COMMUNITIES IN CONFLICT
It is a shock to be confronted with the extent of communities in conflict across the globe. It seems that it is easier to
fight than to talk. 'Communities,' in practice are problematic. There is overwhelming evidence that families, villagers,
tribes, and nations over time have asserted their social bonds and loyalties to establish their common rights and
claims against others. It seems that human tribes throughout time have taken delight in attacking, mutilating,
enslaving, torturing their neighbours.
Whether or not we think of ourselves as independent of our family and local communities varies from culture to
culture. But often the members of local families and communities closely identify with each other in opposition to
what are perceived as other ‘alien’ communities. ‘Tribes’ come into existence. All individuals within the tribe are
encouraged to act and interact for the benefit of the tribe. The loyalties and responsibilities of each member are to
foster the interests of the tribe, and to take action against other tribes. Problems develop when these feelings of
interdependence are limited to your ‘tribe’ so that other groups are seen as outsiders and conflicts follow.
Conflicts as reported by the Humanitarian Law Project, International Educational Development, Inc.,
Parliamentary Human Rights Group, UK; in Spring 2000
ACHEH
The situation in Acheh is a war of national liberation in exercise of
the right to self-determination.
AFGHANISTAN
The situation in Afghanistan is a civil war with international aspects in Tajikistan.
ANGOLA
The situation in Angola is a civil war with a recent peace agreement and renewed fighting.
BOUGAINVILLE/PAPUA NEW GUINEA
The situation in Bougainville is a war of national liberation in
exercise of the right to self-determination with a cease fire and peace talks.
BURMA
The situation in Burma involves two separate armed conflicts: a civil
war and a war of national liberation in exercise of the right of
self-determination.
BURUNDI
The situation in Burundi is a civil war.
CHECHNYA/RUSSIAN FEDERATION
The situation in Chechnya is a civil war. The history of Chechnya may
support a claim of self-determination.
COLOMBIA
The situation in Colombia is a civil war between the Fuerzas Armadas
Revolucionarias de Colombia-Ejército Popular (FARC-EP) and the Colombian Government. In addition to the FARC-
EP/government civil war, there is a high degree of violent unrest from other groups which does not, in the authors?
opinion, meet the criteria for civil war regarding those participants.
COMOROS
The situation in Comoros (the Comoran Federation) is a civil war, with fighting between rival separatist groups.
CONGO, DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC
The situation in Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC - formerly Zaire)is a civil war with international aspects and
a current international war (Uganda/Rwanda) fought in the territory of the DRC.
CONGO, REPUBLIC OF
The situation in the Republic of Congo is a civil war with international dimensions.
CYPRUS
The situation in Cyprus is a war of national liberation in exercise of the right to self-determination.
EAST TIMOR
The situation in East Timor is a war of national liberation in exercise of the right to self-determination with a recent
referendum on independence.
ERITREA
The situation in Eritrea is an international armed conflict with Ethiopia._
ETHIOPIA
The situation in Ethiopia is an international armed conflict with Eritrea.
GEORGIA
The situation in Georgia involves two civil wars.
GUINEA BISSAU
The situation in Guinea Bissau is a civil war with a peace plan.
ISRAELI OCCUPIED TERRITORIES AND SOUTHERN LEBANON
The situation in Israel, the Occupied Territories, and Southern Lebanon is several international armed conflicts.
KASHMIR
The situation in Kashmir is a war of national liberation in exercise of the right to self-determination.
LIBERIA
The situation in Liberia is a civil war with a 1995 accord.
MEXICO
The situation in Mexico is a civil war.
MOLUCCAS
The situation in the Moluccas is a war of national liberation in
exercise of the right to self-determination.
RWANDA
The situation in Rwanda is a civil war.
SIERRA LEONE
The situation in Sierra Leone is a civil war with a recent peace
agreement.
SOMALIA
The situation in Somalia is a civil war.
SRI LANKA
The situation in Sri Lanka is war of national liberation in exercise
of the right to self-determination.
SUDAN
The situation in Sudan is a civil war.
TAJIKISTAN
The situation in Tajikistan is a civil war.
TIBET
The situation in Tibet is a struggle for self-determination.
TURKEY
The situation in Turkey is a civil war with the Kurdish people with
implications invoking the right to self-determination. Hostilities have ceased, but there is no formal peace agreement
to date.
UGANDA
The situation in Uganda involves at least two civil wars and military
actions against Rwanda carried out in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
WESTERN SAHARA
The situation in Western Sahara is a war of national liberation in
exercise of the right to self-determination.
While this list is dated 2000, a scan over stories in the news for 2007/8 show that the conflicts carry on……… Iran
challenges the UN and the USA; fighting in Darfur, spreads to the rest of Sudan and Chad; in Iraq, despite the
presence of the US military, Kurds, Shias, Sunnis, Iranians, other Arabs, fight each other; northern territories, such
as Waziristan, and Balochistan challenge the military government of Pakistan; Turkey and Kurds battle over
borders; and the Kurds fight for a new Kurdistan; Somalia is the site of battles with Ethiopia, and militant clans; the
military junta of Myanmar [Burma] fights the citizens, monks, and political groups; Djibouti calls for UN help;
Afghanistan, and the UN and the Taliban; Palestine and Gaza is the scene of continuing battles between Hamas,
Hezbollah, Fatah, and Israeli forces ; Lebanon, civil war; Colombia; Uganda; Ethiopia; Nigeria; Sierra Leone; and
Kenya has become subject to tribal conflicts following the breakdown of parliamentary government.
