International conflicts. Examples and reasons

Almost all modern states are multinational. All capitals of the world, large cities, and even villages are multinational. And that's precisely why, today more than ever, you need to be correct and attentive both in words and in actions. Otherwise, you can be involved in completely unexpected and unreasonable ups and downs, and sometimes even in a clearly formed ethnic conflict.

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

CAUSES AND FACTORS OF INTERNATIONAL CONFLICTS

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

Factors influencing interethnic conflicts:

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

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

3. Age (extreme poles: "older-younger" give a higher probability of conflict);

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

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

6. Political views (conflicts are much higher among the radicals).

Whatever the reasons may be caused by interethnic conflicts, they lead to a massive violation of laws and the rights of citizens.

The objective reasons for the aggravation of interethnic tensions can be:

Firstly, the consequences of serious deformations of the national policy, the dissatisfaction accumulated over many decades, which spilled out in the conditions of openness and democratization;

Secondly, the result of a serious deterioration in the economic situation in the country, which also gives rise to discontent and hostility among various segments of the population, and these negative sentiments are channeled, primarily in the sphere of interethnic relations;

Thirdly, a consequence of the ossified structure of the state system, the weakening of the foundations on which the free federation of the 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 that do not allow the majority of citizens to meet the necessary needs, the monopoly of representatives of one of the ethnic groups in any service sector or sectors of the national economy, etc.);

Cultural and linguistic (associated with the protection, revival and development of the native language, national culture and guaranteed rights of national minorities);

Ethno-demographic (relatively rapid change in the ratio of the population, i.e. an increase in the share of the alien, other ethnic population in connection with the migration of forced migrants, refugees);

Ethnoterritorial-status (non-coincidence of state or administrative borders with the boundaries of the settlement of peoples, the demand of small peoples to expand or acquire a new status);

Historical (relationships in the past - wars, former relations of the "domination - submission" policy, deportations and the negative aspects of historical memory associated with them, etc.);

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

Separatist (requirement to create their own independent statehood or reunification with a neighboring "mother" or related state from a cultural and historical point of view).

Cause any rash or knowingly provocative statements by politicians, national leaders, representatives of the clergy, the media, domestic incidents, cases can also become inter-ethnic conflicts.

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, source of conflict is the measure and form of distribution of power 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) riots accompanied by violence, gross and numerous violations of the rights and freedoms of the individual;

c) religious fundamentalism.

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

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

2) conflicts related to the desire of national minorities to exercise 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 rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of its representatives;

6) conflicts caused by belonging (on a national basis) to different religious communities, movements, i.e., on confessional grounds;

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

The following figures also testify to the importance of research and prevention of conflicts on an ethnic, interethnic basis: 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 TO SOLUTION 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 such situations are best resolved 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 with the help of a system of measures that allow cutting off (for example, by discrediting in the eyes of the public) the most radical elements or groups and supporting forces prone to compromise, negotiations.

2. Interruption of the conflict - a way 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. The negotiation process is a method for which there are special rules. In order to succeed in it, the pragmatization of negotiations is necessary, which consists in dividing the global goal into a number of successive 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 of symbolic significance, are put aside and decided last. Negotiations should be conducted in such a way that each side seeks to find satisfactory moves not only for itself, but also for the partner. As conflictologists say, it is necessary to change the "win-lose" model to the "win-win" model. Each step in the negotiation process should be documented.

4. Participation in negotiations of intermediaries or mediators. In particularly difficult situations, the legitimacy of agreements is confirmed by the participation of representatives of international organizations.

Conflict resolution is always a complex process bordering on art. It is much more important to prevent the development of events leading to conflicts. The sum of efforts in this direction is defined as conflict prevention. In the process of their regulation, ethnosociologists and political scientists act as experts to identify and test hypotheses about the causes of the conflict, to assess the "driving forces", the mass participation of groups in one or another scenario, to assess the consequences of decisions made.

Speaking about the causes of interethnic conflicts, first of all, it should be noted that the most severe consequences are arbitrariness and violence against any nation, the prohibition and persecution of religion, culture, language, and traditions. National feelings are very vulnerable, and any kind of arbitrariness in relation to any nation gives rise to hatred towards those who allowed violence. The bloody events in Azerbaijan, the North Caucasus, Georgia, Moldova, as well as in the former Yugoslavia show that interethnic conflicts have turned into interethnic wars. And civil wars that have arisen on ethnic grounds last a very long time. The war goes on to the last Serb, Croat, Albanian, Chechen, Georgian.

The cause of interethnic conflicts can also be national prejudice towards representatives of any nation. According to sociological surveys in Russia, more than 1/3 of respondents said that they feel hostility towards representatives of a certain nationality. At the same time, the absolute majority named persons of “Caucasian nationality”. Some political forces and parties are deliberately inciting ethnic hatred, declaring that Jews, Russians, Armenians, Chechens, etc. are to blame for all the current troubles and problems in our life. Thus, the “image of the enemy”, the culprit of all troubles, is formed. And this is a very dangerous phenomenon, since fertile ground is being created for strengthening the ideology of nationalism, chauvinism, and often fascism.

Therefore, the main reason for the aggravation of interethnic conflicts is associated with the attempts of various political forces to deliberately incite national enmity in order to acquire a certain political capital in this way. Thanks to the incitement of nationalism, it is very easy to gain power. But in order to stay in power, such a regime will continue to have to build its policy on inciting national hatred. This is where the main reason for the sharp aggravation of interethnic conflicts on the territory of the former Soviet Union lies. According to a sociological survey conducted in the North Caucasus, 2/3 of respondents said that the main reason for interethnic conflicts in the region is the struggle for power. Ordinary people are beginning to understand that politicians in the struggle for power are capable of quarreling people of different nationalities who have lived peacefully on the same land for centuries.

