What are interethnic conflicts. Growth of international conflicts

The reasons for interethnic conflicts are diverse:

Political reasons. First of all it is a crisis and then the collapse of the USSR - a major transnational world power. This reason has a universal character, since the confrontation between ethnic and confessional groups is always exacerbated during periods of disintegration of multinational asymmetric states. Another, a derivative political cause of the conflict is the struggle of both new and old political elites for the redistribution of the "imperial inheritance". In this struggle, the national factor is used without any hesitation. It is being conducted in the absence of the rules of the political "game" (the old rules have been canceled, but the new rules, a new political culture is just beginning to form). Therefore, in a number of cases one can observe shameless speculation on national feelings, despite the obvious damage, grief and even blood that such “games” bring to the population of all nationalities. Moreover, the national “card” is sometimes played not without success even by openly criminal, mafia structures.

Economic reasons are closely related to political ones. One side, there is a largely analogous political struggle for the redistribution of national wealth, with another- regions are traditionally poor, deprived of natural resources or do not have a developed economy, but receiving a certain centralized support, now, having lost it, they are trying to somehow get out of the situation by appealing to the categories of national survival, preserving the national hearth, while resorting to any available to them means of economic pressure or even blackmail. Besides, economically more powerful regions seek to block the tendencies of national separatism, also using economic and financial levers for this. Strengthening statehood is the core problem of ensuring national security, including in countering separatism. The independence and independence of some of its most important systems - the legislative branch, regional power structures, is currently largely symbolic. This is the vulnerability of the modern system of public administration. Moreover, such a system is less able to withstand the evolving threats from separatist tendencies. Another important area of ​​countering separatism in the Russian Federation in modern conditions is the improvement of the state structure of Russia, its federal foundations.

Many interethnic conflicts can, in a sense, be called false, since they are based not on objective contradictions, but on a misunderstanding of the positions and goals of the other side, attributing hostile intentions to it, which gives rise to an inadequate sense of danger and threat. There are a lot of examples here: this is both distrust of the Russian-speaking diaspora in the neighboring countries, and the fear of Caucasians or natives of Central Asia and Central Russia. Naturally, such feelings are rationalized through a tendentious selection of everyday and other examples that affect everyday consciousness. And, of course, politicians playing the national card are trying in every possible way to use this fertile ground. Really, the phenomenon of psychological opposition "we" and "they" is rooted in the deep layers of the public subconscious, and it is very difficult to deal with it, although absolutely necessary. Easing of a false conflict can be achieved with the help of educational, educational and explanatory work among the population. Moreover, one should appeal not only to the rational, intellectual levels of the human psyche, but also to emotions, to mass moods. In this regard, a few words should be said about the role of the national intelligentsia. One of the noble traditions of the Russian intelligentsia has always been to support peoples oppressed by the imperial power on the territory of their own state, to protect them from the oppression of the central government. And such a position, as a rule, was by no means viewed in intellectual circles as a national betrayal, but, on the contrary, had a distinct patriotic motivation. And in recent times, during the period of the by no means bloodless agony of the USSR, the Russian intelligentsia for the most part supported the republican movements for self-determination - in the question of the Baltic States, in the events in Tbilisi. She saw the moral duty of the intelligentsia of a large nation in helping small nations to find freedom. And here she was united with the intelligentsia of these small nations.

Plan:

1. The concept of interethnic conflict

1.1 The concept of interethnic conflict

1.2 Classification of interethnic conflict

2. Reasons, possibilities of preventing interethnic conflict

2.1 Reasons for the emergence of interethnic conflicts in Russia

2.2 Ways to resolve interethnic conflicts

1.1 The concept of interethnic conflict.

Conflict is a clash of opposing interests, views, positions, aspirations. Ethnosocial (interethnic) conflicts are among the most complex and intractable ones. This is a form of intergroup conflict, in which groups with opposing interests differ according to their ethnicity (nationality).

A functional approach to understanding the conflict is typical for the majority of ethno-conflictologists. V.A. Tishkov defines an interethnic conflict as any form of "civil, political or armed confrontation in which the parties, or one of the parties, mobilize, act or suffer on the basis of ethnic differences."

LM Drobizheva emphasizes the functional basis of ethnic conflict, which is not based on ethnicity, but in social problems that arise between groups consolidated on a national basis.

A. Yamskov defines an interethnic conflict through a description of collective actions: “An interethnic conflict is a dynamically changing socio-political situation generated by the rejection of the previously established status quo by a significant part of representatives of one (several) local ethnic groups and manifested in the form of at least one of the following actions of members of this group:

a) the beginning of ethno-selective emigration from the region;

b) the creation of political organizations declaring the need to change the existing situation in the interests of the specified ethnic group;

c) spontaneous protest actions against infringement of their interests by representatives of another local ethnic group. "

In his definition of interethnic conflict, Z. V. Sikevich shifts the emphasis from the behavioral component to the analysis of the intersection of ethnic and political spaces: on the one hand, and the state, on the other, at the intersection of ethnic and political space, expressed in the desire of an ethnic group (s) to change ethnic inequalities or political space in its territorial dimension. " 1

In the latter case, the definition rigidly links the subjects of the conflict and the deep goals of their political activity, no matter what declarations they hide behind, and in whatever forms the interethnic conflict itself manifests itself.

In everyday practice, when discussing interethnic relations, the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the national policy of the state, we usually mean certain nations. At the same time, various small ethnic groups are not particularly distinguished, although their number, for example, in Russia, is quite significant. The interethnic policy of the state is designed to regulate socio-political relations in order to harmonize the interests of various ethnic and national groups and the fullest satisfaction of their needs.

Interethnic conflict is a complex sociological phenomenon and has its own characteristics. Conflict situations between social groups, classes are reduced to confrontation regarding the possible full satisfaction of their interests. This applies primarily to power relations. Interethnic and interstate conflicts affect literally the entire spectrum of relations between the conflicting parties, the entire society.

The parties to the conflict have a complex structure. Nation or _________________________________________________________________ 1 Zdravomyslov A.G. Sociology of conflict. M., 2004.- p. 237-246

an ethnic group does not always act as an aggregate subject. It can be an individual person, a specific organization or movement that takes on the representation of a nation or ethnic group. People not only fail to pursue their national interests, but lose much of what they had, including human and civil rights.

1.2. Classification of conflicts

There is also a classification of conflicts according to the forms of manifestation and development:

Conflicts of the "skirmish" type, when the opposing sides share irreconcilable contradictions and the result can only be a victory for one of the sides;

Conflicts of the "debate" type, when there is a dispute, maneuvering and both parties are counting on reaching an agreement (compromise);

Conflicts of the "games" type, when the parties act within the framework of general rules and therefore the conflict does not end with the destruction of the entire set of relations between the conflicting ones.

An interethnic conflict has its own stages, stages, mechanisms of development and solutions. Armed conflicts pose the greatest danger to society. In the modern world, countries and peoples are so interconnected that even minor conflicts in one country can serve as an incendiary mixture for the entire world community, especially in those countries like the Russian Federation that have nuclear weapons.

Such conflicts are characterized by a certain level of organization of actions along with mass riots, separatist actions up to civil war. Since they arise in multinational states, any internal conflict in them inevitably takes on a political character. Therefore, it is sometimes difficult to draw a clear line between social, political and ethnic conflict. Ethnic conflict can be expressed in various forms, from intolerance and discrimination at the interpersonal level to mass demonstrations for separation from the state, armed clashes, and the war for national liberation.

2.1 Reasons for the emergence of interethnic conflicts

Interethnic conflicts in the Russian Federation and in the CIS countries have specific historical objective and subjective reasons. Until 1986, nothing was publicly said about interethnic conflicts in the USSR. It was believed that in it the national question was finally resolved. And I must admit that there were no major open interethnic conflicts. At the household level, there were many interethnic antipathies and frictions, and the commission of crimes on this basis was also observed. The latter have never been separately taken into account or tracked.

At the same time, there was an intensive process of Russification of non-Russian peoples. The reluctance to learn Russian did not entail any sanctions, as they are trying to do in Estonia or Moldova, but the study itself was placed on the level of naturally necessary. At the same time, knowledge of the Russian language as a federal language opened up great opportunities for non-Russian peoples for training, professionalization and self-realization. The Russian language made it possible to join the culture of all the peoples of the USSR, as well as to world culture. He performed and continues to perform the same function that fell to the share of the English language in international communication. It would also be blasphemy to forget that the outskirts of the Union, being more backward, developed at the expense of infringing on the interests of the peoples of Central Russia.

All this, however, did not exclude the formation of latent ethno-conflict situations caused by the flawed national policy of the Soviet government. Even during the civil war, 35 republics of red regimes and 37 - white ones were formed. This tendency intensified after the victory of the Bolsheviks. However, its full implementation was impossible. Yes, the Bolsheviks were not going to implement it. Based on the principle of “divide and rule”, they gave formal independence in the form of the national name of the territory only to the “supporting” nations. Therefore, out of more than 130 nationalities inhabiting the USSR, about 80 did not receive any national formations. Moreover, the "extradition" of statehood was carried out in a strange way. Estonians, for example, whose total number in the country as a whole, according to the 1989 census, was 1,027,000, had a union state; Tatars, whose number is more than 6 times greater than the number of Estonians (6649 thousand) - autonomy, and the Poles (1126 thousand) or Germans (2039 thousand) did not have any national formations.

