Running head: Midterm Examination

M4A1: Midterm Examination
James Hallihan
Ethnic Conflict and Genocide

Theory:
In the case of Bosnia, choose the most important theoretical aspect (primordial, constructivist, instrumental, modernization) that you find most helpful in your understanding of the conflict. What does this approach illuminate to you that you find so important and how might it direct you towards one or other levels of analysis?
In looking at the Bosnian conflict the most important aspect of the conflict was social constructivism. The definition of Social constructivism is “identities are molded, refabricated, and mobilized in accord with reigning cultural scripts and centers of power”(Cerulo, 1997, p.387).
In Bosnia there were three major ethnic groups fighting for control of Bosnia: 1. Serbs- The Serbian people are Orthodox Christians 2. Croats- The Croatian people are Catholic Christians 3. Bosniaks- The Bosniaks are Muslim
The two main actors in this conflict originally came from Croatia and Serbia which were all part of Yugoslavia and Russian controlled at one point in time.
There is some primordialism overtones in this conflict however, “it is almost impossible for people in the region to trace the ethnic line of most inhabitants”(Jesse &Williams, 2011, p.146), and due to intermarriage between the Croats and Serbians in the region, there are no “physical differences among people of different ethnic origins”(Harvey, 2000, pp.42-43). It seems that everything that I read tells me that the Croats and Serbs were very similar in culture.
Social constructionist sees that are three major contributors to the outbreak of the war in Bosnia: * Economic, political and military threats to the identity and/or existence of ethnic group attachments. * Elites with political skills and resources to play on those fears. * Third party military, political or economic support for at least one side in the dispute.

Using Social constructivism with individual analysis I will show some of the elites that played a major role in the destruction of Bosnia and the Genocide that took place. These major contributors were: * Slobodan Milosevic – Serbian President that had a “political program that was focused not on reform but fostering conflict, especially given that it was framed in terms of nationalism”(Jesse, &Williams, 2011, p.149). * Alija Izetbegovic – Muslim leader in Bosnia who believed in a Muslim nation in Bosnia * Franjo Tudjman – Croatian leader who was focused on a Croatian identity and sovereignty.
Social constructivism with a domestic analysis will show various factors involved in the breakup of Yugoslavia and the eventual Bosnian war including public opinion, politics, criminal elements, media, gendered nationalism, economics and religion. Mueller concludes that the Bosnian war (and the war in Croatia) was not actually an ethnic war, but rather (Jesse, &Williams, 2011, p.161)“something far more banal: the creation of communities of criminal violence and pillage”(Mueller, p.108).
At the international level of analysis we see various different states involved in this conflict such as Britain, France, Germany, Russia and the United States along with international organizations like the United Nations, NATO and the European Union. These different groups were concerned with the growing tension in Yugoslavia during the late 80s and early 90s; as the conflict in Bosnia continued the international community got involved through the UN and NATO to intervene militarily to provide for humanitarian support.

Levels of Analysis:
In reviewing the conflict in Darfur/Sudan, which of the three levels do you think looked the most promising for a solution? What cultural elements, or personalities, or parties and institutions, or international factors look to have been most important and most likely as a means of resolution?
In the Darfur/Sudan conflict I will look at the different levels of analysis and chose which one best fits a resolution in Sudan.
Individual level – we will look at some of the elites in this country and see what type of role they played in this conflict. * Omar Hassan al-Bashir – Sudanese President who encouraged and fostered mass hostilities towards the Darfur people. Unleashed his army along with the Janjaweed who in turn slaughtered and raped many of the Darfur tribes. * John Garang de Mabior – Leader of the Sudan People’s Liberation Army and a direct representative of the southern Sudan region. He led the rebellion against the Sudan government and later signed a peace treaty in 2005 and became the vice president of Sudan.
Domestic level – The ethnic divisions within Sudan are numerous with four major different types of divisions: Social pluralism (500+ different ethnic groups), linguistic pluralism (113+ different languages), religious pluralism (Muslim, Christian and Pagan) and administrative pluralism (reference point for identification). These different identities have “served as a means of obtaining material privileges, as a source of honor, dignity, self-esteem, and lastly, as a way to further political goals”(Jesse, &Williams, 2011, p.203).
On the international level there are many that contributed to the Sudanese/Darfur conflict, almost too many to name. Belarus supplied six attack helicopters and China sold dozens of fighter aircraft and military helicopters, Iran helped purchase the Sudanese purchase transport aircraft, a company in Lithuania was responsible for repairing numerous Sudanese aircraft, Russia sold a dozen MiG-29 fighter aircraft, and a British company and Ukrainian company entered into a contract to deliver cargo planes to Sudan. As we see this Darfur conflict has been very lucrative for the international players involved.
Looking at the domestic, individual and international levels of analysis and the affect that each one has had on this conflict, the most promising level of analysis is the international level. At the international level sanctions can be put in place to stifle the Sudan economy, and deploying UN peacekeepers on the ground may stall/stop any further aggressions from the Janjaweed in Darfur until some type of peace treaty is in place. Another aspect of the international approach is the humanitarian aid that can be provided throughout Darfur.

