Ch.5 International Conflict PDF

**Ch.5 International Conflict** **5.1 The Wars of the World** Chapter 3 of "The Waning of War" discusses the decreasing number and size of wars globally. The current chapter focuses on ongoing wars and historical cases to explain the causes of international conflicts. While many wars have ended i...

**Ch.5 International Conflict** **5.1 The Wars of the World** Chapter 3 of "The Waning of War" discusses the decreasing number and size of wars globally. The current chapter focuses on ongoing wars and historical cases to explain the causes of international conflicts. While many wars have ended in recent decades, some countries still face postwar challenges that could lead to renewed violence. For example, Sierra Leone's civil war ended in 2002, but political instability remains a threat. Colombia's largest rebel group began disarming in 2016, but there are concerns that elections could bring a government opposed to the peace agreement. Although conflict has escalated in the Philippines, most of Southeast Asia remains peaceful. Most postwar peace agreements are holding up, but Russia's invasion of Ukraine has introduced a major conflict involving Western military and financial support. Additionally, conflicts continue in Syria, Somalia, Nigeria, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. **Types of War** War encompasses a variety of activities, but at its core, it is about competing interests and preferences, like politics. This makes it challenging to determine the exact number of ongoing wars globally. Most lists of wars use criteria such as a minimum of a thousand battle deaths to differentiate war from lower-level violence like strikes or riots. Wars are diverse, arising from different situations and serving various roles in conflict resolution. The largest wars can be categorized into main types based on their characteristics. **Hegemonic war** refers to a conflict over control of the entire world order, including the rules of the international system and the role of world hegemony. This type of war is also known as world war, global war, general war, or systemic war. The last hegemonic war was World War II. Due to the destructive power of modern weaponry, such a war is unlikely to occur again without risking the destruction of civilization. **hegemonic war**: War for control of the entire world order: the rules of the international system. Also called world war, global war, general war, or systemic war. **Total war** is a form of unrestricted warfare where a state uses all its resources to destroy another state, aiming for complete victory. This includes targeting both civilian and military assets. The Napoleonic Wars, which introduced large-scale conscription and mobilized the entire French economy for war, were early examples of total war. With industrialization, total war evolved to integrate all aspects of society and the economy into the war effort. The last total war between great powers was World War II. **total war**: Warfare by one state waged to conquer and occupy another; modern total war originated in the Napoleonic Wars, which relied on conscription on a mass scale. In **total war**, the entire society is mobilized for the struggle, and the enemy's entire society is considered a legitimate target. For example, during World War II, Germany attacked British civilians with V-2 rockets, while British and U.S. strategic bombing killed 600,000 German civilians and hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians. **Limited war** involves military actions aimed at achieving specific objectives without seeking the complete surrender or occupation of the enemy. For example, the U.S.-led war against Iraq in 1991 aimed to retake Kuwait but did not proceed to Baghdad to overthrow Saddam Hussein's government. Similarly, many border wars have this character, where a state may occupy the desired land and then defend its gains, as Russia did after expelling Georgian troops from disputed provinces in 2008. **limited war**: Military actions that seek objectives short of the surrender and occupation of the enemy. **Raids** are limited wars consisting of a single action, such as a bombing run or a quick land incursion. For example, in 2007, Israeli warplanes bombed a facility in Syria believed to be a nuclear research facility. Raids fall into a gray area between wars and nonwars due to their limited destruction and quick resolution. However, repeated raids or those that fuel a cycle of retaliation can escalate into limited wars or low-intensity conflicts. **Civil war** refers to a conflict between factions within a state, aiming to create or prevent a new government for the entire state or a part of it. This can involve changing the system of government, replacing leaders, or seceding to form a new state. Here are some detailed examples and aspects of civil wars: - **Secessionist Civil Wars**: These wars aim to create a new state by breaking away from the existing one. - **U.S. Civil War (1860s)**: The Confederate states sought to secede from the Union, leading to a brutal conflict. - **Eritrea's War for Independence (1980s)**: Eritrea fought to separate from Ethiopia, eventually becoming an internationally recognized state. - **Civil Wars for Control of the State**: These conflicts aim to control the entire state rather than secede. - **El Salvador Civil War (1980s)**: This war was fought between the government and rebel groups, resulting in over 50,000 deaths, including many from massacres and death squads. - **Ethnic or Clan-Based Civil Wars**: Modern civil wars often emerge from ethnic or clan conflicts. - **Chad (2007)**: A rebel group composed of rival clans to the president nearly overthrew the government. - **Brutality and Casualties**: Civil wars are often among the most brutal, with high casualties and atrocities committed by both sides. For example, the civil war in El Salvador saw significant violence not based on ethnic differences but on political and ideological grounds. - **Support for Rebels**: Sustaining a civil war usually requires external support. This can come from: - **Neighboring States**: Providing military or logistical support. - **Diaspora Communities**: Offering financial or political backing. - **Revenue from Natural Resources or Illegal Activities**: Funding the war effort through resources like minerals or drugs. **civil war**: A war between factions within a state trying to create, or prevent, a new government for the entire state or some territorial part of it. **Guerrilla war** involves smaller, irregular forces fighting against larger, regular forces using tactics like ambushes, raids, and hit-and-run maneuvers. These irregular forces often operate within civilian populations, aiming to harass and punish the enemy rather than confront them directly. The goal is to gradually limit the enemy's operations and liberate territory from their control. Examples include: - **Vietnam War**: U.S. forces fought against Viet Cong guerrillas in the 1960s and 1970s. - **Peru's War Against the Shining Path**: A Leninist-Marxist movement using brutal tactics to pursue a communist government. Guerrilla wars lack a fixed front line, leading to territories being contested by both sides simultaneously. This situation is particularly painful for civilians, who suffer from lawlessness, banditry, and violence. Conventional armies often struggle to distinguish guerrillas from civilians, sometimes punishing both. For instance, in South Vietnam, a U.S. officer famously remarked, "We had to destroy the village to save it." Warfare is increasingly irregular and guerrilla-style, with fewer open, conventional clashes between large state armies, though such clashes still occur occasionally. **guerrilla war**: Warfare without front lines and with irregular forces operating amid, and often hidden or protected by, civilian populations. In all types of war, the theories of international relations (IR) scholars fail to capture the true horrors experienced by soldiers and civilians. War suspends basic norms of behavior and traumatizes participants and bystanders over time. Soldiers witness their friends being killed and must inflict harm on others, often resulting in lifelong psychological trauma. Civilians face terror, violence, and rape, losing loved ones and homes, and living with lasting trauma. The reality of war is chaotic and terrifying, unlike the portrayal in movies. Professional soldiers are trained to function in these conditions, but it remains incredibly challenging, while irregular forces and civilians in civil wars have little hope of coping. The horrors are magnified in cases of genocide, massacres, child soldiers, and prolonged brutal warfare. In recent years, scholars and policymakers have focused more on the challenging transitions from war to peace. This includes postwar reconciliation, conflict resolution, transitional governments, and economic reconstruction. These efforts often address collective action problems, such as when Somali clan elders in 2007 agreed to disarm but hesitated to be the first. Fighting can continue due to mutual distrust in upholding peace deals. To overcome these challenges, international peacekeepers and NGOs are often deployed after conflicts end. They work on security sector reform (SSR) to create professional military and police forces, and on disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration (DDR) to manage irregular forces after civil wars. In several countries where long internal wars in the 1990s led to dehumanization and atrocities, new governments used **truth commissions** to help society heal and move forward. These commissions aimed to hear honest testimonies about what happened during the wars and offered asylum from punishment in exchange. International NGOs sometimes facilitated this process. Examples include: - **South Africa**: The Truth and Reconciliation Commission was established to address the atrocities committed during apartheid. It provided a platform for victims and perpetrators to share their experiences and seek forgiveness. - **Sierra Leone**: In 1999, a settlement included a faction known for terror tactics, such as cutting off civilians' fingers. Human rights groups objected, but hostilities ended in 2001. - **Colombia**: In 2006, right-wing militia leaders called for a truth commission to confess their roles in the long civil war and forced the government to admit to harming civilians. As part of the 2017 peace settlement, a truth commission began operating in December of that year. - **Canada**: Between 2008 and 2015, Canada held a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to address its treatment of indigenous peoples, focusing on the abuses suffered in residential schools. These efforts aim to balance the need for justice and truth with the need to keep all groups engaged in the peace process. They often involve complex political settlements and strive to ensure that all parties feel included and heard. Experts have debated the necessity of truth and reconciliation after long conflicts. Some argue that tribunals and government-sponsored panels investigating past crimes could cause political instability in transitional states. Others believe that these panels are essential for building trust, which is crucial for democracy. **Theories of the Causes of War** - The Roman writer Seneca said