Subsequent volitional changes in the boundaries of national formations and the transfer of huge territories (for example, Crimea) from one republic to another without taking into account historical and ethnic characteristics, deportation of entire peoples from their native lands and their dispersal among other nationalities, huge migration flows associated with the mass eviction of people by political reasons, with great construction projects, the development of virgin lands and other processes, finally mixed the peoples of the USSR.

According to the 1989 census, Russians alone live outside Russia 25 million 290 thousand people. In addition to Russians, there were 3 million Russian-speaking representatives of other peoples outside of Russia. And how many Russian and Russian-speaking citizens, being inside Russia, with their ancestral lands were annexed to the territories of other national - state formations or arrived there on some "call", in which they, regardless of their share (in 9 republics out of 21 titular peoples do not constitute the majority of the population, and in 8 other republics the number of Russians, Ukrainians and other non-titular nations is 30% or more) are listed among national minorities with all the ensuing consequences. The main problem is that the titular nations, regardless of their size, claim exclusive control of state institutions and property, often created by the hands of “alien” peoples and at the expense of the all-union budget, as was the case in Estonia, Lithuania, and Kazakhstan. In a number of cases, the Russian-speaking population remains hostage to nationalist criminal adventures, as happened with the 250,000 Russian-speaking population in Chechnya.

The conflict situation in the countries formed on the territory of the former USSR is due to many reasons, old and modern, political (centralism and unitarianism of power, repression and conquest of peoples), economic (economic crisis, unemployment, impoverishment), socio-psychological (interethnic barriers to communication, negative forms of national self-assertion, open nationalism, ambitions of national leaders), territorial and others.

The vast majority of conflicts are of an interethnic, intertribal nature. They were deployed on the territory of one or several countries, often turning into full-scale modern wars. Many of them were complicated by religious and clan conflicts. Some have dragged on for centuries, such as the Middle East conflict between Jews and Arabs, the Transcaucasian conflict between Armenians and Turks (Azerbaijanis). The root causes of lasting conflicts are often erased by time, disappear into the subconscious and are expressed in an almost pathological national intolerance that is difficult to explain. The immediate causes (causes) of periodically renewed clashes are usually the nearest "injustices". Putting this word in quotation marks, I mean that in most interethnic conflicts there is no objectively fair solution for all warring parties, because each is guided by its own truth, its own historical periods, events, facts.

A conflict situation in most cases develops as a resultant component of a complex of reasons and conditions. A conflict arises when, objectively, and not rarely subjectively, interethnic comparisons, which when it turns out to be (real or not) in something infringed, offended, left out, oppressed; when in the psychology of peoples; when the solution to many problems is seen only in national self-affirmation.

Conflicting people (groups) are always found in such cases. National political forces striving for power and property deftly use spontaneous discontent. By warming it up, they present themselves as the protectors of the nation. And although it has long been known that nationalism and ethnocracy are irrational, destructive, hopeless and destructive, they, as a rule, do not seem so to the rebellious people. On the contrary, it is ethnocracy and nationalism that are becoming the most understandable, closest and most unifying ideology. The unity of language, customs, traditions, faith unites people from a half-word, from a half-movement. What could be easier than having a common object of denial and assimilating the general “ideology of falsehood”, in the name of which this object should be rejected? To say, for example, that Jews, Gypsies, Germans, Arabs, Negroes, Vietnamese, Hungarians or Czechs are to blame for all the misfortunes of the world - and above all for every offended soul: It's so simple and understandable! And there is always a sufficient number of Vietnamese, Hungarians, Czechs, Gypsies, or Jews, whose actions can illustrate the idea that it is they who are to blame for everything.

2.2 Ways of resolving interethnic conflicts

In the event of an interethnic conflict within one state, judging by the bitter experience of the countries formed on the territory of the former USSR, there are two options for the behavior of the official authorities. First: the authorities, maintaining a balance, remain above the conflict, trying with acceptable forces and means to extinguish the conflict that has arisen, as, for example, was done, although not without errors, by the Russian authorities in the conflict between the North Ossetians and the Ingush. Second: the authorities themselves are drawn into the conflict, advocating for the preservation of the territorial integrity of the country or on the side of the titular people, as was observed in Azerbaijan in the conflict between Azerbaijanis and Armenians, in Georgia - in the conflict between Georgians and South Ossetians, between Georgians and Abkhazians, or in Moldova in the conflict Moldovans with a Russian-speaking population (Moldova with Transnistria). Ultimately, the Russian authorities in Chechnya were drawn into similar situations.

In a multiethnic society, conflicts are inevitable. The danger is not in themselves, but in the way they are resolved.

There are six prerequisites for resolving ethnic conflicts:

Each of the warring factions must have a single command and be controlled by it;

The parties must control territories that would provide them with relative security after the conclusion of the armistice;

Achieving a state of a certain equilibrium in a conflict, when the parties have either temporarily exhausted their military capabilities, or have already achieved many of their goals;

The presence of an influential mediator who can increase the interest of the parties in reaching an armistice and achieve recognition of the ethnic minority as a party to the conflict;

The consent of the parties to "freeze" the crisis and to postpone a comprehensive political settlement for an indefinite period;

Placement of peacekeeping forces along the line of separation that are authoritative or strong enough to deter the parties from resuming hostilities.

The presence of an authoritative single command for each of the warring factions, which would have sufficient power to ensure control over the field commanders and whose orders would be executed is the first necessary condition for any ceasefire negotiations. Otherwise, reaching any agreements is generally not possible. It is no coincidence that one of the first steps of the Russian authorities to resolve the Ossetian-Ingush conflict was the creation of power structures in Ingushetia in order to have a leader with whom they could conduct a dialogue. The presence of control over the territory, which ensures the parties at least relative security, seems to be almost a key prerequisite for a settlement.

Actions to neutralize the confrontational aspirations of participants in interethnic conflicts fit into the framework of some general rules derived from the existing experience in resolving such conflicts. Among them:

1) legitimation of the conflict - the official recognition by the existing power structures and the conflicting parties of the existence of the problem itself (the subject of the conflict), which needs to be discussed and resolved;

2) institutionalization of the conflict - the development of rules, norms, rules of civilized conflict behavior recognized by both parties;

3) the expediency of transferring the conflict to the legal plane;

4) the introduction of the institution of mediation in the organization of the negotiation process;

5) information support for the settlement of the conflict, that is, openness, "transparency" of negotiations, availability and objectivity of information on the progress of the conflict for all interested citizens, etc.

Throughout its history, mankind has accumulated considerable experience in the non-violent settlement of conflicts. However, only in the second half of the XX century, when it became obvious that conflicts are a real threat to the survival of mankind, an independent region began to take shape in the world. scientific research, one of the main subjects of which is the prevention of open, armed forms of manifestation of conflicts, their settlement or settlement, as well as the resolution of conflicts by peaceful means.

In the sphere of ethno-political conflicts, as in all others, the old rule is still valid: conflicts are easier to prevent than to resolve later. This is what the national policy of the state should be directed at. Our present state does not yet have such a clear and intelligible policy. And not only because politicians don't get their hands on it, but largely because the initial general concept of nation-building in multiethnic Russia is unclear. There are modern political situations that require consideration of interethnic or interreligious conflicts that arise within a particular country in unity with international conflicts.

List of used literature:

1. Zdravomyslov A.G. Sociology of conflict. M., 2004.- p. 237-246

2. 3dravomyslov A.G. Interethnic conflicts in the post-Soviet space. M., 2005.S. 6.

3. Ivanov V.N. Interethnic tensions in the national aspect. Socio-political journal, No. 7, 2006. p. 58 - 66.

4. Kotanjyan G.S. Ethnopolitology of Consensus - Conflict. Moscow: Luch, 2002.

5. Kreder A.A. "Recent history of the 20th century." Part 2 - M .: TsGO, 1995.

6. Peoples of Russia. Encyclopedia. M., 1994.- p. 339

7. Russian ethnos and Russian school in the XX century. M., 1996.S. 70-71.

8. Serebrennikov V.V. "The war in Chechnya: reasons and nature" // Socio-political journal, 2005 №3

9. Sikevich Z.V. Sociology and Psychology of National Relations: A Study Guide.- SPb .: Publishing house of Mikhailov V.A., 1999.- 203 p.

10. History of Russia: Textbook for universities / Ed. prof. V.N. Lavrinenko. - 3rd ed., Revised. and additional - M .: UNITI-DANA, 2005. - 448 p. - (Series "Golden fund of Russian textbooks").

Transnational conflicts……………………………… .5 Solutions interethnic conflicts……………………… .6 Conclusion ………………………………………………………… ... 9 List of used ...

Federal Agency for Education

State educational institution of higher professional education

State University of Management

Department of State and Municipal Administration

Test

by discipline « Social anthropology »

on the topic: "Interethnic conflicts".

Performed:

Student of the GiMU group 3–3

Stenina Maria

Checked:

D.I.N., professor Taisaev K.U.

Moscow 2009

1. Introduction ……………………………………………………………… 2

2. Causes and factors of interethnic conflicts ……………… ... 3

3. Forms of interethnic conflicts ……………………………… .5

4. Ways of solving interethnic conflicts ……………………… .6

5. Conclusion ………………………………………………………… ... 9

6. List of used literature ………………………………… ... 11

INTRODUCTION

A multi-ethnic environment is a typical feature and condition of life modern man... The peoples not only coexist, but also actively interact with each other. Almost all modern states are multinational. All the capitals of the world, large cities, and even villages are multinational. And that is precisely why, today more than ever, you need to be correct and attentive both in words and in actions. Otherwise, you can find yourself involved in completely unexpected and unreasonable vicissitudes, and sometimes even in a clearly formed interethnic conflict.

