Essay War Studies Final Question 1 04 Dec 2008

8/8/2019 Essay War Studies Final Question 1 04 Dec 2008

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/essay-war-studies-final-question-1-04-dec-2008 1/9

Student: W10672297

Question 1: To what extent can conflicts in the post-cold war era be

characterized as ‘new wars’?

This essay will attempt to draw attention to events that unfolded in the aftermath of

the Cold War and that have led our understanding of war to a different level. It will

take into account the more prominent role of the United Nations Security Council and

other INGOs and its past humanitarian interventions, the Bosnian-Herzegovina

conflict and transactional movements. Furthermore, in light of the change of the

world’s architecture since the post-Cold War period it will argue that the way in

which wars are being fought, the reaction of the global actors in light of war prospects

and the participation of non-state actors (private actors) have re-shaped the

understandings of wars.

The advent of the Internet era, fast transnational movements, growth of NGOs and

INGOs have shed some of the state’s responsibilities to a greater amount of actors.

This has made the Clausewitzean assumptions of war, for instance, that of the notion

of war as a state activity and ‘as an act of violence intended to compel our opponent

to fulfil our will’ (Kaldor, 2006: 17) have to be revised in order for a better

understanding of conflict, humanitarian and military interventions after the fall of the

Berlin Wall.

For Kaldor (2006:27) the total wars premises, despite having its certainties, do not

taken into account the growth of a thinner division line between the state and non-

1



state actors and the contrast between military and the civil, between combatants and

non combatants started to break down in the twentieth century.

In discussions of international relations the vision of conflict described by Thomas

Hobbes, in Leviathan, is taken into account, for Hobbes, cited in Dunbain,

accordingly kings ‘are in continuing jealousies and the state and posture of gladiator,

having their weapons pointing and their eyes fixed on one another; that is, their forts,

garrisons and guns upon frontiers of their kingdoms, and continual spies upon

neighbours-which is a posture of war (Leviathan, chaps. 17, 13- cited in Dunbain,

1994:437). Further, Hobbes saw the struggle for power and acknowledge the premise

of state sovereignty and the need for its protection by all means and its self-centred

interests, ‘for their own security enlarge their dominions upon all pretences of

danger…, and endeavour…to subdue or weaken their neighbours by open force and

secret arts…; and are remembered for it in after years with honour’ (Hobbes cited in

Dunbain1994:437).This description of relationship between states may reflect the

situation encountered in the Middle East and its constant Israeli-Palestine tensions

around the West Bank and the Gaza Strip; quest for borders legitimacy and the anti-

Israeli rhetoric exacerbated by the Arab summit in January 1964. However, the

transactional movements of the 20th Century, the ever-growing cooperation amongst

states in humanitarian missions, economic policies, inter-state cooperation and

participation of non state actors in national affairs have made Hobbes’ assumptions

limited in relation to our understanding of new types of wars emerged in the last two

decades, for instance. Further, it does not explain the ethnic conflicts in Bosnia-

Herzegovina, described as a new type of war by Kaldor (2006: chapter 3).

2



Conflicts can no longer only be explained by the premises of the old war assumptions

of territorial annexation, protection of national borders and altruistic motives. For

instance, ethnic cleansing was a characteristic of East European nationalism in the

twentieth century (Kaldor, 2006:35). The war in Bosnia-Herzegovina was fought for

political goals and assumed unique characteristics (therefore can be classified as a

new war). The magnitude of the conflict, the involvement of non-state actors such as

the United Nations (UN) and North Atlantic Treaty Organizations (NATO) as well as

the American attempts with the Dayton Agreement confirm the birth of new forms of

violence and measures to tackle them. The concern of the above mentioned actors in

the new type of conflict suggests that different from the old wars ways of tackling

conflicts, where not all participants are spying, subduing or having the intention to

weaken those involved in the conflict. For this reason, wars can include non-sovereign

states, prolific high politics actors and groups in which would not benefit directly

from the outcome or doings of war.

