Has globalization created an age of ‘new wars’?IntroductionWith the innovations in information and technologies and the rapid developments in telecommunications and data processing in modernity or even earlier era, globalization is of interest to both researchers and policy makers since it has been recognized as a new phenomenon that leads to significant change in the social relations of warfare (Fleming, 2009: 213). Globalization, a paradoxical process of increased interconnectedness, is the escalating of global interconnectedness that faces a set of challenges of political, economic, cultural and military aspects to the modern state (Kaldor, 2001: 3). The role of globalization in the modern warfare has been rightfully noticed, particularly in Eastern Europe and Africa during the 1980s and 1990s, as a key driving factor behind the development of a new type of organized violence due to its affecting the pattern of politics and rising the term identity politics from the disintegration of state system within states (Kaldor, 2001: 70). This new violent conflict is regarded as of internal or civil characteristics and is defined as new war (Malantowicz, 2010: 52).  Across the time period of the modernwelfare, it would emerge that there have been the improvements in informationand technologies, especially in communication, is of process of globalization, thatgreatly led to the changes in contemporary of politics and economics.Furthermore, the characteristic of warfare is of influenced by this process (Malantowicz,2010: 159). Thus, it is my point of view, as a researcher in this currentstudy, that globalization has a tendency contributed to influence the changesin nature of violent conflicts as it causes a weak states sovereignty in theirterritory by political mobilization from various intra- and inter- state actorsbased on identity politics. And since the new wars are often characterized bythe form of violence against civilian population; therefore, globalization isvery likely to create the new wars era.With these considerations in mind,this current paper has been divided into four parts. First, the differences betweenold and new wars theories will be briefly outlined, in order to facilitateunderstanding inside into the characteristics of new wars. Second, the probablelink between globalization and new wars, especially Kaldor’s new wars, will bediscussed, in order to conclusively demonstrate that globalization may have anumerous effect on elements of these new type of violence. Third, a case study ofthe ethnic cleansing in Bosnia-Herzegovina war will be illustrated, in order todemonstrate the paradigm of the new type of warfare that is of interest of multipleinternational actors in globalized world in which their effort is mobilizedaround the ethnically cleans area. Finally, the conclusion will be sum up allfor the aforementioned sections.Old wars and new wars: the differences in their logicsIn order to effectively discuss how it is likely that globalization has created an aged of new war, it is firstly essential to understand the shift of logic of organized violence from earlier era to the era of globalization. The classical term of war is defined by Clausewitz as “an act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfil our will” (In Kaldor, 2001: 17). In other words, this war is war between states and conducted by states, in an attempt to achieve state interests by defeating enemy of state and gaining its territory through the use of national forces. On the other hand, today’s conflicts, according to new wars theories, on the whole, seek to be a part of open world in which the contexts of contemporary politics and economics are influenced by process of globalisation, thus lead to the erosion of authoritarian provoked by individual or group interests and greed (In Malantowicz, 2010: 159). Furthermore, the rapidly advancing communications and technology as part of the process of globalization is closely associated with the cause rise of identity politics in situation which, at worst, could be lead to the form of violent ethnic cleansing that directed against civilian population due to their identity (Kaldor, 2001: 78). The contrast between old can new wars can beclassified in to four main categories: aims, actors, methodologies andfinancial forms. Firstly, old wars were fought for democracy or socialism tostrengthen state power in which the main driving forces behind states towardsthese wars are the geo-politics or ideology, whilst political mobilization around identity, ethnic, tribal or religiousor racial, in order to claimsovereign state, is the goal of new conflicts. Secondly, theearlier wars were fought by the states’ regular armed forces whereas there arevarying actors of both state and non-state, such as warlords, regular armedforces, fought in the new type of conflict. Thirdly, a regular procedure of previous once is the capturing territory through military means during thebattle; conversely, in