AIS5002 Week 11 – Literature Review

Movement against War Crime

“New and Old Wars- Organised Violence in Global Era” Second edition – Published by Stanford 2005.
Author: Mary Kaldor
♦ Preface
♦ Chapter 1 - Introduction
♦ Chapter 2 – Old Wars
♦ Chapter 3 – Bosnia Herzegovina – A case study of a new war
♦ Chapter 8 – Governance, Legitimacy and Security

By Benjamin K H Lai, 53414441

Introduction
Mary Kaldor is Professor and Director of the Centre for the Study of Global Governance, LSE in London.
She previously worked at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), and the Science
Policy Research Unit and the Sussex European Institute at the University of Sussex. She was a founder
member of European Nuclear Disarmament (END), founder and Co-Chair of the Helsinki Citizen’s
Assembly, and a member of the International Independent Commission to investigate the Kosovo Crisis.

Review
This literature review is centred on Mary Kaldor’s book “New and Old Wars- Organised Violence in
Global Era”. Mary Kaldor presented to us a new understanding of contemporary war and conflict. Gone
are the days where wars were fought between states and by uniformed men, under a code of laws, standing
armies, and fighting pitch battles in formations. For Example, in 1815 at Battle of Waterloo where armies
face each other over open ground and fighting occurs in a relatively small contained area). As
mechanization grew and long distance communications is possible these pitch battles grew size and
dimensions (Air Sea and Land) as well as in a boarder geographic areas. For example the Battle of
Normandy 1944 fighting occurs throughout northern France or Battle of Britain in 1940 fighting occurs
throughout SW Britain for the latter in air, sea and land. “Old Wars” tends to have a clear demarcation
between Front Line vs. Rear Areas, wars are fought with both standing armies and citizen armies
(Conscripted troops, Territorial armies^) in uniforms and under the banner of Nations. However in modern
wars especially in the era of globalization a new form of warfare materialized. These “New Wars” are
more varied, in additional formal armies we see more occasions where informal soldiers such as terror
groups, organized crime being involved, The distinction between soldiers and civilians are fudge, no
geographic demarcation where the battle field is, certainly no front line or rear areas. The actors in war are
global and local, public and private, wars now are fought for political and ideological goals using tactics
of terror and asymmetrical warfare and destabilization outside the so called old rules of war such as

Ben Lai 51434441 Page 1 of 6 2009/3/27

 AIS5002 Week 11 – Literature Review
Movement against War Crime
Geneva Convention. “New Wars” are financed not by tax and state budget, equipped by state arsenal but
from informal sometimes criminalized economy, supplied by black market arms trade and underground
and kitchen table top bomb factory.

Like many social scientists Mary Kaldor place the understanding of conflict has a distinct Western bias.
Her starting point of analysis is 17th Century Europe, Peace of Westphalia (Treaties of Osnabrück and
Münster, signed on May 15 and October 24, 1648) which established the concept of state sovereignty.
Depending on where she put the baseline comparison of wars from 1648, Kaldor is correct to say that we
have moved from a war of states to war between a mixture of states and non states as well as among non
states entities. However if we push the baseline further back to pre Westphalia era, we can see that
conflicts of this era, which I would called “Ancient Wars” in line with Kaldor’s term of “old wars and
new wars” are mainly conducted by non states entities, therefore are conflicts of the 21st century moving
back to pre 1648 era? Can we relearn new tricks from old dogs?

Pre Westphalia Post Westphalia “New Wars”

Wars of State and non State Actors
Wars between Non States State vs. State War
“Ancient Wars” “Old Wars”
Wesphalia 1648 Berlin Wall falls1989 Iraq 2003

Kaldor’s Worlds comparison base on baseline of 1648 –

contrast between “Old Wars and New Wars”
Ben Lai’s Worlds comparison base on baseline
of pre 1648 wars, Ancient wars with New wars

The recent 2001 Afghanistan war and 2003 second Iraq war shows how “Old War” thinking mentality has
greatly exacerbated the concept of new war. In the early days of the WWI, armies still went to wars very
much in the style and traditions of Napoleon era conflicts, British infantry were still wears red tunics
totally oblivion to the technology changes like the invention of the Machine Gun that revolution warfare
style and tactics. In the early years of the 21st Century we still go to wars very much based on experience
of the last one. The America cannot understand the concept of new wars, not only it was ill equipped and
tactically unsound was demonstrated to be so inadequate – (Equipment and tactics that was devised for the
war the never was, NATO vs. Warsaw Pact in the World War III scenario). The West paid dearly of this
ignorance by bloods of soldiers – the hard way. The western armies are using the latest million dollars
military technology, to crush opponents that are marginally excluded from society, weak and poor and

Ben Lai 51434441 Page 2 of 6 2009/3/27

 AIS5002 Week 11 – Literature Review
Movement against War Crime
failing – given the overwhelming superiority of the West, why are people equipped in 19-20th Century
technology still winning the fight?

