E. Exclusion
point to Russians in Estonia
not granted full rights of citizenship
encouraged to leave, but Estonia is their home too

F. Removal - either ethnic cleansing or forced assimilation
Srebenica
Native American tribes in the US
Forced assimilation - Basques in Spain

G. Genocide - a state-directed war against members of a specific ethnic or national group with the explicit objective of killing all or part of them
Ex: Armenian genocide in Turkey, 1915
How can we prevent any of these things from happening?

1. Citizenship should not be a reflection of ethnicity or nationality, but of where you call your home
ex: Germany
2. Greater protection for minority rights
3. How do we prevent genocide? Is it the leaders? Is it the whole population? Whom do we hold accountable?
UN established the clause outlawing genocide in 1948 - has it helped? Genocides have occurred since then.

TED GURR - ETHNIC CONFLICT ON THE WANE
ways to deal with separatist movements
encourage accommodation and negotiation
World community has new global strategy: CONTAIN ETHNIC CONFLICT AT ALL COSTS
Came after devastating wars in Balkans, and massacres in Rwanda

Now says - states should negotiate with separatist movements:
devolution of state power
is this developing an embryonic nation state and encouraging independence?
recognizing group rights
sharing power
real shift from confrontation ---> accommodation
basic agreement that managing ethnic conflict is an INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
Gurr notes that there are FEWER ethnic conflicts than ever before
he says, because they learned that negotiation with the state is much less costly
than violence

Few wars have started since 1993
Says, ethnic warfare may encourage SPILLOVERS
SPILLOVERS - when conflicts go beyond the parties involved, and disrupt neighboring nations
occurred in Sri Lanka, southern Sudan, and Nagorno-Karabakh. discuss these.

Gurr says governments are realizing that PREVENTATIVE action is the way to go.
so before ethnic groups FULLY MOBILIZE (talk about mobilization), sit down with ethnic leaders and negotiate a power-sharing agreement

Harder for ethnic leaders to start a rallying war cry, as most states have implemented measures to protect their minorities from oppression and discrimination
A new regime?
on how to handle ethnic crises, and how to respond to ethnic repression and violence
1. Protecting minority rights - freedom from discrimination, institutional remedies, allow them to exercise some autonomy

Creating autonomy is harder than banning discrimination. Many states are unwilling to give up power, like having centralized centres of power.

Also fear that autonomy will lead to secession and independence - some scholars agree.
However, Gurr maintains that autonomy VERY RARELY leads to independence. What do you think?

2. Democratize - it provides ways for minorities to secure their rights and have a say in the government
3. ethnic disputes are BEST settled by negotiation and mutual accomodation
example: Russia and Tatarstan.

FOUR factors lead to this regime being INSTITUTIONALIZED:
A. Atlantic democracies are promoting democratic institutions and practices all over the world. They provide good examples as well.
B. Engagement by the UN, regional bodies, interested NGOs on behalf of minority rights
OAU, O Islamic Conference, Council of Europe
C. Unanimous consensus among foreign policy scholars that we don't want war anymore, so do what you can to prevent it
D. The costs of conflict are too high.

OBSTACLES TO WORLD PEACE
It may seem like ethnic wars are all over the place - but that's because they get more attention than they did before
But, states do believe ethnic conflicts don't have to exist.
"The new liberal wisdom holds that sovereignty can be trumped by humanitarianism and that the international cavalry will ride to the rescue of minorities who face genocide." Is this true? Can we believe this?

International system has 3 main actors:
states
ethnic movements
regional and international organizations

Gurr argues states are still most powerful - can't prevent another Chechnya or Tibet
BUT they have to realize that they're not immune from the new world order either.

Gurr says some ethnic conflicts CANNOT be resolved until one side wins decisively. He gives the example of Sudan. Let's discuss Darfur for a bit.

Other ethnic conflicts might be technically resolved - but who knows how long the ceasefire will last.

Greatest challenges are in Africa

DRC causes massive problems, massive spillovers through the centre of the continent
hard to end these conflicts because many of the parties do not want to stop fighting

So this example, along with Kosovo, East Timor, and Chechnya depend on the POLITICAL WILL of the main actors to stop it.

DEFINE POLITICAL WILL. Willingness of state, organization, or actor to come to a peaceful resolution, in this case.

AFTER ETHNICITY-Gurr believes that ethnic conflict will become less prevalent over time.

He thinks ethnic groups will realize that they don't have all that much to gain from going to war or negotiating autonomy, and eventually this method of warfare will end.

He predicts it will be replaced by class warfare or faith-based warfare. Into some degree - support for mass movements is pretty interchangeable

POLITICAL ATTITUDES\-- concerned with the speed and methods of political change - radical, liberal, conservative, reactionary, particularistic: relative to the specific context of a given country

ex: nationalizing oil might be radical in the United States - but not in Iran or Norway
-- Distinct from political ideologies

Extreme left:
Radicalism
belief in dramatic, often revolutionary change of the existing political, social, or economic order ex: Marxists in 19th century Europe, sought to change all 3
-current system is BROKEN, cannot be SALVAGED
-- distrust slow, evolutionary change
old system, old institutions, old centres of power, must all be abolished to make way for newer, better order
-- some radicals say force and violence is necessary to achieve their goals, others disagree

Liberalism
attempt to change the political system for the BETTER
system is not BROKEN and CANNOT be repaired - it just needs to be improved
distrust radicals
do not want a rapid change in governmental system of government
liberals tend to favor INTERNATIONAL institutions like the UN - believe they can compel states to act in an ETHICAL fashion
only constant effort can create permanent change