After the nationalists come to power, as a rule, an ethnocracy regime is established, when all real power passes into the hands of only one indigenous nationality, the principle applies: one state - one nation. At the same time, methods of ethnic cleansing are actively used. Serbs, Albanians, Chechens, Georgians, Estonians, Latvians are trying to clear their territories of unwanted national minorities. Thus, in Estonia and Latvia, discriminatory measures against representatives of non-indigenous nationality are legislatively fixed. They are deprived of voting rights, citizenship, they are not accepted into public service, etc. All these measures are designed to achieve the expulsion of the Russian-speaking population from these states. This situation is typical for almost all former Soviet republics. Today, the entire former Soviet Union is an arena of inter-ethnic conflicts between representatives of indigenous and non-indigenous nationalities. It is no coincidence that the number of refugees in the former Soviet Union has reached tens of millions and is constantly growing.

To prevent interethnic conflicts, the state, not in words, but in deeds, must ensure the equality of all nations. It is necessary to resolutely renounce attempts to create any benefits, advantages for one indigenous nationality, to take into account the interests of all peoples living in this state. This is the most important principle of preventing interethnic conflicts.

The concept of interethnic conflicts, the causes and forms of their occurrence, possible consequences and ways out of them are the main keys to solving a serious problem of relations between people of different nationalities.

In the world in which we live, interethnic conflicts are increasingly emerging. People resort to the use of various means, most often the use of force and weapons, to establish a dominant position in relation to other inhabitants of the planet.

On the basis of local conflicts, armed uprisings and wars arise, leading to the death of ordinary citizens.

What it is

Researchers of the problem of interethnic relations in the definition of conflicts between peoples converge to one common concept.

Interethnic conflicts are confrontation, rivalry, intense competition between people of different nationalities in the struggle for their interests, which are expressed in various requirements.

In such situations, two parties collide, defending their point of view and trying to achieve their own goals. If both sides are equal, as a rule, they seek to negotiate and resolve the problem peacefully.

But in most cases in the conflict of peoples there is a dominant side that is superior in some respects and an opposite side, weaker and more vulnerable.

Often a third force intervenes in a dispute between two peoples, which supports one or another people. If the mediating party pursues the goal of achieving a result in any way, then the conflict often develops into an armed clash, a war. If its goal is a peaceful settlement of the dispute, diplomatic assistance, then bloodshed does not happen, and the problem is resolved without infringing on anyone's rights.

Causes of interethnic conflicts

Interethnic conflicts arise for various reasons. The most common are:

• social dissatisfaction peoples within the same or different countries;
• economic superiority and expansion of business interests; extending beyond the borders of one state;
• geographic disagreement on the establishment of boundaries for the settlement of different peoples;
• political forms of behavior authorities;
• cultural-linguistic claims peoples;
• historical past in which there were contradictions in relations between peoples;
• ethnodemographic(the numerical superiority of one nation over another);
• struggle for natural resources and the possibility of using them for consumption by one people to the detriment of another;
• religious and confessional.

Relations between peoples are built in the same way as between ordinary people. There are always right and wrong, satisfied and dissatisfied, strong and weak. Therefore, the causes of interethnic conflicts are similar to those that are the prerequisites for the confrontation between the townsfolk.

stages

Any conflict of peoples goes through the following stages:

1. Origin, the occurrence of the situation. It can be hidden and be invisible to the layman.
2. pre-conflict, the preparatory stage, during which the parties assess their strengths and capabilities, material and information resources, look for allies, outline ways to solve the problem in their favor, develop a scenario for real and possible actions.
3. Initialization, the event is the reason for the beginning of the occurrence of a conflict of interest.
4. Development conflict.
5. Peak, a critical, culminating stage, at which the most critical moment in the development of relations between peoples comes. This point of conflict can contribute to the further development of events.
6. Permission conflict can be different:

• elimination of causes and extinction of contradictions;
• acceptance of a compromise decision, agreement;
• impasse;
• armed conflict, terror.

Kinds

There are different types of interethnic conflicts, which are determined by the nature of the mutual claims of ethnic groups:

1. State legal: the desire of the nation for independence, self-determination, its own statehood. Examples are Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Ireland.
2. ethnoterritorial: determination of the geographical location, territorial boundaries (Nagorno-Karabakh).
3. Ethnodemographic: the desire of the people to preserve national identity. Occurs in multinational states. In Russia, such a conflict happened in the Caucasus.
4. Socio-psychological: violation of the traditional way of life. It occurs at the everyday level between internally displaced persons, refugees and local residents. At present, relations between indigenous people and representatives of Muslim peoples are escalating in Europe.

What is the danger: consequences

Any interethnic conflict arising on the territory of one state or covering different countries is dangerous. It threatens peace, the democracy of society, violates the principles of the universal freedom of citizens and their rights. Where weapons are used, such a conflict entails the mass death of civilians, the destruction of houses, villages and cities.

The consequences of ethnic strife can be observed around the globe. Thousands of people lost their lives. Many were injured and became disabled. The saddest thing is that in the war of interests of adults, children suffer, who remain orphans, grow up as physical and mental cripples.

Ways to overcome

Most ethnic conflicts can be prevented if you start to negotiate and try to use humane methods of diplomacy.

It is important to eliminate the contradictions that have arisen between individual peoples at the initial stage. To do this, statesmen and people in power must regulate interethnic relations and stop attempts by some nationalities to discriminate against others, which are characterized by a smaller number.

The most effective way to prevent all sorts of conflicts lies in unity and mutual understanding. When one nation respects the interests of another, when the strong begin to support and help the weak, then people will live in peace and harmony.

