Lecture
The inescapability of socio-political contradictions in the life of society by no means implies that in resolving them it is impossible to prevent extreme violence — above all armed, military violence — and the various forms of conflict associated with it. The significance and urgency of preventing military conflict have grown especially with the advance of scientific and technological progress in military affairs and the spread of weapons of mass destruction across our planet.
At the same time there exists a theoretical and methodological problem of defining the very concept of «conflict prevention». This is connected with the fact that the objective contradictoriness of society's life activity makes it impossible to avoid conflict as such. Accordingly, the question is not how to eliminate conflict altogether, but how to prevent the manifestation of its negative, destructive functions1.
To clarify the content of the category «conflict prevention», it is necessary to turn to an analysis of the dynamics of a conflict's development. In accordance with the generally accepted methodology for conducting such an analysis, every conflict passes in its development through three obligatory stages: the latent (hidden) stage, or the stage of emergence, when the conflict is not yet noticeable in society and exerts no effective influence on its life activity; the stage of practical actions, when the conflict has already become a «part» of society's life activity and its functions (predominantly negative ones) are openly manifested; and the stage of conflict settlement, when the conflict interaction is removed, or the contradiction that gave rise to the conflict is resolved.
At the first stage there occurs an awareness of the presence of an objective or subjective contradiction, an awareness of one's own interests, the choice of the aims, methods and means of the forthcoming struggle, the selection of allies, and so on. In the course of the second stage the sides already undertake concrete actions to resolve the contradiction. It is precisely this stage that is usually associated in public consciousness with the conflict proper. As applied to a military conflict, it is at this stage that the direct use of armed violence begins. The third stage of a conflict is, above all, the cessation of the violent actions of its subjects towards one another. The conflict comes to an end by virtue of the commencement of peace negotiations between the sides, or the possible capitulation of one of them, or the inability of the sides (of one of the sides) to continue the struggle.
Thus, conflict prevention is understood as the activity of the subjects of political relations aimed at neutralizing a contradiction that has arisen and been recognized and that leads to conflict actions, or at forestalling the destructive impact of an already ongoing conflict on one or another aspect of the social system. In other words, conflict prevention in the overwhelming majority of cases means preventing its escalation into the second stage, when its negative, destructive functions begin to manifest themselves. In this case the «mechanism of prevention» is directed at those social processes that determine the conflict or may initiate its further deepening — that is, at the contradictory relations of the subjects of society. In this connection, depending on the orientation of the preventive actions, prevention itself may be partial or complete.
Partial prevention is achieved by blocking one or several (but not all) of the causes of an emerging conflict, as a result of which its negative influence on the opposing sides and on social development as a whole is limited. In this case the conflict may escalate into the stage of practical actions, but its intensification and the use of extreme means and methods of struggle are ruled out. In doing so it is naturally necessary to acknowledge the presence of a socially noticeable conflict, which presupposes the subsequent functioning of a managerial mechanism of settlement.
Complete prevention, however, implies the comprehensive neutralization of all the factors and conditions determining the emerging conflict, which makes it possible to channel the interaction of the subjects into cooperation for the sake of realizing their coinciding interests. Both strategies of prevention, differing only in the degree of their implementation, imply the harmonization of the positions and interests of the contradictory subjects and the achievement of agreement on the most important questions of social life.
Is a pre-emptive influence on social processes nonetheless possible, one that would make it possible to prevent a conflict even before the stage of its emergence? Undoubtedly, the deliberate creation of social conditions conducive to predominant cooperation makes it possible to forestall the appearance of antagonistic contradictions. This, however, does not mean the elimination of contradictoriness in general, and therefore allows us to speak of conflict prevention precisely in the context of our reasoning.
Thus, in determining the spectrum of factors that determine a conflict, in order to forestall or slow its development (with the possible use of violence), a sensible political leadership must act consistently, eliminating one cause after another. In particular, if discontent and tension in socio-political relations are caused by an injustice committed against one or another social group (the infringement of political rights, restriction of national-cultural self-expression, and so on), then a certain compensation on the part of the state for the damage inflicted and the restoration of lawful rights and freedoms are required. It is precisely the identification of the degree of disagreement between the subjects and active intervention in the process of social relations that make it possible to forestall the development of a conflict at the stage of its emergence.
