Tag: peace

Posted on

655: ROLE OF GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP IN CONFLICT RESOLUTION AND PEACE-BUILDING

 

Presented my paper at the seminar at Dayananda Sagar University, Bangalore on 21 Apr 25.

 

In an increasingly interconnected world, conflicts are no longer confined to national borders. The impact of wars, social unrest, and political disputes extends beyond individual nations, affecting global security, economic stability, and human rights. In this context, global citizenship emerges as a tool and an empowering force for conflict resolution and peacebuilding. Regardless of nationality, global citizens recognise their shared responsibility in fostering dialogue, promoting human rights, and encouraging sustainable peace. This article explores global citizenship’s critical and empowering role in resolving conflicts and building a more harmonious world.

Understanding Global Citizenship. Global citizenship refers to an awareness of the interconnectedness of people across national, cultural, and economic divides. It involves recognising shared responsibilities for global issues, advocating for human rights, and engaging in social activism to create a more just and peaceful world. Unlike traditional citizenship, which is tied to nationality, global citizenship transcends borders and emphasises collective action for global challenges, including conflict resolution and peacebuilding.

 

Causes of Conflict in the Modern World

To understand the role of global citizenship in conflict resolution, it is essential to analyse the root causes of conflicts. Common factors include:-

Ethnic, Religious, and Cultural Divisions. Deep-seated historical grievances and prejudices often create tensions, leading to violent clashes: nationalist ideologies, sectarianism, and identity-based discrimination further fuel societal divisions and unrest.

Economic Disparities. Widespread poverty, unemployment, and unequal distribution of resources generate frustration and social unrest. Marginalised communities may resort to protests or violence when they lack access to economic opportunities.

Political Instability.  Corrupt governance, authoritarian regimes, and weak democratic institutions undermine trust in leadership. This instability can lead to civil wars, insurgencies, or military coups, disrupting peace and security.

Human Rights Violations. Systemic discrimination, oppression, and inequality provoke resistance movements and uprisings. Repressive regimes that curtail freedoms often face mass protests, which can escalate into violent conflicts.

Climate Change and Resource Scarcity. Environmental degradation leads to competition for essential resources like water and arable land. Disputes over shrinking resources often escalate into violent territorial or inter-communal conflicts.

Geopolitical Power Struggles. Superpower rivalries and proxy wars intensify global instability. Nations engage in conflicts to assert dominance, often using smaller states as battlegrounds for ideological and strategic competition.

 

The Role of Global Citizenship in Conflict Resolution

By addressing Conflict through Global Citizenship, promoting education, advocacy, and cross-cultural dialogue, global citizens can help bridge divides. Supporting diplomacy and sustainable policies fosters long-term peace and conflict resolution.

Promoting Cross-Cultural Understanding and Tolerance. One fundamental way global citizenship aids conflict resolution is by promoting tolerance and intercultural dialogue. Many conflicts arise from misunderstandings, stereotypes, and historical grievances. Through global education initiatives, international exchange programs, and cultural diplomacy, global citizens help bridge divides and encourage mutual respect.

Advocating for Human Rights and Social Justice. Global citizens are crucial in advocating for human rights and challenging injustices contributing to conflict. Organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch raise awareness of human rights abuses and pressure governments and institutions to uphold international norms. By amplifying the voices of marginalised communities, global citizens not only help address the grievances that often lead to conflict but also foster a sense of empathy and compassion in the global community.

Strengthening International Institutions and Multilateral Cooperation. Global governance institutions, such as the United Nations (UN), the International Criminal Court (ICC), and regional organisations like the African Union (AU) and the European Union (EU), play a critical role in conflict resolution. Global citizens support these institutions by advocating for international treaties, peacekeeping missions, and diplomatic initiatives. Civil society groups, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and grassroots activists engage with these institutions to ensure their effectiveness in maintaining global peace.

Engaging in Grassroots Peace Initiatives. While governments and international bodies play a significant role in conflict resolution, local peacebuilding efforts are equally important. Community-based reconciliation programs, interfaith dialogues, and nonviolent resistance movements help prevent and mitigate conflicts at the local level. Global citizens contribute to these efforts by participating in peace education programs, volunteering in conflict-affected regions, and supporting initiatives that empower local peacebuilders. This emphasis on grassroots initiatives is designed to make the audience feel engaged and involved in the peacebuilding process.

