Juliet's Lament: An Argument for Partition

Below is paper I wrote examining the methods by which a multi-ethnic democratic state can reconcile different identities during after ethnic conflict arises.  My complete collection of grad school notes and paper can be found here.

Juliet's Lament: An Argument for Partition

          Were the terms state and nation always synonymous there might be far fewer 

incidences of intrastate ethnic conflict. International conflict, of course, would still flourish but 

it would not stem from ethnic heterogeneity within a state. This observation is offered to 

demonstrate the myriad challenges of state governance. With few exceptions, most states 

contain multiple ethnic identities that compete for power and control. A state’s primary duty 

remains the maintenance of its sovereignty (its stateness) through the governance of its territory. 

When ethnic conflict arises, this governance comes down to choices—of reconciling lines on a 

map to accommodate realities on the ground, or reconciling the identities of the population on 

the ground to the arbitrary lines on a map. Poor choices in this process have caused millions of 

deaths—sometimes intentionally but often as an after effect of well-intentioned state responses. 

In examining the reconciling of a state’s options, one must ask how a state can best respond to 

problematic ethnic populations? Is there an ideal best response? Does it address the origins of 

the conflict? In this essay I argue that democratic multi-ethnic states must balance the 

requirement for their own self-preservation with the needs and rights of its people. Ideally, the 

most comprehensive and widely employable balance for a state can be found in partition. This 

method addresses the primordialist origin of ethnic conflict. Ethnic bonds are not something that 

can be easily broken through assimilation or integration. Respecting the innate nature of ethnic 

affiliation produces an approach that seeks to preserve ethnic identity. This approach must be a 

holistic one—while it must originate within the sovereign state—it then requires cooperation 

(not intervention) by the international community in ensuring that refugee relocation does not 

turn into ethnic cleansing, nor is it perceived as indiscriminate expulsion. I begin the essay by 

distinguishing between nationalism, nations, and states, as well as between partition and 

secession. Then I describe that which is never a viable option—genocide—highlighting 

preconditions that a state must avoid to guard against it. Next, I provide a brief analysis of 

common criticisms of partition. Finally, I address the advantage of partition as well as the 

supplementary responses necessary once a state makes the decision to make a fresh cut.

The Enduring Power of Ethnic Nationalism (Muller 2008) Grad School Notes

BONUS LINK:  My entire (so far) grad school notes collection can be found here. 

Grad School Notes: 

“Us and Them: The Enduring Power of Ethnic Nationalism” by J. Muller (2008)

Introduction:

For Americans, Ethnic Nationalism in politics is not an easy concept to grasp of which to give merit, most find it discomfiting both intellectually and morally

Two of best ways (least bad”) responses to ethnic nationalism is ethnic disaggregation or partition. 

People who come to the US usually do so with the expectation that their ethnic identities will lessen or disappear. 

In regions where there is peace now it is only a byproduct of violent ethnic separations—where separation hasn’t occurred—watch out. 

Ethnonationalism formed the Europe we know today despite their claims that nationalism is now supplanted by globalism and transnational institutions.  Today, every European state except for two has a dominant nationalit. 

The Politics of Identity:

Two schools on the idea of a national identity: 

Civic/Liberal:  American conception.  If you live within the borders you are part of the nation, regardless of ethnic or racial background

Ethno:  nations defined by a shared heritage (blood)—common language, faith, ethnicity

But civic nationalism is a relatively new phenomenon in Europe and US.  (e.g. WASPs)

Differing levels of civic vs. ethnonationalism as one travels east from western Europe. The countries in Western Europe had a longer period to develop a more homogenous population—enabling them to become nation-states.

The Rise of Ethnonationalism (EN):

Idea of a nation-state is a recent phenomenon—for most of history people lived in Empires—their own little nations.

Gellner defines:

Rise of ethnonationalism driven by modernity.  Military competition between state led to demand for continual economic growth—this depended on mass literacy and communication—promotion of education and common language—leading to conflicts over language and communal opportunities.