nearly 2,000 years ago: "Of war men ask the outcome, not the cause." However, political scientists are interested in understanding why countries fight. - Conflict is ever-present in the international system and is the backdrop against which bargaining takes place. - In conflict bargaining, states develop capabilities to gain leverage and achieve more favorable outcomes. The ultimate outcome of this bargaining process is a settlement of the conflict, whether fair or unfair. - Rarely do conflicts lead to violence, but when they do, it is the result of failed bargaining and unresolved disputes. **Conflict**: A difference in preferred outcomes in a bargaining situation. The question of when conflict becomes violent can be approached in different ways: - **Descriptive Approaches**: Favored by historians, these focus on specific direct causes of war, which vary from one conflict to another. For example, the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in 1914 is often cited as the cause of World War I. - **Theoretical Approaches**: Favored by political scientists, these seek general explanations applicable to various contexts. For instance, World War I can be seen as caused by shifts in the balance of power among European states, with the assassination serving as a catalyst. To organize the many theories explaining why wars, begin, political scientists use the **levels of analysis** concept. This framework highlights that important events in international relations (IR) have multiple causes at different levels of analysis. **The Individual Level** On the individual level of analysis, foreign policy decisions are often explained by the actions and leadership of political leaders. For example, Frederick the Great's leadership of the Prussian military during the Seven Years' War was crucial to Prussia's victory, which eventually led to German unification. Therefore, historical accounts must highlight the role of leaders to understand the causes of war and peace. Early realism emphasized human nature as a key factor at the individual level. Thomas Hobbes, for instance, believed that humans are inherently selfish and lack morals. However, since human nature is relatively static while war and peace vary, its explanatory power is limited. More recently, scholars have identified individual-level considerations that can be systematized, such as worldviews, psychological processes, combat experience, and previous government experience. Variations in these attributes may explain a leader's propensity for peace or conflict. Some leaders may be prone to using military force to settle conflicts, while others, like Egypt's Anwar Sadat, can transition from war-makers to peacemakers. Leaders from diverse cultural backgrounds and religions, both male and female, have led their states into war. The "madman theory" suggests that leaders with a mercurial disposition can secure better deals or concessions in international politics. Research in international relations often finds that a combination of individual-level and contextual factors is needed to explain when leaders choose war or peace in a particular situation. **The Domestic Level** The **domestic level of analysis** focuses on the characteristics of states or societies that influence their propensity to use violence in resolving conflicts. During the Cold War, Marxists argued that aggressive and greedy capitalist states were prone to violence in international conflicts, while Western leaders claimed that the expansionist, ideological, and totalitarian nature of communist states made them especially prone to violence. Both types of societies regularly engaged in wars. Both rich industrialized states and poor agrarian ones have used war at times. Anthropologists have found that preagricultural hunter-gatherer societies were more prone to warfare than today's societies. One argument is that improvements in gender equality have helped prevent violent conflict and explain variations in conflict across cultures, types of societies, and time periods. However, the importance and frequency of war vary greatly from case to case. The passage suggests that domestic political factors influence a state\'s approach to war and peace. For example, the democratic peace theory posits that democracies rarely fight one another, though both democracies and authoritarian regimes engage in wars. Recent political science research argues that some authoritarian regimes, such as single-party states, may be more peaceful than those led by individual dictators. Additionally, political parties, interest groups, and legislatures are seen as important in determining whether international conflicts escalate into wars. The passage highlights that few reliable generalizations exist about which societies are more prone to war. Societies can change significantly over time. For example, Japan was war-prone before World War II but has been peaceful since. Similarly, the !Kung bush people were observed to be peaceful in the 1960s, but violent in the 1920s. Political scientists have yet to identify general principles explaining why some societies are peaceful at certain times and war-prone at others, or why these patterns change. **The Systemic Level** Theories at the systemic level explain wars through power relations among major international actors. Some theories include: - **Power Transition Theory**: Conflicts arise when power is equally distributed, and a rising power threatens a declining hegemon. - **Deterrence Theory**: Wars are prevented by building up power and threatening its use. - **Arms Races Theory**: Wars are caused by the buildup of arms. Additionally, some theories suggest that major wars are cyclical, linked to long economic waves (Kondratieff cycles) of about 50 years or 100-year cycles of world order creation and decay. These theories explain general tendencies toward war over time but lack a general formula for specific circumstances. **cycle theories**: An effort to explain tendencies toward war in the international system as cyclical, for example, by linking wars with long waves in the world economy (Kondratieff cycles). Alternatively, the theory of linear long-term change suggests that war is becoming less likely over time due to advancements in technology and the development of international norms. Scholars argue that war and military force are becoming obsolete in resolving international conflicts because they are ineffective in today's complex, interdependent world. Economic interdependence raises the costs of conflict, as it would disrupt trade relations, making war less appealing. A parallel argument suggests that modern military technology, especially nuclear weapons, is too powerful to use in most conflicts. Another "war obsolescence" theory posits that violence has decreased due to integrated commerce, increased cognitive reasoning, the empowerment of women, and state monopoly of violence (meaning states ultimately decide whether physical force is appropriate or not). Advocates compare this decline in violence to the historical obsolescence of practices like slavery, dueling, and cannibalism. While these theories have strong empirical support, there is no consensus on the best explanation for this trend. Some political scientists analyze war from a statistical perspective, examining data on various types of wars and their circumstances. Current research explores how factors like democracy, government structure, trade, and international organizations influence the escalation or resolution of military disputes between states. Competing theories at all three levels of analysis provide different explanations for why some conflicts become violent while others do not. Consequently, political scientists cannot confidently predict which international conflicts will lead to war. However, studying various types of conflicts can offer insights into the underlying issues that states are fighting about. **5.2 Conflicts of Ideas** International conflicts can be categorized into six types: *ethnic, religious, ideological, territorial, governmental,* and *economic*. The first three are conflicts over ideas, while the last three are conflicts over interests. These types often overlap in practice. For example, the conflicts between Russia and Ukraine after the 1991 Soviet breakup were complex, involving ethnic, religious, territorial, and economic disputes. Ethnic Russians in Ukraine and ethnic Ukrainians in Russia experienced conflict, and there were religious differences between Ukrainian and Russian Christianity. Territorial disputes included the Crimean Peninsula, and economic conflicts arose over trade and money because of smaller Slavic countries achieving independence from the Soviet Union. These conflicts did not lead to military force until 2014, when Russia annexed Crimea and supported a rebellion in eastern Ukraine. In 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine, expecting a quick victory, but faced strong resistance from Ukraine and economic sanctions from the West. We will begin by examining the most challenging types of conflict, where intangible elements like ethnic hatred, religious fervor, or ideology are involved---these are conflicts of ideas. These identity-based conflicts have been historically shaped by nationalism, which links identity to internationally recognized statehood. Therefore, we will first review the development of nationalism before exploring the three types of conflicts of ideas. **Nationalism** Nationalism, defined as devotion to one's nation over other states, has been a crucial force in world politics for the past two centuries. A nation is a population sharing an identity, often including language and culture, though nationality is hard to define precisely. Political control over large territories, like France, helped create the commonality needed for nationhood---states created nations. Conversely, the perceived existence of a nation has often led to the creation of a corresponding state as people gain sovereignty---nations created states. **Nationalism**: Identification with and devotion to the interests of one\'s nation. It usually involves a large group of people who share a national identity and often a language, culture, or ancestry. The concept implies a definition not just of who is in that nation but who is out, an inherent \"othering\" of those outside the group. Around A.D. 1500, countries like France and Austria started uniting entire nations into single, powerful nation-states, which overran smaller neighbors and incorporated many small territories. Over time, nationalism became a powerful force, contributing to the disintegration of large multinational states such as Austria-Hungary (during World War I), the Soviet Union, and Yugoslavia. The principle of self-determination suggests that people who identify as a nation should have the right to form their own state and govern themselves. While widely praised today as part of the transnational women\'s peace movement which envisions a non-conflictual world in which nations are free to choose their own state and territorial boundaries, it often conflicts with the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity. Self-determination does not permit changing international borders, even those set by colonialism, to unify a group with a common national identity. Historically, self-determination has often