Interethnic conflict- This is the complication of relations between nations and peoples up to direct military action. As a rule, interethnic conflicts can occur at two levels of interethnic relations. So one of them is associated with interpersonal and family-household relations, while the other is implemented through the interaction of federal constitutional and legal bodies and the subjects of the Federation, political parties and movements.

CAUSES AND FACTORS OF INTERNATIONAL

CONFLICTS

Interethnic conflicts as a social phenomenon there is a clash of interests different levels and content, and is a manifestation of complex deep processes in relations between individual ethnic communities, groups of people, proceeding under the influence of many socio-economic, political, historical, psychological, territorial, separatist, linguistic, cultural, religious and other factors.

Factors influencing interethnic conflicts:

1.the ethnic composition of the conflict region (its likelihood is higher in mixed regions);

2. type of settlement (the probability is higher in a large city);

3. age (extreme poles: "senior-young" give a higher probability of conflict);

4. social status (the likelihood of conflict is higher in the presence of marginals);

5. the level of education (the roots of the conflict are nesting in the mass of a low level of education, however, it should be remembered that individual representatives of the intelligentsia are always its ideologists);

6. political views (conflicts are much higher among radicals).

Whatever the reasons for interethnic conflicts, they lead to massive violations of laws and citizens' rights. Objective reasons exacerbation of interethnic tension can be:

firstly, the consequences of serious deformations of national policy, dissatisfaction that has accumulated over many decades, splashed out in the conditions of openness and democratization;

secondly, the result of a serious deterioration in the economic situation in the country, which also generates discontent and enmity among various segments of the population, and these negative sentiments are channeled, first of all, in the sphere of interethnic relations;

thirdly, a consequence of the ossified structure state structure, weakening the foundations on which a free federation of Soviet peoples was created.

Subjective factors are also important.

Interethnic conflicts due to the reason and nature of origin can be:

● socio-economic (unemployment, delays and non-payment of wages, social benefits, which do not allow the majority of citizens to meet the necessary needs, the monopoly of representatives of one of the ethnic groups in any sphere of services or sectors of the national economy, etc.);

● cultural and linguistic (related to the protection, revival and development of the native language, national culture and guaranteed rights of national minorities);

● ethno-demographic (a relatively rapid change in the ratio of the population, that is, an increase in the share of the newcomer, non-ethnic population due to the migration of internally displaced persons, refugees);

● ethno-territorial-status (non-coincidence of state or administrative boundaries with the boundaries of the settlement of peoples, the requirement of small peoples to expand or acquire a new status);

● historical (relationships in the past – wars, former relations of politics "domination – submission ”, deportation and associated negative aspects of historical memory, etc.);

● inter-religious and inter-confessional (including differences in the level of the modern religious population);

● separatist (the requirement to create their own independent statehood or to reunite with a neighboring “mother” or culturally and historically related state).

The reason any rash or deliberately provocative statements by politicians, national leaders, representatives of the clergy, the media, domestic incidents, cases

Conflicts over national values, the most important attitudes in the sphere of interethnic relations are among the most difficult to resolve, it is here that the problem of ensuring and protecting the civil, socio-cultural rights of individuals, representatives of certain ethnic groups can be most acute.

According to A.G. Zdravomyslova, and source of conflict is the measure and form of distribution of powers and positions available in the hierarchy of power and management structures.

FORMS OF INTERNATIONAL CONFLICTS

There are civilized and uncivilized forms of interethnic conflicts:

a) local wars (civil, separatist);

b) mass riots accompanied by violence, gross and numerous violations of the rights and freedoms of the individual;

c) religious fundamentalism.

Depending on the motives (reasons), the characteristics of the subjective composition, interethnic conflicts can be presented as follows:

1) national-territorial conflicts. In many cases, these conflicts contain attempts to solve problems " historical homeland»(Original territories of residence or reunification of different ethnic communities);

2) conflicts related to the desire of national minorities to realize the right to self-determination;

3) conflicts, the source of which is the desire of the deported peoples to restore their rights;

4) conflicts based on the clash of the ruling national elites in the economic and political spheres;

5) conflicts related to discrimination of any nation, ethnic group, violation of its rights or the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of its representatives;

6) conflicts due to belonging (on a national basis) to different religious communities, trends, that is, on confessional grounds;

7) conflicts based on discrepancies and collisions of national values ​​(legal, linguistic, cultural, etc.).

The importance of research and prevention of conflicts on an ethnic, interethnic basis is also evidenced by the following figures: according to some unofficial sources, in the period from 1991 to 1999, the death toll in interethnic conflicts in the post-Soviet space amounted to more than one million people.

WAYS OF RESOLUTION TO INTERNATIONAL CONFLICTS

Interethnic conflicts are one of those types of conflicts for which it is impossible to find a standard approach or solution, since each of them has its own peculiarity, basis. World experience shows that it is better to settle such situations only by peaceful means. So the most famous of them are:

1. deconsolidation (separation) of the forces involved in the conflict, which, as a rule, is achieved through a system of measures that allow you to cut off (for example, by discrediting in the eyes of the public) the most radical elements or groups and support forces inclined to compromise, negotiations.

2. interruption of the conflict- a method that allows you to expand the action of pragmatic approaches to its regulation, and as a result of which the emotional background of the conflict changes, the intensity of passions decreases.

3. negotiation process- the way for which there are special rules. In order to succeed in it, it is necessary to pragmatize the negotiations, which consists in dividing the global goal into a series of sequential tasks. Usually the parties are ready to conclude agreements on vital needs, about which a truce is established: for the burial of the dead, the exchange of prisoners. Then they move on to the most pressing economic and social issues. Political issues, especially those with symbolic significance, are postponed and dealt with last. Negotiations should be conducted in such a way that each side strives to find satisfactory moves not only for itself, but also for the partner. As conflictologists say, it is necessary to change the “win-loss” model to the “win-win” model. Each step in the negotiation process should be documented.

Examples of such events were given to many peoples at a very substantial cost. The bloody world wars of the twentieth century will be remembered for a long time in every corner the globe. Modern society, it would seem, opposes any military actions and conflicts, at the heart of its development are liberal ideas, healthy competition and world globalization. However, in reality, everything is a little different. The number of conflicts on ethnic and religious grounds is only increasing every year, and an increasing number of participants are involved in the cycle of such battles, which leads to a gradual expansion of the scale of the problem.

The discrepancy between national interests, territorial claims, negative perception of each other by the parties - all this forms interethnic conflicts.

Examples of such situations are covered in political news with an enviable consistency.

It is a kind of social conflict, which is based on many factors and contradictions, as a rule, ethnosocial, political, national and state.

The causes of national conflicts, if we look at them in more detail, are very similar in many ways:

• Struggle for resources. The depletion and uneven distribution of natural resources that provide the most often leads to fueling disputes and strife.
• Population growth in a closed territory, uneven quality of life, mass forced
• Terrorism as a phenomenon requiring tough measures and, as a result, exacerbation

Religious differences

Interethnic which will be given below, relate primarily to the largest power of the twentieth century - Soviet Union... Many contradictions arose between the union republics, especially in the Caucasus region. A similar situation persists after the former constituent parts of the country of the Soviets received sovereign status. Since the collapse of the USSR, more than one hundred and fifty different conflicts have been registered in Chechnya, Abkhazia, Transnistria.

The presence of those deprived within the framework of a sovereign country directly forms the basis of the concept of "interethnic conflicts", examples of which are encountered more and more often. This is the Gagauz conflict in Moldova, the Abkhaz and Ossetian conflicts in Georgia. Usually, with such contradictions, the population within the country is divided into indigenous and non-indigenous, which leads to an even sharper aggravation of the situation.

Examples of religious conflicts are just as common. The most striking of them is the fight against infidels in numerous Islamic countries and regions (Afghanistan, Chechnya, etc.). Similar conflicts are typical for the African continent, the fierce struggle of the Muslim authorities and representatives of other confessions claimed more than two million lives, and the wars on the holy land between Muslims and Jews have been going on for more than a dozen years.

The same sad list includes the conflicts in Kosovo between Serbs and Albanians, the struggle for the independence of Tibet.

Intraacademic competition of student works

"INTERNATIONAL CONFLICTS: FROM ORIGINS TO MODERNITY"

specialty "Management

information resources "

Kozyrenko Natalia Petrovna

Minsk, 2008

ESSAY

WORK 36 sec., 2 h., 10 sources

NATION, INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT, NATIONAL MINORITIES, ETHNO-CONFLICT, SELF-DETERMINATION.

The object of the research is the study of interethnic conflicts in connection with discrimination and persecution of national minorities in most modern states, as well as the identification of possible practices for resolving these conflicts through political and legislative measures.

The relevance of the work is caused by the growth of interethnic conflicts in the modern world, their continuous development and, as a consequence, the need for an early resolution.

In the course of the work, various interethnic conflicts at the turn of the 20th and 21st were considered, the reasons for their occurrence, as well as possible ways of resolving ethnic conflicts in the conditions of a modern state.

