WHAT CAN ANTHROPOLOGY CONTRIBUTE TO PEACE AND CONFLICT STUDIES IN GENERAL?

Introduction
The past wars were fought principally by knights (paid by merchants and monarchies), the civilians were not involved in the conflicts – if not indirectly[1] – and the higher amount of dead had to be counted among the armies. Nevertheless nowadays wars are national, industrial and, post-industrial [2]. As a consequence of the affirmation of the so-called ‘post-heroic’ war[3], here the civilian population is the first victim.
Therefore as far as the evolution of war has been characterized by two parallel and oxymoronic traits, it is necessary to examine conflicts with inter-disciplinary approaches. In this way, the study of international and domestic conflict can deepen the knowledge about the roots and the possible solutions of it with additional resources made by specialists. First, Anthropologists can provide theoretical material, which can allow better systematic analyses and be incorporated into new empirical models. Second, they can offer different conceptualizations, which can stimulate established research traditions by suggesting new methods of inquiry[4].

Anthropologists in the face of conflict (their dark side)
The last conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq have showed a distinctive peculiarity: the cultural knowledge gap. Besides the rumours[5], the typical techniques of warfare have proven to be inadequate, and in the US Department of Defence as well, some specialists are calling for a sudden change. The retired Major General Robert H. Scales, Jr. has written that the conflict in Iraq needs “exceptional ability to understand people, their culture[6], and their motivation”[7]. Paraphrasing Clausewitz, war is culture by other means and the cultural gap has a simple cause and it is the total absence of anthropologists within the national security establishment (since the Vietnamese war). For the counterinsurgency warfare is definitely fundamental to apply the abused slogan of “to conquer hearts and minds of the people” and therefore it requires a deep understanding of local cultures[8].
Anthropology does so. Its methodologies embrace historical research, participant observation and fieldwork. Another aspect – even more important – is the central epistemological principle of the cultural relativism[9]. In fact – for scholars – conflict (and violence more broadly) is a cross-cultural phenomenon [10]. Violence has to be seen as an act in a relationship involving at least two persons, and as far as the legitimacy of the act itself is in discussion – labelling it as violent – this will imply a moral judgement. Ergo “violence has a moral dimension”[11], and therefore conflicts and their handling are cultural acts. Their conduction is different (and is perceived differently) in various social groups with typical cultural characteristics, such as language, rules, attitudes and images of what is right and what is wrong[12].
Anthropologists consequently are able to be familiar with the cultural causes of war and to spend these facts, information, and skills in “marshalling a nation for total war”[13]. Actually, anthropologists served their own governments during the Colonial Era (especially in the British Empire they represented an intellectual tool to strengthen the imperial power), the World War I (their habits of wandering in remote areas and their skill of observation were useful characteristics to practice espionage), in small wars such as in Vietnam and Philippines were Bohannan – U.S. anthropologist – perfected the psychological warfare (psywar)[14], or the infamous Project Camelot in Thailand[15].
Paradoxically, while anthropology aims to boost greater sensitivity to the nuances that differentiate cultures, it risks using its skills at the service of war[16].

