FEDERAL STATE AUTONOMOUS EDUCATIONAL
INSTITUTION FOR HIGHER EDUCATION
NATIONAL RESEARCH UNIVERSITY
HIGHER SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS
Faculty of Social Sciences
Defense and Foreign Policies of the Global and Regional Actors in Middle East and North Africa and Its Impact on the EU's Turbulence: The Cases of Syria and Yemen in 2011-2017
Zarochintcev Sergei Vyacheslavovich
master thesis
Scientific supervisor
Assistant professor
Sanjay Rajhans
Moscow 2018
Introduction
In recent years, we can see difficult situation with growing influence of modern warfare on a civilian sector. It means that states (global powers) try to use both military (or conventional) and non - conventional tools and strategies and it is very hard to divide military aggression and assault from the similar processes. Public policies have already involved in hybrid warfare and we should solve this problem in the context of use of different policies and institutions for providing global processes of liberalisation, democratisation, transparency, and globalisation. In this case it is very important to answer on the question, what is the influence of hybriity as a new characteristic (and an element of exogenous factors) of modern warfare in a turbulent world on public sphere and how we can use comprehensive public policies in the processes of globalization and democratization in the context of the new generation of war? Particularly, Middle East and North Africa today are the most difficult region with many wars and conflicts that influence on the whole development of the world. It has not only the hardest social and economic situation but huge political crisis, events of 2011 (Arab Spring) are important factors for current hybrid warfare in the region.
For this purpose we should identify changed geo-economics and security policies of regional and global powers in the context of post-Arab Spring world. The main idea of the research on the methodological level is to show differences between politics and policies and process of interpenetration for them, in according to the Lasswell's vision of policy as an important decision process. This research contains four general tasks:
1) To determine the contours of the new generation of war.
2) To identify actors of Yemeni and Syrian conflict.
3) Clarification of the hybridity as an element of globalization and its penetration inside modern warfare and global strategy.
4) To create comprehensive public policies for the regional and global security and changing global order (particularly, in migration and population spheres with implementation of global citizenship concept).
Yemeni and Syrian crisis, on the one hand, can be described in terms of hybrid warfare and use of military sources for providing security policies of regional powers - Iran and Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, there is another side of the conflict that depends from social and economic parameters. Today wars are happened not only because of foreign policy, security or sovereignty of a state, they are about statehood, governance and status of nations within states that is well explained by Edward Azar as protracted social conflict. Also, these conflicts usually have fragility of a state and ongoing revolutions as results of economic collapse and social failure. It is very symbolic that wars keep step with revolutions in its typology, the nations are becoming major actors of warfare, when opposing states try to destabilise political situation of each other using economic, informational tools with irregular and asymmetric military actions.
military geopolitical migration legal
1. Contours of the new generation of conflict
1.1 Typology of war
War is a social and political phenomenon, the special condition of society connected with sharp change of the relations between states with transition to application of the armed violence for achievement of political goals. A state of war comes from the beginning of military operations and stops with their termination. Along with armed struggle, which makes the main content of war in wartime and the previous period economic, diplomatic, ideological, information and other “non - military” means, which in military time accept more fierce character can be also applied. Wars can be subdivided:
1) on scale - depending on the number of the participating states and on spatial scope (on world, regional and local);
2) on the military-political purposes and international legal legitimacy - on fair (defensive, directed to defense of the country) and unfair wars;
3) on the applied means - with or without use of nuclear weapon.
Let it show on some examples.
1. Local war is limited with the purposes and scales from the point of view of interests of great powers and a global strategic situation. For the small countries and the victim of aggression such war becomes general. Local war is waged with participation of two or several states in borders of their territories, as a rule, with direct or indirect support of large powers.
2. Regional war is the war with participation of two or several states (groups of the states) which is conducted within the region by national or coalition forces for achievement of the important military-political purposes with application of both usual, and nuclear weapons of mass-destruction. This war can be result of escalation of local war or armed conflict and have large-scale character.
3. World war is the global armed conflict between the coalitions (the unions, blocks) of the states, covering the most part of the countries of the world and the infringing interests of all world communities or the leading powers. In world war the main world powers will set the radical military-political purposes and use for their achievement all types of the fight (armed, political, economic, ideological, information, etc.). World war can be waged on several continents, having captured number of continental and ocean (sea) military theatres and near-earth space. It will be characterized by high probability of development into nuclear war with the mass victims and destructions, catastrophic consequences for humanity.
