Theory of Asymmetric Conflict

Theory of Asymmetric Conflict Within this assignment I will be critically evaluating the usefulness of Asymmetric conflict and also looking at the legitimacy of motivations for the use of political violence. To support this argument Northern Ireland will be used as the main case study within this assignment. Firstly I will be defining what is meant by asymmetric violence. The majority of conflicts that happen within the modern world are not between states, but rather between contesting groups that are within states, or between combatants and existing states. Within (Aggestam,2002) book, he suggests that these types of conflicts can often be classified as asymmetric because the stronger party, frequently a state authority, is able to draw upon a various number of power resources that widens its range of strategies in conflict. Whereas, on the other hand non-state actors are much more restrained and limited in the options that they have. Aggestam, also reported that there is an imbalance in the available means to wage conflict and the ability to do so, In the levels of losses that can be sustained, or the resources to sustain a prolonged conflict. A good example of this would be the forces that surrounded the conflict within Northern Ireland which emerged in the late 1960s, which widely became known as troubles, this resulted in the deaths of more than 3,600 people. Within recent years Asymmetric conflict has grown into prominence and use while there still remains no universal agreement as to their meaning. The term asymmetric warfare has been used in the context of new terrorism to refer to non-state forces using unconventional and unpredictable acts of political violence against states. (Martin, 2006, pp. 270-271). Asymmetric conflicts that happen between state and non-state actors does not just relate to military resources. (Mitchell, 1991) highlights the importance of asymmetry when determining the conflict that is happening. These typically include lack of access to legal redress or legitimate political representation. In asymmetric conflict, groups can usually find themselves without effective access to the political system, the reason for this is that historically they might have been deliberately marginalized within the state; this was the case of the catholic minority population in Northern Ireland. States often have and use the power to construct and structure notions of legitimacy and to enforce state legitimacy through dominant discourses and political and legal processes. However challenges to the state from members of non-state groups often begin from a presumption of illegitimacy, in the groups interest, legitimacy, this becomes a kind of moral judgment that contributes to the asymmetry of conflict. (Paul, 1994) points out that weak states (Or weak groups) may often begin conflict, especially when they believe that the specific situation will in somewhat stay the same or progress into something worse if they do not take action. Terrorism has often been viewed as the weapon of the weak that is directed at a stronger adversary. the perceptions of a group that believes that there is great injustice against them, or even that their continued existence is threatened and may be in danger can often provide the weaker group with the sufficient resolve to battle against the stronger power, (Mack, 1975) states his research around Vietnam, he says that where a weaker group of indigenous insurgents proved successful in defeating the military forces, firstly in France and then the USA, this highlights just how important the beliefs of the non-state actors are in determining the resolve of combatants. Both France and the USA were unable to marshal sufficient domestic support for the continued commitment that would have been necessary to secure a military victory. (Mitchell, 1991) agrees with Aggestam, in highlighting the importance of perception in understanding what constitutes asymmetry. In conflict situation, it is possible for both sides to believe that they suffer from structural weakness. (Rouhan and Fiske, 1995) point out a great example of this, the example is that Israel considers itself weak against the Arab world, but the Palestinians see themselves as less powerful against Israel. This is described as survivability. Macks assertion that it is the relationship between the belligerents that is the key factor in terms of asymmetry, (Mack, 1975, p.81) looks at the views of combatants and how they are changed by others, he also looks at how relationships are altered to the point where overt conflict can end, or at least be transformed. However one answer is obviously clear in that a victory for one side over the other does not necessarily mean a victory for the b est equipped army or state. However, there are other answers; these include various forms of mediation, resolution, negotiation or transformation of the conflict to a point where agreement can be reached between the contesting groups. (Ruane and