Video: Interethnic conflicts

Intra-academic competition of student works

"INTERNATIONAL CONFLICTS: FROM THE ORIGINS TO THE PRESENT"

specialty "Management

information resources"

Kozyrenko Natalya Petrovna

Minsk, 2008

ESSAY

WORK 36 p., 2 hours, 10 sources

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

The object of the study 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 result, 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 causes of their occurrence, as well as possible ways to resolve 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 Causes, typology and stages of the development 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 determine their political status and freely pursue economic, social and cultural development.”

We are all different, someone likes to read, someone likes to listen to music, someone likes 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 difference too seriously, which has come to light in such directions as racism, nationalism.

There are practically no homogeneous states in the world today. Only 12 countries (9% of all states of the world) can be conditionally classified as such. In 25 states (18.9%), the main ethnic community makes up 90% of the population, in another 25 countries this figure 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 one way or another have to coexist on the same territory, and peaceful life does not always develop.

At the same time, as a rule, none of the dictionaries has a specific definition of the word nation and signs by which a certain person can be attributed to one or another nation. Sometimes, belonging to a nation is judged by appearance, but not all primordial Belarusians are fair-haired and have blue eyes. On a territorial basis, it is also not always possible to distinguish between a separate nation, because. as mentioned above, today only single 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 attribute. And what can we say about people who are rather far from science? About people who do not fill their heads with tricky words, and who simply need a specific enemy to give vent to the discontent that has been accumulating for centuries. Such moments are captured by politicians, and they skillfully use this. With this approach, the problem seems to go beyond the sphere of competence of sociology proper; however, it is she who should be engaged in capturing such sentiments among 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 vast 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 ethno-political conflicts, which have found their expression in large and small wars on ethnic and territorial grounds in Azerbaijan, Armenia, Tajikistan, Moldova, Chechnya, Georgia, North Ossetia, Ingushetia, have led to numerous casualties among the civilian population . 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 for their prevention and settlement are more relevant than ever. Historical studies of ethno-national conflicts in various concrete historical, ethno-cultural conditions are of great importance in order to identify their causes, consequences, specifics, types, participation of various national, ethnic groups in them, methods of prevention and settlement.

The purpose 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, their appearance requires a certain shift in the habitual way of life, 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 comes to the fore in the regulation of intergroup relations in society, as an older one that performed the function of group survival.

The action of this socio-psychological mechanism occurs 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 occurs on the basis of origin, on the basis of blood; the mechanisms of socio-psychological protection are included in the form of processes of intra-group cohesion, intra-group favoritism, strengthening unity and out-group discrimination and isolation from strangers. These procedures lead to the distance and distortion of the images of outgroups. This type of relationship historically precedes all other types and is most deeply connected with the prehistory of mankind, with those psychological laws of the organization of 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 to ethnocentrism, underestimation and belittling of the qualities of "foreign" groups and overestimation, elevation of the characteristics of one's own group along with dehumanization of the "foreign" group in a conflict.

The unification of a group on an ethnic basis occurs on the basis of:
preferences of their fellow tribesmen to "alien", newcomers, non-indigenous and strengthening 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;

· claims for redistribution of income;

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

All these signs have one advantage for group mass action - the visibility and self-evidence of community (in language, culture, appearance, history, etc.) in comparison with "strangers". An indicator of the state of interethnic relations and, accordingly, their regulator is an 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 integrative function for the subjects of social action in 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 are reduced to interethnic ones in the conditions of exacerbation of contradictions.

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 suppressed the sprouts of future universal human dependence in the simplest and most ancient way - by destroying, suppressing heterogeneity 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 benefits and territory (as, for example, the Ingush and the North Ossetians), in the context of social confrontation and 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 conflict escalation, the following socio-psychological patterns objectively and invariably begin to operate:

· a decrease in the volume of communication between the parties, an increase in the volume of disinformation, a tightening of aggressive terminology, an increase in the tendency to use the media as a weapon in the escalation of psychosis and confrontation among the general 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 the conflict by forceful methods due to the 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 Causes, typology and stages of development of ethnic conflicts

In world conflictology there is no single conceptual approach to the causes of interethnic conflicts. The socio-structural changes of the contacting ethnic groups, the problems of their inequality in status, prestige, remuneration are analyzed. There are approaches that focus on the 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 based on collective action focus on the responsibility of elites fighting with the help of mobilization around the ideas put forward by them for power and resources. In more modernized societies, intellectuals with professional training became members of the elite, in traditional societies, nobleness, belonging to the people, mattered. Obviously, the elites are primarily responsible for creating the "image of the enemy", 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 “messianicity” of Russians, the “inherited militancy” of Chechens, as well as the hierarchy of peoples with whom one can or cannot “deal with”.

The concept of "clash of civilizations" by S. Huntington enjoys great influence in the West. It explains modern 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, the separation of church and state - do not seem to find a response.

Also known is the theory of the ethnic border, understood as a subjectively perceived and experienced distance in the context of interethnic relations. (P.P. Kushner, M.M. Bakhtin). The ethnic boundary is defined by markers - cultural characteristics that are of paramount importance for a given ethnic group. Their meaning and set may change. Ethnosociological studies of the 80s-90s. showed that markers can be not only values ​​formed on a cultural basis, but also political ideas that focus on 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, a struggle for a majority in representative bodies of power and all the further aggravations of the situation that follow 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 choosing 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 characterization of this kind of conflict is quite reasonable and fruitful, since it allows step by step to unblock and resolve conflict situations.