CrisisWatch bulletin
CrisisWatch N°63, 1 November 2008
Six actual or potential conflict situations around the world
deteriorated and two improved in October 2008,
according to the new issue of the International Crisis
Group’s monthly bulletin CrisisWatch, released today.
Fighting and displacement sharply increased in the
Democratic Republic of Congo’s North Kivu province,
as the Congolese army and UN forces failed to contain
Laurent Nkunda’s CNDP rebels. Tens of thousands have
been forced to flee, and the army has been implicated in looting, rapes and killings in and around the
capital Goma as troops abandoned their positions. Tensions between Rwanda and Congo also escalated
over Rwandan support for Congolese Tutsi Nkunda.
As CrisisWatch went to press, a ceasefire declared by Nkunda on 29 October was holding, and a
significant diplomatic effort was underway, including an EU mission to Congo and Rwanda led by the
French and British foreign ministers. Yet the risks of even more damaging conflict and catastrophic
humanitarian consequences are high.
The international community must press both Kinshasa and Kigali to immediately desist from supporting
armed groups in the region, Nkunda to withdraw to his usual deployment points in Masisi and Rutshuru,
and Congo to remove all army commanders collaborating with Rwandan Hutu FDLR rebels. The situation
requires a pro-active and sustained international commitment by UN Security Council member states and
the appointment of a new UN Special Envoy, dedicated to bringing momentum, focus and pressure to the
implementation of the already signed November 2007 Nairobi declaration and January 2008 Goma
agreement, which provide the framework for resolving the crisis.
The situation also worsened dramatically in the Indian state of Assam with a series of 13 explosions in
Guwahati and elsewhere killing over 60 and injuring around 300. There have been no immediate claims of
responsibility for the bombings. Assam also saw its worst inter-communal violence in 25 years as clashes
between Bodo tribes and Muslims killed over 50 earlier in the month.
Near simultaneous suicide bombings on 29 October hit Hargeisa in the self-declared Republic of
Somaliland and Bossaso in the neighbouring region Puntland, killing around 30 and injuring scores more.
In Peru, the rebel Shining Path movement launched its deadliest attacks in almost a decade, killing 14
soldiers and 4 civilians. October also saw further deteriorations in the political crisis in Thailand and in
mounting violent attacks in Ingushetia (North Caucasus).
The situation in Bolivia improved with an agreement between the government and opposition on a
compromise text for a new constitution and President Morales’s renunciation of the possibility of standing
for a third term, offering hope that the protracted political crisis can be resolved. In the Maldives, the first
multi-party elections after 30 years of rule by President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom saw a massive turnout,
with victory going to the opposition candidate, a former political prisoner.
For November, CrisisWatch identifies the Democratic Republic of Congo as a Conflict Risk Alert.
October 2008 TRENDS
Deteriorated Situations
Democratic Republic of Congo, India (non-Kashmir), North Caucasus (non-Chechnya), Peru, Somaliland
(Somalia), Thailand
Improved Situations
Bolivia, Maldives
Unchanged Situations
Afghanistan, Algeria, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Basque Country (Spain), Belarus, Bolivia,
Bosnia, Burundi, Central African Republic, Chad, Chechnya (Russia), China (internal), Colombia, Côte d’
Ivoire, Cyprus, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti/Eritrea, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia,
Ethiopia/Eritrea, Georgia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, India (non-Kashmir), Indonesia, Iran, Iraq,
Israel/Occupied Palestinian Territories, Kashmir, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon,
Liberia, Macedonia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Moldova, Morocco, Myanmar/Burma, Nagorno-Karabakh
(Azerbaijan), Nepal, Niger, North Caucasus (non-Chechnya), North Korea, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines,
Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Somaliland (Somalia), Sri Lan ka, Sudan,
Swaziland, Syria, Taiwan Strait, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda,
Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Western Sahara, Yemen, Zimbabwe
November 2008 OUTLOOK
Conflict Risk Alert
Democratic Republic of Congo
Many notions of ‘community’, interdependence, social bonds, social networks are problematic.
They do lead to conflicts between different communities. It is clear from the lists above itemising the many civil wars,
that different communities and tribes and sects across the world are determined to settle old scores and to claim
rights and privileges, as well as land, from each other. It is of little significance that they may live in the same town,
region, country.
It is time to adopt a more inclusive way of thinking and behaving: to think and act globally as well as locally. But
achieving all of this is easier said than done. Whilst it is easy to identify with your family and neighbors, history tells
us that it is problematic to have the same feelings about everyone in the world. It is easier to think locally, than to
act globally.
Gareth Evans, from Australia, President of the International Crisis Group, called for Conflict Prevention in February
2007.He wants to promote the need to think and act globally, and the collective responsibility for protection. He
identified ten key lessons. I want to alert you to two of them:
*Lesson 2: The Best Way to Stop Wars is Not to Start Them
It has taken the continuing catastrophe in Iraq, and the lesser but
still painful one of Israel’s confrontation with Hizbollah last year, to
drive this point home. For most high security risk situations, whether
cross-border or internal, the military force option should be absolutely
the last measure contemplated – with other strategies, whether they be
political and diplomatic, or legal and constitutional, or economic and
developmental, or involve non-coercive military measures like security
sector reform, being far more likely to be productive, and not
absolutely counterproductive.
