Introduction
The contemporary conflict analysis module offered an integrative and intellectual journey into the complicated reality of modern conflicts. A challenge was led against the traditional conceptions using a combination of theories, case studies, and empirical research. It opened up a multifaceted view of the intertwined nature of contemporary conflict factors and their transition. The module merged the principles of different disciplines, like political science, economics, sociology, and history, to attain a wide-ranging understanding of contemporary environmental conflicts.
My understanding of the current conflicts was meager, based on a more superficial understanding, mainly attributing conflicts to ethnic or identity-based discords. Nevertheless, during learning and self-reflection, my perspective was changed profoundly. Varied angles of analysis revealed that my initial ideas were simplistic compared to the dynamic interactions of political, economic, historical, and social elements, which combine to explain the complex nature of contemporary conflicts. My perception of the field expanded: this widened view clarified that oversimplified explanations should not be used and that the most effective way to understand conflicts’ roots, dynamics, and solutions is to take a multidimensional approach.
Initial Understanding and Assumptions about Contemporary Conflicts
Before I embarked on the Contemporary Conflict Analysis module, I based my understanding of contemporary conflicts on the dominant narratives that usually gave centrality to today’s stories of ethnicity or identity-related issues. The deep-running sources of cultural, linguistic, or faith-based disagreements are the original triggers that cause a modern conflict to emerge and stay. This perspective was amplified by the radical glocalization of identity politics in media discourse and conflict-related matters promoted on a global scale. The basic assumption was that these identity-based divisions were inseparably doomed to escalate in a violent form of confronting each other due to a sense of alienation and a feeling of pressure from another cultural or demographical group (Gilley, 2004). Because of that, my initial understanding, which needed to be more complex, could not encompass the intricacy of modern-day conflicts, which don’t revolve only around the issues of identity clashes.
I felt that the scintillating examples, as well as high-profile examples, made quite an impact on the assumptions I had about the current conflict. Rwanda’s genocide of 1994, for instance, emphasized the deep-seated ethnic war between the Hutu and Tutsi. This instigated the perception that ethnic differences were remarkable causes of violence (Gourevitch, 1998). Mirroring this, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict frequently depicts a two-headed dragon chasing after the same piece of land. This framing supports the claim that identity-based accounts of grievances are the root of such conflicts. Besides these high-profile cases, the community narratives, based on that niche, also helped to reinforce my initial assumption that religious or ethnic differences were the main engines of modern-day conflicts, therefore suppressing the idea that other factors may also play a role.
Challenging Traditional Perspectives
The Contemporary Conflict Analysis module that I attended presented a lot of theories that made me reconsider my initial idea, which was that ethnic and identity-based issues were the most critical factors of contemporary conflicts. The one that stands out is Bruce Gilley’s (2004) article “Against the Concept of Ethnic Conflict,” which changed my perspective. I mean the one that attacked the long-time-held view that ethnic conflict is a particular and inherent form of political violence. Through Gilley, I have become convinced that conflicts can not be often enough approached from the multiple angles of political, economic, and historical context. Moreover, I came across the perspectives of Edward Newman and Helen Dexter while in the module, who contended that all-embracing analyses of the factors that affect conflict processes should consider various dimensions rather than only the differences in identity.
Bruce Gilley’s “Against the Concept of Ethnic Conflict” became a turning point for me, radically reconsidering the prevalent understanding of ethnic conflict during my studies. Gilley restated that conflicts were generated through ethnicity alone but integrated political, economic, and historical factors to produce a limitless variety of conflicts, which are context-specific (Gilley, 2004). The scholar demonstrates that the viewpoint that ethnic differences alone bring about conflicts independently of other factors is too deterministic and challenged me to reevaluate my general ideas and discover the complexity of contemporary conflicts. With his focus, he always hinted at the misrepresentation of the whole issue, which is usually a much more complex one than an ethnic one, comprising geopolitical, economic, and historical factors. This point of view stirred something in me, and I began looking critically at my reliance on a simplistic interpretation that sees everything through the lens of ethnicity.
According to Mary Kaldor’s “New and Old Wars,” I discovered some new theories related to the nature of differences. Kaldor’s discussion regarding the differences between ‘old wars’ (conflicts between states) and ‘new wars’ (which include non-state and state actors and are mainly driven by identity factors) has changed my views on the evolving nature of modern conflicts. Her work stood for the increasing role of non-state actors, the blurring of boundaries between combatants and civilians, and the emergence of war economies based on two of which I previously thought the wars were solely state-oriented and ideology-based. Kaldor’s revelations about the transformation of warfare where the nationhood considerations and non-state actors become more apparent intrigued me to review my perceptions and consider different nuances of modern conflicts beyond the traditional state-versus-state cause (Kaldor, 2013).
