Professional Documents
Culture Documents
By Richard L. Dixon
There exist today, differences of opinion on the nature of conflict in the Global structure
after the decline of the Cold War. I would say that the best known explanation
concerning conflict and ethnic strife has to be Samuel P. Huntington’s “The Clash of
Civilizations.” It is Dr. Huntington’s premise that conflict will arise out of differing
regions of the world shaped by various religious movements such as Islam, Judaism,
Hinduism, and Christianity. These religious movements will transcend the nation state
and unite tribes, ethnic groups, villages, cities, and countries under a common ideological
banner. “Third, the processes of economic modernization and social change throughout
the world are separating people from longstanding local identities. They also weaken the
nation state as a source of identity. In much of the world religion has moved in to fill this
gap, often in the form of movements that are labeled "fundamentalist." Such movements
are found in Western Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism and Hinduism, as well as in Islam.
In most countries and most religions the people active in fundamentalist movements are
In this sense his premise has adds validity to the nature of conflict in fragile or failed
states such as Bosnia, Chad, Rwanda, the Congo, and Haiti especially from an ethnicity
that he characterizes the conflict between civilizations will be spontaneous and manifest
in a struggle between the adherents of Islam and western civilization. In actuality, the
sequences of events are manipulated by actors behind the scenes who seek to determine
an outcome that will give power to their ethnic group, tribe, clan, or religious sect. Take
for example the radical Islamic Ideology of Whabbaism which is the official state
religion of Saudi Arabia. One will find that the Saudi Royal Family is no more religiously
indoctrinated then the average citizen on the streets of Riyadh. Yet they use this virulent
form of Islam to keep their population in check though religious police, suppression, and
authoritarian rule. In addition, they have found it useful to drive their impoverished
citizens into a religious frenzy against the U.S. while at the same time allowing U.S.
In retrospect, Dr. Huntington’s essay shares a common analogy in regards with John
Mueller in his essay entitled “The Banality of Ethnic War.” Both characterize the
ongoing violence between various religious and ethnic violence as having roots in chaotic
mob sadism with criminal thugs controlling the show. “I consider first the violent
conflicts in Croatia and Bosnia. These were spawned not so much by the convulsive
marauders recruited by political leaders and operating under their general guidance.
Many of these participants were drawn from street gangs or from bands of soccer
hooligans. Others were criminals specifically released from prison for the purpose. Their
participation was required because the Yugoslav army, despite years of supposedly
substantially disintegrated early in the war and refused to fight.” (John Mueller, Summer
2000).
Where they differ is that John Mueller treats ethnic strife in places such as Bosnia and
Rwanda as manipulated by actors and players who whip up the emotional sentiments of
the various low life of society who prey on the innocent in carrying out ethnic cleansing
operations. Dr. Huntington treats the Clash of civilizations as being between West and
East, Islam versus Christianity, and conflict that will ignite instantaneously with no
invisible hand. The Sine Qua Non or caveat in both these premises is that emotionalism is
the culprit that ignites conflict. For Huntington the combustible material is religious
indoctrination in and for Mueller it is criminals being heavily influenced by actors behind
romantic nationalism that is steeped in sentimentalism or false love for one’s own
religion, nation, or ethnic group at the expense of the lives, property, or personal
wellbeing of those who don’t share in twisted traits of ideology. “Nationalistic sentiments
become illegitimate when they become irrational or overly passionate. If a person, out of
love for his country, begins, without justification, to harbour feelings of hostility towards
another nation, or tramples over the rights of other nations and peoples in the interests of
his own-for example, if he seizes their land or confiscates their property-he has exceeded
legitimate bounds. Or, when he lets his love for his nation turn into a kind of racism, that
is, when he claims that his own nation is inherently superior to another, he has adopted an
One of the central points that stood out in Mueller’s essay is that the Muslims could not
readily explains why their neighbors, friends, and even close family members they had
known for generations would descend into such depravities of gratuitous violence. “The
most common emotion among ordinary people caught up in this cyclone of violence and
pillage seems to have been bewilderment rather than rage.” (John Mueller).
I would agree with his assessment that the violence perpetuated by the Serbians against
the Bosnians Muslims was not an instinctive Hobbesian bestial nature inherited trait in
mankind’s genealogy, but rather the singling out of differing ethnic groups to become the
valid premise. Adolf Hitler stirred up the emotions of normally ordinary citizens who
become psychotic with rage against Jews, Gypsies, or anyone else who did not fit the
Aryan Mystique. The thugs, low lifes, criminals, and misfits of society at that time who
did all the dirty work were the brown shirts who later morphed into the SS or Gestapo.