*Lesson 8: recognize that there is no substitute for cooperative
internationalism.
We know, even if some countries who think they have the capacity to go
it alone are not always quick to admit it, that it is simply not
possible to respond effectively to security threats, whether global or
regional or in many cases even local, whether coming from state or non
state actors - aggressors, or proliferators, or terrorists – without
effective international cooperation, whether on early warning and
intelligence, effective preventive strategies, conflict management and
response strategies, or – as has become particularly evident in Iraq
and Afghanistan - post conflict reconstruction.
There are limits to any country’s capacity, even the U.S, to do
anything without allies, friends or supporters, or by extension, working
through international and intergovernmental institutions, starting with
the UN Security Council. And it’s in every country’s interest, not just
small or medium sized ones like my own, to operate in a rule-based
rather than raw power-based international order.
CIVIL WAR
Three Case Studies of Civil disorder
Civil War involves communities in conflict in the same country. Such conflicts do not occur at random, but are the
result of historical factors, some of which may go back several hundred years. This does not mean that the civil
wars between the communities go on all the time: Far from it.
………… Barbara Walter, a scholar at the University of California at San
Diego, has a different take.
"The argument you usually read is that these people just hate each
other," says Walter, a political scientist. "That is an easy and
intuitive argument to make, but I actually think it is wrong."
When you look at civil wars closely, Walter says, what you find is that
the adversaries have actually spent the vast majority of their history
not fighting one another. Violence is the exception, not the norm.
This turns the puzzle on its head -- instead of asking why adversaries
in civil wars do not reach peaceful settlements, it makes more sense to
ask what makes them fight.
Northern Ireland: the plantation of Ulster
Studies of civil conflict seem to differ as to the significance of
‘history’ as a factor in civil wars. Northern Ireland is an
example of a civil war whose roots go back several hundred
years to the conquest of Ireland by the English during the
16th century, and the establishment of colonial plantations
in the 17th.century. Ulster was a province of Ireland, where
families and tribes had been most resistant to armed
conquest by the English. So in 1601, when the Earls of
Ulster were defeated and fled, the English crown, under
Elizabeth, and then James 1, in 1607, dispossessed the
Irish Catholic farmers and land owners, and ‘planted’ on
their lands Protestant and Presbyterian families from England
and Scotland. Such actions were intended to bring peace to
the province, but in fact set up the animosities between English, Scots, and Irish; Catholic, Protestant [Anglican],
and Presbyterian; and landowners and farmers; and later, the Unionists, the Loyalists, and the Nationalists; that
were the basis of the ‘Troubles’ after 1921:[It is forgotten that there had been troubles in Ireland for many decades,
while Ireland was occupied by the English/British until 1921.There had been many Anglo-Irish wars, conflicts,
skirmishes.]
The Anglo-Irish peace treaty of 1921 recognised the Irish Free State, but set up Northern Ireland as a self
governing province with it’s own parliament. Given the history of the province, the British government was obliged to
protect the Unionist, protestant majority. But, at the same time, there was a Catholic, nationalist minority, who were
hoping for liberation and union with the Irish Free State!
'The Troubles' consisted of about 30 years of repeated acts of intense violence between communities of Northern
Ireland: nationalist community (principally Roman Catholic] and unionist community (principally Protestant.] The
conflict was caused by the disputed status of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom and the domination of the
minority nationalist community, and discrimination against them, by the unionist majority. The violence was
characterised by the armed campaigns of paramilitary groups including the Provisional IRA campaign of 1969–
1997, which was aimed at the end of British rule in Northern Ireland and the creation of a new,"all-Ireland", Irish
Republic; and the Ulster Volunteer Force, formed in May 1966 in response to the perceived erosion of both the
British character and unionist domination of Northern Ireland. The state security forces — the British Army and the
police (the Royal Ulster Constabulary — were also involved in the violence. The British government's point of view is
that its forces were neutral in the conflict and trying to uphold
law and order in Northern Ireland, and the right of the people of Northern Ireland to democratic self-determination.
Irish republicans , however, regarded the state forces as "combatants in the conflict, using collusion between the
state forces and the loyalist paramilitaries as proof of this.
[The "Ballast" investigation by the Police Ombudsman in 2000 has confirmed that British forces, and in particular the
RUC, did collude with loyalist paramilitaries; were involved in murder; and did
obstruct the course of justice]. Although the extent to which such collusion occurred is still hotly disputed, with
Unionists claiming that reports of collusion are either false or highly exaggerated and that there were also
instances of collusion between the authorities in the Republic of Ireland and Republican paramilitaries.
[http://wikipedia.org]
As the years passed republicans came to place increasing emphasis on diplomacy rather than the weapons of war.
In the early phases of the conflict, foreigners provided guns; in the latter stages, foreigners, such as Martti Ahtisaari
and the former ANC secretary general Cyril Ramaphosa, helped in the arms decommissioning process. Martti
Ahtisaari was one of a group of international figures drafted into Belfast and headed by former US Senator George
Mitchell, who was despatched by President Bill Clinton to provide a broader dimension. Mr Clinton, originally reviled
for giving a US visa to Gerry Adams, came to be viewed as much more even-handed, establishing relations with
both republicans and Unionists as he acknowledged the complexities of the problem. Mr Mitchell himself had
problems with the Rev Ian Paisley, remembering how he was shocked and made extremely uncomfortable by the
noisy commotions the loyalist leader could cause. "I was accustomed to rough and tumble political debate," Mr
Mitchell related. "But I'd never experienced anything like this." After years of exhaustive talks Mr Mitchell's
chairmanship produced the landmark 1998 Good Friday Agreement, a breakthrough widely viewed as
demonstrating the value of outside involvement.