been achieved through violence. Conflicts usually arise when the borders of perceived nations do not align with state borders, as seen in Chechnya, Quebec, Israel-Palestine, India-Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Tibet, and other regions. The Netherlands established the principle of self-determination by breaking free from Spanish rule around 1600 and forming a self-governing Dutch republic. This struggle contributed to the Thirty Years' War (1618-1648), during which states mobilized their populations in new ways. Sweden drafted one man out of ten for long-term military service, while the Netherlands used wealth from global trade to finance a professional standing army. During the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars, popular mobilization intensified significantly. France introduced a universal draft and a centrally managed "command" economy. Motivated citizen armies, composed of Frenchmen rather than mercenaries, marched longer and faster. People participated out of patriotism, as their nation-state embodied their aspirations and united them in a common national identity. The United States declared independence from Britain in 1776, following the Netherlands' example. In the early nineteenth century, Latin American states gained independence. Later in the century, Germany and Italy unified their nations from multiple political units through war. Before World War I, socialist workers across Europe united to fight for workers' rights. However, during the war, they abandoned this solidarity to fight for their respective nations, showing that nationalism was a stronger force than socialism. Before World War II, nationalism helped Germany, Italy, and Japan establish fascist political orders. During World War II, it was nationalism and patriotism, rather than communism, that motivated the Soviet people to sacrifice millions of lives to repel Germany's invasion. In the past 70 years, many nations have gained independence and statehood. Jews created the state of Israel in the first half of the twentieth century, while Palestinians aspired to create a Palestinian state in the second half. Multinational states like the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia have fragmented, leading to the emergence of independent nation-states such as Ukraine, Slovenia, and East Timor. Others, like Kosovo and Kurdistan, seek independence and already manage their own affairs. The enduring influence of nationalism is evident and impacts various types of conflicts discussed in the chapter. **Ethnic Conflict** Ethnic conflict is a major source of many current wars. Ethnic groups are large populations sharing ancestral, language, cultural, and/or religious ties and a common identity. While these conflicts often involve material aspects like territory and government control, they primarily stem from a systematic dislike or hatred between ethnic groups. Thus, ethnic conflict is based on intangible causes (who someone is) rather than tangible ones (what someone does). **ethnic groups**: Large groups of people who share ancestral, language, cultural, or religious ties and a common identity Ethnic groups often underpin nationalist sentiments. While not all ethnic groups identify as nations, such as those in the United States who share a common American identity, ethnic groups that form the majority in their ancestral lands typically see themselves as a nation. These groups often aspire to establish their own state with formal international status and defined territorial boundaries. Territorial control is closely linked to ethnic groups' aspirations for statehood. State borders often do not align with the actual locations of ethnic communities, leaving some group members outside their state's borders and others within a rival ethnic group's state. This can lead to dangerous situations where minority group members face discrimination, and their "home" state may attempt to rescue or avenge them. Some ethnic groups, like the Kurds, lack a home state. Kurds aspire to create Kurdistan but live in Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria, all of which oppose losing territory. In the 1990s, Kurdish guerrilla armies fought Iraqi and Turkish forces. Kurds gained autonomy in northern Iraq under U.S. protection and maintained quasi-autonomy post-Saddam. In the 2010 Iraqi elections, Kurds secured a strong position. During the Syrian civil war, Kurdish areas gained autonomy and received international support to fight ISIS. However, by late 2017, Turkey conducted military operations against Kurds and ISIS. In 2019, President Trump withdrew U.S. troops from northern Syria, leading to increased Turkish attacks on Kurds. Some ethnic groups, like the Kurds, lack a home state. Kurds aspire to create Kurdistan but live in Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria, all of which oppose losing territory. In the 1990s, Kurdish guerrilla armies fought Iraqi and Turkish forces and each other. Kurds gained autonomy in northern Iraq under U.S. protection and maintained quasi-autonomy post-Saddam Iraq. In the 2010 Iraqi elections, Kurds secured a strong position. During the Syrian civil war, Kurdish areas gained autonomy and received international support to fight ISIS. However, by late 2017, Turkey conducted military operations against US-supported Kurds and ISIS. In 2019, President Trump withdrew U.S. troops from northern Syria, leading to increased Turkish attacks on Kurds. Ethnic conflicts often lead to pressures to redraw borders by force. Minority ethnic groups in territories controlled by rival groups may be driven out or, in rare cases, exterminated. This allows the majority group to create a more unified and larger territory for its nation-state. For example, ethnic Serbs attempted ethnic cleansing after Yugoslavia's breakup in the 1990s. Similarly, ethnic conflict between majority Kyrgyz and minority Uzbeks in Kyrgyzstan in 2010 displaced hundreds of thousands of people, highlighting the intensity of such identity conflicts. Outside states often worry about the fate of their ethnic kin living as minorities in neighboring states. For example, Albania is concerned about ethnic Albanians in Kosovo, while Serbia worries about ethnic Serbs in Kosovo as it moves toward independence. Similar issues have fueled conflicts between Armenia and Azerbaijan, and India and Pakistan. The combination of ethnic conflict and territorial disputes poses a risk of future wars. **Causes of Ethnic Hostility** Ethnic groups often dislike each other due to long-standing historical conflicts over territories, resources, economic exploitation, or political domination. These conflicts are driven by social psychology processes that arise from prolonged conflicts and violence between groups. Ethnic groups function like extended kinship groups (if closely related) or group identity (if they are not closely related), where members act as though they are family. For example, African American men calling each other "brother" and Jews treating each other as family worldwide. Technology and social media might reduce the need for physical congregation of ethnic groups by allowing them to connect in cyberspace or encourage physical reunions. **Ethnocentrism**: or in-group bias, is the tendency to see one\'s own group in favorable terms and an out-group in unfavorable terms. Some scholars suggest that ethnocentrism may stem from a biological tendency to protect closely related individuals, though this is controversial. More commonly, in-group bias is explained through social psychology. The ties that bind ethnic groups and divide them from others are based on the identity principle. Just as the reciprocity principle has a negative side, so does the identity principle. The same forces that foster group identity and sacrifice, as seen in the European Union (EU), also contribute to in-group bias. Group identity and in-group bias can arise without any significant similarity or kin relationship. Psychological experiments show that even trivial differences can trigger these processes. For example, people assigned to groups based on a minor preference (like circles vs. triangles) quickly develop in-group bias and dislike for the other group. Well-known social psychologist Muzafer Sherif demonstrated this in the 1950s by dividing 22 boys with similar backgrounds into two groups, fostering group bonding, and having them compete in sports. This led to prejudice, vandalism, and looting, requiring separation of the two groups shortly after the experiment started, showing how quickly identity can entrench itself even with minimal differences between groups. In-group biases are much stronger when the other group looks different, speaks a different language, or worships differently. This can lead to dehumanization, where the out-group is stripped of human rights and referred to with animal names. For example, U.S. propaganda in World War II depicted Japanese people as apes. Dehumanization is especially extreme in wartime, where the usual restraints on war, such as not massacring civilians, are often discarded in interethnic warfare. **Dehumanization**: Stigmatization of enemies as subhuman or nonhuman, leading frequently to widespread violence. See also crimes against humanity and genocide. The experience in Western Europe demonstrates that education can help overcome ethnic animosities between historically hostile nations, such as France and Germany. After World War II, these countries revised their textbooks to provide a more balanced and fair account of their histories, moving away from glorifying their own past and vilifying their enemies. This continent-wide effort led to the creation of new, more objective textbooks. In contrast, current Japanese textbooks that downplay Japan's World War II crimes continue to strain its relations with China and Korea. The presence of a threat from an out-group can strengthen the unity of an in-group, leading to a self-reinforcing cycle of ethnic division. Ethnocentrism often causes group members to perceive their own group as divided, due to their close view of internal differences, while seeing the out-group as a unified entity (or \"monolithic\"). This perception usually stems from a sense of vulnerability. In the Arab Israeli conflict, Israelis view themselves as fragmented into various political parties and immigrant communities, while perceiving "the Arabs" as a united bloc. Conversely, Arab Palestinians see themselves as divided into factions and weakened by divisions among Arab states, while viewing "the Israelis" as monolithic. Ethnic groups are just one point along a spectrum of kinship relations, ranging from nuclear families to the entire human race, with loyalties varying along this spectrum. There is no minimum criterion for in-group identity. For example, experts once believed Somalia was immune to ethnic conflicts due to its homogenous population. However, in 1991-1992, a devastating civil war broke out between different clans (based on extended families), resulting in mass starvation, foreign military intervention, and two decades of near-anarchy and continuous violence. The reasons behind why people identify most strongly at one level of group identity are unclear. In Somalia, loyalties lie with clans; in Serbia, with the ethnic group; and in the United States and other places, with multiethnic nations. States