diminished since 1990s (had grown steadily in previous 50 yrs.) -ethnic internal based conflict increased, decrease in wars b/w nations 2/3 conflicts ethnic based, 80% of major conflicts in 1990s ethnic based -brutal wars in past decade: Bosnia, Serbia, Rwanda, Congo, Ethiopia, Sudan, Lebanon, Indonesia—ethnic component since WWII 20 million died in ethnic conflict -predict increase in ethnic conflict over scarce resources in poor densely populated countries -ethnic conflict also in Western democracies and former communist countries (i.e. riots in L.A., Basque terrorism in Spain, separatists in Quebec, warfare in former Yugoslavia, etc.) -cruel in 3rd world b/c LDCs more ethnically diverse and political systems lack institutions and experience approx. 275 minorities at risk; over 1 billion people -ethnic/racial/cultural hostilities oppose modernization theory and social psych. theory (social psych. theory supported at individual level but not b/w groups) social psych. theory: as people of different races increase contact better understand common qualities and decrease prejudices -not all ethnic tensions lead to systematic violence common in India, Middle East, Southeast Asia, portions of Africa less common in Latin America and Far East Defining Ethnicity -ethnic identity usually a social construction—“a way that certain groups have come to view themselves as distinct from others over time” -each ethnicity based on common belief of descent, shared experiences and cultural traits these traits unite group and distinguish it from proximate ethnicities

-J. E. Brown—“A group of people united by a common error about their ancestry and a common dislike of their neighbors” -in times of crisis politicians create historical myths to give group sense of security -ethnic groups not usually socially homogeneous or politically united divided by class, ideology or religion (i.e. South Koreans= Buddhist, Christian or both) factors that bind group more important than those that divide them -some ethnic classifications imposed by outsiders (i.e. colonial admin., missionaries, explorers, anthropologists, etc.) -fear and insecurity w/in individual reduced by collectivity -ethnic consciousness creates barriers b/w groups (i.e. if interreligious or interracial marriages frowned upon) successful ethnic division: Canada, Malaysia, Trinidad-Tobago distrust b/w ethnicities: USA, India, Angola, Indonesia Ethnic and State Boundaries -cause of most internal ethnic conflict: 1) boundaries for nations (distinct cultural-linguistic groups) 2) ethnicities fail to coincide w/ boundaries for states (self-governing countries) -of 191 independent countries 82% have 2 or more ethnic groups (ethnic minorities consist of less than ½ of population) -Africans blame tribal conflict on European colonizers who divided region not connecting ethnic identities creation of hundreds of tiny states would not have been economically viable -colonialism one of many factors -breakdown of European colonialism led to unhappy ethnic marriages -i.e. following Italian and British rule colony of Eritrea forced to merge w/ Ethiopia struggle for independence, decades of civil war, hundreds of thousands killed Types of Ethnic-Cultural Divisions Nationality -nation—a population w/ its own language, cultural traditions, historical aspirations and geographical home -nationhood—belief that “interests and values of this nation take priority over all other interests and values” claim sovereignty over geographic area (unlike ethnic groups) -nation boundaries don’t always coincide w/ those of sovereign states (independent countries) -i.e. Chechens in Russia, Kashmiris in India, Basques in Spain, and Tamils in Sri Lanka -nationality politically important when members united w/ belief in common history and destiny -basis of national identification is the preservation of a distinct language -i.e. French Canadians, Turkish Kurds, Malaysian Chinese -nationalist movements seek to preserve group’s cultural identity and promote economic and political interests