Anthropologists in the face of post-conflict
On the other side, Anthropology has an important and effective role in the post-conflict period, too. The role of anthropologists emerges as important – together with sociologists and psychologists – in the recent discussions about restorative justice and reconciliation commissions. Hydle, in her article, mentions Michael Bakhtin for two different organizations of justice: one mono-logical in the Bakhtinian sense of ‘authoritarian’ and ‘closed’; the other dialogical, unauthoritarian and ‘open’[17] .
Here again the positioning of the persons in conflict in the two justice regimes, as well as the positions of the witnesses, creates two distinct prospects. In the opinion of the author herein stays the answer to why dialogic relationship between participants in restorative justice may develop in ‘magic’[18]. Through the dialogue, persons who at the beginning oppose each other, may reach a common understanding of the act (violence/conflict), with the possibility of forgiveness as an achievement of the future. Therefore, in restorative justice, anthropologists can increase the possibility of reconciliation, helping a direct co-operation between the actors. Helping the actors is easily translated in finding the above-mentioned ‘common understanding’, that Bakhtin defines ‘creative understanding’ because truth is not given but it is something that people seek to achieve through dialogue[19]. In this way, peace as a goal may be recognized as an ongoing process whose achievement requires concerted efforts to be built upon a shared understanding of the possibility of this achievement[20].
Especially expertise in language and culture might play a useful role in the field of conflict analyses, peace studies and negotiation process. It is what Agar calls ‘Languaculture’: an approach grounded in the ethnographic tradition, organized in order to include researcher and researched, attending to the political and historical context of people’s lives, and remaining open to experimental modes of representation[21]. As far as psychosocial development, in its cultural context, may shape the predisposition to engage in conflict, and general structural features of the society may determine the direction of the conflict, anthropologist will help in finding interests and interpretations in the negotiation processes. Ethnographers, moreover, may identify thematic potentialities of forgiveness and revenge, both of which can be invoked by the representatives of the populations in conflict at the negotiating process[22]. Consequently knowing the past – not only historically – it will be possible to identify the “germ of antipathy, defensiveness, and violence (but also) the possibilities of truth, openness, and reconciliation”[23].
If culture (both individual and collective) shapes the conflict discourse, its context and its content, culturally informed study of discourse has much to offer, above all those that deal with the intersection of different discourse systems[24]. Therefore, with Agar’s words, the “business of negotiating […] is the business of making a culture, making a world of meaning within which conflict is clarifies if not resolved”[25]. Reconciliation and negotiation discourse “seeks to overcome a violent past by non repeating it”[26].
Furthermore, anthropology may outdo the technocratic approach to aid delivery. In fact, anthropologists have moved severe critics to the development endeavour. Discourse analyses have deconstructed development and uncovered shoddy reflected assumptions. In the same way they may be helpful in deconstructing ‘emergency’ discourse further[27]. As Korf underlines, an anthropological standpoint of order and disjuncture in development would regard ‘peace’ and ‘conflict’ as binary systems of ordering, representing and giving meaning to the ‘complex emergencies’ encountered in times of violent conflict[28]. In other words, development is part of the system for ordering – representing and giving significance for the ‘self’ as against the ‘other’, where self and other are constituted partly in ethnic terms or along political party affiliations, caste or class, in order to access State resources[29].

Conclusion
To sum up, anthropologists play doubtlessly a significant role in all the different phases concerning the conflict. Nevertheless what is also important to underline– and that is what I would like to conclude with – it is the non-sporadic connivance of covert anthropological researches with – and of support to – the States’ power involved in conflicts. The centurial dilemma for anthropologists is “to serve the culture or to serve the State?”. This ethical crisis has recently re-arisen, especially within the American Anthropological Association, bringing to the surface many of the buried issues faced by Gregory Bateson and other anthropologists in the past wars. If international interventions can be clearly classified as ‘wild sovereignty’[30] – and actually the still in progress war on terrorism does – it is imperative for anthropologists to express frankly and to critically estimate the risks the war on terrorism will present to prospects of peace and sovereignty for indigenous people, ethnic minorities and separatist groups around the world[31], without counting the plausible cancellation of particular features of these groups. Here is probably the biggest effort and the most important contribution anthropology can make towards peace and conflict studies: to maintain the ethical integrity of the discipline as pressures to avoid the use of anthropological knowledge of other societies for military purposes and other objectives re-emerge[32].