reinforce citizens' identification with the state through symbols like flags, anthems, pledges, and patriotic speeches. There is a possibility that in the future, people might shift their loyalties further, developing a global identity as humans first and members of states and ethnic groups second. **Genocide** In extreme cases, governments may resort to genocide, the systematic extermination of ethnic or religious groups, to eliminate scapegoated groups or political rivals. Nazi Germany, under its racial purity policies, exterminated 6 million Jews and millions of others, including homosexuals, Roma, and communists, in what is known as the Holocaust. This, along with the war caused by Nazi aggression, is considered one of the greatest crimes against humanity. German officials responsible for the genocide were tried at the Nuremberg Tribunal after World War II. Despite pledges to prevent future genocides, such atrocities occurred again in the 1990s in Bosnia and Rwanda, and more recently in Darfur, Sudan. The Responsibility to Protect emerged as an international norm to ensure the global community acts to prevent genocide, war crimes, and other crimes against humanity. **Genocide**: An intentional and systematic attempt to destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, in whole or in part. It was confirmed as a crime under international law by the UN Genocide Convention (1948). See also crimes against humanity and dehumanization. In 1994, Rwanda experienced one of the deadliest genocides in recent history. The Hutu-majority government ordered the mass killing of the minority Tutsis and Hutus who opposed the government. This was fueled by historical power struggles and Belgian colonial exploitation of local rivalries. Ethnic Hutu extremists dehumanized Tutsis by calling them "cockroaches." Approximately 800,000 people were massacred, mostly by machete, and many bodies were dumped into rivers, with thousands washing up on lakeshores in neighboring Uganda. The passage critiques the simplistic view that ethnic conflicts, such as the Hutu-Tutsi hatred, are products of "backward" regions like Africa. This perspective was also applied to the Balkans during the Bosnian conflict, where Western politicians depicted the region as inherently prone to violence due to its supposed backwardness. The passage argues that attributing genocide to backwardness is misleading. It highlights that even highly civilized and technologically advanced societies, like Nazi Germany, have committed atrocities. The efficiency of the Holocaust, where industrial methods were used for mass extermination, contrasts with the more rudimentary methods seen in Rwanda, yet both resulted in horrific genocides. Social psychology theories view the Rwandan genocide as a pathological deviation from rationality and social norms. They suggest that in-group biases, based on arbitrary characteristics, are intensified by perceived threats from out-groups and are further exaggerated by history, myths, and propaganda. Politicians can exploit these feelings to gain power. A critical point is reached when the out-group is dehumanized, leading to the breakdown of social norms, such as the prohibition against killing children. During the Rwandan genocide, the international community largely remained passive. A weak UN force had to withdraw, although its commander believed that an additional 5,000 troops could have altered the outcome. This weak response highlighted the fragility of international human rights norms compared to the principle of noninterference, especially when no strategic interests are involved. The Hutu ultranationalists were eventually defeated by Tutsi rebels, but the conflict spread to the Democratic Republic of Congo, where fighting continues over 20 years later. Top U.S. officials, including President Clinton, later apologized for their inadequate response, but the damage was already done. Unfortunately, similar failures occurred again in Darfur, despite renewed promises of "never again." In Sudan, a peace agreement in 2003 ended a decade-long civil war killing millions between northern Muslims and southern Christians, leading to the independence of South Sudan in 2011. However, rebels in Darfur, feeling excluded from the agreement, faced brutal government-backed militia attacks. Despite a tentative peace agreement in 2004 and a joint AU-UN peacekeeping mission in 2007, the international community's response was ineffective. This situation, like Rwanda in 1994, highlights the limited impact of international norms in the current state-based system. Ethnic hatreds, whether leading to genocide or less extreme scapegoating, are often instigated by politicians who use these tensions to bolster their own power. In ethnically divided countries, political parties frequently align along ethnic lines, with leaders amplifying perceived threats from other groups to solidify their support within their own communities. The Cold War's system of alliances and authoritarian communist governments helped suppress ethnic conflicts in multinational states like the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. The strong central governments-maintained order by oppressing local communities and enforcing peace. However, the breakup of these states led to the emergence of ethnic and regional conflicts, sometimes resulting in violence and war. This situation suggests a dilemma where freedom may come at the expense of order. Despite this, not all ethnic groups experienced conflict; many former Soviet Union regions and Czechoslovakia saw relatively peaceful ethnic relations after the fall of communism. **Religious Conflict** Ethnic conflicts often go beyond material grievances and manifest as religious conflicts. Religion, being central to a community's values, can lead to disdain and dehumanization of those with different practices. When combined with ethnic and territorial disputes, religion often becomes the most prominent division. For example, in Azerbaijan, most people are Muslims, while in Armenia, most are Christians. This pattern is common in many ethnic conflicts. While religion itself does not inherently cause conflicts, it can make existing conflicts more difficult to resolve. This is because religious differences involve core values that are often seen as absolute truths. However, in many places, people of different religious groups coexist peacefully. Fundamentalist movements have gained strength globally in recent decades, with members deeply organizing their lives around their religious beliefs and often willing to sacrifice, kill, and die for them. These movements have grown in Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, and other religions. For example, Hindu fundamentalists in India have incited violent clashes, including the 2002 Gujarat riots where nearly a thousand Muslims were killed. In Israel, Jewish fundamentalists have used violence, such as the assassination of the prime minister in 1995, to disrupt peace negotiations with Palestinians. Fundamentalist movements challenge secular political organizations and the international system's rules, which treat all states as equal and sovereign. These movements often view religious laws as higher than state laws and international treaties. Examples include Iranian Islamist fundamentalists training and supporting militias in other countries, Jewish fundamentalists building settlements in Israeli-occupied territories (vowing to cling to the land even if their government evacuates it), and Christian fundamentalists in the U.S. influencing government policy. These actions conflict with international norms and the principles of realism. **Secular**: Created apart from religious establishments and in which there is a high degree of separation between religious and political organizations. Some predict that future international conflicts may arise from a "clash of civilizations," driven by differences among major cultural and religious groups. However, critics argue that this idea is overly simplistic and assumes that cultural differences inherently lead to conflict. Despite the media focus on religious and ethnic conflicts, most ethnic and religious groups coexist peacefully within states. **Islamist Movements** Violent conflicts are occurring in the name of all major religions, but conflicts involving Islamic groups and states receive particular attention. Islamist actors are involved in 12 of the world's 14 ongoing wars. Additionally, the U.S. "war on terror" targets a network of Islamic terror groups. However, it's important to note that most Islamist movements are not violent. Islam is a diverse religion practiced by Muslims worldwide, with the majority being Sunni Muslims (85-90%) and a significant minority being Shi'ite Muslims, mainly in Iran, southern Iraq, southern Lebanon, and Bahrain. There are also many smaller branches and sects. Most Muslim-majority countries are part of the Islamic Conference, an intergovernmental organization. Predominantly Islamic countries span from Nigeria to Indonesia, with historical centers in the Middle East and the largest populations in South and Southeast Asia. Many international conflicts in these regions involve Muslims and non-Muslims, influenced by historical and geographical factors such as colonialism and oil. **Islam**: A broad and diverse world religion whose divergent populations include Sunni Muslims, Shi\'ite Muslims, and many smaller branches and sects from Nigeria to Indonesia, centered in the Middle East and South Asia. **Muslims:** See Islam. Islamist groups aim to base government and society on Islamic law, using various methods. Most are nonviolent, such as charities and political parties, while some are violent, like militias and terrorist networks. In Turkey, Islamist parties gained influence in the 1990s, and Recep Tayyip Erdogan, a former Islamist leader, has been in power since 2003, increasingly consolidating his control since a 2016 coup attempt. Islamist parties have also been significant in Iraq's government since 2003 and played central roles in the Arab Spring, initially winning elections in Tunisia and Egypt. Armed Islamist factions became prominent in the Syrian civil war in 2013, with ISIS emerging as the strongest group by 2014, capturing significant territory in Syria and Iraq, prompting military action from NATO states, Russia, and regional powers. **Islamist**: Describing a political ideology based on instituting Islamic principles and laws in government. A broad range of groups using diverse methods come under this category. Islamist movements, while primarily focused on domestic policy changes, are significant for international relations (IR) because they can influence foreign policies. More importantly, some Islamist movements have become transnational forces, impacting global order and North-South relations in substantial ways. In several countries, Islamist movements reject Western-oriented secular states in favor of governments aligned with Islamic values. These movements often reflect long-standing anti-Western sentiments, partly due to historical colonization by Christian European powers, and can be seen as nationalist movements expressed through religious channels. In some Middle Eastern countries with authoritarian regimes, mosques have been the primary avenue for political opposition, making religion a means to challenge