College Year in Athens/ DIKEMES

Mapping International Conflict in 2015

Allison Barry
Peace, Conflict, and International Politics:
Lessons from the Mediterranean Region
Professor Dr. Thanos Dokos

9 December 2015

Forward:

There are numerous international conflicts around the world today. Some are relatively recent,
whereas others have been disputed for decades. For thematic continuity and practical
conciseness, I have limited the discussion to a specific selection of modern day conflicts. The
included examples and case studies have been chosen to represent the full spectrum of conflict
types.
I have chosen to omit the current immigration crisis (only briefly referenced) and the Greek
economic crisis purely because that is my final paper for another class.

Conflict is ever present in the international system and commonly manipulated by nations
in order to have an upper hand in bargaining. During times of conflict, states develop
capabilities that give them leverage to obtain more favourable outcomes than they otherwise
would achieve. Whether fair or unfair, the ultimate outcome of the bargaining process is a
settlement of the particular conflict (Pearson). Understanding that conflict can then be avoided,
created, or exasperated, it is important to understand its components.
Conflict can be categorised based on driver and trend analysis. A driver is a factor that
directly influences or causes change whereas a trend is a discernible pattern of change
(Ministry of Defense). By analysing the drivers across the political, economic, technological, and
social spectrum, it becomes apparent which factors shape the geopolitical environment and
create opportunities for trends. With this, outcomes are predictable. This includes issues such as
climate change, globalisation, inequality, and innovation. Nonetheless, not all conflict is easily
recognisable or preventable. This includes conflict in the realm of defense and security.
Resources, trade, capital, and intellect are regulatory through infrastructure, banking, energy
systems, etc. However, the marginal global supply plus the varying motivations of nation states
quickly jeopardises the handling of these factors (Ministry of Defense).
In mapping international conflict, it is crucial to recognise the location and type. The types
of conflict can be categorised into six sections: territorial, governmental, economic, ethnic,
religious, and ideological. The first three are tangible issues, whereas the later are less tangible
(Goldstein). Territorial disputes centre on the desire for statehood but also factor in ethnic
relations (Pearson). In simplest terms, a states border may divide an ethnic group, causing the
members to call for a redrawing. Specific types of territorial disputes include interstate border,
secession, airspace, and water space. Direct examples of territorial conflict include the Kurdish

populations demand for statehood, Kosovos struggling protection of its sovereignty, and
Turkeys ongoing disputes in the Aegean. The second type of conflict is governmental control,
including superpower promotion of regime change and larger or more developed countries
influencing smaller or underdeveloped countries. A clear-cut modern example is the United
States overbearing influence over Latin American countries, including Venezuela. A more
controversial example, where two international key players are against each other, is the crisis in
Ukraine. In examining these case studies, in addition to Syria and North Africa, it becomes
evident that many of these conflict types overlap. The third type of conflict is related to
economic issues, such as an expanding socio-economic gap, fair trade policies, and drug
trafficking. A prime international economic conflict, aside from that in Greece, is Chinas
relationship with the United States. The fourth type of conflict is ethnic conflict. Going hand in
hand usually with territorial, ethnic conflict capitalises on nationalism and ethnocentrism.
Nationalism is the devotion to the interest of ones own nation over the interest of other states
(Thyne, Pearson). Although nationality is an ambiguously defined term, it commonly consists of
a shared language and culture. Once again, this ascribes to the Kurdish and Kosovoar conflicts.
Additionally, this applies to the Israel-Palestine conflict as well as the entire Balkan region since
the demise of the Soviet Union. The fifth type of conflict addresses religious divides, including
fundamentalist beliefs and those in all major (Islam, Judaism, Christianity, and Hinduism) and
minor religions. Involving many nations in the Middle East, the main religious and ideological
divide analysed in this paper is Islamic verses Western. The sixth type of conflict is ideological,
when there is a clashing of beliefs such as capitalism, communism, socialism, democracy, and
revolutionary force. In addition to those mentioned in previous cases, this paper will address a
new ideological perspective global commons and policies about the environment. Mapping