EN also responded to modern state’s weakening of familial and religious social bonds—offering a common ethnic identity.

The ugly side of EN is that the creation of a nation-state necessarily means that there will be minorities created and treated as inferior.

The Great Transformation:

Ethnic cleansing, population transfer, genocide were all byproducts of post World War I breakup of empires as borders were moved to align them with populations and victors.  This nationalism continued to build up through World War II—with Hitler’s Germany as an unholy culmination. 

Postwar but not PostNational:

After WWII, instead of borders being moved, populations were—in the name of postwar stability.  Mixture of ethnic populations deemed subversive and troublesome, this was characterized by the expulsion of ethnic Germans from non Germanic countries.  Carried through the end of the Cold War—this has been the story of ethnic disaggregation and and EN.

Decolonization and After:

EN happened elsewhere too: British partition of India and Pakistan; later partition of Pakistan and Bangladesh; mandate of Palestine’s disestablishment into Israel; expulsion of pied-noirs in Algeria, Asians in Uganda.

The Balance Sheet:

Obvious deleterious effects of EN, but also good things and stability have occurred:

EN has motivated countries to mutual trust and sacrifice—through appeals to that shared heritage.  Post WWII Europe has been so stable because of EN—those sourcers of conflict having been removed. 

New Ethnic Mixing:

Today ethnic mixing occurs largely due to a north and west migration pattern from Asia, Africa and the Middle East.  Whether these groups will assimilate will largely determine future conflict or perhaps another rise of EN. 

Future Implications:

Since modernization is a key cause of EN, one can expect future conflict in modernizing states.  This is especially true in developing new states (think Africa) with borders that cross ethnic boundaries.

Once a certain level of conflict has been reached—remaining a single state becomes counterproductive (Chaim Kaufmann).    Once this point has been reached partition may be the most human response.  Yes, it creates problematic refugee flows but it at least addresses the source of the conflict.  It does however, require a substantial financial commitment from the international community. 

EN is here to stay and ignoring and trying to write it off as imagined and therefore irrelevant might only provoke future conflict. 

Genocide in Syria? Early Warning Systems for Genocide

BONUS LINK:  My entire (so far) grad school notes collection can be found here. 

Let me preface this post by saying I know VERY little about Syria.  My studies mainly focus on those countries on the African continent but many of my courses this quarter peripherally touch on Syria. This means that I write my ideas from a place of humility, eager to continue to read and learn from country and regional experts.  

Genocide in Syria?

Were I a Shia--or an Alawite (or a Christian for that matter)--I would make sure I had a back packed to hightail it out of Syria as quickly as possible.

I just read  Barbara Harff's No Lessons Learned from the Holocaust?  Assessing Risks of Genocide and Political Mass Murder since 1955 for my class on ethnic conflict and it opened my eyes to the possibility for future genocides to occur around the globe.

Harff identifies several variables that can be used as early warning identifying markers but there is one that has the biggest demonstrated influence:  a formerly dominant minority that loses power due to state failure is 2.5 times more likely to become targets of a genocidal campaign.  This means that the Alawite minority and Christian minority (espousing an economic power instead of a political one) would become the targets when they lose power.
Questions:
Would the Alawites be better off seceding when they lose power and forming their own state in the northwest region of Syria?
Would a post-Assad Syria be better off (of course what does that mean--better off for who?) without the Alawites and Shia as part of Syria?
Does this idea open the door too wide for the possibility of ethnic cleansing?

Of note there are other early warning models out there, most notably at the Sentinel Project.

LINKS for further consideration:

http://thesentinelproject.org/guest-blog-could-rwanda-see-another-genocide/
http://thesentinelproject.org/wp-content/uploads/Genocide-in-Rwanda-Recurrence-Risk-Model-Using-Two-Early-Warning-Models-Clarinda-Solberg.pdf
http://thesentinelproject.org/our-work/early-warning-system-overview/