Todd, 2007) said while it has been suggested that, historically, symmetric conflicts may have leant themselves to a greater openness to mediation, it is clear that asymmetric conflicts can also be brought to negotiation under certain conditions. (Quinn et al, 2006) and (Mitchell, 1991) both argue that once the parties involved have both agreed to come to the negotiating table, asymmetry offers a distinct advantage because the same promises and commitments do not have to be made to different groups, as a result of this, instead, different rewards and benefits can be offered, a factor that prevents further conflict from taking place over the same goods or resources. (Quinn et al, 2006) argues that, although the stronger party has the ability t o take action against the weaker enemy, this may provoke an extreme reaction and end up starting a new round of conflict. This in itself can act as a deterrent. However when the stronger party enters the negotiations and agrees to change and compromise, this can move the peace process along quickly because all recognise they are making concessions from a position of strength. (Aggestam, 2002) says that for a weaker party, negotiations can become attractive, this is due to the possible involvement of outside forces, thus leading to international intervention that in turn may guarantee legal regulation and legitimacy for their position. Looking at (Zartman, 2003) idea of the mutually hurting stalemate , he believes that when this moment is finally reached, the parties that are involved view the conflict as ripe, as a result of this they put out feelers as to the possibility of an accord. Once both negotiations begin, both asymmetric and symmetric conflicts face a number of problems. (Aggestam, 2002) points out that the resulting agreement of peace might be intentionally ambiguous, in order to ensure that the parties sign up for the new settlement. This was certainly the case for Northern Ireland where the agreement was interpreted very differently by all the major parties that were involved. As Aggestam stated, however this may in turn open up a host of new disagreements as actors argue about interpretation and implementation, for example, such as the demands by the unionist within Northern Ireland for disarming republican paramilitaries before agreed political structures could be set within place and action. While looking at Northern Ireland it is possible to conceptualize the entire history of this countrys state as one of asymmetric conflict. Northern Ireland was contested from its formation, and the outcome of this it created a result of the 1920 Government of Ireland Act following negotiations after a war of independence in Ireland. This itself is seen an asymmetric conflict. However as a result of this, it led to the partition of the Island, Leaving Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom. The minority of the Catholic nationalist that remained within Northern Ireland complained that the new set-up was marked by discrimination in employment, a partial distribution of resources such as housing, and a number of inequalities in relation to electoral practice and the organization of the security forces. This served to alienate the minority from the state whose legitimacy they already denied. However (Mack, 1975) has little problem labelling the conflict within Northern Ireland as asymm etric. Mack saw the parties as the powerful and well-equipped British Army and the smaller insurgent republican force. However (Mitchell,1991) views of the conflict detected structural asymmetry in terms of access, with nationalists as victims of asymmetric access, where adversaries are likely to have very different abilities to voice their concerns and have them dealt with. When looking at the conflict that was happening within Northern Ireland a number of asymmetric factors can be detected. Most obvious, in terms of military might, were the resources of the British state, which vastly outranked and outgunned those of the republican paramilitaries. From what is stated above it is clearly identifiable that the conflict within Northern Ireland to be labelled as asymmetric, whereby the weaker combatants, in this case paramilitary organization used non-traditional strategies to engage a stronger opponent, the British state. In order for the peace process in Ireland to succeed all major actors needed to be brought to the point where a minimal but broad consensus among political leaders and the population at large about the desirability of common future could be constructed. The peace process within Northern Ireland was a product of recognition of realities by all participants in the conflict. For Irish republicans this involved acknowledgement that the goal of a united Ireland was unattainable in the short or medium terms and that there was a scant utility in a campaign of violence designed to sicken the brits into withdrawal from Northern Ireland. When looking at the asymmetric conflict theory and (Mack, 