Classifications and Characteristics of Different Civil Wars - Research Paper Example

xxxx History and Political Science    Topic: The Civil War 27 April, Civil War Civil war is an armed conflict that takesplace between two or more nations, more or less of equivalent political governments, for sovereignty of a particular territory or for a legal control of a certain group of people, or both. James Fearon (2007), defines a civil war as "a violent conflict within a country fought by organized groups that aim to take power at the center or in a region, or to change government policies". Since it is a protracted internal violence and as compared to interstate wars it may last for decades (Fearon and Laitin 2003; Fearon 2004), therefore it can be differentiated from revolution or coup d'etat. Revolution is actually a change whereby legitimacy of one system is terminated and another originated within the same society, however, this change may not necessarily brought about by force or violence. History narrates the stories of several important revolutions e.g. revolutions in England and France of 1688 and 1848 respectively had not observed any military conflict. Scope of civil war is broad and it may accompany revolution, but in the great French Revolution, it only played a secondary part. Like revolution, civil war can also be distinguished from insurrection, which is a struggle from the bottom up, an uprising of a more or less politically unorganized group against an established authority. Civil war is horizontal, insurrection vertical, conflict which may result in huge numbers of fatalities and ineffective use of valuable resources (Hironaka, 2005, p.3). Classifications of Civil Wars The concept of war is as old as the human being is attached to religion, politics, and social reforms. Likewise, civil wars may also be classified in terms of these three aspects i.e. religion, political or strategic objectives, and social reforms. The rise of Protestantism caused a whole series of religious civil wars between 1550 and 1648. The civil wars in England between during the years 1641 to 1651, in the United States from 1861 to 1865, and in China from 1921 to1928, were political. The history of ancient Greece and Rome shows a whole series of social civil wars between rich and poor, aristocrats and plebians. The Russian civil war from 1918 to1921was primarily a social war between the upper class on the one hand and the city proletariat aided by the peasants on the other. Religious civil wars have usually been very bloody and ruthless. Social civil wars tend to resemble them in this respect; while political civil wars are commonly humane, as years ago. The Thirty Years War (1618-1648) primarily fought in Germany was indescribably ferocious; the recent civil war in Russia was marked by much cruelty; while the American Civil War was comparatively well controlled (Hironaka, 2005). Characteristics of Different Civil Wars The character of civil war varies considerably according to the type of political organization in the country in which it occurs. In unitary states civil war is likely to be amateurish and bungling in its early stages. The old government is weakened by the withdrawal of large numbers of its trained personnel, who then proceed to improvise an opposition government which does not at first function very efficiently. The English civil war of 1641 to 1651 and the American Civil War are cases in point (Keegan, 2009). In federated states, civil war closely resembles international war. Here organized functional governments already exist and the task of generating a civil war between them is relatively simple, especially when the nature of the federal bond approximates a league rather than a closer union. The Thirty Years War, the War of the Sonderbund in Switzerland in 1848, and the American Civil War afford varying instructions of the nature of the civil conflict in federated states. In his second inaugural address, Abraham Lincoln said “slavery was some how cause of the war” (Brook and Nurphy, 2009). Civil wars in colonial states are in general much like civil war in federated states except for the fact that they are always at least three-sided, the contestants being the two functions in the colony and the mother state, which as a rule unites with one colonial faction against the other. The social situations which lead to civil war follow the general conflict pattern. An existing equilibrium of contending interests is disturbed by new conditions. There is a consequent un-rest, which at first manifests itself in discussion, argument, and debate. In the course of this discussion certain issues, important and even fundamental in the life scheme of the society, become clearly defined. Since they cannot be settled by peaceable methods, such as elections, for the reason that neither of the parties is willing to abide by the result of an adverse ballot, the society gradually separates into antagonistic faction. Anything done by one faction to advance its interests irritates the other into counter moves. The strain increases by a process of cyclic interaction and animosity becomes intensified. At this stage almost any untoward event, of however little importance in itself, is sufficient to precipitate a crisis. The occurrence of some such event is inevitable under the circumstances and a military conflict begins as the response to the crisis created by the previous conditions. During this process group becomes encouraged from group within a community and even members of the same family may be divided. In general the population of the territory in which the civil war occurs will favour one faction; another population area will favour the opposite faction, while the population in the area that lies between more or less evenly divided. The military struggle is likely to be most intense in this area of divided loyalty. The two factions in a civil war are much alike despite their antagonism, since they are simply parts of an originally united group. Within each of the two opposing forces develop smaller factions which may gain increasing importance as the war goes on. During the American Civil War, the Copperheads in the North were such a minor faction while the inhabitants of eastern Tennessee played a similar role in the south (Keegan, 2009). Civil war as contrasted with foreign war is, for one side at least, war for complete conquest for the extinction of the enemy government. It is a struggle for existence, whereas in modern times foreign war is as a rule waged only for certain specific and limited aims. In the case of a foreign war a government has a more complete command over the loyalty of its subjects than in the case of civil war, when a not inconsiderable minority of the population on each side