Introduction
The international system has experienced radical shifts due to occurrences like globalization and the end of the Cold War era in the early 1990s. There has also been an emergence of new patterns in the way state and non-state actors cooperate and resolve conflicts in the post-Cold War period. The transformations have led to the emergence of new forms of warfare that are radically different from the previous forms before the end of the Cold War. The changes have been triggered by differences in the nature of actors during conflicts and the goals that the actors aim to attain or the motivations for the wars. Also, the changes are as a result of differences between how the previous wars were financed and the modes of financing in comparison to the new wars. This paper analyzes Kaldor’s New Wars theory and identifies ways the theory facilitates the understanding of the nature of contemporary conflicts in society.
Discussion
Kaldor’s New Wars theory emphasizes that a new form of wars has emerged in the post-Cold War era, first due to the emergence of new actors. Previous wars involved state armies and military but currently, the main actors are in the form of local warlords, mercenaries and gangs that challenge the capability, authority and sometimes the legitimacy of the state (Kaldor, 2004, p. 77). It implies that states have lost the previous monopoly they had over violence as most of the acts of violence can be internally instigated towards the state by the new actors both locally and internationally.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Secondly, most of the new forms are waged intra-state or within the boundaries of the state and usually lead to heavy civilian casualties. It has become onerous to differentiate between the victims of the war and the combatants as they are mostly civilians (Roberts, 2010, p. 121).
Further, the motives and goals of the non-state actors engaging in the wars are different. Unlike the previous wars that were fought for reasons such as the pursuit of geo-political interests and differences in ideologies, most of the contemporary conflicts are ethnic-based, religious or tribal (Collier, 2000, p. 847). Most of these current conflicts involve the targeting of specific demographic groups by adversaries rather than the protection of public interest.
Also, the new forms of conflicts are characterized by the emergence of new forms of war economies that are sustained through illegal dealings like drug trafficking, sale of illegal weapons and control of mines where precious metal like gold and diamonds are mined and sold through the black market. The dealings are considered crucial in ensuring the non-state actors have a stranglehold on the economic interests and remain powerful due to regular financial flows that they use to sustain their regional groups of combatants. These wars are also globalized in nature and decentralized unlike earlier ones where they were centralized through military commands and controls (Harbom and Wallensteen, 2005, p. 626). Also, the earlier wars were financed through the exchequer where the state made adequate allocations to the military or sough external assistance from allies.
The Kaldor’s New Wars theory has enlarged the focus on understanding the threats to national security where unlike before, it has become necessary for security agencies to focus on internal causes of conflicts that could lead to war. The theory demonstrates the previous focus on the military of other states as the main threat is narrow and the roles of non-state actors and other threats to war like poverty, fight over resources, migration and human rights violations should not be ignored (Kaldor, 2013, p. 9).
Also, the theory demonstrates the need for liberal internationalism that promotes foreign states to intervene in the situations in other sovereign states to offer assistance and boost the activities of local security agents in areas like capacity enhancement and provision of humanitarian aid to the victims. The theory has also enhanced the adoption of a multidisciplinary perspectives in the analysis of conflicts by appreciating the emergence of new dynamics and patterns of contemporary conflicts (Mundy, 2011, p. 294). The focus on specific contexts has facilitated the analysis of conflicts through case study approaches.
These approaches promote the conducting of in-depth analyses into conflict situations and identifying the nature of interwoven factors causing such conflicts (Berdal, 2003, p. 479). The adoption of the case study approach into analyzing conflicts have facilitated the identity of factors at play in different conflict situations like the ones in Bosnia, Congo, and Sierra Leone amongst others. For example, in the case of Bosnia, it is easier through a multidisciplinary perspective, to understand that the war was politically instigated where the political elites reproduced their power through identity politics and the use of private forces or mercenaries. The political elites in Bosnia pursued deliberate policies of segregation that ensured the citizens lost any form of national affiliation. They recruited opportunists that furthered their political ideologies by perpetrating acts of violence on those deemed to oppose their ideologies. A considerable number had been released from prisons and had to demonstrate their allegiance to their political leaders. The crisis led to the emergence of political refugees due to the pursuit of identity-based politics.
It demonstrates that the New Wars theory has promoted the visualization of the flaws of the previously dominant theories that recognized states as the main actors in conflicts. The state-centric theories were universalistic in nature and failed to recognize the role of internal dynamics in most of the contemporary conflicts that have emerged during the post-Cold War era (Newman, 2004, p. 176). The state-centric theories were inadequate and cannot be used to explain fully the nature of conflicts in regions such as the Balkans where the wars are intrastate and involve regional groups taking arms against their own governments or against each other in their fight for domination.
It shows that Kaldor’s theory is vital as it provides an alternative and optimal framework for analyzing the nature of conflicts by taking into account the role of non-state actors and their contribution to the emergence of conflicts. The theory also promotes the shifting of focus from political ideologies and paying attention to factors like religious, racial and ethnic differences that play contributory roles in fuelling conflicts and instability (Mello, 2010, p. 304).
