The role of diasporas in conflict.

• Author: Roth, Amanda
• Position: Andrew Wellington Cordier Essay

The manner in which nation-states, borders, identities, and conflicts are conceived of in the post-Cold War era is drastically different than the system that dominated much of the twentieth century. One of the most visible physical manifestations of increasing globalization is the movement of people across borders; approximately 232 million people live outside of their birth country, and this number does not include subsequent generations. (1) This migration of people is accompanied by an increased flow of ideas and communication, and one significant outcome of this is the rising influence of diaspora groups. These groups are unique in the connections they maintain to both their homelands and the host countries in which they resettle. Diaspora groups, such as the Irish, Kurdish, and Somali diasporas, among others, have emerged at the forefront of a new discussion on the nature of international relations, and, more specifically, international conflict. A distinct change in the way conflicts begin and develop means that a new framework is needed for examining them, and diasporas provide a new lens through which to look for solutions to many violent conflicts in the world today. Some scholars have cautioned that diaspora involvement in the affairs of the homeland, such as Jewish-American involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, risks exacerbating internal conflict. However, diaspora groups can also serve as powerful mediators and work to promote peace. This paper argues that the rising influence and importance of diaspora populations make them significant players in twenty-first century conflicts. Rather than focusing on their ability to sustain and prolong conflict, the potential of diasporas to promote peace and serve as forces for the de-escalation of conflict must be examined and encouraged. This can be accomplished by looking at the reasons for their increased prominence, the manners in which they have aided conflict, and their prospects for helping with conflict mediation.

DEFINING DIASPORA

The definition of diaspora varies greatly, as do the groups to which the term is applied. Increasingly, the term "diaspora" is used to encompass immigrants, displaced communities, expatriates, refugees, and others. Scholars Yossi Shain and Aharon Barth offer a common, broad definition, describing a diaspora group as "a people with a common origin who reside, more or less on a permanent basis, outside the borders of their ethnic or religious homeland." (2) The term "diaspora" implies something different than the terms "immigrants" or "refugees," indicating that members of the group in question maintain links to their country of origin; attempt to retain dual levels of identity; and preserve political, cultural, and religious interests in their homeland. (3) In addition, diasporas differ from a transnational relationship because they refer not only to people linking the home state with a specific host state, but also to the link between the various groups residing outside the country of origin throughout the world. The case of the Kurdish diaspora, which links people from multiple states of origin who now reside in multiple host states, illustrates this. (4) Originally, the word diaspora referred exclusively to the Jewish population, and this is still often seen as the archetypal example. (5) More recently, however, the term has been expanded to include a multitude of ethnic groups; in fact, "recently, at least thirty ethnic groups declare themselves or are described by others as diaspora." (6) Although many differences exist among diasporas--for instance, some are living outside their home state while others, such as the Kurds, are "stateless"--a number of specific characteristics make diaspora groups an important factor in current international relations. The relationship diasporas maintain to their homelands, the influence they wield in their adopted countries, and their relative economic strength, among other characteristics, contribute to their significant role in conflict promotion or prevention.

A CHANGE IN THE NATURE OF CONFLICT AND THE INCREASED IMPORTANCE OF DIASPORAS

Both the number and importance of diasporas have increased dramatically in the twentieth century due to a variety of factors in a changing world order. Firstly, the nature of conflict fundamentally changed over the course of the twentieth century. The vast majority of conflicts since 1989 have been intra-state rather than interstate. Between 1990 and 2007, there were only nine interstate wars, meaning that intrastate wars comprise a much larger percentage of global conflict. (7) Concurrent with this change have been changes in the reasons for which conflicts occur. Conflicts are now focused more on identity groups than on nation-states. These identity groups may be based on racial, ethnic, religious, or cultural divisions, but they rarely conform to nation-state boundaries. As scholar Jolle Demmers notes, these conflicts are characterized both by their political goals--which are not traditional causes of war in terms of foreign policy interests, but rather are issues such as ethnic homogeneity and self-determination--and by their ideologies, less focused on political principles such as democracy or communism, and instead looking toward identity politics, religion, or cultural differences. (8) The majority of recent conflicts occur in economically and politically weaker states, where governments often have less control over their territory, and the means by which they are fought have changed as well: Rather than large, conventional armies, recent conflicts are often carried out by irregular forces and militias.

All of these changes have important implications for the rise of diaspora populations. On a basic level, intrastate conflicts often pose increased danger to civilians, who are more likely to be intentional targets of violence in civil war. (9) Especially in protracted civil wars, this means that more people are likely to flee, creating large refugee flows and growing diaspora groups. (10) More importantly, this shift in the nature of conflict has opened up a new political realm for diasporas to occupy. While conflicts are frequently no longer between nations, the idea of nationalism has become in many ways de-territorialized. As Shain points out, the "center of the nation-state ideal is the belief that people with a distinct character should possess their own territory. Thus, over time, a world consisting of independent nation-states should, by definition, obviate such phenomena as separatist movements and diasporas." (11) However, in a globalized world, territory and identity are no longer irrevocably linked. Rather than the demise of nationalism that many scholars predicted with the rise of globalization, many groups are instead beginning to conceive of their nationalism in a delocalized way. Demmers argues that "we are witnessing the construction of transnational national communities." (12) In this way, even as violent conflicts are moving toward...