Assess The Relationship Between The State And Conflict In International Politics

The state has been at the centre of conflict from the time when states were involved in wars, and continues to be at the centre of conflict, when the nature of conflict has also changed over time. At this time, conflicts that involve states can be armed conflicts, or even other conflicts that involve states, or non-state entities. Armed conflict is defined as “the use of armed force between two organised armed groups, of which at least one is the government of a state, which results in at least 25 battle-related deaths in a year” ( Uppsala Conflict Data Program, 2019). Armed conflicts is one of the areas of conflict; in the post war period, conflicts are not limited to armed conflicts. There is a development of non-state conflicts as well as conflicts that involve one-sided violence, such as, terrorism, which provide different dynamics as compared with traditional armed conflicts. The relationship between the state, and the conflicts of such nature is complex as is the application of international law in such situations and this is the subject of discussion in this essay.

The development of new conflicts are seen in the post-Cold War era, which have seen decline in the ‘old wars’ but an increase in ‘new wars’. Old wars are defined as wars involving states in which battle is the decisive encounter” (Kaldor, 2012). New wars are described as “networks of state and non-state actors and most violence is directed against civilians” (Kaldor, 2012). The decline in old wars can be seen as the “unabashed victory of economic and political liberalism” (Fukuyama, 1989, p. 3). Cold War was the result of ideological differences and saw these differences manifested in the wars that were created to counter the threat of fascism and communism (Fukuyama, 1989). The Vietnam War is an example of such manifestation of ideological differences in the form of war. The post-Cold War era saw the “total exhaustion of viable systematic alternatives to Western liberalism” (Fukuyama, 1989, p. 3). The lack of alternatives to liberalism meant that there was a decline in the forces of communism and fascism and therefore a decrease in the need for Western countries like United States to use war as a method to repel such forces as seen it the case of Vietnam war.

Fukuyama (1989) argued that there was an end of all alternatives to western liberalism. He particularly mentioned religious fundamentalism, which he thought had a limited appeal to create conflict in the post- Cold War era, and nationalism which he thought could be solved through liberalism. There is some support for the optimism shown by Fukuyama (1989); as the ‘new peace’ established in the post 1989 era has seen a decline in organised conflicts (Pinker, 2012). Nevertheless, it may now be argued that while there is a decline in organised conflicts, there is an increase in conflicts that are termed as ‘new war’ (Kaldor, 2012). How the states have responded to these conflicts is also a matter of interest in the context of international relations theory.

An important question that may be asked in this background is that how colonialism or neo-colonialism contributes to the development of new conflicts and how international politics respond to these conflicts. The ‘war on terror’ may be used as a starting point for this discussion. The ‘war on terror’ was the response of America to the attacks on September 11, 2001, also termed as 9/11 in popular consciousness. The ‘war on terror’ implied an approach which saw America take it upon itself to wean out terror threats against itself, wherever in the world such threats may be. In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, there are two examples of conflict that were directly undertaken under the ‘war on terror’, these being the occupation of Iraq by the US-UK coalition army, and the occupation of Afghanistan by NATO forces. Both these events were justified by the occupation forces on the ground of ‘war on terror’; however, these events have deeper meaning for neo colonialism as explained below.

America justified its role in occupation of Iraq in 2003, based on the argument that the Saddam Hussein regime was amassing weapons of mass destruction, which would pose a threat to America and its western allies and therefore, in order to thwart this threat, the US-UK Coalition army took a pre-emptive measure by attacking and occupying Iraq. In the post 9/11 American public consciousness on terror threats emanating from the Middle East, it was easy for the government to justify its actions under the ‘war on terror’ approach (Stokes & Raphael, 2010). However, a section of literature has argued that the Iraq occupation was an event of post-colonial practice by Americans, which was used by the government to push its agenda of liberalisation of Iraqi economy in order to open the economy to major international oil companies (Stokes & Raphael, 2010). This argument is made against the background of the American interest in the Middle East from the 1940s post-war period, which saw America focusing on the Middle East for its energy needs and displacing English hegemony in the region (Stokes & Raphael, 2010). Indeed, America focussed on thwarting nationalism, and Islamism in the region in order to avoid any change in the status quo that allowed it access to Middle East energy resources (Stokes & Raphael, 2010).