First of all, many ethno-national conflicts can be called false because of the high component of an emotional nature. Too high a degree of emotional saturation makes it difficult to adequately perceive the situation and the opposite side, giving rise to false images and fears, aggressiveness and dehumanizing the perception of opponents. Many ethnic conflicts can be safely described as displaced 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 map 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 conflicts of cultures 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 volumes and powers of power, etc.

Researchers distinguish two more principles of typology of ethnic conflicts: one - according to the nature and mode of action of the conflicting parties, and the second - according to the content of conflicts, the main goals set by the party making claims.

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. The characteristic features of such conflicts (or their stages) is the advancement of certain claims. In the literature, the media substantiates historical law on statehood, as was the case, for example, in Estonia, Lithuania, Georgia, Tatarstan and other republics of the USSR, and on territory, as was the case in Armenia and Azerbaijan, North Ossetia and Ingushetia.

The third type of conflict is action conflict. These are rallies, demonstrations, pickets, the adoption of institutional decisions up to open clashes. It could be objected 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 there were demonstrations with slogans in Chicago, but no action followed.

Another 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 singled out the following types of ethnic conflicts.

The first type is institutional status conflicts in the union republics that have developed 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 mobilization along the ethnic principle is also present. 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 moved from ethno-national to state ones, but mobilization along the ethnic principle remained. The main form of this type of conflict was institutional. A sharp constitutional conflict arose when Estonia, followed by a number of other union republics, adopted amendments to their constitutions, introducing into them the priority right to use the resources and the supremacy of the laws of the republic. Status conflicts were also conflicts in the union and autonomous republics, autonomous regions for raising the status of the republic or obtaining it. This is typical for a part 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 conflict is ethnoterritorial. These tend to be the most difficult confrontations to resolve. About 200 ethno-territorial disputes were recorded on the territory of the former USSR for the period of 1992. According to V.N. Streletsky (Institute of Geography, Russian Academy of Sciences), one of the developers of the Data Bank of Ethnoterritorial Claims in the Geospace of the Former USSR, by 1996, 140 territorial claims remained relevant. Such conflicts include disputes that are ongoing on behalf of ethnic communities regarding their rights to reside in a particular territory, to own or manage it. VN 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 in relation to the repressed peoples. Nevertheless, conflicts connected with repressed peoples are a special type of ethnic confrontation. Only a part of such conflicts is connected with the restoration of territorial autonomy (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 we are talking about territorial disputes.

Another type is intergroup (intercommunal) conflicts. It is this type of conflicts that are similar to those in Yakutia (1986), in Tuva (1990), Russian-Estonian in Estonia and Russian-Latvian in Latvia, Russian-Moldovan in Moldova. Mass inter-group violent clashes took place in Azerbaijan, Armenia, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan.

Along with the above, typology based on the content of conflicts and the target aspirations of the parties is becoming more widespread in the literature. Often different goals and content are combined in one conflict. For example, the Karabakh conflict 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 both territorial, and 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 issue of Crimea).

Another type are conflicts within the state. These include:

· conflicts involving Aboriginal minorities;

· conflicts involving alien communities;

· conflicts involving forcibly displaced minorities (Crimean Tatars);

· conflicts arising from attempts to renegotiate relations between the former autonomous republics and governments of 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 creating an independent state entity. Such is the situation in Abkhazia, partly in Transnistria;

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

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

Conflicts arising from the consequences of arbitrary territorial changes carried out during the Soviet period. First of all, this is the problem of the Crimea and, potentially, a territorial settlement in Central Asia;

Conflicts as a result of clashes of economic interests, when the national contradictions that come to the surface are in fact the interests of the ruling political elites, dissatisfied with their share in the nationwide federal structure. It is these circumstances that determine the relationship between Grozny and Moscow, Kazan and Moscow;

Conflicts based on factors of a historical nature, due to 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 deported peoples in the territories of other republics. These are the problems of Turks in Uzbekistan, Chechens in Kazakhstan;

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

It is also important to take into account the stages of the development of ethnic conflicts, as well as those main forces and movements that act on them and determine their course, for understanding the characteristics of specific situations and developing measures to resolve them. It allows you to reveal in more detail the process and mechanisms of their determination, allows you 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 are expressed in programmatic documents and declarations of these movements.

As a rule, this stage serves as a preparation for the next stage - conflict actions, which become more and more violent as the conflict becomes more acute. With the accumulation of victims and losses, the conflict at this stage becomes less and less manageable and civilized solvable. Thus, the development of interethnic confrontation is increasingly bringing the conflict to the point where a national catastrophe may follow, and therefore measures to weaken and pacify it as soon as possible, 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 democratic and humanistic methods of settling and resolving interethnic conflicts put into action 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. The deployment of this process means the rooting and consolidation of the general democratic principle of the priority and inalienability of the rights and freedoms of each person in a specific area of ​​interethnic relations.

The main problem at present is the creation of a special and branched ethno-conflictological expertise, the main task of which should be to track the origin and development of conflict processes based on 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 ethno-national conflicts and confrontations 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 that monitor the development of the ethno-political situation in society, early diagnosis and forecasting of conflicts, as well as the absence of conflict management in the form of a service. rapid 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 intensively teach people how to properly respond to a conflict situation and behave in it.

Such an organization would make it possible to carry out 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 for a fundamental rejection of methods of violence in relations between ethnic groups that impede the democratization of society and pull it back, those participating in the mediation of conflictology would have the opportunity to help restore the rights and significance of the values ​​of human existence, strengthen the foundations of life and activity of society, and thereby return its true meaning , and social conflicts - positive social significance and function.

An important role in this regard should be played by the formalization of the results of conflict analysis in the form of an appropriate examination of interethnic conflict situations and collisions and its transformation on this basis into a specific technological procedure that makes it possible to bring the results of conflict analysis to their practical demand and use to regulate and resolve real conflict clashes.

