Civil Wars: The Fights That Do Not Want to End – By GRAHAM BOWLEY (New York Times)

May 23rd, 2009 Print Print Email Email

Last week, after more than 25 years of conflict, the Tamil separatists of Sri Lanka admitted defeat in their war for an independent homeland. And so ended Asia’s longest-running civil war, one of some 20 civil conflicts burning around the globe, from Colombia to Iraq to Pakistan. (more…)

Last week, after more than 25 years of conflict, the Tamil separatists of Sri Lanka admitted defeat in their war for an independent homeland. And so ended Asia’s longest-running civil war, one of some 20 civil conflicts burning around the globe, from Colombia to Iraq to Pakistan.

Which raises some questions: How long do most civil wars last? What is a civil war, anyway? And how, finally, are they ended?

According to Max Boot of the Council on Foreign Relations, a civil war is one fought within a society, but there are two kinds. In one, rebels seek to take over a region (as in Sri Lanka); in the other, they aim to control the whole state (like the FARC in Colombia). But as Mr. Boot points out, the distinction has been contentious throughout history because inclusion in the first category depends on whether you think the society is a single entity — not the point of view of rebels seeking to carve out an independent territory.

“If you had asked the Confederates in the American Civil War, that’s not what they called it,” Mr. Boot said. “For them it was a war of Northern aggression. They saw themselves as an independent state being assaulted by another independent state.”

But if you accept the general definition of a civil war as one fought within internationally recognized borders, then throughout history civil conflicts have tended to outlast international wars by a factor of about 20, according to Paul Collier, a professor at Oxford University and author of “Wars, Guns and Votes.”

“Typically,” he said, “they last 7 to 15 years on average, while the average for international wars is about six months.” On the face of it, such persistence must be a function of deep grievance felt by the warring parties, right? Implacable foes, brothers even, divided over ideology or religion or the thirst for justice or ethnic representation, fight to the bitter end.

One extreme forerunner of this would be the interminable wars between the Scots and the English, which lasted for more than four centuries. In the more modern category is the Spanish Civil War in the 1930s, fought by “right-wing rebels fearful their Spain of church and king was being liquidated by the left,” according to the Coluumbia University historian Simon Schama, author of “The American Future.”

According to Mr. Collier, however, the true reasons for longevity in civil conflicts are more prosaic, at least in modern times. While they may begin by professing noble sentiments, insurgents sooner or later become self-interested fighting organizations, which want mainly to preserve themselves and the resources they command. He estimates, for example, that the Tamil Tigers had a revenue base seven times the roughly $30 million a year that supports Britain’s Conservative Party.

Another reason civil wars drag on is what economists call the time consistency problem: a government has no credibility in negotiating an end to a civil war because the rebels know that even if they lay down their arms, the state will keep its military. So the fight goes on, as long as neither side can crush the other.

This was something of the case in the Russian Civil War, a conflict between two armies, the Bolsheviks and the Whites, who fought for power into the 1920s, after the old regime collapsed in 1917.

It was also the case in one of the bloodiest civil wars in the past 50 years, in Ethiopia. There, a succession of insurgencies dragged on from 1974 to 1991 largely because the government was never strong enough to win, says Mr. Collier. The fighting ended when rebels took the capital.

Charismatic leaders matter too, said Paul Stares of the Council on Foreign Relations. “If the government can decapitate an organization, that can also tip the balance.” That happened with the Shining Path guerrillas in Peru.

In Sri Lanka, the rebel leader died in the final battle, but Mr. Collier said the real tipping point had already been reached — when rebel financing from Tamils abroad was squeezed while the government could buy new weapons and expand its army.

This has parallels in Angola, where guerrilla forces held diamond mines but were defeated when the diamond revenues were cut off at about the same time the government was investing burgeoning oil revenues in a much mightier military.

Similarly, many cold-war-era civil conflicts — like El Salvador’s — faded when the shadow protagonists, the United States and the Soviet Union, withdrew financing.

Civil wars can be ended by outside intervention, as in the Balkans. But according to Edward N. Luttwak of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, such intervention may in fact only prolong wars. “It leads to congealed wars,” he said. “In Bosnia now there is very little economic development or reconstruction, because actually it’s a frozen war. The best way is when people just exhaust themselves and run out of energy to fight.”

Then there are the wars that seem to go on forever, in which the protagonists never seem to run out of a capacity to confront each other — as in Lebanon, a civil war currently in abeyance but where clan and sectarian conflict is periodically stoked by the revolving strategic rivalries of neighbors and major powers. “It is a cold civil war,” said Ghassan Salamé, a former Lebanese minister of culture and a political science professor in Paris.