The Troubles were brought to an uneasy end by a peace process which included the declaration of ceasefires by
most paramilitary organisations and the complete decommissioning of their weapons and the reform of the police
and the corresponding withdrawal of Army troops from the streets and from sensitive border areas such as South
Armagh and Fermanagh as agreed by the signatories to the Belfast Agreement (commonly known as the "Good
Friday Agreement]. This reiterated the long-held British position, which had never before been fully acknowledged
by successive Irish governments, that Northern Ireland will remain within the United Kingdom until a majority votes
otherwise. On the other hand, the British Government recognised for the first time, as part of the agreement, the so-
called, "Irish dimension": the principle that the people of the island of Ireland as a whole have the right, without any
outside interference, to solve the issues between North and South by mutual consent. The latter statement was key
to winning support for the agreement from nationalists and republicans. It also established a devolved power-
sharing government within Northern Ireland (which had been suspended from 14 October 2002 until 8 May 2007),
where the government must consist of both unionist and nationalist parties.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The.Troubles /2007].
Uncovering the ‘root causes of conflict’ is no straightforward matter. David Trimble notes the interdependence of
the two communities in Northern Ireland stating that peace can only be obtained when violence ceases:
“But both communities must leave it behind, because both created it. Each thought it had good reason to fear the
other. As Namier says, the irrational is not necessarily unreasonable. Ulster Unionists, fearful of being isolated on
the island, built a solid house, but it was a cold house for catholics. And northern nationalists, although they had a
roof over their heads, seemed to us as if they meant to burn the house down. None of us are entirely innocent “ http:
//www.nobel.se/peace/laureates/1998/trimble-lecture.html
May 2007 witnessed the Rev. Ian Paisley, and Gerry Adams – talking together, agreeing, and signing a declaration
of agreement to work together to share power and re-open Stormont. Once an IRA commander, Mr McGuinness's
career took a highly dramatic turn when earlier in 2008 he and the Rev.Ian Paisley took office together at the head
of a historic new Belfast administration. The fact that they did so was regarded as astonishing; so too was the way
they found, right from the start, of working together in the most affable manner. As Mr McGuinness put it : "In the
course of the last three months there hasn't been an angry word between us."………..settlement by talking after
400 years!
UK: Bradford, West Yorkshire.
1950-1970: Immigrants from South Asia
A colleague, Dr. Connie Marsh, remembers the arrival
of large groups of men from Pakistan and Bangladesh
among the predominantly white working class
communitiesof Bradford in West Yorkshire during the
1950’s and 1960’s. ‘My own father was the beneficiary
of the new influx of manual labour which enabled him
to maintain the production of the textile mill he
managed. It was a sharp learning curve for him, as it
was for us all, with no knowledge of the culture, religion and language of these new workers. He struggled to deal
with the different customs, yet was acutely aware of the necessity for their labour.
This first influx of migrants came alone. Men cast adrift in an alien environment without the support of the women on
whom they had relied for most domestic tasks. Stories of their attempts to deal with the practicalities of their new life
spread rapidly throughout the neighborhoods. Rumors that they ‘ate cat food’, used one bed in rotation as those
working night shifts vacated it for the day shift, and that ‘they would capture young girls to sell them into slavery’,
fuelled mistrust and fear of the unknown and the different.
Any notions of integration were not on anyone’s agenda. The newcomers were there for their economic advantages
ensuring the survival of their families at ‘home’, and the traditional Yorkshire communities did not find tolerance and
acceptance of difference an easy prospect. The lines between the different ‘tribes’ were clearly drawn and were not
to be crossed!
As the years passed both communities inevitably changed and began to accommodate each other to some extent.
As the workers established themselves, they were able to bring their families to join them. The arrival of women and
children made a large impact on the situation. Children from the different communities met each other in school;
mothers met each other at the school gate, in the local clinics, hospitals and play groups. The ‘threat’ of large
groups of single men subsided as families and larger numbers presented different kinds of challenges.
As the newcomers settled into their new environment they learned how to survive, buying businesses, working long
hours, sharing resources and support within their communities. They also learned how to use the National Health
Service and the Department of Social Security. Their expectation of equal treatment turned into the reality of
discrimination and disadvantage – yet this was not the reality of many of the white British communities who saw the
new groups as a burden on ‘their’ welfare system.’
The people from Pakistan and Bangladesh came during the 1950’s-1960’s. The period of greatest dislocation would
have been during this time. But the time of riot and violence has not been until recently, between settled
communities. The growth of the British National Party and the National Front epitomized the fascist and racist
ideologies underpinning the politics of conflict.
It was not until 2001 that violence openly erupted on the streets of Bradford. These events indicate that, as in
Northern Ireland, when different communities feel threatened, they will react accordingly. In Bradford, in the district
of Manningham, there lived a large number of families whose origins were from Pakistan and Bangladesh and
Northern India: including Muslims, Sikhs, and Hindus. The locals refer to it as ‘Bradistan’. This population consisted
of the original migrants, all Colonial British citizens, and their families and grandchildren. The children and
grandchildren are British by birth, fluent English speakers, and had been educated and trained in Bradford. Many of
them are determined to fight discrimination, and this includes facing up to the National Front and the British National
Party, and Combat 18, and the local police forces, when they act as agents of racism!
