Contemporary Conflict Analysis E-tivity 3: Critically Engaging with Texts (Part 2)

E-tivity 3: Critically Engaging with Texts (Part 2)

Text: Kaldor, M. (2013) ‘In Defence of New Wars’, Stability, 2(1), pp. 1-16

Student: João Paulo Silva Pereira, nº 169052097

Word Count: 1227

In the article ‘In Defence of New Wars’ Mary Kaldor (2003, p.1) argues that “[…] new wars

should be understood not as an empirical category but a research strategy and a guide to policy”.

Additionally, she argues that “[…] the obsession with the ‘newness’ of war misses the point

about the logic of new wars”. Kaldor defends the concept of ‘new wars’ by stating that twenty-

first-century conflicts are different from the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. “New wars have

a logic that is different from the logic of what I call ‘old wars’. […] New wars are the wars of

the era of globalisation” (Kaldor, 2003, p.2). She supports her claims by addressing the main

points of criticism to the ‘new wars’ concept. Although Kaldor article is an interesting work,

that addresses and stimulates the debate about the nature of the conflicts in the post-cold-war,

the separation between old and new wars does not bring any added value to the discussion. Ken

Booth in a review article of Kaldor’s book ‘New and Old Wars. Organized Violence in a Global

Era’, argues that“[…] she is broadly correct: rather, it is the label ‘new’ I want seriously to

question” (Booth, 2001, p.164).

Kaldor starts by presenting several arguments in defence of the ‘new wars’ concept, based

on the differences identified between actors, goals, methods and forms of finance, concluding

that “old wars tended to extremes as each side tried to win, new wars tend to spread and to

persist” (Kaldor, 2003, p.3). In the actor's comparison, Kaldor states that ‘old wars’ are fought

by regular armed forces, and ‘new wars’ are fought by a combination of state and non-state

actors. If this is the case how can we classify the American Civil War (1861-1865) as an ‘old

war’? As it was fought by a mixture of regular armed forces, civilian and mercenaries.

1
Contemporary Conflict Analysis E-tivity 3: Critically Engaging with Texts (Part 2)

Regarding the goals, Kaldor argues that ‘old wars’ are fought to achieve geopolitical or

ideologic interests in opposition to ‘new wars’ that are fought in the name of identity. Again,

this is true if we only consider some specific conflicts. The annexation of the Crimea by the

Russian Federation in 2014 is a ‘new war’? It was fought to achieve a particular geopolitical

interest.

Concerning the war methods, Kaldor states that in the ‘old war’ concept the battle was the

decisive encounter in opposition to the ‘new wars’ where they are rare, and the territory is

captured through political means. So in this case what can be said about the ISIL attempt to

establish the ‘worldwide caliphate’, it is a new or an old war? The answer is not clear.

Finally, regarding the forms of finance, Kaldor argues that ‘old wars’ are financed by states,

and the ‘new wars’ are resourced by a globalised economy, but is this a characteristic of the

‘new wars’ or a consequence of the globalised liberal economy of our days?

Although Kaldor noted that her concept of ‘new wars’ in opposition to ‘old wars’ is not

an empirical description of war and it is meant to be a research strategy and a guide for policy,

she bases her article in a very restrictive concept of war. Kaldor assumes that the ‘old wars’

concept is over and it was replaced by the ‘new wars’ concept. However, she restricted her

analysis by comparing the twenty-century World conflicts (state versus state, fought for

geopolitical interest) with the twenty-first-century conflicts, fought by non-state actors mainly

for identity purposes. By doing that she misses a large number of conflicts that do not fall in

the above categories.

After presenting the arguments in favour of the ‘new wars’ concept, Kaldor addresses the

four main topics of criticism to the ‘new wars’ concept and build the remaining of the article in

this criticism.

Firstly, she addresses the idea whether ‘new wars’ are new. After analysing the criticism of the

‘new’ concept made by several scholars, Kaldor (2013, p.4) argues that “there are some

2
Contemporary Conflict Analysis E-tivity 3: Critically Engaging with Texts (Part 2)

genuinely new elements of contemporary conflicts”, but she states that those elements are not

the reason for the adjective ‘new’. “The point of the adjective ‘new’ […] has to do with the

model of war and how the model […] is different from the prevailing models […]. It is a model

that entails a specific political, economic and military logic” (Kaldor, 2013, p.5). It can easily

be said that every war, ‘old’ or ‘new’, as a specific political, economic and military logic, and

trying to label them in two different categories sets does not enrich the discussion.

Secondly, she looks into whether ‘new wars’ are ‘war’. Some critics argue that contemporary

conflicts are more properly described as criminal violence rather than war. In this respect,

Kaldor (2013, p.6) states that “[n]ew wars can be described as a mixture of war […], crime […]

and human rights violations”. She also argues that “War does imply organised violence in the

service of political ends” (Kaldor, 2013, p.7) in opposition to criminal activities, which is

merely organised violence with private ends. Kaldor also addresses the problem of the legal

framework that differentiates ‘war’ from ‘armed conflict’. To be considered war it must be

formally declared. This aspect of the discussion, if it is war or not, is irrelevant for the study of

the conflict, whether there was a formal declaration or not it does not change the causes and

nature of the conflict, and this is the import aspects that scholars must address.

Thirdly, Kaldor addresses the point whether existing data confirms or negates the findings of

the nature of new wars. By analysing the main sources of data on a number of wars, Kaldor

(2013, p.8) concludes that “the findings of the three databases do have some relevance to the

new wars theory”. However, she also notes that “none of those numbers are really able to

capture the nature of new wars” (Kaldor, 2013, p.7), which can be seen as a contradiction.

Finally, Kaldor adreesses whether new wars can be described as post-Clausewitzian. She argues

that that ‘new wars’ are indeed post-Clausewitzean and present two arguments. “New wars are

[…] exclusive rather that universalist” (Kaldor, 2013, p.12), and “the logic of extremes […] no

3
Contemporary Conflict Analysis E-tivity 3: Critically Engaging with Texts (Part 2)

longer applies in new wars” (Kaldor, 2013, p.13). Those arguments are interesting, but they do

not add anything new to the ‘new wars’ discussion.

In the conclusion Kaldor (2013, p.14) states that the debate helped to “refine and

reformulate the argument, […] facilitated a more conceptual interpretation of new wars [and]

led to the identification of new sources of evidence that […] substantiate[s] the main

proposition”. Stimulating the discussion about contemporary conflicts is the added value of the

article, whether we call them ‘new wars’ or not is irrelevant, what is important is to address the

nature of the conflicts. However, she also presents a new idea, without any previous analysis,

of a “demand for a cosmopolitan political response” (Kaldor, 2013, p.14), as a possible solution

to address modern conflicts. This idea is never addressed during the development of the article,

and it is not explained how she envisages the implementation of this idea.

Kaldor article in defence of ‘new wars’ is an interesting work that stimulates the debate

about the nature of the conflicts of the twenty-first century. However, the separation between

old and new wars does not bring anything new to the discussion.

Bibliography
Kaldor, M. (2013) ‘In Defence of New Wars’, Stability, 2(1), pp. 1-16

Booth, K, (2001) ‘New Wars for Old’, Civil Wars, 4(2), pp. 163-170