The Clausewitzean Model and the notion of War:
The Clausewitzean model perceived war as a rational act of hostility and presupposed the monopolization of power by an organised entity – the state. The process of monopolisation of power entailed the elimination of the private armies that were resorted by the monarchs in the pre-Clausewitzean wars, and the establishment of permanent navies and armies. It also embodied the process of the growth of the external war-making capacities of the state paralleled with internal pacification within the territory of state - the extension of rule of law rendering it more powerful, as against the earlier periods when the sovereignty was typically dispersed and fragmented. There developed organized and centralised war making capacities within the states, in Europe, which had developed more or less simultaneously. These states recognised the existence of each other, as none of them was strong enough to dominate others because of these external war-making capacities.
Thus the modern states emerged as an embodiment of national identity in exchange for external protection. And among states there emerged a range of rules and mechanisms, such as diplomacy to regulate the international behaviour. As there was no ultimate arbiter, war was the mechanism used to re-establish order when rules broke down. In other words war was the instrument of politics in the international arena and as ‘act of violence intended to compel the opponent to fulfil our will.
This classical Clausewitzean conception of war dates back to the emergence of modern state and it is basically relevant to period from the end of eighteenth century to 1945, and includes two World Wars.
And it is this background that many people believe that era of wars is over and fail to understand the New Wars referring them as mere primordial conflicts confined in remote areas; but, as Tim Allen puts it, as against many a thinkers and contemporary strategists who apply the same thinking to all the wars, ‘it is not really that the world is becoming more chaotic or violent, it is our failure to understand and act that makes it seem so’. What is required is a better understanding of new conflicts enabling the international community mobilize and appropriate international response.
The Contemporary Wars
The simplest possible explanation of the war is that it is a ‘conflict between politically organized groups involving large scale violence’. In the post-Cold War era the number of wars has increased, especially in 1980s and 1990s. Not only this, the nature of war has also changed. A typical feature of the new wars is the population displacement – ethnic cleansing, resulting in a very large number of refugees and forcible repatriation or colonization. In 1995 the number of world total refugees rose to 16 million as compared to 2 million in 1970s. The war in Bosnia claimed 260,000 lives rendering 3.5 million people to leave their house and become refugees. Same is the story with Rwanda, Liberia, Sudan, Zaire/Congo, and, Sierra Leone etc. Another feature of these wars is the number of civilian casualties; for instance, at the beginning of 20th Century, 90% of all war casualties were military, whereas, today about 90% are civilian. There is no doubt that the end of the cold war period, has given rise to many of these wars especially in Europe and Africa, but, their roots are entrenched in those societies pre-dating the cold war period. There have been 184 conflicts, major and minor, between 1945 to 1993.
The contemporary wars can be differentiated from Clausewitzean war, as these are not about the consolidation of the state power. Nor are these similar to those of the Cold War era that are motivated by the ideological clash between the Super Powers. These wars arise out of the disintegration of the state structures and a loss of legitimacy of the political institutions. There is another very important feature of these wars, and, that is the ‘identity politics’- the driving influence of ethnicity and the ineradicable difference between ‘them’ and ‘us’. As such, ethnicity is the major causal explanation of these wars.
The identity politics involved in the new wars embodies many of the transnational links with diaspora elements living in the neighbouring states or in the far off countries which provide them money, arms, volunteers and even technology. Very often international crime groups and mafias also support the warring parties establishing arm trade networks in these conflicts.
Another essential difference that these wars have as against the Clausewitzean wars is that these more decentralised and fragmented, and, their main aim is destabilisation rather that destruction of a clearly defined opponent. “Conspicuous atrocity, systematic rape, hostage-taking, forced starvation and siege, destruction of religious and historic monuments, the use of shells and rockets against the civilian targets, especially homes, hospitals or crowded places like markets or water sources, the use of land-mines to make large areas uninhabitable, to desecrate whatever has the social meaning”.
The understanding of the contemporary wars will not be complete if these are not looked into in the context of war economy, which embodies the rational calculation of economic interest. When the formal economy is largely destroyed, the economy of the new war zones thrives on outside humanitarian assistance, remittances from abroad and the black market. As the unemployment is widespread joining a paramilitary group or becoming a criminal is the only way of gaining income. Similarly, controlling the state would mean the furtherance of economic aims. More conspicuously, the economic agendas would focus on pillage, protection money, arms trade, labour exploitation (as it forcible and cheap or free), capturing the land by forcible depopulation, stealing the aid supplies etc. As such in the new wars winning is not the ultimate aim, as was the case in Clausewitzean model.
