Documents / FOIA release
This Central Intelligence Agency conference report, numbered RTT 95-10039 and dated October 1995, presents the proceedings of a conference held 30 September to 1 October 1993. The CIA's Geographic Resources Division sponsored the conference. In it, academic geographers, anthropologists and US Government officials examined ethnic conflict by region, covering Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union, Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, Asia and South Asia. The report also discusses what these conflicts mean for US policy. It does not deal with UFOs or unidentified aerial phenomena.
“Anderson”6 pages
Approved for Release: 2018/06/01 C00123268 Summary of Discussion General Discussion DR. WIXMAN: I would like to make two comments. First, I think that we need to keep in mind that our analysis is colored_by our own Anglo-American or Westem ethnic perspective and that it affects the way in which we perceive the rest ofthe world geopoliti- cally. Second, with regard to the hierarchical context that Dr. Gladney discussed, I think one has to recog- nize that context is key to our understanding on the intemational and political level as well. When people ask someone if they are Uzbek, the answer is yes. When they ask them if they are Central Asian, the- answer is yes. When they ask them if they are Muslim, the answer is yes. It all depends on the set of'circum- stances, the context. In one case, these groups will fight each other; and in another, they will fight together against the “outsider.” I think one of the problems in making foreign policy is that often we focus on the local level and miss the bigger picture. One issue that we need to take into account when making foreign policy is that, although two groups may hate each other, if we get involved, they may be drawn together against us. DR. GLADNEY: Yes, the old proverb that I referred to earlier, “You and I against each other, you and me against my brother, my brother and I against our cous- ins, our cousins and I against you,” articulates such a hierarchy. I am very uncomfortable with this whole discourse on tribalism. The notion of the tribe was basically refuted 60 years ago. Now, suddenly, it is back. A simplistic interpretation of the notion can lead to misunderstanding. For example, many assume that the Soviet Union somehow held back these ethnic ten- sions, and now, with the Soviets out, these tensions have bubbled to the surface. In fact, in many cases—— such as the Tajik versus the Uzbek or the Uzbek ver- sus the Uighur-—the Soviets created the divisions and ethnic conflicts between groups who are essentially very similar peoples. Scholars and analysts need to look at the historical processes and historical contin- gencies. As anthropologists, we are always looking in terms of context-,-when, where, why, and how-—and are not drawing these broad generalities. QUESTION: Would you comment on the issues of the potential for the rise of Southern Chinese nationalism? DR. GLADNEY: There is the potential for an enor- mous shift of focus in terms of our understanding of China as I-long Kong becomes the issue of the late 1990s. I am not saying Cantonese separatism is going to pull China apart, but I am saying that a strong feel- ing of difference exists in the south, and the politics of difference are becoming very important for China’s domestic future. We have tended to focus on border minorities, yet, when I travel in China, I find that the Chinese are not worried about the Tibetans or Uighur—-they are concerned that the Cantonese are getting rich and that they can buy their country three times over, and they are worried about those people who are poor and who keep coming into our city tak- ing all their jobs—-this whole issue of floating popula- tion. The government can no longer say, “I-Iey, keep these differences at bay because we have the Soviets, the Americans, or the Japanese to worry about." I pre- dict that these local level conflicts will become more important. QUESTION: I’m puzzled by two seemingly contra- dictory trends in China. One is an increased economy and intemational trade, which appears to imply peace- ful pursuits, and the other is an increased military, including substantial offensive capabilities. How do these "fit together‘? DR. GLADNEY: It is a very complex situation, and, in my opinion, the whole issue has to be framed in terms of this post-Cold War society. China no longer sees itself in opposition to the Soviets. It is interested much more in microlevel issues. The economic aspects of this drive a lot of these issues, particularly China’s rela- tionship with the Middle East in terms of exporting military hardware. But I think also the issue is a feeling of internal insecurity. During the Tiananmen Square incident, there was a rumor that the military was not obeying the leadership’s orders to crack down on pro- testers. Since then, and I referred to this in my paper, the government has reorganized the military, fired gen- erals, and tried to put more loyal people in their places. 128 Approved for Release: 2018/06/01 C00123268
Not linked to a story yet.
FOIA release, from the cia-readingroom collection. The PDF is mirrored here; the original link is above. 205 pages are in the text index: search them above, or from the library's search.