(Estimated Pub Date) the Challenge of Ethnic Conflict to National and International Order in the 1990S: Geographic Perspectives- October 1995

Approved for Release: 2018/06/01 C00123268
reveals. We have to recognize that. It is not a reflec-
tion of underlying pattems of territorial ideology, nor
of functional patterns of interaction before the 1989
civil war. It is, in fact, not even really in any conceiv-
able way possible to create monoethnic territories in
that region. This_implies the need for a different kind
of strategy to conflict resolution.
One would have to use different kinds of strategies in
dealing with other problems. In the case of Belgium, if
I were advising the Belgian Govemment on how to
keep its ethnoregional situation under control, I would
suggest giving the old provinces more political-terri-
torial significance within the state. Then their citizens
could vote on a fiscal issue and have it not always be
an ethnoregional issue. So the answer, of course, has
to be tied to the particularities of each case. It seems
that the issues of territory, scale, and location are part
of what has to be in the mix in order to make sensible
and intelligent decisions.
QUESTION: ls there a correlation between socioeco-
nomic status and_ ethnic conflicts? Would it be valid to
say that a commonality in socioeconomic status would
ameliorate ethnic conflict? Is socioeconomic status a
factor we should examine in attempting to detennine
whether there is a potential for ethnic conflict?
How important is marginalization of the deprived
population a factor in ethnic conflict as opposed to
merely a difference in socioeconomic status?
DR. MURPHY: Is there a correlation? Yes. Is it reduc-
ible to socioeconomic differences? The short answer is
no. The key question-—and this plays off of some of
Dr. Knight’s comrnents-is one of perception. I-low are
socioeconomic differences understood and perceived?
To draw on the Belgium case again, one could take a
look at that country in the late 19th century and gener-
alize about the north. One could say that northern Bel-
gium was then less well off than southern Belgium, so
that must be a reason why the Flemish movement
mobilized at that time. That is a tempting interpreta-
tion if you think in simplistic regional terms—-but the
modem ethnolinguistic regions of Belgium had no
meaning at that time. There were socioeconomic dif-
ferences between the north and the south, but they
were understood to be a rural-urban rather than a
regional phenomenon. Although a statistical correla-
tion existed between region and socioeconomic differ-
ences in the late 19th century, this did not really
explain ethnic mobilization at that time. The mobiliza-
tion had much more to do with the inability of Flemish
speakers to use their language in public life. That
issue, in turn, began to take on regional significance as
efforts to achieve greater language rights were frus-
trated.
Socioeconomic differences can he significant; the key
is to understa__nd_how these are perceived and used.
Would a commonality ofsocioeconomic status mean
that conflicts would not be as intense in many cases?
Yes. Would it mean ethnic conflict would cease
entirely? Probably not, because there are lots of other
issues that correlate as well. I think we made a mis-
take about 15 years ago when we wanted to reduce
ethnicity to economics. Ultimately, it just does not
work.
24
Approved for Release: 2018/06/01 C00123268