the political and cultural status quo. Anti-Western sentiments in Islamic countries intensified in 2006 after a Danish newspaper published offensive cartoons of the prophet Muhammad, leading to global protests, embassy attacks, riots, and boycotts. In 2015, Islamic militants attacked the Paris-based satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo for similar reasons. Public opinion surveys show misconceptions and differing views between Muslim and non-Muslim countries. Knowing a Muslim personally is significantly correlated with higher disapproval of negative statements about Muslims, highlighting the importance of personal connections in shaping perceptions. Support for Islamist radicals vary significantly across countries. A 2011 poll highlighted "mirror image" perceptions: in Western non-Muslim-majority countries, 58% viewed Muslims as "fanatical," and around 20% thought Muslims were respectful of women. Conversely, in seven Muslim-majority countries, 53% viewed non-Muslims as "fanatical," and 42% felt non-Muslims were respectful of women. Radical Islamist movements pose a threat to certain governments, especially those aligned with the West, and challenge traditional state sovereignty. They reject Western political ideas (based on individuality) in favor of a community-based Islamic orientation. Some aim to establish a single political state across the Middle East, like the historical caliphate of A.D. 600-1200. This would significantly challenge the current international system, prompting opposition from the world's most powerful states. Islamist movements in Middle Eastern countries, such as Turkey, Egypt, and Lebanon, gain strength by advocating for the poor masses against wealthy elites. Like other revolutionaries in the global South, they draw support from impoverished areas, often providing basic services that the government fails to deliver. In a 2010 poll, many in Morocco and Saudi Arabia identified primarily as Muslims, while in Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, and the UAE, most identified as citizens of their states. Islamist movements leverage this religious identity, especially regarding the Arab Israeli conflict. The public in Muslim countries also showed concern for conflicts in Bosnia, Azerbaijan, and Chechnya, where Christian armed forces attacked Muslim civilians, viewing them as part of a broader struggle against Western, Christian imperialism. Outsiders may see these Islamic religious conflicts as expansionist threats, while insiders feel surrounded and repressed. The 2003 Iraq War intensified anti-American sentiment and radicalized politics in the Muslim world, especially in Arab countries. Initially, Barack Obama\'s presidency improved U.S. favorability in the region, notably after his 2009 Cairo speech advocating for better U.S.-Muslim relations. However, by 2010, these positive views declined due to frustrations over the Middle East peace process and the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan. By 2018, American favorability dropped further after the Trump administration\'s controversial decision to move the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, sparking widespread Arab criticism. By moving the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, the U.S. appeared to be recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, effectively siding with Israel in the long-standing conflict. This decision was viewed as undermining Palestinian claims and dismissing international efforts to maintain a neutral stance on the city\'s status until a final peace agreement was reached. **Armed Islamist Groups** Anti-American and anti-Western sentiments in predominantly Islamic countries have fueled the growth of violent Islamist groups, which, despite being a minority, have a significant impact on international relations and attract considerable public attention. These groups vary widely and often conflict with each other, particularly along Sunni and Shi'ite lines. This sectarian divide has led to violence, notably in Iraq, where Sunni leader Saddam Hussein oppressed the Shi'ite majority. After Saddam's overthrow in 2003, Shi'ite parties gained power, leading to sectarian violence as Sunnis launched an insurgency. Although the violence has lessened, Sunni-Shi'ite tensions in Iraq remain unresolved. **Public Opinion and International Relations** **Islamic Extremism** Several Islamist groups, including al Qaeda and the Islamic State, have conducted or supported attacks in various countries. They have also threatened further attacks on civilian targets globally. These threats aim to instill fear and pressure targeted states to alter their policies, particularly regarding long-standing conflicts in the Middle East. Different populations perceive the threat of Islamic extremism in varying ways. Surveys in 11 countries asked respondents about their view of ISIS. No country had a favorable view of ISIS, with the highest approval at 14 percent in Nigeria. Disapproval ranged from 28 percent in Pakistan (with 62 percent unsure, which is reasonable since ISIS operates predominantly in the Middle East) to 100 percent in Lebanon, which was even higher than the 97 percent disapproval in Israel. The key question is whether concerns about terrorism influence individuals' daily lives. Since terrorism aims to disrupt daily life and force political changes, it's important to understand the impact of these concerns. Additionally, these concerns may affect voting behavior in democratic countries. Extremist attacks could influence election outcomes, potentially leading to policy changes favored by extremist groups. However, concerns about extremism can also result in the election of parties and leaders who take stronger actions against extremist groups. Since 2011, the Sunni-Shi'ite divide has been a central issue in Syria. The ruling family is Alawite (an offshoot of Shi'ism), while most of the population is Sunni. The civil war has taken on sectarian overtones, with Shi'ite Iran and Hezbollah supporting the government, and Sunni Turkey and Arab Gulf states backing the rebels. By 2014, Islamist rebels in Syria united with Sunnis from Iraq to form ISIS. The group quickly gained followers and achieved military victories, especially in Sunni-populated areas of Iraq. They gained global attention through videos of beheadings. This led to a significant military effort to defeat ISIS, involving Kurdish guerrillas, Iran, Jordan, and the United States. By 2015, ISIS-inspired terrorist attacks occurred in Libya, Yemen, and Egypt. In 2017, the Iraqi government and Russian president Vladimir Putin declared victory over ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Despite losing much territory, ISIS still attempts to coordinate terrorist attacks in the Middle East and Western Europe. Regionally, Iran and Saudi Arabia represent opposing sides, facing each other over the Persian Gulf and engaged in an arms race. Saudi Arabia stocks jets and missiles, while Iran exports arms to allies and may be pursuing a nuclear weapon. Russia supports the Iranian-Shi'ite side, while the United States and its allies back the Saudi-Sunni side. Despite both strained relations with Israel, Saudi Arabia has moved closer to Israel since 2018 after Israeli President Netanyahu defended Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman amid global censure for the killing of Jamal Khashoggi. In 1979, a popular uprising in Iran overthrew the U.S.-backed shah and established an Islamic government where top religious leaders (ayatollahs) can overturn parliamentary laws. Iran's rejection of international norms was highlighted when it refused to protect U.S. diplomats in 1979. Currently, Iran is developing nuclear technology, potentially leading to nuclear weapons within a few years, defying the UN Security Council. A disputed presidential election in 2009 led to harsh repression of protesters. In 2012, international sanctions caused Iran's currency to lose half its value, and Israel threatened military action to stop Iran's nuclear ambitions. Despite lifting many sanctions in 2016, economic protests erupted in 2017. In January 2020, the U.S. assassinated IRGC Major General Qasem Soleimani, leading to retaliatory strikes by the IRGC and the accidental downing of a civilian aircraft, Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752, sparking protests calling for the removal of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Iran provides significant support, including money, arms, and training, to Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Syrian government. While Hezbollah operates schools, hospitals, and charities, it is also listed as a terrorist organization by the U.S. Hezbollah has fought Israel for years, gaining widespread support in the Arab world, including among Sunnis. In 2011, Hezbollah took a leading role in Lebanon's government despite a UN tribunal indicting its members for the 2005 assassination of Lebanon's prime minister. On the Sunni side, major militant Islamist groups, along with some less violent ones, are Salafis. They follow Wahhabism, a fundamentalist interpretation of Islamic law originating in Saudi Arabia. The main center of this movement is in Afghanistan and the tribal areas of western Pakistan. In 2018, militants with the same philosophy were also active in northern Africa, particularly in Nigeria, Mali, Libya, and Somalia. In 1992, an Islamic government was established in Afghanistan after a civil war and a decade of Soviet occupation. Rival Islamic factions continued the war intensely for several years. By 1997, the Taliban had taken control of most of Afghanistan, imposing an extreme interpretation of Islamic law. The regime enforced repressive policies, including beatings and executions, forcing women to wear head-to-toe coverings, barring girls from school, and requiring men to grow beards. In the 1990s, Afghanistan's unending war, poverty, Islamic fundamentalism, and an ideologically driven government created a base for global terrorist operations, leading to the September 11, 2001, attacks. The United States responded by removing the Taliban from power and disrupting the al Qaeda network. Despite U.S. and NATO successes, the Taliban continues to attack NATO forces, and civilian attacks persist in Afghanistan. After the Taliban's defeat in Afghanistan in 2001, its members and like-minded Pakistani militants established bases in the tribal areas of western Pakistan. Pakistan's intelligence service is believed to use Islamist militants to influence Afghanistan and Kashmir, a territory disputed by Pakistan and India. In late 2008, Pakistan-based terrorists attacked Mumbai, India, killing about 150 civilians. Pro-democracy forces ousted Pakistan's military ruler and installed an elected government in 2008, though not before the assassination of the movement's leader, Benazir Bhutto. The war in Afghanistan has strained relations between Pakistan and the United States and its NATO allies. These tensions worsened in 2011 when U.S. forces killed Osama bin Laden in a Pakistani city. Pakistanis objected to the violation of their sovereignty, while Americans questioned whether the Pakistani military had colluded in hiding bin Laden. Al Qaeda is a transnational network that recruits fighters from various countries, encourages and sometimes trains them, and helps them fight in foreign conflicts. This includes Afghanistan in the 1980s, Iraq after 2003, and Syria and Yemen today. While al Qaeda has gained followers in northern Africa in recent years, it has lost influence in Asia and Europe. After 2001, various terror bombings occurred from Bali to Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Russia, the Philippines, Indonesia, Iraq, and Turkey. In 2004, train bombings in Madrid killed hundreds and influenced an election, leading Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq. The following year, the London subway was targeted. In Saudi Arabia-home to the world\'s largest oil reserves, Islam\'s holiest sites, and the roots of Wahhabism-al Qaeda has long hoped to overthrow the monarchy. Yemen, the poorest country in the Middle East, has faced decades of civil conflict. An active branch of al Qaeda-affiliated fighters has attempted to bomb U.S.