-separatist movements can arise when ethnic minority concentrated and represents majority of population in region -i.e. Tamil-speaking population in Sri Lanka; British conquest provoked friction b/w Sinhalese and Tamil minority conflict over language and cultural divisions after independence Sinhala replaced English as official language—Sinhalese given upper hand (i.e. in job market) in 1978 Tamil acquired equal legal status, Tamil demanded substantial autonomy in Tamil areas Sinhalese faced “minority complex”; threatened by 50 million Tamils living on Indian mainland faced with threats Tamil nationalists became violent; Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) engaged in guerrilla warfare and terrorism India intervened militarily, Indo-Lanka Peace Accord signed, rejected by many Sinhalese (particularly by National Liberation Front) 62 000 killed in civil war Tribe -term “tribe” fairly controversial; arbitrary and unhelpful -many scholars prefer to use terms ethnicity or ethno-linguistic groups -here, tribe used to describe subnational groups that share collective identity and language and believe selves to hold common lineage -term often used to describe Africa and sometimes Asia -tribal identification is a major determinant of support for political parties age, urban vs. rural origin and education also play role and sometimes reduces influence of tribe -intertribal conflict frequently sparks violence in Sub-Saharan Africa -i.e. in Nigeria 3 major ethnic groups: Hausa-Fulani, Ibo and Yoruba; each feared domination by the others 30 000 Ibos killed in military coups in 1966 Eastern Nigeria declared secession to become independent nation of Biafra, backed by Organization of African Unity armed forces surrounded Biafra and tightened grip 1 million Ibos died from war-induced famine Biafra surrendered, Ibos reintegrated into society, today tribal conflict still persists -conflict also seen in Burundi and Rwanda -Angolan and Mozambican civil wars major powers supported one side or the other -corrupt dictators launched campaigns against tribal minorities to win over other ethnic groups Race -most visible ethnic division -i.e. physical differences b/w Blacks, Whites and East Asians apparent -sometimes racial distinctions subtle and elusive -i.e. in La Paz, Bolivia, woman wearing bowler hat and distinctive native skirt is indigenous

-racial divisions not linked to language or cultural differences -when people live in multiracial settings use race to distinguish themselves from “others” -South Africa example of racially based political conflict country ruled by White minority Blacks, majority of population, denied legal and economic rights Apartheid based on a four-fold racial classification: 1. Blacks—greatest level of legal discrimination 2. Coloureds (mixed race)—10% of population 3. Asians (mostly Indians and Pakistanis)—3% Coloureds and Asians had higher status and greater rights than Blacks 4. Whites—15%, had all political and economic power -international and domestic power to end Apartheid, election of Nelson Mandela, end of Apartheid, period of reconciliation Religion

Religion has frequently been a source of bitter communal strife. There is potential tension, or

even conflict between religious groups living in the same country. This type of conflict may put

one religion against another, or may involve a conflict between 2 branches of the same religion

(i.e. Islam). Two factors influence the likelihood of tension between religious groups:

1. The extent to which one religious community feels dominated by another. 2. The degree to which any religion regards their religion as the one true faith and that

alternate theologies are unacceptable.

There has been much conflict between the Hindus and the Muslims in India and Pakistan. In 1992, Hindu fundamentalists destroyed a 16th century mosque, which was located on the spot where they believed the god R=Ram had been born thousands of years ago. Violence between the Hindus and the Muslims intensified, and thousands on both sides were killed.

Muslim separatists in the Indian state of Kashmir are waging a guerilla war aimed at either independence or unification with Pakistan.

In Punjab, another Indian state, 55-60% of the residents are of the Sikh religion. Sikh militants claimed independence and wanted to name the new state Khalistan. There were several uprisings during the 1980’s and early 90’s. By the mid 90’s, after 20,000 combined deaths on both sides, the Indian military contained the separatist movement and support for independence seemed to wane.

Lebanon has also been a battlefield for warring religious factions. 17 religions are represented in the Lebanese political system and the most important are the Maronite Catholics, Shi’a Muslims, Sunni Muslims, and the Druze. The Muslims and the catholic minority have been in conflict over the representation in the government. In addition, Shi'a Muslims, with a larger population than the Sunnis, are fighting for more political power, more seats in the parliament, and more government resources, which are all concentrated in the hands of the smaller Shi'a population. Adding to the conflict were

radical Palestinian refugees, and Syria, which wished to expand its borders. By 1975, there was heavy fighting between all the warring factions. After 15 years of violence and 150,000 deaths, the Arab league managed to negotiate a peace treaty.

In 1989, a Shi'a clergyman founded Hezbollah, a combo political party, armed militia, and social services provider. The party gained popularity when it helped drive the Israeli forces out of southern Lebanon, ending 18 years of occupation. It also set up a parallel system of social services, which proved more effective than the social services provided by the government. In 2006, after Hezbollah kidnapped two Israeli soldiers, Israel invaded Lebanon and launched mass bombings on Hezbollah strongholds. These bombings destroyed a large portion of the countries southern cities, and 1,150 Palestinians and 150 Israelis were killed in the conflict.