THE BRADFORD 'RIOT' OF 2001: A PRELIMINARY
ANALYSIS
Paul Bagguley and Yasmin Hussain,
University of Leeds, 2003
'It was all rumours': views of why the 'riots' happened.
The Bradford 'riot' over the weekend of 7th-8th July was
reputedly the worst on mainland Britain for twenty years.
On the night of 9th July, there was a riot involving 200
Whites in Bradford. An Indian takeaway, and a Pizza
takeaway also owned by a South Asian family were
attacked.These were widely seen as 'reprisals' for the
weekend’s 'riot'
(YEP 10.7.01.)
The original disturbances in Bradford started in the city centre in mid-afternoon after an anti-racist demonstration
against a proposed NF rally, which the Home Secretary had already banned. Police cornered a group of anti-racist
demonstrators at Centenary Square. Some recognised NF members appeared but did not attempt to march.
Violence started after a group of White youths, suspected NF members, made racially abusive
comments, and attacked a 21-year-old Asian man (this was only reported in some newspapers) (DE 9.7.01, YP.
9.7.01).
There were other relevant background factors in the Bradford outbreak. The city’s annual multi-cultural festival was
due to reach its culmination that Saturday, but the mere threat or suspicion that the NF might turn up despite the
ban prompted festival organisers to cancel the closing days festivities. In response anti-fascist groups including
Bradford trades union council and the Anti-Nazi League leafleted Friday night's Centenary Square concert inviting
the multiracial crowd to a peaceful gathering in the same place next day. To underline the peaceful intent,
participants were even encouraged to turn up in fancy dress or carnival costumes (and some did). The Saturday
crowd in the square about 40 to 50 per cent White included a small proportion of African-Caribbean’s, but mainly
South Asians. The latter group included Sikhs and Hindus, community elders and young women, but most were
men. This is important, as when the 'riot' developed, and the crowd was moved on, it changed composition into
being almost entirely South Asian men.
Police, including dog handlers and mounted officers, effectively sealed off one side of the square and began forcing
the crowd out of the city centre uphill in the general direction of Manningham. The stone throwing towards the
police broke out in the Sunbridge road area and from late afternoon 'rioting' was well under way.
However, most people we have interviewed, including eye-witnesses felt there was more substance to the rumours,
and they located the immediate cause of the riot around certain events in the city centre. In particular some pointed
out the need for the community to defend itself in the light of the recent events in Oldham:
… it was to do with the National Front march and I think they were allowed permission to march through Bradford
and I think the Anti-Nazi Group, they objected to it and held a demonstration down in Centenary Square and I think it
was both sided really. There was word that there was some National Front members, because the march was
cancelled or shouldn’t have been allowed or wouldn’t have been allowed, some of them were already in Bradford in
pubs etc. (Zahida Ali, 31)
Right, well it was all to do with the march that, err, the Nazi movement wanted to do and I think was most people they
were scared of what happened in Oldham because they were all in suburban areas and they attacked people in
their homes and so I think everyone was scared and they wanted to defend themselves. But what they did they
didn’t go the right way about it but I think the intentions at the beginning weren’t bad.
They were just trying to defend themselves of what happened in Oldham so it shouldn’t have really happened, but I
think that is why it happened. […] The march of the NF group. (Kamran Ahmad (age 19) and Omar Akhbar (age 20))
I think that week there were rumours that the National Front were coming to Bradford and I think all that week youth
workers were talking of holding this kind of meeting, in the centre of town in Centenary Square. (Alisah Khaleeq, 38)
Well there talk of the National Front coming down and so all the Asians got to together to fight them off basically and
not let them take over. (Ibrar Khan, 18)
In substance the 'riots' were more ethnically homogenous. In Bradford on 7th of July 2001 what started as a multi-
ethnic event became almost entirely an event involving Pakistani men. What the riots are expressing are new modes
of 'racialistion' (Miles, 1989) on the one hand and new ethnic identities on the other. The old racialisation of Britain's
ethnic minorities, crudely put, saw African-Caribbeans as 'having problems', whilst South Asian's 'have culture'. The
new racialisation is rapidly pathologising the South Asian communities of northern England. Discourses of gang-
culture, forced marriages, drug abuse, inter-generational conflict, resistance to integrating and speaking English
and being Muslim are all routinely mobilised to explain away racism and justify dubious policies. Post September
11th they have increasingly been constructed as the new 'Enemy Within'. In contrast to how others see them,
second and third generation South Asians, as we have seen from our interviews, are constructing new identities,
differentiating themselves from their parents, yet continuing to be Muslim/Pakistani/Kashmiri and British.
Lord Hattersley - who was also a Labour shadow home secretary - told BBC Radio 4's World at One Programme
that the causes of crime, in this case, were "alienation and deprivation".
"These young Muslim men ... believe they are being neglected, they believe they are being ignored," he said.
"They believe their legitimate claims are not being heard, they believe that the economic opportunities that the rest
of society enjoys are not being provided for them."