new wars, territoryis captured through political means using population displacement technique.Lastly, the financial of old wars is funded by states, however, it is difficultto specify the source of finance in new violent conflicts because it is blurredcategories of the purpose of financial between economic and politic (Kaldor,2013: 3).As Kaldor phrase it, the term ‘new’ is emphasized with an attempt to provide the appropriate approaches in order to demonstrate the shift of logic as well as characteristic of organized violence from the earlier era to the 1990s and to facilitate the understanding and interpreting of such policy-makers insight into the interrelated characteristics of these conflicts (Kaldor, 2013: 4). The logic of new wars: the link between globalization and new warsAccording to Kaldor, the term of new wars is used tointerpret the development of new type of organized violence of the globalizedera, particularly during the last decades of the 20th century in Eastern Europeand Africa in order to conceptualize the breakdown of binarydistinctions contexts between state and non-state, public and private, externaland internal, economic and political, and even war and peace which is both acause and a consequence of violence. Various terms have been used to emphasize theconcept of these conflicts. The most of new wars theorists are prevailingdefined this term as civil or intra-state wars or else as low-intensityconflict (Kaldor, 2001: 2). There is however, for thinkers such as Shaw assertsemphatically that there is an interrelation with the total wars of thetwentieth century and their genocidal aspects, thus he points out the term ‘degeneratewarfare’ as a description of new wars in which highlights the deteriorate ofnational framework, mainly in the military forces aspect (In Kaldor, 2001: 2).Theemergence of industrial society during modernity period or even earlier as aconsequence of the revolution in information and technologies and advancementsin transport, communications and data processing resulted in a new phenomenon oftransnational networks so-called globalization. Kaldor underlined in her book,New and Old Wars: Organized violence in a global era, that globalizationis defined as ‘the intensification of global interconnectedness of political, economic, militaryand cultural’ (Kaldor, 2001: 71). This global integration process is aparadoxical process involving both homogenization and differentiation,integration and fragmentation, globalization and localization, whilst somewriters such as Berdal points out that this process is mainly caused bytechnological change, in order to simulate a labeled growth of transactionaland organizational connections across national boundaries (2003: 481). With regardto the context of globalization from the above, it is clear that process of globalizationhas connected the world, however, at the same time it has resulted indisconnections andalienations, thus leads to an arising out of global class based on the ability to cooperate into this process (Kaldor,2001: 4). Moreover,the accelerating of globalization process, especially the advanced communicationand transportation, is very likely leading to rapidly connect a variety ofcommunities and supporters instantly. Thus, it is very likely thatglobalization may cause organized violence.  The new type of warfare, in most cases, are typically based around theerosion of the authoritarian states as well as in some intense casesof the state disintegration, and much of pressure on such state has been causedby the process of globalization on the international boundary (Kaldor, 2001: 4). Accordingto Kaldor, an accelerating of globalization process creates the situation inwhich states are strongly intervened in their political, economic and socialaspects from the external forces of third party, mainly in from of foreign assistanceintervention (2001: 83). Moreover, various types of actor such as states,private enterprises and military organization that are arising out in the territorial state as aconsequence of globalisation are recognized as a cause of changes in economicand political contexts (Kaldor, 2001: 73). These lead to a simultaneousdramatic decline of state power and tax revenues, thus result in the situationthat drives economy toward extremely collapse (Newman, 2004: 183). As regards the position in which the state has lost dominance, Kaldorexplicitly asserted that it is likely to provide an environment of corruptionand criminalization and political legitimacy collapse that could be led to different forms of conflict(2001: 5). At the same time, however, it could be argued thatthe new wars, part of the process through which globalization evolved then, are closely leadto the situation in which traditional distinctions between war and peace, organizedcrime and large-scale violation of human rights become blurredand disappeared as a result, the international violence is shifted from conventionalconflict