international conflict around the world exposes the domino effect that each crisis has on the
local, regional, and international government and how it consequentially affects the states
systems politically, economically, and socially.
The first case study in mapping territorial conflict is the Kurdish population. The Kurdish
question is not whether there should be an independent state for the group, but when. Kurdish is
the largest ethnic group in the world without a country, although the largest population resides in
Istanbul. Although the Kurds quarrel with each other and external forces, the ethnic group
requires an independent space. The Kurds are already autonomous in Northern Iraq through oil
production. It is most likely that the Kurds will fight for independence once they form a militia
(Notes). Kurds have the most stable relationship with the Iranian government, but this mutual
abidance takes backseat when considering the tense relationship between the Kurds and Turkey.
Turkey has been trying to control the Kurds by withholding representation and voting
opportunities. The Turkish Prime Minister is actively diminishing Kurdish political power to
prevent independence movements within Turkey. This destructive relationship explains the
alliance between the Syrian government and the Kurdish population, and their fight against ISIS.
Overall, most Eastern Mediterranean countries unify to fight against the Kurds and prevent a
successful uprising.
Another prime example of a territorial conflict, specifically secession, is Kosovo. Kosovo
is an interesting case as its population consists of 90% Albanians and 10% Serbs. The first
national policies were against Serbs until the ethnic cleansing of Albanians in the 1990s.
Attracting international attention, the future of Kosovo was discussed at the highest level through
diplomatic means. However, the prolonged dialog forced Kosovars to initiate their own solution
and thus in 2008 declared independence without UN approval. The US and the majority of EU

member states recognise the independence, whereas Serbia, Russia, and China do not (Pearson).
To secure Kosovos sovereignty, military intervention was necessary. However, this places
NATO with a dangerous precedent for the future.
Finally, a third territorial conflict expands across Turkeys international policy. Turkeys
role over the past few years has significantly increased due to economic performance and
ambitious foreign projects. Turkey is a central power in the Middle East and the Balkans, and
thus can act as a regional mediator and model of Islamic and democratic co-existence. However,
Turkey is involved in numerous conflicts both with other nations and international institutions.
Turkeys ongoing disputes with Greece centre around territorial issues (air and water space) in
the Aegean and Cyprus. The 1913 decision after the Balkan Wars rewarding Greece most of the
Aegean islands has been questioned by Turkish officials since the elimination of territorial
waters after WWII. Turkeys motivation for military tactical advantages and economic
exploitation of the Aegean became apparent when searching for oil in 1970. In addition to sea
territory, Turkey is disputing the airspace. With a historic and current reputation for shooting
down flights, Turkey has worsened its relationship with both Greece and Russia. An issue that
once stemmed from the Cyprus conflict, a way for Turkey to put pressure on Greece, has now
taken on a role of its own. Turkey is determined to adjust their international stance on territory,
the continental shelf, and grey zones (Lecha, Dokos, Notes). Regarding the future, neither
Greece nor Turkey are willing to spend political capital to devise a solution. Turkey has Syrian
and Kurdish problems and Greece has an economic crisis. So, the problem will remain until a
later date; it is not necessarily a hot conflict and the situation is livable (Lecha, Dokos).
Governmental control conflicts always involve two opposing governments. This can apply
to a domestic civil war, or a competition between two external nations attempting to exercise

their sphere of influence. Most commonly, there is conflict between an outside government
attempting to manipulate an internal government. For example, take Latin America. The US
actively discouraged democracy in developing Latin America because the elected leaders tended
to be communists. The US preferred no democracy than to work with a difficult leader. The US
wanted a political puppet who was easily manipulated to ultimately control parliament
(McGraw). Huntingtons theory explains the USs role in Latin America. Huntington depicts the
three waves of democracy, a worldwide phenomenon where strong tides bring democracy to
many countries. The first wave was in the 1800s when suffrage was growing, bring more than 20
countries around the world to democracy. With some countries falling out, the second wave postWWII democratised Europe strongly, until the emergence of communism and the Cold War. The
third and most recent wave occurred in the mid-70s post-Soviet Union collapse and effected
democracies across the regions of Latin America, Eastern Europe, Southern Europe, and East
Asia. Affected by this third wave was Venezuela, which is currently undergoing a governmental
political crisis, which has lead to violence and regional instability. Since 2014, Venezuela has
been in a recession due to increased inflation from reduced energy prices. The oil-dependent
economy is drastically receding, placing political strain on President Maduros administration.
The government responded to the initially peaceful protests with political oppression and violent
security forces. Activists have been imprisoned and thousands of Colombians have been
deported (Colombians are the governments scapegoat for the economic downturn). From both
the security violence and massive deportation, Venezuela has been evaluated by numerous
human rights organisations. The civil conflict reached the international level not only through
humanitarian means, but also economic. The US imposed sanctions on Venezuela since civil
unrest, heightened authoritarianism, and rapidly accumulating government debt in Venezuela