There is conflict between the Shi'a and Sunni Muslims in Iraq. The country is made up of approximately 15% Sunni, 60% Shi'a, and 20% Kurds. When the British left Iraq in 1932, the left power in the hands of the small Sunni elite. Since then, the Sunni have oppressed the Shi'a. Upon taking full power, Saddam Hussein intensified conflict by crushing an attempted Shi'a revolt after the gulf war in 1991. Towns in the Shi'a heartland in southern Iraq were razed, and tens of thousands of Shi'a were killed. The Shi'a people rejoiced when Saddam was deposed by the American military. But soon after, ethnic conflict would intensify again. The Sunni extremists began suicide bombings, killing many civilians and American soldiers. On the other side, a young cleric named Muqtada al-Sadr has emerged as the face of the Shi'a military. He commands the Mahdi army, a group of militants whose main aim is to react to the Sunni attacks on the Shi'a. The other major Shi'a militia is the Badr Brigade, the militia branch of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council. The Badr Brigade has taken a more moderate stance though, and even has a working relationship with the American military.

Dependence, Modernization, and Ethnic Conflict

Western analysts once assumed that improved education and communication in the third

world would break down ethnic conflict. Yet in Africa and Asia, it has frequently politicized and

intensified ethnic antagonism. In the new political order after independence, religious, social,

tribal, and nationality groups compete for such state resources as roads, schools, medical

clinics, irrigation projects, and civil service jobs.

Levels of Interethnic Conflict

Although most countries are ethnically heterogeneous, there is a wide variation in how

different ethnicities relate to one another.

Public Harmony

As seen before, modernization often intensifies ethnic antagonism in the short run, but usually

calms them down in the long term. Thus, affluent democracies are more likely than LDC’s to

enjoy amicable ethnic relations. Countries like Switzerland, the U.S. and Canada enjoy relative

ethnic harmony. Although relative ethnic harmony is less common in LDC’s, there are example

sin Brazil and the islands nations of the Caribbean, where relations between blacks and whites

are generally more harmonious than in the U.S. But even countries classified as harmonious are

only categorized that way relative to other, more sharply divided societies. For example, even

though there is a history of inter-ethnic marriage in Cuba, blacks rarely attain positions of

power, and there are still some prevalent racial slurs in the society.

Uneasy Balance

In some LDC’s, relations between the ethnic groups is more strained, in which different ethnic

groups predominate in specific areas of society. For example, in Malaysia, the Muslim majority

dominates the parliament and the government bureaucracy, while the Chinese minority

dominates the private sector. Currently, there is a system of ethnic preferences in education

and civil service for the native Malays, which could lead to growing ethnic antagonisms. In

Trinidad and Tobago, there is tension between the black and Indian populations, which were

brought over during the brutish colonial rule. Currently, Blacks dominate important political,

civil service, military, and police positions, while the Indians are either small to medium

business owners, or poor farmers and farm workers. Currently, both communities continue to

maintain their social, political, and economic distance from one another.

Enforced Hierarchy (Ethnic Dominance)

In enforced hierarchy, both political and economic power is concentrated in the hands of the

ruling ethnic group. South Africa is the most blatant example, where in the 1980’s, whites

dominated both the private sector and the state. In addition, Latin American nations with large

Indian populations, such as Guatemala, Bolivia, and Peru, have a form of ethnic dominance. In

these countries, most positions of political and economic influence rest in the hands of the

whites and Mestizos, while almost all the Indians today are poor peasants and farmers who

occupy the lowest rung of the social ladder.

Systematic Violence

In the worst-case scenario, deep ethnic resentments have sometimes turned into mass violence

or civil war. This has happened in countries such as Bosnia, Chechnya, Lebanon, India,

Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Rwanda, and Sudan among others. Violence in these conflicts

usually results in thousands or hundreds of thousands of deaths, and huge numbers of refugees

and rape victims. Ethnic bloodshed sometimes occurs when one ethnicity seizes power, and

then takes retribution for real or imagined past indignities. For example, when General Idi Amin

seized power in Uganda, he ordered the slaughter of Langi and Acholi soldiers who were

identified with the ousted regime.

Outcomes and Resolutions -peace agreements between ethnic groups are often constrained by history, the degree of previous cooperation, or political culture -political elites can either negotiate solutions or use ethnic tensions to their own advantage

e.g. Compromise between President de Klerk and Nelson Mandela in South Africa; vs. Lack of resolution between Sudanese government & rebel groups in Darfur

-Political leaders can often make a bad situation worse: e.g. President Milosevic promoted ethnic hatred between Bosnian Serbs and Muslims e.g. Rwandan government encouraged Hutus to attack Tutsis in Rwanda.

