Conflict in the 21st Century – By Philip Petraglia

Part Two: Between Nations

There are many ways of looking at the sort of conflicts that exist between nations. They can be ideological as currently exists between the secular west and theocracies like Iran, or they can resemble the cold war conflict that existed between capitalist and communist states that consumed so much of the world for a good part of the 20th century. Other sorts of conflicts occur over territory, witness Armenia’s conflict with neighbouring Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh, a region located in Azerbaijan but populated mostly by ethnic Armenians. These territorial conflicts are however in decline, as the world’s borders seem to be firmly set, though this too may change as ethnic groups in neighbouring countries seek some form of unification. Future conflicts may involve disputes over natural resources, as is currently taking place between Vietnam and China over possession of the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea where large reserves of oil and gas are believed to lie. And then there’s the issue of water which is becoming an increasingly precious commodity as the world’s population and economies continue to grow.

While ideological wars are perhaps the most dangerous scenarios, they are also the easiest to resolve but take time. A case in point is the cold war where there was essentially no hatred based on race, ethnicity, or religion. Instead, the conflict was over ideology which involved few emotions compared to conflicts centered around religion and ethnicity (war between Serbs and Bosnian Muslims a case in point). These ideological conflicts can, however, be dangerous where nuclear bombs are present. The current dispute between North Korea and the West is a good example. No one in the West is ever heard making derogatory comments about ethnic Koreans and even the North Korean leaders for all their insanity are not claiming the West hates them owing to their racial make-up. Most likely the dispute will end the same way the cold war ended, with North Korea eventually collapsing and eventual re-unification with South Korea. Meanwhile there’s the fear that North Korea is attempting to develop nuclear bombs as one last ditch effort to black mail the West into making concessions. This of course is dangerous but the issues are solvable as the Cold War shows us.

Conflicts over territory are likely to happen with neighbouring nations like Pakistan and India, China and India, Afghanistan and Pakistan, and Bangladesh and India. What many of these countries have in common are maps conceived by European powers that failed to take into account the aspirations of ethnic, religious, tribal, and linguistic groups, many of whom suddenly found themselves on opposite sides of the border. In the case of Pakistan and India, we have the contentious issue of Kashmir, a predominantly Muslim state in India that has been seeking to secede from India for the past 40 years and unite with its Muslim half in Pakistan. Whether the aim is to join Pakistan or form a nation state with their ethnic kinsmen and separate from Pakistan is not certain. In Afghanistan, meanwhile, millions of ethnic Pashtuns find themselves on both sides of the Afghan- Pakistani border, effectively and unfairly denying this large ethnic and linguistic group it’s own nation. The result is destabilization for both Pakistan and Afghanistan as the Pashtuns seek to reassert themselves on both sides of the border, a course of action sometimes done at the expense of other ethnic groups.

Conflicts over territory will also likely occur over water, especially in the Middle East, where rivers begin in one country and flow into neighbouring countries where relations between governments are volatile at best. Israel, Jordan, Syria, and Turkey are prime examples of countries in the Middle East faced with this thorny issue. The situation in Africa is even more complicated as only a handful of countries were created by the European powers in what is the world’s largest continent. There too an inhospitable climate with a growing population will likely see future conflict over water resources, not to mention ethnic conflict as tribes from both sides of the border seek to re-unite.

A significant conflict best described as a clash of civilization, to borrow a term from Professor Huntington’s classic study “The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order”, will likely occur, and has in fact already begun . This clash of civilization has often been criticized, mostly by critics who have never read the late Professor’s treatise. In essence, we live in an age where the West is in decline, while the East, led by China and India, grow at a rapid rate. This is not to say that the West will become insignificant or simply disappear. But it does mean that there will be at least 4 or 5 powers competing for the world’s natural resources and markets in the 21st century. This need not necessarily lead to conflict but the competition will be fierce, and it is likely that at least some developing countries, especially in Africa, may line up with China when it comes to human rights issues, so as to be able to access that giant market. The Unites States, the EU, China, India, Brazil, and to a lesser extent, Russia, will be the powers to contend with. As Robert D. Kaplan illustrates in “Monsoon”, it is in the interest of the West and the states bordering the Indian Ocean to make certain that the sea lanes, where so much of the world’s commercial navigation takes place, remains safe and free of pirates. There is consequently a factor mitigating against conflict. Nevertheless there will be competition to see whose navy controls the sea lanes which in turn translates into geo-political power.

We of course live in an age where technology, and in particular, the internet, has revolutionized the political scene. A good example is the current uprising in Egypt, where Facebook, twittering, and the Internet led by Google was used by that country’s tech savvy youth to over throw an 82 year old dictator out of touch with both his country and the 21st century. This “revolution” now seems to be spreading to Iran and Bahrain. How successful it will be only time will tell. What is interesting is the fear on the part of the Ayatollahs that outside sources like the U.S. are behind the instigation for change. Expect then to see future conflicts between nations as technology is used in the Global Village to spread democracy and liberty leading to accusations of internal meddling by dictators and autocrats intent on holding on to power.

Clashes will inevitably occur. Nevertheless there remains much room for optimism. There’s always the hope for example that International Law can be used to deal with these conflicts in a transparent and practical manner. This will to a certain degree take imagination on the part of both statesmen and Constitutional Law professors. Take the issue of water rights. A means must be set up to make certain that water issues are dealt with in an impartial matter. As for ethnic groups finding themselves on both sides of the border, Constitutional experts must come up with new forms of federalism that allow these groups to unite without leading to outright secession. This form of federalism could be used to draw Kurds in southeastern Turkey closer to their ethnic kin in Northern Iraq without necessarily leading to secession on the part of either groups. In the end, an effective International Law system may encourage countries to solve their differences peacefully. But this will only occur if countries feel it is in their political and financial interest to adhere to such a system.

