This paper intends to explain the discrepancy in Western response to cases of conflict which appear to be comparable, and it aims to do so through a realist study of the West’s self-interest...Show moreThis paper intends to explain the discrepancy in Western response to cases of conflict which appear to be comparable, and it aims to do so through a realist study of the West’s self-interest involved. By differentiating these comparable cases between ‘Western’ and ‘non-Western’, this paper intends to put forward the theory that the West is biased towards non-Western conflict management activities in general. Thereby contradicting the commonplace Western-based literature, this paper aims to voice an alternative interpretation of the reasoning behind Western responses to non-Western efforts of managing conflict. Through studying four cases of interstate conflict management activities which did not enjoy implicit Security Council approval, and two further comparable and illustrative cases of domestic conflict, this paper aims to present empirical evidence for the theory as proposed. This analysis will adhere to a qualitative research design, and it will combine elements of a content- and discourse-analysis, thereby relying on scholarly written work as well as on political and media discourse related to the selected cases. As this analysis will subsequently conclude, the selected cases indeed illustrate an inconsistency in Western response to either Western or non-Western conflict management activities, thereby ruling in favour of the here argued theory that the West is biased towards non-Western efforts of managing conflict. Due to the argued Western ‘moral high ground’ in international affairs, this bias is consequently portrayed as a standard by Western governmental leaders and by Western media, thereby leading to a one-sided discussion in which non-Western countries have an inherent disadvantage; something this paper intends to contradict.Show less
