Collective Preventive Diplomacy: A Study in International Conflict Management

5. Local Ethnic Conflict as an International Problem

Chapter 5 Local Ethnic Conflict as an International Problem The interplay between localized ethnic antagonists and the international political environment is evident in the earliest stages of the cases presented in chapter 4. This chapter studies the emergence of local ethnic conflicts and the impact of the great powers upon them. It discusses the background of the local conflicts, the conditions that intensified them, and the local consequences of collective great-power activity. Analysis here is limited to the calculations that brought the local antagonists to seek great-power intervention, and how that intervention, when it eventually occurred, affected the relationship between the local antagonists. Why and how the major states intervene collectively in localized ethnic conflict, and how the ethnic antagonists react to it, will be extensively discussed later. In general, the primary antagonists seek to use the great powers to legitimate local positions, compensate for weaknesses in those positions, and prevail locally in spite of these weaknesses. Desiring great-power support on their own terms, they value that support as it serves as a “power multiplier” favorable to their local interests. The multiplier effect is larger and more significant when the balance of forces in the local conflict is one-sided. The local conflicts are exacerbated by four specific causes, each of which is discussed in this chapter. Local causes include a problematic relationship between the central government and its ethnic challenger and the challenger’s political and economic grievances. Other causes of such conflict are demonstrated effects of conflict outside the local arena and outside actors’ involvement in the local arena. Of these sources of localized ethnic tensions, economic and political grievances directed at the 87 ruling government constitute the most important. Nationalism—unified identity on the part of the ethnic antagonists—is unexpectedly weak or missing at the outset of each of these cases. The absence of nationalism in these conflicts has two major consequences . First, it weakens the insurgents relative to the regime governing them, increasing for those insurgents the importance of sympathetic outside states to remedy their weakness. This dependence renders them vulnerable to manipulation by those supporters. Second, the absence of nationalism contributes to internationalizing the local conflict, as weaker primary antagonists seek major-power intervention to gain greater accommodation from the opposing antagonist. The possibility that great-power influence can be brought to bear in this way upon the stronger local antagonist importantly affects whether or not the weaker side intensifies the local conflict. The stronger ethnic rival is also required to formulate and pursue policies to shape the positions of the major states, and to reconcile these policies with its behavior toward its opponent. This chapter also deals with important differences in political outlook between the primary antagonists in local ethnic conflict, on one hand, and the great powers on the other. While some great-power activity is indeed shaped by the local antagonists, the major states tend to be more concerned about each other than about the primary ethnic antagonists, and unlike the latter, are required to defend broadly defined international positions . They therefore tend to view local ethnic conflict in terms of their broader interests. Any particular great power’s response to local conflict is likely to be conditioned more by the propensity of other states, and especially other major states, to intervene on their own in that conflict than by the specific attributes and attitudes of the ethnic antagonists. When disinclined to intervene, the major states may even be relatively disinterested, especially at first, in the local conflict. CONTRIBUTORS TO LOCAL ETHNIC TENSION Intrastate ethnic tensions are brought about by (1) the central government ’s relationship with its ethnic challenger; (2) the challenger’s political and economic grievances; (3) demonstration effects outside the arena of ethnic tension; and (4) the involvement of outside actors in the local arena. These will be discussed in turn. 88 CASE ANALYSIS The Primary-Antagonist Relationship Each of the eight cases reflects a relationship between a central government , or core political entity, and a cultural group or groups resisting the central government’s authority in some specific area possibly quite distant from the center. The types of rule employed by the central government determine whether the subject peoples enjoy cultural or political autonomy in relation to core institutions—that is, whether they are allowed to protect their cultural traditions and their freedom to petition to gain redress of grievances. The strength...