How New Are the New Wars - Essay Example

? How New are the New Wars? Kaldor Thesis Introduction In the recent years, debates about “new war” have currently gained a lot of attention. Many scholars have held that the international system has been marked with profound transformation since the time world war two and the cold war. The transformation has been in the form of globalization, emergence of new cooperation patterns and conflicts among state actors and the non-state ones. With this transformation, a new breed of warfare has emerged, and is qualitatively different from earlier forms of warfare. Mary Kaldor coined the term new war in her 1999 book ‘New and Old Wars’. Kaldor’s new war thesis is the most widely acknowledged in the new war debates. Kaldor described new war “as being increasingly fought over new identities rather ideologies, by non-state combatants rather than regular state armies, engaging in attacks on the civilian population rather than direct military encounters, and undermining rather than building the sate” (Rigterink 2012, n.p.). The thesis has been critics savaged especially on the empirical ground. This paper evaluates the Kaldor’s thesis with respect to the newness of the empirical trends identified in trying to answer that question whether new war are really new. The two world wars especially the Second World War made it necessary that globally systems be put in place to address any inter- states conflicts and civil wars. There has been a large success in addressing inter-states conflicts and wars, but clearly conflicts and violence has not been banished (World Bank 2011, cited in Kaldor 2013). The increase of different actors in wars: criminal gangs, mercenary groups, local warlords and paramilitary units only contribute to make wars more complex (Kaldor 2006, p.9). The emerging trend of new wars is characterized by increased violence and a higher ratio of civilian to the military casualties. Munkler (2002, p. 15) adds that the new wars are “more bloody than any other kind of war since 1945.” According to Kaldor (2006, p.9), the ratio of civilians to military combats have increased from 1:8 in old wars to about 8:1in the new wars. In her article, In defense of new wars, Kaldor says that new wars are a means to elucidating the logic of contemporary war with the aim of offering a research strategy and guide to policy (Kaldor 2013). She argues that new wars need not be looked only in terms of its empirical basis; otherwise, truth will be lost. She, however, agrees that some of the critics are indeed valid but then the existence of new wars should not be lost so that the political elements of the wars can be addressed (Kaldor 2013). How new is the new war thesis? Kadlor argues that the wars we are experiencing today are indeed different in character from the old interstate wars. She gives a distinction between the old and the new war with respect to a complex of non-state actors; irregular participants and fighting; violence targeting civilians; prevalence of identity politics; widespread criminality; absence of centralized states directions; and transnational networks participation in providing financing, soldiers, and weapons (Kaldor 2006). Critics, however, argue that there is nothing new about the stated elements that indeed all have been experienced in various past conflicts. The truth is that the elements described are not entirely new but what Kadlor intended in proposing the new war thesis was that new strategy need to be embraced in researching the present conflicts and in policymaking (Kadlor, 2013). Critics, for example, that the states are being involved in today’s war will misses the point of the new war logic, since the new war thesis only offers input that a new trend of non-state actors are being drawn into the war without refuting the fact that states actors are still operation. Therefore, it would be important that one concludes that though new war have emerged it does not imply that the old forms of wars are no longer in play. The increase in complexity of conflicts and increase of actors can be seen in conflicts such as the Bosnia-Herzegovina conflict (Reyna 2009). This conflict saw was marked with involvement of many paramilitary organizations. Reyna (2009, p.295) details that members of these paramilitary organizations mostly were mercenaries approximately four thousand Mujahedin, supported by the Iranian special operations. However, Reyna argues that private militias were present even during the colonial wars, sometimes in alliance with imperial troops and especially in Africa (Reyna 2009, p.295). Mercenary armies played an active role in the wars by helping colonial troops in their conquest. Empirical evidence for the new war This section evaluates Kadlor’s thesis with respect to the newness of the empirical trends she identifies. First, wars are becoming rare between states, but more violent directed to civilians. Second, the intensity of battle is increasing. Third, the number of civilians displaced in civil wars is increasing. Fourth, the number of civilians killed in new wars is increasing, and lastly the ratio of civilians to soldiers killed in civil wars is increasing. The number and intensity of new wars is increasing The new war thesis argues that there is an increase in the amount of armed conflicts around the world (Munkler 2002; Shaw 1999). Kaldor (2006), however, notes that wars between states have decreased. Kadlor argues that