How Can Societal or Regime Security Explain Intra-State Conflict - Essay Example

How can societal and/or regime security explain intra conflict? security is essential to the workings of the international order. Accordingly, state insecurity can play a very important role in stimulating intra-state conflict and violence. Utilizing a security studies perspective and looking at intrastate conflict over the past sixty years, this essay proposes to explore how regime insecurity breeds domestic conflict and violence. The Copenhagen School of security studies, led by Barry Buzan, emphatically argues that regime insecurity can lead to extreme violence and have dramatic ramifications at the state as well as international level. Seeking to explore regime insecurity and extreme violence and genocide, this essay will explore Nazism and the Final Solution, the recent Sri Lankan Civil War, Saddam Hussein’s gassing of the Kurds of Halabja and the horrendous Rwandan Genocide. Arguing that the state often plays an important role in stimulating domestic violence and that regime insecurity can breed extreme violence and intra-state conflict, the following will explore these four case studies in comparative perspective (Buzan, 1997). nazism and the Final Solution The Third Reich represents one of the darkest moments in Germany history. Established during the height of the fascist frenzy which propelled the National Socialist party to power in post-War Germany, the Third Reich and Nazi Germany are terms which are often used synonymously to describe this particularly ominous period. As a totalitarian dictatorship which replaced the Weimer Republic and officially lasted a dozen years, the Third Reich was established on the supremacy of the fascist political doctrine and the supremacy of the German Aryan race. This regime was inherently insecure and its insecurities culminated in the Second World War and the eventual extermination of millions of Jewish people throughout Europe. An authoritarian political movement which evolved during the early half of the twentieth century, fascism was the dominant political ideology in Germany for more than a dozen years. Championed by the charismatic torchbearer of this new and increasingly powerful political movement, Adolf Hitler brought fascism to the forefront of German politics by tapping into widespread social discontent following World War I. What lead to the development of fascism in Germany? Fascism arose in response to a variety of domestic and international factors following World War I. Fascism can be defined as a militant political movement which promoted a unique mixture of ideology and organization in an attempt to create a “new type of civilization” (Knox, 1984). German fascism advanced an ideology of extreme nationalism, secular idealism and national rejuvenation. The fascist doctrine in Germany also paved the way for the concept of a Greater Germany which required territorial expansion and was a direct cause of outbreak of the Second World War in 1939. It also encompassed the annihilation of European Jewry through a “final solution” to the Jewish “problem” in Europe. The final solution evolved through the bureaucratic extermination of the Jewish people and other undesirables and the establishment of concentration camps to rid the Reich of its undesirable problems. According to most recent analyses, the final solution was devised in 1941 and carried out by early 1942 although there is no written record of Hitler’s order to commence the final solution (Holocaust History 2008). Such is odd considering the intense bureaucratic nature of everything the Nazis did. According to research on the subject, the order to exterminate the Jews was passed down from Hitler to his lieutenant Himmler, Auschwtiz commander Rudolf Hess and Adolf Eichmann, head of Jewish Affairs for the Reich. Initial steps to carry out the slaughter of the Jews were undertaken by the Einsatzgruppen through wanton shooting and later through the establishment of the now notorious concentration camps. Importantly, the decision to slaughter the Jews was made after the invasion of the Soviet Union by the Nazi forces. The regime was insecure following the Soviet Union’s invasion and engaged in genocide. The result was the extermination of up to 6 million Jews and the wholesale slaughter of a people (Dietrich, 1988). Fascism was an intensely chauvinistic ideology imbued with extreme nationalism and in the German context, sustained beliefs about the superiority of the German “Aryan” race and the natural inferiority of other peoples, particular the Jews. The final solution was thus the culmination of a variety of factors inherent to the Nazi ideology and while it was not undertaken or even decided upon until late in the war, it is evident that fascism, regime insecurity and the racist Nazi doctrine made the final solution possible (Dietrich, 1988). The Sri Lankan Civil War The civil war in Sri Lanka represents one of the most enduring and protracted conflicts in modern times. Pitting the Sinhalese-dominated government in Colombo against the Tamil-speaking ethnic community in the north and eastern reaches of the country, this conflict does not receive nearly the same amount of attention as other ethnic global disputes across the globe (such as the Palestinian-Israeli conflict or the civil war in Darfur) but nonetheless deserves scholarly as well as diplomatic attention. Extreme violence has been an overarching feature of the conflict for more than three decades and the level of violence has steadily increased between the main protagonists in the civil war, namely the government of Sri Lanka and the Tamil rebels, represented today by the oftentimes brutal, yet incredibly effective, Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE for short) (Hoffman 1999). The current state of Sri Lanka was once the British colonial island of Ceylon, which achieved