1- I use the term “indirectly” because in this kind of wars all the adult males were conscripted, therefore at the beginning of war they reshaped themselves from civilians to combatants and only consequentially they can be re-considered civilians.
2- Howard M., War in European History, Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York, 1976 quoted by Jean C., Manuale di Studi Strategici, FrancoAngeli, Milano, 2004, pg. 166.
3- Luttwak E.N., A Post-Heroic Military Policy, «Foreign Affairs», vol. 75, n. 4, 1996, pg. 33-44.
4- Strakes J., The Social Context of War and Peace, «International Studies Review», n. 7, 2005, pg. 475.
5- One of these refers that the British military entourage prepared themselves about the Iraqi cultural environment on the pages of the most famous backpackers guide Lonely Planet.
6- It is what is called the “Cultural Turn”: a return to an anthropological approach to war as a consequence of i) the failure of recent military interventions (U.S.A.), ii) the obsolescence to talk about universal principles of strategy and iii) the wider backlash against universalism of Bush Administration’s attempt to reshape the world in America’s icon. See Porter P., Good Anthropology, Bad History: the Cultural Turn in Studying War, «Parameters», Summer 2007, pg. 48.
7- McFate M., Anthropology and Counterinsurgency – The Strange Story of their Curious Relationship, «Military Review», March-April 2005, pg. 24.
8- Ibidem, pg. 25.
9- Cultural relativism is “Understanding other societies from within their own framework”, Ibidem, pg. 26.
10- Hydle I., An Anthropological Contribution to Peace and Conflict Resolution Studies, «Contemporary Justice Review», vol. 9, n. 3, September 2006, pg. 259.
11- Ibidem, pg. 259-260.
12 Ibidem, pg. 263.
13 Gray G., The Army Requires Anthropologists – Australian Anthropologists at War, 1939-1946, «Australian Historical Studies», n. 127, 2006, pg. 161.
14 McFate M., Anthropology and Counterinsurgency – The Strange Story of their Curious Relationship, «Military Review», March-April 2005, pg. 28-32.
15- Ibidem, pg. 35.
16- Price D., Past Wars, Present Dangers, Future Anthropology, «Anthropology Today», Vol. 12, n. 1, February 2002, pg. 3.
17- Hydle I., An Anthropological Contribution to Peace and Conflict Resolution Studies, «Contemporary Justice Review», vol. 9, n. 3, September 2006, pg. 262.
18- Ibidem, pg. 262.
19- Ibidem, pg. 265.
20- Howell, S., Willis, R., Societies at peace: Anthropological perspectives, Routledge, London, 1989. Quoted in Hydle I., op. cit., pg. 265.
21- Agar M., Linguistic Peace Work, «Peace & Change», vol. 21, n. 4, November 1996, pg. 424.
22- Hoffman D., Lubkemann S., Warscape Ethnography in West Africa and the Anthropology of Events, «Anthropological Quarterly», Vol. 78, Issue 2, Spring 2005, pg. 320.
23- Ibidem.
24- Agar M., Linguistic Peace Work, «Peace & Change», vol. 21, n. 4, November 1996, pg. 425-426-427.
25- Ibidem, pg. 429.
26- Humphrey M., Reconciliation and Therapeutic State, «Journal of Intercultural Studies», vol. 26, n. 3, August 2005, pg. 204.
27- Korf B., Dining with Devils? Ethnographic Enquires into the Conflict-Development Nexus in Sri Lanka, «Oxford Development Studies», vol. 34, n. 1, March 2006, pg. 48.
28- Ibidem, pg. 48.
29- Ibidem, pg. 49.
30- ‘Wild sovereignty” can be defined as the creation of “zones/cultures for destruction in the name of promoting ‘universal democracy and peace’”. ‘Wild sovereignty’ is an expression used by Kapferer B., in Old Permutations, New Formations? War, State and Global Transgression, «Social Analysis», vol. 48, n. 1, 2004 and quoted by Humphrey M., Reconciliation and Therapeutic State, «Journal of Intercultural Studies», vol. 26, n. 3, August 2005, pg. 211.
31- Price D., Past Wars, Present Dangers, Future Anthropology, «Anthropology Today», Vol. 12, n. 1, February 2002, pg. 3.
32- Ibidem, pg. 3.

Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict

Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict

The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict had existed since the end of World War 1st, but developed in a full-fledged only after Armenia and Azerbaijan seceded from the Soviet Union. Today there is neither peace nor war, however:
The Ceasefire violations are increasing together with the military budget.

The deep-rooted causes of the conflict are disputed:
Azerbaijan argues that the war was initiated by an Armenian land-hungry;
Armenia maintains that the war was started with Azerbaijan’s military aggression versus Nagorno-Karabakh’s overwhelmingly Armenian population, which sought to exercise its right to self determination; additionally the Yerevan statements underline the anti-Armenian Pogroms made by Azerbaijan.
They have mutually exclusive views of the region’s pre-Soviet and Soviet-era history. Each maintains that its people are indigenous, and the other’s presence is recent. Both sides depict themselves as victims of violence. Both sides sustain the notion of continuity in Nagorno-Karabakh to justify their right to sovereignty today.

