Diasporas and Armed Conflicts: Beyond Being “Third Party”
https://doi.org/10.24833/RJWPLN-2022-4-47-61
Abstract
This article discusses an essential dimension of modern diaspora research related to the functional status of diasporas in contemporary armed conflicts. The conventional point of view is that diasporas can only act as a “third party” of a conflict either by contributing to the deepening of the contradictions between the opposing parties, or by acting as an intermediary between them. In theoretical terms, the author relies on the concept of “new” or network wars (netwars) and tries to demonstrate that there are the prerequisites for the more active involvement of diasporas in armed conflicts at the structural level of modern world political processes. To identify the structural requirements for such participation, the author turns to the analysis of two cases. The first case is the emergence and functioning of the Polish I Corps in 1917–1918 in Russia, which was formed when the Polish population of Russia was separated from their territory of origin as a result of the First World War. An analysis of the documents shows that the leadership of the corps quite clearly evaded political subordination to the Russian authorities and retained only military subordination, implying that the task of this unit was to participate in the restoration of Polish statehood. The second case is the genesis and evolution of the “Secret Army” of General Vang Pao in Laos in 1960–1974. This unit played an essential role in the Civil War in Laos, as it managed to restrain the onslaught of the superior forces of the Patet Lao Front and troops from North Vietnam. Such longterm participation in hostilities was made possible thanks to the logistical and technical support of the US special services. The two case studies allow us to conclude that there were armed units in previous historical periods with a clear diaspora component: they made a significant contribution to the overall dynamics of the confrontation between major parties to the conflict. This experience helps analyse contemporary conflicts with a diaspora component, especially in the context of the gradual erosion of power resources in world politics. The participation of diasporas in armed conflicts outside the “third party” framework is associated with the achievement of several conditions, both internal and external.
About the Author
I. D. Loshkariov
Institute of International Studies MGIMO, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Ivan D. Loshkariov – Cand. Sci. (Political Science), senior lecturer in the Department of Political Theory, a researcher at the Center for the Study of Political Elites
76 Prospect Vernadskogo Moscow, 119454
References
1. Adamson F.B. 2005. Globalization, Transnational Political Mobilisation, and Networks of Violence. Cambridge Review of International Affairs. 18(1). Р. 31-49. DOI: 10.1080/09557570500059548
2. Arquilla J., Ronfeldt D. 2001. Networks and Netwars: The Future of Terror, Crime, and Militancy. Rand Corporation. DOI: 10.2307/20033106
3. Baser B., Swain A. 2008. Diasporas as Peacemakers: Third Party Mediation in Homeland Conflicts. International Journal on World Peace. 25(3). Р. 7-28. DOI: 10.2307/20752844
4. Baser B. 2015. Diasporas and Homeland Conflicts: A Comparative Perspective. London: Ashgate.
5. Bercovitch J. 2007. Diasporas and Conflict Resolution. Smith H., & Stares P.B. Diasporas in Conflict: Peace-Makers or Peace-Wreckers? Tokyo: United Nations University. Р. 17-38.
6. Brinkerhoff J.M. 2008. Diaspora Identity and the Potential for Violence: toward an IdentityMobilization Framework. Identity: an International Journal of Theory and Research. 8(1). Р. 67-88. DOI: 10.1080/15283480701787376
7. Collier P., Hoeffler A. 2004. Greed and Grievance in Civil War. Oxford Economic Papers. 56(4). Р. 563-595. DOI: 10.1093/oep/gpf064
8. Collier P. 2000. Economic Causes of Civil Conflict and Their Implications for Policy. Washington, DC: World Bank.
9. Demmers J. 2002. Diaspora and Conflict: Locality, Long-Distance Nationalism, and Delocalisation of Conflict Dynamics. Javnost-The Public. 9(1). P. 85-96.
10. Gleditsch K.S. 2007. Transnational Dimensions of Civil War. Journal of Peace Research. 44(3). P. 293-309. DOI: 10.1177/0022343307076637
11. Hamilton-Merritt J. 1993. Tragic Mountains: The Hmong, the Americans, and the Secret Wars for Laos, 1942-1992. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
12. Horst C. 2013. The Depoliticisation of Diasporas from the Horn of Africa: From Refugees to Transnational aid Workers. African Studies. 72(2). P. 228-245. DOI: 10.1080/00020184.2013.812881
13. Koinova M. 2011. Diasporas and Secessionist Conflicts: the Mobilization of the Armenian, Albanian and Chechen Diasporas. Ethnic and Racial Studies. 34(2). P. 333-356. DOI: 10.1080/01419870.2010.489646
14. Lyons T. 2007. Conflict-Generated Diasporas and Transnational Politics in Ethiopia: Analysis. Conflict, Security & Development. 7(4). P. 529-549. DOI: 10.1080/14678800701692951
15. Roth A. 2015. The Role of Diasporas in Conflict. Journal of International Affairs. 68(2). P. 289- 301.
16. Van Hear N., Cohen R. 2017. Diasporas and Conflict: Distance, Contiguity and Spheres of Engagement. Oxford Development Studies. 45(2). P. 171-184. DOI: 10.1080/13600818.2016.1160043
17. Vang T.S. 2008. A History of the Hmong: from Ancient Times to the Modern Diaspora. Morrisville: Lulu Press.
18. Webb B.G. 2016. The Secret War in Laos and General Vang Pao 1958-1975. Xlibris Corporation.
19. Weightman B.A. 2011. Dragons and Tigers: a Geography of South, East, and Southeast Asia. 3rd ed. New York: Wiley &Sons. 544 p.