In Iraq, the national oil companies had been able to consolidate their monopoly over the country’s oil resources, and challenge free market economy of the Western neoliberalism; nevertheless, neoliberalism approach was applied to Iraq after its occupation by the US-UK coalition army (Stokes & Raphael, 2010, p. 85). The ‘war on terror’ approach provided the Bush administration legitimacy for occupying Iraq, but the ultimate effect of this was the easing of entry of international oil companies in Iraq (Stokes & Raphael, 2010). Ultimately, it has been argued that liberalisation of Iraq from an authoritarian and dictatorial government was ultimately related to the paving of way for international oil companies to gain access to the oil reserves of Iraq (Stokes & Raphael, 2010). From the perspective of neo-colonialism, the Iraqi occupation is significant. International relations theory has conventionally supported European or western perspectives that have led to hierarchies putting East in a more subservient position as compared to the West, as noted in literature that “Conventional IR with its focus on great power politics and security, read narrowly, naturalizes these hierarchies and thus reproduces the status quo” (Chowdhry & Nair, 2002, p. 1). The Iraqi occupation by the US-UK coalition forces without the justification of weapons of mass destruction as it was later realised, but without much international law repercussions exemplifies continuing hierarchies and status quo in international relations. It has been said that “imperialism constitutes a critical historical juncture in which postcolonial national identities are constructed in opposition to European ones, and come to be understood as Europe’s ‘others’; the imperialist project thus shapes the postcolonial world and the West” (Chowdhry & Nair, 2002, p. 2). From the perspective of conflict and state and international relations, it is clear that post colonial conflict may still involve colonial tendencies of the western nations by which they can justify the conflict as well as their role in the conflict. In the case of Iraqi occupation, this conflict was justified on the basis of threat due to weapons of mass destruction and the argument that Saddam Hussein’s regime was violating human rights of their own citizens, particularly Kurds (Stokes & Raphael, 2010). The first justification was never proved and the second justification presented itself at the intersection of international law and human rights and intervention on the basis of humanitarian law. The last in itself is a complex area within the area of state and conflict and international law. This will be discussed towards the end of this essay.

To come back to post colonial conflict, one of the grounds for justifying this conflict, as seen in the case of Iraq occupation is that of vulnerability of the western states from some threat emanating from the East. As noted by Winter (2011), powerful states have shown a tendency to portray themselves as “as weak and vulnerable victims of dangerous non-state actors” (Winter, 2011, p. 490). This is the case with ‘war on terror’ by the American state post 9/11, where the threat of non-state terrorists have been used to justify the obvious violation of international law by occupation of sovereign states like Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the use of Guantanamo Bay prison facility to house alleged terrorists taken from different parts of the world, who are said to threaten not just the United States but also other Western nations. These actions against non-state actors are not actually confined to non-state actors alone but also have ramifications for sovereignty of the states concerned, as seen in the case of Israeli occupation and use of brutality against non-state actors based in West Bank and Gaza (Winter, 2011, p. 490). The international organisations formed in the post-war period, particularly the United Nations, has not been successful to prevent or respond to this conflict as is seen in the case of Iraqi occupation, which was censured by the United Nations but there was not response to it in constructive terms. It is important to note that the United Nations Charter itself prohibits the use of force in Article 1(4) of the Charter. However, the US-UK coalition army was able to use force and also seek to justify it on international law grounds. This is no different from the inability of the United Nations to prevent use of force in previous times, such as, in Afghanistan in 1979 and in Vietnam in the 1960s and 1970s.

