Ethnic Conflict Scenarios

Three Scenarios

Constructed from the literary assessment of globalization and ethnic conflict, let us attempt to understand the three prevailing perspectives of ethnic conflicts discerned by Ishiyama: first, globalization and economic integration has perturbed ethno-political forces; second, globalization has augmented conflicts because of a backlash against encroachment of identity; thirdly, the association of globalization and cultural conflict is overstated (Ishiyama 2004).

The first view is that globalization and economic incorporation perturbs ethno-political forces. MacManus considers economic interdependence – greater trade and economic flows – as a provocateur of politics and cultural backlashes that have been the seeds of conflict

But as Stiglitz had mentioned, IMF and most other institutions have failed to aid the South in a tangible way and have, in fact, left a number of countries worse off (Stiglitz 2002). Currently, globalization has been strengthening the trade within the North, leaving most of the South countries underdeveloped, with some of them being completely omitted from the global economy (Hoogvelt 2001). All of these are consequences of Malthusian resource pressures exacerbated by environmental and economic disintegration. Unfortunately, this is a never-ending cycle. As Duffield highlights, ethnic conflicts together with other internal conflicts have a tendency to only exacerbate social cohesiveness further.

The harsh destabilization of society from the war, the movement of men and women away from their ancestral villages through internal displacement, urbanization, modernization, ethnic inter-marriage, the introduction of cash crop economy in traditional communities, has led to much less homogeneity within just one ethnic class (Duffield 2001:

Sadowski says, “Global chaos theorists oversimplify the difficult relationships between globalization and ethnic conflict and miss the significance of domestic variables, political, economic, and social” (Ishiyama 2004: 4). Due to vastness of globalization, it has become a buzzword that has been clichéd and abused. Perhaps analyzing ethnic conflicts too narrowly without proper factors of globalization or too broadly with no proper consideration of domestic variables cause two extremes that can bring about false interpretations. Moreover, Crawford states that “Globalization may be a ‘trigger’ for cultural conflict but it 's effects are alleviated by other factors, such as the role of state institutions. Democratization and openness aids to prevent the constant refusal of representation to important minorities” (Ishiyama 2004: 5). According to Crawford, globalization is surely an overall balanced phenomenon that exacerbates as well as alleviates ethnic situations, resulting in neutralization. A matter of fact is that, proponents of this view credit complex interdependence – erected through liberal democracy and capitalism – to create a world unlikely to engage in wars and making a world more peaceful with the help of international