the increase of the new wars has been fueled by seeking identity and as a form of a war economy. The new kind of wars has a higher unemployment rates behind (Kaldor 2006, p.10). These forms of the internal form of conflict forms a greater proportion of all wars, owing to the fact that international wars have decreased. The war economy exists mostly due to trade in drugs, arms, or other valuables such as diamond and oil (Kaldor 2006, p.10). In defense of her thesis, Kadlor (2013) quotes three data sets: The Uppsala Conflict Data Programme; The correlates of War project at the University of Michigan; and the biennial peace and conflict survey. She states that the three data sets seem to point out that wars between states have virtually disappeared yet there has been an increase in duration and recurrence (Kaldor 2013, p.8). This serves to point out that the new forms of war are indeed “new.” Casualties in the new wars One of the most prominent arguments in favor for the new war thesis is the increase of casualties, specifically civilians killed in the wars as compared to soldier. The new war thesis, however, is a derivative of a qualitative data rather than quantitative data. There was, therefore, little statistical analyzed evidence in support for the new wars being bloodier (Duffield 2001, p.192).Wolfendale (2001,pp.16-17) says that the proponents of the new war thesis fail to consider certain wars such as the Second Philippines war and the colonial wars in Africa and Asia. In the Second Philippines war of 1899-2002 for instance, about 200,000 civilian casualties were suffered as opposed to only 4, 000 American soldiers, a ratio of 50:1. This indicates that the ratios of casualties typical of new wars already existed. Other critics based on theempirical validity of the new war theory indicate that the ratio of civilians’ casualties has not risen and may have even decreased. Kaldor’s theory, however, acknowledges the difficulty of distinguishing state and non-state players in wars or the external from the internal. For that reasons, quantitative data may not clearly capture the nature of the new wars. A study by Sarajevo Research and Documentation Centre for instance collected death is mainly used to criticize Kaldor. This research was based on death certificates of casualties in the 1992–5, which estimated that only 41% of the 97,207 people killed were civilian (Kaldor 2013). Kaldor, however, argues that the dead people estimated to be soldiers included all the men of military age and therefore such the conclusion that the ratio of civilians was less is not valid. The reasoning behind Kaldor indicating a high ratio of civilian casualties in the new wars is due to a shift towards targeting civilians (Kaldor 2006). The fact that the new wars are less restrained also implies that more civilians are being caught up in the crossfire eminent form the war. Empirical study Rigterink (2002) investigated whether the number of commonly used data sets on violent conflict supports the ‘New War’ thesis. The first element of the study studied whether indeed the new characteristics of warfare proposed by new war thesis form an increasing share of the total warfare. This statistical analysis showed that current data supports the new war thesis that the character of the war has changed since 1946. The study used data over the period 1946-2010 and revealed a significant increase in civilian to military casualty ratio (Rigterink 2002). The study also investigated whether new wars with respect to targeting of civilians and the participation of non-state combats. The data used for these two characteristics of civil war was, however, limited to the period 1989-2010. The study did not reveal a strong evidence of an increase in non-state combats, but significant increase over the period 1989-2010 was observed in two of the data sets (Rigterink 2002). The study concluded that there is indeed empirical evidence that the trends of the war since 1946 is indeed changing as set out in the new war thesis. Conclusion The above discussion supports the new war thesis as set out by Kadlor. Though critics on empirical grounds have heavily buffeted Kadlor’s thesis, the character of the war has indeed changed since the end of Second World War and the cold war period. Civilians have increasingly become the targets of war, and there is an increase in the number of civilian casualties. There is also a higher ratio of civilian to state-combats deaths. It is upon researchers and policy makers not to focus on the “newness” of the war, but focus on addressing the conflicts and war have not been completely banished from our societies. Reference List Duffield, M 2001 .Global Governance and the New Wars: the Merging of Development and Security, Zed Books, London. Kaldor, M 2006, New and Old Wars, 2nd ed., Polity Press, Cambridge. Kaldor, M 2013, “In Defence of New Wars,” Stability, Vol 2(1), No. 4, pp.1-16 Munkler, H 2002, The New Wars, Polity Press, Cambridge. Reyna, S, 2009, ‘Taking place: “new wars” versus global wars’, Social Anthropology ,Vol 17, No.3, pp. 291-317. Rigterink, AS 2012, New Wars in Numbers: An exploration of various datasets on intra-state violence, Viewed 30 November 2013, http://mpra.ub.unimuenchen.de/45264/1/MPRA_paper_45236.pdf Wolfendale, J 2011. “New Wars,” Terrorism, and Just War Theory’, in Tripodi & Wolfendale (eds.), New Wars and New Soldiers: Military Ethics in the Contemporary World, Ashgate. Read More