Separatism is behind nearly half of current wars. The UN can prevent this.

Following from Parliament's welcome decision not to participate in the rubblisation of Syria, I have been looking at ongoing wars that are taking place on our fine planet.

Back in 2008 I did a post entitled 1 in 3 current wars are about separatism, separatism being the desire of a minority to withdraw from the state they are presently a part of.

It looks as if the present situation is that nearly 1 in 2 current wars are about separatism.

Go here for the data. There are 10 wars with more than 1000 deaths per year, (11 if Egypt is counted as a war) and 30 running at less than 1000 deaths per year.

Separatism is a factor in 17 of the 40, nearly half of the more minor wars. Other factors are :
Religion, chiefly Islam   13
The US                         7
Ethnicity                       6
Dictatorships                 4
Oil                                2
War on Drugs                2
and in                           2 cases, the militias just cannot break the habit of fighting.


Obviously each war is a result of many factors, and the subject can bear much more detailed analysis, but it remains the case that separatism is the major cause of current wars, and the UN can do something about it.

Instead of responding to wars in an ad hoc way with the usual round of diplomatic and political activity, the international community should lay down a framework of rules to enable reason and negotiation to take place of emotionalism and gunfire.

Prevention is better than cure. Clausewitz’ famous aphorism “War is the continuation of politics by other means” should be updated to “War is the continuation of politics by irrational and inhumane means”. Whatever form of words is used, it is clear that politicians have a duty to agree some rules and protocols on separatism, in order to extend the reach of politics to cover this common political situation.

Democracy should have a bearing on the matter. If it is truly the will of the people of a region that they should not be governed by their present rulers, then politicians should give attention to their wishes.

Does the majority of the people truly seek independence or autonomy, or is it simply the desire of an unrepresentative political group? This is a question that can be answered by referendum. Since it is unlikely that the state will be happy to offer a referendum, the process will have to be initiated by a people’s petition, which in some cases will have to be organised in secrecy.

The UN will have to form an agency specifically responsible for separatist issues.

Once this agency has received a peoples' petition, they can research and evaluate the situation. If they decide that there is a case, negotiations leading up to a referendum can start. If the result of the referendum shows that a two thirds majority (say) is in favor of autonomy, negotiations can start, under the guidance of the UN or regional authorities.

Negotiations will be complex. No state wishes to lose bits of itself, just as no patient likes to go under the surgeon’s knife. However, people do agree to surgery if they are convinced that it is ultimately going to be good for their health. By allowing secession, the state is avoiding a war, with all its financial and human costs. Politically, it is gaining a cooperative neighbour, instead of a hostile entity on its doorstep. By agreeing to negotiate, they may end up with an autonomous region rather than a total loss of territory.

The arguments for secession are simple: the people do not feel themselves to be citizens of the present state. They feel ethnically or linguistically different. They may feel like second class citizens, or may even point to evidence of repression and human rights abuses. The people will need a good team of lawyers to put this case, because the arguments against secession will be complex and legalistic.

The government may claim that loss of the region would make it difficult to defend the rest of the country. It may express anxieties about the safety of its ethnic minorities left behind, and guarantees for their property. They may argue that secession will have unwanted effects on the secessionists themselves. The precedent argument will be rolled out: Who will be next to secede? There will be legitimate arguments about who owns and pays for state’s previous investment in infrastructure. Any natural resources in the breakaway region will be a matter of legal argument.

These are all matters susceptible to study, discussion, debate and negotiation. The negotiations may well be difficult and protracted, but discussion and agreement is always preferable in human and financial terms than violent conflict. In the end, it is in the interests of the main state to agree a degree of autonomy rather than to wage a war that results in the end with alienation of territory and people.

Therefore there is clearly a case for the United Nations to set up a framework for discussion and resolution of separatist aspiration, and also to provide diplomatic and logistical help both for areas where separatist conflict is ongoing, and where there is a clear separatist sentiment that has not yet turned to violence. There should be a UN agency that will monitor separatist aspirations, and offer its services at an appropriate moment in the unfolding of separatist aspiration,

In the end, as Churchill said, jaw-jaw is better than war-war.

Resolving a World of Trouble with Green Ideology

There is a world of trouble out there, global problems looking for global solutions.