-Examination of possible outcomes of attempts at negotiations between ethnic groups: A. Power Sharing: Federalism and Consociationalism -constitutionally dividing power b/w ethnic groups -if introduced at time of Independence, may avoid conflict before it has the chance to start Federalism: primary form of Power Sharing -rooted in the desire to form a union (b/w groups) without losing their separate identities -may involve:

-the creation of autonomous or semi-autonomous regions governed by particular ethnicities e.g. Yugoslavia consisted of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes. (This collapsed in the 1990s when

the Communist Party lost power on some of the republics.) e.g. Soviet Union - (also disintegrated with the fall of the Communist Party) - was not a true

example because Russians controlled politics and Moscow controlled all other Republics -Federalism sometimes works in Industrialized countries:

Switzerland - 22 cantons dominated by 3 major languages (French, German, Italian) Canada - based on linguistic rather than ethnic division - Quebec has a substantial amount

of autonomy (culturally) -Developing world: rarely succeeds.

Nigeria attempted federalism (Hausa, Fulani, Ibos, Yoruba). Failed when Ibos tried to withdraw.

Pakistan: tension b/w western region (Urdu) and east (Bengali) - federalism failed - massacre of Bengalis by Pakistani troops.

Ethiopia: failure as well. Consociationalism: careful division of political power designed to protect rights of all participants.

Involves: 1. Leaders of ethnic groups must form a ruling coalition at the national level 2. each group has veto power over government policies that affect them 3. government funds & public employment (civil service) are divided b/w ethnicities - proportionally to each population 4. each group is given autonomy over its own affairs & over the region it populates

-rejects pure majority rule. Rather, protective power for minorities (sometimes veto power) -Examples

Cypress: failed Malaysia: succeeded Lebanon: from independence until civil war (1943-75), was successfully divided between

Christians & Muslims. Failure: proportions did not reflect rates of population growth (higher among Muslims). End of war in 1990 - back to consociational rule. (But ethnic tensions continue - i.e. Hezbollah)

-as consociational systems reduce ethnic tensions, the need for them is reduced. But, trust is needed - if not present (like in Iraq), parliament will be stalemated. -possible recipe for success:

1. No ethnic group must make up the majority of the country's population 2. Economic gap b/w groups must be minimal

BUT neither of these exists in Malaysia and it is still successful

B. Secession -if power sharing does not work, ethnic minorities may attempt to withdraw from the country -provoke bitterness & hostility -Characteristics:

o Begin by seeking only limited rule (more autonomy), but in the end claim full Independence o Defined territorial base (homeland) o Often an organized struggle

-Common in the Third World (due to ethnically divided LDCs) -Often, governments are unwilling to part with the territory/resources, and therefore try to repress the movements -Examples of Secessionist movements:

Tamils in Sri Lanka Ibos in Nigeria Eritreans in Ethiopia Sikhs in northern India

-Gulf War : Hussein's persecution of Kurds in Iraq - but this separation talk dates back to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire after WWI -few have actually successfully seceded. Bangladesh is a rare (& violent) success story (withdrew from Pakistan). Eritrea as well. -fall of the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, & Czechoslovakia in the 1990s due to secessionist conflicts in the 1970s & 80s. But there are no longer many Secessionist Wars today. C. Outside Intervention -moral and practical dilemma for outside actors: morally compelled to help the victimized minority; but constrained by international law/ international power alignments/ lack of resources/ or fear of alienating own citizens. -intervention ranges from taking in refugees to armed intervention -sometimes even taking in refugees seems too risky

e.g. Western democracies limited the influx of refugees when Jews were fleeing from the Nazis in the 1930s

e.g. Recently: the world stood by as millions died in Bosnia, the Congo, Rwanda, and Sudan due to ethnic conflict

*Issue: external intervention violates the principle of National Sovereignty (unless invited in by the government)

-outside intervention is rarely invited in, as, often, the country's government itself is involved in the ethnic violence --> So, at what point to outside forces have the right to violate national sovereignty to save lives?

e.g. Should the int'l community violate Sudanese sovereignty to protect the people of Darfur? Should they have done so in Rwanda? What about when Black Americans were being terrorized by the Ku Klux Klan?

--> Who is to decide? -Issue: Pragmatic questions

--> what if intervention does not impose a durable solution? --> how willing are countries to commit resources (economic & military) & risk the lives of their soldiers for other countries?

(the death of 18 US soldiers in Somalia in 1993 prompted President Clinton to pull out all troops & abandon efforts. Shortly afterwards, the US opted not to intervene in the Rwandan genocide.)