Economic Justice and Sustainable Development. Economic inequalities and resource scarcity are major drivers of conflict. Global citizens support fair trade policies, ethical business practices, and sustainable development initiatives that reduce economic disparities. Programs such as microfinance, impact investing, and corporate social responsibility (CSR) projects create economic opportunities and reduce tensions in conflict-prone areas.

Diplomacy and Conflict Mediation. Diplomatic efforts and mediation are crucial in resolving disputes before they escalate into violence. International organisations, such as the UN and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), often mediate conflicts between nations and communities. Global citizens can engage in diplomatic efforts by supporting negotiation processes, promoting dialogue-based solutions, and advocating peaceful conflict resolution strategies.

Harnessing Technology for Peacebuilding. Technology and social media have become powerful tools for conflict resolution and peace advocacy. Online platforms enable global citizens to mobilise support for peace initiatives, share real-time information about conflicts, and counter misinformation. Initiatives like digital storytelling, peace-focused online campaigns, and artificial intelligence (AI) for conflict prediction have revolutionised peacebuilding efforts worldwide.

Post-Conflict Reconstruction and Reconciliation. After conflicts subside, rebuilding societies and fostering reconciliation is essential for lasting peace. Global citizens support post-conflict reconstruction efforts by participating in humanitarian aid projects, advocating for truth and reconciliation commissions, and ensuring war-torn regions receive the necessary resources for rebuilding. Programs that reintegrate former combatants into society promote mental health support for war victims and establish memorials to acknowledge past atrocities to help prevent the recurrence of conflicts.

 

Case Studies: Global Citizenship in Action

The Role of Global Citizens in the South African Reconciliation Process. After decades of apartheid, South Africa’s transition to democracy was facilitated by global advocacy, grassroots activism, and international diplomatic pressure. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) played a significant role in addressing past injustices. Global citizens contributed to this process by supporting anti-apartheid movements, engaging in international sanctions against the regime, and promoting reconciliation initiatives.

The Syrian Refugee Crisis and Global Solidarity. The Syrian civil war displaced millions of people, creating one of the largest refugee crises in modern history. Global citizens responded by advocating for humanitarian assistance, volunteering in refugee camps, and pressuring governments to provide asylum and support. Organisations like the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) and grassroots initiatives helped resettle displaced communities and provide essential services.

The Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland. The Good Friday Agreement, which ended decades of conflict in Northern Ireland, was facilitated by diplomatic negotiations, public engagement, and peacebuilding efforts. International mediators, civil society organisations, and global advocacy groups were crucial in fostering dialogue between conflicting parties. The success of this agreement demonstrates the power of global citizenship in supporting diplomatic and nonviolent conflict resolution.

 

Challenges to Global Citizenship in Conflict Resolution

While global citizenship plays a crucial role in peacebuilding, it faces several challenges:

Political Resistance. Many governments view global governance mechanisms as threats to national sovereignty and resist international cooperation. Nationalist policies often prioritise domestic interests over global peace efforts, making it difficult to establish common frameworks for conflict resolution. This resistance weakens institutions like the United Nations, limiting their effectiveness in peacebuilding.

Misinformation and Propaganda. The rapid spread of fake news and biased narratives distorts public perception of conflicts, fueling divisions. Governments and interest groups manipulate information to justify aggressive policies, making it harder to foster mutual understanding. Misinformation can erode trust in diplomatic efforts and escalate tensions rather than promote peaceful solutions.

Economic and Political Interests. Nations frequently prioritise economic and strategic interests over peace initiatives, leading to prolonged conflicts. Arms trade, control over resources, and geopolitical rivalries often overshadow humanitarian concerns. Countries may exploit conflicts for economic gain or to expand their influence, undermining global citizenship’s role in promoting stability.

Limited Resources for Peacebuilding. Many peace initiatives suffer from inadequate funding and institutional backing, limiting their impact. Due to financial constraints, international organisations and grassroots movements struggle to sustain long-term peace efforts. Mediation, humanitarian aid, and educational programs cannot effectively address the root causes of conflicts without sufficient support.

Despite these challenges, global citizenship remains vital in fostering peace through advocacy, dialogue, and education. By promoting cross-cultural understanding and supporting grassroots initiatives, individuals and organisations can counter misinformation, pressure governments for ethical policies, and contribute to building a more just and peaceful world.