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER I. INTERNATIONAL CONFLICTS: FROM THE ORIGINS TO MODERN TIMES

1 Socio-psychological interpretation of interethnic conflict

2 Reasons, typology and stages of the deployment of ethnic conflicts

Chapter II. INTERNATIONAL CONFLICTS IN MODERN SOCIETY

1 Interethnic conflicts in society at the turn of the century

2 The experience of the modern state in resolving interethnic conflicts

CONCLUSION

LIST OF USED SOURCES

INTRODUCTION

“All peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of this right, they freely establish their political status and freely ensure economic, social and cultural development "

We are all different, someone loves to read, someone loves to listen to music, someone loves to ski. This is what makes our communication interesting, it is this difference that gives us an inexhaustible source of knowledge through the exchange of information. But with all this, we have one more difference: some of us are Belarusian, some are German, some are Turks. And for some reason, many of us take this distinction too seriously, which was revealed in such directions as racism and nationalism.

There are practically no homogeneous states in the world today. These include only 12 countries (9% of all countries in the world). In 25 states (18.9%), the main ethnic community is 90% of the population, in another 25 countries this indicator ranges from 75 to 89%. In 31 states (23.5%) the national majority is between 50 and 70%, and in 39 countries (29.5%) hardly half of the population is ethnically homogeneous. Thus, people of different nationalities somehow have to coexist on the same territory, and a peaceful life does not always develop.

At the same time, not a single dictionary, as a rule, contains a specific definition of the word nation and the characteristics by which a certain person can be attributed to a particular nation. Sometimes they judge about belonging to a nation by their appearance, but after all, not all native Belarusians are fair-haired and with blue eyes. On a territorial basis, it is also not always possible to distinguish between a separate nation, because as mentioned above, today only individual states are considered homogeneous. Today it is customary to divide humanity into nations according to the most numerous ethnic group living on the territory of the state. So in Belarus they are Belarusians, in France - the French, in Belgium - the Belgians. However, even when this division is used, disagreements arise among world scientists about which ethnic group, to which nation to refer. And what can we say about people who are quite far from science? About people who do not boggle their heads with sophisticated words, and who just need a specific enemy to give vent to the accumulated discontent over the centuries. Such moments are captured by politicians, and they skillfully use this. With this approach, the problem seems to fall outside the sphere of competence of sociology proper; however, it is she who should be engaged in capturing such sentiments in certain groups of the population. The fact that such a function of it cannot be neglected is quite clearly shown by the flashing "hot spots" every now and then. Therefore, for the overwhelming majority of even developed countries, it is vital from time to time to probe the soil in the "national question" and take appropriate measures. The problem is even more aggravated in the post-Soviet space, where ethnopolitical conflicts, which found their expression in large and small wars on ethnic and territorial grounds in Azerbaijan, Armenia, Tajikistan, Moldova, Chechnya, Georgia, North Ossetia, Ingushetia, led to numerous civilian casualties ... And today the events taking place in Russia testify to disintegration destructive tendencies that threaten new conflicts.

Therefore, the problems of studying their history, mechanisms of their prevention and settlement are more urgent than ever. Historical studies of ethno-national conflicts in various specific historical, ethnocultural conditions in order to identify their causes, consequences, specificity, types, the participation of various national, ethnic groups in them, methods of prevention and settlement are of great importance.

The aim of this work is to study interethnic conflicts in connection with discrimination and persecution of national minorities in most modern states, as well as to identify possible practices for resolving these conflicts through political and legislative measures.

CHAPTER I. INTERNATIONAL CONFLICTS: FROM THE ORIGINS TO MODERN TIMES

.1 Socio-psychological interpretation of interethnic conflict

Interethnic conflicts do not arise from scratch. As a rule, for their appearance, a certain shift in the usual way of life is necessary, the destruction of the value system, which is accompanied by feelings of frustration, confusion and discomfort, doom and even loss of the meaning of life. In such cases, the ethnic factor is brought to the fore in the regulation of intergroup relations in society, as the more ancient one that performed the function of group survival.

The action of this socio-psychological mechanism is as follows. When there is a threat to the existence of a group as an integral and independent subject of intergroup interaction, at the level of social perception of the situation, social identification takes place based on origin, on the basis of blood; mechanisms of social and psychological protection are included in the form of processes of intra-group cohesion, intra-group favoritism, strengthening of unity and out-group discrimination and isolation from strangers. These procedures lead to the distance and distortion of the images of the outer groups. This type of relationship historically precedes all other types and is most deeply associated with the prehistory of mankind, with those psychological laws of organization social action that originated in the depths of anthropogenesis. These patterns develop and function through opposition on the basis of belonging to a tribe, to an ethnic group with a tendency towards ethnocentrism, underestimation and belittling of the qualities of "alien" groups and overestimation, elevation of the characteristics of one's group together with dehumanization of the "alien" group in a conflict.

The unification of a group based on ethnicity occurs on the basis of:
preferences of their fellow tribesmen to "strangers", newcomers, non-indigenous people and an increase in the feeling of national solidarity; · protection of the territory of residence and the revival of a sense of territoriality for the titular nation, ethnic group;

· income redistribution claims;

· ignoring the legitimate needs of other groups of the population in a given territory, recognized as "aliens".

All these features have one advantage for group mass action - the visibility and self-evidence of the community (in language, culture, appearance, history, etc.) in comparison with "aliens". The indicator of the state of interethnic relations and, accordingly, their regulator is the ethnic stereotype as a kind of social stereotype. Functioning within the group and being included in the dynamics of intergroup relations, the stereotype performs a regulatory and integration function for the subjects of social action when resolving social contradictions. It is these properties of a social stereotype, ethnic in particular, that make it an effective regulator of any social relations, when these relations in conditions of aggravation of contradictions are reduced to interethnic.

At the same time, the regulation of intergroup relations with the help of an ethnic stereotype acquires, as it were, an independent existence and psychologically returns social relations to the historical past, when group egoism stifled the germs of future universal human dependence in the simplest and most ancient way - by destroying, suppressing disagreement in behavior, values, thoughts. This "return to the past" allows the ethnic stereotype at the same time to perform the function of psychological compensation as a result of dysfunctions of ideological, political, economic and other regulators of integration in intergroup interactions.

When the interests of two groups collide and both groups claim the same goods and territory (as, for example, the Ingush and North Ossetians), in conditions of social confrontation and the devaluation of common goals and values, national-ethnic goals and ideals become the leading socio-psychological regulators of mass social action ... Therefore, the process of polarization along ethnic lines inevitably begins to be expressed in confrontation, in conflict, which, in turn, blocks the satisfaction of the basic socio-psychological needs of both groups.

At the same time, in the process of escalation of the conflict, the following socio-psychological laws objectively and invariably begin to operate:

· a decrease in the volume of communication between the parties, an increase in the volume of misinformation, a tightening of the aggressiveness of terminology, an increase in the tendency to use the media as a weapon in the escalation of psychosis and confrontation of the broad masses of the population;

· distorted perception of information about each other;

· the formation of an attitude of hostility and suspicion, the consolidation of the image of the enemy and its dehumanization, i.e. exclusion from the human race, which psychologically justifies any atrocities and cruelties in achieving their goals;

· the formation of an orientation towards victory in a conflict by forceful methods at the expense of defeat or destruction of the other side.

Thus, the task is, first of all, to catch the moment when a compromise solution to the conflict situation is still possible, and to prevent its transition to a more acute stage.

1.2 Reasons, typology and stages of the deployment of ethnic conflicts

In the world of conflict management, there is no single conceptual approach to the causes of interethnic conflicts. The socio-structural changes in contacting ethnic groups, the problems of their inequality in status, prestige, and remuneration are analyzed. There are approaches focusing on behavioral mechanisms associated with fears for the fate of the group, not only for the loss of cultural identity, but also for the use of property, resources and the resulting aggression.

Researchers relying on collective action focus on the responsibility of elites who fight by mobilizing around their ideas for power and resources. In more modernized societies, intellectuals with professional training became members of the elite; in traditional societies, generosity and belonging to the people were important. Obviously, the elites are primarily responsible for creating an “enemy image”, ideas about the compatibility or incompatibility of the values ​​of ethnic groups, the ideology of peace or enmity. In situations of tension, ideas are created about the features of peoples that impede communication - the "messianism" of the Russians, the "inherited militancy" of the Chechens, as well as the hierarchy of peoples with whom one can or cannot "deal".

The concept of "clash of civilizations" by S. Huntington is very influential in the West. She explains contemporary conflicts, in particular recent acts of international terrorism, by confessional differences. In Islamic, Confucian, Buddhist and Orthodox cultures, the ideas of Western civilization - liberalism, equality, legality, human rights, the market, democracy, separation of the church from the state - allegedly do not find a response.

There is also a well-known theory of ethnic boundaries, understood as a subjectively perceived and experienced distance in the context of interethnic relations. (P.P. Kushner, M.M.Bakhtin). An ethnic boundary is defined by markers - cultural characteristics that are of paramount importance for a given ethnic group. Their meaning and set may vary. Ethnosociological research of the 80s-90s. showed that markers can be not only values ​​formed on a cultural basis, but also political ideas that concentrate ethnic solidarity. Consequently, the ethno-cultural delimiter (such as the language of the titular nationality, the knowledge or ignorance of which affects the mobility and even the career of people) is replaced by access to power. From here, the struggle for the majority in the representative bodies of power and all the subsequent aggravations of the situation arising from this can begin.

