Unformatted Attachment Preview
War and Conflict in
the Contemporary World
(NBU 2018/19)
L1: War and Conflict in the continuum of Peace –
an introduction to definitions and concepts
Valeri R. RATCHEV
ratchevv@yahoo.com
Civil war
Civil war is a violent conflict between factions (political,
ethnic, religious, social) within a state, trying to create, or
prevent a government control for the entire state or part
of it.
➢ Civil war might be continuation of policy of irredentism,
secessionism, and separatism.
➢ Eritrea (1980s) – secession
➢ Serbia (1990s) – war within a federal state
➢Ukraine (2014) – to annex a territory
➢Syria – to dismiss Assad’s regime
Civil war brutality
Guerrilla warfare
Warfare: a characteristic of the combat operations
Guerrilla WARFARE is a form of CIVIL WAR in which a small group of
combatants such as armed civilians or irregulars use military tactics
including ambushes, sabotage, raids, petty warfare, hit-and-run tactics,
and mobility to fight a larger and less-mobile traditional military.
A warfare within a state or across borders (PKK, Nepal) without frontline.
➢ Irregular forces (partisan) operate over territory aiming to diminish
capacity of the state forces to control it.
➢ It creates large zones of no-control and chaos, where civilian population is
pushed to take either side.
➢ As the civilian population is “on the territory” and has not decisive role,
the guerrilla warfare is not a clear civil war.
➢ Guerrilla forces might fight for “liberation” from dictatorship, foreign
forces, ethnic or religious dominance, ideology, power, etc.
Guerrilla wars used to have
a strong ideology
“Hybrid”war
“Hybrid” war is an armed conflict in which at least one of the
adversaries simultaneously and adaptively employs a tailored mix
of conventional, irregular, terrorism and criminal means or
activities in the operational battlespace. Rather than a single
entity, a hybrid threat or challenger may be a combination of state
and non-state actors.
Hybrid war blurs the borders between peace and war, creating the
ground for a lasting conflict
Palestinian intifada
Russia’s “hybrid” war
Intensity of
coercion, violence
Conflict and War in the
continuum of Peace
Crisis
Level of critical
violence
Conflict apogee
Serious complex and
protracted dispute
Single issue
dispute
Unstable (‘cold’) peace
Durable (‘constructive’) peace
Harmony of interests
Time
Every war must
end!
Post-war
continuum to
Peace
Post-war continuum to Peace –
de-escalation
De-escalation of war or armed conflict is the reduction in
intensity of the use of armed forces. De-escalation occurs in two
cases:
• In a situation in which neither side can prevail, but both
sides are being harmed by continuing the
confrontation. But as long as at least one side thinks it can
win, de-escalation is harder to achieve.
• In result of peace enforcement operation of a third party
(international organisation or country/coalition) - (Bosnia)
* De-escalation is also en element of the crisis management
when a conflict escalates rapidly to the point where the parties
fear that further escalation will be catastrophic, and they back
off. (This occurred in the Cuban Missile Crisis between the U.S.
and the U.S.S.R. in 1961/62)
Post-war continuum to Peace –
stabilisation
• Stabilisation is the process of re-establishing the key
government functions and services for the society
Post-war continuum to Peace –
reconstruction
• Reconstruction is the process of eliminating the roots
of the war (armed conflict).
Intensity of
coercion, violence
Conflict and War in the
continuum of Peace
Crisis
Level of critical
violence
Conflict apogee
Serious complex and
protracted dispute
Single issue
dispute
Unstable (‘cold’) peace
Durable (‘constructive’) peace
Harmony of interests
De-escalation
Stabilisation
Reconstruction
Time
Conclusion
• Conflict and peace are not random, unexplainable
phenomena. Both are created, and both can be influenced.
• Conflict and peace are not static. They are dynamic,
connected processes that evolve over time.
• Not all conflicts are violent; some conflicts are settled
peacefully.
• Preventing violent conflicts requires understanding the
dynamics of conflict—peaceful and violent—and
understanding the ingredients of peace.
• The peace after war (armed conflict) is never like before it
Conclusion
• War and Peace are not merely the absence of the
other, but definable states of the international system
• Peace and war can be represented as different phases
in social system development.
• Conflict is the precondition for war – no war without
conflict. Not every conflict leads to war, but each war is
a kind of conflict.
• Peace after a war is never like the peace before it.
War and Conflict in
the Contemporary World
(NBU 2018/19)
L1: War and Conflict in the continuum of Peace –
an introduction to definitions and concepts
Valeri R. RATCHEV
ratchevv@yahoo.com
Classification of war
from a political
perspective
Hegemonic war
(also world, global, general, systemic war)
Hegemony: one state’s holding a dominance of power in the international
system, allowing it to manage the rules and arrangements by which
international political, economic and security relations are conducted.