The race report [2001] commissioned to investigate the unrest, on the other hand, says: “The current Bradford
scenario is one in which many white people feel that their needs are neglected because they regard the minority
ethnic communities as being prioritised for more favourable public assistance; some people assert that the Muslims,
in particular the Pakistanis, get everything at their expense.”
The report also goes on to speak of “racism and ‘Islamaphobia’... resulting in harassment, discrimination and
exclusion.”
Thus all communities, in and around Manningham, feel that they are at a disadvantage and blame the other for that
situation. The polarization of communities heightens the tribal responses which lead to conflict. Over time as long as
tribal divisions are the norm, misunderstanding and conflict will follow. In Bradford ironically the various communities
had as much in common, as differences. For example, they were all working class, labouring in the woollen and
steel industries on poor wages. They were all living in sub standard houses. They could have cooperated to resolve
their differences and to further the economic development of the area rather than attack each other. The recent
disturbances between local communities in the area are not about the original immigration but about social
injustices as perceived by these communities and stirred up by local political parties of the right and the left.
The migrants were needed by the UK economy to maintain production, they needed to come to the UK because of
the economic disparities between the first and ‘third’ world. They were working in jobs which British workers were
refusing to take. The establishment of social justice calls for inclusion of all these elements in any judgment of
‘fairness’.
Similarly the white British working class communities have long been exploited by employers. Educational and social
opportunities are not fairly distributed. All communities suffer in different ways from such inequities and it is these
inequities which need to be changed.
Fiji: A Paradise in conflict!
Dr. Connie Marsh, a colleague of mine, worked for a number
of years in Fiji. She reports of tensions,conflict, and coups.
Fiji is set in the South Pacific, and is viewed as a tourist
paradise. It is made up of 322 islands, the largest of which
are Viti Levu, and Vanua Levu. The main town is Suva on
Viti Levu. Fiji receives 500,000 visitors a year, to add to its
own population of 900,000.Tourism is a major industry.
One would think that ‘peace and tranquility’ was essential to
the prosperity of such a tourist paradise. But the government has been subject to four military coups since 1987!
two in 1987;one in 2000; and another in 2006-07.
Fiji volunteered to be a British colony in 1874. It was granted independence in 1970, under the crown.
It declared itself a Republic in 1987. Since then there has been continual community conflict between the native
Fijians and the Indian Fijians. The roots of this conflict can be traced to British colonialism, ironically in this instance
attempting to adopt a more ‘liberal’ policy. Fiji seceded to Britain voluntarily in 1874. Britain accepted on condition
that Fiji governed itself and financed itself. This arrangement meant that the Governor Sir Arthur Hamilton Gordon
had to find ways for Fiji to make money. The development of Sugar plantations provided such an opportunity. In an
effort to avoid the exploitation and difficulties caused in other British controlled countries, however, Gordon
attempted to safeguard the rights of Fijians by making it unlawful for Fijian land to be sold and arranging for workers
to be imported from India. In 1876 the British Colonial Office organized the shipment of workers from India on an
indenture system. This required workers to work on the sugar plantations for five years, they would then be able
either to remain in Fiji or to return to India at the expense of the British Government. Needless to say the conditions
for such indentured workers were appalling, indeed it is difficult to see the difference between their situation and
that of slavery. Workers were paid little and lived together in cramped, unhygienic and primitive conditions, any
hopes they may have had of saving money and supporting families in India were soon dashed. After the 5 years of
indenture, workers were given a certificate of residence but the promised return passage was delayed for a further
five years following the end of the indenture.
The development of the Indian community in Fiji could be seen as a graphic illustration of the benefits of hard work,
education and diligence. Against tremendous odds Fijian Indians managed to gain relative economic and political
power under British rule, until the coups following the declaration of a Republic in 1987 when the rifts between the
Fijian and Indian communities erupted into violence. The two military coups in 1987 triggered major emigration of
Indian families out of Fiji, following the expulsion of all Indian members of Parliament and the Government.
Long-standing economic and political tensions between the native Fijian majority (51% of population), and the
Indian minority (44%) came to a head again on May 19, 2000, when a small group of armed men stormed Fiji’s
parliament and took ethnic-Indian Prime Minister Mahendra Chaudhry, elected in 1999, and 30 members of his
cabinet hostage. The coup leader, businessman George Speight, declared himself interim prime minister and
demanded the ousting of the president and the removal of the 1997 Constitution, which had allowed ethnic Indians
to hold the post of Prime Minister. The military, led by Commodore Frank Bainimarama, declared martial law on May
29, obtained the resignation of President Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara and scrapped the 1997 Constitution. Speight
claims to be the voice of native Fijians, whose traditional monopoly on land ownership was seen to be threatened by
land reform measures supported by Chaudhry. There was some looting of Indian-owned shops and beating of
Indians in the days after the coup. The standoff between the two contingents continued and the United States,
Australia, and New Zealand have all threatened sanctions, and Secretary-General Kofi Annan expressed concern
and sent his Special Envoy, Sergio Vieira de Mello, to the island.2001 saw new elections and a new government.
In 2005, amid much controversy, the Qarase government proposed a Reconciliation and Unity Commission with
power to recommend compensation for victims of the 2000 coup, and amnesty for its perpetrators. However, the
military strongly opposed this bill,especially the army's commander, Frank Bainimarama. He agreed with detractors
who said that it was a sham to grant amnesty to supporters of the present government who played roles in the coup.