1975) article why big nation lose small wars, his analysis focused mostly on the French and their defeat in Algeria and the U.S defeat in Vietnam, Asymmetry of the power to win war was systematically and inversely related to the political vulnerability of each respective actor. However Macks arguments begin with power asymmetry and this shows how power asymmetry generally lead to interest asymmetry, this is where weak actors are perfectly interested because their very survival is at stake, strong actors marginally interested because their survival is in no way threatened. However interest asymmetry essentially leads to a form of inverse political vulnerability, this is because weak actors are resolute and they do not suffer politically from military setbacks, whereas strong actors become vulnerable to even the most minor setback as the war is carried on. Therefore Macks analysis primarily considers the motivations of states or quasi-states as actors and how structural relationships implies other asymmetries which aggregate to explain the outcomes, this means that weak actors will win whenever an asymmetric conflict lasts longer than expected, this was the case for the United states losing the Vietnam war because the North Vietnamese where fanatically committed to victory and the U.S was not. This resulted in the conflict lasting far beyond what the United States anticipated. Although Macks theory of asymmetric conflict is a powerful piece of analysis, it leads to an unresolved question and that is, why dont strong actors lose asymmetric conflicts more often than they do. When looking at Power, threat and intensity around the Arab-Israeli conflict and considering asymmetry, it is clear that from the findings within (Rouhana and Fiske, 1995) journal that the power relation between the Jewish and Arab communities in Israel are asymmetric by consensus, as both attribute more power to the Jewish community. As for asymmetry of power it is clear than both groups involved agree that the Jewish population has more power. However the findings within the Journal specifically state that there are implications for the future of the relationship between Israel and its Arab citizens, particularly after the recent agreements between Israel and the Palestinians. This is due to the fact that Israel is a state with two groups of citizens, both of them aware that only one group, the Jewish majority, Asymmetrically controls institutional power, However this is likely to be challenged by the minority, for example, the stronger that the minority grows or becomes, demographically, economically and politically the more likely that it will become to challenge the asymmetric power distribution. Even in drastically asymmetric institution power relations between the groups in conflict, not all types of power are asymmetric; power asymmetry is better measured by referring to types of power rather than just one type of power. However if a dynamic Palestinian polity emerges within the West bank and Gaza, it could actually be strengthened by a heightened sense of intensity of conflict over power, as it states within the journal the Jewish majority shows a profound sense of threat, some of which originates in the existence of the Arab minority itself, except for common concern over Israeli democracy. However the two groups do not seem to share any sources of reassurance or threat and this then brings to the question of shared identity between the two groups who are both citizens of the same state. (Smooha, 1984, 1992) specifically argues that the Arabs that are in Israel have developed a strong component of Israeli identity. (Rouhana, 1993) postulates that the Israeli component of the Arabs collective identity does not include a sense of belonging towards the state. This develops a sense of attachment because the uninational superstructure excludes their identity, this might be the case that the absence of identity is related to the perception of gross asymmetry in the distribution of institutional power, if only one group, the majority is perceived to control institutional power and the minority is somehow perceived to be excluded from the power centres, including determining the character of the state, distribution of political repre sentation and economic power, then it is possible that genuine power sharing is required as a prior condition for the development of collective identity. As we all know today Asymmetric wars are being used and waged for reasons such as political violence, religious, ethnic, economical and criminal reasons. However terrorism as asymmetric warfare threatens global security, suicide bombings are a severely dangerous part of asymmetrical warfare and that everything should be done in order to stop the attacks from happening. It could be said that all nations must unite and support each other in the global war of terrorism; however some countries are taking advantage of the attacks within other countries to settle their personal scores with the weaker