of primarily state-oriented to a series of internal or the war againstcivilian population or else as low-intensity conflicts (Kaldor, 2001: 2). From thisunderstanding, thus, it can be assumed that a link does exist betweenglobalization and new wars can be characterized by ethnic cleansing, genocide,terrorism as well as low-intensity conflict.Moreover, Kaldor explicitly state a linkbetween globalization and new wars in term of a ‘crisis of identity’ (2001:75). For Kaldor, a significant feature of new wars is that the combatant focuson question of identity in which she has seen as these conflicts are negativeconsequence resulted from globalization process. Therefore, her attention is drawn to the term of identity politics. This may bebecause globalization influences an emerge of consolidations of networks of bothstate and non-state actorsbeyond the conventional competence territorially defined governments. In otherwords, the modern state structures are disintegrated due to the mixed of regionalizationand transnationalization of governance in the state territory. As a result,newwars are fought by in the name of identity politicsin which political elites reproduce their power. They do, however, attempt toachieve political mobilisation around identity (Kaldor, 2013: 2). Thus, in thecontext of these new wars regarding identity political then, the differentidentity is used as an instrument to control population in form of ethnicallycleanse an area. Moreover, most conflict is directed against civilians.Simultaneously, however, the strong emphasis on identity within new wars meansthat aid distribution can easily aggravate tensions between communities.Going back to the erosion of state systemcaused by negative impact of globalization, this leads to an increased in identitypolitics; therefore, result in the changes in type of modern warfare whereviolent conflicts occur in state territory in term of the wars againstcivilians.  Thus, it is clear thatglobalization may create the new wars era. In Bosnia-Herzegovina, for example, isconstantly claimed by Kaldor as a model of the paradigm that globalizationinfluencing the new type of warfare; therefore, I selected the Bosnia-Herzegovinaconflict as a case study with regards to the name of identity politicsinfluencing violent ethnic cleansing, in order to make my analysis moresectional.The Bosnia and Herzegovina war: heralds an era of new wars triggered by globalisationThe war in Bosnia-Herzegovina is of ahuge of international effort of governmental and non-governmental from bothlocal and global sectors due to approximately 260,000 deaths from genocide(Kaldor, 2001: 31). This seems to be the reason for Kaldor’s argument that ‘thewar in Bosnia-Herzegovina has become the archetypal example, the paradigm ofthe new type of warfare’ (In Fleming, 2009: 219). With regards to the thesis statementmentioned above, a case study of Bosnia-Herzegovina is considered to be themost appropriate paradigm to prove that the globalization has created an agedof new wars, by it having an evidence of a link between globalization and the changesin the nature of violent conflicts. Moreover, this war also demonstrate that globalizationis a root cause of the shifted in strategy on new wars where the authoritarianstates no longer seek population support, alternatively they introduce thepopulation displacement driving by politics identities in term of ethniccleansing.Bosnia-Herzegovinais geographically situated as a sort of convergence point of a number ofdifferent ethnicities and cultures that date back hundreds and even thousandsof years. One of the characteristics ofBosnia-Herzegovina is that it is the most diverse ethnic groups, involving Muslims,Serbs, Croats, Yugoslavs, Jews, Roma and others, of former Yugoslavia. Themajority different among people whose live in these republics are types ofreligions in which we notice as the Orthodox Serbs and the Catholic Croats (Kaldor,2001: 32). This means, thus, that the war is more likely to took place in thisarea in form of violent ethnic cleansing, in order to completetheir desire on establish ethnically homogeneous territories and to divideethnically mixed Bosnia-Herzegovina between Serbs and Croats driving by their different nationalismperspectives (Kaldor, 2001:33) In 1992,when the war began, Bosnia-Herzegovina consisted of a majority Muslim, andSerbians, with a smaller percentage of Croatians, who were predominantlyCatholic, and Jews. While these people had coexisted together for quite sometime, there seemed to be a degree of fear and hate that was passed down throughthe generations. The existence of this fear and hate may be said as the causethat made the Serbian people is easily to manipulate by the power of theirpolitical leaders and in a wave of nationalism. As a result, they set out on amurderous “ethnic cleansing” to rid themselves of the Croatians (Kaldor,2001:33). Nationalism,playing on the fears of a particular group of people, is what