could threaten important US economic and regional interests (Council on Foreign Affairs).
Once again, the US needs to maintain control over Latin Americas social and political realms in
order to prosper economically itself.
An example of two external governments competing for foreign control is the crisis in
Ukraine. With Ukraine geographically lying between the EU and Russia, trouble was inevitable
when the Ukrainian President rejected an economic and associative deal with the EU but
accepted a bailout from Russia in 2013. Not only was there a stir among political leaders, but
social protest began from Ukrainians who supported the EU and wanted to distance themselves
from Russia. It is important to note that Ukraine has a very short national history and is not
clearly an independent nation (its independence was grated with three other former Soviet Union
nations under the Budapest Treaty); however, it is building an ethnicity. For example, 90% of the
population wanted independence and identify as Russian second to Ukrainian (Popescu). With
the roots of the Ukrainian crisis returning to 2004, the current crisis in Ukraine is a result of
Russian opposition to the European Union, not just the transatlantic military alliance (Popescu).
Russia relies on four factors for power, including UN Security Council membership, energy/ oil,
nuclear power, and regional influence. The EUs relationship with Ukraine threatened Russias
sphere of influence. This tension has been accumulating since the Untied States neglected to
include Russia in European development in the 1990s. The US did a poor job managing the
relationship [with Russia] for the long term and dismissed centuries of history and
Russification of ethnic minorities (Dokos). The crisis in Ukraine is Europes most serious postCold War security challenge since the Balkan Wars. The shooting down of Flight MH17
escalated the situation, and diplomatic means thus far have proven unsuccessful. However, there
is a common desire to solve the crisis as the situations significance goes beyond Ukraines

sovereignty (Dokos, Notes). First, there must first be an implementation of all aspects of the
Minsk Protocol (of 5 Sept 2014 and 12 Feb 2015). This includes a legitimate ceasefire, bilateral
meetings, and OSCE monitoring. Second, there must be a thorough investigation of border
control, the Donbass and Luhansk crossing points, and the detained reporters. Third, there must
be facilitated cooperation among major players such as the US, Russia, and the EU and a
revision of the Vienna Document. The common goals of religious freedom, counterterrorism,
elections, and energy must be reiterated. Finally, there must be reform in Ukraine, including a
redrawn constitution and guaranteed protection of the media.
An example of all types of governmental conflict is Syria, where the problem initially
started as a civil war but now effects many international governments. The Syrian problem
comprises of multiple issues, including a civil war between the regime and opposition, a
religious war between the Sunni and Shia, a proxy war between Saudi Arabia (supporting
Sunnies) and Iran (supporting Shias), the Kurds trying to exploit the situation for more
autonomy, and the Islamic state trying to reestablish. Essentially, there are multiple agendas and
classes among various groups. In approaching a solution to this multi-level problem, the role of
hegemonic leaders is crucial. Global powerhouses such as the US, Russia, and China, all have
the obligation, aside from humanitarian morals, to address the immigration crisis to prevent
intensification of racism and xenophobia. It is almost impossible to solve the problem unless
Russia and China are involved, despite the tensions with the West (Notes). The US and Russia
have both placed sanctions on each other and are provoking each other on numerous issues (i.e.
Ukraine). Nonetheless, the US must encourage Russia to establish a provisional, coalition
government in Syria that would moderate elements of both the regime and opposition. The US
and Russia should also cooperate with neighbouring countries in order to provide a military force