We have:

• Dictatorships  in North Korea, China, Burma, Zimbabwe,  Syria, Egypt, Bahrein, Saudi Arabia &c
• Wars and conflicts
• Global economic problems with debt, austerity and recession.
• Rich Poor Gap within nations and between nations
• Anthropogenic Global Warming and other man caused environmental degredation
• Human Population Growth

and many other problems and difficulties.

All these problems are capable of being resolved by determined political and economic reforms based on logical  reasoning from sound starting points. 

Why are they not solved or even addressed with any realistic determination? 

Because there are two sides to human nature - the competitive side and the co-operative side.

The competitive side is based on individualistic ideology. It is self-centred, self-seeking and self-serving. 

The co-operative side is based on the knowledge that humans are a social species, and on the certainty that in many situations, collaboration to attain some common goal of benefit to all is better than a multiplicity of unrelated individual actions.

Both have evolutionary advantages, and both can be operated simultaneously in the same system.

The dominant ideology of our age is based on competition between individual persons (remember that corporations are legal persons). It is claimed that competition for profit gives people the motivation to work harder and produce more, and thereby create more wealth. That is the strength of the individualistic ideology, even though the final flourish, trickle down economics, is an illusion.

The weakness of socialist ideology is that in its fullest manifestation, after a socialist revolution or even a democratic socialist victory, there is a distinct tendency for a personality cult to form. We see this in North Korea and Robert Mugabe today, and in a long and ignoble list going back through Said Barre of Somalia, Kwame Nkruma of Ghana,  to Stalin himself. It should be noted that the Communist Party is supporting the government of Bashar Assad of Syria.

This is not to say that socialism has a monopoly of dictatorship, because it certainly does not. Any long-lived period of rule by one person or one party tends to become controlling and self serving. That is why democratic elections, even in weak and imperfect democracies like the UK, are effective in holding back dictatorship simply by preventing any one person or party from staying in power for too long. Even if the change is from one party to an almost identical party (as from Republicans to Democrats in the USA, or Tories to New Labour in the UK), it is beneficial and salutary to be able to kick someone out of office.

This is a pitifully dismal consolation in view of the magnitude of problems that the world faces. The reason is that both of the main ideologies on offer - individualism and socialism -  are both anthropocentric. Both aim to improve the lot of the class that identifies with the ideology. Individualism aligns with the plutocrats, and socialism aligns with the proletariat. Both have attained their goal when they have attained power. Power is the goal, and clinging to power by suppressing dissent and controlling thought becomes the main purpose of government.

That is why the Green approach is so transformative. It is not anthropocentric but eco-centric. It starts not by considering humans as some kind of self-existent being, whether as individuals or as societies, but by considering humans in their ecological context. We look at how the planetary environment sustains our existence, it looks at how our activities can undermine the security of our existence, and how we can change our ways so that we can achieve a sustainable global economy.

In short, instead of looking at one detail of the picture - the individual or the society - we look at the whole picture. This is a rational approach. In looking at the whole picture, we are able to resolve the differences and contradictions that arise from starting with a partial view. It is going to take both individual action and social action to achieve sustainability.

Given the strength of our intellectual position, the weakness of the Greens as a political force is somewhat surprising. True, green thinking is percolating slowly - too slowly - into mainstream thinking. True, we have been excluded from the public debate by an unholy alliance of the old philosophies. But some of it is due to our own cognitive errors.

The old Green slogan was "Think globally, act locally". This is a good slogan, but evidently not good enough. We also need to think globally and act globally.

As a global community the Green Parties of the world - and all other green and social movements - need to come together and agree the kind of reforms that need to be put in place.
We need to evolve ways and means of preventing dictatorships from forming, and of isolating and disempowering them wherever they are found.
We need to find ways of preventing Wars and conflicts, starting with the most common cause - separatism
We need to find ways of resolving global economic problem and reducing  the inequalities  within nations and between nations that cause so much misery.
We need to address Anthropogenic Global Warming and other man caused environmental degredation.
We need to address human population growth.

All of these problems are capable of resolution by rational thought, discussion, agreement and political will.

We seem a million miles from resolution because of selfishness, self interest and wilful blindness to the facts. It is the old clash between our cerebral cortex and more primitive parts of our brain. At present, the primitive part is in the ascendant. It seems that stupidity rules everywhere, and always will rule.

This is not necessarily so. Just as the political pendulum swings between Right and Left in a country's electoral history, so also the pendulum can swing between narrow self interest and enlightened rationality that looks at the whole picture.