adversaries. Today Israel has labelled Palestinian struggle for statehood as terrorism, Asymmetrical warfare and even terrorism cannot be eradicated by crushing the legitimate rights of aggressive people, Extremists groups for example the Al-Qaeda will keep finding a way to sprout up and will no doubt continue their asymmetrical struggles till justice is done. There are many ways that conflicts can be defined as asymmetric; these include differentiated access to material resources, access to political decision-making processes or the legal structure of the state. However it is of course possible to define recent history of conflicts in Northern Ireland in this way. However the development of the peace process highlighted an increase in recognition by both state and non-state actors that stalemate had emerged and that military victory or defeat for either side did not seem probable. However the key points that emerged from Northern Ireland is the potential for manipulation or perception during pea ce negotiations, constructive ambiguity in the process allowed republican and unionist leaderships to offer different rewards to their communities. In this sense, Aggestams argument that an asymmetric conflict is resolvable when different rewards can be offered to each side emphasises on parity of esteem for the national aspirations and identities of unionists and Irish nationalists created a space in which self determination could appear to be realized without altering the status of Northern Ireland. However it is the adjustment to the perception of a conflict bases on symmetry of need, rather than resources and military will, that fostered a peace agreement in what was previously thought to be an intractable situation. References: Aggestam, K. (2002). Mediating Conflict. Mediterranean Politics. 7 (1), 69-91. Mack, A. (1975). Why big nations lose small wars:. The politics of asymmetric conflict. world politics, 27 (2), 175-200. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.libaccess.hud.ac.uk/stable/2009880?pq-origsite=summon. McAuley, J., McGlynn, C., Tonge, J. (2008). Conflict resolution in asymmetric and symmetric situations: Northern Ireland as a case study in. Dynamics of asymmetric conflict, 10 , 88-102. doi: 10.1080/17467580802284712. Mitchell, C.R. (1991). Classifying conflicts. Asymmetry and resolution. 518 , 23-38. Paul, T.V. (1994). Asymmetric conflicts: war initiation by weaker powers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Quinn, D., Wilkenfeld, J., Smarick, K., Asal, A. (2006). Power play: Mediation in symmetric and asymmetric international crises.. International interactions. 32 , 441-470. Rouhan, N. Fiske, S. (1995). Perception of power, threat and conflict intensity in asymmetric intergroup conflict:. Arab and Jewish citizens of Israel. Journal of conflict resolution, 39 (1), 49-81. doi: 10.1177/0022002795039001003.

Free Essays - The Phony Holden of Catcher in the Rye :: Catcher Rye Essays

The Phony Holden of Catcher in the Rye J.D. Salinger writes about a young man who is very distraught after World War II. In Salinger's only published novel The Catcher in the Rye he talks about a young man who does not understand society and the surroundings he lives in. He keeps referring back to how everyone and everything around him is a phony. He makes himself seem unreliable by telling the reader that he lies openly. In the novel Holden is what you would call an unreliable narrator. The definition of unreliable is - a person or thing that cannot be counted on or trusted. You cannot trust Holden if you know that he lies all the time. Since the reader knows that he is a habitual liar you may never know the difference from when he is telling the truth or when he is telling another one of his stories. Holden goes in and out of mental lapses throughout the novel that affected his mind and psychological state greatly. Holden is an unreliable narrator for many reasons. Holden tells the reader that he lies all the time and sometimes does not even notice that he is lying. Holden does not see things beneath the surface. Finally he is not mentally stable and feels very insecure about many things. Susan K. Mitchell's comments talk about how Holden is confused about the world and the people who are around him. He is an immature man who is still recovering from the effects the war had on him. He has also just failed out of school and so that has sent him into further depression. Holden sometimes contradicts his statements that he said earlier on and he doesn't realize it. "Holden is a man who does not practice what he teaches."(Mitchell 1) "You cannot believe what Holden says about his family after he has told you that he lies."(2) "Holden tells falsifications so often that he doesn't even realize whether he is lying or telling the truth."(2) Holden tells Sally he loves her, "It was a lie of course, but the thing is, I meant it when I said it."(2) "Since the book is told through the eyes of the narrator our observations are biased.

