Ethnic Conflict Midterm

Ranked Ethnic Groups

• social & ethnic groups coincide, with one ethnic group above another in a hierarchy. One group subordinate to the other.

• “caste structure” 

• Mobility opportunities are restricted by ethnicity

• Political, economic, & social status tend to be cumulative

  • Ethnicity coincides with class

• Ritualized modes of expressing status

• Ex. Rwanda, where Tutsis were superordinate & Huti were subordinate

• Ex. System of race relations founded on African slavery in Western Hemisphere

Unranked Ethnic Groups

• ethnic groups are cross class, with a parallel ordering

• Neither group is subordinate or superordinate to the other.

• Parallel ethnic groups exist with each group internally stratified.

• Groups may be more or less autonomous whole societies

• Polydominal

• “Ethnic coexistence”

• No clear hierarchy

• Each group has their own elites/leaders

• Social mobility within groups

  • Doesn’t mean each group is proportionally powerful

• Each group wants cultural autonomy & proportionality

• Ex. Sri Lanka Sinhalese and Tamils

How is a ranked ethnic system created?

conquest or capture

What does conflict in a ranked ethnic system look like?

social revolution

• Subordinate groups can aim to:

  • 1. displace superordinate groups

  • 2. Abolish ethnic divisions altogether

  • 3. raise their position in the ethnic hierarchy without denying the legitimacy of that hierarchy

  • 4. Move system from ranked to unranked

    • Most likely change

How is an unranked ethnic system created?

• invasion resulting in less than conquest, by more or less voluntary migration, or by encapsulation within a single territorial unit of groups that formerly had little to do with each other—or by some combination of these

• Ex. economically induced migration

• Ex. colonial rule bringing together unranked groups that had no previous contact, creating interactions not of clearly ranked superiors & subordinates but of unranked strangers

What does conflict in an unranked ethnic system look like?

create homogeneity in territory

• ethnic groups behave like states in the international system

• aim at something approaching sovereign autonomy

• the exclusion of parallel ethnic groups from a share of power

• often reversion—by expulsion or extermination—to an idealized, ethnically homogeneous status quo

• One group tries to push the other out

• ethnic cleansing

Centralized Ethnic System

• Some groups are so large & influential to make plausible claims for power at the center 

• Gains often made at the expense of another

  • Mutually exclusive demands characterize political system

• Cleavages run through whole society & are of great magnitude

• Conflict not easily compartmentalized 

• Center is not a neutral arbiter for conflicts originating elsewhere, but often a focal point of competition & often controlled by other group

Dispersed Ethnic System

• large # of dispersed ethnic groups, none of them large or powerful enough to threaten to dominate the center

• May make local power grabs

• These groups typically have to take positions outside of their ethnic group to make themselves able to expand influence

• Claims & demands of one group can often be made without harming the other, since there are so many groups that don’t interact in every way

• Group-group interactions mediated by relationship between locality & center

  • Center is often relatively neutral

Indicators of ethnic identity can include:

• visual bodily indicators determined at birth

  • skin tone

  • Physiognomy

  • Hair color & texture

  • Height

  • Physique

• visual bodily indicators not determined at birth

  • earring holes

  • circumcision

  • scarring

• behavioral visual cues

  • posture

  • gestures

  • grooming

• nonvisible cues

  • language

  • grammar

  • accent

  • names

  • food habits

  • religion

Miscueing

• In the course of violence, members of a victim-group often attempt to pass as members of an attacker-group or bystander-group

• success not determined by objective character of the traits that differentiate groups, but rather by how salient ethnic identities are & thus by how much trouble people will take to insure accurate individual identifications

Ethnic Group

• group of people whose identity is rooted in a common biological ancestry, or at least a belief or myth of collective ancestry (Horowitz)

  • Common descent & bloodline

• established at birth for most group members, though the extent to which this is so varies

Nation

Constructed group of people that have an affinity for each other & claim a right to self governance on a territory they consider to be their historic homeland

Nation-State

 state's boundaries coincide with the nation's

Nationalism

 desire of a group to have their nation have a territory of their own

How is nationalism different than patriotism?

