Final answer:
While liberalism and poststructuralism may not directly address ethnic conflicts, liberalism's emphasis on shared democratic values and poststructuralism's critique of identity and power structures offer indirect insights into the conditions that lead to such conflicts.
Step-by-step explanation:
The claim that neither liberalism nor poststructuralism address issues of ethnic conflict is not entirely accurate. Liberalism, particularly when considered through international relations, acknowledges the role of states within a system that seeks collective security, implicitly addressing ethnic conflict as a potential disruptor of global order. John Rawls, an influential liberal thinker, suggested that a stable society requires that its members share a substantial amount of liberal democratic values, implicitly engaging with the potential for ethnic conflict to challenge such stability.
On the other hand, poststructuralism challenges fixed categories and identities, which can contribute to understanding and deconstructing the essentialist ideologies that often fuel ethnic conflicts. However, rather than providing direct solutions to such conflicts, poststructuralists would more likely analyze the power structures and discourse that embed and sustain these conflicts within societies. It should be noted, while specific strategies for addressing ethnic wars may not be the direct focus, the frameworks provided by both schools of thought contribute to our understanding of the conditions under which ethnic conflict occurs.