Blog 8: Aceh Freedom Movement

Blake Brown
PLSC 150
Blog #8: Political Violence

Like many terms in the realm of political science, political violence has been defined and categorized in various ways. One category of political violence, civil war, is defined by David J. Samuels as, “armed combat within the boundaries of a sovereign state between parties that are subject to common authority at the start of hostilities.”1 Definitions of these different types of political violence are subject to debate and can only find strength through real-life application. The instance of political violence in Aceh, Indonesia undoubtedly supports Samuels’ definition of civil war as if fulfills all of the requirements, opportunities, and interests associated with civil war.
Indonesia is a country of ethnic diversity. One especially potent ethnicity is that of the Acehnese. These people originate from the province of Aceh, located on the northern tip of the island of Sumatra. At the expulsion of Dutch colonial rule in the mid-19th century, Aceh reluctantly joined the creation of the Indonesian state. As a result of exploitation by the Javanese majority government, and other cultural grievances, conflicts eventually led to violence by the creation of GAM (Gerakan Aceh Merdeka, “Aceh Freedom Movement”) in 19762.
According to Samuel’s definition, in order for an instance of political violence to be considered a civil war, it must satisfy two main requirements. The first requirement for civil war is “armed combat within a sovereign state.”1 More specifically, armed combat must result in at least 1,000 deaths and be sustained for at least one year1. The violence that occurred between the armed forces of GAM and the Indonesian government easily fulfills this requirement. Deaths attributed to this conflict reached 1,000 in 1990-1991 and 2000-2002. From 1998 to 2003 the conflict caused an estimated 4,300 deaths, well over the mark designated by Samuels2. The sustained amount of war surpassing the one year requirement is reflected in three incarnations of GAM (1976-1979, 1989-1991 and 1999)2.  The second qualification requires both parties to be subject to “common authority” before violence occurs1. Despite its reluctance, Aceh had in fact submitted to a central Indonesian government with its creation in the 1940’s2.  By meeting both of the requirements stated by Samuels, the Aceh instance provides strong support for his definition of civil war.
In Samuels’ book, Comparative Politics, he specifies that civil wars will often be associated with three specific opportunities, all of which had influence in the Acehnese conflict1. The first, colonial legacy, was a very evident influence for the Acehnese civil war. After the Dutch abandoned their rule in Indonesia, the former colonies attempted to band together in a single state. This was problematic considering Aceh’s strong sense of independence and its autonomous past. In the second incarnation of GAM, the second opportunity, the international context, played a crucial role. After their defeat in 1979, GAM relocated to Sweden where they solicited the help of the Libyan government. Libya provided much needed training and monetary support that fueled the civil war from 1989-19912.  Geography was the final opportunity that influenced the emergence of civil war. Aceh is a very mountainous region that provided the ability for the GAM army to conduct guerilla warfare against Indonesian forces.
Samuels’ also enumerates three interests of civil war that are supported by the Aceh conflict2. First and foremost, cultural grievances constituted a significant interest for the people of Aceh to participate in civil war. Of all the grievances held by the Acehnese people, the lack of faith in the credibility of the Central Indonesian government was by far the most influential. Throughout the years of conflict, the central government had frequently come short of promises to increase Aceh’s level of autonomy2. In combination with this grievance, pressure to join and individual psychology represented two other strong interests for the Acehnese people to engage in civil war.  Initially GAM was required to use coercive tactics to foster support. It often held family members of those who dodged joining GAM hostage and tortured many others. However, eventually a psychology of vengeance emerged with the orphaned children of those killed by the Indonesian army and by 2001 GAM held control of 80 percent of the villages of Aceh2.
The validity of Samuels’ definition of civil war is strongly supported by the example of the Aceh conflict in Indonesia.  It provides real-life evidence of all the components that structure his definition. This definition is precise and true in the fact that it provides requirements, opportunities, and interests that are common to civil war.