 

Conclusion

In an era of globalisation, conflict resolution and peacebuilding require collective action beyond national boundaries. Through education, activism, diplomacy, and economic justice, global citizens play an essential role in addressing the root causes of conflict and fostering lasting peace. By promoting cross-cultural understanding, supporting international institutions, engaging in grassroots initiatives, and leveraging technology for peace, individuals and communities worldwide can contribute to a more just, peaceful, and interconnected world. The future of global conflict resolution depends on global citizens’ commitment to upholding principles of justice, human rights, and sustainable development.

 

Please Add Value to the write-up with your views on the subject.

 

1210
Default rating

Please give a thumbs up if you  like The Post?

 

For regular updates, please register your email here:-

Subscribe

 

 

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

Pics Courtesy: Internet

Disclaimer:

Information and data included in the blog are for educational & non-commercial purposes only and have been carefully adapted, excerpted, or edited from reliable and accurate sources. All copyrighted material belongs to respective owners and is provided only for wider dissemination.

 

References:-

  1. Benhabib, Seyla. “The End of Sovereignty? Global Citizenship and Democratic Attachments.” Public Culture, vol. 19, no. 3, 2007, pp. 27-39.
  1. Keck, Margaret E., and Sikkink, Kathryn. “Transnational Advocacy Networks in International Politics.” International Organization, vol. 48, no. 4, 1998, pp. 99-120.
  1. Richmond, Oliver P. “The Dilemmas of Peacebuilding: The Liberal Peace and Beyond.” International Peacekeeping, vol. 16, no. 5, 2009, pp. 74-97.
  1. Tarrow, Sidney. “The New Transnational Activism.” Cambridge University Press, 2005, pp. 45-72.
  1. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Human Development Report 2020: The Next Frontier – Human Development and the Anthropocene. New York: UNDP, 2020.
  1. UNESCO. Global Citizenship Education: Preparing Learners for the Challenges of the 21st Century. Paris: UNESCO, 2015.
  1. World Economic Forum. The Future of Global Governance: Strengthening Multilateralism for Sustainable Peace. Geneva: WEF, 2019.
  1. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Global Order 2025: The Future of International Cooperation. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Endowment, 2018.
  1. Amnesty International. Annual Report on Human Rights and Global Justice 2022. London: Amnesty International, 2022.
  1. United Nations Peacekeeping. “The Role of UN Peacekeepers in Conflict Resolution.”
  1. Oxfam International. The Role of Civil Society in Peacebuilding. Oxfam, 2021.
  1. The Elders. “A Call for Ethical Leadership in Global Governance.” The Elders, 2022.
  1. Appiah, Kwame Anthony. Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2006.
  1. Falk, Richard. On Humane Governance: Toward a New Global Politics. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1995.
  1. Kaldor, Mary. New and Old Wars: Organized Violence in a Global Era. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2012.
  2. Sen, Amartya. Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2006.
Posted on

584: CONTEMPORARY WARS THROUGH THE LENS OF GALTUNG’S THEORY

 

Pics Courtesy Net

 

My Article published on the Life of Soldier website on 17 Jan 25

 

In the 21st century, war and conflict have evolved significantly. From interstate wars to protracted civil conflicts, the causes and consequences of contemporary violence are deeply complex. Johan Galtung, a peace and conflict studies pioneer, provides a theoretical framework uniquely suited to analyse these modern wars. His conflict theory, encompassing the conflict triangle, structural and cultural violence, and distinctions between negative and positive peace, offers hope for a comprehensive understanding of conflicts and pathways to resolution. This article explores how Galtung’s theory can be applied to analyse and address contemporary wars, focusing on cases such as the Russia-Ukraine war and the Israel-Hamas conflict.

 

Galtung’s Conflict Theory

 

Johan Galtung’s Conflict Theory is foundational peace and conflict studies framework. Galtung, a Norwegian sociologist and the discipline’s founder, developed theories to understand conflict dynamics and pathways to sustainable peace. His most influential contributions include the conflict triangle, the concepts of structural violence, and distinctions between negative peace and positive peace.