The Role of Economic Factors
The module familiarized me with enduring books that clarified the destructive part of the economic element in modern conflicts. In their 2004 publication entitled “Greed & Grievance in Civil War,” Collier and Hoeffler challenged the prior view that the conflict was fueled only by the grievances, suggesting that both greed (economic factors) and grievances (social and political factors) are equally important contributing factors of civil wars. Their findings reflected the looting of resources, either natural or illicit, as the determining factor in prolonged civil wars (DRC, for instance). Similarly, Colgan’s (2013) “Oil and Revolutionary Governments: “Fuel for International Conflict: The Roles of Oil Revenues and Natural on Political Dynamics” looked into the connection between oil wealth and the rise of revolutionary governments and the contribution of oil to international conflicts through a conspicuous example of Iran Shahan Shahi in 1979 and the War in Iraq.
These presentations made me understand what controls people’s involvement in a conflict and whether war is viable. Collier and Hoeffler’s proposition that the possibility of plundering and overthrowing the central government, rather than the classical economic or equality arguments that are decisive when civil wars start, has awakened me from my misconceptions. Their analysis focused on the financial incentives and a strategic approach of armed groups. It helped me better understand the elements that move conflict from grievances alone. Additionally, their criticism of the essentiality of grievance theory models and emphasis on the potential of revolt led me to re-analyze my previous reliance on identity-based explanations of conflicts.
Besides this, the authors indicated that relations and other elements, such as grievances and identity, played a part in the causation of conflicts. Collier and Hoeffler also remarked that though deeply rooted grievances can incite disputes, it is the economic drivers such as fighting over financial resources, the conflicts in business trades, or funding insurgents through illegitimate means that can make tensions tinder-dry to ignite conflict; for instance, in the Sierra Leone civil war, these factors contributed towards its escalation (Collier and Hoeff Colgan’s scholarship on the association between oil rent and political upheaval showed how economic power can influence identity narratives and grievances together, and this link can worsen conflicts, for example, the cases in Venezuela (Colgan, 2013). My insights were so different from my stereotypic perception of conflicts, which is centered on identity or grievances as single causes of disputes. This highlighted the complex entanglements of economic factors, identity, and other socio-political factors as the major causes of today’s significant conflicts.
Complexities of Identity and Ethnicity in Conflicts
The module educated me on the sophisticated view of ethnicity and identity in conflict formation, refuting the oversimplified explanation that those are the only reasons for such escalations. Amongst many other scholars like Samuel Huntington in his most famous work, “The Clash of Civilizations” (2004), and Mary Kaldor in “New and Old Wars” (2013), they emphasized the possible tensions among cultural and civilizational differences, including the ethnicity factor. However, other scholars like Bruce Gilley and Stefan Wolff provide a much more multifaceted perspective Th.ey maintained that struggles can be treated as forms of political violence where there are ethnic differences among other factors, which include political, economic, and historical ones (Gilley, 2004; Wolff, 2006). This point of view defies the view of determinism, which stresses only identity-based tensions as sources of conflicts. It instead focuses on the complexity of several playful factors, including, but not limited to, the identity factor.
Such wide sight brought my understanding of ethnic conflicts to another level. At first, I had a rather deterministic view, in which I lay on ethnic/identity-based grievances and the shared desire of the oppressed to benefit from the conflict. Whereas the writings of authors like Gilley and Wolff opposed this claim, I became aware that the matter was multifaceted. Gilley’s thesis on the “ethnic conflict” concept and the burden of generalization it inherently carries was a feeling that was familiar to me, as it is closely connected to my rising insight into the complex nature of conflicts (Gilley, 2004). Another idea, called “ethnic entrepreneurs” by Donal Horowicz (Horowitz, 1989), focuses on how politicians can use certain narratives to benefit their goals and also sheds new light on my perception of the relationship between identity and the other factors that can cause conflicts.
This unit explored the worked interrelationship between identity, instrumentalization, and other factors to build conflict dynamics. While grievances about identity and overall perception of victimization play a role in other conflicts, this module focused on how political actors frequently manipulate such narratives to achieve political goals. Often, the diverse identities of people may be utilized by rulers to remain in power, distract from social issues, or gather supporters, as is seen in the case of the Rwanda Genocide, where the Hutu-led government exploited ethnic tensions (Gourevitch, 1998). In addition, the unit pointed out how it is a very common intersection among identity factors and other matters, such as geopolitical issues, economic interests, and power struggles, making conflict even more difficult to manage. Considering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as an example, apart from the ethnic and historical factors involved, it is also related to territorial issues, resource competition, power interactions in the region, and the interference of external forces in pursuing their objectives (Wolff, 2006).