1. David J. Samuels, Comparative Politics (New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc., 2013), 259-268.
2. Michael L. Ross, Understanding Civil War: Resources and Rebellion in Aceh, Indonesia (Washington, DC: World Bank, 2005), 35-58, accessed November 8, 2012, http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/ross/ResourcesRebellion.pdf.

Patria o Muerte: The Cuban Revolution

The Cuban Revolution

            In 1959, Cuba saw Fidel Castro rise to power after six years of guerilla warfare. The Cuban Revolution meets the definition given by David J. Samuels in Comparative Politics. The revolution fits so well with the definition; it almost appears as though Cuba was used as the model to write the definition. However, there are some problems with the author’s definition, which I will discuss later.

            The Cuban Revolution began in 1953, when Fidel Castro and a group of about eighty people attacked the Moncada barracks in Santiago, far away from the capital. The attack failed miserably. Most of the rebels were killed or imprisoned. Castro and his brother survived, but were put into prison. Fulgencio Batista, the president of Cuba, was losing support from the population. Under political pressure, he was forced to release all political prisoners, which included the two Castro brothers. In 1956, Castro once again began to form a rebellion, recruiting from the rural mountainous areas of Cuba (Encyclopædia Britannica).

            While Castro may have had the support of the rural population, his actual army was incredibly small. Because his army was so small, sometimes only a few hundred fighters, most battles were small skirmishes for the first two years. As Fulgencio Batista, the president, continued to crack down on Castro supporters, he lost support from the United States government, who withdrew their support. Castro was able to smuggle in arms to Cuban revolutionaries, and by 1959 took control of Cuba (Encyclopædia Britannica).

           

            The Cuban Revolution fits the author’s definition of a revolution because both the insurgents and the state claimed allegiance of a significant proportion of the population. Batista had the military, and Castro had the rural population. It also meets the criteria of authority being forcibly transferred from the state to the insurgents. Finally, it meets the criteria of the insurgents subsequently bringing about wholesale political change. Cuba went from being a capitalist country to being a communist state. There aren’t many changes more dramatic than that (Samuels).

            The Cuban Revolution fits well with the author’s definition, but there is a certain flaw. The definition doesn’t account for when a revolution begins. Castro claims that the revolution began with the attack on the Moncada barracks. That attack failed, as did many more skirmishes afterwards. At what point are small attacks classified as political violence? This definition only focuses on the results, which makes it difficult to classify violence as it occurs.

REFRENCES

"Cuba." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online Academic Edition. Encyclopædia                       Britannica Inc., 2012. Web. 09 Nov. 2012. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/145542/Cuba.

Samuels, David J. 2012. Comparative Politics. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Political Violence: Genocide in Australia

Political Violence: Genocide in Australia

Australia isn’t known for much political violence in their past.  Their transformation to a separate country from Britain was not done through a revolution, and there have been no civil wars that I can find. However, after some searching there is a disputed case of genocide within the Australian history.  This was known as the aboriginal genocide.  “White settlers killed some 10,000 blacks in Queensland between 1824 and 1908.” (Tatz)  Often when thinking of genocide people may be inclined to think of death camps and other forms of mass systematic killing.  However this is not necessarily the case in Australia.  According to a report in the Journal of Genocide Research, “Aboriginal children were abducted for use in forced labor, women were raped and tortured and given poisoned flour, and the men were shot. They were systematically disposed of in ones, twos and threes, or in dozens, rather than in one planned, full-scale massacre.” (Tatz) In the textbook genocide is defined as, “a deliberate and coordinated effort to eliminate all members of a particular ethnic, religious, or national group through mass murder.” (Samuels)  In this specific case there are many parts of the definition which fits the scenario.  The killings were very deliberate which can be seen in the before mentioned article.  Poisoned flour is a case of very deliberate planning in order to achieve the death of certain individuals.  Furthermore, this was done in order to eliminate a very specific group of people: the aboriginal people. The part that may be contested is the mass murder.  As stated before there were no death camps in Australia; however I would argue that this case does deal with mass murder.  Although it wasn’t all done at the same time there were many deaths for the same reason in a short period of time.  This can be seen as a mass murder for this was the intention of the people. The definition the book provides seems to be an effective one in this instance and as a suitable definition for the act of genocide as political violence.