 

 

Galtung’s Conflict Triangle. Galtung describes conflict as having three interrelated components, often visualised as a triangle. The first component, the Attitudes (A), includes the perceptions, emotions, and assumptions that parties hold about each other, usually shaped by prejudice, fear, or hatred. The second Behaviour (B) is the actions taken by parties, such as violence, protests, or negotiations. The third segment is the Contradictions (C), i.e. the underlying incompatibilities or structural issues, such as resource disputes or unequal power distributions. For sustainable peace, all three corners of the triangle must be addressed. Resolving the structural root causes (contradictions) without addressing hostile attitudes or violent behaviour might lead to a fragile and temporary resolution.

 

Types of Violence. Galtung expanded the concept of violence beyond direct physical harm. He categorised violence as direct, structural, and cultural. Direct violence is observable physical or verbal aggression, such as war, assault, or terrorism. Structural violence is indirect harm embedded in societal structures, such as poverty, discrimination, and inequality, which systematically disadvantage certain groups. Lastly, cultural violence is the result of cultural norms and values that justify or legitimise violence, such as ideologies, religions, or traditions that perpetuate oppression. Structural and cultural violence often underpin direct violence. Addressing these forms of violence is essential for creating lasting peace.

 

Negative Peace vis-a-vis Positive Peace. Negative peace is the absence of direct violence (e.g., a ceasefire or truce). While it stops immediate harm, underlying issues may remain unresolved. On the other hand, positive peace is a holistic state where structural and cultural violence is also eliminated, leading to a just and equitable society. Peace-building efforts should aim for positive peace by transforming societal systems and relationships rather than ending immediate hostilities. Achieving positive peace not only stops violence but also addresses the root causes of conflict, creating a more stable and just society.

 

Conflict Transformation. Unlike conflict resolution (which seeks to end conflict) or conflict management (which seeks to control it), Galtung emphasises conflict transformation, which involves addressing the root causes and creating conditions for long-term peace and harmony. At the heart of Galtung’s theory, this approach is crucial for understanding and resolving contemporary wars, enlightening us about the importance of addressing the underlying issues and keeping us informed about the complexities of peace and conflict studies.

 

Multilateral organisations like the UN can use Galtung’s theory to design peace processes and post-conflict rebuilding efforts. Analysing Inequalities can help identify systemic injustices that contribute to conflicts. Education and advocacy can provide a lens to critique cultural norms and challenge violent structures.

 

Understanding Russia-Ukraine War through Galton’s Conflict Theory

 

Analysing the Russia-Ukraine war through Johan Galtung’s Conflict Theory offers a structured way to understand the root causes, dynamics, and potential pathways to resolution. We can dissect this complex conflict by using Galtung’s conflict triangle, concepts of violence, and distinctions between negative and positive peace.

 

Galtung’s Conflict Triangle. The three components—contradictions, attitudes, and behaviour—highlight the interplay between the conflict’s structural roots and immediate manifestations.

 

    • Contradictions (Structural Causes). Historically and geopolitically, Ukraine’s position as a buffer zone between Russia and the West (NATO/EU) has created long-standing tensions. Russia perceives NATO expansion as a threat to its security, particularly with Ukraine’s aspirations for NATO/EU membership. Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the conflict in Donbas (eastern Ukraine) reflect disputes over territorial sovereignty and self-determination. Control over natural resources, pipelines, and strategic ports, particularly in Crimea and the Black Sea, adds to the structural causes.

 

    • Attitudes (Perceptions and Narratives). The Russian perspective is a historical closeness to Ukraine influenced and shaped by shared cultural, linguistic, and religious ties. Its nationalist rhetoric frames Ukraine’s Western alignment as a betrayal and existential threat. The Ukrainian perspective points to a strong drive for independence and self-determination, with resistance to Russian domination. It sees growing alignment with Western values and institutions as a pathway to sovereignty and development.

 

    • Behaviour (Observable Actions). Observable actions include Russia’s military invasion of Ukraine and Ukraine’s resistance through armed defence. They also include international diplomacy, appeals for Western support, sanctions on Russia, military aid to Ukraine, and diplomatic efforts to de-escalate the conflict.

 

Types of Violence. Galtung’s framework identifies direct, structural, and cultural violence in the war.

 

    • Direct Violence. This includes military aggression, missile strikes, sieges, and combat operations resulting in civilian and military casualties. It resulted in the displacement of millions of Ukrainians due to attacks on civilian areas.