-bound aircraft and seized territory during political unrest in 2011-2012. Since 2010, the U.S. has conducted drone attacks against Yemeni militants, peaking in 2017. Yemen has been in a full-scale civil war since 2015, primarily between the Yemeni government and the Iran-backed Houthi movement, opposed by Saudi Arabia (allied with Iran but opposed to al Qaeda). Saudi Arabia has attacked the Houthis and imposed a blockade. In 2019, a southern separatist movement supported by the United Arab Emirates began fighting Saudi-backed forces. The UN called for a cease-fire in 2020 to prevent a coronavirus outbreak and hoping to give an opening for peace-talks with the Houthis, but the Houthis rejected it, citing a precondition that the blockade be lifted prior to any cease-fire. The UN has called Yemen the world's worst humanitarian disaster, with nearly 400,000 deaths by the end of 2021, famine affecting millions, and thousands of indirect fatalities, including 4,000 deaths from a cholera epidemic. In 2012, an African Union (AU) force ousted al Shabab fighters, affiliated with al Qaeda, from most cities and towns in Somalia. Before this, al Shabab took revenge on Ethiopia and Uganda, which had supported the Somali government, by carrying out deadly bombings in Uganda during the 2010 World Cup finals. Although the AU pushed al Shabab out of the capital, a severe famine in 2011, caused by drought and war, affected al Shabab-held areas and forced refugees into Kenya. In response, Kenya sent military forces into Somalia to attack al Shabab. These invasions weakened al Shabab, but it continues to attack targets within Somalia. In 2011, the overthrow of Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi, with NATO assistance, empowered armed Islamist groups, leading to violence spilling into Mali. These groups killed the U.S. ambassador in 2012 and joined ethnic rebels from Mali to seize northern Mali, using weapons from Libya. The Islamists then took power from the ethnic rebels. In 2013, a military intervention by France and neighboring African countries ousted the Islamists, returning control to the Malian government. France has maintained a military presence in the Sahel region, using drones to periodically strike suspected militants, including notable strikes in Mali and Niger. In Nigeria, the Islamist group Boko Haram has been attacking government officials and civilians since 2009. In 2014, they notably attacked several girls' schools, taking young girls' hostage. The Nigerian government declared a state of emergency and deployed thousands of troops to the northern provinces, where Boko Haram is strongest. In Palestine, Hamas, a radical Islamist faction and the Gaza chapter of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, is a significant Sunni militia. Based in the Gaza Strip, Hamas sent suicide bombers to kill hundreds of Israelis after 2000 and won parliamentary elections in 2006, seen as less corrupt than Fatah, which controls the West Bank. Both Hamas and Fatah claim to represent the Palestinian people but remain hostile over power. Reconciliation efforts have failed to resolve the divide. The United States and Israel oppose reconciliation, viewing Fatah as the sole negotiable partner. Russia and China have faced Islamist violence within their borders. In Russia's far south, the predominantly Sunni Muslim republic of Chechnya attempted to secede after the Soviet Union collapsed. Following destructive wars in the 1990s, Chechen guerrillas resorted to hijackings, hostage-taking, and bombings. In 2004, hundreds of children died in a school hostage crisis. In 2005, Russian forces killed the Chechen separatist leader, leading to sporadic political violence since then. Overall, conflicts involving Islamist movements are multifaceted, involving not just religious aspects but also power dynamics, economic relations, ethnic chauvinism, and the impacts of historical empires. **Ideological Conflict** Ideology, much like religion, tends to symbolize and intensify conflicts between groups and states rather than directly causing them. However, ideologies generally have a weaker grip on core values and absolute truths compared to religions, posing fewer problems for the international system. For realists, ideological differences among states are not very significant because all states pursue their national interests within fluid alliances. During the Cold War, despite the ideological struggle between capitalist democracy and communism, alliances and military competitions were not strictly based on ideology. The Soviet Union and China, both communist, did not remain allies for long. India, a democratic and capitalist country, did not ally with the United States. Also, the two great rival superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union, managed to coexist within the international system despite their ideological differences, such as remaining UN members. Over time, countries that undergo revolutions driven by strong ideologies often lose their initial fervor. Examples include Iran's Islamic fundamentalism (1979), China's Maoist communism (1949), Russia's Leninist communism (1917), and U.S. democracy (1776). Initially, these revolutions aimed to significantly change their state's foreign policy due to their profound ideological implications. However, within a few decades, these governments shifted their focus to national interests over ideological ones. In the 1980s, the conflict in Angola, ostensibly a struggle between democracy (backed by the U.S.) and Marxism (backed by the Soviet Union), was not truly ideological. The government used Marxist rhetoric to secure Soviet aid, which it abandoned once the aid stopped. The rebels, who used democratic rhetoric to gain U.S. support, had previously received Chinese support and used Maoist rhetoric. When the government won UN-sponsored elections, the "democratic" rebels rejected the results and resumed fighting. The conflict, which ended in 2002, was essentially a power struggle between two ethnically based factions vying for control of Angola's resources like oil and diamonds. In the short term, revolutions can change international relations and make wars more likely, not due to ideology but because sudden government changes can alter alliances and the balance of power. This leads to revised power calculations, increasing the chances of miscalculations or exaggerated threats. Essentially, the instability and power shifts following a revolution are the main drivers of post-revolutionary conflicts, rather than the ideological motivations behind the revolution. **5.3 Conflicts of Interest** Conflicts based on ideas can be difficult to resolve due to psychological and emotional factors. However, conflicts over material interests are generally easier to settle using the reciprocity principle. In theory, with sufficient positive leverage or compensation, any state should be willing to agree to another state's terms on a disputed issue. **Territorial Disputes** Territorial conflicts hold special importance due to the territorial nature of states. These conflicts come in two main types: 1. **Territorial disputes**: Disagreements over where borders between two states should be drawn. 2. **Conflicts over control of entire states**: Disputes about who controls a state within its existing borders. States value their home territory with intense devotion, making border disputes among the most difficult to resolve in international relations. States rarely give up territory for money or other rewards and do not easily forget lost territory. For example, in 2002, Bolivians opposed a gas pipeline through Chile because Chile had seized their coastline in 1879. The desire to regain lost territory is called irredentism, which often leads to serious conflicts. Territories are valued beyond their economic or strategic worth due to their association with state integrity. For instance, after Israel and Egypt made peace in 1979, it took a decade to resolve a border dispute over Taba, a small beachfront area. The two states finally submitted the issue for binding arbitration, and Egypt ended up in possession. Egypt viewed regaining this territory as a matter of national honor. Similarly, Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine was seen as an act of irredentism driven by nationalism and territorial claims. **Irredentism**: A form of nationalism whose goal is to regain territory lost to another state; it can lead directly to violent interstate conflicts. Despite technological advancements reducing the inherent value of territory, states still place immense importance on home territory. Historically, territory was crucial for economic production through agriculture and raw materials extraction. Winning wars meant gaining wealth through territory. Today, wealth is more derived from trade and technology, making the economic benefits of territorial disputes often less significant than their costs. However, exceptions exist, such as rebels capturing diamond-mining areas in Africa to finance wars. In 2002, 40 states initiated the Kimberley Process, a UN certification program to prevent "conflict diamonds" from entering the market. Now, over 80 countries participate in this program. **Secession** Secession efforts by provinces or regions aim to create new international borders, not just adjust existing ones. While many secession movements exist globally, they rarely succeed, as the existing state usually resists losing territory. Some secessionist movements are non-violent, such as Catalonia's attempt to secede from Spain, which was blocked by the Spanish government and the EU, and Quebec's unsuccessful bid to secede from Canada, which did not lead to war. Secessionist movements can be conflictual, as seen in the 1990s when Kosovo's predominantly Albanian population fought to secede from Serbia. NATO intervened with sustained bombing of Serbia (not approved by the UN), leading to the withdrawal of Serbian forces and the arrival of European and American peacekeepers. Most of the Kosovo population wants to secede and become an internationally recognized state, but Serbians argue that Kosovo is historically and presently under Serbian sovereignty. Kosovo declared independence in 2008 without UN approval, gaining recognition from several countries (like the US), but angering Serbia, Russia, and China. In contrast, South Sudan successfully gained independence in 2011 with UN membership and Sudan's support. Wars of