• Nationalism is about the NATION, not the state

• Patriotism: loyalty to an existing state

• Nations often do not coincide with the political boundaries of states

• pride in one's nation is not patriotism, & for that matter is, at best, only a part of nationalism

• People in a nation don’t necessarily have to be proud of what their nation does

• Nationalism is the DESIRE to have a state, while patriotism is loyalty to a state that already exists

Interstate Conflict

conflict between 2+ sovereign states in the international system

Intrastate Conflict

conflict happening within a sovereign state, more common than interstate conflict

What makes a conflict ethnic or nationalist?

• Combatants define themselves in an ethnic or nationalist way

• Use of nationality or ethnicity to mobilize combatants towards violence

Types of Intrastate Conflict

• civil wars

• government sanctioned violence

• violence perpetrated by criminal organizations

• resource/economic

Wars of Secession

• People fight to form an independent country

• Type of interstate conflict

• Ex. American Civil War

War of Succession

• people fight to overthrow the ruling authority

• type of interstate conflict

• Ex. Syrian Civil War

What makes a nation different from an ethnic group?

• Nations claim right of self-determination (Gellner)

  • State or territorial autonomy

  • Every nation would like to control their own state

  • NATIONS WANT STATE

• Ex. Irish in the USA are an ethnic group, but NOT a nation because they are not carving out territory & asking for a state in their historic homeland

• Ex. USA is a nation but do not all share ethnicity. We share political values.

Civic Nation

• people coming together to form a nation based on common political values 

• Not based on common descent

• Nationhood open to everyone, regardless of descent, who aligns with the political values

• Not necessarily more peaceful or more inclusive

  • Ex. USA civil war

Ethnic Nation

• people coming together to form a nation based on common descent

• Not open to everyone 

State

1. Principal political unit in the international system

   • Country

2. administrative units within a country

3. Governmental framework

Primordialism

• Argues that ethnic identity is ascriptive & that membership is assigned at birth & thus difficult to change

• Ethnic ties are inherent in us as human beings 

• We have deep natural connections that connect us to some people & produce natural divisions with others

• Differences based on race, religion, language, or location

• Ethnic group membership passed down intact across generations

• Ethnic identity is singular, timeless, & fixed with distinct social boundaries

• Ethnic differences are perceived as ancestral, deep, & irreconcilable

• Ethnic conflict stems naturally & inevitably from ‘ancient hatreds’ between ethnic groups

• can explain passions, feelings of fear, hatred, & anxiety

• Ex. Rwandan genocide

  • Clear Hutu/Tutsi dichotomy & ancient hatreds

Strengths of Primordialism

• Emphasizes irrationality of ethnic violence & leads towards an idea of genetically induced barbaric behavior

• Useful in explaining emotive dimension of ethnic conflict

Weaknesses of Primordialism

• Overpredicts conflict

  • Doesn’t explain periods of long term peace

• Ignores structural, economic, & political processes in which these conflicts occur

• Implies that heterogenous societies will naturally & inevitably have violent ethnic conflicts

  • Not the case in some societies, like Botswana, an ethnically heterogenous country which, compared to many African countries, has peaceful ethnic relations

• Do not account for timing of an outbreak of violence

  • Why does violence happen now and not earlier or later?

Instrumentalism

• Sees ethnicity as neither inherent in human nature nor intrinsically valuable

• Ethnicity is perceived as a strategic basis for coalitions that are looking for a larger share of scarce economic or political power & so it is a device for restricting resources to a few individuals

• Rational for parties to organize along ethnic lines depending on the benefit it gives them

• Greed is stronger than grievance as a cause for ethnic conflict

• ethnic conflict arises among rational agents over scarce resources driven by the aims of political leaders for political or economic gains or a deliberate manipulation based on a rational decision to incite or encourage ethnic violence

• Ethnic conflict is RATIONAL

  • Rationally based off of interests like prosperity, power, & security

Strengths of Instrumentalism

• Explains why some ethnically fragmented societies fight or cooperate

  • Depends on cost/benefit calculations that the group makes & which outweighs the other

  • When cost of cooperation is more than the perceived benefits, ethnic conflict is often unavoidable

• Explains why some people take part in ethnic violence even if they aren’t personally convinced to follow the crowd

  • Benefits of having a share of the loot

Weaknesses of Instrumentalism

• Treats ethnic conflict as purely rational, ignoring the emotive aspect

• Ignores atrocities committed by individuals that do not contribute to gains

  • Ex. rape

• Cannot independently explain why people easily, cooperatively, & effectively mobilize along ethnic lines

  • if ethnicity has no meaning, why is it so easy to mobilize this way??