His attack on the legislation, which continued unremittingly throughout May and into June and July, further strained
his already tense relationship with the government. In late November 2006 and early December 2006, Bainimarama
was instrumental in the 2006 Fijian coup d'état. Bainimarama handed down a list of demands to Qarase after a bill
was put forward to parliament, part of which would have offered pardons to participants in the 2000 coup attempt.
He gave Qarase an ultimatum date of 4 December to accede to these demands or to resign from his
post. Qarase adamantly refused to either concede or resign and on 5
December , President Ratu Josefa Iloilo, was said to have signed a legal order dissolving Parliament after meeting
with Bainimarama.
On January 4 2007 , the military announced that it was restoring executive power to President Iloilo, who made a
broadcast endorsing the actions of the military. The next day, Iloilo named Bainimarama as the interim Prime
Minister, indicating that the Military was still effectively in control.
Both communities see themselves as victims and each side documents the disadvantages they face compared with
the other group. The consequence has been the virtual collapse of the main industry on the island – tourism. The
rise in unemployment and poverty has developed into a situation in which there are no winners, everyone loses.
The beautiful island ‘paradise’ suffers from rising crime rates, residents lock themselves behind iron gates, fences
and burglar-proof bars. Attempts at constitutional change flounder on the burden of racist ideologies – Fijians
proclaim their right to keep ‘Fiji for the Fijians”, Fijian Indians are seen as outsiders and migrants yet this is now the
third and fourth generations to be born, live and die in Fiji. Many have little or no actual contact with India apart, of
course, from their language, culture and identity.
The need which Fijian Indians feel to retain their difference prevents them from recognizing any value in the Fijian
culture. Similarly ethnic Fijians are so busy fighting to retain their own difference that they lose the opportunity to
benefit from the Indian influence. If ethnic Fijians and Fijian Indians recognize their interdependence, the
differences between the groups could become assets upon which both communities could build. It could lead them
to recognize that although they may not like each other, they are nevertheless totally interdependent. They have
lived together for many generations and their coexistence informs their whole way of life. In Fiji there is political
democracy. Yet there is also widespread discrimination which generated a political coup and continuing feelings of
discontent. There is poverty in Fiji and a lack of educational opportunities which severely curtails the freedom of
many to escape their disadvantage. Ethnic divisions impacted on the political unrest between natives and Indians
who have now lived in Fiji for many generations. The link between levels of poverty and levels of freedom is
particularly clear when subsistence and survival are problematic, individual choices are inevitably limited.
The extent of communities in conflict indicate
The significance of colonialism in disrupting the native peoples;
The persistence of racial/sectarian prejudices from one generation to another, and the politics of
racism and sectarianism;
The separatism of communities, whereby they do not share power, nor communicate on neighbourhood
matters; they only defend themselves against attack and maintain prejudices;
If you are one of ‘us’ you are worthy and to be protected; if you are one of ‘them’, you are worthless and
to be killed;
The links between deprivation and discrimination, which lead communities to blame each other for their
disadvantages, rather than seek to resolve them together;
The roles of security forces in heightening civil disorder;
That violence resolves nothing, heightens animosity, perpetuates demands for revenge;
The importance of ‘third parties’ to initiate and promote ‘talk’.
The most vicious conflicts are resolved,sooner or later, by 'talk' not by the 'gun'.
HOW TO KEEP THE PEACE?
A NEW MORALITY
Social ecology and social freedom, dependence and interdependence, are about humans living at peace with
others and their environments. The issues are about how to keep the peace? How to keep talking? How to negotiate
about the future, not the past? Some of the key players in this quest have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
What do they think are the conditions for ‘living in peace’?
John Hume, leader of social democracy in Northern Ireland, pointed out that:
All conflict is about difference, whether the difference is race,religion or nationality The European visionaries
decided that difference is not a threat, difference is natural. Difference is the essence of humanity. Difference is an
accident of birth and it should therefore never be the source of hatred or conflict. The answer to difference is
to respect it. Therein lies a most fundamental principle of peace - respect for diversity.
Mikhail Gorbachev, once President of the USSR, reminded us of ancient definitions of peace:
"peace" as a "commune" - the traditional cell of Russian peasant life. I saw in that definition the people's profound
understanding of peace as harmony, concord, mutual help, and cooperation. This understanding is embodied in the
canons of world religions and in the works of philosophers from antiquity to our time? Let me add another one to
them. Peace "propagates wealth and justice, which constitute the prosperity of nations;" a peace which is "just a
respite from wars ...is not worthy of the name;" peace implies "general counsel". ? Today, peace means the ascent
from simple coexistence to cooperation and common creativity among countries and nations.
Peace is movement towards ‘globality’ and universality of civilization.Peace is not unity in similarity but unity in
diversity, in the comparison and conciliation of differences.
Dalai Lama, a religious leader, also emphasized the commonality of the human condition:
I believe all suffering is caused by ignorance. People inflict pain on others in the selfish pursuit of their happiness or
satisfaction. Yet true happiness comes from a sense of inner peace and cultivation of altruism, of love and
compassion and elimination of ignorance, selfishness and greed. We need to cultivate a universal responsibility for
one another and the planet we share. Although I have found my own Buddhist religion helpful in generating love and
compassion, even for those we consider our enemies, I am convinced that everyone can develop a good heart and
a sense of universal responsibility with or without religion.