20. Yang K. 2003. Hmong diaspora of the post-war period. Asian and Pacific Migration Journal. 12(3). P. 271-300. DOI: 10.1177/011719680301200302
21. Cygankov P.A., Ul'rih B. 2012. Preodolevaya “Metodologicheskij nacionalizm”: iz besedy PA Cygankova i U. Beka [Overcoming “Methodological Nationalism”: from a conversation between PA Tsygankov and W. Beck]. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 12. Politicheskie nauki. №.5. P. 28- 34. (In Russian)
22. Istoriya Vostoka. 2002. V 6 t. T. 2. Vostok v srednie veka [The East in the Middle Ages]. Gl. redkol.: R.B. Rybakov (pred.) i dr.; [Otv. red. L.B. Alaev, K.Z. Ashrafyan]. Moscow: Vost. lit. (In Russian)
23. Istoriya Vostoka. 2004. V 6 t. T. 4. Vostok v novoe vremya (konec XVIII — nachalo XX v.) [The East in Modern Times (Late 18 — Early 20 Century.)]: Kn. 1. Gl. redkol.: R.B. Rybakov(pred.) i dr. Otv. red. L.B. Alaev i dr. Moscow: Vost. lit. (In Russian)
24. Kaldor M. 2015. Novye i starye vojny: organizovannoe nasilie v global'nuyu epohu [New and Old wars: Organized Violence in the Global Era]. Per. s angl. A. Appolonova, M. Dondukovskogo. Moscow: Izd-vo Instituta Gajdara. (In Russian)
25. Krevel’d van M. 2015. Transformaciya vojny [The Transformation of War]. Per. s angl. 2-e izd. Moscow: IRISEN, Socium. (In Russian)
26. Kun T. 2003. Struktura nauchnyh revolyucij [The Structure of Scientific Revolutions]. Per. s angl. Moscow: Izdatel'stvo ACT (In Russian)
27. Lebedeva M.M. 2013. Aktory sovremennoj mirovoj politiki: trendy razvitiya [Actors of Contemporary World Politics: Trends of Development]. MGIMO Review of International Relations. 1(28). P. 38-42. DOI: 10.24833/2071-8160-2013-1-28-38-42 (In Russian)
28. Olejnikov A.V. 2016. Nacional’nye voinskie formirovaniya Russkoj armii Pervoj Mirovoj vojny [National Military Formations of the Russian Army of the First World War]. Voennoistoricheskij zhurnal. 3. P. 18-26. (In Russian)
29. Rachkovskij V.A., Fedorov M.V. 2019. Fevral’skaya revolyuciya v Rossii i pol’skij vopros [The February Revolution in Russia and the Polish Question]. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Istoriya. 64(3). P. 874–889. DOI: 10.21638/11701/spbu02.2019.304 (In Russian)
30. Solnceva S.A. 2004. 1917: kadrovaya politika revolyucii v rossijskoj armii [1917: Personnel Policy of the Revolution in the Russian Army]. Otechestvennaya istoriya. 3. P. 102-111. (In Russian)
31. Zarinov I. Yu. 2010. Polyaki v diaspore. Sravnitel'naya harakteristika etnicheskoj istorii pol'skih diaspor v Rossii, SSHA i Brazilii [Poles in the Diaspora. Comparative characteristics of the ethnic history of Polish Diasporas in Russia, the United States, and Brazil]. Moscow: IEA RAN. (In Russian)
32. Miodowski A. 2008. Uwarunkowania polityczno-wojskowe procesu demobilizacji korpusow polskich w Rosji w 1918 r. Białostockie Teki Historyczne. 6. P. 157-175. DOI: 10.15290/bth.2008.06.08 (In Polish)
33. Wrzosek M. 1967. Konflikt Korpusu generała Dowbor-Muśnickiego z władzą radziecką (listopad 1917-luty 1918). Przegląd Historyczny: dwumiesięcznik naukowy. 58(4). P. 648-663. (In Polish)
34. Zieliński Z. 2009. Znaczenie polityczne i wojskowe I-go Korpusu Polskiego gen. Jozefa DowborMuśnickiego w odzyskaniu niepodległości przez Polskę. Niepodległość i Pamięć. 29. P. 41-52. (In Polish)
Review
For citations:
Loshkariov I.D. Diasporas and Armed Conflicts: Beyond Being “Third Party”. Russian Journal of World Politics and Law of Nations. 2022;1(4):47-61. https://doi.org/10.24833/RJWPLN-2022-4-47-61
Views:
1238
Email this article 