Social Construction/Constructivism

• Identity is just a set of ideas

  • ethnic/national identity is NOT a natural phenomenon

  • Product of human actions & choices

  • Boundaries are fluid & ethnicity is not set in stone

• Once identities are created, they are enduring

  • Not just fleeting political moments

  • Deep attachment to identities

• People have to feel this created identity

• Ethnicity is flexible

• Ethnic groups are recognized to be social constructions with identifiable origins & histories of expansion & contraction, amalgamation & division

Strengths of Social Construction/Constructivism

• nice middle ground between instrumentalism and primordialism

Weaknesses of Social Construction/Constructivism

• Ignores primordialist claims that establish historic legitimacy based on the ancestral tenure of a given ethnic group

• Ignores that even if ethnic identities are constructed, they could also become internalized & institutionalized to acquire a deep meaning for the group & produce primordialist emotions

• does not explain why societies with similar historical processes & structural features commonly associated with conflict do not produce similar conflict histories

• Doesn’t account for timing of conflict

• Difficult to explain what is happening at the individual grassroots level

• produces resolution strategies that are too focused on state building while ignoring the underlying animosity

Clash of Civilizations (Samuel P. Huntington)

• Hypothesis 

  • the great divisions among humankind & dominating source of conflict in the coming years will be cultural

  • Nation states still most powerful actors in world affairs

  • Principal conflicts will be between nations & groups of different civilizations

Civilization (Huntington)

 the highest cultural grouping of people & the broadest level of cultural identity people have short of that which distinguishes humans from other species

Why does Huntington think clashes will happen among civilizations?

1) differences among civilizations are not only real; they are basic

2) World is becoming a smaller place

3) the processes of economic modernization & social change throughout the world are separating people from longstanding local identities

4) growth of civilization-consciousness is enhanced by the dual role of the West

5) cultural characteristics & differences are less mutable & hence less easily compromised & resolved than political & economic ones

6) Economic regionalism is increasing

Identity

• Total self-concept

• Sum total of all your identifications

• Multiple identifications

Identifications

• Ex. gender, class, religion, ethnicity

• 1 part of one’s identity

• Some identifications are better for collective mobilizations than others

  • Ex. more difficult to organize based on gender (HUGE dispersed group with cross cut cleavages that separate this group than religion (predetermined belief system, with a hierarchy, & typically have regular meeting times)

Where do primordialists think ethnic identity comes from?

• biologically given

• Group you are born into

• Difficult to change

  • Fixed identity

• Share objective markers

  • Ex. language, customs, religion, etc.

• Feel ethnic identity in your gut, feel belonging & commonality within a group

What causes ethnic conflict according to primordialists?

• “Ancient hatreds”

  • “Remove the lid & the cauldron boils over”

  • Ethnic groups have age old resentments for each other

  • Only thing that keeps ethnic groups from fighting is a strong state pushing them down

  • Ethnic groups lie in wait, nurturing their hatreds for another group, waiting for the opportunity to engage in violence

How do primordialists think the future of ethnic conflict looks?

• 1. Fragmentation of the world into smaller & smaller groups (Kaplan)

• 2. Clash of civilizations, as groups form larger cultural groupings & fight other cultures (Huntington)

Kaplan’s Balkan Ghosts

• journalist who traveled through Yugoslavia in late 1980s

• Best examples of a primordialist argument for ethnic conflict in former Yugoslavia in 1990s

• How is this an example of primordialism?

