Site Loader

      To what extent
have ‘new wars’ have emerged in recent decades

 

 

New war is a term derived by Mary Kaldor, who belongs
to United Kingdom and is an academic researcher and professor. New war includes
violence between state and non-state actors, fight between identity and
ideology. War is the only mean to stop the conflict. They are usually fought between
two opposing states or more than two states. Wars in early times were fought
with mercenary powers including thousands or millions of humans. WW1 and WW2,
world has faced a devastating loss of human life which are counted in millions
of deaths and thousands missing till the day. Post world war wars a little
different which are often named as new wars. They include heavy weaponry and
proxy wars. Which were once a great tool for USA and USSR in post-world war
which was named as cold war. These proxy wars are fought in many ways. Some are
through diplomacy, intelligence agencies, feeding the terrorist and ideological
mind-sets such as capitalism and communism. New decades, wars have turned
themselves into very highly advanced ways in which most of world is indulged
like terrorism, cyber-attacks, wars through the media and ideological wars also.
These wars are somehow called organized violence.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

 

 The idea that
twenty-first century organised violence is different from the wars of the
twentieth century has been widely debated in both the scholarly and the policy
literature. Various terms have been used to conceptualise contemporary conflict
– wars among the people, wars of the third kind, hybrid wars, privatized wars,
post-modern wars as well as new wars(Angstrom, 2003). New Wars are the wars of
the period of globalization. Ordinarily, they occur in zones where tyrant
states have been enormously debilitated because of opening to whatever is left.
In such settings, the refinement amongst state and non-state, open and private,
outer and interior, monetary, political, war and peace are separating. In addition,
the separate of these paired refinements is both a reason and an outcome of
savagery.

 

  By differentiate, in
‘new wars’ the warring gatherings are systems of state and non-state performing
artists sorted out in free even coalitions as opposed to progressive military
associations. These can incorporate normal armed forces and police or parts of
the state security administrations, party volunteer armies, warlords,
highwaymen, soldiers of fortune, private security organizations, radicals,
self-protection gatherings et cetera. The political objectives are about
personality legislative issues – that is to state, the claim, of possessing to
control and to the state contraption on the premise of a mark, be it ethnic,
tribal or religious  or sectarian
skirmishes like Shia and Sunni rather than geopolitical (occupied sea or access
to oil) or ideological, to advance communism or majority rule government. New
wars are different from the old wars. The idea behind this phenomenon is logically
very different. Wars in this era is no more standing against the enemy on the borders.
New wars are the combinations of state and non-state actors. old wars were
fought for the geopolitical interest. Now wars wore the slogans of identity
race and ethnicity. The point is to get the occupying state for specific
reasoning that might be both nearby and transnational as opposed to operations
that are targeted and projects that are more venerable open intrigue. The
ascent of personality governmental issues is related with new interchanges
innovations, with relocation both from nation to town and over the world, and
the disintegration of more comprehensive (regularly state-based) political
belief systems like communism or post-pilgrim patriotism

  

      In the cases of
Afghanistan, Angola and Mexico the new war thesis provides an effective framework
for analysing the role of the decline of the state, the rise of globalised war
economy and the availability of natural resources in the development and
duration of civil wars. The new war thesis suggests that countries, such as
Afghanistan, Angola and Mexico, are characterised by poor governance,
widespread corruption, failing economy, high unemployment and proximity to
natural resources, which makes them more vulnerable to violent conflicts.
Moreover, the withdrawal of foreign sponsorship at the end of the Cold War
motivates belligerents, who find themselves in the zone of turmoil, to seek alternative
sources of revenue (Le Billon 2005: 43). Indeed, in Afghanistan and Angola
belligerents profit from theft of oil and extraction of gems and diamonds.
Similarly, in Mexico belligerents profit from drug trade and export. Thus, the
new war thesis provides some interesting insights into the consequences of the
decline of the state, the growth of the globalised war economy and the
exploitation of natural resources as means to sustaining the war effort in the
zone of turmoil (Snow 1996: 11). The civil wars in Bosnia, Cambodia and Rwanda
are characterised by the deliberate targeting of civilians, the violation of
human rights, the use of rape as a tool of war, and the ethnic cleansing of whole
group of societies. These patterns of victimization are appalling; however,
they are not new. Warfare in the 20   century
did not move from an ethos of chivalry among uniformed soldiers to one of
barbarity among warlords and militias (Newman 2004: 184). Contemporary clashes
are altogether different from the contentions of the twentieth century like the
two world wars and the Cold War. However, it has required a long investment for
strategy producers to understand that these ‘new wars’ require an alternate
arrangement approach. Indeed, even because US arrangements, a type of new
deduction has risen in light of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In any case,
the Petraeus precept, which offers need to ‘populace security’, isn’t the same
as the human security approach that is rising in Canada, Japan and the EU. Old
wars, or counter-uprising ideas, still win in Afghanistan, and, all the more as
of late, in Pakistan.