After the fall of the Berlin Wall a new era of wars appeared (Eg: mini conflicts such as those in Eastern
Europe, Rwanda, Congo, Sudan, Bosnia, and Iraq 2003). Kaldor blames the negative effects of
globalization as the incubator of new wars. Marginalized communities couple with new hate ideologies
mixed with cheap weaponry from global arms trade, the internet that allow easy communications as well
as money transfer via web banking), working from mountain or urban slum hides of failed states. Is
globalization the only cause of the so called new style of warfare as what Kaldor has indicated? May there
be other reasons? Or these changes will happen no matter globalization or not?

The author (Benjamin Lai) is not convinced by Kaldor’s argument. Globalization is a process that affected
our lives in more ways than one in the 21st Century. However we must understand that globalization is a
process that is driven by advances in technology especially in communications and transportation; that
increase the general empowerment of the average citizen that resulted in the power shift moving to the
bottom of the pyramid. Thus provided these citizens can adapt the tactics and strategy, citizen groups can
now participate in warfare and fight head to head with previously unimaginable foes such as great nations
with standing armies. However if we look back in the time line of histories longer – pre Westphalia era,
the fight between citizen groups against states were much balancer flight – You have a sword I have a
sword. Provided I have better skills I can still defeat an army. It is only after the onset of Industrialization
that the fight becomes more one sided. Now it seems we have come a full (or if not full, the gaps has
narrowed) that empowerment of the citizen through technology (access to cheap man held weapon like the
Russian made RPG 29 – cost of launcher 500 US$, cost of rocket 300 US$ to defeat an Challenger II Main
battle Tank costing 4 million British Pounds in 1994) allows citizen groups to take on The State.
Technology change is the equalizer.

Are the reasons of these new wars as indicated by Kaldor any difference from old wars? Did globalization
created new environment that changes the rules of the old? Homogeny or better known as “who is the
boss”, is a common declared reason for wars; however wars / conflicts are almost always if we distilled
these declared into the lower basic common dominator – reasons for wars/ conflicts are almost always
about access to resources which equate to power, wealth and living adequate space. For example a typical
old war – Japan entry to WWII, invasion of Asia was driven by the Japanese need to secure natural
resources such as oil – Burma, rubber, Malaysia, coal, iron ore and land from China. The attack on Pearl

Ben Lai 51434441 Page 3 of 6 2009/3/27

 AIS5002 Week 11 – Literature Review
Movement against War Crime
Harbour on 7th Dec 1941 and general invasion on SE Asia on 8th Dec 1941 (Actually the same date and
almost the same hour but difference in date in due to the international date line) was driven by the
Japanese perception that the US will take more of an active role over and above the existing trade
sanctions to interfere in the Grand Japanese Plan of homogeny in Asia. If we compare this Old War with a
New War Iraq War 2003, the invasion of Iraq by US and her Allies (mainly UK), was first declared as
procession of WMD (Weapon of Mass Destruction) by Iraq2. Having found none 3, a new frame shift was
created create “democracy” and eliminate dangerous terror group such as Al Qaeda. Although we may
never know the full truth, many writers and analyst declared that the REAL reasons for war was for the oil
and continuation of the dominance of US dollar1 in international trade especially in petroleum. Although
this review limits me to dwell more in depth on this argument I hope that this illustrate that Old Wars and
New Wars are basically caused by similar reasons albeit under different pretext only.

Kaldor's solution as proposed in Chapter 8, is based deriding the two proponent Samuel Huntington –
Clash of Civilizations (Future clash will be clash of civilization rather than clash of states/nations, Islamic
bloc vs. Chinese bloc, vs. Anglo Saxon bloc etc.) and Robert Kapland’s The Ends of Earth (Globalization
and other issues caused and resource depletion are undermining fragile governments across the developing
world and represent a threat to the developed world) that new wars will be fought between opponents not
divided on national and geographic lines and that the security mechanism of the future is the assumption
of “cosmopolitan civic values – those who favours openness, toleration and participation”. That is to be
implemented according to Kaldor via “cosmopolitan governance” through some sort of cosmopolitan law
enforcer. Eh? What is she on about? Who will take on this role - does she mean the UN or Uncle Sam
who held the role of world policemen since 1945? – This she did not make clear. The UN has never risen
to the challenge to the role and the US faced with financial melt down and rise of China and resurgence of
Russia, may means that whoever dominates the globe in the latter part of the 21st century taking on the
“world policemen” role may not be what Kaldor has in mind – “democratic, transparent and
accountable” – its it an Trojan Horse or double speak for Western Europe and the USA hegemony?