that would regulate and supervise the situation. There is also the security aspect of the
situation not all of the migrants will be refugees. The long-term solution to the migration crisis
is to end fighting in Syria and stabilise the country. This would be an opportunity for the leading
powers, US and Russia, to capitalise on common ground with Iran. The Syrian problem can be
interpreted as an opportunity for Iran to gain and retain significance control in the
Mediterranean.
A final example of governmental control conflict is in Northern Africas fluid, unstable,
and unpredictable regional security environment. There have been numerous regime changes,
violent suppression of protests, and continuing political ambiguity. Regional instability in both
North Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean stem from artificial states, poor decisions from
external influencers, lack of democracy, ineffective leaders, persistent poverty, economic crisis,
and regional conflicts (Dokos). Since 2011, Libya has been undergoing governmental conflict
from violent uprisings and the death of Colonel Muammar al-Qaddafi. Multiple national militias
have formed and taken up arms to institutionalised Libya as an Islamic State (this also qualifies
as an ideological and religious conflict). The reigning government has struggled to maintain
legitimate power, and despite successful elections, must still combat a multitude of oppositions.
Since 2014, there have been two conflicting revolutionary movements, Operation Dignity and
Operation Dawn, attempting to control sections of the state and place a new leader into power
(politically or militarily). This regional conflict has forced the United Nations to intervene and
propose certain alternative compromises for both sides. Meanwhile, terrorist groups are
capitalising on the political instability and becoming more violent and powerful. The latest
prospective outcome would be a diplomatic triumph a mutual acceptance of a UN-devised
political deal creating a unified government in Libya (Council on Foreign Affairs).

Differing from the violent conflicts is the economic category. Economic conflicts tend to
follow the Democratic Peace theory, stating that democracies do not fight each other. The voting
citizens do not want war, the leaders respect each other to some extent, the process of legislative
approval is too slow, and the involved states want to maintain some decree of economic
independence. A prime example of economic conflict is that between the US and China. China, a
segment of BRICS, is growing at unheard of rates in terms of developmental and population
growth, as well as utilisation of natural resources. For rising so quickly and obtaining so much
economic power, China still does not hold a very prominent status in the international political
system compared to others. However, although China holds too many hostile relationships to
become politically dominant, the US must still be cautious. First, China will become
economically dominant, threatening the US financial system. For example, if China creates its
own bank, then the USs debt will be relocated. Secondly, once this potential hegemony becomes
a real hegemony, China will change international norms. Currently, world order is based on US
principles (democratic and capitalistic); however, the principles would change since China is
authoritarian (Rosato). The US is attempting to battle this economic conflict by incorporating
China, in addition to Brazil, Russia, and India, into the preexisting international institutions so
they nations do not feel obligated or entitled to creating their own. There are competing views on
how to approach China, such as a realists belief that a cold war is inevitable (Mearsheimer)
verse a liberals view that mutual interests such as nuclear weapon control and economic
interdependency will only strengthen institutions. There is also the constructivism view that
states will immediately identify as partners (Wendt) verse the isolationist view that the US
should remain segregated from threatening nations. Either way, ultimately the US must work on
balancing these rising powers (Glaser).

Although economic disputes seem to be more prevalent over the last two decades than ever
before, the most common type of conflict is ethnic. The state and its institutions most effectively
regulate ethnic conflicts. These structures can provide support and ensure confidence among
minorities about the future perspectives. Monitoring elections, facilitating respect, and granting
regional autonomy can manage minority relations peacefully. Cooperation in this context is
preventing the spread of conflict. The primary strategy is confidence building, which seeks to
reassure ethnic peoples about their future by reducing risks, providing incentives, and overall
eliminating fears (Lake). The four pillars of successful confidence building include power
sharing (preferably in a democratic regime although authoritarian works, as well), elections
(highlighting intellect and legitimacy), and external intervention (when necessary). Peacekeeping
is consistent and fluid when there is no looming fear of external non-state actors intervening
politically, but there is still international support on the humanitarian front (Lake).
The Balkan region is filled with ethnic conflicts since the dismantling of the Soviet Union.
The Yugoslavia Wars range in terms of causes and violence. The modern-day nations of
Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Hercegovina, Montenegro, Serbia, Kosovo, and Macedonia all got
along well under Soviet control. However, after the Cold War, Germany and European powers
decided to divide the territory into several small states since it would be easier to control than
one large federation. Ignorantly dividing the territory, ethnic groups were divided by new
borders, causing social problems. For example, in the former Yugoslavia, ethnic groups had
intermingled and intermarried, leaving mixed populations in most of the Yugoslav republics.
When Yugoslavia broke up in 19911992, several republics declared their independence as
separate states. Two of these, Croatia and Bosnia, contained minority populations of ethnic
Serbs. Serbia seized effective control of significant areas of Croatia and Bosnia that contained

