Ethnic Conflict as a Cause of Civil Wars - Essay Example

Civil war is an internal conflict among countrymen who are citizen of the country. Civil wars have been occurring every now and then. Civil wars havebeen caused by many factors which include; unequal distribution of government resources, ethnicity-mostly in Africa, political influence and incitement, job discriminations, authoritative rule, the need for self independence, economic problems-food scarcity and animal fodder, rough terrains, high population levels among many others. By definition, civil war is defined by private, non-governmental organized violence. All governments in the world attempt to attain and maintain a monopoly over organized violence within its borders. When they lose the monopoly to the emergence of a rebel group, a civil war erupts. Reducing global incidence of civil wars is highly feasible and is hugely valuable to international peace and stability in the globe. All in all, ethnic difference has been quoted by many as the most important cause of many civil wars being experienced around the globe. To Collier, P & Hoeffler, A (2005), civil wars are now more common compared to international conflict. According to them, of the 15 main armed conflicts which are listed by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) for 2001, majority are internal conflicts which can be categorized as civil wars. To start with, unequal distribution of government resources forces people to come together once they notice that, the distribution is done in the lines of ethnicity. A saying goes that, if in a seat of power, you should always do well and particularly to your tribes’ men. To Fearon, J. et al. (2006), this is a negative score if a country is to have the required cohesion among the tribes if it is to achieve any thing higher. The neglected tribes often come up to attack the ruling elites together with the tribes were they come from. According to Fearon, J. et al. (2006), this is the starting point. Also, government positions are allocated to the politically correct individuals; from the tribe of the ruling class. This practice of segregating some individuals due to his/her tribe leads to civil war in many instances. Further, in countries which were colonized by foreign powers, the first citizen to rule that country determines the future of the country. When a person ascends to power and starts rewarding his/her ethnic group then a problem crops up. For example in Kenya after the general elections last year, an internal conflict ensued which could have deteriorated into a civil war had it not been for the former UN secretary general, Koffi Annan. The main reason as to why this happened was not because the elections were rigged but the election results were a trigger of a long lasting problem. When the country got independence from the Britons around 1963, the first African leader for that country was a Kikuyu; the largest tribe. What he did was that, he gave the most fertile lands to his tribes men in the expansive rift valley driving away the original inhabitants of those highlands; the Kalenjins. After the elections, the later felt the need to reposes their land back thus causing a rift between the two tribes which could have driven Kenya into bloodbath which was experienced in Rwanda. In places where nomandism is highly practiced, such places are likely to experience trial conflicts which may degenerate into civil wars. This is so because, in times of draughts the various ethnic groups are in dire need of cattle fodder and water. Supposing that, these two commodities are in plenty in other locations occupied by a different ethnic group will lead to war between the two tribes since one will be fighting for the commodities while the other will be acting in defense of their commodities which are at times scarce. The land terrain of a place is another factor. In earlier days, tribes used to occupy exclusive areas in the land. Some tribes found out their ancestors did not get a good land for them to reside in. Maybe when their numbers increase, they find that they should be having huge tracts of land and that, their neighbours who happen to be from a different tribe are occupying a good land and they perceive them as weaklings. There is very high probability that, a conflict will ensue. If such a conflict is uncontrolled then, a civil war may erupt pitying all the tribes. Thus land is another cause of civil war and is mainly due to tribal inclinations. Many of the civil wars which have been experienced have so far taken place in Africa. In Congo, in Sierra Leone, in Somalia, in Angola, in Rwanda (1994). According to Taisier, A & Robert, M (1999), this has been occasioned by the fact that, in Africa, each and every country has so many tribes among its populations. Kenya for example ahs 42 tribes-Kikuyu being the largest where the president comes from, in SA the two main are the Zulus and the Xhosas, Ghana has 100 etc. According to Brancati, D (2006), the idea of tribe is inbuilt, is powerful and is expected. Few people question any news which aims at describing an African individual as a tribesman or tribeswoman, or any African motives as tribal (Brancati, D 2006). Many Africans use the word tribe in their countries when speaking about community, their ethnicity/identity. In general, as most people understand, a tribe is associated with primitiveness and being behind civilization always. To Brown, E (2001), to be in a tribal state is to live in a complicated and traditional condition where there is little change if any. In African, most countries are economically poor and are at times described as less developed or as underdeveloped by westerners. This makes them to come to a conclusion that, Africans have not changed much over the centuries and that their poverty mainly reflects cultural and social conservatism. To many, this is true since the only thing a tribe can give some one is the mere identity and nothing more. This backwards ness has caused many conflicts since no one needs to be