As mentioned above, new types of conflict and motives for legitimising the use of

coercive force have emerged since the end of the cold war. One can argue that

altruistic interventions from the side of powerful nation states in conflict states

involving failed ones or in problematic regions, have played a prominent role in the

years following the end of the Cold-War and the shift away from a bipolar world

system to fairly pluralistic one. For Baylis and Smith (2005:567) ‘the interventions in

northern Iraq, Somalia, Rwanda and Kosovo were all legitimated in humanitarian

terms by the intervening states’.

3



Additionally, even though some states questioned the enforcement of provisions in

Charter VII of the UN Charter, based on the state sovereignty premise, it has certainly

become less and less tenable as the 1990s progressed. This can be proof of the need to

tackle new types of conflicts and the more prominent role of the United Nations

Security Council and other INGOs, such as NATO or the Arabic League for instance,

within the realms of the global arena. The acknowledge of threat to ‘international

peace and security’ (Baylis and Smith 2005: 567) highlighted in Chapter VII, point

out the recognition by the United Nation- most specifically its prevailing Security

Council, of the necessity to use coercive force in order to establish or maintain peace

in challenging regions. This is certainly a significant shift towards a broader arena for

dialogue amongst global states.

Furthermore, even though some UN resolutions, for instance in the case of Resolution

688 adopted on 5 April 1991(Baylis and Smith, 2005:567) in light of the need to

protect the Kurds in northern Iraq from Saddam Hussein, have caused tension and

disapproval amongst some of the UN Member States, the recognition for

humanitarian interventions based on the Human Rights Charter and the fear of

possible legal challenges against states advocating the state sovereignty principle, is a

tremendous step towards global consensus in relation to the protection of global civil

societies from their own abusive nation states.

The humanitarian interventions after the Cold war period bring to light the underlying

and new motives for involvement in conflicts and characteristics of the nature of some

military and humanitarian interventions in the aftermath of the Cold-War era. The

wish to gain access to territories but preserve the morality and perception of goodwill

4



intact certainly highlights the participation of certain global prominent actors (states)

in conflicts that they would not benefit directly from its involvement. For instance, in

the case of the American concern over the preservation of the Dayton Agreement,

which ‘brought peace to Bosnia in 1995, which was viewed as an American

diplomatic triumph’ (Baylis, J. and S. Smith (2005:566), highlighted the wish of

President Clinton’s administrative team to preserve the agreement and consequently

the credit for successfully bringing peace to the region. At the time the American

government wished to preserve its reputation for reaching an agreement thorough

diplomatic negotiations with the Serbian Milosevic. The American state did not

possess the traditional motives for intervening in the peace making talks in this

particular matter. The American participation in the diplomatic process may have

boosted America’s profile as an active and powerful global actor, however it was

certainly not at their absolute interest or economically convenient at a national level

nor an easy task for winning the ‘hearts and minds’ of Americans so to gather

American financial resources and moral public support. Therefore, one can affirm that

states can cooperate amongst each other not always having the ‘posture of gladiator’

willing to annex its enemy’s territories or obtain other forms of gain.

Even though the international community who was involved in the Bosnian-

Herzegovina conflict may claim non-altruistic reasons for collaborating in bringing

peace to region, the devastating outcome of it can be accounted to the failure of its

inability to act promptly in order to avoid the crimes against humanity that took place

during that period. While the evidence of ethnic cleansing was visible ‘this was

treated as a side-effect of the fighting, not as the goal of war’ (Kaldor, 2006:61). The

international community was incapable to understand the nature of the new type of

5



war, therefore was unable to avoid the unnecessary killings of civilians. There was not

only one organized army in each side of the conflict, as Kaldor (2006:48) note ‘in

addition to regular forces, three main types of irregular force: paramilitary

organization, generally under the control of an individual; foreign mercenary groups,

and local police augmented by armed civilians’. Not only the military element is

involved, which for instance for totally dependent on outside sources of assistance,

but there was a significant proportion of fighters that belonged to gangster groups-

certainly a new prominent element of war.