Their typology allows us to more accurately and meaningfully comprehend both the features of their course and the specific means and methods of their regulation and resolution of ethnic conflicts. It is important to keep in mind that with a significant variety of explanatory models of conflicts, the adequacy of the choice of a concept for research depends precisely on the definition of the type of conflict under study.

It is not possible to classify ethno-national conflicts on one basis due to the complexity of the object of the conflict itself and the reasons leading to an ethno-national clash. The combination of various grounds for the typological characteristics of this kind of conflicts is quite reasonable and fruitful, since it allows you to unblock and resolve conflict situations step by step.

First of all, many ethno-national conflicts can be called false due to the high component of the emotional nature. Too high degree of emotional saturation makes it difficult to adequately perceive the situation and opposite side, giving rise to false images and fears, aggressiveness and dehumanizing the perception of opponents. Many ethnic conflicts can be safely designated as substituted conflicts, since often the antagonism of interests is directed at an ethnic group that is not really a participant in the conflict, but replaces any other interests and considerations. So often national card is played out in the struggle of ethnopolitical elites for the redistribution of the post-imperial heritage.

We can say that interethnic conflicts are most often cultural conflicts as a result of different understanding, different attitudes to life realities, their interpretation. When classifying ethnic conflicts, we are dealing with a real conflict of interests - due to unequal access of different ethnic groups to resources, unequal distribution of the volumes and powers of power, etc.

Researchers distinguish two more principles of typologization of ethnic conflicts: one - by the nature and manner of actions of the conflicting parties and the second - by the content of conflicts, the main goals set by the party making the claim.

E.A. Pain and A.A. Popov highlight the conflicts of stereotypes, i.e. that stage of the conflict when ethnic groups do not always even clearly understand the reasons for the contradictions, but in relation to the opponent they create a negative image of an unfriendly neighbor, an undesirable group.

Another type of conflict is the conflict of ideas. Characteristic features such conflicts (or their stages) is the advancement of certain claims. In literature, means mass media settles historical right on statehood, as it was, for example, in Estonia, Lithuania, Georgia, Tatarstan and other republics of the USSR, and on the territory, as it was in Armenia and Azerbaijan, North Ossetia and Ingushetia.

The third type of conflict is the conflict of actions. These are rallies, demonstrations, pickets, the adoption of institutional decisions up to open clashes. One could argue that such a typology is a reflection of the stages or forms of conflicts. But that would be inaccurate. In defense of the authors of such a typology, we can say that there are conflicts that remain only conflict of ideas ... In the early 1970s, demonstrations with slogans were held in Chicago, but no action followed.

A different typology - according to the main goals, the content of the requirements - was proposed in 1992-1993. L. M. Drobizheva. Based on an assessment of the events of the late 80s - early 90s. she identified the following types of ethnic conflicts.

The first type is the status institutional conflicts in the union republics, which have grown into a struggle for independence. The essence of such conflicts may not be ethno-national, but the ethnic parameter is certainly present in them, and so is mobilization based on ethnicity. Thus, the national movements in Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Armenia, Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova from the very beginning put forward demands for the realization of ethno-national interests. In the process of development of these movements, the casual basis of conflicts changed and passed from ethno-national to state ones, but mobilization according to the ethnic principle remained. The main form of this type of conflict was institutional. An acute constitutional conflict arose when Estonia, and after it a number of other union republics, adopted amendments to their constitutions, introducing the priority right to the use of resources and the supremacy of the laws of the republic. The conflicts in the union and autonomous republics, autonomous regions for raising the status of the republic or obtaining it were also status conflicts. This is typical for some of the union republics that wanted a confederal level of relations (for example, Kazakhstan), for a number of former autonomies that sought to rise to the level of union republics (for example, Tatarstan).

The second type of conflicts is ethno-territorial. These are usually the most difficult ones to deal with. On the territory of the former USSR for the period of 1992, about 200 ethno-territorial disputes were recorded. According to V.N. Streletsky (Institute of Geography RAS), one of the developers of the Databank of ethno-territorial claims in the geospace of the former USSR, by 1996, 140 territorial claims remained relevant. Such conflicts should include disputes ongoing on behalf of ethnic communities regarding their rights to reside in a particular territory, to own or govern it. V.N. Streletsky, for example, believes that any claim to territory, if it is denied by the other party to the dispute, is already a conflict. Territorial disputes are often associated with the rehabilitation process for the repressed peoples. But still, conflicts associated with repressed peoples are a special type of ethnic confrontation. Only part of this kind of conflicts is associated with the restoration of territorial autonomy (the Volga Germans, Crimean Tatars), in relation to others there was a question of legal, social, cultural rehabilitation (Greeks, Koreans, etc.). And only in a number of cases are we talking about territorial disputes.

Another type is intergroup (intercommunal) conflicts. Conflicts similar to those in Yakutia (1986), in Tuva (1990), Russian-Estonian in Estonia and Russian-Latvian in Latvia, Russian-Moldavian in Moldova belong to this type. Massive inter-group violent clashes took place in Azerbaijan, Armenia, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan.

Along with the above, typology based on the content of conflicts and the target aspirations of the parties is becoming more and more widespread in the literature. Quite often different goals and content are combined in one conflict. For example, Karabakh conflict- This is a conflict associated with territorial disputes, and with an increase in the status of autonomy, and with the struggle for independence. The Ingush-Ossetian conflict is territorial, inter-republican, and inter-communal on the territory of North Ossetia.

It is also worth considering the classification of G. Lapidus.

The first type includes conflicts occurring at the interstate level (the conflict between Russia and Ukraine over the Crimea).

Another type is conflicts within the state. These include:

· conflicts involving indigenous minorities;

· conflicts involving the communities of the newcomer population;

· conflicts involving forcibly displaced minorities (Crimean Tatars);

· conflicts arising from attempts to revise relations between the former autonomous republics and the governments of the successor states (Abkhazia in Georgia, Tatarstan in Russia).

A fairly well-known typology today is the typology of J. Etinger, which represents the most complete division of interethnic conflicts:

.Territorial conflicts, often closely related to the reunification of ethnic groups fragmented in the past. Their source is an internal, political, and often armed clash between the government in power and some national liberation movement or one or another separatist group that enjoys the political and military support of a neighboring state. A classic example is the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh and partly in South Ossetia;

Conflicts generated by the desire of an ethnic minority to realize the right to self-determination in the form of the creation of an independent state entity. This is the situation in Abkhazia, partly in Transnistria;

Conflicts related to the restoration of the territorial rights of the deported peoples. The dispute between Ossetians and Ingush over the ownership of the Prigorodny District is a vivid evidence of this;

Conflicts based on the claims of one or another state to a part of the territory of a neighboring state. For example, the desire of Estonia and Latvia to annex a number of districts of the Pskov region, which, as you know, were included in the composition of these two states when their independence was proclaimed, and in the 40s passed to the RSFSR;

Conflicts originating from the consequences of arbitrary territorial changes carried out in soviet period... First of all, this is the problem of Crimea and, in potential, territorial settlement in Central Asia;

Conflicts as a result of clashes of economic interests, when the interests of the ruling political elites, dissatisfied with their share in the national federal structure, actually stand behind the emerging national contradictions. It is these circumstances that determine the relationship between Grozny and Moscow, Kazan and Moscow;

Conflicts based on historical factors caused by the traditions of many years of national liberation struggle against the mother country. For example, the confrontation between the Confederation of the Peoples of the Caucasus and the Russian authorities:

Conflicts generated by the long-term stay of the deported peoples in the territories of other republics. These are the problems of the Turks in Uzbekistan, the Chechens in Kazakhstan;

Conflicts in which linguistic disputes often hide deep disagreements between different national communities, as happens, for example, in Moldova and Kazakhstan.

Taking into account the stages of development of ethnic conflicts, as well as those main forces and movements that act on them and determine their course, is also important for understanding the specifics of specific situations and developing measures to resolve them. It allows us to reveal in more detail the process and mechanisms of their determination, allows us to show that the emergence of national-patriotic and especially national-radical movements transfers an interethnic conflict from a potential to an actual stage and marks the beginning of the development of clear and firm claims and positions in it, which find expression in programmatic documents and declarations of these movements.

As a rule, this stage serves as a preparation for the next stage - conflict actions that become more and more violent in the course of the intensification of the conflict. With the accumulation of casualties and losses, the conflict at this stage becomes less and less manageable and solvable in a civilized manner. Thus, the development of interethnic confrontation more and more brings the conflict to a line that may be followed by a national catastrophe, and therefore it is vitally important to take measures for its early weakening and pacification, such as mediation, consultation, negotiation process, etc., aimed at achieving national consensus, or at least compromise.

The effectiveness of their achievement is an indicator of the extent to which the activated democratic and humanistic methods of settling and resolving interethnic conflicts make it possible to neutralize the nationalist attitudes and aspirations of their participants, to help each of them move from tough or even violent opposition of national communities and their representatives to effective and coordinated interaction with them for the sake of joint satisfaction of the fundamental needs and interests of all participants in the interethnic conflict that has arisen. Deploying this process means rooting and consolidating the general democratic principle of the priority and inalienability of the rights and freedoms of each person in the specific sphere of interethnic relations.

The main problem at present is the creation of a special and ramified ethno-conflictological expertise, the main task of which should be to track the emergence and development of conflict processes on the basis of analysis and, depending on their nature, put forward reasonable proposals for their localization, rationalization and settlement through compromise or consensus technologies.

