Conflict and Intervention (IB)

Introduction

Conflict and intervention examine the causes, events, and consequences of wars, civil conflicts, and international responses. This topic explores why conflicts arise, how they escalate, and the role of organizations like the UN, NATO, and NGOs in peacekeeping and humanitarian efforts. Understanding these historical cases helps us analyze the effectiveness of interventions and their lasting impact on societies.

1. Key Themes & Concepts

a. Causes of Conflict

• Conflicts arise due to political instability, economic crises, ethnic tensions, nationalism, imperialism, ideological differences, and colonial legacies. Many conflicts stem from long-standing historical grievances, such as unresolved territorial disputes or ethnic divisions imposed by colonial powers. In some cases, resource scarcity, such as competition over oil, water, or land, can escalate tensions into full-scale war.

b. Course of Conflict

• Key events include the escalation of hostilities, military strategies, major battles, war crimes, and the involvement of external powers. The progression of a conflict often follows patterns of initial diplomatic failure, rapid militarization, and eventual intervention by outside actors. Civil wars, like those in Syria or Sudan, demonstrate how conflicts can become prolonged due to foreign backing of different factions.

c. Intervention

• Intervention can take the form of military action, peacekeeping missions, sanctions, humanitarian aid, or diplomatic efforts by the UN, NATO, regional organizations, and NGOs. While some interventions are successful in stabilizing regions, others worsen the situation by fueling resistance or prolonging fighting. The effectiveness of an intervention is often determined by factors like international support, long-term planning, and commitment to rebuilding efforts.

d. Consequences

• Conflicts lead to political, economic, and social effects, such as government collapse, economic devastation, war crimes tribunals, refugee crises, and long-term reconciliation efforts. The aftermath of war can create power vacuums, leading to instability, as seen in Iraq after the U.S. invasion in 2003. Efforts to rebuild war-torn nations often involve truth commissions, international trials, and reconciliation programs to prevent future violence.

2. Case Studies

a. The Rwandan Genocide (1994)

• Ethnic tensions between Hutus and Tutsis, worsened by Belgian colonial policies, led to mass killings after President Habyarimana's assassination. The UN failed to intervene effectively, and the genocide ended only when the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) seized control.

I. Background

• Rwanda was a Belgian colony where the Belgians favored the Tutsi minority over the Hutu majority. Colonial policies deepened ethnic divisions, creating long-term resentment between the two groups. After independence in 1962, Hutus took power, reversing the social order and marginalizing the Tutsis.

II. Causes

• Ethnic divisions between Hutus and Tutsis were exacerbated by discriminatory policies and historical favoritism. Political instability under President Juvénal Habyarimana created a fragile government unable to prevent escalating violence. The shooting down of Habyarimana’s plane on April 6, 1994, triggered mass killings, with extremist Hutu leaders organizing the genocide.

III. Course of Conflict

• From April to July 1994, around 800,000 people were killed in just 100 days. The Interahamwe militia, supported by government forces, carried out systematic massacres, targeting Tutsis and moderate Hutus. Women were specifically targeted, with an estimated 250,000 women subjected to sexual violence during the genocide.

IV. International Response

• The UNAMIR (United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda) had a weak mandate, preventing meaningful intervention. Western nations, including the U.S. and France, avoided involvement, fearing another failure like the one in Somalia. The lack of response led to criticisms that the world ignored clear warnings of an impending genocide.

V. Consequences

• Paul Kagame’s Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) took control in July 1994, ending the genocide but sparking further regional conflicts. The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) was set up to prosecute those responsible, but many perpetrators fled the country. Rwanda’s government prioritized reconciliation, but ethnic tensions and justice for survivors remain sensitive issues today.

b. The Kosovo Conflict (1998–1999)

• Ethnic Albanians in Kosovo sought independence from Serbia, leading to brutal Serbian military crackdowns. NATO launched airstrikes in 1999, forcing Serbia to withdraw, and Kosovo declared independence in 2008.

I. Background

• Kosovo, an autonomous region in Yugoslavia, had an ethnic Albanian majority but was controlled by Serbia. Tensions increased when Serbian leader Slobodan Milošević revoked Kosovo’s autonomy in 1989. The Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) emerged, demanding independence through armed resistance.

II. Causes

• Ethnic tensions between Muslim Albanians and Orthodox Christian Serbs fueled nationalist sentiments. Slobodan Milošević’s authoritarian rule marginalized Kosovo’s Albanian population, increasing resentment. The Serbian military crackdown on Albanian resistance escalated into a full-scale conflict.