  • Present is rooted in the ancient -> reflection of the people back on ancient conflicts that cannot be changed. Region is haunted by history

  • sense of inevitability about violence

What is primordial about Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations?

• WHAT are you?

• People feel their attachment to their civilization

• Identity is pretty fixed

Instrumentalist response to primordialism

• Ordinary people typically don’t fume about events that happened centuries ago. It takes hard work by politicians to convince ordinary people that the ‘other side’ contains evil genocidal people that want to kill them

• Competition & resentment ‘at the ground level’ usually doesn’t lead to intergroup violence w/o an intervening push from the top

• It is fear & hate generated from the top, NOT ethnic differences, that finally push people to commit acts of violence

• What the myth of ethnic conflict would say are ‘ever-present tensions’ are actually the product of political choices

• The Myth of Global Ethnic Conflict by John R. Bowen

What factors increase the risk of civil war?

• a majority ethnic group lives alongside a substantial minority

• low per capita income

  • people have little stake in the status quo and are more willing to fight

• having a civil war in the recent past

• geography like mountains or a large and sparsely populated hinterland

• rich natural resources, which can be exploited by rebel groups to fund rebellion

How do we stop ethnic conflict according to primordialists?

1. strong state that can curb conflict

2. separate all ethnic groups

How do we stop ethnic conflict according to instrumentalists?

• make ethnic conflict unprofitable

  • ex. penalize governments that support rebel groups, make it harder for rebel governments to fund the war

Spectrum of Theories

• Spectrum refers to how fixed identities are

• One end -> primordialism sees ethnicity as given at birth & unchanging

• Other end -> instrumentalism sees ethnicity as neither inherent in human nature nor intrinsically valuable

How do instrumentalists treat ethnic identity?

• Ethnicity is a strategic tool used by individuals to obtain some larger, usually material end

• Greed is more powerful than grievance

• Ethnic identity is only 1 basis of identity

• Elites weigh the costs & benefits of mobilizing an ethnic group 

  • If benefits outweigh costs, elites will mobilize the group

Ethnic Entreprenurs

• people who offer new identity categories (ex. Racial, sexual, regional) hoping to find ‘buyers’. If the ‘product’ sells, these entrepreneurs become leaders of a newly formed ethnic, cultural, religious, or other forms of identity groups

• Use of symbols, history, & myths to mobilize people

  • tap into these & create an identity people resonate with

•  have self-interest

• manipulate ethnic symbols to create political movements

How does ethnicity get mobilized to violence according to instrumentalists?

• Ethnic identity gains significance when ethnic entrepreneurs manipulate ethnic symbols to create political movements

• Recent history more important than ancient history

  • Economic conditions very important too

• People do not mobilize along ethnic lines naturally & they need a leader/elite to mobilize them

• Elites have something to gain or profit from ethnic mobilization, even if society suffers

  • When profit stops, mobilization stops

  • Profits are usually economic or political

• Very rational

Why does ethnicity often appear to be the cause of war according to instrumentalists?

• Wars can be ethnically patterned but not ethnically caused

• Rebel leaders use rhetoric of ethnicity

• Observers look to deep history when this is not the cause

How can we link primordialism and instrumentalism?

1. Grievances crystallize ethnic identity (instrumentalism reinforces primordialism)

   1. politicization of ethnic identity perpetuates grievances/frustration which in turn induces ethnic conflict

2. Cohesion engenders frustration (Primordialism reinforces instrumentalism)

   1. group cohesion leverages effective mass mobilization for ethnic rebellion

Imagined Community

• aka a nation

• Members of even the smallest nation never know most of their fellow members, meet them, or hear of them, yet they all live in communion in their mind

• No nation imagines itself coterminous with mankind. They all have borders beyond which lie other nations

• regardless of the actual inequality & exploitation that may prevail in each, the nation is always conceived as a deep, horizontal comradeship

• People are willing to kill & die for these limited imaginings

• Anderson

Psychological Approach

ethnic conflict is the result of competition between identities for relative status and group worth. Groups can be created just by simple categorization.

How did colonial powers construct ethnic identities?