On 5th July 1921 the Caucasus bureau of the Communist Party declared Nagorno-Karabakh part of Soviet Azerbaijan and in 1923 the Nagorno-Karabakh autonomous oblast was established, providing the region with broad autonomy inside Azerbaijan.
However on several occasion Armenia petitioned Moscow for the oblast’s transfer.

RECENT HISTORICAL STEPS

• January ’88: Petition made by Armenia for the control of the area over the Nagorno-Karabakh region;
• February ’88: Nagorno-Karabakh Soviet passed a resolution asking for a transfer to the Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic. But Azerbaijan refused the transfer and Armenia consented to Nagorno-Karabakh’s incorporation;
• December ’89: Armenia SSR and Nagorno-Karabakh Soviet adopted a joint resolution “On the reunification of Nagorno-Karabakh with Armenia”;
• September ’91: Regional council in Stepanakert declared the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic independent;
• August 30th 1991: Azerbaijan declared its independence;
• November 1991: Azerbaijan revoked the Nagorno-Karabakh’s autonomous status;
• December ’91: Referendum in Nagorno-Karabakh for independence but there were not Azeri participants and Baku did not recognise the validity of the poll.
• January ’92: Formal declaration of independence by Nagorno-Karabakh, but no State has recognized its statehood.

The Main political cause is the contradiction between Azerbaijan’s demand for territorial integrity and the aspiration of the majority of Nagorno-Karabakh residents for self-determination.


FRICTIONS IN THE AZERI-ARMENIAN POSITIONS

Armenia understands the concept in a nationalist sense, pursuant to which a territorially concentred, historically continuous ethnic group should be allowed to have its own base if it chooses.

Azerbaijan argues that the right to self-determination does not extend to secession and must be exercised in the context. It contests that the war was caused by Armenian aggression.

Armenia - If Azerbaijan had the right to secede from Soviet Union in 1991, Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh have the right to separate from Azerbaijan (position based on the Soviet law). Moreover when Azerbaijan declared its independence it claimed to be the successor of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic of 1918-1920, whose sovereignty over Nagorno-Karabakh was not recognised by the League of Nations.

Azerbaijan - The right to self-determination does not extend to unilateral secession or to secession by force of arms, and the rights of Karabakh Armenians should not supersede those of Karabakh Azeri purely because they are in majority. They argue that secession is justified if it is from USSR, and not from Union Republics.

In this context Nagorno-Karabakh’s de facto authorities declared that they have the right to statehood because they have a permanent population, a defined territory, an elected government, and the ability to enter in relations with other states.

In this context a series of Human Rights violations took place: violence and ethnic cleansing with different opinions about the starting dates:
Armenia: the first episode was the massacre of Armenians in Sumgait (26-28/02/1988); Armenia maintains that Azerbaijan is another “genocidal” state, which seeks to exterminate all Armenians on its territory. Almost all the pre-war population was forced to become refugees; they also accused the Soviet-era government of Economic and Social discrimination, as well as political repression against Armenians.
Azerbaijan: they started before in November 1987. Similarly they blame Armenia for having ethnically cleansed Azeri from Armenia and the occupied territories to create an ethnically pure greater Armenia.
From ’88 to ’94 both Armenia and Azerbaijan committed atrocities against each other in communal violence that quickly took on a mass mob character. Both committed violations of rules of war, for example often civilians were the mail victims.

The negotiation process is ongoing since 1992 and OSCE has been the main mediator seeking a peace settlement. The co-chairmanship system since 1997 included France, Russia and United States of America; it is the so-called “Minsk group”. The fundamental critic moved to the “Minsk group” is its loath to apply pressure and, additionally, the lack of incentives or disincentives to advance the progress of the negotiations.
At the beginning the first aim was the promotion of an ongoing forum for the negotiations; since 1994 it is to promote the continuation of the ceasefire and to conduct negotiations of a “political agreement on the cessation of the armed conflict”.
They set up three bases for a settlement:
1.The territorial integrity of Armenia and Azerbaijan;
2.Nagorno-Karabakh’s legal status should be defined in an agreement based on self-determination conferring the highest degree of self-rule within Azerbaijan;
3.To guarantee security for Nagorno-Karabakh and its whole population.