secession can be large and deadly, often spilling over international borders or drawing in other countries. This is especially likely when an ethnic or religious group spans both sides of a border, being the majority in one state and a nearby region of another state, but a minority in the other state. For example, Albanian Muslims are the majority in Albania and Kosovo but a minority in Serbia. Similar patterns are seen in Bosnia-Serbia, Moldova-Russia, and India-Pakistan. Sometimes, secessionists aim to merge their territories with a neighboring state, effectively redrawing international borders, which is generally frowned upon by international norms. International norms of sovereignty and territorial integrity view secession movements as domestic issues, not of concern to other states. The principle is that existing states, having their own internal problems and disaffected groups, must support each other's sovereignty and territorial integrity. For example, Russia and China opposed Kosovo's secession from Serbia due to concerns about implications for their own regions, Chechnya and Taiwan, respectively. States may invoke the principle of self-determination to justify actions that align with their interests. In August 2008, conflict erupted between Georgia and its province South Ossetia. Russia intervened on behalf of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, leading to a brief war with Georgia. Following the conflict, Russia recognized both provinces as independent, a decision condemned by the United States, the EU, and not accepted by the UN. When multinational states break up, internal borders become international and may be more vulnerable to challenges. In the former Yugoslavia, mixed ethnic populations complicated the breakup in 1991-1992. Croatia and Bosnia, which declared independence, had significant Serbian minorities. Serbia took control of areas with Serbian communities in these republics, leading to ethnic cleansing of non-Serbians. When Croatia regained its territory in 1995, Serbian populations fled. Ethnic nationalism, fueled by politicians, overshadowed multiethnic tolerance in both Serbia and Croatia. **ethnic cleansing**: Euphemism for forced displacement of an ethnic group or groups from a territory, accompanied by massacres and other human rights violations; it has occurred after the breakup of multinational states, notably in the former Yugoslavia. The breakup of a state doesn't always result in violence. For example, Serbia and Montenegro split peacefully in 2006. Similarly, Czechoslovakia divided into the Czech Republic and Slovakia cooperatively. Additionally, the dissolution of the Soviet Union generally did not lead to violent territorial disputes, even when ethnic groups were spread across new international borders. The international principle which generally opposes changing borders through force does not apply when it comes to decolonization. In other words, while the territorial integrity of recognized states is protected, colonies and territories under colonial rule were historically treated as property that could be transferred, traded, or otherwise disposed of without the same level of protection. The 1997 transfer of Hong Kong from British to Chinese control highlights this, with the UK viewing it as dispensable and China seeing it as sacred. The inhabitants' views were largely ignored. In June 2019, Hong Kong protested an extradition bill to mainland China, fearing it would threaten judicial independence. Despite the bill's withdrawal, protests continued, and in May 2020, China approved a national security bill seen as a threat to civil liberties. In response, the UK introduced a visa system in January 2021 for British national overseas citizens in Hong Kong, allowing them to live and work in the UK for ten years and then apply for indefinite leave to remain. Autonomy has become a viable compromise between secession and central government control. In 2005, following a devastating tsunami, separatists in Aceh, Indonesia, abandoned their independence efforts. They participated in regional elections in 2006. The Indonesian government withdrew 24,000 troops and granted Aceh limited self-rule, along with 70% of the region's oil, gas, and mineral wealth. **Interstate Borders** Border disputes between established states are rare and taken seriously by the international community due to the norm of territorial integrity. Long-established states, like the United States and Canada, may have disagreements but avoid conflicts. Historically, large territories changed hands easily, but this hasn't happened among established states for 70 years. Since World War II, only small amounts of territory have changed hands through force and have been unsuccessful. For example, Iraq's 1980 attack on Iran aimed to control the Shatt al Arab waterway, but after eight years and a million deaths, the border remained unchanged. Territorial disputes between established states can often be settled peacefully, especially when the disputed area is small. In 1994, a panel of Latin American judges resolved a century-long border dispute between Argentina and Chile over mountainous terrain, awarding it to Argentina based on a 3-to-2 ruling. Despite protests from Chile, the two countries managed to settle 22 of 24 remaining border disputes peacefully after nearly going to war in 1978 over disputed islands. In 2006, Nigeria peacefully ceded the Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon, despite having a much larger population, economy, and military. This resolution was achieved through the World Court, UN mediation, and international monitoring. It was significant because it involved a potentially oil-rich area and stemmed from a colonial-era dispute. Nigeria's decision to cede the territory, despite its apparent advantages, can be better explained by liberal theories rather than realist predictions. Realism would suggest that a stronger state would not voluntarily give up territory. However, Nigeria acted in its own self-interest by seeking stability. By resolving the dispute through legal and diplomatic means, Nigeria created a more stable environment, which was crucial for attracting foreign investment. This stability was particularly important for developing Nigeria's own resources, primarily oil. The peaceful resolution of this dispute highlights the potential for international institutions and diplomacy to address and resolve territorial conflicts, even when significant economic and strategic interests are at stake. **Lingering Disputes** Interstate border disputes today generate significant international conflicts. Beyond Russia's claim to Ukraine, Israel's borders are particularly contentious. The 1949 cease-fire lines expanded after the 1967 war, with Israel returning the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt but retaining the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Golan Heights. The construction of Jewish settlements in the West Bank, opposed by Palestinians and deemed illegal by most international actors, remains a major issue. Efforts since 1993 to grant Palestinian autonomy and create a state of Palestine have stalled, despite Palestine's 2012 UN status upgrade to non-member "state." The Kashmir region, where India, Pakistan, and China intersect, is a serious border dispute. The Indian-held part of Kashmir is predominantly Muslim, a majority in Pakistan but a minority in India. A Line of Control divides the province. Pakistan accuses India of oppressing Kashmiris and blocking a referendum on Kashmir's future, while India accuses Pakistan of supporting Islamic radicals in the region. The two countries have had three military standoffs over Kashmir and nearly another in 2002, both armed with nuclear missiles. A 2003 cease-fire reduced low-level fighting, but skirmishes continue, including airstrikes in 2019 and Pakistan's claim of downing two Indian fighter jets. Many of the world's serious interstate territorial disputes involve small islands, which offer strategic advantages, natural resources, and fishing rights. International law grants an island's owner fishing and mineral rights in surrounding seas for 200 miles in each direction. The Spratly Islands in the South China Sea, potentially rich in oil, are claimed by China, Taiwan, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Brunei. All except Brunei have used military actions to assert their claims. The South China Sea is crucial for global trade, with about half of the world's trade tonnage passing through it, including key resources for Japan, China, South Korea, and Taiwan. Recently, China has significantly increased its military presence on several small islands and reefs in the Spratly Islands, enlarging them to build airstrips and bases. Nearby states protest this construction due to ongoing disputes over ownership. The U.S. Navy frequently sails near these islands to challenge China's activities, which China claims violate its sovereignty. Japan and China, as well as Japan and South Korea, dispute small islands, which have become focal points of nationalist sentiments due to historical memories of World War II. The most serious dispute is over islands in the East China Sea, controlled by Japan but claimed by China, which would provide a strategic route for Chinese submarines to the Pacific. The two countries' navies and air forces have repeatedly confronted each other without violence. In 2015, Japan deployed its largest naval vessel since World War II to patrol the area, and in 2017, China sailed naval vessels close to the disputed islands, prompting protests and threats from Japan. Smaller island conflicts exist worldwide. In the Middle East, Iran and the UAE dispute islands near the Persian Gulf. In 2002, Spain ousted Moroccan troops from islands off Morocco's coast. Argentina and Britain still dispute the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas), over which they fought in 1982. Russia and Japan dispute the Kuril Islands, occupied by the Soviet Union in 1945. As islands now control surrounding economic zones, international conflicts over them are likely to continue. **Territorial Waters** States consider territorial waters near their shores as part of their national territory, but definitions vary. Traditionally, waters within three miles of shore are recognized as territorial. The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) has established norms, allowing a 12-mile limit for shipping and a 200-mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ) for fishing and mineral rights, while permitting free navigation. EEZs cover a third of the world's oceans. In 2010, Russia and Norway resolved a 40-year dispute by dividing portions of the Arctic Ocean into EEZs for oil and gas extraction. **territorial waters**: The waters near states\' shores are generally treated as part of national territory. The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea provides for a 12-mile territorial sea (exclusive national jurisdiction over shipping and navigation) and a 200-mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ, covering exclusive fishing and mineral rights but allowing for free navigation by all). See also high seas and UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Sovereignty over a tiny island can grant rights to up to 100,000 square miles of surrounding ocean due to