Such a pattern manifested itself in India under the auspices of Hindu Nationalists who
become virtual zombie killing machines against the poor and innocent Muslim Minority.
Another parameter that adds credence to the argument of the nature or causes of conflict
is how colonialism left its toxic side affects on regions such as Africa which weakened
the areas economically and led to the domination of one ethnic group over another. Amy
Chua in her book “World On Fire: How Exporting Free Market Democracy Breeds
Oliver P. Richmond’s essay gives further evidence of the detrimental effects of both the
religious lines. His study concentrates on the country of Cyprus to give justification to his
argument. “What was worse was that the colonial heritage was often in no way
movements such as in Cyprus might have aspired. Such territories were multi-religious,
multi-ethnic, and multi-linguistic and attempts at creating unified forms of national
The one echoing theme throughout this essay was that the Westphalian model of
governmental rule that was thrust upon the population was inadequate and actually
contributed to the division of Cyprus along ethnic, religious, and economical lines.
Samuel Huntington also alludes to the Westphalian model in his clash of civilization
article. “The main features of the current international system can be traced back several
centuries, in the form of the Westphalian system of sovereign states, but also to the years
after 1945. The Westphalian system of states entailed a collection of sovereign political
entities ruled by rulers or governments that, in theory and largely practice, exercised full
control over the territories formally recognized as belonging to those states and over the
populations living there. This control was sovereign in the sense that it was exclusivist:
over the territory and people of another state. In addition, the Westphalian system was
grafted on the strict recognition of the legal equality of each and every state.” (The
In the eyes of social scientists such as Oliver P. Richmond the Westphalian system is a
Western culture philosophy of government that is based upon the concept of the nation-
state, homogenous in its outlook, and fails to take into account the various ethnic,
cultural, and religious groups within a country. In some instances, there are nations
within a state as was the case of the former country of Yugoslavia which resulted in a
splintering of the union into the countries of Kosovo, Bosnia, Serbia, and Croatia. In
essence, the Westphalian system has accelerated post-colonial countries descent into a
cauldron of chaotic disorder. Somalia and Haiti can be now classified as failed states. The
country of Yemen is now experiencing a civil war between the Sunni dominated
government and the Shia minority due to the destabilizing influence of Colonialism.
Even Iran cannot escape the cycle of ethnic and religious violence because it is currently
battling Kurdish extremism as well as Turkey. “Countries in this category come closest to
the phenomenon of ‘failed’ states - indeed, in the worst cases of political disintegration
amount to what is seen as ‘collapsed’ states. While failed states can still be seen to have
official governments and fully collapsed states are characterized by their complete
absence, the distinction between them is to some extent a matter of degree. What is
central to a failed state is that the state apparatus is unable to uphold an effective
monopoly of violence over its whole territory, lacks an effective judicial system to guard
the rule of law and promulgate judgments that are internationally regarded as legitimate
international obligations (such as in debt repayment) and cannot prevent various forms of
transnational economic crime or the use of its territory for the perpetration of violence
(politically motivated or otherwise) against other states in the international system.” (The
However, one would readily agree that the pace of conflict accelerated with the
dismantling of the colonial system after WWII because English, France, and Belgium
were too weak economically, militarily, and politically to maintain their empires. There
can be doubt, that their imperialistic ventures had a negative effect on the already raging
ancient conflicts between tribes, ethnic groups, and clans within their sphere of influence.
Take for example the partitioning of the Indian subcontinent into the countries of
Pakistan and Bangladesh. The partitioning caused ethnic and religious strife especially in
the Kashmir and Bengal areas of the subcontinent. The country of Afghanistan also
typifies the ethnic strife in that part of the world and has failed to be pacified by
Realistically speaking both NATO and the U.S. are falling into the same quagmire in
Afghanistan as were their previous predecessors because they are not readily equipped to
fight a sustained low intensity conflict in that region. What the military alliance is now
facing with the resurgence of the Taliban can be best characterized as Hybrid wars.
“Although conventional in form, the decisive battles in today’s hybrid wars are fought
zone population, the home front population, and the international community population.
success or failure. Hybrid war appears new in that it requires simultaneous rather than
sequential success in these diverse but related “population battlegrounds.” Learning from
the past, today’s enemies exploit these new battlegrounds because the West has not yet
learned to fight effectively on them. We still do not fully appreciate the impact and
complexity of the nuanced human terrain.” (Colonel John J. McCuen, USA, Retired,
March-April 2008).