Only time will tell whether soft power is used as much as hard to resolve these future conflicts.

Conflict in the 21st Century – By Philip Petraglia

Part One: Within Nations

The 21st Century will likely see the emergence of two types of conflicts: Those that take place within a nation and that tend to be bloody, and those between nations, which while not necessarily bloody, threaten to become so in a catastrophic way. What’s so fascinating is the importance of Geography, something which Robert D Kaplan, an American journalist and editor with the Atlantic magazine, examines in his latest book (Monsoon) published by Random House. Kaplan discusses the issue with regard to those nations that border the Indian Ocean, where we can clearly see these two types of conflicts at play. Pakistan is a prime example. Kaplan elaborates on how tribal and ethnic conflict within this Muslim country threatens to tear that nuclear power apart, thus potentially rendering it a failed state. As Kaplan points out, Pakistan is constantly on a war footing with India, much of it tied to conflicts within India over Kashmir, the only state in India to have a Muslim majority and which Pakistan continues to covet. Other conflicts in and around the Indian Ocean include tribal conflicts in Oman and Yemen, the bloody civil war in Sri Lanka between the Tamil Minority and Sinhalese Majority which recently ended in a humiliating defeat for the Tamils, and ethnic conflict in Burma, where a dozen ethnic groups continue to fight over a vast array of natural resources, and which a central government run by a ruthless and uncompromising military dictatorship is intent on controlling.

The issue of internal conflict can be seen in Indonesia, a vast nation of islands that Kaplan understands well, which while made up of many ethnic and religious groups, is seeking to become the first Muslim Society to truly adopt democratic values. Here again there are challenges. While 88% Muslim, many of the islands in this vast archipelago contain sizeable communities of Christians, Buddhists, and Hindus. Meanwhile the sort of Islam practiced often varies from island to island, thus giving a religion born in the desert a truly Asian and tropical identity. Whether Indonesia’s rulers can create a secular society that respects Muslim values while not alienating it’s religious and ethnic minorities will be that country’s main challenge, which while difficult, is not insurmountable.

While Kaplan discusses this issue with regard to the states bordering the Indian Ocean, internal conflict exists in every continent. Often, these conflicts are between indigenous groups fighting one another over increasingly scare resources like water. Considering that 50% of the world’s population still lives off the land and is engaged in some form of agriculture, water issues will continue to be at the forefront of conflict. Other conflicts occur over precious commodities like oil and minerals and often pit the central government against local communities thousands of miles away where the natural resources are located. Usually the central government is controlled by a “dominant” tribe or ethnic group while the natural resources are in a part of the country controlled by a smaller and weaker ethnic rival. A case in point is Nigeria and Sudan, where local communities feel the central government is exploiting their oil reserves while receiving none of the benefits but all of the environmental degradation that comes from bad regulation and management. In the case of Sudan, a region that is primarily Animist and Christian (South) recently voted overwhelmingly to secede from the Arab North (Muslim) where the capital is situated, and which exploited the South’s oil resources for decades while paying little attention to the needs of the southern provinces.

Other conflicts are quite frankly over pure political power regardless of how few resources a country may have. Lebanon is a case in point, where divisions exist between Shias, Sunnis, Christians, and to a lesser extent, Druzes. In a country that is essentially a unitary state, the fight over who controls the central government becomes an important one, something which each community understands only too well. In this part of the Middle East,, there is no oil to be had. Rather, the struggle is perceived as an existential one, where each community fights for it’s very survival. And like in so many conflicts around the world, there is a spill over effect, as conflict between the different communities encourages regional powers like Israel, Syria, and Iran to get involved for their own geo- political interests.

The current conflict in Egypt is of a completely different variety. Egypt is a relatively homogeneous country, with Muslims constituting nearly 90% of the population. The conflict initially began as a conflict between backers of the old regime (of which there are fewer adherents) who wish to maintain some kind of autocratic regime in power, and those seeking the development of a modern civil society based on the rule of law and democratic principles. Lately, however, a third dimension has appeared, pitting Islamic forces against both secular forces seeking to democratize and modernize the Egyptian state, and forces tied to the old regime.

Even prosperous continents like North America have their own internal conflicts to deal with. In Canada, the conflict is between French speaking Quebec and the rest of the country which is primarily English speaking. While this country certainly remains one of the most prosperous and freest on earth, Quebec came within 50,000 votes from seceding in the last referendum. The United States meanwhile remains a country divided by race and increasingly, language, as Hispanics continue to grow in numbers.

The question one needs to reflect on is how a nation can best control and avoid internal conflict. The answer is clear: It all starts with civil society. No country can prosper, be free, and cater to the various ethnic groups competing for power if there isn’t in place a civil society based on the rule of law. The aim here is to assure that conflicts are resolved peacefully, with members of minority groups assured of justice. Protection of minority rights must become the goal of every society where there is a dominant group in power. Democracy must consequently go hand in hand with the right to be her “Majesty’s Loyal Opposition” as they say in Canada, with no fear of reprisals from those in power. And as the United States has shown us, a clear division of power between the Executive (White House), Legislative (Congress with a bi-cameral house), and Judiciary (with a Supreme Court having the ability to take on the Executive when required) is the best way to avoid tyranny. A federal system that allows minority groups to have their own provinces or states is also essential. Switzerland is a case in point.

To conclude, internal stability means living in a society where everyone has a stake in a system that is fair and that respects differences in religious, ethnic, and tribal affiliation. This system will only succeed if it leads to prosperity, human liberty, and ethnic self-expression for everyone. In the end, this is what will save countries like Burma, Turkey, Sri Lanka, India, and Pakistan, from drowning in sectarian violence.