Religion and Morality Essay

(i)Examine the views of scholars concerning the idea that religion and morality are linked. In this essay I am going to be looking at all the different view points on why some people may think religion and morality are linked. I will talk about a few things that link them such as conscience, divine command ethics, Kant’s view and Aquinas’ view. Many people believe that morality is based upon religion and the rules written in the Bible and other holy books, although some say that religion is completely opposed to morality and it is wrong to mix the two. Some scholars believe there are three views on the relationship between religion and morality, one of them being that morality depends on religion. Religious leaders are expected to have extremely high standards of morality, R. B Braithwaite believes so, he states that ‘to be religious and to make religious claims is to be committed to a set of moral values’. Much religious language is the language of morality, and as we have seen religious believers have committed themselves to particular ways of behaving. Aquinas’ believed that if God exists morality exists and that God made humans only his image, ‘when we are good, we are reflecting God’s image’. He also believed that goodness on earth reflects on God’s morally good perfection, so because God made us based on his image, when we are good we are reflecting on his ‘perfect’ image. However Kant’s view is the opposite to this, he believed that if morality exists God must exist and that the highest of good is perfection, although no one is perfect, which means no one can be as good or great as God because he has this perfect image, and no one is perfect therefore cannot live up to those expectations. Kant’s argument was that for the existence of God based on the existence of morality: There must be a holy author of the world who makes possible the highest goods. Some people believe in Divine Command Ethics because they think that God’s authority is absolute and final, and that human reason has no authority. God tells us how to live, obedience is commanded. Disobedience to the word of God is a sin. He also thinks that the existence of God is necessary for the summum borum (which is the highest for of good) to be achieved, and that the summum borum is not achievable in this life, therefore the existence of God is necessary for the goal of morality to be realized. Another is that morality is independent of religion. Freud believed the conscience is a moral policeman. The internalized super-ego that controls and socializes human moral behavior. Capable of doing much damage to our mental health. Some people believe conscience has no supernatural origin, it is the product of how people are brought up. Parents and teachers, teach us right and wrong and we are effected by the environment we are brought up in. Everyone’s conscience is different depending on what they were taught and how they were raised and children, meaning they believe different things, and have different view points. Religion and morality is also linked by religious influences on moral matters. For example, a US abortion rights group have angered some conservative Christian groups by selling condom key rings that have a picture of Michelangelo’s Sistine chapel, with God handing Adam a condom. The president of the Christian group said ‘this does nothing to deal with the horrific promiscuity rate we have among teenagers. We believe the real approach particularly to the young people that this is targeted at is abstinence before marriage’. Another example is that CARE lobby for a reduction in the time limit for legal abortions, to 18 weeks, and against the growing swell of public opinion in favor of legalizing assisted suicide. Existentialists may argue without God morality is meaningless and ‘everything is permitted’. If this is true God is the guardian of morality. Without God moral chaos or anarchy would ensue. Some other reasons why people say that religion and morality are linked is that: Moral codes are derived from religion. Moral opinions are judged against religious teachings. Even secular society adopts or is influenced by religious moral teachings, for example, it seeks guidance from religious leaders in moral matters such as genetic engineering/abortion. In conclusion the strongest view to me is Social Conditioning, in which morality is independent of religion. I believe that peoples morality comes from the environment that they are brought up in, and the people around them such as parents and teachers. From a very young age we are taught what is right and wrong, and grow up respecting the law and people around us more than God. (ii)Comment on the view that religion and morality are not linked. Euthyphro’s Dilemma was that the problem of whether something is good because God commands it, or does God command that which is good. ‘Do that God’s love that which is holy, or is it holy because it is loved by the God’s’ – Plato. Almost all Christians will say something is good because God says so, his commands must be obeyed. A Christian’s dilemma is that either good is a whim or good is something that dictates to God. So if a Christian interprets that it is God’s will to murder, they think they are justified because it is God’s choice. A. C Grayling believes that religious morality is irrelevant to modern society because what people value has changed. He thinks that modern morality includes a great concern for human rights, animal welfare and the environment, not because of God but because of the instrumental value to themselves. Nietzsche has a view that Christianity is a disease on humanity and that morality is also a disease that imposes limits on human freedom. ‘Belief in God encourages ‘slave morality†. He believes that feelings of guilt, shame and remorse are forced upon us from the churches, and that we are made to feel bad for fulfilling our desires. ‘If more people believed in God there would be less immorality’ – R. A Sharpe believed this to be a misconception. He believes this because some churches teach that God hates homosexuals, or that contraception is wrong. A secular ethicist could argue that people are more likely to be morally responsible if God does not exist. If there is no afterlife then we should behave in this life as there will be no reward or punishment at the end, life is short, treat people well. I believe religion and morality are separate, being strong in one doesn’t make you strong in the other. I myself know not to murder someone, not because of a fear of God or that the Bible told me not to, but because I have been brought up to know it is wrong and against the law, and I do not wish to end up in prison. Although I don’t think it is the fear of punishment, it’s just in my heart not to want to hurt someone, not just my conscience and upbringing teaching me not too. People who claim that religion is their morality are basically saying that without the fear of going to hell they would have no motivation to follow the morals. R. A Sharpe believed that ‘If more people believed in God there would be less immorality’ is a misconception because he doesn’t believe that all Christian’s have the right morals. Another argument would be what if the divine changes his mind.. If God said that murdering children was the right thing to do, would it be?