In this connection, the most important element of the algorithm of conflict prevention is forecasting — the construction of an image of the conflict together with a determination of the dynamics of its probable development. The main thing here is the extrapolation of the current situation onto the future state of the whole system, as a result of which a model of the possible development of the conflict situation is built.
In the course of forecasting, the contradiction that has given rise to the conflict situation is determined first of all. Moreover, accuracy in identifying the contradiction makes it possible to single out reliably those aspects of social life whose neutralization will contribute to the stabilization of the situation and to the de-escalation of the conflict. Thereafter it is necessary to identify the trends by which the situation will change should the contradiction develop, or be blocked. This mental operation presupposes a description of the aggregate of events that manifest the problem in the interaction of the subjects, as well as of the logic of the social process — the objective sequence and interconnection of events. All this is carried out with obligatory regard for the norms governing the functioning of the system (subsystem) under analysis, for the temporal and spatial factors of its change, and for socio-economic, political, ideological, socio-psychological and other conditions.
It should be noted that the description of the sequence of events and the analysis of the logic by which the situation changes do not permit an unambiguous prediction of a possible conflict, since its formation is influenced by a number of phenomena that are difficult to take into account, above all ones of a subjective order (the psychological and emotional disposition of one or another socio-political force, their level of tolerance, and the like). Therefore, however correct the scientific analysis of events and of their logic may be, it can only be a matter of working out particular variants of the expected manifestations of a conflict situation. Forecasting a conflict is merely a precondition of prevention, an instrument that makes it possible. Prevention itself is carried out by means of a comprehensive system of methods and instruments. Among them are such as the achievement of consensus among social subjects; the harmonization of interests — the subordination of secondary interests to principal ones, of temporary ones to permanent ones, of current ones to long-term ones; the suppression of individual elements of interests; the separation of contradictory interests, and others.
If we speak of the prevention of domestic political conflicts, historical practice has worked out a number of concrete methods. The specific character inherent in foreign policy relations, however, allows us to speak to a greater extent only of the possible creation of conditions conducive to the prevention of military conflicts — that is, of certain directions of action by states and by the entire world community aimed at preventing international political conflicts.
Owing to the military-political situation that has taken shape today, the principal means of actually preventing armed violence remains military force. Under conditions of the existing socio-political and economic imbalance, of ideological disagreements at all levels of people's spiritual relations, of the psychological instability of individual strata of the population — including at the level of the leaders of certain states — and of the presence on Earth of an enormous quantity of armaments, including armaments not controlled by official structures, military force becomes an inalienable instrument of contemporary international (and indeed domestic) policy. In this connection, the most important direction of prevention is the implementation of an armed «strategy of deterrence» to dissuade other states from resolving emerging disputes by military means. The most important method within this direction is the creation of one's own military potential, the use of which could threaten a potential aggressor with the infliction of unacceptable damage.
The prevention of military conflict by means of a «strategy of deterrence» was observed even at the dawn of human history; however, this strategy acquired its developed form in the middle of the 20th century, during the fierce confrontation of the two world socio-political systems and of the two great nuclear powers that represented them — the USSR and the USA. This is explained by the fact that formerly the damage suffered by the losing side was often expressed in the loss of part of its territory, a change of dynasty or government, passing under the domination of the victor, the loss of its role and position in the system of power relations, and so on. The appearance and spread of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, however, lent this strategy far greater significance. The threat came to be associated not merely with defeat in the course of armed confrontation, but with a risk to the very existence of its participants, regardless of the outcome of the clash.