independence in 1948. Comprised of a variety of ethnic groups scattered throughout the island the important cultural communities to emerge in the post-independence period where the majority Sinhala community which spoke Sinhalese and are predominately of the Buddhist faith and the Tamil people who represented a large ethnic minority, spoke the Tamil language and were adherents to the Hindu faith. Ethnic competition over resources in the colonial period was exacerbated by a British withdrawal that favored the majority population and little safeguard minority Tamil rights in the new independent state of Sri Lanka. In the early years of the independence era, a variety of legislative measures were implemented which many Tamils felt impeded their opportunities in the new state. These included university and public service quotas for Tamil students and workers, restrictive citizenship for Indian Tamil migrants and the establishment of Buddhism as the official religion of the state. Due to perceptions of repression and violence ensued between the two largest communities, beginning in the 1970s. Sinhalese insecurity in the post-colonial period is an important feature of the conflict. Today, thousands of people have been maimed or killed in the bloodshed between the Government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE (Wijemanne 2005; Bloom 2005). What can be done to resolve this conflict? A cessation of hostilities will invariably be required to end this conflict and the perpetrators of extreme violence on both sides must be brought to justice. An international peacekeeping force will necessitate intervention both from the United States as well as the dominant power in the region, India, which may be hesitant to intervene, especially following the assassination of Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi in 1991 at the hands of a female suicide bomber with links to the LTTE. Despite the current problems and the protracted nature of the conflict, an international force must be present for this conflict to ever end and insecurities both the Sinhalese and Tamil populations must be addressed. (Boettcher 2004; Butler 2003). State Terror: Saddam Hussein and the Kurds of Halabja Genocidal attacks against the Kurdish minority in Iraq culminated in the Anfal campaign in which Saddam Hussein’s Ba’athist regime slaughtered between 50,000 and 100,000 non-combatant civilians. Through the use of advanced weaponry and banned weapons of mass destruction. Concentration camps, mass starvation, mass executions and chemical weapons were employed on the Kurdish region of Iraq between 1986 and 1989. According to Human Rights Watch, more than 90% of Kurdish villages in Kurdistan, 1,754 schools and 270 hospitals were destroyed. Prior to his execution in 2006, Saddam Hussein was under trial for his role in the Anfal campaign. He was unfortunately killed before a verdict could be delivered in one of the most flagrant examples of state terror in the latter half of the twentieth century. An example of ethnic cleansing of unimaginable scale, Anfal represented state terror at its worst. On one March afternoon, between 3,000 and 5,000 civilians will killed with chemical gas. Was the Anfal campaign premeditated? Yes, documents have shown that both Saddam Hussein and his cousin, the Iraqi Governor of the region, Ali Hassan al-Majid, orchestrated the events in Kurdistan. Was the Iraqi state politically motivated? Yes, seeking the assimilation of the Kurds of Iraq, politics lay behind this assault on human dignity and the right to life. With between 50,000 and 100,000 ethnic Kurds slaughtered during the Anfal campaign, this event fits the conceptual framework provided by Dr. Bloom and represents state terror at its worst. Insecure in Baghdad and worried about a Fifth column during his War with Iran, Saddam Hussein resorted to genocide and the extermination of his own people. We now turn to the most prominent genocide in recent memory, that which occured in Rwanda a little over fifteen years ago (Human Rights Watch 1993). The Rwandan Genocide The Rwandan Genocide of 1994 is one most recent and arguably most heinous events of recent memory, culminating in the deaths of hundreds of thousands innocent men, women and children following the death of Rwandan President Habyarimana under mysterious circumstances. In Rwanda, ethnic animosities between the majority Hutu and Tutsi communities exploded in he aftermath of Habyarimana’s death and produced one of the most violent events of the twentieth century. Seeking to explain the massacres which took place in Rwanda in 1994, Jonathan Glover persuasively argues that the propensity of people in the West to attempt to explain the genocide in Rwanda by harking back to tribal divisions and historic tribal animosities is an oversimplification which does not do justice to the conflict. Accordingly, by focusing on the inevitability of such tribal animosity Western scholars have ignored important preconditions to the outbreak of genocide in Rwanda in 1994. Genocide in Rwanda did not “just happen”. The Belgian colonial experience shaped the artificial “ethnic” divisions in Rwanda which shaped politics for years to come, culminating in the genocide of 1994. Accordingly, the conflict in Rwanda was more than a civil war or short-term conflict. While estimates vary, up to one million people – largely Tutsis and moderate Hutus were killed in an incredibly short period of time. The Rwandan genocide was not a standard civil war and was an orchestrated full-scale genocide perpetuated against the Tutsi minority but extremists within the Hutu camp. A hate campaign against Tutsis and moderate Hutus was conducted through a variety of means by génocidaires intent on eradicating the Tutsi presence in Rwanda. Fearing a Tutsi-led invasion in the aftermath of Habyrimana’s death, the genocide planned by “people wanting to keep power” (121) and