The “Minsk Group” adopted two methodologies of solution:
1.Step by step solution (at the beginning was the first solution proposed);
2.Package (proposed since ’97 until 2001 when Key West talks failed).
The essential problem for the negotiations is that since the beginning it has been evident that both sides have sought to buy time. Partly this is because their leaders have not wanted to make compromises, in order not to lose the domestic popularity, with hopes that the postponement of a settlement was to their advantage. Only the Karabakh-Azeri, who continue to live in precarious conditions, have no such strategy.
The essential issue concerns the question of the future status of the Region:
- Armenia supports the independence or the unification of Nagorno-Karabakh with Armenia;
- Azerbaijan demands that the entity remains part of its territory, but with the consequent problem of Armenia occupation.
Different solutions have been proposed:
Keeping Nagorno-Karabakh in Azerbaijan but with considerable autonomy;
Postponing the final status;
Declaring Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijan as the parts of a “common state”;
Putting Nagorno-Karabakh under a dual Azeri-Armenian protectorate;
Exchanging Nagorno-Karabakh for land in Armenia (Meghri region);
Giving to Nagorno-Karabakh an intermediate sovereignty leading to “earned recognition”.
An important step is that all the solutions have to be implemented by a referendum in the Nagorno-Karabakh’s population.

The two realistic compromise solutions are:
1.The construction of a Confederation between Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh with an horizontal power sharing;
2.Baku refuses to discuss a confederal solution, so the most realistic status option today is the maintenance of the status quo, keeping Nagorno-Karabakh de jure in Azerbaijan but de facto independent.




Countries Profile

Republic of Armenia
Capital: Yerevan
Border countries: Azerbaijan-proper 566 km, Azerbaijan-Naxcivan exclave 221 km, Georgia 164 km, Iran 35 km, Turkey 268 km.
Independence: 21 September 1991.
Ethnic Groups: Armenian 97.9%, Yezidi (Kurd) 1.3%, Russian 0.5%, other 0.3%.
Religions: Armenian Apostolic 94.7%, other Christian 4%, Yezidi (monotheist with elements of nature worship) 1.3%.
Economy: Agriculture - fruit (especially grapes), vegetables; livestock. Industries - diamond-processing, metal-cutting machine tools, forging-pressing machines, electric motors, tires, knitted wear, shoes, silk fabric, chemicals, trucks, instruments, microelectronics, jewellery manufacturing.

Republic of Azerbaijan
Capital: Baku
Border countries: Armenia (with Azerbaijan-proper) 566 km, Armenia (with Azerbaijan-Naxcivan exclave) 221 km, Georgia 322 km, Iran (with Azerbaijan-proper) 432 km, Iran (with Azerbaijan-Naxcivan exclave) 179 km, Russia 284 km, Turkey 9 km.
Independence: 30 August 1991.
Ethnic Groups: Azeri 90.6%, Dagestani 2.2%, Russian 1.8%, Armenian 1.5%, other 3.9%.
Religions: Muslim 93.4%, Russian Orthodox 2.5%, Armenian Orthodox 2.3%, other 1.8%.
Economy: Agriculture - cotton, grain, rice, grapes, fruit, vegetables, tea, tobacco, cattle, pigs, sheep, goats. Industries - petroleum and natural gas, petroleum products, oilfield equipment; steel, iron ore; cement; chemicals and petrochemicals.

News

This is another blog I'm gonna open,

and it will be the more sophisticated one, because the plan is to post just articles & analysis I will wrote in the next future, plus the older ones.

Let's see what it'll happen and if i'm gonna have enough responses from the webnet.

The first analysis are gonna be especially about Asia, because it is since 2006 I write about it.

Obviously if you need any analysis (if you don't trust me ask for my CV) about International Relations, Geopolitics, International Law and so on just ask for that and I will provide you - in a week at least - the work you need.

Regards

Angelo