Running head: Midterm Examination
M4A1: Midterm Examination
Ethnic Conflict and Genocide
In the case of Bosnia, choose the most important theoretical aspect (primordial, constructivist, instrumental, modernization) that you find most helpful in your understanding of the conflict. What does this approach illuminate to you that you find so important and how might it direct you towards one or other levels of analysis?
In looking at the Bosnian conflict the most important aspect of the conflict was social constructivism. The definition of Social constructivism is “identities are molded, refabricated, and mobilized in accord with reigning cultural scripts and ...view middle of the document...
Using Social constructivism with individual analysis I will show some of the elites that played a major role in the destruction of Bosnia and the Genocide that took place. These major contributors were:
* Slobodan Milosevic – Serbian President that had a “political program that was focused not on reform but fostering conflict, especially given that it was framed in terms of nationalism”(Jesse, &Williams, 2011, p.149).
* Alija Izetbegovic – Muslim leader in Bosnia who believed in a Muslim nation in Bosnia
* Franjo Tudjman – Croatian leader who was focused on a Croatian identity and sovereignty.
Social constructivism with a domestic analysis will show various factors involved in the breakup of Yugoslavia and the eventual Bosnian war including public opinion, politics, criminal elements, media, gendered nationalism, economics and religion. Mueller concludes that the Bosnian war (and the war in Croatia) was not actually an ethnic war, but rather (Jesse, &Williams, 2011, p.161)“something far more banal: the creation of communities of criminal violence and pillage”(Mueller, p.108).
At the international level of analysis we see various different states involved in this conflict such as Britain, France, Germany, Russia and the United States along with international organizations like the United Nations, NATO and the European Union. These different groups were concerned with the growing tension in Yugoslavia during the late 80s and early 90s; as the conflict in Bosnia continued the international community got involved through the UN and NATO to intervene militarily to provide for humanitarian support.
Levels of Analysis:
In reviewing the conflict in Darfur/Sudan, which of the three levels do you think looked the most promising for a solution? What cultural elements, or personalities, or parties and institutions, or international factors look to have been most important and most likely as a means of resolution?
In the Darfur/Sudan conflict I will look at the different levels of analysis and chose which one best fits a resolution in Sudan.
Individual level – we will look at some of the elites in this country and see what type of role they played in this conflict.
* Omar Hassan al-Bashir – Sudanese President who encouraged and fostered mass hostilities towards the Darfur people. Unleashed his army along with the Janjaweed who in turn slaughtered and raped many of the Darfur tribes.
* John Garang de Mabior – Leader of the Sudan People’s Liberation Army and a direct representative of the southern Sudan region. He led the rebellion against the Sudan government and later signed a peace treaty in 2005 and became the vice president of Sudan.
Domestic level – The ethnic divisions within Sudan are numerous with four major different types of divisions: Social pluralism (500+ different ethnic groups), linguistic pluralism (113+ different languages), religious pluralism (Muslim, Christian and Pagan) and administrative...