Ethnic conflict: causes, consequences, and resolution strategies

Ethnic Conflict

When considering the ethnic conflict in Bosnia, one might derive reasons for the conflict on the premise of primordialism or social constructivism. To summarize the two views: primordialism refers to the inherent tendency of human beings to identify themselves with others with the same physical or geographic properties. This is a generally collective viewpoint of ethnicity, shared by large groups of people. This sense of ethnicity is reinforced by collective histories, myths, religion, and other cultural elements. This is not necessarily grounds for ethnic conflict, and it is possible for different ethnicities to tolerate each other and live together peacefully within the borders of a country. Social constructivism, on the other hand, suggests that ethnic conflict tends to be rooted in economic and political actions of ambitious individuals or groups to gain more power by gaining the trust of certain ethnic groups or collective ethnicities. This is not the origin of ethnic pluralism. When considering the case of Bosnia, a review of historical events leading up to and perpetuating the conflict situation in the country shows that individuals and groups in powerful positions have relentlessly manipulated the collective ethnic consciousness to gain more power by perpetuating the war. Hence, a constructivist view appears to be applicable in this case.

One of the most important agents of Bosnian war and destruction was the president of Serbia, Slobodan Milosevic. He began his destructive action in Yugoslavia, even as he pretended to be a defender of this country. This was a manipulative lie, told as a cover for the president's plan to transform the country into a Serb-dominated dictatorship. When this failed, he attempted to bring all the Serbs in Yugoslavia under Serbian authority, thus establishing more territory and power for himself.

In Bosnia, Milosevic's plan was to forcefully establish a Serbian state on two-thirds of the territory, even without the support of a majority or even plurality Serbian population. Hence, his plan here was not even based upon the assumption of ethnic plurality, but simply upon his own hunger for territorial power.

Franjo Tudjman, equally power hungry, was the elected president of Croatia in 1990. His focus was not ethnic plurality. Rather, his aim was to establish a Croatian state for Croatians, without providing any minority rights to other citizens. For this reason, his focus on Bosnia was also to annex the Croatian areas of the country.

The respective nationalistic and dictatorship tendencies of these two leaders, far more than intergroup ethnic conflict, have led to the complete destruction of ethnic plurality in Bosnia. Even in cities, such as Sarajevo, where ethnic groups lived peacefully side by side, political manipulation has caused only destruction. Instead of ethnic pluralism, media such as television has caused rampant nationalism, which fed on the historic fears of ethnic groups to stir them to uncharacteristic conflict.

Tragically, this has led to an obsessive focus upon ethnic conflict as the main source of the misery of war that has lasted for so many years in Bosnia. Clever manipulation by politicians has led some to believe that ethnic difference cannot be solved by peaceful means, and the war means more power to the winner. In reality, the only winners are those in power, while ordinary and peaceful citizens suffer most.