seen as the coward and thus civil wars. In Rwanda for example, there are some tribes although the most dominant are he Hutus’ and the Tutsis’. The Hutus accused the Tutsis in 1994 and often saw them as ‘foreigners’ leading bloodbath. No Hutu person felt mercy to the Tutsi, to them, they deserved what they were getting; death. In all the countries mentioned above, the main cause of their conflicts was the unequal distribution of the resources where tribes rose against the other in pretence that, the fought was causing all the inequalities being experienced hence the reason for the fight. According to Collier, P (2007), an influential knowledge holds that, civil wars spread out rapidly with the end of the Cold War in which the two superpowers; The US and USSR, were involved and that, the main cause of most of these wars has been ethnic differences as well as religious fanaticism. However, the current occurrence of internal wars is mainly as a result of the huge accumulation of conflicts since the 1940s and 1970s and not as a sudden departure associated with a new, post Cold War (Collier, P 2007). Further, it is also evident that, controlling a country’s per capita income ethnically or religiously in many countries has been thought to be significant to civil violence in this period (Brown, E 2001). To him, civil wars in this period are categorized in terms of insurgency otherwise called rural guerrilla warfare where a particular form of military practice is harnessed for diverse political agendas by ethnic politicians in pretence so as to use their tribes to ascend to power. Such conditions favor insurgency are said to be the breeding areas in which civil wars are borne. These conditions include poverty in some areas as opposed to others. This favors rebel recruitment all aimed at causing political instability in these countries. Most societies in many countries and mainly Africa are ethnically diverse where conditions for internal violence are ripe. In this case, the organization is highly likely to be constituted along ethnic lines (Soeters, J 2005). During the times of a conflict, ethnicity is often used as a propaganda tool to fuel it so that the inciters can get what they wanted by barely using their tribes. Ethnic divisions are a cause of conflict and are also a likely consequence of it since after the conflict, those who will be left wallowing in despair are the same guys who took part in such acts. The societies are also trapped in the ethnic organizations as well as in categories that are often determined by the conflict (Tarrow, S. 2003). To Tarrow, S. (2003), when the general image of tribes is applied in situations of social conflict between Africans for example, a completely destructive myth is created. These primitivity and conservative backwardness are both linked to irrationality and superstition which is characterized with the Africans. These combination leads to violence and conflict in Africa as irrational and unchanging. According to many researchers on civil wars, a small incidence of primitivity can lead to a huge conflict which if not controlled tears a country away along ethnic lines. If you look at Iraq, the Sunnis’ and the Shiers’ are involved in any internal conflict which ca be said to be a tribal conflict since, one is seen by the other as a supporter of the Americans. It is this tribal inclination which mostly causes a civil war. One group thinks that, Saddam who was one of their own deserves to have led them for a long if it had not been for the Americans. They have formed insurgency groups to fight the Americans and their sympathizers which happen to be their fellow country men. This amounts to a tribal clash and in this case, Iraq, if the situation is not taken into control faster, then the country will be a danger zone and will disintegrate to the level of Somali which has gone down to shells since 1991. The issue of tribes has gone further to religion. In Sudan for example, a conflict exist in the Darfur region since the Arabs and the Christians are fighting there. The situation is so worse that, it has created intense heat in many countries e.g. China which is being blamed for selling military goods to the government of El Bashir, which is supporting the Arabs to fight the Christians. All this is because of ethnic differences which are evident and which each group thinks that it has the right over the other thus the ensuring fight. The leadership of many countries comes from the tribe which is dominant in that country. In this case, most of the good things in that country to some selected few. As Collier, P (2007) puts it, the few shares the cake of the whole nation. In so doing an enemity is bred which in the long run causes asocial dissatisfaction to the masses who in turn opposes the government. This opposition is mainly in terms of rebellions and other forms of militia. It is these militias which are the main causes of discontent in many countries and thus civil wars. It has become like a law that, whenever there is a political problem in any country, then the issue of the most populous tribes comes into the limelight. A talk abut how the political issues will be solved are often discussed in the line of the tribes; who should get what and who should not get. This balancing mainly takes with the size of satisfaction the tribes men will get when something is thrown their way. In such cases, the dissatisfaction of some tribes is treated with care since it may be the cause of unimaginable distraction to that country in terms of civil war. Take for example Kenya, they have had to satisfy the Luos by appointing their point man the prime minister while the satisfying the Kalenjins by giving one of their own the assistant prime ministers slot. The president coming from the largest tribe. In many countries, political conflict is endemic and intra-ethnic attraction often forms an effective basis for political organization. Political contests which exist between different ethnic groups are as a result common in ethnically diverse