Vol 16, No 3 (2016): International Conflicts: Quo Vadis?

This article analyzes the risks of mutual misunderstanding caused by NATO and the Warsaw Treaty Organization (WTO) large-scale military command-and-staff exercises in 1983. The problem of mutual misunderstanding is analyzed in the context of the classic «Security Dilemma» elaborated in 1951 by J. Gertz and adapted to military exercise issues by D. Adamski. In spite of all the available knowledge, analysis, intelligence and other forms of communication between the West and the East, a problem of mutual misunderstanding appeared between two blocs. This was highlighted during the command and staff exercises of the NATO countries «Able Archer 83» when the world was put on the brink of nuclear war. Given that the Western countries have considered exercises as a deterrence of possible attack by the WTO, the Eastern Bloc countries considered such activities directly threatening their military security. According to the author, these were military exercise carried out by both sides, which represented the most important factor of the sharp deterioration in relations between the West and the East in the early 1980s following the period of détente in the 1970s. The article is based on a large empirical data, archives data, personal interviews by the author of the participants of these events.

This article analyzes the security studies in the “Third World”. The evolution of the conceptual apparatus in the field of security studies and in the understanding of the “Third World” is given. The author provides us an analysis of the security issues in the so-called “post-colonial” countries in the years of “cold war” and in the post-bipolar period, defines the domain of security for the developing world and the current agenda. Particular attention is paid to the analysis of the security concepts of the late XX century - the “security of the person”, “securitization”, “humanitarian intervention” - which are of particular concern to countries of the “Third World”. An alternative format of the “Third World” in the categories of postmodern, modern and premodern worlds is given, the term of “non-Westphalian” state is used as well. Basic characteristics of the “Third World” in the socio-economic and political spheres are provided. The author emphasizes that the state of security of the “Third World” is fundamentally different from that of the developed Western countries, since most threats in non-Western countries, does not come from the outside, but from within. Accordingly, the non-Western security theory does not focus exclusively on military issues and explore a wide range of issues of civil nature - economic, political, social, environmental and development challenges, as well as poverty and underdevelopment.

As a part of a larger research project on complex linkages between security and development implemented by the Center for Security and Development Studies at the Lomonosov Moscow State University, this paper examines the complex dilemmas of pursuing comprehensive approach to post-conflict reconstruction with an example of Federal Republic of Germany’s experience with the Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) in Afghanistan after the terrorist attacks of 9/11. The first section depicts the background of deployment of the PRTs on Afghan territory. The second section compares the U.S., British and German models of PRTs and assesses the role of those teams as vehicles of close civil-military, interagency coordination. The third and the fourth sections identify respectively characteristic features of the German PRTs’ activities in Kunduz and Badakhshan provinces and the main obstacles that hindered the achievement of key objectives. The conclusion contains a concise assessment of effectiveness and efficiency of PRTs as a mechanism of addressing complex challenges of post-conflict reconstruction and transition to peaceful development. It also postulates that the PRT model, regardless of some objective difficulties faced by various German agencies, may be very relevant in the future in fulfilling a revised agenda of the German foreign and defense policies in the XXI century.

This article touches upon geopolitical dimension of the Syrian conflict. The authors consider in details regional subdivision of Syria and relations of Syrian regions with border countries. The authors of the article conclude that Arab nationalism as the Syrian state ideology and positioning of Syria as the center of Arab world were indispensable taking into account multiconfessional nature of Syria. Authors study the geostrategical doctrine of Hafez Asad (1970-2000) aimed to restore the territorial integrity of Syria (return of the Golan heights) and creation of Great Syria, bring to light reasons of the alliances of Syria with Soviet Union and Iran. The authors discover reasons of hostility toward Syria from such actors as United States, Saudi Arabia, Turkey. The hostile attitude of the US political elites toward the Syrian state can be explained by American intention to undermine strategic partnership between Syria and Iran. Enmity of Saudi hostility toward the Syrian regime began with the assassination of the Lebanese Prime Minister Rafic Hariri (2005). This action destroyed the political balance in Lebanon and was considered by the Saudis as a threat to their interests. Article contains analysis of the Syrian role in the Saudi-Iranian rivalry. To opinion of the authors, Turkish involvement in the Syrian conflict began with the attempts of the regime’s change in this country and evolved to the defense of Turkish national interests from the Kurdish factor. The authors make some conclusions about the role of US, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey in the Syrian conflicts. In the article it’s made some forecasts about the development of Syrian conflict. The authors especially predict possibility of disintegration of the Syrian state according to spheres of influence of the external actors involved to this conflict with Mediterranean coast, Homs and Damascus under the control of government, northern regions of the country under Kurdish control, Raqqa and Deir el Zor probably under Turkish control and the Southern Syria (Hawran) probably under Jordanian control.

