A qualitative comparative analysis of data compiled from numerous resources led
to the conclusion that small populations, mountainous terrain, and bad neighbors
combined to yield the outcome of ethnic war in the former Soviet states. This case study
shed doubt on Collier & Hoeffler and Fearon & Laitin’s findings that states with large
populations were more susceptible to ethnic war. It provided strong support for other
author’s findings, including the effects of mountainous terrain and bad neighbors, both of
which predicted ethnic war in the former Soviet Union. Use of this matrix of data also
led to the discovery of a new hypothesis derived from a predominant characteristic found
in the outlier states of Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. This alternative hypothesis links a
large, protected diaspora within a given state to suppression of violence in an otherwise
war-prone state. This would be an excellent factor to develop in a future study, perhaps
with a more global data set. Is this a factor unique to the former Soviet states and their
Russian diasporas, or do we see this evidenced in other regions?
A great deal of research has been conducted in recent years in an attempt to
understand the causes of ethnic cleansing and war; it is one of the most germane topics in
political science today. The sheer human suffering and destruction associated with this
type of warfare provides us with the impetus to understand this practice, perhaps with the
goal of someday addressing the root causes of ethnic war and creating policies to address
those causes. This is but one contribution among many in the drive to explain the causes
of ethnic war. Though it is regionally restricted, it has hopefully shed some light on the
combination of causes that led some states to ethnic conflict in the wake of state collapse,
versus those that negotiated the seas of state collapse without falling victim to ethnic
violence.
27
Convention