from my point ofview that it is likely to be a root cause that led to the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina.This is because nationalism has been driven from different ethnic roots and hasbeen reconstructed for political purposes (Kaldor, 2001:34). As a result, politicalfragmentation of Bosnia-Herzegovina gave rise to identity-based mobilization,thus leads to the violent of ethnic nationalism. Furthermore, alongside withthe begin of war Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1992, the internet was still in itsbeginning stages. The internet was one of the driving forces that helped bringalong the concept of globalization, as people from different cultures migratedaround the world. Information became more readily available to more and morepeople from an ever increasing web that spanned the world (?iarnien? and Kumpikait?, 2008: 43). Thus, leads to the situationin which multiple international actors around the world could be engaged in risingof identity politics and mobilizing political purpose in the area ofBosnia-Herzegovina. Therefore, it can be also concludedthat the Bosnia-Herzegovina is the new type of war in sense of a war againstthe civilians and civil society (Kaldor, 2001: 44). ConclusionTo conclude, the nature of warfare has been changed across the time period due to the process of globalization as the factor driving the changes in the political nature. As rightfully remarked by Kalyvas, the critic of new wars, there are the shifted in fundamental of the warfare from the armed conflicts between states in an earlier era to internal war or the war against civilian populations, mainly focused on ethnic cleansing, of the conflicts nowadays (2001: 99). This current study has identified the link between the process of globalization and new wars, in relation to the political mobilization based on identity politics in the internal territory, which has been recognized as the characteristics of new wars, using case study of Bosnia and Herzegovina war, the violent ethnic cleansing of Bosnian. The result can be argued that nationalism and globalization lead to the political fragmentation that rising identity-based mobilization in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Therefore, it could lead to the new war caused by ethnic politics.Globalization, the revolution of communication andtechnology, creates the situation in which states are strongly intervened intheir politics, economics and social from the external forces of third partyand multiple actors of both states and non-states, thus lead to a dramaticdecline of state power, an extremely collapse of former economic and aprovision of corruption and criminalization environment (Newman, 2004: 183). Thesesituation, therefore, leads to the motivation of political mobilization,particularly based around identity politics and are stimulated by personal orgroup interests and greed (Malantowicz, 2013: 52). And since internal violenceinvoked by irregular paramilitary troops and the population movement ratherthan battles between armies in the traditional field are the elements whichcharacterise the new wars (Malantowicz, 2010: 159) As a result, the impact ofglobalization could be led to a new type of organized violence so-called newwar. However,from my perspective, as a researcher in this study, that globalization processis what will hopefully, one day, put an end to such genocide, as peoplecontinue to migrate, inter-marry, and become familiar with, and tolerant ofother cultures.BibliographyFleming, C. M. (2009) New or Old Wars? Debating a Clausewitzian Future, Strategic Studies, 32(2), pp.213-241.Henderson,E. and Singer, J. (2002): “New Wars” and Rumors of “NewWars”, International Interactions, 28(2), pp.165-190.Baylis, J.,Smith, S., and Owens, P. (2014) The Globalization of World Politics:  An Introduction to International Relations6th edi. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bougarel, X. (2015) The Bosnian Muslims in theSecond World War, Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 15(4),pp.683-688.?iarnien?, R., and Kumpikait?, V. (2008) TheImpact of Globalization on Migration Processes, Socialiniai tyrimai / SocialResearch, 3 (13), pp. 42–48.Kardor, M. (2001). Newand Old Wars: Organized Violence in a Global Era (Edition),Cambridge: Polity Press.Kaldor, M.(2013) In Defense of New Wars. Stability, 2(1): 4, pp. 1-16.Kalyvas,N. S. (2001), “New” and “Old” Civil Wars: A ValidDistinction?, World Politics, 54(1), pp. 99-118.Malantowicz, A. (2010). Do ‘New Wars’ Theories Contribute toOur Understanding of The African Conflicts? Cases of Rwanda And Darfur. AfricanaBulletin, pp: 159-172. Malantowicz,A. (2013) Civil War in Syria and the ‘New Wars’ Debate. Amsterdam Law Forum,5(3), pp. 52-60.Newman,E. (2004) The ‘New Wars’ Debate: A Historical Perspective Is Needed, SecurityDialogue, 35(2), pp. 173-189.Get Help With Your EssayIf you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!Find out more