It is easy to give way to despair and cynicism. But if we look to the greater picture, it is like looking at a map. We can see which way to start moving. And once we can see, we can start discussing and spreading the idea that mankind is not irredeemably stupid.

Four Steps for Fairness Worth Fighting For

Er.

The Green Party slogan for the General Election is "Fairness is worth Fighting For".

The LibDem slogan is "Four Steps to a Fairer Britain".

Labour has A Future Fair for All.

Of the main parties, only the Cameroons do not mention fairness, relying on a vacuous "Vote for Change". (= NBG; Not Brown (Gordon)

I hope the BNP doesn't come out with "Fighting for a Fair Haired Fair Skinned Britain". That would make it really confusing.

As (Ex-) Green Party Parliamentary Candidate for Weston-super-Mare, it is my duty to try to make some kind of distinction between our positions.

The Green approach to "fairness" (we prefer the word "equity", except it would put people off) is that it includes our full agenda:

1. Fair distribution of wealth within a nation, because that is associated with a healthier, happier people.
   
   

   To achieve this, we need
   

   • a better electoral system, where more varieties of opinion are represented
   • redistributive taxation
   • a radically revised financial system, with new money created by the Bank of England as well as by the private banks
     

2. Fairer distribution of wealth between nations.
   
   

   To achieve this, we need
   

   • to abolish the debt burden on heavily indebted poor countries
   • to solarise the world economy so that hot poor countries become energy rich
   • to tackle dictatorships which cause poverty, oppression and war for their people, through the Index of Human Rights
   • to get the UN to set up an agency to negotiate separatist movements (1/3 of current wars are based on separatism; Angola separatists attacked the Togo football team yesterday)
     

3. Fairer distribution between present and future generations
   
   
   • -which brings in our whole sustainability agenda - climate change, reforestation, peace not militarism, economics based on ecology, respect for biodiversity and all the rest
     
     So that's what is implicit in the Green view of fairness (though I should point out that one or two points are not yet official Green Party policy).
     

What is the LibDem take on fairness?
I have highlighted the bits of Nick Clegg's Four Steps that catch my interest:

1. Tax Reform: stop up the loopholes that the rich use, and give £700 to everyone else. OK.
   
2. Reduce Class Sizes in schools. Cool.
   
3. Spread the profits of the City of London, out to the country generally. Have community banks (good classic Green policy), invest in infrastructure and green technology, invest in reliable public transport, (I think)
   
4. Political Reform - openness, transparency, 150 less MPs, local communities to control police and NHS (classic green policy), powers of recall.

So there we have it. Much overlap, as you would expect. So who do you vote for? Neither Party will form the next Government, so you are only voting for the principle in either case.

My case is that the Green philosophy, founded on the understanding of ecology, is more inclusive and sound than Liberal Democracy, which, like individualism and socialism is founded on the absurd notion that man is a self-existent being.

PS And another thing: Dave's slogan "We can't go on like this" would do for the Green Party too.
PPS Labour do not yet have a slogan afaik. May I suggest, free of charge, a simple

"Plod on",

or possibly,

"If you think we are bad, look at the Tories?"

Sri Lanka - a separatist war ignored by the world

I feel a sense of personal collective shame that the international community has not paid more attention to the Sri Lanka civil war.

Personal, because my next door neighbours for many years were Sri Lankan Tamil exiles, and they were the among the most pleasant people I have ever met.

The LTTE have been characterised as "terrorist", but I do not know of the evidence. Did they use violence against civilians? Has the Sri Lankan Government used such violence? I suspect that the answer is that both sides did so.

We can contribute to a structural UN reform, where the UN has an office to brokering negotiations over separatist aspirations.

Secession is not a rare phenomenon. There are about 110 places in the world where the people of a region feel uncertain about whether they are living in the right country or not. Of the 37 ongoing armed conflicts in the world, one third have secession as their main motivation.

This raises the possibility that instead of responding to wars in an ad hoc way with the usual intense diplomatic activity and the rest, the international community could lay down a framework of rules to enable reason and negotiation to take place of emotion and gunfire.

Prevention is better than cure. Clausewitz’ famous aphorism was that “War is the continuation of politics by other means”. This should be updated to “War is the continuation of politics by irrational and inhumane means”. Whatever form of words is used, it is clear that politicians have a duty to agree some rules and protocols on separatism, in order to extend the reach of politics to cover this common political situation.