And there are wars that seem to really end only long after their official conclusion. In the United States, said Mr. Schama, “the Ku Klux Klan and the Jim Crow segregation years were a kind of weird after-victory for the South, and probably only ended with Obama in the White House.”

  1. Waggazi
    | #1

    lets unite against anti-ethiopia agazzi babay killer rats
    A united and strong Ethiopia is a strength to Eritrea, President Isaias underscores with Ethiopian Review interview

    http://www.EastAFRO.com/Post/2009/05/17/a-united-and-strong-ethiopia-is-a-strength-to-eritrea-president-isaias-underscores-with-ethiopian-review-interview

  2. almaz
    | #2

    lets unite against anti-ethiopia agazzi babay killer rats
    A united and strong Ethiopia is a strength to Eritrea, President Isaias underscores with Ethiopian Review interview

    http://www.EastAFRO.com/Post/2009/05/17/a-united-and-strong-ethiopia-is-a-strength-to-eritrea-president-isaias-underscores-with-ethiopian-review-interview

    http://www.eppfonline.org/

  3. የቆአራው ካሳ
    | #3

    Issayas is the enemy number one of Ethiopia. There is no difference between Issayas and Meles for Ethiopians. We have to overthrow Issayas and Meles. Ethiopians should regain the Red Sea Coastal area. At the moment Meles Zenawi is more dangerous for the survival of Ethiopia and her people. We have to install a government that stands for ethiopian interests. Meles Zenawi is an eritrean, who has been sabotaging Ethiopia. The world should take a lesson from such traitors as Meles Zenawi. Europeans and arabs could colonize Africa by using stooges such as Meles Zenawi and Issayas Afeworqi. These two persons and their hench are dangerous to African Unity and to the survival of Ethiopia.

  4. awate
    | #4

    There is one thing that has been coming up as far as Ethiopian policy towards Eritrea is concerned. Many Eritreans say that Ethiopia has a landlocked-country complex. Can we comfortably say that this complex is not there perhaps because Ethiopia now has several access to other ports?

    I cannot tell you that every Ethiopian shares my view, but I can comfortably tell you that my position, my view, is a majority position. And that is the position of the government. My view is this: the Ethiopian imperial system has been dismantled and replaced by the federal system that we have in place. For Ethiopians, a constitutional country established on the the basis of the right to self-determination that really expressed desire of its people was the sine-qua-non for the maintenance of the country. All those Ethiopians who do not want to be Ethiopians simply have the right not to be Ethiopia or else we could die…

    But the Eritreans have expressed their desire to be independent state in an internationally supervised referendum and the thirty years war ended this time.

    So any attempt to incorporate Eritrea in the fold of Ethiopia will not succeed in incorporating Eritrea; it will simply succeed in dismantling Ethiopia, because it will dismantle the fundamental principle on which Ethiopia is formed: the right to self-determination. And that is, I think the majority position. I do. I am very comfortable that this is the government position. Once you agree on this fundamental principle, the issue of ports becomes an issue that is non-political.

    Port service is a service like hotel service, like tourism service like any other service; you can buy it in the market. If you have the money, if we Ethiopians are rich, then we can buy this service from any provider. The most perfect provider would be Eritrea- for geographic reasons, cultural reasons, but it is not the only provider. If you are poor, the ports won’t make any difference to begin with. So the issue is an issue of economic growth in Ethiopia. The port is clearly a matter of buying and selling a service.

    That is my view, that is the view of my government, that is the view of my party, and that is the view of the majority of Ethiopians. But I cannot tell you that there are no Ethiopians who do not have sort of ports hang up; but this is not a majority view and it is a dying view.

  5. hahahhh
    | #5

    @awate
    you are right when it comes to the Melese zenawi’s gov. he is ok with land locked ethiopia. But when it comes to the general public,the eprdf
    government intentionaly put the public on the dark. so the general public you are reffering too was not in the bussiness of desmantling his own country or soveriegnty.
    You said “Port service is a service like hotel service” That is not the point, the point is Assab belongs to Ethiopia. So when ethiopia has its own true citizen democraticaly elected president for sure we will own it
    by hook or by crook. so the port service you are reffering too has nothing to do with ethiopia.

  6. hahahhh
    | #6

    @almaz
    We ethiopians will wipe out the shaebia terroriest squad soon.and the
    old lady essayas is acting like a mad dog fighting with everybody
    and its own people. all over the world are taking a notic about your dictator essayas. so Ethiopia doesn’t need eritrea to be strong or whatever.

Comments are closed.