exclusive economic zones (EEZs). However, overlapping zones and irregular shorelines create disputes over territorial and economic waters. For instance, Libya claims the entire Gulf of Sidra as a bay, while the U.S. considers most of it international waters. In 1986, the U.S. sent warships into the Gulf to assert its stance, resulting in U.S. planes shooting down two Libyan jets that challenged the maneuvers. In 1994-1995, Canada sent its navy to harass Spanish fishing boats operating just beyond its 200-mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ), as their activities affected fish stocks within the zone. In the Sea of Okhotsk, Russia's EEZ covers all but a small "doughnut hole" of international waters. Non-Russian boats have fished intensively in this "hole," depleting fish stocks in Russia's EEZ. In 2010, a South Korean warship sank in disputed Yellow Sea waters, with international investigators attributing the incident to a North Korean torpedo, though North Korea denied involvement. South Korea continues military operations in the area, while North Korea fires artillery shells, including a deadly 2010 attack on civilians. The Korean War has never formally ended with a peace treaty. The Strait of Hormuz is a crucial maritime chokepoint connecting the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman, through which 21 million barrels of oil flow daily. It is strategically vital to Saudi Arabia and the UAE, impacting global oil prices. Iran often threatens to close the strait, but the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet, based in Bahrain, helps keep it open. **Airspace** Airspace above a state is considered part of its territory, and airplanes need permission to fly over it. For instance, during a 1986 raid on Libya, U.S. bombers based in Britain had to take a long detour over the Atlantic Ocean because France did not allow them to use its airspace. **Airspace**: The space above a state that is considered its territory, in contrast to outer space, which is considered international territory. Outer space is considered international territory, like the oceans. International law does not clearly define where airspace ends, and outer space begins. Satellites orbit higher than airplanes, move quickly, and cannot easily avoid overflying countries. Few states can shoot down satellites. Due to their intelligence-gathering value and vulnerability, a norm of demilitarizing outer space has developed, with no state attacking another's satellite. However, in 2007, China destroyed one of its own satellites with an anti-satellite missile, creating high-speed debris in orbit. **Control of Governments** Most territorial conflicts today are not about changing borders, but about which governments will control entire states. While minor border disputes persist, the primary struggles are over state governance. In theory, states respect each other's sovereignty and avoid interfering in each other's governance. However, in practice, states often have strong interests in the governments of other states and use various means to influence who holds power. These conflicts can range from mild to severe, involve third parties, or be bilateral. Influence can be subtle, such as affecting elections, or more direct, like supporting rebels to overthrow a government. During the Cold War, both superpowers sought to influence governments in the global South through covert operations and support for rebel armies. Examples include the civil wars in Angola, Afghanistan, and Nicaragua, where they provided weapons, money, and military advisers. In 1961, the U.S. attempted to overthrow Cuban leader Fidel Castro by invading Cuba at the Bay of Pigs, but the effort failed. In 2004-2005 and again in 2022, Ukraine experienced echoes of Cold War rivalries as Russia and the West supported opposing sides in disputed elections. The elections highlighted divisions between the Russian-speaking, Eastern Orthodox east and the Ukrainian-speaking, Catholic west. The pro-Russian incumbent won the eastern region, but international monitors deemed the election unsound. Russian President Vladimir Putin campaigned for the incumbent, opposing Western influence in Ukraine. The pro-Western candidate was poisoned but survived, leading to mass protests and a court-ordered new election, which the opposition won. In 2013-2014, a deadly conflict broke out in Ukraine after its pro-Russian president cracked down on pro-Western protests. The president was ousted, but his eastern supporters, backed by Russia, took up arms against the new government. Russia also annexed Crimea. Despite multiple ceasefires, violence continued. In 2019, Volodymyr Zelenskyy was elected president. Shortly after, the Trump administration withheld \$250 million in military aid to pressure Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden's son, leading to Trump's impeachment. In 2022, Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, leading to a prolonged and costly war. Occasionally, states invade others to change their government, as the Soviet Union did in Czechoslovakia in 1968 and the U.S. in Iraq in 2003. Such actions are typically resented by the local population and condemned by the international community for violating national sovereignty. International conflicts over government control and territorial disputes are prone to violence due to their high stakes and opposing interests. In contrast, economic conflicts between states are more frequent but are less likely to result in violence. **Economic Conflict** Economic competition is a prevalent form of conflict in international relations due to the widespread nature of economic transactions. Each international sale or deal involves resolving conflicting interests. For example, Costa Rica wants higher coffee prices for its exports, while Canada, an importer, prefers lower prices. Similarly, Angola wants foreign oil producers to earn less profit, whereas the producers' home countries want them to earn more. In a global capitalist market, every economic exchange inherently involves some conflict of interest. Economic transactions also involve mutual economic gains, which provide leverage in bargaining. States and companies engage in these transactions because they profit from them. The use of violence would generally reduce these profits more than any potential gains from violence. Therefore, economic conflicts typically do not escalate to military force and war. Economic conflicts rarely lead to violence today because military leverage is ineffective in resolving them. The tightly integrated world economy and high costs of military actions make the use of force unjustifiable for economic issues. Even if an agreement is not ideal for one side, the potential gains from military force are seldom worth the cost of war. Therefore, most economic conflicts are not considered international security issues, although they still impact international security in some ways. Many states' foreign policies are influenced by mercantilism, where trade and economic policies are used to build a monetary surplus for financing war. A trade surplus provides a long-term advantage in international security, so trade conflicts impact international security relations. For instance, U.S. policies to reshore manufacturing disrupt allies like South Korea and Taiwan, who produce the chips the U.S. wants to manufacture domestically. The theory of lateral pressure links economic growth with security concerns, suggesting that as states grow economically, they expand geographically to seek resources, leading to competition and potential conflicts. This theory has been used to explain events like World War I and Japan's expansion before World War II. Economic conflicts in the military industry impact international security, particularly in the production of high-tech weapons. Governments strive to control this production to prioritize national interests and ensure military self-sufficiency. Economic competition intertwines with security concerns over weapon access. For example, the U.S. auto industry bailout in 2009 was justified by its potential wartime production capacity. Tensions between the U.S. and China over 5G technology and companies like Huawei highlight how economic competition has become a national security issue. The U.S. has imposed export restrictions on AI and semiconductor technology to limit China's access and has also moved to ban platforms like TikTok due to data misuse concerns. Economic conflicts related to wealth distribution within and among states can lead to international security issues, including violence and terrorism. Wealth disparities often fuel revolutions in poor countries, which can attract external support and escalate into civil wars. Marxist approaches to international relations view class struggle between the rich and poor as central to interstate relations. Capitalist states are seen as adopting foreign policies that benefit the wealthy. Conflicts between rich (global North) and poor (global South) states are viewed as forms of imperialism. For instance, Marxists interpret the Vietnam War as the U.S. suppressing revolution to maintain access to cheap labor and resources. Conflicts among capitalist states are seen as competition over exploiting poor regions, with Lenin describing World War I as a fight over imperialist division. **Drug Trafficking** Drug trafficking, a form of smuggling, deprives states of revenue and violates border control. Unlike other smuggling, it is seen as a security threat due to its impact on national and military morale. Military forces often engage in operations against armed drug traffickers, making it a security concern. Conflicts typically involve states versus nonstate actors, but other states can be drawn in due to cross-border activities and potential corruption. The U.S. government works to prevent Colombian cocaine cartels from supplying cocaine to U.S. cities. Cocaine is derived from coca plants grown in Peru, Bolivia, and Colombia, processed in jungle labs, and transported through countries like Panama. Drug smugglers bribe corrupt officials in these countries, including the U.S., but other officials collaborate with U.S. law enforcement and military to combat the cocaine trade. In 2005, Bolivia elected an anti-American former coca farmer as president, who supports coca farming but not cocaine production. In cocaine-producing regions, segments of the population benefit from the drug trade, which may be the only source of decent income for poor peasants. Rebel armies also fund their operations through illicit drug trade. Afghanistan supplies most of the raw material for heroin in the world, while Mexico, a major supplier of illegal drugs to the U.S., has experienced deadly violence among drug gangs, resulting in tens of thousands of deaths over the past decades. In Latin America, U.S. military intervention has made cooperation with U.S. forces a politically sensitive issue. Some governments face criticism for allowing U.S. involvement in the drug war. In 1989, the U.S. military invaded Panama, arrested its leader Manuel Noriega, and convicted him in U.S. courts for drug trafficking. Conflicts can lead to various outcomes and types of war, with different states showing varied tendencies for violence. Consequently, states develop diverse military forces with different purposes and capabilities.