  

  The ‘new wars’ proposal pulled in various
scrutinizes. Maybe the steadiest feedback was that new wars are not new and
that the ‘new wars’ writing does not have a chronicled viewpoint. Most of the attributes
of new wars (banditry, populace relocation, assault and other human rights
infringement) were available in prior wars. The strength of the Cold War, it
was contended, veiled the proceeding with predominance of ‘little wars’ or
‘low-force wars’, which were much the same as ‘new wars’. While a significant
part of the authentic contention depended on narrative confirmation, there were
likewise some factual studies that recommended that albeit ‘old war’
unquestionably is declining, there is no proof of an expansion in ‘new wars’.
Despite what might be expected, since the finish of the 1990s, there has been a
decrease in a wide range of contention and in the quantity of individuals
slaughtered in fight. There is some debate about whether the proportion of
regular citizen to military setbacks is expanding, because non-military
personnel loss measurements are famously poor. In any case, it is grudgingly
surrendered that the level of populace uprooting per struggle is expanding, although
the general level is diminishing alongside the decrease in clashes.

    ‘New considering’
in the US was likewise impacted by the immediate experience of Iraq and
Afghanistan. US General David Petraeus had dependably been a piece of the
‘little wars’ scholars – a minority in the US Army and Marines. The ‘new
considering’ rose from various officers who had been dynamic on the ground in
these wars yet it was Petraeus who made it standard in the surge in Iraq and in
this way in Afghanistan. As in Europe, the new scholars swung to the ‘new wars’
writing so as to outline their new methodologies. In any case, ‘new
considering’ in the US isn’t the same as human security thinking in the EU. The
US demands that their new approach is counter-uprising. While counter-fear
mongering signifies ‘executing adversaries’, counter-insurrection, they say,
signifies ‘populace security.’ The suggestion is that the objective is still to
vanquish the foes of the US, and that ‘populace security’ is a way to that end
instead of an end. In this sense, there is as yet a huge dash of ‘old war’
thinking – something that Petraeus himself promptly concedes. A human security
approach for many nationals of the world is almost the same at it will treat
all the humans equal no matter where ever they live and will not take civilians
as enemies to each other. It is much of concern to defeat attackers to provide
safety for humans. There must be a win win situation against the violence
stoppage. Concept of new wars is not legally understandable as it might give birth
to counter insurgency not end to it.

            

References:

 

Angstrom, J 2003 Introduction. In: Angstrom, J et al The
Nature of Modern War: Clausewitz and his Critics Revisited. Stockholm:
Department of War Studies, Swedish National Defence College.

 

Le Billon, P., 2005. Fuelling War: Natural Resources and
Armed Conflict. London: Routledge

 

Snow, D.M., 1996. Uncivil Wars: International Security and
the New Internal Conflicts. London: Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc

 

Newman, E., 2004. The „New Wars? Debate: A Historical
Perspective is Needed. Security Dialogue. 35(2), pp. 173-189

 

 

 

 

Post Author: admin

x

Hi!
I'm Erica!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out