Conflict versus cooperation

Conflict: Definition
Peace and conflict research assume that
a)conflicts are the expression of opposing interests
b)that they are characteristic for modern societies
c)that they are endemic in modern societies
A conflict exists when two people wish to carry out
acts which are mutually inconsistent. They may both
want to do the same thing, such as eat the same apple,
or they may want to do different things where the
different things are mutually incompatible, such as when
they both want to stay together but one wants to go to
the cinema and the other to stay at home.
 A conflict is resolved when some mutually
compatible set of actions is worked out. The
definition of conflict can be extended from
individuals to groups (such as states or nations),
and more than two parties can be involved in the
conflict.
Conflict’, as it is used in everyday speech, is a
unclear term and associated with it are many
unclear concepts. While in
principle the issue of definition is a question of
decision about how to use words, in practice
definitions are already located in a linguistic
context and have prior associations.
 Thus we need to be careful in our definitions,
and take care to note where a disagreement which
appears to be merely a question of linguistic taste
hides some more basic division about how we
should conceptualize the underlying characteristics
of the discipline. Conflict is an
activity which takes place between conscious,
though not necessarily rational, beings.
If two astronomical bodies collide, we do not
say that they are in conflict. A conflict is defined in
terms of the wants, needs or obligations of the
parties involved. It may
concern fundamental beliefs and attitudes such as
over the status of Jerusalem, where attitudes are
not readily altered.
 Case of conflicts
On 18 April 2005, the BBC reported several pieces
of good news.
Voters in the Turkish Republic of northern
Cyprus had voted for Mehmet Ali Talat, the (non-
recognized) country’s Prime Minister and a strong
supporter of reunification with the south, in
presidential elections. Talat had
campaigned on a platform of reconciliation and
rapprochement with the Greek-dominated part of
the island and promised to initiate fresh talks with
Greek Cypriot leaders
 Thousands of miles to the east, peace talks were
reported to have resumed between the
government of the Philippines and the Moro
Islamic Liberation Front.
Held at a secret location in Malaysia,
negotiations centered on finding workable
compromises on issues such as access to land and a
fairer distribution of the income generated from
the natural resources in the southern Philippines.
In Helsinki, meanwhile, former Finnish president
Martti Ahtisaari let it be known that talks to end
the conflict in Aceh of over three decades had
ended on a positive note, with another round
scheduled for May.
 Finally, at the conclusion of an Indo-Pakistani
summit in New Delhi, the Pakistani President and
the Indian Prime Minister released a statement
saying that peace between the two countries
would be irreversible and agreed to open more
trade and transport links in Kashmir, with the aim
of bringing this dispute of more than half a century
to a permanent and peaceful settlement.
What all these developments have in common is
that they are meant to address long-running
conflicts that have seen more than their fair share
of human suffering.
 Generally speaking, the term ‘conflict’ describes a
situation in which two or more actors pursue
incompatible, yet from their individual perspectives
entirely just, goals.
Ethnic conflicts are a form of group conflict in which
at least one of the parties involved interprets the
conflict, its causes, and potential remedies along an
actually existing or perceived discriminating ethnic
divide. Empirically, it is relatively easy to determine
which conflict is an ethnic one: one knows them when
one sees them.
Few would dispute that Northern Ireland, Kosovo,
Cyprus, the Israeli–Palestinian dispute, the genocide in
Rwanda, the civil war in the Democratic Republic of
Congo (DRC), Kashmir, and Sri Lanka are all, in one
way or another, ethnic conflicts.
 This is so because their manifestations are
violent and their causes and consequences
obviously ethnic. Yet, although all of these conflicts
have been violent, violence in each of them was of
different degrees of intensity.
Leaving aside, for the moment, considerations
of relativity (Cyprus is, after all, smaller and has
fewer inhabitants than the DRC), in 30 years of
violence, some 3,500 people were killed in
Northern Ireland, roughly the same number during
three months of conflict in Kosovo after the start of
NATO’s air campaign, and a single day during the
genocide in Rwanda could have easily seen that
many people killed in just one place.
 In contrast to such violent ethnic conflicts,
relationships between Estonians and Russians in Estonia
and the complex dynamics of interaction between the
different linguistic groups in Canada, Belgium, and
France are also predominantly based on distinct ethnic
identities and (incompatible) interest structures, yet
their manifestations are less violent, and it is far less
common to describe these situations as ethnic conflicts.
Rather, terms such as ‘tension’, ‘dispute’, and
‘unease’ are used.
Finally, there are situations in which various ethnic
groups have different, and more or less frequently
conflicting, interest structures, but hardly ever is the
term ‘tensions’, let alone ‘conflict’, used to describe
them, such as in relation to Switzerland or Catalonia,
where conflicts of interest are handled within
fairly stable and legitimate political institutions.
 Power and material gain can be equally strong
motivations, for leaders and followers alike, to choose
conflict over cooperation, violence over negotiations.
For a proper understanding of the dynamics of
different ethnic conflicts it is, therefore, not enough
simply to look at the degree of violence present.
Rather, it is necessary carefully to analyze the different
actors and factors that are at work in each conflict and
the way in which they combine to lead to violent
escalation or constructive conflict management and
settlement.
Thus, it would be mistaken to assume that
ethnopolitics is only a matter of confrontation between