Metamorphosis of Ishmael in Moby Dick Essay - 1005 Words

Metamorphosis of Ishmael in Moby Dick In Moby Dick by Herman Melville, Ishmael undergoes drastic changes in his personality and in the way he views life. Ishmael learns to accept people who are different and learns how to get along with people he never would of on land because of the way they look. On land, the worlds affairs are important but by taking a voyage on the Pequod, Ishmael learns to block out the importance of these affairs and free himself from the restraints put on him by society on land. Ishmael has founds a place more beautiful and more peaceful than anywhere on land by journeying out on the ocean. The changes Ishmael went through from land to sea were beneficial to him. Once Ishmael began voyaging on the†¦show more content†¦Once on the boat he thinks not of Queequeg as a savage cannibal, but as a friend. The ocean has helped Ishmael accept different people and view life in a different manner. In society, one sees what is going on in the world as important and always has to know the latest news, this causes a very stressful environment. One the Pequod and out at sea, Ishmael has learned that being free from society is most important. After being asked by Captain Peleg why he wants to go whaling, Ishmael answers, Well, sir, I want to see what whaling is. I want to see the world ( Melville 74 ). In this passage, Ishmael tells the reason why he is leaving from land to a journey out at sea. Ishmael has grown tired of life on land and wants to journey on the ocean while seeing the world with a sense of freedom. To be free, was Ishmaels goal from the beginning, he wanted to explore the ocean and go on an adventure away from the everyday world. I freely assert, that the cosmopolite philosopher cannot, for his life, point out one single peaceful influence, which within the last sixty years has operated more potentially upon the whole broad world, taking in one aggregate, than the high and mighty business of whaling (Melville 107 ). Ishmael has found his true love in whaling. Ishmael shows his new found love and respect for the business and has also found where peace lies. Ishmael gives this statement aboutShow MoreRelatedEssay about Desire in Herman Melville’s Moby-Dick2921 Words   |  12 PagesDesire in Herman Melville’s Moby-Dick Moby-Dick describes the metamorphosis of character resulting from the archetypal night sea journey, a harrowing account of a withdrawal and a return. Thus Ishmael, the lone survivor of the Pequod disaster, requires three decades of voracious reading, spiritual meditation, and philosophical reflection before recounting his adventures aboard the ill-fated ship.1 His tale is astounding. With Lewis Mumford’s seminal study Herman Melville: A CriticalRead MoreData Sheet Analysis for Kafkas Metamorphosis Essay4848 Words   |  20 Pages|goes off to country. No location is revealed, all we know is that it | | |is near a hospital and overlooks a busy street. But Kafka confined | |Title: Die Verwandlung (The Metamorphosis) |the action even further, stating that a majority of the action takes | | |place within Gregors room, described as a proper human room