Identity is central to all human beings. It is part of everyone's self-esteem and affects how one interprets the world. This is why in ethnic conflicts the violence intensifies so quickly and strongly. Everyone involved is concerned with his or her personal security. One's home, family, and way of life are in peril. Needless to say, in these type of situations it can be expected the individuals involved will battle with every ounce of their resolve to insure that the factors that formulate their identity are protected. (Regan)
Examining conflicts from a structural viewpoint results in a much different result in that the conflict is looked by examining the forces external to the people involved. Little consideration is afforded the involvement of the citizenry and their interests in the conflict. Rather, the conflict is viewed through the effects that it is having on the physical resources or political authority involved, the surrounding geography, or the organizational changes that are occurring. How these factors are involved affects how serious the conflict develops. Conflicts based upon structural factors involve far less emotion and, as a result, are usually easier to resolve. As the personal identity of the people is not at stake the conflict can be resolved at a pragmatic level that is not possible in a structural conflict. (Healey)
Prior to the end of the Cold War, interstate conflicts were far more prevalent. Conflicts developed along political ideological lines as nations divided between the United States and the Soviet Union. Communism vs. democracy was the central theme and conflicts, when they developed, were between ideologies and not ethnic lines. It did not matter whether one was Serbian, a Tutsi or Hutu, or Islam or Christian. The only concern was one's affiliation with the United States or the Soviet Union. Once the Soviet Union fell, however, this all changed. With no one to dispute the United States' superiority and with Communism...
Perilous situations that had existed in the Balkans, Rwanda, the Congo, and Somalia between differing ethnic groups suddenly exploded with the battle field now shifting from the international arena to the intrastate arena.
Whereas in the interstate conflicts nationalism was the unifying source that drove the situation it was ethnicity that drove the intrastate conflict. Attention was drawn away from the fact that one was Yugoslavian. One became a Serb or Croatian. One was not from Rwanda. One was either a Tutsi or Hutu. As ethnicity became more important and more ingrained so did the possibility for conflict to occur.
In today's world the likelihood for interstate conflict has been minimized. Opportunities for such conflicts still exist and there are some striking examples of such conflicts but even in these conflicts there are overtones of ethnic conflict as well. The United States involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq are interstate conflicts but the issue of Islam vs. Christianity exists as well so both situations come within the realm of an intrastate conflict as well. The decreased opportunity for interstate conflict is a definite plus but the increase in intrastate conflicts is a genuine issue of concern and must be effectively dealt with in order to bring as much stability to the international community as possible.
References
Burg, S. "Ethnic Conflict and the Federation of Socialist Yugoslavia." The Journal of Federalism (1977): pp. 139-144.
Healey, J. Race, Ethnicity, Gender, and Class. Pine Forge Press, 2005.
Regan, P. "Conditions of Successful Third Party Intevention in Intrastate Conflicts." The Journal of Conflict Resolution (1996): pp. 336-359.
Silber, L. & Little, a. Yugoslavia: Death of a Nation. Penguin, 1997.