The general task of this kind of expertise is to promote the establishment of conflict monitoring and management in interethnic relations as effective tools that allow you to track the emergence of conflict situations, identify their level of tension, dynamics, the nature of the 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 escalate or have already escalated into open clashes, including those of an armed nature, causing numerous casualties and destruction. Currently, experts have over 200 such zones, most of which fall 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 where the tension is on the verge of possible escalation into open inter-ethnic confrontations or is approaching it;

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

Common to all three zones is that everywhere interethnic tension, and even more so conflicts, especially with the use of armed violence, make it difficult to carry out 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 the measures for their effective settlement and prevention should have significant differences. Interethnic relations are especially acute in the autonomous republics and other national-territorial subjects of the Russian Federation, since it is there that the idea is growing that only the strengthening of sovereignty can ensure national interests.

Other social factors also contribute to the exacerbation of interethnic tension. All of them together create a danger for these nation-state actors to be drawn into large-scale armed violence - inter-ethnic wars, as well as into a clash with federal authorities. At the same time, states of both the near and far abroad can be involved in the confrontation, which exacerbates not only internal but also international tension and increases the risk of an armed clash turning into a multilateral large-scale and even nuclear conflict that goes beyond local regional boundaries 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 to resolve social conflicts in general, ethno-political conflicts in particular, is advocated.

Ethno-conflictological expertise and the conflictological monitoring and management that forms its basis are ultimately designed to 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.

ethnic conflict state of ulster

CHAPTER II. INTERNATIONAL CONFLICTS IN MODERN SOCIETY

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

Interethnic conflicts in the Western world

Ignoring the ethnic factor would be a big mistake in prosperous states, even in North America and Western Europe. Thus, as a result of the 1995 referendum among French Canadians, Canada almost split into two states, and consequently, into two nations. Great Britain can serve as an example, where the process of institutionalization of the Scottish, Ulster and Welsh autonomies and their transformation into subnations is taking place. In Belgium, the actual emergence of two sub-nations based on the Walloon and Flemish ethnic groups is also observed. Even in prosperous France, everything is not as calm in ethno-national terms as it seems at first glance. It 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 Provencal language and identity, 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 shows a division into several dialects, but also in the self-consciousness, which acquires different features 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 ethno-national 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, French Swiss and Romansh. The last ethnos, being the weakest, in modern conditions lends itself to assimilation by others, and it is difficult to predict what the reaction to this will be of its ethnically conscious part, especially the intelligentsia.

Ulster conflict

As you know, at the beginning of the century, 6 Irish counties, after lengthy clashes, became part of the United Kingdom, and 26 counties formed Ireland proper. The population of Ulster is clearly divided not only along ethnic lines (Irish - British), but also along religious lines (Catholics - Protestants). To this day, the Ulster issue remains open as the Catholic community suffers from government-created inequalities. Although housing, education, and other areas have improved in the last 20 years, inequalities in work remain. Catholics are more likely to be unemployed than Protestants. Therefore, only in 1994 did the armed clashes between the Irish Republican Army and paramilitary organizations called the "British Army" stop. More than 3,800 people became victims of the clashes; given that the population of the island is approximately 5 million and that of Northern Ireland is 1.6 million, this is a significant figure.

The fermentation of minds does not stop even today, and another factor is the civilian police, which still consists of 97% Protestants. An explosion that took place in 1996 near one of the military bases again increased distrust and suspicion among members of the two communities. And public opinion is not yet completely ready to put an end to the image of the enemy. Catholic and Protestant neighborhoods are separated by brick "peace walls". In the Catholic quarters, on the walls of the houses you can see huge paintings that testify to 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 of this year, a unique in many respects study by political scientist Fuad Gadzhiev “Independence de facto. Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. This study largely breaks the trend towards the defense of the Greek and Greek Cypriot point of view on events that took place in most 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 Balkans and the Eastern Mediterranean. 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 Russia's presence on both sides of the Cyprus conflict.

It is obvious that the Cyprus problem arose primarily due to the fact that two peoples live on this island (Greeks and Turks), who have never felt a single civil identity. At the same time, the Constitution of the Republic of Cyprus, which arose in 1960, was based on a bicommunity and provided equal rights to both peoples. However, the Greek majority of the island, which accounted for 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 terms of the Cypriot Constitution.

In 1963, the Greek majority made an attempt to deprive the Turks of the rights granted to them by the Constitution. The Turks were removed from the government structures by force of arms. At the same time, the Turkish minority was expelled from most 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 was under the control of the Turkish armed forces. This action of Ankara led to the fall of the military regime in Athens. After that, 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 Cypriot state. It should be federal, bicommunal and bizonal. However, the different vision of the Cypriot federation did not allow the parties to reach an agreement. The Greeks see it as a state with a common territory and transparent borders between the two parts, the Turks see it 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 unrecognized state in post-war Europe. 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. It enjoys the full 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, established in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 186. 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, it should be noted the change in the leadership of the TRNC, 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), declared its goal to be the unification of the island, and not its division. 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 international relations by Turkey and the TRNC. The internationally recognized Republic of Cyprus is currently regarded in the international arena as a force preventing the unification of the island. This and other circumstances of a geopolitical nature launched the process of actual recognition of the TRNC by the world community. The USA, Great Britain, France, some OIC countries began to recognize TRNC passports. The same countries have representative offices in the northern part of the island, partially performing diplomatic functions. There are 22 diplomatic, trade and honorary representations of the TRNC in 17 countries of the world. Bilateral contacts of the TRNC with the EU, the Council of Europe, the 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 of not only efforts to achieve recognition of the TRNC, made 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 entities.