Aung San Sui Kyi, a political leader in Burma, also emphasized the need to recognize our interdependence:-
"To live the full life, one must have the courage to bear the responsibility of the needs of others; one must want to
bear this responsibility."
These peace-makers all emphasize the central elements of a peaceful world which encapsulate many of the
elements of ‘social ecology’ and ‘social freedom’ that we are working to define:
The need to recognize the interdependence of all,
The need for everyone to be free in order for anyone to be free
The need to accept diversity, and be aware of similarities.
These leaders are emphasising the necessity to think and act globally. It is not good enough to bond with your
family and tribe for this can lead to individualism, tribalism, sectarianism, nationalism, and constant conflict.
The concepts of social ecology and social freedom require us to think and act for global communities: human,
animal, and plant. We may think ‘local’, but we must act ‘global’. We have to acknowledge that changes on the other
side of the world have impacts on our locality.
For example,
Changes in climate are expected to have major negative consequences in certain parts of the world. Some societies
are likely to see significant drops in food production, with increased temperatures possibly accelerating grain
sterility, shifts in rainfall patterns accelerating erosion and desertification and rendering land infertile, sea-level
increases and flows inundating farmlands and disrupting fish populations, and extreme weather events disturbing
agricultural processes. Water scarcity also may increase with shifts in rainfall, while disease may spread with
increased temperatures.[www.crisisgroup.org]
There is unsurprising consensus that climate change will have disproportionately harmful socio-economic effects on
developing countries, even though they have contributed to it least.[www.ipcc.ch – the intergovernmental panel on
climate change at the United Nations.
Developing countries are particularly vulnerable because of their tropical geography; their high population growth,
heavy dependence on agriculture and rapid urbanisation; and their weak infrastructures and lack of resources. The
Stern report and other studies have suggested that climate-induced scarcities – of food, water and health – will
increase poverty, affect migration patterns and potentially lead to or exacerbate deadly conflict.[www.hm-treasury.
gov.uk]
It is clear that there is a need to re-think our attitudes towards our global environment. But we must also alter our
ideas about profit and poverty. Anthony Browne in an article in the New Statesman Aug 2002 states that:
"The World Summit on Sustainable Development…is the culmination of a new theory sweeping charities, national
governments, the U.N., and at least the press releases of the World Bank: fighting poverty and saving the
environment are in fact the same battle… the summit is about how we can reduce poverty and save nature at the
same time. This theory is not just that it is desirable to do both at the same time…but rather that you have to do
both at the same time, that you can’t do one without the other. It turns the old theory of trade-offs between
development and the environment on its head; they are now part of the same bargain."
The discourse of social ecology implies a new morality. The evidence presented about communities in conflict
reveals that we are not talking about how people act now. We are talking about how they should act in the future. All
of this is implicit in the ‘Green movement’. Such aims are pursued by the Peace movement as expressed by the
‘Seeds of Peace’; by conflict prevention agencies such as Crisis Group, Amnesty International, Human Rights
Watch, and the United Nations; by development groups such as Greenpeace, Oxfam.
It involves a revolution in our mind set and cultural filters.
The opening address of the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in the summer of 2002
by Thabo Mbeki, the President of South Africa, eloquently summarized the nature of the changes needed if we are
to achieve sustainability. He stated that
"a global human society….characterized by islands of wealth, surrounded by a sea of poverty is unsustainable.
…for the first time in human history, society has the capacity, the knowledge and the resources to eradicate
poverty" (http://www.un.org/events/wssd/statements/openingsaE.htm)
He called for a ‘seed’ change in our attitudes.
"We do not accept that human society should be constructed on the basis of the savage principle of the survival of
the fittest." (http://www.un.org/events/wssd/statements/openingsaE.htm)
The demands that such interdependence places on individuals, communities and societies should form the basis of
family socialization, of the school curriculum, of religious teachings, political pronouncements and inform media
reactions to events. These demands are for
tolerance of difference,
appreciation of the advantages of cultural and linguistic diversity,
respect for the rights and property of others,
responsibility for contributing to communal economic and social well-being.
In my view, this underlines the significance of a ‘multi-cultural’ approach. There is no point in seeking the uniformity
of communities nor the ideology of a national identity. There is point in promoting the diversity of communities, and
getting to know and understand each other by dialogue and social and cultural exchange.
It is the emphasis on the reality of our interdependence which needs recognition. It is a social fact. Denial of such
reality is the root cause of the conflict we have witnessed in so many different parts of the world which has brought
communities and individuals into opposition with each other. It is clear that the allocation of resources throughout
the world is unfair. There is injustice, inequality and disadvantage. Social freedom requires that we all address
those issues together rather than focusing on our differences in opposition to other groups.
I accept that the delusion of individuality and difference is deep within our socialization, education and philosophies
and were previously emphasised by the scientific paradigm, emphasizing the separateness of individual human
beings within which the boundaries of ‘self’ and ‘others’ are clearly fixed.
The next phase of the development of our understanding of our world contained in the quantum revolution will
change this emphasis to one in which the boundaries are less clear and the interdependence of our universe will
become more and more apparent: that we are particles and waves.
How naïve to believe that ‘I’ am independent of ‘others’, and dependent on others to work for me, to clean me and
my house, to look after me , to give me their monies, so as to keep ‘me’ well and prosperous! This is the ethic of the
slave master; of the capitalist. This is not ‘social freedom’, it is ‘social slavery’
send comments to hmr@kelvynrichards.com
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