-Generally, peacekeeping is sent only to enforce/monitor settlements that have already been negotiated - e.g. Ivory Coast -if peacekeepers are sent to intervene during conflict, it is often only after the worst of the violence has happened - e.g. East Timor & Sudan -often, states that intervene are either neighbours, have ties to one of the ethnic factions, or have a strategic interest in the country

e.g. India's intervention on behalf of the Bengalis in East Pakistan - formed the nation of Bangladesh e.g. Turkish invasion of Cypress

-International interventions often end badly: o Iraq: the U.S. supported a Kurdish rebellion in 1974 against their Iraqi oppressor, Saddam

Hussein - but only because they were allies with Iran (which was enemies with Iraq). But when Iran & Iraq came to an agreement and Iran stopped helping the Kurds, so did the USA - allowing thousands of Iraqi Kurds to be killed.

-Some outside intervention intensifies conflict: o Congo: nine different African countries intervened in the Congo's ethnic conflict (between the

government and Congolese / Rwandan Hutus). a.k.a. Africa's World War. Up to 5 million died - surely amplified by the intervention of countries like Uganda & Rwanda.

o Sri Lanka: India intervened in the Tamil-Sinhalese conflict. They did not resolve the war, and their Prime Minister Gandhi was killed. Outside Intervention in Iraq: The Effect of the U.S. Occupation on Kurdish Autonomy This is just a case study of international intervention (about the Kurdish people). It is several paragraphs long, beginning on p. 124 and I don't feel that it's necessary to include (especially since this summary is long enough already). Feel free to skim it yourself.

D. Settlement through Exhaustion -settlement through the exhaustion of warring parties

e.g. exhaustion of the Lebanese permitted a settlement of Lebanon's civil war (even though the Arab Leagued helped negotiate it) e.g. exhaustion helped drive warring factions toward the United Nations in Mozambique, Angola, Liberia and Sierra Leone e.g. same in Sudan - end of 21-year war between the Arabic national government in the north, and the Black (non-Muslim) south

Toward a Peaceful Resolution of Conflict -to avoid all of these things, nations must make legal, political & economic solutions to constrain ethnic tensions -measures proposed by American academics:

Write a new constitution - to create new institutional arrangements for power sharing (like federalism)

Establish protection for ethnic minority rights - through constitutional & legal measures, but also through civic education

Create electoral systems - with incentives for cooperation & accommodation b/w groups -these goals are difficult to achieve -it's also difficult to get various ethnic groups to live together harmoniously after years of conflict -reconciliation may be too much to ask - instead coexistence is more realistic. o Coexistence entails the creation of trauma centers, multicultural educational programs & cross-

ethnic development programs Conclusion: Ethnic Pluralism and Democracy -modernized countries are better equipped to resolve ethnic tensions, but the process of modernization itself tends to intensify such conflicts -ethnic conflicts peaked during the late 1980s & early 1990s. Africa has progressed quite a bit lately and fewer conflicts are being started.

o both governments and rebel groups have become more accommodating lately, having realized that conflict was destroying the countries and economies

-often in the 1970s & 80s, ethnic conflict coincided with the spread of democracy. Implications?

1. Democracy is harder to establish in multiethnic countries (though not impossible) e.g. Lebanon was a democratic country, destroyed by civil war Lack of democracy in most of Africa and Asia Democracy fares best in countries of recent settlement (Canada, US, Australia - created

a new common culture) or ethnic homogeneity (Botswana, Iceland, Japan, Uruguay) Ethnic pluralism is made more difficult in poor countries, where various groups must

compete for scarce government resources However, India - one of the most diverse countries in the world - has maintained

democracy since independence in 1947. Trinidad-Tobogo is another success story.

2. The creation of/transition to a democratic government does intensify ethnic conflict New political parties often base support in ethnic communities Politicians use ethnic appeals to gain public support Fights b/w groups for share of public resources (now that the distribution of these is

more transparent) Some argue that this will cause "demand overload, systematic breakdown and even

violent conflict" Majoritarian rule in societies like this can lead to conflict, as various minority groups

will be unsatisfied Solution: open discussion & bargaining in a democratic environment. Temper majority

rule with guarantees of human rights & other protections for minorities

-the suppression of conflict by dictatorships will only lead to civil war when the dictator/authoritarian gvt is gone (i.e. what happened in Yugoslavia & the Soviet Union once communism fell. Led to violence in Croatia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Chechnya) -democratic leaders, however, are open to public opinion & interest group pressure - more likely to settle disputes before violence erupts