Works Cited

Samuels, David J. Comparative Politics. San Francisco: Pearson Education, Inc, 1967.

Tatz, Colin. “Genocide in Australia.” Journal of Genocide Research Vol.1 Iss. 3 1999.

Blog 8: Political Violence

            Since the 17^th Century, when the British Empire succeeded in annexing Northern Ireland from the rest of the country, the area has been in a state of conflict between the Protestants and the Catholics in the area. In this modern day, and in a developed area such as the British Isles,  religious conflict, it seems, should be a trifling matter. However, or at least according to the Irish revolutionaries and the widespread violence that is in the area, it is far from trifling. In fact, this conflict goes much deeper than religion, but hails to the poor way in which the British have historically treated their Irish neighbors. Many of those people in Northern Ireland feel underrepresented in Parliament, and have wanted to rejoin with the Republic of Ireland for over a century.  Recently, since various treaties between formal rebellion groups and the UK government, most of the fighting now occurring is guerilla style, but no less politically motivated than it was before.

            Are the variety of revolts that have occurred in Northern Ireland revolutionary movements, or are they civil wars. Let us define these two types of conflict. According to the textbook, civil war is “armed combat within the boundaries of a sovereign state, between parties that are subject to the same authority at the start” (Samuels), however, unlike a revolution, which produces wholesale political change, no change is made by the insurgents, at least not directly because of a civil war. So the main difference between a civil war and a revolution is the end result. The conflict in Northern Ireland, one would probably consider immediately to be a civil war, but wait, there are a few parts of revolution that it fits too. A revolution is between insurgents and the state, both of whom enjoy some popular support (Samuels). Northern Ireland is almost 50/50 Catholic/Protestant. Throughout much of the last century, when fighting was at its worse, the entire region was polarized between the two factions: the Irish Insurgents, and the State.

            Besides this, since the 1990’s, when peace talks began, though not all power was transferred to the insurgents, in 1995, the British and Irish created the Anglo-Irish Proposal for Peace, which focused on setting-up a self-government in Northern Ireland, similar to the one in Scotland (Northern Irish Conflict). This promise of change smacks of some success of the insurgents, though not wholesale change, it is change that is directly caused by the acts of the insurgents. However, not much has come of this peace proposal, instead, since 2000; there has been a stalemate of sorts within Northern Ireland.

            Given these evidences, I would say that the definitions of Revolution and Civil War, as stated in the textbook, though good, do not quite fit to the case of Northern Ireland, who, due to the peace talks with England, has been stalemated in the transition stage between  civil war and revolution. If things were to go the wrong way, Northern Ireland could easily have a revolution. For now though, it is simply a civil war.

Imbornoni, Ann M., Borgna Brunner, and Beth Rowen. "Northern Ireland Conflict: A Chronology." Infoplease. Infoplease, n.d. Web. 07 Nov. 2012. <http://www.infoplease.com/spot/northireland1.html>.

Samuels, David J. Comparative Politics. Minneapolis: Pearson, 2011. Print.

Blog 8: Categorizing Political Violence in the Rwandan Genocide

           

Currently in the social sciences there is a struggle to create accurate and effective definitions. However it is difficult to find a definition that everyone agrees on and can look to. Political violence is one of these disputed definitions. Because it is so disputed it has a plethora of definitions. Different authors define political violence differently, which can cause problems when trying to explain and understand concepts related to political violence. Samuels defines political science as “the use of force by state or non-state actors to achieve political ends” (Samuels 258). Yet Business Dictionary gives us a very different definition, “Armed revolution, civil strife, terrorism, war, and other such causes that can result in injury or loss of property.” These different definitions can lead to confusion and mixed results when analyzing what political violence is.