The above-mentioned account reflects how devastative the contemporary wars have been. It also shows that these wars have shared characteristics that are quite contemporary and involve far reaching consequences. Hence, there is a need to address them in a more realistic and objective manner rather than overlooking them as a product of uncivilised and primordial motivation remote from the Western World. What, in fact, is required is a new cosmopolitan response to these wars and increased international peace-keeping aiming at controlling the violence and economic reconstruction of these war torn societies.
Contemporary conflict and the UN
It is the perception of the new conflict and the devastative nature of the ethnic attributes involved that has made the new war so cruel or primordial. Therefore, there is a need to evolve and international humanitarian response to the contemporary conflicts. Though there has been increased commitment of the UN in the conflict resolution especially in 1990s yet, it has been historically observed that the UN’s has generally played a subordinate role in relief operations and majority of the UN resolutions have a more of watershed effect than a binding commitment for the international actors The UN is an organisation of member states, which pursue their own foreign policy and economic interests. This is important with regard to the five permanent members of the Security Council, especially United States that owes more than $ 1 billion to UN. This puts numerous limitations on its peacekeeping role in era of growing complex emergencies. Without US backing UN has little clout. In mid-1994 the total failure of UN in relation to Rwanda was mainly because of the unwillingness of the United States to become involved. Nevertheless, the limitations and the double standards adopted by the member states in dealing with the international crises, it must be acknowledged, that UN has improved upon its previous record in the recent years.
Conclusion:
This essay has attempted to explain that though the era of Clausewitzean war is coming to an end, but, there are new conflicts taking place in many a parts of the world and have their roots entrenched well in the contemporary history. The devastative character of these ethno-nationalistic conflicts requires an appreciation of ethnicity and identity politics. It is only after that the world community can muster up a concerted and centralised response, which is required to deal with these crises. It is the understanding of the genesis of ethnicity that can enable the agency of global civil society to play its well-deserved role in combating these conflicts. And if the regime of international human response is to be strengthened, especially at the level of UN and major powers that are the members of its Security Council, then the very notion of ethnicity has to be addressed more seriously. Not only this, what is required is a renewed perception of contemporary conflicts, in order to muster up an appropriate response, instead of merely defining them to be the primitive conflicts of primordial underpinnings.
References:
Allen. T, ‘Perceiving Contemporary War’, in, Allen T. & Seaton, J. eds. The Media of Conflict: War Reporting and Representations of Ethnic Violence, Zed Press, London
Falk. R, Ch. 5, ‘The UN, The Rule of Law and Humanitarian Intervention, in Kaldor. M, & B Vashee eds. New Wars, Pinter 1997.
Kaldor. M, Ch. 1, Introduction, in Kaldor M. & Vashee B. eds New Wars, Pinter 1997.
Kaldor. M, ‘A Decade of Humanitarian Intervention, Global Civil Society Yearbook 2001, LSE.
Keen. D, The Economic Functions of Violence in Civil Wars, Adelphi Paper 320, Oxford University Press/International Institute for Strategic Studies, 1998.
Seam. J, Ch.1, ‘The International System of Humanitarian Relief in the New World Order, in John Harris eds. The Politics of Humanitarian Intervention, Pinter, 1995.
Turton. D, ‘War and Ethnicity: Global Connections and Local Violence in North East Africa and Former Yugoslavia, Oxford Development Studies, Vol. 25, No.1, 1997
Turton. D, ‘War and Ethnicity: Global Connections and Local Violence in North East Africa and Former Yugoslavia’, Oxford Development Studies, Vol.25, No.1, 1997
Allen T, ‘Perceiving Contemporary War’, in Allen T. & Seaton, J. eds, The Media of Conflict War Reporting and Representations of Ethnic Violence, Zed Press, London 1999.
Keen. D, The Economic Functions of Violence and Civil Wars, Adelphi Paper 320, Oxford University Press/International Institute of Strategic Studies, 1998.
Kaldor. M, Chapter-1, Introduction in Kaldor M. & Vashee B. eds. New Wars, Pinter 1997.
Kaldor. M, ‘A Decade of Humanitarian Intervention’, Ch.5, in Global Civil Society Year Book 2001, LSE.
Falk. R, Chapter 5, ‘The UN, The Rule of Law and Humanitarian Intervention, in Kaldor. M, & B. Vashee eds. New Wars, Pinter 1997
Seaman. J, Chapter 1, ‘The International System of Humanitarian Relief in the New World Order’, in John Harris eds. The Politics of Humanitarian Intervention, Pinter, 1995.