 

    • Structural Violence. Economic disparity between regions (e.g., eastern Ukraine vs. the rest of the country) exacerbates local grievances. Russian control of occupied areas imposes governance that marginalises Ukrainian identity and rights. Western sanctions against Russia, while aimed at reducing aggression, create hardships for ordinary Russians, particularly marginalised groups.

 

    • Cultural Violence. Both sides use propaganda and rhetoric in the form of nationalist narratives that justify violence or delegitimise the opponent’s position. Competing narratives about Ukraine’s identity and sovereignty deepen the divisions.

 

Negative Peace vs. Positive Peace. Negative Peace (Ceasefire/Absence of war), i.e. a cessation of direct violence, might be achieved through ceasefires or peace agreements, but without addressing underlying causes, hostilities could reignite (e.g., post-2015 Minsk Agreements). Positive peace (Structural Transformation) would be achieved by acknowledging Ukraine’s sovereignty while addressing security concerns for Russia. An inclusive framework would have to be created to address ethnic and linguistic diversity in Ukraine (e.g., the rights of Russian-speaking minorities). Trust must be rebuilt through cultural and educational exchanges to counter divisive narratives. Institutional reforms would ensure economic and political stability in Ukraine, reducing vulnerabilities to external manipulation.

 

Conflict Transformation Strategies. Galtung’s emphasis on conflict transformation rather than resolution suggests a need for holistic approaches.

 

    • Multi-Level Dialogue. Engaging Russia, Ukraine, NATO, and other stakeholders in genuine negotiations prioritising long-term stability over short-term gains. Including civil society and regional actors in peace-building efforts.

 

    • Rebuilding Trust and Cooperation. Addressing Russian fears of NATO expansion with security guarantees. Establishing international frameworks for shared governance of contested areas like Crimea or Donbas.

 

    • Economic and Social Reconstruction. International support is needed to rebuild Ukraine post-war and ensure equitable development. Addressing energy dependency and economic grievances that fuel tensions.

 

    • Countering Cultural Violence. Challenging nationalist and antagonistic narratives through media, education, and cultural initiatives. Promoting shared historical understanding and reconciliation efforts.

 

Through Galtung’s lens, the Russia-Ukraine war is not just about military aggression but a deep-rooted conflict shaped by structural inequalities, hostile attitudes, and geopolitical contradictions. Achieving sustainable peace requires moving beyond negative peace (ceasefire) to positive peace (addressing root causes). This would involve transforming systems of inequality, reframing narratives, and fostering cooperative international relations.

 

Understanding Israel-Hamas War through Galtung’s Conflict Theory

 

Understanding the Israel-Hamas conflict through Johan Galtung’s Conflict Theory allows one to analyse the underlying causes, ongoing dynamics, and potential paths toward resolution. This protracted and deeply rooted conflict can be delved into by applying Galtung’s conflict triangle, concepts of violence, and distinctions between negative and positive peace.

 

Galtung’s Conflict Triangle. Its three components—contradictions, attitudes, and behaviours—offer a framework for examining this conflict.

 

    • Contradictions (Structural Causes). The conflict over land, particularly Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories (West Bank, Gaza), is a core issue. The blockade on Gaza and disputes over East Jerusalem exacerbate tensions. Differing claims to the same land are based on historical, religious, and political narratives. Palestinians in Gaza face significant restrictions under the Israeli blockade, including limited access to resources, employment, and healthcare. Ongoing settlement expansions in the West Bank undermine the viability of a two-state solution. Divisions within Palestinian leadership (e.g., Hamas in Gaza and the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank) hinder cohesive representation in negotiations.

 

    • Attitudes (Perceptions and Narratives). Israeli perspective highlights the fear of existential threats, given Hamas’s stated aim of opposing Israel’s existence and history of attacks on civilians. A perception that security measures, including the blockade and military actions, are necessary for survival. Palestinian perspective includes resentment over dispossession, systemic inequality, and perceived denial of their national and human rights—narratives of resistance against occupation and framing Israeli actions as colonial and oppressive. Decades of violence, asymmetric power dynamics, and failed negotiations have entrenched mistrust and hostility on both sides.

 

    • Behaviour (Observable Actions). This includes Israeli military operations, airstrikes, and ground incursions in Gaza. Hamas rocket attacks on Israeli cities and other forms of armed resistance. Cycles of escalation and de-escalation are often influenced by external actors (e.g., the U.S., Egypt, and Iran).

