Alexander Dolitsky: Irreconcilable ethnic rivalry is not a predetermined fate

By ALEXANDER DOLITSKY

Intractable ethnic conflicts, driven by perceived fundamental differences in identity and survival, are prolonged, destructive, and defy conventional resolution. Beyond the apparent political, economic and theological factors of ethnic rivalry, the structural causes stem from a history of grievances, clashing values, and persistent injustices.

Key drivers of irreconcilable conflict:

• Existential identity threats: In these conflicts, groups often perceive their opponents’ existence or dominance as a direct threat to their own collective identity, security, and survival. Their goals are perceived as irreconcilable—if one group is to survive, the other must lose.
• Historical grievances and collective memory: Conflicts are fueled by past atrocities and injustices, which are kept alive through oral history and collective memory. These narratives of suffering create strong in-group cohesion and deep distrust of the out-group, making reconciliation nearly impossible.
• Political manipulation by elites: Opportunistic political leaders often exploit ethnic divisions for personal or group power, wealth, or resources. By tapping into existing ethnic anxieties, they can mobilize followers and solidify their hold on power, often escalating tensions for political gain.
• Competition for scarce resources: Where resources like land, water, minerals, or access to economic opportunities are scarce, competition between ethnic groups can become a source of intense conflict. This is often exacerbated by political factors that lead to the perception of unequal resource ownership and distribution.
• Inequality and discrimination: Systemic discrimination that prevents minority ethnic groups from participating in political and economic life can foster resentment and lead to violent uprisings. The group may feel marginalized and see no other path to justice.

Notable examples of irreconcilable conflicts:

• Rwandan Civil War and Genocide: From 1990 to 1993, the Hutu majority and Tutsi minority fought for control. Decades of colonial manipulation and political incitement led to the 1994 genocide, in which Hutu extremists targeted Tutsis and moderate Hutus, killing between 500,000 and 1,000,000 people.
• Yugoslav Wars: In the early 1990s, the breakup of Yugoslavia led to a series of wars fueled by ethnic and religious differences. Serb, Bosniak, and Croat groups fought for sovereignty, resulting in over 130,000 deaths and widespread ethnic cleansing. Significant tensions, particularly between Kosovo and Serbia, continue to this day.
• Arab/Israeli conflict: This long-standing rivalry involves competing claims over territory, national identity, security, and deep ethno-cultural dislikes. The conflict has involved several major wars and numerous smaller conflicts, with the Israeli-Palestinian issue remaining a central.  Both sides see their objectives as essential to their existence, making compromise extremely difficult if not possible.
• Sudan’s Darfur conflict: Beginning in 2003, this conflict involved clashes between Arab and non-Arab populations over land and power. The violence led to widespread displacement and genocide, and although a peace agreement was signed in 2010, sporadic violence has continued.

Rivalry at the pontoon ferry over the Amu Darya River:

In 1973, I participated in the archaeological expedition in Turkmenistan, then a Soviet Socialist Republic of the U.S.S.R. Turkmenistan’s demographic is predominantly Sunni Muslim and Turkic. The main source of ethnic-based tension has historically been related to treatment of minority groups, particularly the Uzbek.

Our archaeological site was associated with the Kyzyl-Kum and Kara-Kum Deserts in proximity to the Amu Darya River; both are adjacent, large sandy deserts in Central Asia known for their harsh climates. The Amu Darya is a major river in Central Asia. It flows northwest through Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Afghanistan, forming borders between some of these countries before draining into the Aral Sea. The river is crucial for the region’s water supply and is characterized by a large basin and extensive irrigation systems.

As of the early 1970s, there were two main bridges over the Amu Darya river, both built in the 20th century. The Chardzhui Railway Bridge was completed in 1901; this permanent railway bridge replaced an earlier wooden version and connected the Trans-Caspian Railway across the river near Turkmenabat. The Amu Darya Pipeline Bridge was a suspension bridge completed in 1964; it was primarily a pipeline bridge that also carried one lane of vehicle traffic.

From time-to-time, we had to travel to Darganata city (a regional center located about 30 miles from our camp on the opposite side of the Amu Darya River) to replenish our food supply and other immediate necessities. Then a “Parom,” a type of cable-pulled pontoon ferry, was the only means for crossing Amu Darya River. The cable-pulled pontoon ferry is a type of ferry that is guided across a body of water by means of cables connected to both shores. The ferry itself is used to carry passengers, vehicles, or goods over relatively short distances, mainly for crossing the rivers or lakes.

Two local elderly Turkmens operated this ferry daily from sunrise to sunset; they represented two deeply hostile tribes to each other—the Tekke and Yomut. Indeed, some historical rivalry existed between these two major Turkmen tribes.Although these hostile divisions have largely been suppressed by the country’s strict socialist authoritarian government, bad blood and irreconcilable internal differences have been deeply rooted between these two ethnic groups. So, two Turkmens operated the ferry together, yet they had no cordial communication with each other.

Evidently, at some juncture in their rivalry, the tribal members of both groups reached an agreement to jointly pursue a highly lucrative and profitable ferry business to avoid a destructive conflict. This exemplify that domestic imperatives are the foundation of foreign policy and the possibility of harmonious global relations and peaceful coexistence.

Paths toward reconciliation:

Resolving entrenched ethnic conflicts is a complex process that rarely involves total victory for one side. Strategies often focus on managing tensions and building conditions for eventual peaceful coexistence.

• Power-sharing and autonomy: Implementing systems like federalism, which distribute political power among different ethnic groups, can reduce violence and promote peaceful coexistence. Granting territorial autonomy to ethnically concentrated minorities can give them a sense of control without demanding full secession.
• Truth and reconciliation commissions: These commissions, like the one established in post-apartheid South Africa in 1996, address past injustices and provide a forum for victims to be heard and perpetrators to acknowledge their actions. While not a complete solution, this process can be an important step toward healing and rebuilding trust.
• International mediation and intervention: Neutral third parties, including international organizations, can facilitate dialogue, broker peace agreements, and provide peacekeeping forces. While challenging, external involvement can prevent escalation and create environment for resolution.
• Grassroots dialogue and cultural exchange: Encouraging community-level dialogue and cultural exchange can help break down stereotypes and build empathy and respect between groups. Educational and cross-cultural programs promoting mutual understanding and tolerance are also vital for long-term peacebuilding.
• Addressing unmet human needs: Conflicts based on unmet human needs—such as security, identity, dignity, and recognition—cannot be resolved through simple negotiation. Sustainable peace requires addressing the underlying root causes that drive these basic human motivations.

While irreconcilable ethnic rivalry presents an immense challenge to global peace and human security, it is not a predetermined fate. Certainly, lasting peace cannot be achieved through a simple cessation of violence; it demands a comprehensive, multifaceted approach that addresses underlying institutional failures and fosters inclusive citizenship and mutual respect among all groups. Only by committing to genuine dialogue and long-term reconciliation efforts can societies hope to break the cycles of violence and build a future, where diverse communities can coexist peacefully.

The author was born and raised in the former Soviet Union before settling in the U.S. in 1978. He moved to Juneau in 1986 where he taught Russian studies and Archaeology at the University of Alaska Southeast, and Social Studies Teacher at the Alyeska Central School of the Alaska Department of Education. From 1990 to 2022, he served as a director and president of the Alaska-Siberia Research Center, publishing in the fields of anthropology, history, archaeology and ethnography. Find him on Amazon.com.

Alexander Dolitsky: How the Russian Empire shaped Alaska through fur trade, the Church, Native relations