The U.S. military is dangerously stretched pretty thin trying to fight an insurgency in Iraq
while at the same time trying to counter the growing Taliban menace. The increasing of
troops into the Afghanistan Theater of war has far failed to turn the tide because we have
yet not figured out the tactics and mindset of our enemy.
“One need only read our daily newspaper headlines or listen to TV and radio news about the
insurgencies being fought within the populations of Afghanistan and Iraq to understand the
validity of the above observations. Insurgencies rage within these conflicts’ penetrated and often
alienated populations in spite of our having first defeated the enemy’s conventional forces. Our
population at home usually wearies of the protracted struggles, waged, until recently, with little
apparent progress. We are in danger of losing if we fail to fully understand the human terrain in
these conflicts, as well as, perhaps, the even more decisive battlegrounds of public opinion at
In the context of hybrid wars, especially at the population level, outcomes should be approached
in terms of success or failure rather than the usual military distinctions of victory or defeat. In this
regard, the goal or end state sought should be something like “secure improved normalcy,” not
“defeat the enemy forces” or “overthrow the enemy regime.” The critical point is that to win
hybrid wars, we have to succeed on three decisive battlegrounds: the conventional battleground;
the conflict zone’s indigenous population battleground; and the home front and international
It would be wise that the current NATO commander (US General Stanley A. McChrystal)
in that area would listen to voices in the past that have fought the Taliban and know of
their methods of operations if we are to suppress, dismantle, and destroy the enemy.
“Russia's ambassador to Afghanistan has some advice for top NATO commanders
fighting the Taliban based on the Soviet Union's bitter experience battling Islamist
"The more troops you bring the more troubles you will have here," Zamir Kabulov, a
"Now we have Taliban fighting in the peaceful Kunduz and Baghlan (provinces) with
your (NATO's) 100,000 troops," he said this week, sitting on a couch in the Russian
Embassy in Kabul. "And if this trend is the rule, if you bring here 200,000 soldiers, all of
Kabulov served as a Soviet diplomat in Afghanistan from 1983 to 1987, during the height
of the Kremlin's 10-year Afghan war, when Soviet troop levels peaked at 140,000.”
We cannot readily rely on our NATO allies for more support in terms of troops, weapons,
and supplies because their fight against the Taliban has been lukewarm at best. “Leaked
The confidential debriefing, said to have been handed out by a top American commander,
cites a litany of concerns which the unnamed officer is said to have had about British
They include complaints that the British troops do not spend long enough in the country
or with indigenous people. The marines’ commander is also reported to have accused the
British of spending too long recovering from patrols and suffering too many injuries
It is a war of attrition meaning that the Taliban and the insurgency will keep going until
pressure comes from the public and our congressional representatives to withdraw
because it is turning into an unpopular war. “Our current enemies have targeted the
populations as their battleground of choice. They fully recognize that they do not have
experience demonstrates to them that they can win wars within the population that we
have not learned to fight. They know they can protract such wars until home front and
international community discouragement over casualties and cost force us to throw in the
towel and withdraw. Our enemies’ strategic and tactical objectives are thus not to destroy
our conventional military forces and seize critical terrain, but to seize, control, and defend
critical human terrain until we give up the fight. The decisive battles of the hybrid wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan are being fought within the population battlegrounds—the populace
in conflict, the home front populations of the intervening nations, and the international
The only effective solutions then is to rebuild the country to the point of self-sufficiency,
train and build the Afghanistan Army to the point that they are able to fight and defeat the
Taliban, and leave the country once it has been stabilized and turn our attention to a
belligerent nuclearly armed North Korea. If we fail to implement this strategy, then we
will get bogged like the Soviets did in a protracted war with the mujahedeen that resulted
in the lost of over 15, 000 lives. Trying to fix a region that has only known ethnic and
One would come away with the notion that the amount of non-governmental conflicts
have actually increased in the post Cold war era. In actuality they have decreased but the
intensity, brutality, and incidents of ethnic cleansing among various religious and ethnic
groups have multiplied in conflicts involving countries such as Sri Lanka, Sudan,
Afghanistan, Chechnya, and Iraq. “In other words, the reason there is less warfare today
is because more wars are stopping, not because fewer wars are starting. In fact, the rate of