At present, the greatest organizational difficulties in the settlement and prevention of ethnic conflicts and confrontation are associated with the absence in the CIS states, including the Russian Federation, of an extensive specialized network of organizations for the prevention and settlement of internal conflicts. Most of all, there is a lack of institutions monitoring the development of the ethnopolitical situation in society, early diagnosis and forecasting of conflicts, as well as the absence of conflict management in the form of a service. quick response ... The main task of such a service is to protect people, prevent the escalation of conflicts, expand their zone, organize the negotiation process, as well as intensive training of people on how to properly respond to a conflict situation and behave in it.

Such an organization would allow for practical mediation between the various groups of the population participating in them, as well as between the administration and the population, and at the same time critically analyze and evaluate the nature and results of various managerial influences on these situations in order to resolve them. Justifying the need to fundamentally reject the methods of violence in relations between ethnic groups, which complicate the democratization of society and drag it back, those involved in the mediation of conflict management would have the opportunity to contribute to the restoration of the rights and significance of the values ​​of human existence, strengthening the foundations of life and activities of society and thereby returning it to its true meaning , and social conflicts - positive social meaning and function.

An important role in this regard should be played by formalizing the results of conflict analysis in the form of an appropriate examination of interethnic conflict situations and collisions and turning it on this basis into a specific technological procedure that allows bringing the results of conflict analysis to their practical demand and use for regulating and resolving real conflict conflicts.

The general task of this kind of expertise is to promote the establishment of conflict monitoring and management in interethnic relations as effective tools to track the emergence of conflict situations, to identify their level of tension, dynamics, the nature of actions of the conflicting parties, etc., and on this basis to develop and implement measures to prevent and resolve conflicts, stabilize social relations and promote reforms.

Many zones of interethnic tension have formed, which, under certain conditions, threaten to spill out or have already resulted in open clashes, including those of an armed nature, with numerous casualties and destruction. At present, specialists number over 200 such zones, most of which are located on the territory of the Russian Federation.

According to the level of tension, they can be divided into three main types:

hot Spots where blood has been shed or continues to be shed, armed violence has been used and there are significant losses of human and material resources;

zones in which tension is on the verge of a possible escalation into open interethnic confrontation or is approaching it;

zones in which interethnic tension has already clearly manifested itself, but still has a fairly low level.

Common to all three zones is that ethnic tensions are everywhere, and even more so conflicts, especially with the use of armed violence, impede the implementation of socio-economic and political transformations, hinder the unification of the public around humanistic, democratic ideals. At the same time, it is clear that in each of the zones the methods of social control over the development of interethnic conflicts and measures for their effective settlement and prevention should have significant differences. Interethnic relations are becoming especially acute in the autonomous republics and other national-territorial subjects of the Russian Federation, since it is there that the idea that only strengthening of sovereignty can ensure national interests is growing.

Other social factors also contribute to the exacerbation of interethnic tension. All of them together create a danger for these national-state actors to be drawn into large-scale armed violence - interethnic wars, as well as into a clash with federal authorities. At the same time, states of both near and far abroad can be involved in the confrontation, which exacerbates not only internal, but also international tensions and increases the danger of an armed clash turning into a multilateral large-scale and even nuclear conflict that goes beyond the local regional framework and acquires a global character.

At the same time, the main problem around which should rotate all modern conflictological expertise, the problem of ensuring social partnership as the main way of resolving social conflicts in general, ethnopolitical conflicts in particular.

Ethno-conflictological expertise and the conflictological monitoring and management that constitutes its basis are intended to ultimately show that with a correct and principled national policy, the central government can neutralize the playing of the ethnic card by local political leaders and national elites and maintain the necessary stability of the state.

interethnic conflict state Ulster

CHAPTER II. INTERNATIONAL CONFLICTS IN MODERN SOCIETY

.1 Interethnic conflicts in society at the turn of the century

Interethnic conflicts in western world

Ignoring the ethnic factor would be a big mistake in prosperous states, even in North America and Western Europe. Thus, Canada, as a result of the 1995 referendum among the French Canadians, almost split into two states, and, consequently, into two nations. An example is Great Britain, where the process of institutionalization of the Scottish, Ulster and Welsh autonomies and their transformation into subnations is taking place. In Belgium, there is also actually the emergence of two subnations based on the Walloon and Flemish ethnic groups. Even in prosperous France, things are not so ethnically calm as it seems at first glance. This is not only about the relationship between the French, on the one hand, and the Corsicans, Bretons, Alsatians and Basques, on the other, but also about not so unsuccessful attempts to revive the Provençal language and self-consciousness, despite the centuries-old tradition of assimilation of the latter.

And in the United States, they record how, literally before our very eyes, the once united American nation begins to divide into a number of regional ethno-cultural blocks - embryonic ethnic groups. This appears not only in the language, which demonstrates the division into several dialects, but also in the self-consciousness, acquiring different traits in different groups of Americans. Even the rewriting of history is recorded - in different ways in different regions of the United States, which is an indicator of the process of creating regional national myths. Scientists predict that the United States will eventually face the problem of resolving the ethnic division, as happened in Russia.

A peculiar situation is developing in Switzerland, where four ethnic groups coexist on an equal footing: German-Swiss, Italian-Swiss, Franco-Swiss, and Romansh. The latter ethnos, being the weakest, in modern conditions lends itself to assimilation on the part of others, and it is difficult to predict what will be the reaction of the ethnically conscious part of it, especially the intelligentsia, to this.

Ulster conflict

As you know, 6 Irish counties at the beginning of the century, after long clashes, became part of the United Kingdom, and 26 counties formed Ireland proper. The population of Ulster is clearly divided not only by ethnicity (Irish - British), but also by religion (Catholics - Protestants). The Ulster issue remains open to this day as the Catholic community suffers from government-created inequalities. Although the situation in housing, education and other areas has improved over the past 20 years, inequalities in the field of work persist. Catholics are more likely to be unemployed than Protestants. Therefore, armed clashes between the Irish Republican Army and paramilitary organizations called the "British Army" ceased only in 1994. More than 3,800 people became victims of the clashes; with a population of about 5 million for the island and 1.6 million for Northern Ireland, this is a significant figure.

The ferment of minds does not stop at all today, and another factor is the civil police, which still consists of 97% of Protestants. An explosion in 1996 near one of the military bases once again heightened mistrust and suspicion among members of the two communities. And public opinion is not yet finally ready to put an end to the image of the enemy. The Catholic and Protestant quarters are separated by brick “walls of the world”. In Catholic quarters, you can see huge paintings on the walls of houses, testifying to the violence by the British.

From Kosovo to Northern Cyprus

Northern Cyprus is an unrecognized world community of a state that has been virtually independent for several decades.

At the beginning of March this year, a study by political scientist Fuad Hajiyev, unique in many respects, “De facto independence. Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus ". The present study largely violates the tendency to defend the Greek and Greek Cypriot point of view on events that took place in most of the studies of the Cyprus problem by Soviet and Russian authors. This trend was a reflection of Soviet and to a certain extent Russian policy in the Balkan and Eastern Mediterranean regions. This study pays a significant amount of attention to the Turkish and Turkish Cypriot interpretation of events, which aims to contribute to a better understanding of the position of the TRNC for the optimal implementation of Russian interests in these regions, as well as in the post-Soviet space. This echoes the opinion of a number of leading Russian diplomats and international experts who insist on the need for the presence of Russia on both sides of the Cyprus conflict.

Obviously, the Cyprus problem arose primarily due to the fact that two peoples (Greeks and Turks) live on this island, who have never felt a single civic identity. At the same time, the Constitution of the Republic of Cyprus, which arose in 1960, was based on bi-community and provided equal rights to both peoples. However, the Greek majority of the island, which was 82 percent of the population, did not agree with the unfair, in his opinion, giving the Turkish minority (18 percent of the total population) equal rights with the Greeks. For their part, the Turks did not want to be content with the status of a minority and stood up for the fulfillment of the conditions of the Cypriot Constitution.

In 1963, the Greek majority attempted to deprive the Turks of the rights granted to them by the Constitution. The Turks were removed from government structures by force of arms. At the same time, the Turkish minority was expelled from most of the settlements, deprived of property and driven into small enclaves that occupied 3 percent of the total territory of the island.

In 1974, the "black colonels" who then ruled Greece tried to annex Cyprus to themselves. In connection with the agreements reached earlier, which prohibited the unification of the island with any state, Turkey sent its troops to it. As a result, approximately 35 percent of the northern part of the Republic of Cyprus fell under the control of the Turkish armed forces. This action by Ankara led to the fall of the military regime in Athens. After which, however, Turkey refused to withdraw its troops from Cyprus, explaining this by the need to protect the rights of the Turkish population. In this regard, most of the Turks moved to the north of the island, and almost all the Greeks moved to the south. This situation persists to this day.

During the settlement negotiations that began after 1974, the parties clarified their positions and even reached a compromise on the future structure of a unified Cyprus state. It should be federal, bi-communal and bi-zonal. However, the different vision of the Cypriot federation did not allow the parties to come to an agreement. The Greeks see it as a state with a common territory and transparent borders between the two parts, the Turks - as a confederation of two independent states. The contradictions between the communities on this issue led to the proclamation by the Turkish community in 1983 of the independent Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) - the first in post-war Europe unrecognized state. The formation of the TRNC was negatively perceived by the world community. The UN Security Council adopted Resolutions 541 and 550, calling on the world community not to recognize the republic and not to establish any political, economic and cultural contacts with it. At the same time, the TRNC was recognized by Turkey as an independent state. She enjoys all-round diplomatic, economic and military support of this state. Negotiations on the settlement of the Cyprus problem are being conducted within the framework of the good offices mission of the UN Secretary General, created in accordance with Resolution 186 of the UN Security Council. However, there is practically no progress in the negotiations.