 

Types of Violence. Galtung’s classification of violence highlights the multifaceted nature of the conflict.

 

    • Direct Violence. Examples of direct violence are physical attacks and bombings by both sides, resulting in civilian and combatant casualties. Indiscriminate rocket fire from Gaza targeting Israeli cities. Military operations destroyed in Gaza and loss of life.

 

    • Structural Violence. The blockade on Gaza restricts freedom of movement, trade, and access to essential services, contributing to widespread poverty and humanitarian crises. Settlement expansions in the West Bank create conditions of displacement and inequality—unequal access to legal rights, resources, and political representation for Palestinians.

 

    • Cultural Violence. Religious and nationalist narratives that justify actions on both sides. For example, it claims that divine rights grant exclusive control over the land—narratives framing the “other” as inherently violent or illegitimate. Educational materials and media perpetuate stereotypes and deepen divisions.

 

Negative Peace vs. Positive Peace.  Negative Peace (Absence of Direct Violence), i.e. temporary ceasefires or truces, has been achieved through external mediation but failed to address root causes. Examples include the 2021 ceasefire and previous agreements mediated by Egypt or Qatar.  Whereas Positive Peace (Structural and Cultural Transformation) would involve addressing underlying issues, such as Lifting the blockade on Gaza, enabling economic and social development, halting settlement expansion, ensuring equitable access to resources and establishing mechanisms for coexistence, justice, and reconciliation.

 

Conflict Transformation Strategies. Galtung’s emphasis on conflict transformation suggests a need for systemic and relational changes.

 

    • Addressing Structural Causes: Internationally mediated solutions to establish a fair and sustainable framework for coexistence, such as a two-state or one-state solution; economic initiatives to improve living conditions in Gaza and the West Bank.

 

    • Rebuilding Trust and Addressing Narratives. Promoting dialogue initiatives between Israeli and Palestinian communities. Countering hate speech and fostering narratives highlighting shared humanity and potential for coexistence.

 

    • Inclusive Negotiations. Engaging all stakeholders, including Hamas, despite its controversial designation as a terrorist organisation by many countries, to ensure meaningful representation. External Mediators: Leveraging the influence of regional powers (e.g., Egypt, Turkey) and international actors (e.g., the U.S., UN) to facilitate equitable negotiations.

 

Through Galtung’s lens, the Israel-Hamas conflict highlights a deeply rooted struggle involving structural inequalities, hostile attitudes, and cyclical violence. Sustainable peace requires addressing direct, structural, and cultural violence and transforming the systems and narratives perpetuating the conflict. Moving toward positive peace would involve creating conditions for justice, equity, and mutual recognition.

 

Conclusion

 

Johan Galtung’s conflict theory provides a valuable framework for analysing and addressing contemporary wars. By examining contradictions, attitudes, and behaviours and addressing direct, structural, and cultural violence, pathways to sustainable peace can be imagined. While challenges remain significant, a focus on positive peace can transform cycles of violence into opportunities for reconciliation and coexistence. These contemporary war studies illustrate the urgency and relevance of applying Galtung’s insights to modern conflicts, offering hope for a more peaceful future.

 

Please do Comment.

 

1210
Default rating

Please give a thumbs up if you  like The Post?

 

Link to the article on the website:-

Contemporary Wars Through The Lens Of Galtung’s Theory

 

For regular updates, please register your email here:-

Subscribe

 

 

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

References:-

  1. Galtung, Johan, and Dietrich Fischer. Constructive Conflict: From Escalation to Resolution. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2013.
  1. Galtung, Johan. Peace by Peaceful Means: Peace and Conflict, Development and Civilization. Oslo: PRIO, 1996.
  1. Barash, David P., and Charles P. Webel. Peace and Conflict Studies. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2018.
  1. Ramsbotham, Oliver, Tom Woodhouse, and Hugh Miall. Contemporary Conflict Resolution: The Prevention, Management and Transformation of Deadly Conflicts. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2016.
  1. Menon, Rajan. Conflict in Ukraine: The Unwinding of the Post-Cold War Order. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2015.
  1. International Crisis Group. Russia and Ukraine: Preventing Further Escalation. Crisis Group Europe Report No. 260, 2022.
  1. Khalidi, Rashid. The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine: A History of Settler Colonialism and Resistance, 1917–2017. New York: Metropolitan Books, 2020.
  1. Human Rights Watch. Israel-Palestine: Events of 2022. Human Rights Watch Annual Report, 2023.
  1. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). Global Conflict Trends and Analysis. Accessed December 2024. https://www.sipri.org.