            One example of political violence is the Rwandan genocide. The Rwandan genocide in 1994 was promulgated by the Hutus against the Tutsis. The Tutsis had long been the minority that was in power over the Hutus. The Hutu’s resented the Tutsis power over them, and chose to rise up against the Tutsi’s after the Hutu President was killed in 1994. This led to the mass genocide of the Tutsi’s by the Hutus with over 800,00 Rwandans killed in less than 100 days (BBC News 2008). It is hard to fit this massacre of people into either of the above definitions of political violence.

The Rwanda genocide doesn’t fit very well into either of the above definitions of political violence. The Rwanda genocide started because of ethnic tensions between the Hutus and Tutsis. The Hutus and Tutsis have a long history of political violence. But the catalyst that brought the genocide was the death of the Hutu president. It was rumored that the Tutsi’s had killed him. However, the Hutus goal wasn’t “achieve political ends.” Rather, they were simply angry at what had happened and wanted revenge. The second definition is a little better, because it includes civil strife and injuries in political violence. However it is so broad that it is hard to narrow and focus to help explain the Rwanda genocide. People who look at that definition would not draw the link from political violence to the Rwandan genocide because there are so many different variables.

However, if someone said political violence under the category of genocide, then it would make more logical sense. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum defines genocide as “violent crimes committed against groups with the intent to destroy the existence of the group.” This definition makes more sense if we used the two definitions with each other. For example, we could do a definition of “the use of force (state or non-state) with the intent to destroy the existence of another group.” This definition would explain political violence and its relation to genocide. The other definitions failed to make this link, especially because the Hutus weren’t striving for political changes, just to eradicate their worse enemies. This definition is more clear and concise, and is relevant to genocidal political violence.

In conclusion, the definitions that we have now are ineffective when trying to explain political violence from genocide, especially when looking at the Rwandan genocide. However, this can be changed by creating a definition that explains the situation better. I created a new definition that would be more effective, especially in cases of genocide, where they are not always pushing for a certain political change, rather just to get revenge.   

REFERENCES:

BBC News. 2008. Rwanda: How the genocide happened. http://news.bbc.co.uk

/2/hi/1288230.stm 10007043 (accessed November 9, 2012).

Business Dictionary. 2012. Political violence. http://www.businessdictionary.com/

definition/political-violence.html#ixzz2BiA5TNn4 10007043 (accessed November 9, 2012).

Samuels, David. 2013. Comparative politics. New York: Pearson Education. Print.

United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. 2012. What is genocide? http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007043 (accessed November 9, 2012). 

Political Violence: Egypt

Tony Castagno

9 November 2012

Professor Hawkins

Pl Sc 150

Blog 8: Categorizing Political Violence

            When categorizing political violence there are four main types to choose from: Interstate war, civil war, revolutions, or terrorism.  These topics and definitions can be broad when looking at specific individual cases.  I will categorize the political violence that took place and is still taking place surrounding the Arab Spring and the democratization of Egypt.

            The history of the Arab Spring in Egypt began in January in 2011(UCDP, 2012).  After witnessing the Tunisian demonstrations and the fall of their president, Egypt began protesting against their own dictator Hosni Mubarak. Hundreds of thousands of Egyptians came out in public protest against their government.  They were met with harsh resistance and over the course of the year; hundreds of people had lost their lives.  Things turned in favor for the protestors when the government military force turned and sided with the protestors.  Mubarak was forced from power and the Egyptian government is still in the process of holding elections and democratizing the government they currently have (UCDP, 2012).