Will cosmopolitan governance a force – which Kaldor put so much hope as the new security bedrock for
the 21st century be possible against ideologues such as Hitler, Milošević, bin Laden, and Pol Pot be subdue
by reasoned under any circumstances or they will allow cosmopolitan forces from rising in the first place?
I doubt it. Tyrants like Hitler, Pol Pot will have to be taken out – by an invading army or by covert
assignation action; period.

Ben Lai 51434441 Page 4 of 6 2009/3/27

 AIS5002 Week 11 – Literature Review
Movement against War Crime
Summary
Kaldor’s initial observation and analysis of old wars and new wars are excellent – although if she
extended her baseline of 1648 further into history she would have found that the ancient wars of pre
Westphalia era is in many ways a closer analogy of the New Wars of the 21st Century. So what can we
expect how wars in the 21st Century will be fought? What is the security implication? How should the
army be reorganized? How should it be equipped? Kaldor could have use the opportunity to explained the
consequence of the rise of non-state actors in new wars as she has so clearly demonstrated in the book, the
rise of private military company (PMC) like Blackwater in “New Wars”, these new conflict will more
lively to involve armed terror / liberation groups which would means more direct involvement of
commercial money market and financial instrument like bonds and equity to finance wars for such non
state actors like PMC. But as far as the terror groups are concerns financing may come from the
underworld of criminality, money laundering, drugs, after all it was drug money that funded the armed
rebellions and “freedom fighters” of the Golden Triangles in Burma, Laos and Northern Thailand. In New
Wars we will increasingly see the uses of contradictory terms like Nation building within the vocabulary
of warfare. To meet this new oxymoronic concept, in “New Wars” we will increasingly see the rise of a
new breed of military officers not as tank or troop commander, but civil affairs officers which imply
closer working relationship with NGOs and developmentalist previously an unfathomable concept. How
should the military and NGO cope? Mary could have provided some answers.

However instead of the providing us with feasible solutions on how we should be better prepared how to
fight “new wars”, instead we are presented with a rather wish-wash grandioso concept such as
“Cosmopolitan Governance” without any forms elaborations nor how by with we can implement these
new security arrangement other than what she described – as Transnational agencies, a police force? Is
Mary suggesting the UN? or the Armies of the United States of Europe?

Where as I fully appreciate Mary is trying to expand the envelope to developed ideas and concepts that no
man has trend; on this I fully agreed that we should think out of the box and be experimental, however
wars as what Sun Zi* said “War is of vital importance to the State, It is a matter of life and death, a road
either to safety or to ruin”.（孙子曰：兵者，国之大事，死生之地，存亡之道）and therefore should
not be taken lightly. The long road of history is littered with many national security experiments based on
unproven theories – where any mistakes are severely punished without mercy. China 1931 and 1937,
Czechoslovakia 1938, Poland 1939, France 1940, Hong Kong 1941, Singapore 1942, are just such
examples. Since Mary open the pandora box, she should at least filled it will ideas that are more concrete

Ben Lai 51434441 Page 5 of 6 2009/3/27

 AIS5002 Week 11 – Literature Review
Movement against War Crime
proposal as well as ways to with it can be achieved. So let us base our security and safety ideas on proven
models.

(Core Text word count 2335)

^ Territorial Army – a British Citizen militia – military reserves – raised in the early 1800 for wars with
Napoleon, supplied the bulk of man power in British order of battle for both WWI and WWII. Today it is
part of the British military structure – supply the majority of manpower for support services as well key
specialist.
* Sun Zi （400 – 320 BCE）was a Chinese General, military strategist , and author of The Art of War, an
immensely influential ancient Chinese book on military strategy.

Reference
1
Clark, William (March 2003) “Revisited - The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War With Iraq:
A Macroeconomic and Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth”
Original Essay January 2003 -Revised March 2003 -Post-war Commentary January 2004
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html (Accessed 15th March 2009)
2
HM Government (Sept 2002) IRAQ’S WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION - THE
ASSESSMENT OF THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT – Official position paper by the British Government
www.official-documents.co.uk
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/documents/0,12962,916659,00.html (Accessed 15th March 2009)
3
Blix, Hans (23rd Sept 2003) Report to the UN Security Council
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/documents/quarterly_reports/s-2003-232.pdf (Accessed 15th
March 2009)

Ben Lai 51434441 Page 6 of 6 2009/3/27