The article considers the ideas of some leading western expert analytical centers about the problems of the conflicts development on the CIS space. The subject of research is the positions of the “think tanks” of the USA, Great Britain, Germany and France. Among a large number of the regional conflicts in the CIS the authors focused attention on the conflicts in the East of Ukraine, in Transnistria and in the Nagorno-Karabakh. Such selection is explained by the acute character and impact of these conflicts on the interests of Russia and the other leading states and the international organizations. The theoretical and methodological background of the article consists of the approaches and methods, which are used by the modern political science for the comprehensive analysis of the architecture and structure of the international relations, the mechanism of formation and functioning of the certain states’ foreign policy. The research has the cross-disciplinary character and is made at the intersection of such disciplines as history, political science, conflictology and the international relations. The authors reveal positions of the western “think tanks” on the genesis, evolution and the potential settlement of the armed conflicts in the CIS region. The article highlights the estimates of the western “think tanks” of the reasons of the “frozen” conflicts on the post-USSR space, of the Russian Federation’s role and the participation of external actors (the EU and the USA) in their settlement. Giving the research of the approaches of the western expert analytical centers, the authors reach a conclusion about a set course of the western political scientists’ estimates. It reflects in assignment of a unilateral responsibility for a conflict inhaling or its unleashing on Russia, or on the party of a conflict, closed to the official Moscow. It is particularly obvious in the Ukrainian crisis: the Western countries consider our state as its main initiator. According to the authors, such a narrow-mindedness is coused not by the incompetence of the experts of the “think tanks”, but by the political course and tasks of the power structures of those countries. The western “think tanks”, especially in the USA, are capable to participate directly or indirectly in the political decision-making process. This points to the fact of the political prejudice of the activity of these “think tanks”.

In the article the relations of Uzbekistan and Russia are examined in the context of making integration process more active in Eurasia based on the example of EAEU and SCO, proceeding in the period of increased turbulence of world system in 2014-2016, the aggravations of Russian relations with the West in connection with the introduction of anti-Russian sanctions and reorientation of Russian foreign economic policy to the East. The authors examine the development of Uzbek - Russian relations on the wide historical background in the light of interests of both countries, possibilities of increasing their competitive ability under the conditions of strengthening the crisis phenomena in the contemporary world as a whole, and on the Eurasian economic space, in particular. The association of the efforts of the two countries in the fight against international terrorism - one of the most serious calls of the present, participation in the solution of the vital problems of international safety on the continent within the framework of integrated associations could give additional political weight to both countries. The ability of Uzbekistan and Russia to search for and to find compromises in the process of regulating debatable questions of political and economic interactions is shown. In the article the attention is paid to the unrealized possibilities of the Uzbek - Russian relations, which are considered as the possible factor of the development of integration process in Eurasia. The authors consider the absence of any other alternative to further positive development of relations between Russia and Uzbekistan and to strengthening the many-sided contacts between them, which sources were placed in the distant past. The idea is defended about the fact that joining EAEU could bring essential political and economic dividends to Uzbekistan. Through the economic collaboration with Uzbekistan Russia can have the specific effect on its integrative policy.

France takes a priority position in the foreign policy of Armenia. Bilateral relations are at high level and both countries characterize them as privileged relationships. To clarify the structure of relations between the countries, the author realizes a content analysis of the activity reports of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Armenia, quantitative analysis of the bilateral visits and meetings, friendship groups at the parliament of France, decentralized cooperation, as well as vote in the UN General Assembly and cooperation at the PACE are analyzed. Armenian-French privileged relationships correspond to the coincidence of more than half of the voting of the countries in the UN General Assembly. Regular visits of the President, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Diaspora of Armenia to France show the important French vector in foreign policy of Armenia. Due to the activities of the Armenian community of France, Armenia can rely on the group of supporters not only in the French Parliament, but, respectively, in the PACE, the European Parliament, etc., and decentralized co-operation with France develops dynamically and is not inferior to the interaction of Armenia with other countries in this area.

Johan Galtung, professor of Peace Studies, was born in 1930 in Oslo, Norway. He is a mathematician, sociologist, political scientist and the founder of the discipline of Peace Studies. He founded the International Peace Research Institute, Oslo (PRIO, 1959), the world's first academic research center focused on Peace Studies, as well as the influential Journal of Peace Research (1964). He has helped to found dozens of other peace centers around the world. He is currently the president of the Galtung-Institute for Peace Theory & Peace Practice. He has mediated in over 150 conflicts between states, nations, religions, civilizations, communities, and persons since 1957. His contributions to peace theory and practice include conceptualization of peace-building, conflict mediation, reconciliation, nonviolence, theory of structural violence, theorizing about negative vs. positive peace, peace education and peace journalism. In his interview, he speaks about today’s conflicts, the sources of cultural violence and the golden rule of mediation. He also touches the problem of regional security in Europe and Asia, development of Peace Studies and the greatest challenges facing the world today.

--