A natural question arises: if the United States and the main EU countries consider it legal to recognize the independence of Kosovo, then why persist in recognizing 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. Chief among them 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 Marti 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 for anyone to use such arguments in the 21st century, especially for politicians who have power, authority and appropriate powers. Recognition of an "independent Kosovo" became possible only because the United States, having decided that they had won the Cold War, believed in their own infallibility, believing that only their political system had the right to exist. Therefore, any disagreement with the position of Washington is immediately declared "trampling on freedom and democracy." In reality, there is neither freedom nor democracy in such behavior. The events around Kosovo have become the clearest embodiment of this style of behavior, based on the principle of "what I want, I turn back."

At the same time, the American president, who predetermined back in June 2007 that Kosovo's independence was inevitable, and all those who supported him, for the sake of elementary objectivity and justice, should also recognize the independence of the TRNC.

Conflicts in the Balkans

There are several cultural regions and types of civilization on the Balkan Peninsula. 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 here are so confused that it is difficult to expect a complete settlement of conflicts in the coming decades.

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

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 also Catholics among the Serbs. Catholics are Croats and Slovenes. An interesting confessional section is in Bosnia and Herzegovina, where Catholic Croats live, Orthodox Serbs and Muslim Slavs. 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 inhabitants (Albanians, Muslim Slavs) profess Islam.

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. These are primarily Serbs, Croats, Montenegrins, Muslims. However, it was not a single state language; there was no single state language in the country at all. The exception was the army, where office work was conducted in Serbo-Croatian (based on the Latin script), commands were also given 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 ones. 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 province of Kosovo lagged behind Serbia in economic development. This led to differences in the income of various national groups and increased the contradictions between them. The economic crisis, years of unemployment, severe inflation, devaluation of the dinar intensified the 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 one-party system disintegrated, 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%), who claim to separate from Serbia and create independent state. The situation for the Serbs is aggravated by the fact that the region borders on Albania and Albanian-populated regions of Macedonia. 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 because of the status of the Macedonian language, considering it as a dialect of Bulgarian.

Serb-Croatian relations are aggravated. This is due to the position of the Serbs in Croatia. The Serbs, forced to stay in Croatia, change their nationality, surnames, accept Catholicism. Dismissal from work based on ethnicity is becoming commonplace, and there is increasing talk of "Great Serbian 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 were wounded and missing.

Interethnic conflicts in the countries of the "third world". Interethnic conflicts in Africa

With a population of 120 million, Nigeria is home to over 200 ethnic groups, each with its own language. English remains the official language in the country. After the civil war 1967-1970. national strife remained one of the most dangerous diseases in Nigeria, as, indeed, in all of Africa. It blew up many states of the continent from within. In Nigeria, even today there are ethnic clashes between the Yoruba people from the southern part of the country, Christians, Hauss, 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 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 died during interethnic clashes. About 20 thousand residents of the city left 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, leading to hundreds of victims. About 15 thousand black Africans left their country, which is quite 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 speeches, although such settlements would greatly boost the Somali economy.

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 broke out 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, parts of which were traditionally prone to separatist sentiments, and interethnic contradictions smoldered, as a rule, implicitly, openly expressing itself usually only in periodic Chinese pogroms. Meanwhile, the democratization of Indonesian society that began in May 1998 led to an increase in the freedom of expression of various ethnic groups, which, coupled with the weakening of the central government and a sharp drop in the influence of the army and its ability to influence events on the ground, led to an explosion of inter-ethnic 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 (Moluccas), the city of Ambon. Already in the first two months in various parts of the province there were hundreds of dead and wounded, tens of thousands of refugees and huge material losses. And all this in the province, which was considered almost exemplary in Indonesia in terms of the relationship between various groups of the population. At the same time, the specificity of this conflict is that, having begun mainly as interethnic, 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 the whole province, Muslims are about 50% and about 43% Christians (37% Protestants and 6% Catholics), while on Ambon this ratio is 47% and 43%, respectively, which does not allow either one side quickly take up. 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 people, mainly Sinhalese (74%) and Tamils ​​(18%). Among believers, two-thirds are Buddhists, about a third are Hindus, although there are other faiths. Ethnic contradictions appeared on the island in the first decades of independence, and every year they intensified. The fact is that the Sinhalese people come from North India and mainly profess Buddhism; The Tamils ​​came from South India, and the predominant religion among them is Hinduism. There is no record of which ethnic groups first settled the island. The 1948 constitution created a parliamentary state. It had a bicameral parliament, consisting of the Senate and the House of Representatives. According to the constitution, the Sinhalese language was proclaimed the main state language. This sharply aggravated relations between the Sinhalese and Tamil sides, and government policy was by no means conducive to appeasing the Tamils. In the 1977 elections, the Sinhalese won 140 out of 168 seats in parliament, and Tamil became an official language along with English, while Sinhalese remained the official language. No other significant concessions were made by the government regarding the Tamils. Moreover, the president extended for another 6 years the term of the parliament, which remained without a significant representation of the Tamils ​​in it.

In July 1983, anti-Tamil riots took place in the capital Colombo and other cities. The Tamils ​​responded by killing 13 Sinhalese soldiers. This led to more 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 ​​are now receiving great financial support from compatriots who have emigrated from the country and have the status of political refugees in various countries of the world. The members of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam are heavily armed. Their number is from 3 to 5 thousand people. Attempts by the Sri Lankan leadership with fire and sword to destroy the grouping did not lead to anything. Collisions still occur from time to time; back in 2000, in just 2 days of fighting for the city of Jaffna, about 50 people died.