4. Armed conflict is limited scale between the states (the interstate armed conflict) or the resisting parties within one state (internal armed conflict). Both the regular, and irregular armed formations can be involved in armed conflict. It is characterized by a high involvement and vulnerability of civilians, conducting sabotages. At the same time, war is not declared, and transition to the wartime mode is not carried out. Interstate-armed conflict can develop into local war, internal armed conflict - in civil war. Forms of armed conflict are the armed incident, the armed action, counter-terrorist operation, the border conflict. In addition, civilization approach is applied to a research of wars.
In other words, this is an armed conflict between rather isolated historical and cultural communities of ethos's, nations, people, the states united by unity of history, religion, the main values, a steady conduct of life, mentality. The civilization approach proceeding from the analysis of communication of wars with civilizations, their relations, distinctions and contradictions.Intercivilization wars are waged by the states representing concrete civilizations as civilizations, being cultural, but not political integrity, are not capable to do in what the governments, including construction of civilization army are engaged though something similar arises in the European community today. Civilizations, if it is not the certain states such as China, India and Russia, cannot prepare and wage wars, sign contracts, etc. The western sociologists allocate eight civilization wars in the past:
1) Alexander of Macedon's campaigns (4th century BC) setting as the purpose to expand the Hellenic civilization from Greece to Iran, from Egypt to India.
2) The gain of Ancient Rome, which led to creation of the huge empire.
3) Attila (443, 447--452) wars in which victories of Huns and Germans led to fall of the Roman Empire.
4) Campaigns of Muhammad and his Islamic followers (the VII--VIII centuries) which created the Arab caliphate.
5) Creation of “The Sacred Roman Empire” (middle of the 10th century);
6) Gains of Vikings (the IX--XI centuries) from Northern Europe to America;
7) Crusades (the XI--XIII centuries) which issued the Catholic Church world;
8) Hundred Years' War between England and France (1337 -- 1453).
The short review of types of wars allows us to see tendencies in formation of the mechanism of warfare that is necessary for better understanding of essence of changes in generations of wars.
1.2 Mechanism of warfare: origin and reasons
In this research the analysis of hybrid warfare was based on the most significant theories of an origin of war:
1) Concept of natural determinism.
2) Social and Darwinist theories (“zones of fight for existence”, “natural selection”).
3) Geopolitical theories (“lack” of the territory, “safety of natural borders”).
4) Psychological theories (“eternal instincts”, “an initial psychological cycle”).
5) Neomalthusian theories (“population explosion”).
6) Neoracist theories (“natural exclusiveness” of a certain race or nation).
7) Behaviouristic theories (absolutization of influence of the nature).
9) The concept of social violence (war as a determinism form), the theory of violence (war is internally inherent in society).
10) Sociohistorical theories (war as one of phases of eternal circulation, war is absolute, and the world is the relative and temporary phenomenon).
11) Social and economic theories (war as result of fight for property).
12) Socio-political theories (absolutization of a role of policy, ideology, social institutes in emergence of the situations leading to war).
13) Theories of “political realism” (fight for the power, for hegemony).
14) Theories of “national sovereignty” (the independent states, independence, sovereignty as basis of emergence of wars).
15) Theories of “ideological disagreements” (spiritual contradictions, ideological disagreements generate war).
Representatives of various philosophical schools see the reasons of wars differently - in economy, in policy, in psychology of people, in shortage of living floor space, resources, and raw materials. All these views play an important role in formation of concepts of the reasons of wars. At the heart of emergence of wars are:
1) property, inequality of people in society, aspiration of the person to property;
2) hostility of people, rivalry, mistrust, thirst of glory are the main reasons for wars;
3) war grows from policy;
4) emotions and will of certain people.
