There are hundreds of significant, protracted conflicts in the post-Cold War global system, but former Yugoslavia and Iraq have received much political and media attention. Even if other wars and battles have resulted in many more casualties and wounds on a human scale, these two stand out due to their profound effects on society. Powerful nations like the U.S. and E.U. members, international organizations like the U.N., NATO, and OSCE, as well as countless humanitarian and civil society organizations, all played a distinct variety of roles in these two conflicts.
Early in the 1990s, as a result of the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the subsequent decline of the communist system in Eastern Europe, violence broke out in the former Yugoslavia. The international world was prolonged to react when nationalism and ethnic tensions started to arise in the Balkans, and the conflict swiftly grew into a full-fledged civil war. The violence persisted for several years despite efforts by the United Nations (U.N.) and the international community to mediate a peace agreement, leading to significant human suffering and displaced populations.
The conflict in Iraq was caused by international mismanagement and a failure to respond effectively to rising tensions in the region. The 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, which was intended to remove Saddam Hussein from power, destabilized the nation and left a power vacuum that extremist and sectarian groups filled. The violence persisted for several years despite international efforts to calm the situation, including deploying thousands of foreign troops. This led to widespread human misery and the eviction of millions of people.
These are −
The international community's actions in the former Yugoslavia and Iraq needed definite, attainable goals. In addition to making it difficult to evaluate success, this ambiguity made it unclear what the interventions' ultimate goals were. The international community initially concentrated on ending the fighting and fostering peace in the former Yugoslavia. However, this goal eventually expanded to establish a multiethnic state in Bosnia. The primary goals of the intervention in Iraq were to rid the nation of all Mass destruction and to remove Saddam Hussein from power; however, these goals were later expanded to include establishing a democratic state in Iraq.
In both conflicts, the international community needed more funding for the interventions, making them impossible to succeed. The international community was sluggish to react to the crisis in the former Yugoslavia and failed to provide enough funding to stop the violence and advance peace. Similarly, the international community in Iraq took time to react and did not provide enough funding to help the nation recover and stabilize following the initial military involvement.
The international community's attempts to control the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia and Iraq were hampered by political divisions. Europe and the U.S. had different ideas on handling the war in the former Yugoslavia, which made it challenging to develop a cohesive strategy. Regarding the reasons for the intervention and the strategy for post-conflict reconstruction in Iraq, the U.S. and its allies disagreed.
In both conflicts, the world community needed help comprehending the regional dynamics and cultural variables that the conflict. The international community failed to grasp the region's deep-rooted ethnic and historical tensions, which contributed to the violence in the former Yugoslavia. The complex political, religious, and ethnic forces in Iraq that influenced the conflict and would subsequently influence the post-conflict reconstruction efforts were not understood by the international community.
In both former Yugoslavia and Iraq, local actors were not included in the conflict resolution process, which made it more challenging to produce lasting solutions. The international community lost an opportunity to foster local ownership and establish the foundations for long-term stability by ignoring local actors.
Scope and Nature of Violence: While sectarian issues primarily fueled violence in Iraq, it was mainly ethnic in the former Yugoslavia. The conflict in the former Yugoslavia was a civil war, with each ethnic group fighting against the others. However, Iraq's conflict was primarily between invading forces and the local population.
With just a small amount of involvement from foreign forces, the conflict in the former Yugoslavia was mostly regional. While in Iraq, International actors, primarily the United States and its allies, who participated in the invasion and subsequent occupation of the country, had a significant impact. Some claim that the invasion violated international law and that the United States and its allies are to blame for the subsequent violence as a result of the involvement of outside parties in the conflict in Iraq.
Through peace negotiations and agreements, such as the Dayton Accords, which put an end to the violence and formed a power-sharing government in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the conflict in the former Yugoslavia was finally settled. On the other hand, the conflict in Iraq remains unresolved, with ongoing violence and instability in the country, despite the withdrawal of U.S. troops and the establishment a democratic government.
| Former Yugoslavia | Iraq |
|---|---|
| The conflict was fueled by Ethnic issues. | The conflict was fueled by Sectarian issues. |
| Little involvement of foreign forces. | Large involvement of foreign forces. |
| The conflict got settled by negotiations and agreements. | The conflict remains unsolved. |
The necessity for a more thorough and efficient method of managing international conflicts is highlighted in these two cases. This entails a commitment to addressing the conflict's fundamental roots and a more excellent knowledge of its dynamics and underlying causes. It also requires improved engagement with regional actors.
Physics
Biology
Chemistry
Mathematics
Economics
Psychology
Environmental Science
Social Studies
Fashion Studies
English