            When reading about the Arab Spring in Egypt, one would automatically think that this is classified as political violence.  Though it has aspects of the definitions of political violence, according to Samuels, it really is not.  Political violence is defined as, “the use of force by states or non-state actors to achieve political goals”(Samuels, 2012).  Along with the general definition, the Egyptian rising may be considered a revolution.  Samuels definition of Revolutions is “armed conflicts within a sovereign state between insurgents and the state, in which both the insurgents and the state claim the allegiance of a significant proportion of the population; authority over the state is forcibly transferred from the state to the insurgents, and the insurgents subsequently bring about wholesale political change” (2012). Though the Egyptian revolution was not nearly as drastic as this definition may seem, many of the causes of revolutions were present within Egypt such as state weakness and widespread popular grievances. The Egyptian incident wasn’t as bloody and the French Revolution or as large as the American Revolution, but a democracy is beginning to grow from the actions of the citizens in Egypt. 

            Though Samuels definitions can be used to define revolutions and political violence, his definitions seem to require more drastic violence and bloodshed to actually count for anything.  That doesn’t seem fair to the people of Egypt who truly made a huge leap is defending their rights and defying a vicious dictator. 

REFERENCES

Department of Peace and Conflict Research. UCDP conflict encyclopedia: Egypt. http://www.ucdp.uu.se/gpdatabase/info/Egypt%20and%20the%20Arab%20Spring.pdf (accessed November 9, 2012).

Samuels, David J. 2012. Political violence. In Comparative politics, 257. New York        City: Pearson.

            

Blog 8

Categorizing Political Violence

In 1996, “Civil War” broke out in Nepal. However, if we study the definition of civil

war, along with definitions of other forms of political violence, questions arise. What really

is civil war? Do acts of political violence always fall into a clear-cut category? Are the

definitions of political violence all-inclusive and comprehensive? This blog will attempt to

look at the very isolated event of the Nepalese Civil War to answer these questions.

The story of the Nepalese Civil War is fairly simple. In 1996, a group called the

Maoist Communist Party of Nepal started a guerilla war in the Midwest part of the country.

The rebels were a group of members of the former 1949 Communist Party of Nepal. The

title of Maoist came because they “claimed an ideological legacy from the Chinese

Revolutionary leader Mao Zedong.” (BIPPI). The rebel group basically demanded an end to

the monarchy. After about 8 years of war and 15,000 deaths, the war came to an end with

the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Accord. The treaty compromised greatly with the

Maoists by making steps towards a new democracy and by giving the insurgents say in the

happenings of the new government.

According to the textbook, a civil war is combat within the boundaries of a state

between parties subject to common authority. The “Nepalese Civil War” fulfills that

guideline. They occur within the boundaries of a single country, they last at least a year,

and have at least 1,000 casualties. The war we are looking at fulfills all of these definitions.

So according to the textbook, this war could easily be classified as a civil war. (Samuels).

But what if we look at the definition for a revolution? A revolution is an armed

conflict within a sovereign state between insurgents and the state. The Nepalese Civil War

fulfills that definition. The insurgents and state must claim the allegiance of a significant

amount of the population. The Maoist party held the allegiance of a large amount of the

population. The insurgents must bring about wholesale political change. The country of

Nepal started as a monarchy, and ended as a new democracy. And the state’s authority

must be forcibly taken by the insurgents. This is the only point that is up for debate.

(Samuels). Obviously this was a large war, many people died, there was a large amount of

force being exerted, but was it force that overthrew the government? The war ended with a

After looking at both of these definitions, it seems to me that the Nepalese Civil War

might be better categorized as a revolution. Unfortunately, the defining of key concepts like

political warfare is very difficult and not very clear.

"Nepalese Civil War." Wikepedia. Wikepedia, 27 2012. Web. 8 Nov 2012.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepalese_Civil_War>.

"Nepalese Civil War – 1996/2006." BIPPI. BIPPI, n.d. Web. 8 Nov 2012.

<http://www.bippi.org/bippi/menu_left/conflicts/Nepal/Nepal.htm>.

Samuels, David J. Comparative Politics. Minneapolis: Pearson, 2011. Print.