Democracy should have a bearing on the matter. If it is truly the will of the people of a region that they should not be governed by their present rulers, then politicians should give attention to their wishes.

Does the majority of the people truly seek independence or autonomy, or is it simply the desire of an unrepresentative political group? This is a question that can be answered by referendum. Since it is unlikely that the state will be happy to offer a referendum, the process will have to be initiated by a people’s petition, which in some cases will have to be organised in secrecy. Once the designated agency of the UN has received the petition, they can research and evaluate the situation. If they decide that there is a case, negotiations leading up to a referendum can start. If the result of the referendum shows that a two thirds majority (say) is in favour of autonomy, negotiations can start, under the guidance of the UN or regional authorities.

Negotiations will be complex. No state wishes to lose bits of itself, just as no patient likes to go under the surgeon’s knife. However, people do agree to surgery if they are convinced that it is good for them. By allowing secession, the state is avoiding a war, with all its financial and human costs. Politically, it is gaining a cooperative neighbour, instead of a hostile entity on its doorstep. By agreeing to negotiate, they may end up with an autonomous region rather than a total loss of territory.

The arguments for secession are simple: the people do not feel themselves to be citizens of the present state. They feel ethnically or linguistically different. They may feel like second class citizens, or may even point to evidence of repression and human rights abuses. The people will need a good team of lawyers, because the arguments against secession will be complex and legalistic.

The government may claim that loss of the region would make it difficult to defend the rest of the country. It may express anxieties about the safety of its ethnic minorities left behind, and guarantees for their property. They may argue that secession will have unwanted effects on the secessionists themselves. The precedent argument will be rolled out: Who will be next to secede? There will be legitimate arguments about who owns and pays for state’s previous investment in infrastructure. Any natural resources in the breakaway region will be a matter of legal argument.

These are all matters susceptible to study, discussion, debate and negotiation. The negotiations may well be difficult and protracted, but agreement is always preferable in human and financial terms than violent conflict. In the end, it is in the interests of the main state to agree a degree of autonomy rather than to wage a war that results in the end with alienation of territory and people.

There is clearly a case for the United Nations to set up a framework for discussion and resolution of separatist aspiration, and also to provide diplomatic and logistical help both for areas where separatist conflict is ongoing, and where there is a clear separatist sentiment that has not yet turned to violence. In the end, as Churchill said, jaw is better than war.

Cheers

Preventing Separatist Wars as in Georgia

The conflict in Georgia has sparked the usual political turmoil. The usual “intense diplomatic activity” is taking place. The President of America has issued the usual stern words of condemnation of a military superpower that has taken the shocking step of violating a nation’s sovereignty. The participants are making the usual mutual accusations of atrocities and genocide, all of which probably have an element of truth. The United Nations Security Council will discuss the matter, and will vote along the usual political lines.

All of these reactions are taking place as though this is a novel situation. But war is not new, and the causes of war, although complex, can be analysed, and analysis raises the possibility that some of the more common causes can be addressed in a non-violent way.

The problems in Georgia are due in large part to the separatist ambitions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. A majority of the people in those regions do not wish to be part of Georgia. They have already fought a war in the early 1990s to gain their de facto independence, which has held steady for 16 years, although no other country has recognised them as independent countries.

Secession is not a rare phenomenon. There are about 110 places in the world where the people of a region feel uncertain about whether they are living in the right country or not. Of the 37 ongoing armed conflicts in the world, one third have secession as their main motivation.

This raises the possibility that instead of responding to wars in an ad hoc way with the usual intense diplomatic activity and the rest, the international community could lay down a framework of rules to enable reason and negotiation to take place of emotion and gunfire.

Prevention is better than cure. Clausewitz’ famous aphorism was that “War is the continuation of politics by other means”. This should be updated to “War is the continuation of politics by irrational and inhumane means”. Whatever form of words is used, it is clear that politicians have a duty to agree some rules and protocols on separatism, in order to extend the reach of politics to cover this common political situation.

Democracy should have a bearing on the matter. If it is truly the will of the people of a region that they should not be governed by their present rulers, then politicians should give attention to their wishes.

