In order to examine how well our textbook
categorizes political violence, I will be looking at the First Chechen War in
Russia. I classify this instance of political violence as a civil war, which is
defined by the textbook as “armed combat within the boundaries of a sovereign
state between parties that are subject to common authority at the start of
hostilities” (Samuels).
The
tenuous relationship that exists between the Russians and Chechens has roots in
the 19th century when the Russians expanded into the Caucasus.
Though forced into the Russian empire, the nation of Chechnya has always
desired its own sovereignty. In 1993, The Russian Federation's Republic of
Chechnya formally declared its independence. In response, the Russian
government sent in troops to prevent the Chechens from seceding. It took nearly
two years to reach a peace agreement. Tens of thousands of civilians were
killed, and over 500,000 were displaced (Global Security). This would not be
the last war between the Russians and Chechens, and the conflict persists to
this day.
I
believe that this specific incident of political violence encapsulates the
Samuels’ definition of a civil war. For nearly two years, there was armed
conflict between two parties that are subject to a common authority; in this
case, the Chechens and the Russians. Though the Chechens desire independence,
Russia does not recognize their sovereignty (nor does most of the world), which
makes them subject to Russian authority. It differs from a revolution because
the insurgents (the Chechens) lost, and Russia did not undergo any sort of
transition or wholesale political change. It also fits well with the textbook’s
explanation of the motivations behind civil wars – in this case, that would be
cultural grievances because the Chechens see themselves as a separate group of
people from the Russians.
I
think that definitions of political violence must be broad enough to capture
most conflicts. However, as every incident is slightly different, there is
naturally going to be overlap or cases that don’t perfectly fit into one
category. With that being said, I think the textbook definitions are pretty
solid at capturing most incidents of political violence without being overly
specific or being broken into too many separate terms. In this specific case,
the First Chechen War hits every mark of Samuels’ definition of a civil war.
REFERENCES
Global
Security. First Chechnya War. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/chechnya1.htm
(accessed November 8, 2012).
Samuels, David J. 2012. Comparative Politics. New Jersey: Pearson
Education
It would be interesting to reexamine the definition of a revolution in this case, as you have done with the definition of a civil war. When does "self-proclaimed" independence become strong enough to be considered a revolution?
ReplyDeleteI like that you explained the difference between civil war and revolution. One question though: Are the Chechens and Russians actively engaged in civil war today? Or do they go through cycles of violence and calm that have persisted into today?
ReplyDeleteAlong with what Emily said, I find very interesting what is occurring right now between Russia and Chechnya. It is almost like the civil war from back in 1993 has morphed into some kind of quasi-terrorism and revolution. There continues to be problems in that region and Chechnyans have claimed responsibility for terrorist attacks throughout Russia.
ReplyDeleteI agree with all the above comments. I wrote about the Moscow theatre hostage situation in 2002 when Chechen rebels took over 700 hostages and demanded that Russia pull its troops out of Chechnya. I agree that when it first started, the Chechen situation would probably be defined as a civil war, but has since morphed into a terrorism-based attempted revolution. It hasn't been successful, so it can't fully be called a revolution, but it's definitely turning to terrorism.
ReplyDelete