The category “source of war” was always tool of politicians and partly military. A source of development is the contradiction (from the dialectic point of view). Nowadays, most often it is about the use of a source as reason synonym by search of responsible for initiation of war. A source and the reason are not identical concepts. The category “source” focuses attention to entities of a subject or phenomenon, their origin, i.e. about emergence for the first time as that. The category “reason” means emergence of a concrete look (version) of this subject or phenomenon, i.e. it is about emergence of a subject or phenomenon again, in each case. At the same time, “source” and “reason” are the interconnected concepts. The source can be considered as the root, deep cause of change and development of a subject or the phenomenon. The source and the reason are components of the uniform general mechanism of relationships of cause and effect. Basic distinctions between a source and the reason the following:
a) the source always precedes the reason;
b) the source is connected with essence of a thing, and the reason - with its contents (the source leads to emergence of necessary properties and communications, and the reason only alters all properties and communications, including essential, without eliminating, however, the last);
c) action of the reasons is connected with change of quantity, and the source generates new quality;
d) time having arisen, the source exists constantly together with a subject or the phenomenon (at least while there is a source, there is also a subject), and the reason can be absent (if there is no change and development of a subject or in certain conditions of emergence of a subject does not occur though in principle it not it is excluded);
e) action of a source to a lesser extent depends on specific conditions, than action of the reasons. At the same time, the source and the reason have relative character: the same phenomenon can be at the same time the cause of change and development of one subject or the reason of another. It occurs when action of the reason leads not only to quantitative, but also to high-quality changes (to jump) as to result of accumulation of quantitative changes.
The analysis of contradictions allows to identify sources and reasons of wars in a complex. Contradictions are considered usually in philosophical concepts as the sources, internal impulses moving the beginnings of any development. G. Hegel considered a contradiction as fundamental principle of any development. The contradiction acts as a source of emergence and development of the phenomenon of objective reality including war as social reality. Emergence of a source of wars needs to be considered as a result of all system of the public relations. The basic concepts opening the mechanism of emergence of wars are:
-- contradictions;
-- sources;
-- reasons;
-- prerequisites;
-- occasions;
-- conditions,
-- driving forces;
-- responsibles.
The source of wars works and functions not directly, and only through certain people or their groups. The source of wars can be found only in actions and acts of people, in activity of social communities and institutes, in communications and relationship, which developed in society. Activity of people in its various manifestations and the relations in human community generate the reasons of concrete wars. If there is a source of wars, therefore, there is also a danger (opportunity) of emergence (unleashing) of war. However, in concrete time point cannot be immediate causes and conditions for war, i.e. the basic possibility of war does not mean its actual (valid) emergence (beginning) in any concrete time point yet. As a source of wars it is possible to consider objectively existing, constant, deepest contradictions lying in the basis of dissociation of mankind (first of all, economic dissociation), capable under certain conditions to generate the reasons which are directly generating wars and armed conflicts. In this case social, political and ideological contradictions are also important in the analysis of process of emergence of war, but they are secondary and generated by action of a source of war.
They act only as activators of concrete wars, when for this purpose there is a basic reason, resulting from existence of the general source of wars. This ineradicable, objectively existing contradiction between individual and collective in the person (in wider plan - between biological and social) constantly generates war. This contradiction at first led to reduction of armed conflicts in primitive society (overweight collective, social), and then - to formation of class society and emergence of the wars characteristic of this era (overweight individual, biological). Contradictory needs of various separated groups of humankind (tribes, classes, layers) that generate war in general and serve as the most important reason of emergence of each concrete war, including modern wars. Distinctions of interests at the separated groups of people are imposed on shortage of resources (food, clothes, etc.). There is a contradiction between these groups, which cannot be authorized without application of violent means. The war source (as well as a source in general) is directly connected with its essence, and the reasons - with the concrete content and concrete types and kinds of wars. The known formula ofK. Clausewitz, that war is continuation of policy by other means, plays a serious role and today. He considered that war as the social phenomenon is multidimensional, it has many sides and cuts. The most important of them are:
a) consideration of war through the contrast - the world, its ratio with the world;
b) judgment of war through wider concept, i.e. through society, as its peculiar, specific state;
c) consideration of war through history of development of humanity as one of phases of social development;
d) the analysis of war through concrete system of the contradictions, conditions and occasions (including political) which are directly leading to its emergence.
War can be considered as: 1) the means used by politicians for achievement of the purposes; 2) armed struggle of two and more resisting social subjects; 3) a certain condition of society in all its measurements which is characterized by a dominant of the armed violence and the ways and means corresponding to it.
