Page 295 - Conflitti Militari e Popolazioni Civili - Tomo II

797
aCta
and social reasons, in reality they are exclusively fed by the predatory inclination of some
groups . According to Collier, economic analysis would disclose the deception showing
10
that justification by the rebellion is irrelevant and the only remarkable factor for the conflicts
explanation is the possibility that the organization can be financially sustained .
11
Both interpretations appear too restricted and insufficient in order to explain phenom-
enon’s as complex as wars. Thus, the “new wars” paradigm by Kaldor surely appears more
articulated, putting into evidence some indisputable marks of novelty of present conflicts.
But recently, this paradigm has also been put in discussion by some analysts that underline
the complexity of the “war” phenomenon and criticize a partial and incomplete vision of
its historical evolution. Jeremy Black, a military historian, shows a complete description of
conflicts since the end of the Second World War , highlighting many elements of continuity
12
among previous conflicts and those following the bipolar system. The greater erosion about
distinction between fighters and civilians, for instance, also characterized all interstate and
international conflicts since 1945, and therefore cannot actually be considered as a character
of absolute novelty. Another important aspect is to avoid an overly superficial distinction
among “old” ideological conflicts framed in the bipolar system and “new” conflicts caused
by ethnic hates, fundamentalisms and greed: in spite of the indisputable Cold War influ-
ence these conflicts owned autonomy in regards to causes, developments and consequences.
Observing all of these conflicts through the western paradigm of the Cold War, according
to Black, brings about a flattening of analyses because all the local dynamics, interests and
traditions are ignored. Ranzato noticed, since the end of the involvement of the United States
and the Soviet Union in these conflicts, their character of the classic civil war emerged, the
clash between internal factions for the power .
13
Kalyvas put in discussion the paradigm on the “new” wars in a more systematic way,
14
criticizing all the elements of distinction among old and new civil conflicts on which many
analyses are founded . These factors would be referable to three fundamental interrelated
15
dimensions: 1. Causes and motivations for war; 2. Popular support; 3. Type of violence.
Concerning the causes, theorists of the “new” wars assign a political and ideological
character to the conflicts of the past. The actors of “old” wars owned collective and, there-
fore, noble motivations; contrarily new actors are exclusively motivated by private interests.
Then, new wars are labeled as depolized and criminal while many studies underline how
insurgent groups operate in accordance with rational dynamics in regard to the territorial

10 With regard to this statement see Collier and Hoeffler, “Greed and Grievance” in Oxford Economic Papers
2004, 56(4) pp. 563-595 and all the studies ordered by the Mondial Bank that are available in the section
“publications” of the official website http://www.worldbank.org/ (last consultation 10/04/2008).
11 P. Collier, “Economic Causes of Civil Conflict and their Implications for Policy”, in Crocker, Hampson,
aall, Leashing the Dogs of War: conflict management in a divided world, USIP Press Books 2007.
12 Black Jeremy, War since 1945, london, Reaktion Books, 2004.
13 Ranzato G. “Un evento antico e un nuovo oggetto di riflessione.” in G. Ranzato (ed.), Guerre fratricide. Le
guerre civili in età moderna, torino, Bollati Boringhieri, 1994.
14 Kalyvas S., “New” And “Old” Civil Wars: A Valid Distinction? World Politics, Volume 54, N. 1, october
2001, pp.99-118.
15 In his essay the author criticize many analysts as Kaldor, Kaplan, Enzensberger, Collier, Duffield, Keen,
Holsti and luttwack.