The Bosnian-Herzegovina conflict created a serious of new issues to be taken on

board when one assessing the nature of violence, use of coercive force and reaction

from international actors. The lack of will to make use of the UN army in a more

active way- rather than watch passively the fighting and stepping in only to protect

civilians and provide material comforts, highlights how much the world system has

changed and also how the monopoly of violence has been broken down. Further the

interest of western states, in particular European ones, in avoiding the conflict by

means of deterring violence rather than attacking those responsible for the cause of

the conflict, underline the fact that the Bosnian-Herzegovina conflict cannot be

understood from an old war perspective. Moreover, the caution by the western states

to avoid bloodshed (even though they were visibly military superior) can also be

linked to concerns over the massive flow of refugees in the southern Balkans and

subsequently the spread across other European regions- this worries can certainly be

linked to the advent of the UN charter of Human Rights and the growth of NGOs

prepared to fight for the causes of the global civil societies.

6



The final aspect of the characteristics of new wars this essay will attempt to highlight

is the use of mercenaries and the humanitarian interventions in light of the ‘war on

terror’ in the 11 September. Although US-led intervention in Afghanistan was a war

of self-defence, the US President nevertheless felt the need to make a humanitarian

argument to support. This certainly point out the necessity of the American

government to drawn global support, as well as domestic, in order to justify the need

for war. Although one can argue that during the period that preceded WWI and WWII

European governments had to gather public support, it can certainly not be compared

to the massive scale that the invasion of Afghanistan and subsequently Iraq provoked

in the global civil society. This can be understood with the fact that the mass media

vehicles in conjunction with the access to intercommunication across the globe,

played a vital role in informing and instigating public reaction in the worldwide

arena- this would have been virtually impossible in the context of pre-WWI and

WWII.

The recruitment of mercenaries in a wider scale, as mentioned above is another

characteristic of the new wars. Walzer (2006:27), who wrote in the aftermath of a

great war, affirmed that ‘…mercenary armies are recruited (as they often are) from

among desperately impoverished men, who can find no other way of feeding

themselves and their families except by signing up’. Furthermore in the assumptions

of old wars, mercenaries are professional soldiers who sell their services in open

market, but there are other professionals who serve only their own prince or people

and, though they may earn their break by soldering, disdain the name of mercenary

(Walzer,2006:27). This has not been the case of the current war in Iraq where, as an

example, the company Bluewater (a private contractor therefore not subjected to

7



direct scrutiny of governments when compared with the military also not being

covered by international law at the same clarity) that has been actively engaged in war

activities on behalf of the American state in Iraq. The use of highly skilled and well

trained individuals to fight on behalf of a state breaks the premise of the monopoly of

violence and demonstrate the shits away from state accountability to private

accountability in war fighting. The above-mentioned use of mercenaries in post-cold

war conflicts cannot be overlooked and can certainly highlight the characteristics of

the new wars.

This essay has attempted to highlight the characteristics of the new wars in relation to

the relevance of non state actors in conflicts realized in the aftermath of the cold war,

in particular the Bosnian-Herzegovina conflict. Further, it used examples of

humanitarian intervention in conflict in order to justify the participation, active and

passively, of the international community, that being the UN or the United States

during in the Balkans region, Afghanistan and Iraq subsequently. Further, it attempted

to demonstrate the rise of the use of mercenaries who do not fit the description and

definitions laid in by Walzer when reflecting on this subject as the ‘modern

mercenaries’ substitutes market transactions, controlled by the executive branch, for

traditional political mechanisms of accountability (Cowen, T. New York Times).

Word count: 2,232 words

8



List of References

Baylis, J. and S. Smith (2005), The Globalization of Word Politics, Oxford University

Press

Cowen, T., (2007). To Know Contractors, Know Government . [online article]. The

USA: New York Times. Available from:

<http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/business/28view.html?

ex=1351224000&en=54f273e5beefca57&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss>

[ Accessed 29 November 2008].

Dunbain, J.P.D. (1994 ). The Post-Imperial Age: The Great Powers and the Wider

World. England: Pearson Education Limited.

Walzer, M., (1997). Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical

Illustrations. 4th ed. New York: Perseus Books Group.

9

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/business/28view.html?ex=1351224000&en=54f273e5beefca57&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss




Documents

Essay War Studies Final Question 1 04 Dec 2008