The theory also demonstrates the inadequacy of the use of an approach to conflict analysis that focuses on the state military as the main actor. It reveals that such an approach is suboptimal as it ignores other stakeholders in conflicts (Wimmer and Brian, 2006, p. 878). For instance, the conflicts in Congo and Iraq escalated to the point where the states had to depend on mercenaries and private security companies to heighten the levels of coercion for political ends. In such cases, the theory facilitates the identification of the use of privatized forms of violence thereby promoting an informed analysis of the consequences of such conflicts (Henderson and Singer, 2002, p. 178).
In the area of conflict analysis, the theory plays a crucial role in the identity of the underlying interests and the motivations that are fueling the conflicts. The focus of the theory on concepts like state failure and the need for social transformation makes it easier to identify the inter-linkages between the structural factors in an area and how such factors fuel conflicts. Such an approach enhances the visibility of factors like social-economic deprivation, exclusion of some demographic groups from power and inability by a state to contain internal rebellions and social conflicts and how they link to other factors like social identity and lead to conflicts (Shaw, 2002, p. 349).
The theory is also instrumental in revealing the globalized nature of conflicts and how the different stakeholders in these wars benefit either directly or indirectly. The theory reveals that most of the current conflicts are transnational in nature and those involved benefit through plunder. For instance, most of the rebel groups in areas like Syria and Congo use sophisticated weaponry demonstrating there is immense external support for the insurgencies.
Also, in areas like Congo, the conflicts have become endemic and the rebel groups control mines with significant deposits of valuable minerals like diamonds and conflict metals like coltan, cassiterite and wolframite that are considered vital in the manufacture of electronic products like mobile phones. Most of the manufacturers are located in foreign nations and the control of such mines by rebels reveals interwoven loops that sustain funding or the rebels for continuous access to such resources.
It means that access to such resources could be the main triggers to these wars as opposed to previous approaches that laid emphasis on factors such as political ideologies. It also reveals that maintaining the conflicts is one of the main goals of the players to have access and control of such resources (Oberschall, 2000, p. 987). These revelations demonstrate the ability of the theory to demonstrate that some of the combatants in current conflicts have no goal of winning but rather maintaining the status quo. The current situation differs from previous cases of interstate wars where the main goal was emerging victorious unlike now where most conflicts aim at spreading to preserve the interests of the combatants (Booth, 2001, p.165).
The theory also provides insights into the role played by globalization in fuelling conflicts. Through the theory, it becomes easier to visualize the North-south divide where the industrialized world is depicted as peaceful while the developing economies experience incessant conflicts and civil wars. It provides insights into how wars should be understood as the negative impacts of globalization on society (Smith, 2003, p. 24).
For instance, in the case of Congo highlighted earlier, the conflict metals used in the manufacture of valuable electronics find their way into the West where most of these manufacturers are located. It implies that the manufacturers or their agents would support such conflicts to guarantee uninterrupted supply of these valuable inputs to their productive processes. It reveals the value of the theory in demonstrating the need to embrace new ways of analyzing conflicts and diverse forms of violence that are emerging (Fearon and Laitin, 2003, p. 78).
The theory correctly shows that previous causes of conflicts that bordered on geo political interests like imperial contests and expansion of territories have lost meaning and serve a superficial and peripheral role in explaining the nature of current conflicts in the post-Cold War era.
The theory has further revealed the need for the adoption of wider policy perspectives to address the linkages offered by the theory between non-traditional sources of threats and the emergence of conflicts. For instance, the theory reveals the need to evaluate the current developments in technologies and how they can be used by criminal elements to fuel conflicts. Other than the use of military interventions, the theory provides a framework where security agencies can evaluate the exposure of different groups to security threats due to cybercrime. The technological developments facilitate situations where the orchestrators of conflicts live in distant regions and fuel conflicts remotely through the use of current technologies.
It informs the need for policies where the interventions must focus on enhancing the efficiency of local and international policing to mitigate the threats as the criminal elements can be both local and foreign. The adoption of such forms of policing would have played a fundamental role in reducing the escalation of the conflicts in places like Bosnia and Rwanda that led to huge civilian fatalities. The approach necessitates perceiving most of the conflicts are humanitarian crises as in some instances the local security forces collaborate with rebels and mercenaries to harm select groups of civilians. It makes most of the conflicts cases of ethnic cleansing that necessitates the intervention of international bodies (Lacina and Nills, 2005, p. 151). Such an understanding is better than cases where the conflicts are dismissed as cases of historical hatred among tribes that makes the international community unwilling to intervene (Holland, 2014, p. 833).
The theory also enhances the adoption of suitable policies in the efforts of peace-building and eradicating the re-emergence of conflicts. The theory ensures that the policies do not just focus on attaining cease fires and peace accords amongst the warring groups. It ensures that the policy measures adopted to avert conflicts address the structural causes of the conflicts (Kalyvas, 2001, p. 106). For instance, conflicts that emanate due to fights over resources are addressed through adoption of policy measures that focus on enhancing equity in accessing such resources. Other measures include adoption of efforts to promote the reintegration of the combatants into society through peace missions and reconciliation efforts.