different politically mobilized groups and states. On the
contrary, there is a range of examples where
ethnopolitics is pursued in a spirit of compromise and
cooperation.
 At the most basic level, it is often the
realization of different ethnic groups that
cooperation is more beneficial than conflict, i.e.
that the diverse aims that each of the groups has
are more easy to achieve in a joint effort.
This does not mean that ethnic identity has lost
its salience; on the contrary, it often continues to
play an important part in day-to-day politics and
has often even been politically institutionalized
through different systems of proportional
allocation of funds, jobs, and seats in parliaments,
and/or through qualified voting procedures in
legislative and executive organs at the relevant
national and regional levels.
 Although these examples underline the fact that
ethnicity-based politics is not in itself a source of conflict
and violence, it leaves open the question of why its
‘civilized’ conduct is possible in some cases but not
others.
Recognizing the crucial consequences of ethnic
conflicts for civilians directly affected by them, as well as
for regional and international security more generally,
the international donor community has, over the past
decade alone, promised some $US60 billion on a vast
range of projects to settle ethnic conflicts and help
rebuild war-torn societies.
Despite this significant financial commitment and the
involvement of many highly skilled people, ethnic
conflict remains a threat to peace, stability, and
prosperity.
 But why is it that Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland
have been in permanent conflict over the past several decades,
when they can live and prosper together elsewhere?
Why was there a bloody civil war in Bosnia when Croats, Serbs,
and Muslims had lived there mostly peacefully over centuries, with
their ethnicity hardly a matter at all in daily life?
Why did nobody see and act upon the warning signs of an
ensuing genocide in Rwanda that eventually killed close to a million
people in a matter of weeks?
What is it that makes Kashmir potentially worth a nuclear war
between India and Pakistan?
Why do a few militants in the Basque country reserve the right
for themselves to carry out a campaign of killing and maiming in the
name of the Basque people, when the overwhelming majority of this
same people want nothing more than an end to the senseless
violence?
 The picture painted above seems bleak, but there is
another way of looking at ethnic conflict, one that is
more optimistic. Between 1946 and 2001, there have
been around 50 ethnically motivated conflicts worldwide;
by 2003, all but 16 of them had been settled.
What has made it possible for so many conflicts to be
resolved? Ethnic conflicts in the Balkans—from Bosnia to
Kosovo to Macedonia—were hailed as successes of
international intervention without border changes, whilst
the secession of East Timor from Indonesia and of Eritrea
from Ethiopia indicated that the creation of new states
to settle ethnic conflicts was, in specific cases, still
accepted as a potentially viable solution.
A history of conflict in the twentieth century
illustrates that there are only very few cases of such
conflict that permanently escape any, even short-term,
resolution.
 But this does not mean that solutions are always self-
evident, readily included by the conflict parties, and easily
implemented, even with significant international aid and
assistance.
Why is it that resolution of ethnic conflicts is such a
complicated process, fraught with difficulty and often
frustration for those offering their good offices in
support?
Is it the unreasonable inflexibility of individual agents,
more interested in their glorification than in peace and
prosperity for their followers?
Why the lack of attention of the international
community to conflicts where the parties are tricked in a
vicious cycle of violence from which they cannot break
free without outside help? Is it the lack of resources and
skills to find and implement solutions that satisfy all
parties?
 These are the questions that need to be
addressed in order to understand different
approaches to how best to solve ethnic conflicts,
the strengths and weaknesses that they have,
and above all their dependence upon the
concrete situation to which they should be
applied. Settlement agreements and peace
deals supposedly signed by the conflict parties in
good faith are many; those that are successfully
implemented and lead to stable peace are far
fewer. In many cases, the settlement achieved is
only a temporary amnesty before violence
escalates anew.
 As a consequence, there has been an increasing
realization that ethnic conflicts do not simply end whenever
a peace agreement has been concluded.
Rather, the international community has been
confronted by complex post-agreement scenarios in the
Balkans, the Middle East, Northern Ireland, Africa, and
south-east Asia, but success in sustaining peace has often
eluded those who managed to forge the original agreement.

Increasingly, therefore, post-conflict reconstruction is

seen as an integral part of the conflict settlement process.
Once an agreement has been signed, especially if it was
reached with international mediation, programmes and
projects are launched to aid the transition from war to
peace, democracy, and prosperity.
 This involves building acceptable, accountable, and
transparent institutions, to generate self-sustaining economic
growth, and to create a civil society with free and
independent media, civic organizations, and a general climate
in which people once again begin to trust each other and are
willing to live together peacefully.
No journey to explore ethnic conflict would be complete
without highlighting its human dimension—a dimension that
is primarily one of endless, and often senseless, suffering.
People who die in ethnic conflict are more than just
statistics. They often die horrible deaths. They leave behind
grieving and frequently bitter families who have to try to
survive amid continuing violence that gradually but surely
destroys the very social, political, and economic foundations
of their lives.
Yet, human beings are not only the passive,
innocent, and unfortunate victims of torture,
rape, looting, and killing in ethnic conflicts.