III. Course of Conflict

• Serbia’s ethnic cleansing campaign forced 850,000 Kosovar Albanians to flee or face execution. Reports of massacres and mass graves gained international attention, pressuring Western nations to act. Widespread destruction and displacement deepened ethnic divisions, making post-war reconciliation difficult.

IV. Intervention

• NATO launched a 78-day bombing campaign in 1999, targeting Serbian military and infrastructure. The intervention forced Serbia to withdraw but was controversial due to civilian casualties and legal concerns. Kosovo was placed under UN administration, with NATO peacekeeping forces (KFOR) maintaining security.

V. Consequences

• Kosovo declared independence in 2008, though Serbia and several countries still do not recognize it. NATO’s intervention set a precedent for humanitarian action without UN approval, raising debates on international law. Peacekeeping efforts continue, but ethnic divisions and political instability remain challenges for Kosovo’s future.

3. Other Possible Case Studies

• Bosnian War (1992–1995) → Ethnic cleansing, Srebrenica massacre, Dayton Agreement.

• Iraq War (2003–2011) → U.S. invasion, regime change, long-term instability.

• Syrian Civil War (2011–present) → Proxy war, refugee crisis, international intervention.

4. Perspectives & Theories on Conflict & Intervention

a. Realist View

• Realists believe that states act in their own self-interest, prioritizing power and security over moral concerns. They argue that interventions occur only when they provide political, economic, or strategic advantages to the intervening country. This explains why some conflicts receive international attention while others are ignored, depending on their geopolitical importance.

b. Liberal View

• Liberals emphasize the role of international cooperation in resolving conflicts and maintaining global peace. They believe organizations like the United Nations (UN), International Criminal Court (ICC), and NATO are essential in mediating disputes and enforcing international laws. Unlike realists, liberals argue that interventions should be based on humanitarian principles and collective security, not just national interests.

c. Post-Colonial View

• Post-colonial theorists argue that many modern conflicts result from colonial histories, where artificial borders and ethnic divisions were imposed by imperial powers. These unresolved tensions often lead to violence, as seen in cases like Rwanda, Sudan, and the Middle East. They criticize Western interventions, viewing them as neo-colonial efforts that prioritize foreign interests over local autonomy.

d. Marxist View

• Marxists see conflicts as a result of economic inequality, class struggles, and capitalist exploitation. They argue that wars and interventions are often driven by the interests of wealthy nations and corporations seeking resources, labor, or economic dominance. Marxist analysis is often applied to conflicts in oil-rich regions, labor-exploiting economies, and post-colonial struggles, highlighting the link between capitalism and war.

5. Evaluating International Responses

a. United Nations (UN)

• The UN plays a crucial role in peacekeeping, conflict mediation, and humanitarian aid during and after conflicts. However, its effectiveness is often limited by bureaucratic inefficiencies, lack of enforcement power, and political divisions among its member states, especially in the Security Council. While UN peacekeeping missions have helped stabilize some regions, they have also failed in cases like Rwanda (1994) and Srebrenica (1995) due to weak mandates and slow responses.

b. NATO

• NATO is a military alliance that has intervened in conflicts such as Kosovo (1999) and Libya (2011), often acting without full UN approval. While its interventions are sometimes justified on humanitarian grounds, they are controversial due to civilian casualties, destruction of infrastructure, and accusations of geopolitical bias. Critics argue that NATO selectively intervenes in conflicts where its member states have strategic interests, ignoring crises that do not align with their priorities.

c. International Criminal Court (ICC)

• The ICC prosecutes individuals accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide, aiming to bring justice and accountability in post-conflict societies. However, it has been criticized for selective prosecution, as most of its cases involve African leaders while powerful nations like the U.S., China, and Russia remain outside its jurisdiction. This perceived bias weakens its legitimacy, making it difficult to enforce international justice effectively.

d. Media & NGOs

• The media and NGOs play a crucial role in exposing human rights violations, war crimes, and humanitarian crises, often pushing governments and international organizations to take action. Investigative journalism and NGO reports can mobilize public opinion, as seen in cases like Darfur, Syria, and Ukraine, leading to increased diplomatic pressure and aid. However, media coverage can sometimes be biased or manipulated, shaping narratives that influence how the world perceives a conflict and its actors.