2.2 The experience of the modern state in resolving ethnic conflicts

For the normal development of the state, it is necessary not only to identify problems, but also to constructively solve them. Unfortunately, today not a single state can boast of the absolute eradication of interethnic conflicts and clashes on its territory. As practice shows, even with strong state support for national minorities in the country, there are still various groups that share racist and nationalist points of view. But at the same time, we cannot fail to mention positive shifts in this direction.

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

One of the most important steps towards solving the problem of interethnic relations today is the awareness by 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 enterprising people striving to remove national and national-state obstacles in 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 (an example of this is Kosovo). Many experts believe that in the 21st century it is necessary to address the issues of the formation of new autonomous regions, districts, national regions and national councils wherever 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 acute 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 developing the economic initiative (at the level of private or cooperative forms of ownership) of people in order to create a financial and, in general, economic basis for solving national and cultural problems.

The conditions for the revival and development of national minorities is the use in the practice of upbringing and education of their original folk systems, including systems for 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 it is necessary to raise the level of culture of the entire people or national group, and guaranteeing the disappearance of the danger for folk culture. Of course, laws and, in general, state support for the policy of preserving and developing national minorities, their natural and cultural resources, are called upon to play a particularly important role. At the same time, it is necessary to support the thesis about the need to conduct a multivariate national policy that takes into account the identity and specifics of the economy, culture, way of 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 the state national policy.

It should be emphasized that small peoples and national groups, which we also call national minorities, require especially great care on the part of society and the state. And here a significant role should be played by regional national policy. But, unfortunately, the lack of political stabilization, the deepening of the economic and cultural and moral crisis today limit the possibilities of regional national policy, cause a relative reduction in appropriations for solving national problems, for culture, both from the central authorities and from local administrative authorities. Nevertheless, 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 interterritorial 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, sociocultural 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;

· formation of a new mechanism of cultural continuity;

· exploiting the commercial potential of national cultures;

· solving the 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, the development of a mechanism for socio-economic impact on the national environment.

CONCLUSION

Three people were asked, "What is dawn?" One replied: "This is the dividing strip 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 of different skin colors, but both are truly beautiful." Sometimes the simple wisdom of a poet is superior to the most complex 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, freely move around the territory of our people, feel our equality in society, regardless of skin color, eye shape or religious views. Today it is almost impossible, despite the fact that most of the world's population wants it with all their hearts.

Undoubtedly, ethnic conflicts are an integral part of modern politics, because. the problem of ethnic conflicts requires an immediate solution. It is state regulation and state stability in the field of nations' politics 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 the complete elimination of this problem, at least in its own territory.

Every day all over the world, numerous organizations, together with various politicians and government officials, take constructive steps towards solving the problem of national minorities, but, despite this, humanity is still far from completely eradicating it. Therefore, today, in most cases, national minorities can only hope that one day they will be able to be proud of belonging to their nation in any situation and that one day humanity will understand that a person’s actions do not really depend on how 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.en.wikipedia.org

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

A. Andreev Black Africans are fleeing Libya // Nezavisimaya Gazeta. - 2000. - No. 218 (2280)

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

I. Ivanov "The Kosovo crisis: a year later"// Dipkurier NG. - 2000. - No. 5

Galina Starovoitova, "National Self-Determination: Approaches and Case Study", 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 learning a topic?

Our experts will advise or provide tutoring services on topics of interest to you.
Submit an application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

Plan:

1. The concept of interethnic conflict

1.1 The concept of ethnic conflict

1.2 Classification of ethnic conflict

2. Causes, opportunities to prevent interethnic conflict

2.1 Causes of interethnic conflicts in Russia

2.2 Ways to resolve interethnic conflicts

1.1 The concept of ethnic conflict.

A conflict is a clash of opposing interests, views, positions, aspirations. Among the most complex and intractable are ethno-social (interethnic) conflicts. This is a form of intergroup conflict, in which groups with opposing interests differ along ethnic (national) lines.

The functional approach to understanding the conflict is characteristic of most ethno-conflictologists. V.A. Tishkov defines inter-ethnic 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."

L. M. Drobizheva emphasizes the functional basis of the ethnic conflict, which is not in 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 the representatives of one (several) of the 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 protests against the infringement of their interests by representatives of another local ethnic group.

Z. V. Sikevich in his definition of interethnic conflict 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 (groups) to change ethnic inequalities or political space in its territorial dimension. one

In the latter case, the definition strictly links the subjects of the conflict and the underlying goals of their political activity, no matter what declarations they cover up, and no matter what forms the ethnic conflict itself manifests itself in.

In everyday practice, when discussing interethnic relations, the effectiveness or inefficiency of the national policy of the state, certain nations are usually meant. 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 to satisfy their needs to the fullest extent.

Interethnic conflict is a complex sociological phenomenon and has its own characteristics. Conflict situations between social groups and classes are reduced to confrontation regarding the possible complete satisfaction of their interests. This applies primarily to relations of power. 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. They can be an individual, a certain organization or movement that assumes the representation of a nation or ethnic group. People not only do not realize their national interests, but lose much of what they had, up to the rights of man and citizen.

1.2. Classification of conflicts

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

Conflicts such as "battles", when the opposing sides share irreconcilable contradictions and the result can only be the victory of one of the parties;

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

Conflicts of the “game” type, when the parties act within the framework of common rules and therefore the conflict does not end with the destruction of the entire set of relations between the conflicting parties.

An interethnic conflict has its own stages, stages, development mechanisms and solutions. The greatest danger to society is armed conflicts. 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 countries like the Russian Federation that have nuclear weapons.