The change in the geopolitical situation as a result of the collapse of the USSR led to greater independence in the international arena of the European Union, which was fully used by Greece and the Republic of Cyprus, which joined the EU as a full member. In this regard, the change in the leadership of the TRNC should be noted, which was largely facilitated by the United States, Great Britain and Turkey. The new leadership of the TRNC, which came to power in the wake of the struggle for the unification of the island in accordance with the UN settlement plan (Annan plan), proclaimed the unification of the island, not its division, as its goal. The failure of the referendum on the Annan plan in the Greek part of the island and its success in the Turkish part led to a change in the attitude of the world community towards the TRNC and the interception of the initiative in the field of international relations by Turkey and the TRNC. The internationally recognized Republic of Cyprus is currently regarded in the international arena as a force that prevents the unification of the island. This and other circumstances of a geopolitical nature launched the process of de facto recognition of the TRNC by the world community. USA, Great Britain, France, some OIC countries began to recognize TRNC passports. The same countries have representations in the northern part of the island, partially performing diplomatic functions. In 17 countries of the world there are 22 diplomatic, trade and honorary representations of the TRNC. Bilateral contacts of the TRNC with the EU, Council of Europe, OIC are expanding; leaders and officials of this unrecognized state are received at a high state level in the USA, Great Britain, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and other countries of the world. This situation was the result not only of efforts to achieve recognition of the TRNC, applied by the Turkish Cypriot side, its allies. This is evidence of a serious trend in international relations towards certain forms of recognition of unrecognized state formations.

A natural question arises: if the United States and the main EU countries consider the recognition of Kosovo's independence to be legal, then why persist in the recognition of the TRNC, which has been de facto independent for almost a quarter of a century. The arguments of those who insist on the uniqueness of the "Kosovo precedent" are weak. The main one is that "the Serbs are to blame as a people." This openly racist and anti-Serb formula, by the way, was invented and publicly defended by none other than the UN Special Representative for Kosovo, Martti Ahtisaari. But surely there may be some Turkish Cypriot who, knowing about the crimes and atrocities of the Greek Cypriots against his fellow tribesmen from 1963 to 1974, will declare “the Greeks are to blame as a people”. It is obvious that it is unacceptable and even shameful to use such arguments in the 21st century for anyone, especially for politicians with power, authority and appropriate powers. The recognition of "independent Kosovo" became possible only because the United States, having decided that they won in " cold war”, Believed in their own infallibility, believing that only their political system has the right to exist. Therefore, any disagreement with Washington's position is immediately declared a "trampling on freedom and democracy." In reality, there is neither freedom nor democracy in such behavior. The events around Kosovo have become the brightest embodiment of this style of behavior based on the principle of "what I want, I turn it around."

At the same time, the American president, who predetermined back in June 2007 that the independence of Kosovo is inevitable, and all those who supported it, for the sake of elementary objectivity and justice, should have recognized the independence of the TRNC.

Conflicts in the Balkans

On Balkan Peninsula there are several cultural regions and types of civilization. The following are highlighted: Byzantine Orthodox in the east, Latin Catholic in the west, and Asian-Islamic in the central and southern regions. Interethnic relations are so tangled here that it is difficult to expect a complete settlement of conflicts in the coming decades.

When the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was created, which consisted of six republics, the main criterion for their formation was the ethnic composition of the population. This most important factor was later used by the ideologists of national movements and contributed to the collapse of the federation. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, Muslim Bosnians accounted for 43.7% of the population, Serbs 31.4%, Croats 17.3%. In Montenegro, 61.5% of Montenegrins lived, in Croatia 77.9% were Croats, in Serbia 65.8% were Serbs, this is with autonomous regions: Vojvodina, Kosovo and Metohija. Without them, Serbs in Serbia accounted for 87.3%. In Slovenia, Slovenes account for 87.6%. Thus, representatives of ethnic groups of other titular nationalities lived in each of the republics, as well as a significant number of Hungarians, Turks, Italians, Bulgarians, Greeks, Gypsies and Romanians.

Another important factor is confessional, and the religiosity of the population is determined here by ethnic origin. Serbs, Montenegrins, Macedonians are Orthodox groups. However, there are Catholics among the Serbs as well. Croats and Slovenes are Catholics. An interesting confessional section in Bosnia and Herzegovina, where Croatian Catholics, Orthodox Serbs and Muslim Slavs live. There are also Protestants - these are national groups of Czechs, Germans, Hungarians, Slovaks. There are also Jewish communities in the country. A significant number of residents (Albanians, Muslim Slavs) are Muslims.

The linguistic factor also played an important role. About 70% of the population of the former Yugoslavia spoke Serbo-Croatian or, as they say, Croatian-Serbian language. These are primarily Serbs, Croats, Montenegrins, Muslims. However, it was not a single state language; the country did not have a single state language at all. The exception was the army, where office work was carried out in Serbo-Croatian (based on the Latin script), commands were also submitted in this language. The country's constitution emphasized the equality of languages, and even during elections, ballots were printed in 2-3-4-5 languages. There were Albanian schools, as well as Hungarian, Turkish, Romanian, Bulgarian, Slovak, Czech and even Ukrainian. Books and magazines were published. However, in recent decades, the language has become the subject of political speculation.

The economic factor must also be taken into account. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia, Montenegro and the autonomous region of Kosovo lagged behind Serbia in economic development. This led to differences in the income of various national groups and intensified the contradictions between them. The economic crisis, long-term unemployment, severe inflation, devaluation of the dinar intensified centrifugal tendencies in the country, especially in the early 80s. There are dozens more reasons for the collapse of the Yugoslav state, but one way or another, by the end of 1989, the disintegration of the one-party system took place, and after the parliamentary elections in 1990-1991. hostilities began in Slovenia and Croatia in June 1991, and in April 1992 a civil war broke out in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It was accompanied by ethnic cleansing, the creation of concentration camps, and robberies. To date, the "peacekeepers" have achieved an end to open fighting, but the situation in the Balkans today remains complex and explosive.

Another hotbed of tension arose in the province of Kosovo and Metohija - on the original Serbian lands, the cradle of Serbian history and culture, where, due to historical conditions, demographic, migration processes, the dominant population is Albanians (90 - 95%), claiming to secede from Serbia and create an independent state. The situation for the Serbs is aggravated by the fact that the region borders on Albania and the regions of Macedonia inhabited by Albanians. In the same Macedonia, there is a problem of relations with Greece, which protests against the name of the republic, considering it illegal to assign a name to the state that coincides with the name of one of the regions of Greece. Bulgaria has claims to Macedonia due to the status of the Macedonian language, considering it as a dialect of Bulgarian.

Croatian-Serbian relations have been aggravated. This is due to the situation of the Serbs in Croatia. Serbs, forced to stay in Croatia, change their nationality, surnames, and accept Catholicism. Dismissal from jobs on the basis of ethnicity is becoming commonplace, and there is more and more talk of "Great Serb nationalism" in the Balkans. According to various sources, from 250 to 350 thousand people were forced to leave Kosovo. In 2000 alone, about a thousand people were killed there, hundreds of wounded and missing.

Interethnic conflicts in third world countries. Interethnic conflicts in Africa

Nigeria, with a population of 120 million, is home to over 200 ethnic groups, each with its own language. English remains the official language in the country. After the 1967-1970 civil war. ethnic strife remained one of the most dangerous diseases in Nigeria, as well as throughout Africa. It blew up many states of the continent from within. In Nigeria, today there are ethnic clashes between the Yoruba people from the southern part of the country, Christians, Haus and Muslims from the north. Given the economic and political backwardness of the state (the entire history of Nigeria after gaining political independence in 1960 is an alternation of military coups and civilian rule), the consequences of constantly flaring up conflicts can be unpredictable. So, in just 3 days (October 15-18, 2000) in the economic capital of Nigeria, Lagos, more than a hundred people were killed during interethnic clashes. About 20 thousand residents of the city fled their homes in search of shelter.

Unfortunately, racial conflicts between representatives of "white" (Arab) and "black" Africa are also a harsh reality. In the same 2000, a wave of pogroms broke out in Libya, resulting in hundreds of casualties. About 15 thousand black Africans left their country, which is rather prosperous by African standards. Another fact is that the initiative of the Cairo government to create a colony of Egyptian peasants in Somalia was met with hostility by the Somalis and was accompanied by anti-Egyptian protests, although such settlements would have raised the Somali economy to a large extent.