Disclaimer:

Information and data included in the blog are for educational & non-commercial purposes only and have been carefully adapted, excerpted, or edited from reliable and accurate sources. All copyrighted material belongs to respective owners and is provided only for wider dissemination.

Posted on

512: PEACE AND SECURITY IN SOUTH ASIA: BANGLADESH AND MYANMAR

 

 

My Article published on IIRF (Indus International Research Foundation) site

 

South Asia is one of the world’s most populous and geopolitically significant regions. A complex web of ethnic, religious, political, and territorial disputes makes maintaining peace and security in the region a big challenge. Bangladesh and Myanmar, two key countries in this region, face specific regional stability challenges. These include ethnic conflicts, refugee crises, political instability, and militant threats. Both nations’ security dynamics also have wider implications for neighbouring countries, especially India, China, and Southeast Asia.

 

Critical Issues

 

Ethnic Conflicts and the Rohingya Crisis. Myanmar’s Rohingya Crisis has been one of the most significant security challenges in recent years. The Rohingya Muslim minority in Myanmar’s Rakhine State has faced decades of persecution, which culminated in a military crackdown in 2017 that was widely condemned as ethnic cleansing. Over 700,000 Rohingya fled to neighbouring Bangladesh, creating one of the largest refugee crises in recent history. Bangladesh provided temporary refuge in the Cox’s Bazar area. The strain on its resources, coupled with fears of radicalisation and the Rohingya population’s vulnerability, raised concerns over the long-term security and stability of the region. The inability to repatriate the Rohingya to Myanmar due to Myanmar’s refusal to guarantee safety, citizenship, or basic rights continues to fuel tensions.

 

Myanmar’s Political Instability and Civil War. Myanmar’s political situation worsened after the military coup in February 2021, which ousted the civilian government led by Aung San Suu Kyi and re-imposed military rule. The coup triggered widespread civil disobedience movements, violent military crackdowns, and growing armed resistance by ethnic militias and the newly formed People’s Defense Forces (PDF). The country is now in the grips of a low-intensity civil war, where several ethnic armed groups (Kachin, Karen, Shan, etc.) have intensified their fight for autonomy. The instability in Myanmar has made it a hotspot for human rights violations, arms smuggling, and cross-border tensions. The situation has created refugee flows into neighbouring countries, particularly Thailand and India, and has raised fears that Myanmar could become a haven for terrorist networks and drug trafficking.

 

Islamic Extremism and Terrorist Threats. Bangladesh has faced sporadic issues with Islamic extremism, with groups like Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB) and other more minor factions trying to radicalise youths. These groups have been responsible for attacks on secularists, bloggers, and foreigners, raising concerns about the growth of extremism in a relatively moderate Muslim-majority country. Although the Bangladeshi government had taken steps to curb militancy, the risk of radicalisation within specific sectors of society, particularly in refugee camps (housing the Rohingya), poses a long-term threat to regional security.

 

Border Management and Illegal Activities. Bangladesh-Myanmar border areas have been hotspots for illegal activities, including arms trafficking, human trafficking, and drug smuggling. The porous borders and the lack of effective governance in these areas complicate efforts to maintain peace and security. The spread of narcotics such as methamphetamines from Myanmar into Bangladesh and other neighbouring countries has become a severe issue, contributing to organised crime and funding insurgent groups.

 

Geopolitical Competition and Influence. South Asia is an arena for geopolitical competition between major powers like China, India, and the United States. All of these powers have interests in maintaining stability in the region but also pursue policies driven by strategic competition. China’s growing influence in Bangladesh and Myanmar complicates regional dynamics. Myanmar’s military regime has long had close ties with China, which provides diplomatic support and economic investments. Meanwhile, Bangladesh has also seen increased Chinese investment, primarily through the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). India, which has historical and strategic ties with Bangladesh and shares a long border with both countries, seeks to counterbalance Chinese influence. India supports the return of democracy in Myanmar, but its ability to directly influence the political outcomes in either country remains limited. The United States has also increased its attention on South Asia as part of its Indo-Pacific strategy, which aims to contain China and promote democratic governance. Washington has imposed sanctions on Myanmar’s military leaders post-coup, but it is also seeking to strengthen ties with Bangladesh, particularly in areas of security cooperation and economic development.