is more or less apathetic or hostile to the purposes and aims of its government. Each government, therefore, has to divert some of its military force to the task of holding down this discontented element within its own territory. The extent of this diversion of military force is frequently so considerable as to affect appreciably the progress of the civil war. Again, in foreign war, campaigns have usually been planned by military staffs during peace time. This is seldom the case indeed it is seldom possible – in civil war, and for this reason military tactics especially in the early stages of civil war all ordinarily more hesitant and more ineffective. Civil war ends in one of three ways, (a) usually one faction subjugates the other; (b) one may establish its independence from the other; or (c) the two factions become mutually exhausted and arrange a truce which may last till the emergence of new and different issues that saps the vitality of the original antagonism. The American Civil War illustrates the first termination, the war resulting in the separation of Belgium and Holland the second, the Wars of the Roses the third. A process of accommodation must then set in at the end of military operations. There is at first a tentative adjustment; the previously warring factions arrive at some working basis for carrying on the activities of ordinary life. The intensity of their animosity decreases as this process of accommodation comes to cover a wider range of relationships. At first the contacts of the former antagonists are few and unfriendly, but gradually they increase in number and cordiality until at least a final adjustment is made and a new and stable equilibrium arrived at. As the civil war period recedes into history, the former enemies may come to have sentimental attachments for each other. While the question as to which government shall control is settled by civil war, it is a part of this process of accommodation after the war that some scheme for deciding who shall man the new government is worked out. As a result of civil war, previously existing interest conflicts are either terminated or reduced to the competitive instead of the conflict level. The American Civil War terminated the conflict over slavery. On the other hand, following the military conflict between the Royalists and Parliamentarians in the English Civil War of 1641-51, the same issue of monarchical absolutism appeared in the next generation in the political conflict of Tories and Whigs. In either case civil war commonly has far reaching effects on social institutions. Intervention of Foreign Forces Civil war is not infrequently terminated by the intervention of foreign powers, as in the cases of Greece and Turkey in 1821-29, Hungary and Austria in 1848-49, and Belgium and Holland in 1830-32. During the course of a civil war, also, foreign powers may exert considerable influence in different perspectives. Walter (2002) maintains that civil wars almost never end in a negotiated settlement in the absence of strong third-party security guarantees. They may recognize either the belligerency or the independence of the faction carrying on civil war against the state of which it is legally a part. The recognition of belligerency confers upon such a faction a de facto international character in respect to the rights and duties of legal warfare. The recognition by foreign powers of the independence of new nations formed as the result of civil war is, like the recognition of belligerency, commonly though is not always determined by the facts of the case. When the civil war has reached such a conclusion that it is manifestly impossible for the parent state to subdue the revolting community, the latter is recognized by such nations as find it in their interest to enter into official relations with it. Premature recognition of the independence of a revolting faction in a civil war may, as an interference with its right to retain control of its own subjects, constitutes an offense against the parent state. In certain cases recognition may amount to intervention. The collective recognition by the great powers of the de jure independence of Greece in 1827 was considerably in advance of its real independence and was the decisive element in the situation. This was also true for the recognition of the independence of Cuba by the United States in 1898 and of the recognition of the independence of Panama in 1983. In the two former cases international war was the result of such premature recognition. If the foreign powers believe it to be in their interest to recognize the belligerency or the independence of a faction in a civil war, they can always do so at their own risk; such recognition has frequently been the most important factor in determining the issue of conflict. Implications on Contemporary World In terms of political system of the contemporary world, there are lot of structural factors which give out to exacerbate the incidence and brutality of civil wars. Some of these factors are listed below. (a) Since 1945, the state membership of the political system has increased substantially which, contrary to the past, has resulted more opportunities for civil wars to occur (Hansen, 2003) (b) Lots of countries have intrinsically unstable political systems especially those located in the Third World. (c) Another important factor is the differential possession of capability between the states at the top of the hierarchy and those at the bottom. This increases the proclivities for intervention. Clearly a civil war is not a necessary condition for intervention but it may be sufficient one. (d) Notwithstanding its charter, The United Nations has failed to develop sufficient efficacy in its own instruments to prevent intervention in civil wars by third partiers. (e) Finally, the growth of transnational terrorism has increased the extent to which private armies can feed off a civil war situation to further their own interests. Works Cited Brooke, C. Stoddard & Daniel, P, Murphy. The Everything Civil War Book: Everything You Need to Know About the Conflict That Divided a Nation, Everything Books, 2009 James, D. Fearon. Why Do Some Civil Wars Last So Much Longer than Others? Journal of Peace Research, 2004, 41(3):275.301, Kenneth, H Hansen. The Civil War and its Modern Implications. New York: Signet Classics, 2003 Ann Hironaka. Neverending Wars: The International Community, Weak States, and the Perpetuation of Civil War, Harvard University Press: Cambridge, Mass., 2005, p. 3, James, D. Fearon, "Iraq's Civil War" in Foreign Affairs, March/April 2007 John Keegan. The American Civil War: A Military History. New York: Knopf, 2009 Barbara, F. Walter. Committing to Peace, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002 Read More