democracies in the world. What should be done in large scale is to put to an end the organized violence which generally takes three forms: the first is the communal violence where communities rise against each other and it the least deadly since it lacks large scale organization of the community, the second is pogroms while the last is rebellion is by far the most deadly as it results in full scale civil war (Tarrow, S. 2003). Pogroms on the other hand are well organized rebel groups with a hierarchy of leaders; from top to service men. An example is the Lords Resistance Army in Uganda whose leader is Joseph Kony and the deputy is Vincent Otti. This are mainly caused when their stake is not catered for by the governments of the day. For example, in Sudan, the southern part felt that their wellbeing as people of Sudan was not being catered for by the government in the North. This forced Dr. John Garang to abandon the comfort of a lecture hall and to take up arms against the government. In Uganda, Kony felt the need to be incorporated into the army. When this was not forth coming, he and his tribes’ men engaged the government troops. In many instances when grievances of a certain ethnic organization are addressed fully, regardless of whether or not they are the root causes of violence, the argument that violence should be the next step are inevitably unless such grievances are addressed. This is times seems to be an unnecessary and a basis for action which is potentially counter productive since it becomes a subject of hijacking by these advocacy groups each with its own agendas (Jeremy, M 2006). Thus, the root cause of many rebellions is objective grievance advanced by ethnic groups and which are not adamantly viewed by the ruling class as viable. According to Collier, P & Sambanis, N (2003), ethnic diversity marginally increases the risk of a civil war although other factors determine whether a country is more or less prone to civil war. For example, in a typical developing country, there is a low percent that civil war will erupt; say five percent risk that a civil war will break out in this country. When a country is said to be developed and not all the citizens in that country are well catered for then, such a country is likely to fall prey to the yoke of civil war. Each person will feel discontented wit what he/she gets thus the less fortunate will gang up to demand their rights where in so doing, they will be engaging in the civil unrest. The social and the political implications of ethnic diversity receive much attention in economics. Taisier, A & Robert, M (1999) argues that, ethnic polarization risks a civil war in that, it renders the supply as well as the provision of services by the various agencies some handicap as well as the growth of the country economically. In places where the main roads pass through the jurisdiction of some tribes, such tribes may feel obliged to deny access to some other tribe or to drivers belonging to a certain tribe. The affected tribe may feel it safe by reciprocating in their areas of jurisdiction. In such ding according to Taisier, A & Robert, M (1999), this is a recipe for civil unrest in that country. To Taisier, A & Robert, M (1999) the probability of a civil war erupting is higher in countries with two tribes opposing each other. To him this is so because, there are politicians among the two tribes and as he represents a politician as a person who does not have the requirements of the majority at heart but his/her ego, they are likely to incite their tribes men for their own political gains without regard of the dire consequences to the societies. They fail to notice that, when one society loses they also lose in that, they are tasked with the act of reconstructing the lost bits without regard of the tribe they are from. Further, they risk going to jail for long spells due to their actions. Taisier, A & Robert, M (1999) concludes by saying that, tribal chiefs cause much trouble to their tribes than the tribe itself. In conclusion, from the many civil wars which have been fought over and over again around the globe, though their causes are diverse, tribal inclinations; ethnic differences are the most important part of it. This is so because, each and every one of us has a sense of belonging and feels attached to his/her tribe to an extend that, he/she can fight on behalf of the tribe. According to Collier, P (2007), if civil wars are to things of the past, then the word tribe or I belong to that tribe should be done away with, otherwise they will be jumping from one country to another or they will be recurring in the same country from time to time. Collier, P (2007) proposes truth and reconciliation commissions which will be altars when seeking forgiveness once and for all. Reference Brancati, D (2006). Decentralization: Fueling the Fire or Dampening the Flames of Ethnic Conflict and Secessionism? International Organization Brown, E (2001). Nationalism and Ethnic Conflict. MIT Press, ISBN 0262523159 Collier, P (2007). Ethnic Civil Wars: Questioning the Received Wisdom. Ethnic Conflict, Vol. 28 No. 4 Collier, P & Hoeffler, A (2005). Do ethnic and non-ethnic civil wars have the same cause? Journal of conflict resolution, 45(3) Collier, P & Sambanis, N (2003) (Eds). Understanding Civil War: Evidence and Analysis. Washington, DC: World Bank Publications, Vol. 2. Fearon, J. et al. (2006). Ethnic Minority Rule and Civil War Onset. Stanford University Jeremy, M (2006). Inside Rebellion: The Politics of Insurgent Violence. New York: Cambridge University Press Soeters, J (2005). Ethnic Conflict and Terrorism: The Origins and Dynamics of Civil War. Routledge, 978-0-415-36588-8 Taisier, A & Robert, M (1999). Civil Wars in Africa, Roots and Resolution: A comparative analysis of the causes and consequences of Africas civil wars. Retrieved 04 February 2008, from, http://mqup.mcgill.ca/book.php?bookid=283 Tarrow, S. (2003). Inside Insurgencies: Politics and Violence in an Age of Civil War. Perspectives on Politics, 5(587) Read More