 

Enhancing Peace and Security

 

 

Regional Cooperation and Multilateral Engagement. Addressing the interconnected security challenges in Bangladesh and Myanmar requires robust regional cooperation. Organisations like SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation) and ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) can play a role in conflict resolution, refugee management, and addressing cross-border threats such as terrorism and trafficking. ASEAN, of which Myanmar is a member, has struggled to mediate the crisis post-coup. However, ASEAN’s efforts to establish dialogue with Myanmar’s military and other stakeholders must be enhanced to prevent the country’s further isolation and encourage a peaceful resolution. Bangladesh can benefit from broader multilateral forums like BIMSTEC (Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation), which includes Myanmar, to promote economic cooperation and discuss transnational security threats.

 

Resolving the Rohingya Crisis. The Rohingya refugee crisis is central to the peace and security dynamics between Bangladesh and Myanmar. Bangladesh’s diplomatic efforts to resolve the crisis should focus on resolving the issue through the United Nations, ASEAN, and bilateral talks with Myanmar. More significant international pressure on Myanmar is needed to ensure a safe and dignified repatriation process for the Rohingya. However, this will require Myanmar’s willingness to provide citizenship rights and security guarantees.

 

Combating Extremism and Transnational Terrorism. Bangladesh must continue its successful counter-terrorism initiatives, such as intelligence sharing, policing reform, and de-radicalisation programs, to mitigate the threat of extremism. Regional cooperation on counter-terrorism between Bangladesh, Myanmar, India, and other neighbouring states is crucial, especially in curbing cross-border terrorist movements and dismantling terrorist financing networks.

 

Political Stability and Democratic Transitions. Supporting democratic transitions in Myanmar is critical to long-term stability. Diplomatic efforts should bring various ethnic groups and political stakeholders, including the military and opposition groups, to the negotiating table for a political settlement. Bangladesh’s democratic institutions must be supported in maintaining the rule of law, good governance, and political inclusivity, as these are critical factors in preventing the growth of extremism and unrest.

 

Peace and security in Bangladesh and Myanmar remain precarious, influenced by internal political strife, ethnic conflicts, and cross-border security threats. The Rohingya crisis stands as a pivotal issue that affects both countries and needs a coordinated international response. Moreover, Myanmar’s internal conflict following the military coup has destabilised the region, raising fears of spillover effects, including refugee flows, terrorism, and illegal trafficking. Enhanced regional cooperation, international engagement, and sustained humanitarian support are essential in promoting stability in this part of South Asia. Bangladesh’s efforts in combating terrorism and maintaining political stability should be supported, while Myanmar requires a long-term strategy to achieve peace and move towards democratic governance. Without sustained international pressure and multilateral diplomacy, these challenges may continue to undermine the security of the entire region.

 

Suggestions and value additions are most welcome.

 

Link to the article:-

https://indusresearch.in/peace-and-security-in-south-asia-bangladesh-and-myanmar/

 

1210
Default rating

Please give a thumbs up if you  like The Post?

 

For regular updates, please register here:-

Subscribe

 

 

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

References:

  1. “Khandakar Tahmid Rejwan”, Myanmar’s Civil War: Security Implications for Bangladesh, Stimson, 26 jun 24.

 

  1. Sreeparna Banerjee, “The Rohingya Crisis and its Impact on Bangladesh-Myanmar Relations, Issue Brief, Observer Research Foundation, 10 May 23.

 

  1. Sagarika Dutt, “Peace and Development in South Asia: Problems and Prospects”, Sage Journals. 02 Jan 24.

 

  1. Jubaida Auhana Faruque, “A Civil War in Myanmar, a Regional Threat to South Asia”, BIPSS, Jul 21.

 

  1. Prothom Alo, “Myanmar’s conflict and implications for Bangladesh and the region”, BIPSS Policy Circle, 22 Feb 24.

Disclaimer:

Information and data included in the blog are for educational & non-commercial purposes only and have been carefully adapted, excerpted, or edited from reliable and accurate sources. All copyrighted material belongs to respective owners and is provided only for wider dissemination.

 

English हिंदी