a variety of means were used to coerce the Rwandan population to engage in the genocide. This was Hutu Power insecurities following the death of the Rwandan President. Instead of mere tribal hostility, Glover argues for individual agency in attempting to account for the emergence of the genocide and argues that key players within the Hutu extremist establishment were responsible for the events that transpired after Habyrimana’s plane crashed. Instrumentalism is a theoretical paradigm which argues that things “don’t just happen”, events are directed by individual actors who utilize crisis and trauma for their own political purposes. As such, seeing the Rwandan genocide as simply the result of traditional enmity and tribalism is an oversimplification which does more to hide, rather than explain, the reasons for the Rwandan genocide (Glover 2000). A Moral Perspective There are a handful of moral conclusions which can be drawn from a more nuanced understanding of the events that transpired in Rwanda in 1994. Since the violence which occurred was directed by individuals and not a spontaneous eruption of tribal grief, the perpetrators of the ethnic cleansing in Rwanda should be brought to justice. The international community, through multilateral organizations such as the United Nations or the African Union, has a moral obligation to seek justice for the victims of the Rwandan genocide and redress for the purely heinous events which transpired in that country a little more than a decade a half ago. Accordingly, there is a moral imperative incumbent upon global actors to seek justice for the crimes perpetrated in the name of Hutu extremism and the international community has an important role, especially in the wake of its inability to respond to the genocide while it was progressing (Glover 2000). At its very core, the United Nations was established to promote peaceful solutions to international problems through multilateralism and intercultural dialogue. Human security and the promotion of international peace have been important goals of the United Nations since its establishment following World War II. In recent times, the United Nations has extended its concept of global security to include not only the physical security of the person from armed conflict and war but also the security of the international system as well as of states. Additionally, individual security has been extended to encompass a security which transcends physical or geographic borders. This notion of security is based upon the idea of a shared humanity, irrespective of country of origin or geographic location. Unfortunately, the United Nations has a mixed record when it comes to its peacekeeping operations. Although the development of UN peacekeeping forces is the most pronounced aspect of a desire to promote security on a global scale, the UN has not always been successful in promoting peace and ending bloodshed. The cases of Rwanda, Iraq and Sierra Leone exemplify this trend. The wholesale destruction of the Tutsi community in Rwanda was orchestrated by political elites bent on safeguarding their power. They were insecure in their positions and behaved as such. From a moral perspective we have an obligation to ensure that something like the Rwandan genocide never happens again. As with Holocaust and its memorials around the world, Rwanda represents a moral failing on the part of the international community and we must learn from this shortcoming so that, in the future, it never happens again. Concluding Remarks Human security and the promotion of international peace have been important goals of the United Nations since its establishment following World War II. In recent times, the United Nations has extended its concept of global security to include not only the physical security of the person from armed conflict and war but also the security of the international system as well as of states. Additionally, individual security has been extended to encompass a security which transcends physical or geographic borders. This notion of security is based upon the idea of a shared humanity, irrespective of country of origin or geographic location. As we have seen with Nazism and the Final Solution, the recent Sri Lankan Civil War, Saddam Hussein’s gassing of the Kurds of Halabja and the horrendous Rwandan Genocide, regime insecurity breeds violence and conflict. Accordingly, state insecurity can play a very important role in stimulating intra-state conflict and violence. In order to address these important issues, states must feel secure or they may engage in extreme violence against their own populations. REFERENCES Barry, B. (1997). Security: A New Framework for Analysis. London: Lynne Rienner. Bloom, M. (2005). Dying to Kill: The Allure of Suicide Terror. New York: Columbia University Press. Boettcher III, W.A. (2004). Military Intervention Decisions regarding Humanitarian Crises: Framing Induced Risk Behavior. Political Science Quarterly. 48:3, 331-355. Butler, M.J. (2003). U.S. Military Intervention in Crisis, 1945-1994: An Empirical Inquiry of Just War. Journal of Cold War Studies, 47:2, 226-248. Dietrich, D. J. (1988). “National Renewal, Anti-Semitism, and Political Continuity: A Psychological Assessment”. Political Psychology 9.3: 385-411. Knox, M. (1984). “Conquest, Foreign and Domestic, in Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany”. The Journal of Modern History 56.1 (1984), 2-57. Glover, J. (2000). Humanity: A moral history of the twentieth century. New Haven: Yale University Press. Rothschild, E. (1995). What Is Security? Daedalus, 124,3 (Summer): 53-98. Human Rights Watch. GENOCIDE IN IRAQ: The Anfal Campaign Against the Kurds, July 1993. Last Accessed August 25 2009, http://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/1993/iraqanfal Wijemanne, A. (2005). War and peace in post-colonial Ceylon, 1948-1991. Columbo: Orient Blackswan. Read More