Local Wars?

Is there such a thing as ”local wars”? Or are does all wars require international involvement? Are we all involved in one way or another in the ongoing wars around the world? I believe that we are. Did you ever buy a diamond? Well, when discussing the term “local wars” it is important to make a notion of all the actors and activities involved in a war; the legal activities and the illegal activities, which are carried out. It is important to recognize the visible actors and activities as well as the invisible. When reading Shadows of War, by Carolyn Nordstrom, one realizes the importance, power and the size of “the vast networks of people who move goods and services worldwide” (Nordstrom, Shadows of War, 2004:107). According to Nordstrom these networks are not just extremely central to the world politics and economy but she describes them as “societal systems that cut across national, linguistic and ethnic collectives” (Nordstrom, 2004:107) which are “more formalized, integrated and bound by rules of conduct” than we can imagine. Therefore I argue that the term “local wars” is an illusion, since these networks created from times of war, have become “extra-state networks [which] extend across war and peace and across all worlds countries” (Nordstrom, 2004:107) and because their power is comparable to some world-states.
First, it is not only through media that local wars are made a global issue. Even though I hate to admit that that was my first thought; no wars are local, because we all get affected by wars around the world through media. The western world is not just involved in the local wars through welcoming (or not welcoming) refugees, sending aid, selling weapons, in negotiations, peace-keeping troops or NGO´s; but in so many other ways which is extremely important to be aware of. Namely, we are all involved in the local wars through the international shadow networks. These shadow networks are informal networks which operate when the formal networks do not operate anymore. The activities of the shadow networks are, according to Nordstrom, not simply “criminal, illicit, or illegal activities, but cross various divides between legal, quasi-legal, and downright illegal activities” (Nordstrom, 2004:106). The activities of the shadow networks can for example be activities of gun smuggling, trafficking, and gun and diamond trade. There are networks that make sure the requested goods crosses the borders, there are networks that laundry money, and networks that are tied with the formal state systems when they are running their business. When Nordstrom describes that “[g]uns ride as often with bags of grain through international ports as they do with state-authorized arms shipments through military channels” (Nordstrom, 2004:111) one understands that drawing the line between illegal/legal business operations is extremely hard in times of war. But “[t]hese intersections of power, il/legality, (questionable) legitimacy, and non/formal are characteristics of shadow networks” (Nordstrom, 2004:112). And since these shadow networks operates internationally, one can argue that wars are not local. The degree of involvement in the ongoing wars around the world varies from individual to individual.
Second, another reason why one can argue that wars are not “local” is that fact that these shadow networks generate enormous amounts of money each year, according to Nordstrom:

“[a]s much as [twenty] percent of the world’s financial deposits are located in unregulated banks and offshore locations…The United Nations estimates the annual value of illicit drug traffic at [five hundred billion dollars]…Non-formal markets comprise a much larger section of the world’s true economy than formal indices document” (Nordstrom, 2004:108, 113).

Also, everyone knows that money means power. These successful business men have often gained political power. And this is an important point to make, because just like Nordstrom argues, there is a “thin line between criminal traffic and government-inspired trade” (Nordstrom, 2004:106). Some leaders which operate in the shadow networks have gained just as much power as some leaders of some states. So it is important to realize that these shadow networks have gained much political power, which also affects us through the political activities that goes on around the world today. Again, the “local” wars are made global.
Third, it is easy to regard these shadow networks as something single handed bad. But ironically, one has to realize that these networks are fundamental in times of war or post-war, not only for the survival of the individual but also for the development in certain places. Because for some people war is normality, and while living in times of war/post-war people are forced do whatever it takes to survive. And they have to turn to these shadow networks which not only provide them with a sense of community and belonging, but also with necessities and other goods. But through these networks they can start to develop and “piece together a society and economy” (Nordstrom, 2004:113). And this is in a way ironic, since “[t]he whole point of development is to move economies into formal state-based frameworks and stop non-formal activities” (Nordstrom, 2004:113). This proves that shadow networks are not single handed bad, but utterly important for some individuals/countries survival.
Further, another point that has to be made when discussing these shadow networks is the fact that the way they are have been created and the way the are being run today, is very similar to the ways that states has been created and still operates today. Nordstrom quotes Charles Tilly who claims that “war making, extraction, and capital accumulation interacted in shaping the development of the European state” (Nordstrom, 2004:115) and asserts that “banditry, piracy, gangland rivalry, policing and war making all belong to the same continuum” (Nordstrom, 2004:115) in the process of a creation of a state. Of course this state performed violence will rub off on the individuals living in it. Still, today, violent actions are carried out by certain states. There is not that much of a difference between the violence performed by states and by these shadow networks. Aren’t some states performing some form of organized crime against other states? I would personally claim that the USA performed a crime when attacking Iraq over nothing. States also perform illegal activities such as torturing prisoners of war or abducting people. Some states are performing crimes against their own inhabitants, like with the case of la violencia in Guatemala, where “the genocidal nature of state violence against the indigenous population” (Zur, Violent Memories, 1998:67) certainly proved to exist. Judith N Zur says in Violent Memories that both visible and invisible violence was performed by the state, and that:

”[i]nvisible violence was (and still is) covertly performed by clandestine organisations belonging to the army, the security forces, and the police…[a]rmy intelligence officers are believed to be responsible for many killings and disappearances…[but] both the military and government disclaim any involvement in their atrocities and blame the guerrillas”(Zur, 1998:79).

With the illegitimate violence that have created states and that states still perform today, might be a reason for the illegal features of the international shadow networks in the world today.
In conclusion, the concept of “local wars” should be rethought, since I believe there is not such a thing as a local war. This concept is an illusion, since one can say that every individual are involved in the ongoing wars around the world today in one way or another. Wars or post-war periods make people do what it takes in order to survive. Certain everyday activities such as getting food for the day have created shadow networks. For example, in Welcome to Sarajevo there is a scene where someone has managed to get a hold of a few eggs, and they make omelettes on them and it looks like that was the best thing they had tasted in years. The way these goods reach the people in war are both through legal activities and illegal activities. Drawing the line is very hard, since “the cosmopolitan centres of the world depend in part on ‘shadow’ economics and politics” (Nordstrom, 2004:115). Well, since these networks have come to extend beyond the nation-states and therefore has come to involve international actors, they also have come to have an impact on the world economy and therefore also on world politics. Also, these shadow networks, which in a way has come to operate the way states in general has come to operate throughout history, have ironically become necessary for countries development. Not only have they created a sense of meaning and belonging for the citizens in terrible times, but they have also been necessary for reshaping and recreating the economy and society. These shadow networks have come to be “worldwide alliances” (Nordstrom, 2004:131) but these
“interrelated transnational industries shouldn’t be confused with states, but they do have governing councils, laws and security forces. They forge trade agreements, foreign policy and currency exchanges. And they set up the transport routes, communication linkages, and banking systems needed to effect trade” (Nordstrom, 2004:131).
Therefore one can argue that the expression “local wars” is and illusion.

Works Cited

Nordstrom, Carolyn. Shadows of War: Violence, Power, and International Profiteering in the Twenty-First Century. London: University of California Press, Ltd, 2004.
Zur, Judith N. Violent Memories: Mayan War Widows in Guatemala. Oxford: Westview Press, 1998.