Also, the theory implores on leaders to develop policies that address the underlying causes of most conflicts especially poverty, unemployment, illiteracy and racial and ethnic inequities in the distribution of power. By addressing such factors, it becomes easier to attain social cohesion and promote the peaceful coexistence of communities (Sørensen, 2001, p. 346). It shows that the theory promotes a focused approach that is necessary in addressing the root causes of conflicts. In the earlier instances where wars were conceptualized from a militaristic point of view, the role of most of the non-state actors like militia and private entities in the emergence and perpetuation of conflicts was ignored (Chojnacki, 2006, p. 28). The assumption that these non-state actors were unable to perpetrate conflicts that would lead to deaths and other forms of human catastrophes like displacements was myopic and deceiving.
The theory is also necessary in enhancing the visualization of global war economies. Its description of how local conflicts fuel global trade in arms and the prevalence of western-global intervention facilitates the understanding of the best policies that the international community should adopt to limit the likelihood of their assistance being diverted into propelling the conflicts. The theory, therefore, promotes the adoption of policies that promote the identification of the best strategies to eradicate human suffering due to the large number of civilians that are targeted in most of the conflicts. Some of the policies revolve around limiting the supply of small arms that contribute to eruption and escalation of conflicts in areas that suffer most risks.
Conclusion
The New War theory has expanded the levels of understanding of conflicts and the radical changes that have occurred in the nature of organization and funding of most conflicts. As opposed to the previous approaches that recognized the state as the main actor, the theory sensitizes policy makers on the need to focus on the internal causes of conflicts as they play a major role in the sustenance of such conflicts. Also, due to globalization and the emergence of technology, the causal factors of conflicts need to be evaluated more holistically due to the increased number of contributing factors. It implies that states must adopt collaborative mechanisms with others to enhance the levels of surveillance both locally and internationally to mitigate the threats of emergence of local conflicts.
Bibliography
Berdal, M., 2003. How new are ‘new wars’? Global economic change and the study of civil wars. Global Governance , 9(4), pp. 477-502.
Booth, K., 2001. New wars for old. Civil Wars , 4(2), pp. 163-170.
Chojnacki, S., 2006. Anything new or more of the same? Wars and military intervention in the international system 1946–2003. Global Society , 20(1), pp. 25-46.
Collier, P., 2000. Rebellion as a quasi-criminal activity . Journal of Conflict Resolution , 44(6), pp. 839-853.
Fearon, J. and Laitin, D., 2003. Ethnicity, insurgency, and civil war. American Political Science Review , 97(1), pp. 75-90.
Harbom, L. and Wallensteen, P., 2005. Armed conflict and its international dimensions. Journal of Peace Research , 42(5), pp. 623-635.
Henderson, E. and Singer, D., 2002. New wars’ and rumours of ‘new wars’. International Interactions , 28(2), pp. 165-190.
Holland, E., 2014. New and old wars: Organized violence in a global era. Nations & Nationalism , 20(4), pp. 833-834.
Kaldor, M., 2004. Nationalism and globalisation. Nations and Nationalism , 10(1), pp. 61-177.
Kaldor, M., 2013. In defence of new wars. Stability , 2(1): 4, pp. 1-16.
Kalyvas, S., 2001. ”New” and “Old” civil wars: A valid distinction?” World Politics , 54, pp. 99-118.
Lacina, B. and Nills, P., 2005. Monitoring trends in global combat: A new dataset of battle deaths. European Journal of Population , 21(2/3), pp. 145-166.
Mello, P., 2010. Review article: In search of new wars: The debate about a transformation of war. European Journal of International Relations , 16(2), pp. 297-309.
Mundy, J., 2011. Deconstructing civil wars: Beyond the new wars debate. Security Dialogue,
42, pp. 279-295.
Newman, E., 2004. The ‘new wars’ debate: A historical perspective is needed. Security Dialogue , 35(2), pp. 173-189.
Oberschall, A., 2000. The manipulation of ethnicity: From ethnic cooperation to violence and war in Yugoslavia. Ethnic and Racial Studies , 23(6), pp. 982-1001.
Roberts, A., 2010. Lives and statistics: Are 90% of war victims civilians? Survival , 52(3), pp. 115-136.
Shaw, M., 2002. Risk-transfer militarism, small massacres and the historic legitimacy of war.
International Relations , 17(3), pp. 343-360.
Smith, M., 2003. Guerrillas in the mist: Reassessing strategy and low intensity warfare. Review of International Studies, 29, pp. 19-37.
Sørensen, G., 2001. War and state-making: Why doesn’t it work in the third world? Security Dialogue , 32(3), pp. 341-354.
Wimmer, A., and Brian, M., 2006. From empire to nation-state: Explaining wars in the modern world, 1816-2001. American Sociological Review , 71(6), pp. 867-897.