Experience in implementing the strategy of deterrence has shown that a balance of forces, a strategic parity, by no means presupposes absolute equality between the subjects of a potential conflict. Deterrence may also be effected on the basis of asymmetry in the possession, quantity or effectiveness of particular types of weapons. But the effectiveness of deterrence is always determined by the magnitude and significance of the damage that may be inflicted on the adversary. Therefore it was not the equality of possible damage but its unacceptable level that, in the middle of the 20th century, ensured not only the national defence interests of the USSR and the USA but also the maintenance of a relatively firm international peace and the stability of the global political order. Even given the inequality of the military potentials of the USSR and the USA (relative parity was achieved only towards the end of the 1970s), not one of the numerous conflicts of that period waged by friends, allies and clients, nor the direct participation of these powers in many of those conflicts, nor even their virtually direct collision in such acute international political crises as the Berlin and the Cuban ones, escalated into a nuclear catastrophe.
At the same time, the «strategy of deterrence» becomes one of the causes of the drive to create ever more powerful and numerous armed forces. Striving for this proved unbearable even for such a formerly great power as the USSR. The enormous arsenal of means of armed struggle that was created, supposedly intended for strategic deterrence, in reality exceeded not only the necessary level but also the country's capabilities. Moreover, it ultimately proved inconsistent with such fundamental strategic aims and genuine interests as the provision of security and territorial integrity. But this does not mean that under present-day conditions, with the emerging trend towards a unipolar world order, the «strategy of deterrence» has outlived itself as an effective instrument for preventing military conflicts.
In the contemporary normative and legal acts of the Russian Federation, in particular in the Military Doctrine, it is unambiguously affirmed that the aim of Russia's policy is the elimination of nuclear war by deterring the unleashing of aggression against our country and its allies. The Doctrine officially declares that the Russian Federation may employ nuclear weapons not only against other nuclear powers but also against non-nuclear countries. Similar provisions are found in the doctrinal documents of other countries as well.
At the same time, the presence in the modern world of an enormous quantity of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction is incapable of «deterring» military conflicts involving conventional weapons. Moreover, scientific and technological progress has given conventional weapons such power that by certain indicators it is already today comparable with weapons of mass destruction. Fear of the consequences of using nuclear weapons is by no means a hundred-per-cent guarantee against their use by the most extremist-minded forces, by terrorists, or as a result of technical malfunctions. In this connection there has arisen a need to seek qualitatively different paths for preventing international armed conflicts.
Proceeding from the principles of the democratic development of the world (the equality of the sides and the priority of universal human values, the overcoming of the ideology of force and domination in relations between people, countries, systems, and others), the principal directions for preventing military political conflicts at the present stage of historical development may be the following.
The further all-embracing internationalization of the life of the world community in all spheres and, above all, in the economic, political and cultural spheres.
An analysis of the contemporary socio-political and economic situation has shown that the process of internationalization is becoming dominant in modern international relations. Evidence of this is provided by the economic unions, communities and joint enterprises that have existed for decades and that continue to be created. Scientific and technological progress, having brought about unprecedented changes in the sphere of production, has at the same time radically altered its structure, intensified integration processes, and expanded the flows of goods, capital, services, information and labour between states and regions. It is precisely for this reason that the gathering process of economic interdependence among states today largely restrains the disruption of the ties being formed by military means. It seems that no civilized state of the modern world, proceeding from considerations of its own economic advantage, would resort to the massed bombardment of another if their economic development were to a significant degree mutually dependent. Moreover, as a result of the situation that has taken shape, one may confidently assert that if economic relations at one time gave rise to social violence, then under present-day conditions the internationalization of economic relations and economic advantage do everything to create conditions conducive to the prevention of conflicts involving the use of destructive military force.
A significant aspect of the solution of the problem under our consideration is political internationalization as well. The most important legal act of this process was the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, signed by 33 European states, as well as the USA and Canada, in Helsinki on 1 August 1975. Largely thanks to this, the «construction of a common European home» is now actively under way. Subsequently the European Community, on the basis of the Maastricht Treaty (1991), created on the continent a powerful association of developed states that transferred extensive state powers to common bodies. At the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe in Helsinki (1992) the institutionalization of the CSCE took place. The functions of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) have been expanded to include the possibility of conducting peacekeeping operations in areas of interstate conflict. In the 1990s integration processes in the Canada–USA–Mexico region intensified.
