The probability of a total war happening in Southeast Asia? Possibly within my lifetime.
A conflict based on ethnic-issues will provide the best conditions for a total war. This is because ethnic conflicts provide the most convenient means to elicit popular support. When society is roused with the primordial instinct to exact violence against another ethnic group, the state is in the best position to mobilise all national resources for war. A racial incident is all that is necessary to create the crisis that would precipitate the armed conflict.
The Probability that crisis in Southeast Asia can erupt into Armed Conflict
Overview
The use of force has been part of Southeast Asian politics. Since the existence of civilisations in Southeast Asia till today, armed conflicts had determined the fate of pre-modern polities to modern states. From the mainland (Indochine) down to the archipelago (Nusantara), Empires, Kingdoms (or Mandalas1), Sultanates of Southeast Asia had fought among themselves, with their neighbours and against extra-regional invaders. The dominant powers and their vassals understood the utility of force and had used it resolve political contests and control of resources. In contemporary Southeast Asia, this has not changed.
Armed conflicts within or between states are often preceded by a crisis, though not all crises lead to armed conflicts. Crises contribute to the immediate causes of armed confrontations. Whether a crisis triggers an armed conflict, is determined by the underlying causes and mitigating factors. The structure of the international system and the process of interaction between states have bearings on the propensity to use force to resolve conflicts. The severity of the armed conflict depends on what’s at stake, and the value proposition of the stakeholders.
Presently, armed conflicts between and within Southeast Asian states has happened and is still happening. In July 2008, Thai and Cambodian military forces clashed along the border over the disputed over the ownership of the Preah Vihear temple2. Violence again flared up on 3 April 2009 on the same spot, leading to the death of two Thai and two Cambodian soldiers and many more injuries. In spite of mediation offered by ASEAN, both member states were not shy to use force to secure their national interests. The Thai-Cambodian conflict over the UNESCO heritage site is not an isolated incident. There were other occasions when ASEAN states rattled sabres at fellow members – such as the military stand-off between Indonesia and Malaysia over the Ambalat waters off East Kalimantan in March 20053. One may argue that ASEAN had provided the platform for mitigation such that armed conflicts do not erupt into full-blown war. Internal conflicts such as insurrections should also be considered along side with inter-state conflicts, because such conflicts are ethno-centric in nature – and have transnational dimensions in Southeast Asia. The Islamic-Malay separatist insurgencies in Southern Thailand4 and Southern Philippines5 are living examples. These conflicts had attracted support from sympathetic co-religionists and ethnic kins from Malaysia and Indonesia6.
In the foreseeable future, armed conflicts will still happen. There are enough unresolved tensions between and within Southeast Asian states that can lead to sabre-rattling or an all-out war. What is of interest is not the probability of just an ‘armed conflict’, but the probability of a total war between two or more Southeast Asian states.
Read more here: http://textfiend.net/zerohero/?p=993
A conflict based on ethnic-issues will provide the best conditions for a total war. This is because ethnic conflicts provide the most convenient means to elicit popular support. When society is roused with the primordial instinct to exact violence against another ethnic group, the state is in the best position to mobilise all national resources for war. A racial incident is all that is necessary to create the crisis that would precipitate the armed conflict.
The Probability that crisis in Southeast Asia can erupt into Armed Conflict
Overview
The use of force has been part of Southeast Asian politics. Since the existence of civilisations in Southeast Asia till today, armed conflicts had determined the fate of pre-modern polities to modern states. From the mainland (Indochine) down to the archipelago (Nusantara), Empires, Kingdoms (or Mandalas1), Sultanates of Southeast Asia had fought among themselves, with their neighbours and against extra-regional invaders. The dominant powers and their vassals understood the utility of force and had used it resolve political contests and control of resources. In contemporary Southeast Asia, this has not changed.
Armed conflicts within or between states are often preceded by a crisis, though not all crises lead to armed conflicts. Crises contribute to the immediate causes of armed confrontations. Whether a crisis triggers an armed conflict, is determined by the underlying causes and mitigating factors. The structure of the international system and the process of interaction between states have bearings on the propensity to use force to resolve conflicts. The severity of the armed conflict depends on what’s at stake, and the value proposition of the stakeholders.
Presently, armed conflicts between and within Southeast Asian states has happened and is still happening. In July 2008, Thai and Cambodian military forces clashed along the border over the disputed over the ownership of the Preah Vihear temple2. Violence again flared up on 3 April 2009 on the same spot, leading to the death of two Thai and two Cambodian soldiers and many more injuries. In spite of mediation offered by ASEAN, both member states were not shy to use force to secure their national interests. The Thai-Cambodian conflict over the UNESCO heritage site is not an isolated incident. There were other occasions when ASEAN states rattled sabres at fellow members – such as the military stand-off between Indonesia and Malaysia over the Ambalat waters off East Kalimantan in March 20053. One may argue that ASEAN had provided the platform for mitigation such that armed conflicts do not erupt into full-blown war. Internal conflicts such as insurrections should also be considered along side with inter-state conflicts, because such conflicts are ethno-centric in nature – and have transnational dimensions in Southeast Asia. The Islamic-Malay separatist insurgencies in Southern Thailand4 and Southern Philippines5 are living examples. These conflicts had attracted support from sympathetic co-religionists and ethnic kins from Malaysia and Indonesia6.
In the foreseeable future, armed conflicts will still happen. There are enough unresolved tensions between and within Southeast Asian states that can lead to sabre-rattling or an all-out war. What is of interest is not the probability of just an ‘armed conflict’, but the probability of a total war between two or more Southeast Asian states.
Read more here: http://textfiend.net/zerohero/?p=993