Individual Level:
Of the main actors in the conflicts we have covered (including, but not limited, to the likes of Slobodan Milosevic, Velupillai Prabhakaran, Yasser Arafat), who do you think was most instrumental in either moving towards a resolution or hindering one? Cite examples in terms of either ideological concerns, retribution, personal aspirations, reunification or other goals.
In each of the main conflicts there seems to be one person in control of the masses who personifies evil. Does one stand out amongst the rest? The one that clearly sticks out above the rest is Slobodan Milosevic.
Slobodan Milosevic – Serbian president in 1989 and had four major goals in his campaign for a greater Serbia and mobilization of Serbians: 1. Appeal to Serbian nationalism in order to gain control of Serbia. Milosevic manipulated the media and Orthodox Church to further his political goals and to gain greater power. 2. Reasserting Serbian control over the two autonomous states of Kosovo and Vojvodina. Milosevic used this opportunity in Vojvodina to place his supporters in governance roles to include the Vojvodina party chief and president. In Kosovo, Milosevic forced the resignation of the Kosovar leadership and placed his own people in their stead, and systematically isolated the ethnic Albanians in that region by changing the official language of that area. 3. Overturning the 1974 Yugoslavian constitution as Milosevic perceived this document as effectively reducing Serbia’s power within the federation. Milosevic staged protests in Montenegro that led to the resignation of the presidency in which he filled all vacancies with his people. As this was happening, the other two groups (Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Muslim) banned together in an anti-Serbian solidarity. Bosnian leadership sought out Croatian and Slovenian support as a means to oppose Milosevic. 4. Centralize Yugoslavia under Serbian domination. This was the ultimate goal of his reign of terror. In order to centralize Milosevic must have a dominant Bosnian nation and the only way he saw to accomplish this was by force. Milosevic met with Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic to accomplish the task of expelling non-Serbs in the area either by force or death.
As a result in Milosevic Serbian diplomacy and nationalism an estimation of over 110,000 people were killed during the Bosnian war, over 37,000 of those casualties were civilians, 8,000 Muslim men and boys were slaughtered like animals by Serbian forces and an estimated 20,000 – 50,000 woman were raped in rape camps. From 1992 – 1995 the Bosnian war that was orchestrated by Milosevic has killed over 100,000 people, and to this day people are still trying to figure out the total death toll and the atrocities associated with this event, the healing process will take decades to recover.
Gendered-Nationalism
Women are now being given much due attention in ethnic conflicts. The authors note several instances in which women have played an important part in the search for peaceful solutions, local and national levels of participation, while often remaining confined to tradition-bound stereotypes at the same time. Analyze one such women's group or organization either from lecture notes or the text, and explain how the group has, or is, an active participant in the conflict. You are encouraged, but not required, to include information gathered from outside of the text and readings.
The organization I chose to analyze is the OAU or the Organization of African Unity. I chose them because they believe that women play a major role in conflict prevention, management and resolution. One of the cornerstones of this organization is the mobilization of woman “who have a high level of motivation to promote peace in Africa”(Letter from Dr.Salim).
This OAU see gender as a social construct that marks fundamental power relation in societies and acknowledge that men and women have different responsibilities in society. One of the main goals is to raise gender awareness in the peace process and “to take gender equality as a primary issue in peace initiatives and examine everything through gender lens”(Ernest, p.6), they no longer want to be viewed as helpless victims of violence, but a great resource of change that has not been fully developed due to prevailing institutional, social and cultural structures.
In 1997 in Ethiopia there was an interagency conference where they examined and documented a “best practices” for strengthening women’s role in the peacemaking process. The result was a comprehensive breakdown of women’s organizations in some of the major conflicts in Africa and how they can better promote women’s role in peace brokering. Some of the countries and the women’s organizations that OAU looked at were: * Liberia – Liberian Woman Initiative (LWI), Women United for Peace and Democracy (WOUPAD). * Sierra Leone – Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF). * Sudan – Sudanese Women’s Voice for Peace (SWVP). * Somalia and North West Somalia – DULMAR, National Organization for Women and Children Development (NOW). * Rwanda – PRO-FEMME TWESE HAMWE * The Republic of Congo – Women’s National Committee for peace, Parliamentary Ad-Hoc Committee, Generation Without Frontiers and National Interposition Force. * Mali – Women’s National Movement for Peace Keeping and National Unity (MNFPUN). * Burundi – Women’s Federated Association (WFA)
In conclusion the OAU has done a lot for women in Africa over many years, in creating and supporting other woman’s organization groups, and will continue to do so with support from other groups such as UNESCO, UNHCR, UNDP, UNFPA, UNICEF and UNIFEM. OAU is changing the African nation one state at a time.

References
British Broadcasting Company (2007). Bosnia war dead figure announced. Retrieved September 22, 2013 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6228152.stm.
Center for Justice and Accountability, retrieved September 22, 2013 from http://www.cja.org/article.php?id=247.
Cerkez, A.(2013). Rape now a war crime, thanks to Bosnian woman. Retrieved September 22, 2013 from http://news.msn.com/world/rape-now-a-war-crime-thanks-to-bosnian-woman?stay=1.
Cerulo, K. A.(1997). Identity Construction: New Issues, New Directions, Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 387.
Harvey, F. P.(2000). Primordialism, Evolutionary Theory and Ethnic Violence in the Balkans: Opportunities and Constraints for Theory and Policy, Canadian Journal of Political Science, 33(1), 42-43.
Hoare, M. A.(2008). What do the figures for Bosnian war-dead tell us? Bosnian Institute. Retrieved September 22, 2013 from http://www.bosnia.org.uk/news/news_body.cfm?newsid=2336.
Jesse, N. G., &Williams, K. P.(2011). Ethnic Conflict: A systematic approach to cases of conflict. Washington, DC: CQ Press
Mueller, J.(2001). The Banality of Ethnic War, Nationalism and Ethnic Conflict. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Pari, S.(2011). UN Complicit in Sri Lanka Genocide, Green left weekly. Retrieved September 22, 2013 from http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/47434.

Reuters (2008). Chronology – What happened during the war in Bosnia? Retrieved September 22, 2013 from http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/07/21/idUSL21644464.