Conservatism
distrusts change of any sort
says it's unnecessary- it's disruptive and leads to uncertain outcomes
the state and the regime are vital structures that should not be changed or reformed in any sense
stress continuity and stability above all else - i.e. status quo
change will cause more problems than it solves
Edmund Burke - conservative English thinker

three principles:
Humans need guidance and direction from traditional authorities for society to enjoy peace and stability, because humans are irrational
Argues that traditional authorities should pass on long-standing moral teachings through the family, religious institutions, and governmental laws
Insists that compliance with traditional morality is more important than individual liberty -- people should not have the freedom to violate moral precepts

Reactionary
do not like change BUT do not like the present much either
they want to turn BACK the clock and go back to a "simpler" time, when the state had more power
they want to reinstate old values
but usually, the past that they see is one that never really existed
will use force if necessary; many fundamentalisms are reactionary in nature
Talk about differences in radicalism, etc in various countries - US, Canada, China, Iran

POLITICAL IDEOLOGY
-- set of political values regarding the fundamental goals of politics
-- exemplified by five dominant modern ideologies: liberalism, social democracy, communism, fascism, and anarchy
distinct from political attitudes

LIBERALISM
Separate it from American politics - don't think Republican or Democrat
-- Liberalism originated during the time of monarchies
-- therefore, they wanted to REDUCE the power of the monarchs and have ELECTED, REPRESENTATIVE governments
-- classic liberalism believes that the INDIVIDUAL IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE STATE
-- wants freedom from the government to do what it wants
-- acknowledged this kind of liberty would result in a lot of inequality, not a bad thing
MODERN LIBERALISM -
-is a little bit different
- believes that government intervention into individual and social life is sometimes
necessary to prevent some individuals from denying freedom to others
-- liberty should be understood in broad, expansive, positive terms: as the liberty to develop human potential and contribute in a meaningful way to society
-- Economic inequality is to be regarded with suspicion, as a condition likely to
undermine the welfare of those who have lower incomes and thus erode their
chances of being free

COMMUNISM
- wanted a society that had no division of classes
-- Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote The Communist Manifesto in 1847 (was a critique of free market capitalism)
-- they envisioned a system where all the people owned the MEANS OF PRODUCTION (factories, etc), and that way, there would be no OPPRESSION of the worker classes
BOURGEOISIE VS PROLETARIAT
Marx's theory ran in stages - he believed in these:
A. There is a revolutionary overthrow of the capitalist system
B. Transitional state period known as the DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT, which was to be temporary
C. Eventually, once the economy was set back in place, the state would "wither away" and would no longer exist.
Obviously, this never happened - states who did try the revolution got stuck in Step B.
Communism was based on a few principles:
state ownership of industries was the best way to go
- workers would not be oppressed
- supply and demand could be conquered by a COMMAND ECONOMY (go over this)
individual freedom was not necessary once economic needs were met
a powerful state is a necessity to implement these measures
Examples: Soviet Union, China
However, power was abused (China's Cultural Revolution, Stalin's purges)
The ideal Marxist state was never attained.

SOCIAL DEMOCRACY
aka Socialism
supports private property and markets but believes that the state has a strong role to play
in regulating the economy and providing benefits to the public - seeks to balance freedom
and equality
Focuses on GENERAL WELFARE rather than INDIVIDUAL NEEDS, COOPERATION rather than COMPETITION
needs a state with strong capacity and autonomy to ensure greater economic equality
however - still recognizes the importance of individual freedom
best example: Norway and the Nordic countries

FASCISM
- argues in favor of a totalitarian state that regulates any and all parts of life deemed to be relevant to politics, as determined by state officials
talk about Life is Beautiful, the scene with the math and the derelicts
- Asserts that the state is more important than the individual
- rejects the idea that civil institutions should have an important role in limited the power of the states and in criticizing the laws of the states
- affirms that individuals are to gain a sense of purpose by psychologically identifying with a totalistic state and devoting themselves to service to that state
-rejects concept of equality, believed in elitism
- advocates nationalism and/or racism
- prevalent in 1920s and 1930s Europe in Italy (Mussolini) and Germany (Hitler)
- THE INDIVIDUAL EXISTS ONLY FOR THE NATION'S PURPOSES
Examples of Italian Legislation:
- A proclamation by Mussolini in 1928 announced that popular culture should reflect fascist ideals. Women would be forbidden to wear pants.
- A pronouncement in 1929 stipulated that publishers were to submit political manuscripts to fascist representatives for approval

ANARCHISM
- rejects the notion of the Westphalian state altogether
- stresses elimination of both state and private property to ensure freedom and equality for all
- believes that a high degree of personal freedom and social equality is possible
- anarchy has never been achieved INTENTIONALLY
So political ideologies all take stances on how freedom and equality should be balanced.
They all play a role in international relations and internal relations.

POLITICAL CULTURE
- basic norms for political activity in a society
- a determining factor in what ideologies will dominate a country's political regime
- unique to a given country or group
- distinct from political attitudes and ideologies
Political culture explains a country's choice of ideology
What is culture?
- basic institutions that help define a society
- tells people what is and what is not acceptable
- it creates identities - but people can either accept or reject culture
Political culture refers specifically to the basic norms for political activity in a society
There are those who dispute that a political culture even exists - because individuals have such widely different views.
However, I believe you can talk about a basic political culture
Examples: talk about Junker Germany and its predisposition for war
post-WWII Germany and its predisposition for coalition-building
free market liberalism of UK and US
contrasted against predisposition for authoritarianism in China
socialism in Scandinavia
sometimes, people say that Islamic countries are predispositioned towards autocracy
Political cultures may change - before, US was all about freedom
now, post 9/11, more about security
Europe: post-materialism
Post-materialism is an economic philosophy that emphasizes quality of life and environmental sustainability issues instead of earning income and material possessions.
says citizens should have a bigger voice in the government
society should be based on IDEAS, not ECONOMICS
environmental causes figure large here