Victims and new wars

Abstract

Interpretations of ‘new wars’ are contradictory. While some stress the asymmetry of intentions, strategies, and capabilities of antagonists, others emphasize the identity of warring parties in sharing the same space of political violence. Introducing elements of a political anthropology of victimhood, this paper suggests that the polarity in new wars is driven by self-representations of collective victimhood. Modes of total warfare in the twentieth century shifted the moral centre of gravity towards representations of humanity as a transcendent victim. The universalist sacred of protecting humanity as a victim, however, masks the polarity between antagonists who legitimize aggression by defensive propositions in the name of suffered victimhood. On the one hand, moral justifications of revenge for victimhood support claims for the asymmetry of polarity. On the other hand, this asymmetry of proliferating victims conceals an ongoing symmetry of rivalry. Ultimately, the focus on political agency and on moral justifications maintains the illusion that the other is the aggressor. A new moral economy requires acknowledging the deep interdependence of rivals. The aggressor has always been aggressed. If the moral core of warfare is in the de-humanization of the enemy, possible paths of reconciliation require the moral recognition of the enemy's same humanity.

Notes

¹ In Article II (c), genocide means amongst other things ‘deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part', see Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 9 December 1948, < www.hrweb.org/legal/genocide.html>, accessed 22 August 2012.

²  < http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=victim>, accessed 22 August 2012.