Causes of interethnic conflicts. Ethnic conflict

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, 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 aims to achieve 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

The causes of interethnic conflicts are manifold:

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

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

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

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 typical for 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 are not only not fulfilling their national interests, but are losing 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 inter-ethnic 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 conquer", 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 a resultant 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-assertion.

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, unpromising 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 put out the conflict that has arisen 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 existence 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 participants in interethnic conflicts fit into the framework of some general rules derived from the existing experience in resolving such conflicts. Among them:

1) legitimation of the conflict - the official recognition by the existing power structures and the conflicting parties of the existence of the problem itself (the subject of the conflict) 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 conflict resolution, 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 from 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 modern political situations that require consideration of inter-ethnic or inter-religious conflicts that arise within a particular country in unity with international conflicts.

List of used literature:

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

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

3. Ivanov V.N. Interethnic 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 interethnic conflicts……………………….6 Conclusion………………………………………………………………...9 List of used ...

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 lives. 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.

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 many 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.