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

2.1 Causes of interethnic conflicts

Interethnic conflicts in the Russian Federation and in the CIS countries have specific historical objective and subjective causes. Until 1986, nothing was said publicly about interethnic conflicts in the USSR. It was believed that in it the national question was finally resolved. And it must be admitted 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 accounted for and tracked.

At the same time, an intensive process of Russification of non-Russian peoples was going on. The unwillingness to learn the Russian language did not entail any sanctions, as they are trying to do in Estonia or Moldova, but its very study was put on the rank of a natural necessity. At the same time, knowledge of the Russian language as a federal language opened up great opportunities for non-Russian peoples for learning, 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 performs the same function that fell to the lot 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 rule out the formation of latent ethno-conflict situations due to the flawed national policy of the Soviet government. Even during the civil war, 35 republics of red regimes and 37 of white regimes were formed. This trend intensified after the victory of the Bolsheviks. However, its full implementation was impossible. Yes, the Bolsheviks were not going to put it into practice. Based on the principle of "divide and rule", they gave formal independence in the form of a national name of the territory only to the "support" 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 1027 thousand, had union statehood; Tatars, whose number is more than 6 times greater than the number of Estonians (6649 thousand) - autonomy, and Poles (1126 thousand) or Germans (2039 thousand) did not have any national formations.

Subsequent volitional changes in the borders of national formations and the transfer of vast territories (for example, Crimea) from one republic to another without regard to historical and ethnic features, the deportation of entire peoples from their native lands and their dispersion among other nationalities, huge migration flows associated with the mass eviction of people across political motives, with great construction projects, the development of virgin lands and other processes, finally mixed the peoples of the USSR.

According to the 1989 census, there are 25,290,000 Russians alone living outside of Russia. In addition to Russians, 3 million Russian-speaking representatives of other peoples turned out to be 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 by some kind of “call”, in which they, regardless of their share (in 9 republics out of 21 titular peoples do not make up the majority of the population, and in 8 more republics the number of Russians, Ukrainians and other non-titular nations is 30% or more) are listed as 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, 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 present, political (centralism and unitarism of power, repression and conquest of peoples), economic (economic crisis, unemployment, impoverishment), socio-psychological (international barriers to communication, negative forms of national self-affirmation, open nationalism, ambitions of national leaders), territorial and others.

The vast majority of conflicts are inter-ethnic, inter-tribal in 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 contradictions. Some drag 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 ongoing conflicts are often erased by time, go into the subconscious, and are expressed in hard to explain, almost pathological national intolerance. The immediate causes (causes) of periodically renewed clashes are usually the nearest “injustices”. By putting this word in quotation marks, I mean that in most ethnic conflicts there is objectively no fair solution for all warring parties, because each is guided by its own truth, its own historical periods, events, and facts.

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

Conflict people (groups) in such cases are always found. National political forces striving for power and property cleverly use spontaneous discontent. Warming it up, they present themselves as the defenders 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 become the most understandable, closest and unifying ideology. The unity of language, customs, traditions, faith unites people from half a word, from half a movement. What could be easier than to have a common object of negation and to assimilate a common “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, every offended soul: This is so simple and understandable! And there will always be 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 to resolve ethnic 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 official authorities. The first: the authorities, maintaining a balance, remain above the conflict, trying to extinguish the conflict with acceptable forces and means, as, for example, was done, although not without mistakes, by the Russian authorities in the conflict between the North Ossetians and the Ingush. Second: the authorities themselves are drawn into the conflict, advocating 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). In the end, the Russian authorities in Chechnya were also drawn into similar situations.

In a multiethnic society, conflicts are inevitable. The danger is not in them, but in the ways of their resolution.

There are six prerequisites necessary for the settlement of 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 a truce;

Achieving a state of a certain balance in the 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 achieving a truce and achieve recognition of an ethnic minority as a party to the conflict;

The agreement of the parties to "freeze" the crisis and to postpone a comprehensive political settlement indefinitely;

Deployment along the line of separation of a peacekeeping force that is authoritative or strong enough to deter the parties from resuming hostilities.

The existence of an authoritative unified command for each of the warring factions, which would have sufficient power to ensure control over the field commanders and whose orders would be carried out is the first necessary condition for any ceasefire negotiations. Otherwise, it is not possible to reach any agreements at all. It is no coincidence that one of the first steps taken by 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 one could conduct a dialogue. The presence of control over the territory, which provides the parties with at least relative security, seems to be almost a key prerequisite for a settlement.

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

1) legitimization 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) that needs to be discussed and resolved;

2) institutionalization of the conflict - the development of rules, norms, regulations 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, accessibility and objectivity of information on the development of the conflict for all interested citizens, etc.

Throughout its history, humanity has accumulated considerable experience in non-violent conflict resolution. However, only since the second half of the 20th century, when it became obvious that conflicts are a real threat to the survival of mankind, an independent field of scientific research began to take shape in the world, 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 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 subsequently resolved. This is what the national policy of the state should be directed to. Our current state does not yet have such a clear and distinct policy. And not only because the politicians "do not reach their hands", but to a large extent because the initial general concept of nation-building in multi-ethnic Russia is unclear. There are contemporary political situations that require consideration of inter-ethnic or inter-religious conflicts that arise within a 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 tension in the national aspect. Socio-political magazine, No. 7, 2006. pp. 58 - 66.

4. Kotanjyan G.S. Ethnopolitology of consensus - conflict. M.: 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. "War in Chechnya: Causes and Character" // Socio-Political Journal, 2005 No. 3

9. Sikevich Z.V. Sociology and psychology of national relations: A study guide. - St. Petersburg: 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").

International conflicts………………………………….5 Solutions international conflicts……………………….6 Conclusion………………………………………………………………...9 List of used ...