Serbian communities or linked such populations geographically (Pearson).

Also an intangible concept like ethnic divides, religious issues are complex multidimensional conflicts. In the Middle East, the Arab transformations have already radically
altered the strategic landscape of the region, with significant implications for all local actors and
external players, starting with the United States and Europe (Alessandri). Huntingtons Clash of
Civilisations depicts the future of the West verse Islam. Conflict in the future will occur across
civilisational lines, not national or state lines. Civilisations contain the highest growing number
of people and have the broadest level of cultural identity. The West utilises institutions, military
power, and economic resources to run the world in a way that protects is interests (Huntington).
Essentially winning at globalisation, the losers emphasise the cultural differences to deepen
the conflict. Al-Qaida capitalised on the victimisation feeling based on the Wests constant
interference and presence. Although this theory explains the conflict between the West and
Islam, it does not hold up on all fronts. The divisions in the Islamic world as so deep, and ethnic
tensions are much stronger than religious ties around the world, that the eight civilisations will
never be completely inflexible. The majority of conflicts in this area of the world will remain
interstate due to nationalism, economics, and religious reasons. Interstate conflicts hurt the state
and region, but not the international circuit. Wars that threaten to destabilise the whole system
are wars between countries across different regions (Russett).
The final type of conflict is ideological. Previously discussed conflicts also classify as
ideological as they demonstrate a clash between two beliefs whether being capitalism,
communism, socialism, democracy, or revolutionary force. Another modern belief controlling
international discussion is global warming. In fact, global warming is no longer a modern
phenomenon, but an international crisis. The side effects of global warming are apparent,

including climate-inducted degradation of freshwater, storm and flood disasters, decline in food
production, and environmentally inducted migration. Types of environmental problems include
pollution (air, water, land), biodiversity (plant and animal), and resource depletion. Huge wastes
are dumped at sea whether intentionally or unintentionally, and soil is being degraded and eroded
massively from aggressive fertilisers and chemicals. Tropical rainforests have dropped 50%
since 1950s and more animals and plants are becoming extinct every year. Globalisation of the
issue began when leaders finally acknowledged that some problems inherently affect the whole
world, regardless of who is responsible (Rosato). Cross-border problems address global
commons (i.e. depleting the Ozone). In Tragedy of the Commons, Hardin explains how
communities overexploit resources, such as grazing areas and fisheries, even if the leaders
acknowledge that it goes against long-term interests. This exposes the classic prisoners
dilemma, thus heightening the need for an internationally applicable solution. Following the
positive effect of the Montreal Protocol of 1987 and the negative impact of the Kyoto Protocol of
1997, the international community is still attempting to strengthen global governance of the
environment. For example, China, currently the largest polluter, is under the impression that it is
blameless and un-punishable. China is taking small actions similar to the US, such as recycling,
on face, but is not willing to pay high the economic costs that the West is asking. China is a
prime example of how humans are living in and around the problem, but not seizing the
opportunity to prevent it. However, it is not too late to solve the problem.
The world today in 2015 comprises of thousands of conflicts on the domestic and
international level, ranging from peaceful to violent. From a realists perspective, there will
never be an end to conflict, as it is inevitable in some way or another whether accidental
through ideological differences or intentional through economic bargaining. Nonetheless, that

does not imply that each individual conflict is permanent. Through the proper utilisation of
international institutions and maintenance of a multipolar system, diplomatic dialog can be
effective. A unipolar peacefulness has no precedent, and so each nation, keen on developing for
personal gain, must keep advancing and participating globally in order to transform the world
safety (US Foreign Policy 1990).