• Colonial policy tried to make sense of a new environment, create order, & facilitate colonial administration sharpened contrasts & evaluations that emerged with group disparities

• Present influence in group relations -> advanced vs backward

• Colonial rule made ethnic identity a more important matter & made it easier to compare group attributes

What factors help determine “backwards” vs “advanced” ethnic groups?

• Proximity to colonial capital, rail line, or port

  • Colonial offices & schools would often be established there, boosting the group that lived there

  • Those living there would develop professional & administrative abilities while those in rural areas would not

• Natural endowment of the home area

  • Lots of resources can lead a group to be prosperous

• Willingness to become involved in colonial education system

• ^^^^ many of these are just chance

“Backward” Ethnic Group

• Backward = weak, limited in intelligence, competitive disadvantage, imputed personal qualities

• more frequent initiators of ethnic violence & ‘advanced’ groups more frequent victims

How are identity groups mobilized in constructivism?

• Ethnic entrepreneurs who have self-interest

• Use of symbols, history, & myths to mobilize people

  • Ethnic entrepreneurs tap into these & create an identity people resonate with

• Possible during modern era

  • Mass literacy

  • Mass media

• Identity construction & mobilization rooted in objective cultural traits -> has to resonate

How can ethnic/national identities be both constructed & powerful according to constructivists?

• Identity is Janus-faced

• Constraints & opportunities

• Identities can resonate once created

Anderson’s Imagined Communities (1991)

• Nation is just an idea

• Most important tool for constructing a modern nation -> language

Smith’s National Identity (1991)

• Most important tool for building a modern nation -> ethnic group

  • It is easy!!! Members of an ethnic group share so much (ex. History, language, myths, culture)

• Boundaries of ethnic groups change but they are sticky

  • Not easy to reconstruct national identity

How is populism different than nationalism?

• Populism is a vertical boundary between a corrupt parasitic elite & a genuine untainted “people” who are a source of democratic legitimacy

• Nationalism is a horizontal boundary between citizen in-groups & foreigner out-groups

What is the minimum standard necessary for groups to exhibit ingroup favoritism & outgroup discrimination? (Psychological theories)

• Categorization

• When you are assigned to a group, you start to prefer it

How do groups apportion benefits according to psychological theories?

• Maximize relative benefits

• Make the gap between your groups larger

What drives ethnic conflict according to psychological theories?

• Groups don’t compete for resources -> their identities compete 

• Relative status & group worth

What role does stereotyping play in psychological theories?

• Attach positive stereotypes to your group & negative stereotypes to other groups to improve your own feelings of self worth

• advanced/progressive vs backward/traditional

  • Everyone wants to be advanced & progressive

  • Countries that were under colonial rule -> colonial powers occupied these places & categorized the societies into groups. This ended up fostering stereotypes.

Kin-State

•  a state that represents the majority nation of a transborder ethnic group whose members reside in neighboring territories

• Cultivate ties to external members of their group

• Try to protect & preserve their external kin

• a state that claims to protect co-nationals living in other states

• Ex. Russia tries to protect its conationalists living in other states

• Waterbury

How do kin-states behave?

• Annexation

  • Illegal under international law

• Funding for cultural initiatives

  • Ex. language, religion

• Attempt to influence domestic politics in another state

  • Ex. economic sanctions

• Intervene militarily

  • Pretty rare historically

    • Wars are costly, often unpopular domestically, & sometimes illegal under international law

• Political rights

  • Ex. dual citizenship for conationals, allowing conationals to vote

De Facto State

 an entity with an organized political leadership, which has risen to power through some degree of indigenous capacity, receives popular support & has achieved sufficient capacity to provide governmental services to a given population in a specific territorial area, over which effective control is maintained for a significant period of time but which remains illegitimate in the eyes of international society

Transnistria

• separatist de facto state from Moldova

• Creation of a Transnistrian identity

• Shared language with Russia

• Claimed that they have always been different than the Moldovan state they exist in

• Has asked many times to be annexed into Russia

• Ethnically heterogeneous 

• Was justified at first along linguistic & Moldovanist lines

  • Defending Russian language

• Changed course to constructing separatist cause in economic terms

  • Compared to Moldova, it was argued, Transnistria was a prosperous “Riviera”