Sexual Violence in Conflict Settings
The module turned the spotlight on sexual violence in conflict areas, among other atrocious yet imperative topics, with input from scholars such as Elisabeth Jean Wood, Paul Higate, Maria Eriksson Baaz, and Maria Stern. Wood’s (2009) seminal work “Armed Groups and Sexual Violence: BBC News pointed out that the anarchy in the conflicts fosters a feeling of immunity in the perpetrators who commit rape without any fear of being held accountable. This happened in the Bosnian War. Higate (2007), in his article “Peacekeepers, Masculinities, and Sexual Exploitation,” and Eriksson Baaz and Stern (2009), looked at the “Why Soldiers Rape?” study, show. “Masculinity, Violence, and Sexuality in the Armed Forces in the Congo (DRC)” explored the power discrepancies and militarization of society during conflicts, which enables armed actors to take advantage of their positions and commit acts of sexual violence, shedding light on the dynamics observed during disputes similar to the one in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Through these viewpoints, they pushed the limits of and altered my comprehension of the dynamics and elements that contribute to rape in conflict scenarios. My point of view at first was mainly affected by the understanding that sexual violence is no more than a way of intimidation or control, a weapon used by militant groups to thwart resistance and inflame terror. Nonetheless, the module was a definer for me regarding the complicated network of variables responsible for these offenses. Scholars like Wood and Higate focused on the breakdown of social structures as they create environments that are suitable for sexual violence, where such perpetrators feel a sense of invulnerability when they carry out their acts (Wood, 2009; Higate, 2007). Apart from that, Eriksson Baaz and Stern dug deeper into gender norms, sexism, and deeply-rooted societal factors that escalated the problem and made people more attentive to the cultural and sociological dimensions of the issue (Baaz & Stern, 2009).
This unit also reached out to the complications surrounding narratives, accountability, and transitional justice mechanisms for addressing sexual violence in conflict environments. While some experts emphasize the strategic use of sexual violence as a tool of war for political objectives, as explored by Wood (2009) in the context of armed groups, others, like Enloe (2014), focus on the social factors contributing to such violence, examining how gender norms and dynamics shape both the occurrence and perception of these acts, as illustrated in her work “Bananas, Beaches, and Bases: an essay entitled “Making Feminist Sense of International Politics.” Furthermore, the module highlighted the challenges associated with achieving accountability and justice for these atrocities, with scholars like Susan Thompson (2013) examining the constraints posed by legal frameworks and the difficulties faced by international tribunals and truth commissions in addressing sexual violence, as discussed in her work “Truth to Power: “Humanize the phrase “Everyday resistance to reconciliation in postgenocide Rwanda.”
Conclusion
As a result of the module, I have experienced the most significant growth in understanding modern conflicts. To begin with, my point of view was more primitive, and I blamed ethnic or identity-based differences solely for the confrontations. I have achieved a multifaceted view of the complex nature of contemporary conflicts by critically analyzing diverse theoretical perspectives, case studies, and empirical evidence.
The module has helped emphasize the role of politics, economy, history, and sociocultural aspects that complicate modern conflicts. Treating conflicts as one-dimensional actors primarily driven by ethnicity or identity misses that geopolitics, resource competition, power, and historical grievances are also critical. Understanding the dimensions of conflict is essential, but letting go of a biased and one-sided view and embracing a holistic approach that accounts for this multidimensionality is crucial to genuinely comprehend the root causes, dynamics, and potential resolutions of conflicts.
On the other hand, the module highlights that learning and changing perceptions should be ongoing. Along with the advancement of the world, new conflicts arise, deepening our understanding of reality. Therefore, it is crucial to challenge conventions and be ready to rethink our positions. The ability to think critically, incorporate different viewpoints, and revise our mental models is essential to properly analyze and deal with the intricacies of modern-day conflicts.
References
Baaz, M.E. and Stern, M., 2009. Why do soldiers rape? Masculinity, violence, and sexuality in the armed forces in the Congo (DRC). International Studies Quarterly, 53(2), pp.495-518.
Colgan, J.D., 2013. Oil and revolutionary governments: Fuel for international conflict. International organization, 64(4), pp.661-694.
Collier, P. and Hoeffler, A., 2004. Greed and grievance in civil war. Oxford Economic Papers, 56(4), pp.563-595.
Enloe, C., 2014. Bananas, beaches, and bases: Making feminist sense of international politics. Univ of California Press.
Gilley, B., 2004. Against the concept of ethnic conflict. Third World Quarterly, 25(6), pp.1155-1166.
Gourevitch, P. (1998). We wish to inform you that tomorrow, we will be killed with our families: Stories from Rwanda. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.
Higate, P., 2007. Peacekeepers, masculinities, and sexual exploitation. Men and masculinities, 10(1), pp.99-119.
Horowitz, D. L. (1989). Ethnic groups in conflict. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Huntington, S.P., 2004. The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order. Braille Jymico Incorporated.
Kaldor, M., 2013. New and old wars: Organised violence in a global era. John Wiley & Sons.
Thompson, S. (2013). Truth to Power: Everyday Resistance to Reconciliation in Postgenocide Rwanda. Transitions Series: Outram Research.
Wolff, S. (2006). Ethnic conflict: A global perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wood, E.J., 2009. Armed groups and sexual violence: When is wartime rape rare? Politics & SocietySociety, 37(1), pp.131-161.
write