Contrary to what Fukuyama (1989) argued that there are no viable alternatives to western liberalism, as the events in the post 9/11 (September 11, 2001) proved, religious fundamentalism is not an unviable alternative to liberalism and there have also been an increase in nationalist forces in different parts of the world. It may be useful to recall Samuel Huntington’s seminal The Clash of the Civilizations, which posited that increasingly conflict will be civilisational in nature, wherein “the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics” (Huntington, 1993, p.22). The post 9/11 world has witnessed an increasing level of conflict that involves such civilizational crisis, with the conflict in Syria being a good example. To a great extent, the conflict in Syria is a humanitarian crisis, but despite a significant incidence of intervention on humanitarian grounds in the post-Cold War era (Buchan, 2013); there was little action on the humanitarian crisis in Syria (Nasser-Eddine, 2012). Such humanitarian intervention has been seen earlier in the case of Kosovo in 1999 (Buchan, 2013). Humanitarian intervention has gained more acceptance under the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) concept. It has been used in a number of cases and is conspicuous by its absence in a number of others, like Syria. For instance, in 1991, Security Council passed Resolution 688 allowing UN state parties to intervene in the humanitarian crisis caused against ethnic minorities of Shias and Kurds in Iraq (Cockayne & Malone, 2010). The UN authorized forces created refugee areas for displaced Kurds in northern Iraq wherein humanitarian aid agencies could operate (Shraga, 2011, p. 21). No such action is taken in Syria. Similarly, no such action was taken in Darfur, Sudan, despite genocide of more than 800,000 people by militias and state agencies (Clough, 2005). Such inaction in some cases raise interesting questions about selective application of intervention on humanitarian grounds, which cannot be addressed in this essay. However, these questions do link back to the state and conflict and the role of international relations. At the very least, it raises scepticism about international law and relations, as was also noted by Kofi Annan, where he said that humanitarian intervention will pose challenges as well as meet with scepticism, and even hostility by some quarters (Kaldor, 2007, p. 16). Indeed, the idea of human intervention is not new and was first proposed by Hugo Grotius in the 17th century (Kaldor, 2007, p. 37). However, its use in the contemporary times have often raised questions of self-interest of the powerful countries instead of actual humanitarian objectives (Kaldor, 2007).

To conclude, international relations theory explains the issue of conflict and the state in these times that can be related to post colonialism. These post colonial approaches are seen in the conflicts that are related to the war on terror in the recent times as well as humanitarian interventions that are undertaken by more powerful states, but are viewed with scepticism by those who argue that there is a selective application of R2P, which shows the self-interest of the powerful states.

Bibliography

• Buchan, R., 2013. International Law and the Construction of the Liberal Peace. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
• Chowdhry, G. & Nair, S., 2002. Power, Postcolonialism and International Relations: Reading Race, Gender and Class. London and New York: Routledge.
• Clough, M., 2005. Darfur: Whose Responsibility to Protect?. [Online] Available at: https://www.hrw.org/legacy/wr2k5/darfur/darfur.pdf [Accessed 5 June 2019].
• Cockayne, J. & Malone, D., 2010. The Security Council and the 1991 and 2001 wars in Iraq. In: V. Lowe, A. Roberts, J. Welsh & D. Zaum, eds. The United Nations Security Council and War: The Evolution of Thought and Practice since 1945. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Fukuyama, F., 1989. The End of History?. The National Interest, Volume 16, pp. 3-18.
• Huntington, S. P., 1993. The Clash of Civilizations?. Foreign Affairs, 72(3), pp. 22-49.
• Kaldor, M., 2007. Human Security. New York: Polity Press.
• Kaldor, M., 2012. New and Old Wars: Organised Violence in the Global Era. 3 ed. Cambridge: Polity Press .
• Nasser-Eddine, M., 2012. How R2P failed Syria. FJHP, Volume 28.
• Pinker, S., 2012. The Better Angels of Our Nature: A History of Violence and Humanity. London: Penguin Books.
• Shraga, D., 2011. The Security Council and Human Rights: From Discretion to Promote to Obligation to Protect. In: B. Fassbender, ed. Securing Human Rights?: Achievements and Challenges of the UN Security Council . Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 8-35.
• Stokes, D. & Raphael, S., 2010. Global energy security and American Title: hegemony. Baltimore : Johns Hopkins University Press.
• Uppsala Conflict Data Program, 2019. Definitions. [Online] Available at: http://www.pcr.uu.se/research/ucdp/definitions/ [Accessed 5 June 2019].
• Winter, Y., 2011. Asymmetric Discourse and its Moral Economies: A Critique. International Theory , 3(3), pp. 488-514.