Abkhazia

• separatist de facto state from Georgia

• Had republic status in USSR until 1931 but then thrown into Georgia

• Abkhazia views Georgia as an imperialist state

• Ethnically heterogeneous 

• Wants to be an independent state

• Abkhazs see the Georgian state as “imperialist”

• Georgian authorities are regarded as guilty of discrimination in economic, political, & cultural spheres, including restricting the use of the Abkhaz language

• Myth of victimhood

South Ossetia

• separatist de facto state from Georgia

• Wants to rejoin ethnic kin in Russia & be annexed into Russia

• Georgia has engaged in 3 waves of genocidal violence against South Ossetians & so South Ossetians want no part of Georgia

• Very weak on its own in economic terms

• Full independence is not South Ossetia’s objective

  • Want merger w/Russian Federation & reunification w/Ossetians in Republic of North Ossetia

  • some 95% of South Ossetians have Russian citizenship

  • Russia’s language, currency, education, & legal system used

Nationalizing State

a state trying to create a national identity for the majority ethnic group

state is perceived by, as, and for the national majority

Ex. Estonia

Minority Nationalism

claims by a minority ethnic group within a state for some self determination within the state

Ex. Russian speakers in Estonia

Separatist Nationalism

claims by a minority ethnic group within a state to break off & form their own state (Dembinska)

Patron State

a nation that supports an ethnic group/state but are not co-nationals of the same ethnic group

Ex. Russia supports Armenia even though they have different ethnicities

Brubaler’s “Triadic Nexus”

• Kin-state claims to protect a national minority in another state

• This state is a nationalizing state that views itself as of & for the nationalizing majority

• The minority group in the nationalizing state may ask for help from the kin-state

• Kin-state may offer support to the national minority & pressure the state to adopt more minority-friendly policies

Smith’s “Quadratic Nexus”

• Adds international institutions to the mix of Brubaler’s “Triadic Nexus”

• International institutions pressure nationalizing states to develop more minority friendly policies

• International institutions pressure kin-states to not aggravate the situation

Everyday Nationalism

• Nationalism is not always “hot” or top-down (elites)

• Nationalism is reproduced in everyday life by the people

• Brubaker (2006) nation is a “category of practice”

• Agency of individuals

• Ex. Estonia’s food has the Estonian flag

• “Everyday Nationalism” by Polese et. al

Civic nationalism

people identify strongly with their country not because it represents any specific ethnic, linguistic, or religious group but because it represents an inclusive vision of the citizenry as a whole

Ethnonationalism

a form of nationalism wherein the nation and nationality are defined in terms of ethnicity

irredentist nationalism

subtracting the territory from one state and adding it to another, restore territory that has been lost

Existential Nationalism

state A fighting for its existence, and state B fighting against A's right to exist. While the terms of the conflict, war and/or invasion are wholly existential for A, they are also existential for B

ex. Russia and Ukraine

Knott

Current state of Chechnyan Conflict

• Leader of Russia’s Chechen Republic Ramzan Kadyrov

• Climate of fear in the region is overwhelming & many residents have been intimidated into silence

• Attacks on ordinary people expressing dissenting opinions, critical Russian & foreign journalists, & human rights defenders who challenge Chechen abuse by law enforcement & security agencies

  • Unlawful detaining, abductions, enforced disappearances, cruel & degrading treatment, death threats, threatening & physically abusing family members

Primordialism and Chechnya

• cause of conflict → ancient grievances between Russians and Chechens

• Date back to Caucasian wars of 18th-19th centuries

  • Fight against Russian invasion & Chechens wanting to preserve their independence

• Stalinism was harsh & added to legacy of bitterness

  • Ex. collectivization of agriculture, massive resettlement of kulaks

• WWII

  • Russia alleged that the Chechens were collaborating w/Nazis 

    • They weren't

  • Republic was abolished in 1944 & its inhabitants were rounded up & deported

    • Many died in the process

    • Survivors resettled in Kazakhstan 

      • Collective trauma of exile

• Peoples returned to Chechnya in 1957

Psychological theories and Chechnya

• soviet ethnofederal policy divided the Chechens into their own republic, and this simple group division can lead to in-group favoritism, stereotypes, and wanting to react strongly when they perceive their culture as threatened

