Ethnic Civil Wars and Security Dilemmas

By Henry Srebrnik, [Summerside, PEI] Journal Pioneer

In many countries people perceive politics and security in ethnic terms. So civil wars, especially those of ethnic origin, are hard to end. How a party defines security is of decisive importance that determines whether a conflict can be resolved through a peace settlement or will be solved militarily.

Generally, all peace talks sooner or later reach a point of paradox: on the one hand each party wants peace; on the other hand they block or delay talks just when it seems possible to lower the potential of violence through treaties and demilitarization. 

The idea of defining their own position and security no longer by weapons, but by talks, causes strong feelings of uneasiness, and the demilitarization that inevitably has to follow the talks or the peace treaty is felt as a threat.

Trying to ensure their own security, the parties involved in a conflict cause a chain reaction: if one side arms itself, the other one follows suit.

Maintaining security is of course the decisive factor in determining the success of peace talks, but it is the behaviour of an ethnic group as a product of its past and present relations and its ethno-cultural perceptions that determines whether the goal – lasting peace – is achieved. So every case is different. 

Ethnic conflicts are the most prominent intrastate wars in the world now. For ethnic groups, security means saving their ethnic existence and, if necessary, defending it. Ethnic concepts of security are defined by military strength as well as by political, economic and social factors.

Demilitarization during peace talks is a very delicate matter. Without a third party providing security, demilitarization is very risky. Worried that the other side may cheat leads to mistrust towards the enemy and increases the danger of renewed fighting.

Changing deep-seated ethnic concepts is difficult and protracted, but effective conflict management requires a change in the hostile attitudes of antagonists towards each other.

However, in most cases this is very hard to achieve. Security for one side (usually ethnic predominance in the state) means increasing insecurity for the other. In-group biases can exacerbate levels of mistrust between groups.

Hence conflict deepens and violence escalates. The longer the civil war lasts, the more the antagonistic concepts harden in both groups.

Attempts to mediate and resolve the conflict fail, as both parties seek to win the war militarily; negotiations are only of secondary importance.

Very often, when there are attempts by either or both sides at concessions, such as creating an interim government, cease-fire agreements, or a temporary cessation of hostilities, more militant “outbidding” parties, derail these moves and violence escalates. 

These hardline groups sometimes have their own paramilitary formations or armed civilians to intentionally sabotage the negotiations. 

They are also reluctant to join any peace deliberations, even those convened by outside mediators.

This type of scenario has been played out in any of the very numerous conflicts around the world, particularly in Africa and Asia.

One need only think of Angola, Bosnia, Cyprus, Mozambique, Peru, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Ukraine, and so many others, where intermittent attempts at negotiations and unity governments give way to renewed warfare.

It’s the reason such conflicts are so intractable and seem never-ending.