Work Cited
Cleveland, William L. A History of the Modern Middle East. Boulder: Westview Press, 2013.
Conflict, War, and Terrorism. Chapter 4. New York: Pearson Longman, 2014.
Divided Cyprus: Coming to Terms on an Imperfect Reality. Crisis Group Report, 2014.
Dokos, Thanos. The Ukraine Crisis: A tale of misperceptions, miscalculations and
mismanagment. Is there still time to avoid permanent damage to European security
order? ELIAMEP Thesis, Hellenic Foundation for European & Foreign Policy, 2014.
Doyle, Michael W. Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs, Philosophy and Public
Affairs 12, no. 3 (1983): 205-235.
Global Conflict Tracker. Council on Foreign Affairs, 2015.
Global Strategic Trends- Out of 2040. Ministry of Defence, 2010.
Goldstein, Joshua S., and Jon C. Pevehouse. International Relations. 7th ed. New York: Pearson
Longman, 2006.
Huntington, Samuel P. The Clash of Civilizations? Betts, pages 207-224.
Huntington, Samuel P. The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century.
Notes, Allison Barry class notes from Peace, Conflict, and International Politics: Lessons from
the Mediterranean Region, 2015.
Kissinger, Henry. Diplomacy (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994), 201-217.
Mearsheimer, John J. Can China Rise Peacefully? The National Interest, April 8, 2014.
Mearsheimer, John J. The False Promise of International Institutions, International Security
19, no. 3 (1994/95): 5-26.
Oye, Kenneth A. Explaining Cooperation under Anarchy: Hypotheses and Strategies, World
Politics 38, no. 1 (1985): 1-24.
Posen, Barry R. Current History; Nov 2009; 108, 721; ProQuest Social Sciences Premium
Collection pg. 347
Rosato, Sebastian. Europes Troubles, Power Politics and the State of the European Project.
International Security, volume 35, issue 4, pages 45-86. 2011.
Rothchild, Donard and Lake, David A. Containing Fear: the Management of Transnational
Ethnic Conflict. The International Spread of Ethnic Conflict. Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1998.
Russett, Bruce. Why Democratic Peace? in Michael E. Brown, Debating the Democratic
Peace. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press, 1996.
Savvides, Philippos. Resolving the Cyprus Conflict and Reenergizing Turkey's EU Accession
Process The Cost of No EU-Turkey III, Istanbul: Open Society Foundation, 2011.
Shleifer, Andrei and Treisman, Daniel. A Normal Country: Russia after Communism. Journal
of Economic Perspectives 19(1) (2005): 151174.

Shugart, Mathew Soberg and Mainwaring, Scott. The Terms of the Debate. Presidentialism
and Democracy in Latin America (Cambridge University Press, 1997), pp. 12-54.
Soler i Lecha, Eduard and Dokos,Thanos. Mediterranean 2020: The Future of Mediterranean
Security and Politics. GMFUS, 2011.
Thyne, Clayton. International Organization, Law, and Human Rights [referencing] Goldstein
and Pevehouse, International Relations, 8th ed. 2010.
Tilly, Charles. War Making and State Making as Organized Crime, in Bringing the State Back
In, Peter Evans, Dietrich Rueschemeyer, and Theda Skocpol, Eds, (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1985), pp. 169-191,
Tsakonas, Panayotis J. The Incomplete Breakthrough in Greek-Turkish Relations. London:
Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.
Waltz, Kenneth N. Nuclear Myths and Political Realities, American Political Science Review
84, no. 3 (1990): 731745.
Waltz, Kenneth N. Theory of International Politics (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1979), 79-99.
Walt, Stephen M. International Relations: One World, Many Theories, Foreign Policy no. 110
(1998): 29-46.
Weber, Max. Economy and Society. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978, pp. 212-223;
226-237; 241-249.
Wendt, Alexander. Anarchy Is What States Make of It, International Organization 46, no. 2
(1992): 391-425.