Does the majority of the people truly seek independence or autonomy, or is it simply the desire of an unrepresentative political group? This is a question that can be answered by referendum. Since it is unlikely that the state will be happy to offer a referendum, the process will have to be initiated by a people’s petition, which in some cases will have to be organised in secrecy. Once the designated agency of the UN has received the petition, they can research and evaluate the situation. If they decide that there is a case, negotiations leading up to a referendum can start. If the result of the referendum shows that a two thirds majority (say) is in favour of autonomy, negotiations can start, under the guidance of the UN or regional authorities.

Negotiations will be complex. No state wishes to lose bits of itself, just as no patient likes to go under the surgeon’s knife. However, people do agree to surgery if they are convinced that it is good for them. By allowing secession, the state is avoiding a war, with all its financial and human costs. Politically, it is gaining a cooperative neighbour, instead of a hostile entity on its doorstep. By agreeing to negotiate, they may end up with an autonomous region rather than a total loss of territory.

The arguments for secession are simple: the people do not feel themselves to be citizens of the present state. They feel ethnically or linguistically different. They may feel like second class citizens, or may even point to evidence of repression and human rights abuses. The people will need a good team of lawyers, because the arguments against secession will be complex and legalistic.

The government may claim that loss of the region would make it difficult to defend the rest of the country. It may express anxieties about the safety of its ethnic minorities left behind, and guarantees for their property. They may argue that secession will have unwanted effects on the secessionists themselves. The precedent argument will be rolled out: Who will be next to secede? There will be legitimate arguments about who owns and pays for state’s previous investment in infrastructure. Any natural resources in the breakaway region will be a matter of legal argument.

These are all matters susceptible to study, discussion, debate and negotiation. The negotiations may well be difficult and protracted, but agreement is always preferable in human and financial terms than violent conflict. In the end, it is in the interests of the main state to agree a degree of autonomy rather than to wage a war that results in the end with alienation of territory and people.

There is clearly a case for the United Nations to set up a framework for discussion and resolution of separatist aspiration, and also to provide diplomatic and logistical help both for areas where separatist conflict is ongoing, and where there is a clear separatist sentiment that has not yet turned to violence. In the end, as Churchill said, jaw is better than war.

© Richard Lawson

1 in 3 Current Wars are Separatist Conflicts

Separatism as a cause of current wars and conflicts

Since 2003 there are some 34 wars and conflicts taking place on the planet*. They vary in impact from Iraq, where up to a million have died, to the conflict in the Cote d’Ivoire where 10 have died.

Every war is different from every other war, each being due to complex historical circumstances that are unique to that war, just as every human being is unique. On the other hand, it is at the same time possible to make simple judgments about individuals, so that we can say, “These here are tall people, and those are short people”, and in the same way, it is possible to take the leading characteristic of wars, and find out what patterns appear.

In the years since 2003, the wars and conflicts in the world can be classified along these lines (see the list below):

Separatist 12

War on Terror 5

Ideology 4

Dictator/political 5

Corporations 2

Drugs 2

ethnic 1

warlordism 2

Tribal 1

“Separatist” wars and conflicts mean that at least some of the people believe that they should be either independent, or should be transferred to another state. The “War on Terror” needs no introduction, although its status has been downgraded, at least in the UK. “Ideology” indicates that the rebels have a different belief system from those they are fighting. It usually means left-wing, often Maoist, fighters, but I have included religious conflicts here. The “War on Terror” could be classified as an ideological conflict, which would bring ideological causes up to 9, over a quarter of present wars. “Dictator/political” indicates a power struggle, either against a dictator, of subsequent to the abolition of a dictator, or between two groups who are vying for power. Corporations are centrally involved in two conflicts, one in Nigeria, and one involving the Tuareg.

Drugs figure in Colombia, where Uribe’s government is fighting a proxy war on behalf of the USA, and one in Mexico, which is more a conflict between drug gangs. Drugs also play a part in Afghanistan, and here there is a strong case for the international community to buy the crop and put it to good use in pain relief in Africa, where every year 6 million people die of cancer without analgesic relief.

Ethnic and tribal occur between peoples of different extraction who share the same territory. Warlords are responsible for the conflict in Somalia and partly in Afghanistan.

Separatism

Approximately one third of current wars are due to the desire of a group of people to be independent of, or to have autonomy within, the state that they are currently ruled by. These account for more than one in three of current conflicts and wars.