At the same time, it should be noted that in recent years the OSCE has gradually been losing its stabilizing functions. This is connected above all with the fact that the basis of its functioning was the principle of consolidating and observing the borders that had taken shape as a result of the outcomes of the Second World War. The events of the 1980s and 1990s, however, completely redrew the political map of Europe, thereby undermining the political and legal foundations of the OSCE. In addition, lacking its own military instrument for implementing the agreements reached, the OSCE, with the beginning of NATO enlargement, has practically lost the possibility of becoming an independent and effective security system in Europe.
We must acknowledge the fact of disintegration processes, both political and socio-economic, in the Eastern European and Central Asian regions. The Commonwealth of Independent States, proclaimed in place of the USSR, is still far from the level of integration that existed among the republics of the former union. Economic, political, military and cultural ties still fall far short of the requirements of the present day; they do not foster the normal, progressive development of peoples and consequently do not serve as a condition for preventing and overcoming political conflicts, including those involving the use of military force.
The next avenue for preventing military conflicts is the strict observance by all countries and peoples of the principle of peaceful coexistence. Under the present-day conditions of the political world order, the principle of peaceful coexistence has acquired qualitatively new features. This is expressed in the fact that, until the mid-1980s, peaceful coexistence was regarded, first, as a form of the class struggle of the proletariat in the international arena and, second, as a principle of coexistence among states with differing socio-political systems. Under the new conditions, when modern all-destroying weapons (above all nuclear ones) have become the striking force of many of the world's armies (and their number keeps growing), the principle of peaceful coexistence is becoming universal and applies to all countries and peoples regardless of their level of socio-economic development, political regime, religious allegiance and so forth. In the nuclear age, peaceful coexistence must become the supreme universal principle of interstate relations.
The core of this principle is the recognition by all subjects of international relations of the right of every people to freely choose its path of development and the impermissibility of imposing such a path on any state or society from outside, as well as recognition of the objectively existing multiplicity of variants of social development. Every group of states, and every individual country, has its own specific interests, which must be taken into account in international relations; this, in turn, implies complete non-interference in the internal affairs of other peoples and states. The latter provision, of course, does not extend to cases of a threat to international security arising from the aggravation and intensification of an internal political conflict. But even under such conditions foreign intervention is possible only with the sanction of the international community (at present, the UN Security Council).
Given the constant growth in the quantity of armaments and the improvement of their quality, the most important avenue for preventing military-political confrontation is reducing the level of military opposition, that is, the continuous, consistent and balanced reduction of armaments and, above all, of weapons of mass destruction. This avenue is perhaps one of the most important in preventing conflicts involving the use of armed forces, or at any rate in reducing their destructive consequences.
It is common knowledge that until roughly the mid-1980s one of the principal material foundations of the destabilization of international relations was the unrestrained arms race, which engulfed practically all the world's leading countries. This led to a point being passed beyond which any further build-up of military power became simply absurd. New, more sophisticated types of weapons, created to counter or replace existing models, were no longer capable of yielding any gain in security for any single country, since their very appearance made the world situation still more unstable.
Moreover, the build-up of armaments and military preparations drew into its orbit not only highly developed countries but also countries with weak economies. The acquisition of modern, expensive weapons and equipment undermines the economies of these countries, which already fail to meet all the social needs of their peoples. The gap in economic development between the advanced and the lagging countries continues to widen. Today it reaches a difference of 30 to 40 times. All of this undoubtedly contributes to conflict situations.
Without dwelling in detail on the disarmament process, we shall single out only two aspects that directly affect the prevention of military conflicts.
First, there is the need for mutual, balanced and equivalent disarmament by all potentially opposing sides, by all countries. At the same time, no one side may be allowed a monopoly of leadership in the development and deployment of new weapons, including those of a defensive nature. It is hard to count on mutually peaceable relations in a world torn by contradictions when one of the sides enjoys indisputable advantages in armaments and military power. Consequently, military-strategic parity must be constantly maintained.