Moluccan conflict

In modern Indonesia, more than 350 different ethnic groups live together, the relationship of which has evolved over the centuries-old history of this largest archipelago in the world, which is a kind of geographical, cultural and historical community. The economic crisis that erupted in Indonesia in 1997, and the subsequent collapse of the Suharto regime in May 1998, led to a sharp weakening of the central government in this multi-island country, some parts of which were traditionally subject to separatist sentiments, and interethnic contradictions, as a rule, smoldered. latently, usually speaking openly only in periodic Chinese pogroms. Meanwhile, the democratization of Indonesian society, which began in May 1998, led to an increase in the freedom of expression of various ethnic groups, which, coupled with the weakening of central authority and a sharp decline in the influence of the army and its ability to influence events on the ground, led to an explosion of interethnic contradictions in various parts of Indonesia. The most bloody conflict in the recent history of interethnic relations in modern Indonesia began in mid-January 1999 - a year ago - in the administrative center of the province of Molucca (Maluku Islands), the city of Ambon. In the first two months in various parts of the province there were hundreds of killed and wounded, tens of thousands of refugees and huge material losses. And all this in the province, which was considered in Indonesia to be almost exemplary in terms of relationships between different groups of the population. At the same time, the specificity of this conflict is that, having started mainly as an interethnic conflict, aggravated by religious differences, the Ambon conflict gradually turned into an interreligious one, between local Muslims and Christians, and threatens to blow up the entire system of interfaith relations in Indonesia as a whole. It is in the Moluccas that the number of Christians and Muslims is approximately the same: in general, in the province of Muslims, about 50% and about 43% of Christians (37% of Protestants and 6% of Catholics), in Ambon, this ratio is respectively 47% and 43%, which does not allow take one side up quickly. Thus, the armed confrontation threatens to drag on.

Conflict in Sri Lanka

Today, the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka covers an area of ​​65.7 thousand square kilometers, has over 20 million inhabitants, mainly Sinhalese (74%) and Tamils ​​(18%). Among the believers, two-thirds are Buddhists, about a third are Hindus, although there are other confessions. Ethnic contradictions appeared on the island in the first decades of independence, and they intensified every year. The fact is that the Sinhalese people are from North India and mainly profess Buddhism; the Tamils ​​came from South India, and the prevailing religion among them is Hinduism. There is no information about which ethnic groups were the first to settle on the island. A parliamentary state was created under the 1948 constitution. It had a bicameral parliament, consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives. According to the constitution, the Sinhalese language was proclaimed the main state language. This sharply exacerbated relations between the Sinhalese and Tamil sides, and government policies did nothing to pacify the Tamils. In the 1977 elections, Sinhalese won 140 out of 168 seats in parliament, and Tamil became the official language along with English, while Sinhalese remained the state language. No other significant concessions have been made by the government regarding the Tamils. Moreover, the president extended the term of parliament for another 6 years, which remained without significant Tamil representation in it.

In July 1983, anti-Tamil riots took place in the capital Colombo and other cities. In response, the Tamils ​​killed 13 Sinhalese soldiers. This led to even greater violence: 2,000 Tamils ​​were killed and 100,000 were forced to flee their homes. A full-scale ethnic conflict began, which continues today. Tamils ​​now receive a lot of financial support from compatriots who have emigrated from the country and have the status of political refugees in various countries of the world. Members of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam are well armed. Their number is from 3 to 5 thousand people. Attempts by the Sri Lankan leadership to destroy the group with fire and sword did not lead to anything. Clashes still occur from time to time; back in 2000, in just 2 days of fighting for the city of Jaffna, about 50 people were killed.

2.2 The experience of the modern state in resolving interethnic conflicts

For the normal development of the state, it is necessary not only to identify problems, but also to solve them constructively. Unfortunately, today no state can boast of an absolute eradication of interethnic conflicts and clashes on its territory. As practice shows, even with strong state support for national minorities, there are still various groups in the country that share racist and nationalist points of view. But at the same time, we cannot but say about positive shifts in this direction.

The most important step towards resolving interethnic conflicts is the awareness of the existence of the problem not only by ethnic communities, but also by the governing bodies, which usually entails a transition from verbal habit to legal, political and financial forms of its solution. All subjects and objects of national conflict must understand that the ethnic factor today has acquired a pronounced political significance. This is regionalism in national-political thinking, the desire within the framework of one federation to solve the national problems of the region in its own way, the idea of ​​decentralizing the management of national problems. It is these aspirations that give rise to aspirations for autonomous territory and independence.

One of the most important steps towards solving the problem of interethnic relations today is the awareness of the population of states of the negative impact on the development of not only the state as a whole, but also individual economic entities. As a rule, these are economically proactive people striving to remove national and national-state obstacles to the development of entrepreneurship, business and trade.

In the complex of solving national problems and regulating interethnic relations, both the development of promising concepts for the development of national relations and the role of the ethnic factor in the life of the state, and the development of regional programs for solving national problems (typical for federal states), stabilizing interethnic conflicts and their prevention are of equal importance.

In most cases, national autonomy is more important for national minorities (for example, Kosovo). Many experts believe that in the 21st century it is necessary to address the formation of new autonomous regions, districts, national districts and national councils where possible. In other cases, the form of national-cultural autonomy as a state or mixed public-state governing body can be successfully applied. However, one should not forget that, as a rule, the most pressing issue in the framework of granting autonomy is the issue of changing borders and administrative territories.

Along with the above, the solution to the problems of national minorities today lies through the wealth of regions, national groups, and the economic well-being of people. Hence the importance of the development of economic initiative (at the level of private or cooperative forms of ownership) of people for the creation of a financial and economic base in general for solving national and cultural problems.

The conditions for the revival and development of national minorities are the use in the practice of upbringing and education of their own distinctive folk systems, including the systems of teaching folk crafts, crafts, etc. A significant factor is the presence of a national intelligentsia, a professional layer of national culture, providing the level of culture to which the level of culture of the entire people or national group must be brought up, and guaranteeing the disappearance of danger for folk culture. Of course, laws and, in general, have a particularly important role to play. governmental support policy of preservation and development of national minorities, their natural and cultural resources. At the same time, it is necessary to support the thesis about the need for a multivariate national policy, taking into account the originality and specifics of the economy, culture, life, social relations of all peoples and national groups inhabiting a particular republic, autonomy, region or region. The latter is especially important for ending interethnic confrontation and should be the main principle of state ethnic policy.

It should be emphasized that small peoples and national groups, which we also call national minorities, require especially great care from society and the state. And here the regional national policy should also play a significant role. But, unfortunately, the lack of political stabilization, the deepening economic, cultural and moral crisis today limit the possibilities of regional national policy, cause a relative reduction in allocations for the solution of national problems, for culture, both from the central authorities and from the local administrative bodies. Nevertheless, the national policy must be formed at the level of each region, both within the framework of individual republican and administrative-territorial entities, and at the inter-territorial and even interstate (this is important for border areas) levels.

When forming a regional national policy, the main efforts, according to scientists and practitioners, should be focused on creating optimal conditions for the self-development of peoples, national groups and their cultures. For many regions, in the absence of acute interethnic conflicts, socio-cultural issues become the core of programs for solving national problems and preventing interethnic conflicts.

At the same time, according to scientists, the following main tasks require special attention:

· preservation and development of the existing cultural potential;

· the formation of a new mechanism of cultural continuity;

· using the commercial potential of national cultures;

· solving problems of teaching national languages;

· development of a comprehensive program of continuous aesthetic education of the younger generation on a traditional national basis;

· creation of state or public-state structures in the form of national-cultural autonomy.

Today, it is necessary to develop new ideas and forms of national policy, in particular, to develop a mechanism for socio-economic impact on the national environment.

CONCLUSION

Three people were asked: "What is dawn?" One answered: "This is the dividing line between day and night." The second said, "This is the time between darkness and light." And the third was a poet, and his answer was: "These are two women different colors skin, but both are truly beautiful. "Sometimes the simple wisdom of the poet is higher than the most difficult political theories... N.A. Nazarbayev

In fact, we are all different, but in most cases we all have the same desires: we want to be free, move freely through the territory of our people, feel our equality in society, regardless of skin color, eye shape or religious views. Today it is practically impossible, despite the fact that most of the world's population wants it with all their hearts.

Undoubtedly, interethnic conflicts are an integral part of modern politics since the problem of ethnic conflicts requires an immediate solution. It is state regulation and state stability in the field of the politics of nations that can give a positive impetus to solving a problem that has existed practically since the emergence of civilizations. Unfortunately, today no country can boast of a complete elimination of this problem, at least in its own territory.

Every day, all over the world, multiple organizations together with different politicians and government officials make constructive steps towards solving the problem of national minorities, but, despite this, humanity is still far from its complete eradication. Therefore, today, in most cases, national minorities can only hope that one day, in any situation, they will be able to be proud of belonging to their nation and that one day humanity will understand that a person's actions do not really depend on what kind of god he was born and what gods he worships.

LIST OF USED SOURCES

F. Hajiyev “De facto independence. Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus ". Regnum, 2008

www.ru.wikipedia.org

V.V. Amelin "Problems of preventing interethnic conflicts" .akorda.kz

A. Andreev Black Africans flee from Libya // Nezavisimaya gazeta. - 2000. - No. 218 (2280)

Yu.V. Harutyunyan Ya.M. Drobizheva "Ethnosociology: traversed and new horizons" // Sotsis - 2000. - № 4.

I. Ivanov "The Kosovo Crisis: A Year Later" // Diplomatic Courier NG. - 2000. - No. 5

Galina Starovoitova, "National self-determination: approaches and case studies", M., 1999.lawmix.ru

A. Tarasov "The right of nations to self-determination as the most important democratic principle" www.saint-juste.narod.ru

Tutoring

Need help exploring a topic?

Our experts will advise or provide tutoring services on topics of interest to you.
Send a request with the indication of the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.