Since separatism provides the pretext of such a significant causes of conflict, it deserves detailed historical and political study. What is the outcome of these movements? Are they on the increase? Wikipedia lists no less than 113 separatist movements worldwide. Are they all destined to turn into armed struggles?

Clausewitz famous aphorism was that “War is the continuation of politics by other means”. It should be updated to “War is the continuation of politics by irrational and inhumane means”, but whatever form of words is used, it is clear that politicians have a duty to agree some rules and protocols on separatism. Democracy should have a bearing on the matter. If it is truly the will of the people of a region that they should not be governed by their present rulers, then politicians should give attention to their desires. Each case will have its unique features, but these also are capable of being classified. Several questions need to be asked.

Does the majority of the people truly seek independence or autonomy, or is it simply the desire of an unrepresentative political group? This question can be answered by referendum.

Is the separate state economically capable of looking after itself? This can be a matter for study, but in principle any people that afford to go to war can surely afford to look after themselves in peacetime, given that war is such a ruinously expensive business. It is sometimes the case that the secessionist state is sitting on some natural resources that the main state wishes to enjoy. For instance, Scotland was only granted its own assembly when its oil fields had been substantially exploited.

Can the state defend itself? This question again contains its own answer in the case of secessionist conflicts. Guarantees can be given by neighbouring states, as in the case of Andorra, although this is an ambivalent state of affairs, since the guaranteeing state is likely to be the state from which independence is sought.

Can the new state rule itself? There are many options that lie between full integration with a larger state and full independence. Regional assemblies, cultural autonomy, and cantonisation are some of the options available.

These are all matters for study, discussion and negotiation. The negotiations may well be protracted, but talk is always better and in the end, cheaper, than violent conflict. In the end, it is in the interests of the main state to agree a degree of autonomy than to wage a war that results in the end with alienation of territory and people.

There is clearly a case for the United Nations to set up a framework for discussion and resolution of separatist aspiration, and also to provide diplomatic and logistical help both for areas where separatist conflict is ongoing, and where there is a clear separatist sentiment that has not yet turned to violence.

This is perhaps a suitable matter for a resolution to the UNA-UK Conference.

*Current wars and conflicts

The numbers refer to the number of dead

1. Sri Lanka
   68,000 people have died in the war since 1983

2. Wazaristan

“War on Terror”, separatist from Pakistan.

2-7000

3. Ogaden

Independence from Ethiopia, transfer to Somalia

~1500; long lasting, low intensity

4. Burma

Ethnic/cultural cleansing, autonomy for Karen people

7000

5. Papua

Separatist

number unknown

6. Senegal

Casamance separatist

number unknown

7. Chechen

Separatist

50,000

8. Balochistan

Ill-drawn border; transfer wanted

Number unknown

9. South Thailand

Separatist

2500

10. Comoros

Separatist

number unknown

11. Turkey/PKK

Cultural/political autonomy

number unknown

12. Philippines

Ethnic/religious, homeland

160,000

13. Kashmir

Ethnic/territorial

60,000

14. Darfur

Drought, desertification driving Bhaggara Arab nomads (Janjaweed) further south.

Despotic Govt.

300,000

15. Iraq

Dictator, oil,

100,000-1,000,000

16. Colombia

Ideology, War on Drugs, response to assassination of Gaitan in 1948

number unknown

17. Israel-Palestine

Ideology. Cultural/ethnic cleansing, oppression. Response to holocaust.

18. Laos

Ethnic. Ideological: Hmong acted for USA in Vietnam war

2-3,000

19. Afghanistan

“War on Terror”. Warlordism

number unknown

20. Peru

Ideological

~70,000

21. Uganda

Lord’s Resistance army; Religious, seeks to restore Acholi domination

12,000

22. Somalia

Post dictator. “War on Terror”.

350,000

23. Nigeria

Corporate exploitation

24. Maghreb

Insurgency against Algerian govt/ West; “War on Terror”

Number unknown

25. Saudi Arabia

Insurgency against Saudi; ideological / religious

273

26. India Nagaland

Tribal

27. Naxalite

Ideological (Maoist)

28. Chad

Insurgency against dictator

1400

29. Mexico

Between drug gangs

2700

30. Fatah-Hamas

Ideological/religious

265

31. Tuareg

Seek share of uranium wealth

56

32. Central African Republic

Political

33. Congo

Insurgency , political

34. Lebanon 2006

Ethnic cleansing, political, “War on Terror”

35. Kenya

Political