Instrumentalism and Chechnya

• Rich energy reserves in Chechnya made it of importance to Russian & Chechen elites

• Putin wanted him and his country to appear strong, so he invades

• Strategic location between Black and Caspian seas

• Political elites on both sides have sought to consolidate power, suppress dissent, and maintain control over the population through the conflict

Fifth Column

domestic actors who work to undermine the national interest, in cooperation with external rivals of the state

Matryoshka nationalism

maller ethnic groups exist within larger ones

Basis for Chechen Nationalism

• Ethnic identity

  • Ready made symbols

  • Cultural connection

  • language

• Historical grievances

• Warrior ethos - rebellions

Current State of Nagorno-Karabakh

• Most of the population of the breakaway state of Nagorno-Karabakh has fled to Armenia after Azerbaijan launched a deadly military operation in September 2023

• Azerbaijan seized the region & ended more than 3 decades of self-declared independence by ethnic Armenians in the regions

• More than 100,000 refugees moved into Armenia in less than a week

Nagorno-Karabakh

•  a small, land-locked territory in the South Caucasus

• internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan but has been controlled by ethnic Armenians recently

• mostly Armenians live here

What makes Nagorno-Karabakh conflict so intractable?

• Contrasting narratives

  • Neither side acknowledges the suffering of the other

  • Neither side ever admits they are at fault

• Patrons

  • Ex. Russia, Turkey

  • Patron states have their own incentives to make sure a stalemate continues

  • Elites & patrons are able to project their influence into this geostrategic region

• exclusive gains

  • Each side wants exclusive & sole control over Nagorno Karabakh

  • How can we share that land so everyone feels that justice has been served?

  • Who has a right to live where?

How does Nagorno-Karabakh relate to other post-Soviet conflicts?

• Soviet collapse creates opportunity for nationalism

• Tension in international law

  • Self-determination

  • Territorial integrity

Primordialist Explanation for Nagorno-Karabakh

• centuries-old animosities and territorial claims between Armenians and Azerbaijanis. Both groups have historical ties to the region, and their identities are deeply intertwined with the land

• deep-rooted ethnic, cultural, and historical divisions between Armenians and Azerbaijanis

• might explain the timing, as the strong Soviet state was able to keep violence suppressed until the very end

Instrumentalist explanation for nagorno-karabakh

• External actors, such as neighboring countries or global powers, may intervene or support one side over the other for strategic reasons

  • ex. Russia sides with Armenia and Turkey sides with Azerbaijan

• The region is rich in natural resources, particularly oil and gas, and control over territory can translate into economic advantages

Social Constructivist explanation for nagorno-karabakh

• Armenians and Azerbaijanis have developed distinct collective identities that are shaped by historical experiences, cultural traditions, and political narratives.

• These identities are not fixed or primordial but are constructed and reconstructed over time through interactions within society, media representations, and political discourse

• The construction of these identities often involves the portrayal of the "other" as a threat or enemy, reinforcing divisions and animosities between the two groups

• Both Armenians and Azerbaijanis have competing narratives about the past, particularly regarding the events leading up to and following the Nagorno-Karabakh war. These narratives are often selective and biased, emphasizing grievances and victimhood while downplaying or ignoring the perspectives of the other side

Psychological explanation for nagorno-karabakh

• Armenians and Azerbaijanis may have strong group identities tied to their respective ethnic, cultural, and national affiliations. Social identity theory suggests that individuals tend to favor their in-group over out-groups, leading to intergroup biases and conflicts.

• perceived threats to ethnic identity, territorial integrity, or cultural heritage may trigger psychological reactance among Armenians and Azerbaijanis, leading to escalation of conflict

• Armenians and Azerbaijanis may hold negative stereotypes about each other, which can lead to prejudice, discrimination, and ultimately conflict