Second, under present-day conditions, when absolute control over disarmament processes and the development of new weapons is impossible, trust and cooperation in these areas must be developed in every way. In particular, joint research in the military field—for example, in the development of missile defence systems—should reliably shield the world from the possibility of isolated unauthorized and provocative launches. Trust must characterize not only the universal disarmament process and joint military development. Trust must become a defining feature of all political relations, not only in the international arena but also in domestic politics. Confidence that a former rival and present-day partner will always abide by the agreements reached is a most important preventive condition for averting conflict situations. Trust, however, before it enters the sphere of politics, must first arise in the spiritual and ideological sphere. Opposing views must not become a cause of suspicion toward the other side.
The next avenue for preventing international armed conflicts is strengthening the role of the system of international intergovernmental organizations, such as the UN, the OSCE and others, in the legal regulation of relations among countries and peoples.
The functioning in the twentieth century of major international organizations such as the League of Nations and the UN was undoubtedly an important factor that left its mark on relations among peoples in that historical period. However, created chiefly to prevent and overcome international conflicts, these organizations fell far short of fully meeting (the League of Nations) and today still fall short of meeting (the UN) their functional purpose. The League of Nations was unable to prevent the Second World War, and the UN today is content with a largely symbolic role. The recent curbing of the aggressive designs of certain states, thanks to UN sanctioning of the use of force, provides no guarantee whatsoever that justice will prevail in the future as well. In this connection, strengthening the role of the UN and other authoritative international organizations is put forward as one of the avenues for preventing armed political confrontation.
The chief task of these organizations in the context of the problem under consideration is to lead the construction of a comprehensive system of international, regional and universal security. The specific aims of the UN in ensuring international security are: identifying at the earliest possible stage situations fraught with conflict; eliminating sources of danger before violence breaks out, chiefly by diplomatic means; active peacemaking efforts aimed at resolving the problems that gave rise to the conflict; carrying out a broad range of measures in the post-confrontation period in order to preserve peace and implement the agreements reached through mediators; and constant readiness to assist peacebuilding in its various aspects and the establishment of peaceful, mutually beneficial relations between parties that had previously fought one another.
An examination of the main avenues for preventing military conflicts allows certain conclusions to be drawn.
First, an analysis of the practical application of the preventive approaches considered here shows that their theoretical elaboration is a kind of drawing, with a certain degree of idealization, of an «ideal picture» Neither in the emergence and course of a conflict nor in the processes of its prevention and settlement do universally constructed models exist. Depending on the prevailing socio-political situation, various methods and techniques may be applied, flowing into one another and at times applied simultaneously.
Second, some methods and techniques of prevention developed by world practice have been in use for literally centuries. However, all of them amount to the temporary prevention of a conflict situation. In this connection, it should be emphasized once again that the «absolute prevention» of a conflict can occur only with the removal of the contradiction that gives rise to it. But since social contradictions, which objectively exist and arise in society, are the source of its development, one cannot speak of the existence of, or the need to devise, a universal method that would ultimately remove any confrontation. Only adherence by all socio-political forces to the laws of social development, which conditions progress and the growth of society's material well-being, can bring about a significant reduction in the intensity of the process of resolving objectively arising problems.
In preventing potential military conflicts, only simultaneous and joint efforts along all lines, aimed at finding mutually acceptable ways of resolving the contradiction that has arisen, can yield effective results.
1 Negative functions of conflict: destabilizing—a conflict may lead to the disintegration and destabilization of society as a whole or of some system within it; alteration of power relations—a conflict may adversely affect the necessary change in power relations and their structures; destructive—a military conflict involving armed violence leads to the loss of human lives and material assets (under present-day conditions, on a mass scale). Positive functions of conflict: management and regulation of social tension—a conflict makes it possible to restore the necessary socio-political equilibrium and political stability and promotes the resumption of cooperation in relations among its participants; communicative-informational—a conflict allows its participants to gain a fuller understanding not only of their opponent but also of other actors in the social process; and the maintenance and strengthening of socio-political stability.
Comments