new conflict onsets between 2000 and 2005 has remained higher than it was in the 1970s
and 1980s, but the rate at which wars have been ending is higher still. In the first six
years of the new millennium there has been an average net decline (number of conflict
terminations minus number of onsets) of 1.5 state-based conflicts a year. Were this rate to
continue for a decade the number of state-based conflicts being waged around the world
In terms of the World System Movement analogy, the necessary explanation would be
attributed to the changing Global System which is like a ripple effect due to the process
of integration and disintegration. Countries, regions, cultures, and ethnic groups can be
affected by economical, political, and social parameters globally. Global warming stands
out as a textbook case according to World System proponents. The effectives of drought,
water scarcity, and food have caused Global migration from the rural to the urban cities
which puts a strain on a LDC (Low Developing Country) limited resources and adds to
an already tense situation between ethnic groups. Nigeria with its mostly Muslim North
and Christian South is now experiencing such a transition. Adding to this mixture, are a
slew of various ethnic groups which are divided more by village, clan, or the caste system
then religion. Kenya in recent years has also witnessed a rise in ethnic violence. In
essence, the legitimacy of the state within the continent threatens to unravel because it
has no built-in mechanism to handle the multitude of cultural, religious, racial, and ethnic
entities. One minority dominates the majority which can light the cauldron of discontent
and send a governmentally weak country off the cliff and into the crevice of civil war,
riots, and ethnic strife. “A second major argument concerns diversity and pluralism. The
state as an institution (but not necessarily any particular state) and the apparatus of state
sovereignty provide a container for pluralism and a framework for the protection of
diversity. What animates this claim is the idea that peoples, nations, and communities
have an identity and justifiably seek the protective and expressive power of the state to
further that identity. If states and state sovereignty provide the basic institutional
framework, it is some notion of political community and a belief in the moral value of
religious—that has come evermore to provide the political power and the moral meaning
2007).
Therefore the prevailing theory is that ethnicity and tribalism causes a decline in
democratic rule because it cannot incorporate pluralism within its framework. I find
myself in total disagreement with that assumption and only have to look to the country of
Malaysia where religious and racial pluralism has added to the stability of that nation
both economically and politically. Benjamin Reilly in his essay Democracy, Ethnic
Fragmentation, and Internal Conflict draws on the strength of Papua New Guinea to
dismantle this belief which he believes is flawed based on faulty methodology and data.
“Taken together, these macro-and micro-level perspectives raises serious questions about
the adequacy of existing theories on the relationship between democratic politics and
ethnic fragmentation necessarily undermines prospects for democracy-is wrong, and that
under some circumstances, the presence of many ethnic groups can actually be a positive
factor for democratic stability and persistence.” (Benjamin Reilly, Winter 2000/2001).
I have come to the conclusion based on my research that both poverty and inequality are
causal effectives for deep rooted ethnic tensions and civil war. In some situations poverty
and inequality are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Some countries can be marred down
in poverty but will not explode into ethnic tension because the stigma of inequality
between tribal groups and clans is not prevalent. The country of Bangladesh comes to
mind in this respect. “The link between inequality and conflict are subtle as well. The
cleavages such as caste, religion, ethnicity, race, and region, if income disparities align
with these splits they exacerbate tension and conflict. Even quite small shifts in the
lay the foundations for group conflict.” (Ravi Kanbur, June 2007).
The solution to the ethnic fragmentation, strife, and civil wars that are currently besieging
poor countries around the world is a new Global architect that encompasses the culture,
traditions, and religious views of various ethnic groups within a country or region. It
means formulating democratic institutions that are built upon the premise of inclusion
2. John Mueller, “The Banality of Ethnic War,” International Security, Vol 25, Issue
1, (Summer 2000), 1,
3. Harun Yaha, Romanticism: a Weapon of Satan, (India: Milat Book Center, 2002),
19.
4. John Mueller, 4.
The Case of Cyprus: Civil Wars, Vol. 5, No. 3 (Autumn 2002), 171.
6. The African Studies Centre, Leiden et. al. “Failed and Collapsed States in the
7. Ibid., 4.
9. Ibid., 107.
2009, http://www.military.com/news/article/marine-slams-brits-discipline-
Coping with Crisis Working Paper Series, The International Peace Academy,
(2007), 4-5.
13. Andrew Hurrell, On Global Order, Power, Values, and the Constitution of
15. Ravi Kanbur, “Poverty and Conflict: The Inequality Link,” Coping with Crisis