War period
Global hegemon
The challenger
1494- 1517
Portugal
Spain
1579 - 1609
The Netherlands
France (1)
1688 - 1713
Britain (1)
France (2)
1792 - 1815
Britain (2)
Germany
1914 - 1945
USA (1)
USSR (1)
1945 - 1992
USA (2)
USSR (2)
1992 – 2018+
USA (3)
China
Classical: British Empire in 19
century after defeating Napoleon:
British rules + naval power +
trade=hegemony
Ant. Gramsci: the same result might
be achieved using a complex of
ideas (communism + state
ownership + central planning =
global communist hegemony) or
(democracy + capitalism=US
hegemony)
US after WWII: 50+% of global GDP
+ research & technology leader +
Atomic power + dominant at the sea
+ most powerful global AF
Decline of hegemony because of
“overextension” over time
Hegemonic stability
• Hegemonic stability theory: hegemony provides some order,
similar to the Government, reducing anarchy, deterring
aggression, promoting “freedom” (human, political, economic,
trade)
➢ Hegemons control stability trough:
-
Deterrence, Including nuclear;
Demonstration of political will and military power;
Sanctions, including military blockade;
Limited preventive and pre-emptive interventions;
War.
• Hegemonic stability theory from other countries point of
view:
- Unjust and illegitimate order
- Infringement in their sovereignty
Limited war
Limited war is war in which: 1) the weapons used, 2) the
territory involved, or 3) the objectives pursued are
planned restricted in some way.
The aim is not to eradicate the opponent and occupy the
country:
➢ Requires limited mobilisation of capacity
➢ Relatively short duration
➢“Socially acceptable” number of victims
Deliberation of Kuwait - “Desert
Storm”(1991): coalition casualties
Country
Total
Enemy action
Accident
Friendly fire
United States
181
111
35
35
United Kingdom
47
38
United Arab Emirates
6
6
Syria
2
Senegal
92
Saudi Arabia
24
18
Qatar
3
3
Kuwait
1
1
France
9
9
Egypt
11
6
9
92
6
5
Total war
Total war is a military conflict in which the contenders
are willing to make any sacrifice in lives and other
resources to obtain a complete victory.
The planned goal is to eradicate another country or to put it under total
control.
➢ Total war between equal states require full (total) mobilisation of the
national capacity and massive armed forces
➢ Napoleon – conscription, full mobilisation; the last – WWII
➢ Societies are seen as “legitimate targets” (as they have been mobilised) –
Germany – Britain (first FAU after UK bombing killed 600 000 Germans and
hundred of thousands Japanese.
➢ The nuclear bombing of Japan cities
➢ Great powers and big countries can achieve total results with limited
mobilisation against small countries or less capable armed forces
The plan might not be achieved and the war may turn into limited.
War and Conflict in
the Contemporary World
(NBU 2018/19)
L1: War and Conflict in the continuum of Peace –
an introduction to definitions and concepts
Valeri R. RATCHEV
ratchevv@yahoo.com
Topics
• Peace, Conflict, and War from a political perspective
• Conflict and War in the continuum of Peace
Peace
“When the power of love
overcomes the love of power,
the world will know peace.”
Jimi Hendrix
The meaning of “peace” in
different cultures
• The Ancient Greek: eirene, contains the idea of a lasting peace - opposition
to polemos, war
• In Latin: pax has been strictly connected to bellum (peace after war); Later
- pax and securitas were the supreme values
• In the Bible: shalom does not embrace only the absence of war, but rather
it speaks of wholeness, well being, prosperity, life, and even salvation
• In the Quran: salam means not only peace, but also love and brotherhood.
• In Chinese: ping refers to harmony
• M. Ghandi: satyagraha (struggle for truth) + ahimsa (built-in inhibitors of
violence) + sarvodaya (the well-being of all that naturally exists in a nonviolent world)
• in the beliefs of Quakers and Mennonites: war is morally wrong (pacifism)
Peace in the realist political
perspective
The realist perspective (ancient China, Greece, Hobbes, Machiavelli, Rousseau,
Stalin, Hitler, Charles de Gaulle, Churchill, Putin, Kissinger, Brzezinski, Waltz,
Trump…):
• State is a single rational actor - state actions are self-reliant and self-centred.
• International system is anarchy – states can't trust each other and must be
prepared for war – security dilemma as the states are natural competitors;
• In an anarchy, power and sovereignty of interests and actions are the only
important (if the state has power it will use it; if does not have – should build
it to use it).
• The international system and its structure differ from the domestic (in its
international affairs, the state is separated from the society)
• Peace could exist only as a balance of interests and power between states
or under unilateral hegemony; cooperation is possible only in limited forms
Peace in the liberal political
perspective
The liberal perspective (I. Kant, J. Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, W.
Wilson, A. Smith, T. Jefferson, John-Steward Mill, F. Fukuyama, K. Popper, B.
Clinton, J. Nye, B. Obama):
•
State and non-state actors are important; state is disaggregated into
components, some of which may operate internationally; focus on
individual rights and freedoms
•
International system is manageable – cooperation and tensions, dialog and
conflict, bargaining and international law may lead to compromises which
are not necessarily optimal; IO are very important (liberal institutionalism)
•
States may cooperate economically even if they are in security competition
– interdependence provides security, not the power (collective security)
•
Democracy at home – democratic peace for all.