War and process of its emergence are at least subordinated to action of regularities of policy, armed struggle and society in their interrelation and interdependence. Let us give the main definitions of war which allow to provide knowledge of its essence:
1. War is the large-scale application of the armed violence in political goals, connected with transfer of economy and all life of society to a military harmony, broad and universal mobilization of the population to armed forces, expansion and reduction to full fighting readiness all of them groups both the legal act of the announcement of a state of war heads of states and legislative authorities.
2. War is a special conflictual condition of society, the contradictory public relations at which political goals of the states, the people and separate social groups and communities are reached by active counteraction with massive application of means of the armed violence.
3. War is the form of social violence, which is implemented in activity of the states and social communities.
Thus, it is possible to select several significant characteristics of war:
a) war is the social phenomenon, rather independent area of public life, specific social reality;
b) presence not less than two subjects with the opposite purposes and tasks, and also a lack of certain resources for achievement of the planned purposes;
c) existence of means of the armed violence, an opportunity and readiness of their application for achievements of the objectives and the solution of problems of subjects (the states, social communities);
d) mass and large-scale application of means of the armed violence;
e) active counteraction of subjects each other;
e) legal act of the announcement of a state of war heads of states and legislative authorities.
Wars can be classified and systematized on various bases of causality and presented in the form of various schemes and models. Level of the general, or radical, reasons. They are similar for all wars irrespective of specific conditions of unleashing, features of various stages of historical development of society. These reasons lie in society, in society per se, in each specific person. On the essence war is the phenomenon social. From here, the general (radical) reasons of wars need to be looked for in society in general and,firstly, in policy and economy of the state. At the same time, it is necessary to consider psychological, ethnic, national, religious and other factors. Moreover, their action (a source and root causes) is shown in any war. These reasons can be connected with contradictory results of activity of people in limited living conditions of human society. The following level of causality is specific, or special. They express a dialectic ratio of this society and specific historical conditions. Both the war source, and the general reasons of wars exist constantly. However, wars are not inevitable, fatal. Only when maturing the reason to a certain crisis situation works, gives an irreversible impulse of emergence of war. The concrete situation, expressing degree of sharpness and a maturity of root causes of war, is capable to lead directly to war or allows avoid it. The specific reasons of wars represent a peculiar manifestation of a source and root causes in this situation, in these historical conditions.
Actions of persons, social groups, special circumstances, sometimes even the casual moments are capable to brake or accelerate, weaken or strengthen action of sources, root and specific causes. The general reasons are shown in single - in activity of political leaders, heads of the states. The single reasons serve as a further specification of the general and special reasons of war. Both the general (radical), and the specific (special) and private reasons of wars work not in itself, not separately, and in total, in unity. Their ratio and manifestation in each concrete war is always peculiar and unique that allows tell about a specific set (package) of the reasons of each separate war. Manifestation of all groups of the reasons is expressed in activity of the socio-political forces interested in war. Contradictions in which an opportunity and inevitability of concrete war is embodied are not resolved and do not arise by itself, automatically. Therefore, wars do not arise spontaneously, and are consciously prepared by certain social forces. It is accepted to call these social groups and groups driving forces of war or responsible for initiation of war. Let us note that the source of war is probably much wider, more large-scale. It characterizes a condition of society in general, but not its any part, even if also the most aggressive. The source of war is connected with war emergence in general, per se, i.e. with its essence, and influence of immediate causes - with scales, scope, existential characteristics, the number of use of means of armed struggle, i.e. with the content of war. Sources and the causes of war should be distinguished not only from the social forces, interested in war, but also from reasons for initiation of war. It is known that the occasion represents external, often casual event, which directly precedes other event, does possible its emergence, but does not generate and does not define it. Usually, the occasion is used by social forces for direct initiation of war. Moreover, as an occasion the pretext represented as a prerequisite or motive can be considered often, and it is frequent also justifications of an aggressor. The war cause represents a circumstance (a case, the event) used for initiation of war. As an occasion, the aggressive states quite often use specially prepared provocations (we will remember Sarajevo, the Sudetes, Gulf of Tonkin incident).