Boulding’s explanation of Peace
as “status”
Definition 1: Peace is a setting in
which conflict and excitement,
debate and dialogue, drama and
confrontation do not get out of
hand and become destructive
Kenneth Boulding
Galtung’s peace dichotomy
Definition 2: Negative peace is simply the
absence of direct violence or war.
Definition 3: Positive peace is more than
the absence of war or even violence.
• It is the most common understanding of
peace, not only in the context of
international politics, but more broadly
speaking in the context of the peace
and war debate.
• The pax romana (a condition of
absence of violence guaranteed by legal
arrangements, military power and
social repression) is an example of
negative peace.
• Positive peace is not only a condition
of society in which exploitation is
eliminated or minimised, but its
meaning is so broad to include also the
idea of peace of mind, harmony with
other living things and with the entire
world.
• It implies equity and justice in human
relations, and absence of all kind of
violence, including the absence of
structural and cultural violence. (?)
Types of peace from a political
perspective
Types of Peace
• Durable peace (Constructive, Partnerships) (The West during
the Cold War)
• Unstable peace (Separate, Co-Existence) (East-West during the
Cold War)
Goals of the Peace Policy
• To build – To create trust, value (East-West after the Cold War)
• To restore – To reestablish trust, value (The West and
Germany during the Cold War)
Durable peace
Definition 4: Harmony is a relationship between communities and
nations in which there are virtually no conflicts of interests or
values; nations’ citizens feel when they share a common cause.
Example: the EU nations.
Definition 5: Durable peace, "lasting," "positive" or "just peace"
involves a high level of cooperation at the same time as awareness
and pursuit of conflicting interests. Parties value their overall
relationship more than specific self-interests. Separate interests
are pursued within peaceful, institutionalised dispute settlement
mechanisms; parties feel no need for military force to safeguard
security against others. Violent conflict or repression is virtually
impossible. Example: US/Canada or Scandinavian relations.
Unstable peace
Definition 6: Unstable peace or "cold peace" is a
relationship of limited communication and cooperation
within a context of basic order, mutual respect and
general absence of violence.
A "negative peace" prevails: there is little physical
violence but no friendship; levels of tensions rise and
fall, and parties maintain armed forces as a deterrent.
There are few or no explicit mutual agreements.
Violent conflicts are possible but unlikely. Examples are
US/Soviet-Russia relations.
Intensity of
coercion, violence
Conflict and War in the
continuum of Peace
Unstable (‘cold’) peace
Durable (‘constructive’) peace
Harmony of interests
Time
Conflict
“An eye for an eye will only
make the whole world blind.”
Mahatma Gandhi
The Conflict from a political
(international relations) perspective
Definition 7: “Conflict” in political terms is a struggle over values or
claims to status, power, and scarce resources (not only to gain the
desired values, but also to neutralise, hurt, or eliminate rivals) that
may include the use of armed forces.
S
o
u
r
c
e
s
Unmet resource needs (territory, raw materials)
Unmet Basic Needs (security, identity, material necessities, self-determination)
Clashing Values (freedom versus equality)
Beliefs (chosen people)
Ideologies (capitalism versus communism)
From peace to conflict: the dispute
Definition 8: “Disputes” are disagreements on single
issue, that could be resolved as they usually involve
interests that are negotiable for all sides; such
disagreements rarely lead to war as they reflect interests
but not vital.
Conflict escalation – the
serious dispute
Definition 9: “Serious disputes” are long-term,
deep-rooted problems that involve seemingly
non-negotiable issues (territory, sovereignty,
religion, ideology, security) and are resistant to
resolution.
Conflict radicalisation: the violence
Structural Violence
Harm that comes from subtle,
gradual, systematised, normally
accepted actions of particular
social institutions where
responsibility is blurred:
Direct Violence
That committed by identifiable
people on particular victims:
Poverty, Unemployment,
Discrimination, Poor health
care, schools or housing,
Corrupted politics, Poor
accountability for misuse of
power – people die from the
governance
Hate crimes, Ethnic cleansing,
Rape,Police brutality, Murder,
War - people are killed
Violence
manifest
differently but
all forms are
interdependent
17
Cultural violence
religion or ideology drive the
killers
The conflict apogee – the crisis
Definition 9: “Crisis” is a level of conflict with tense
confrontation, including between active or mobilised
armed forces.
These forces may engage in threats and occasional
skirmishes but have not exerted significant amounts of
force. The probability of war is high. Example: the 1962
Cuban Missile Crisis.
"In order to save the world, we must retreat"
“Mankind must put an end to war before war
puts an end to mankind.”
Intensity of
coercion, violence
Conflict and War in the
continuum of Peace
Crisis
Level of critical
violence
Serious, complex, and
protracted dispute
Single issue
dispute
Unstable (‘cold’) peace
Durable (‘constructive’) peace
Harmony of interests
Time