Avatar for amix 27 ноября 2003
amix сотрудник

Week 11: Lecture 21-22 (Due Monday, December 1, 12:00 midnight, Moscow Time)

Please answer only ONE of the following questions:

1. In Lecture 21, Professor Lapidus argues that the exacerbation of the conflict in Chechnya could have been prevented if the international community had availed itself to the «large range of instruments» it had at its disposal. Professor Stedman, on the other hand, voices fundamental doubts concerning the possibility of conflict prevention by the international community (Lecture 17). Focusing on the case of Chechnya, do you agree with Professor Lapidus' assesssment or with Professor Stedman's skepticism? Use evidence from the class material to support your answer.

2. Does the international community have a moral obligation to intervene whenever it can to prevent, stop, or mediate conflicts in the world? When its capacities are strained, how should it prioritize among all the conflicts around the globe that call for its attention and resources? In your answer, consider the cases discussed in the lectures (Bosnia, Kosovo, Chechnya, and Rwanda) in terms of their «merit» for the intervention of the international community.

#
Avatar for shestop 7 часов назад (26 ноября 2003)
shestop

ну что, давайте обсудим, кто пишет слудущее ессе? и сколько у нас долгов и за какие лекции?

#
Avatar for amix спустя 7 часов (27 ноября 2003)
amix сотрудник

[quote]Настя:
ну что, давайте обсудим, кто пишет слудущее ессе? и сколько у нас долгов и за какие лекции?
/quote
Ну... я могу, наверное... надеюсь, что могу... очередь уже почти моя...

Долгов у нас 3 шт. + текущее эссе.
Все это видно в списке тем данного форума: если посмотреть на заголовки тем, то:
_[color=red]CURRENT TASK/color_ - значит, это нужно обяз-но написать как следует и в срок, т.к. это - текущее задание;
_[color=red]MISSING/color_ - значит, это - долг, и надо срочно как-то писать и отправлять что попало;
_[color=green]OK (x pts)/color_ - значит, эссе сдали и о нем можно забыть.

обозначать темы таким образом в соответствии с положением дел пытаюсь я. :)

#
Avatar for shestop спустя 6 часов (27 ноября 2003)
shestop

ладно, я напишу по 5 лекции, она по- идее была на мне (но поскольку я заболела...). предлагаю все остальные «опаздывающие» лекции написать тому, на кого они были повешены в тот конкретный момент, и я даже так смутно подозреваю, что это не я:), поскольку из-за экзамена, 1 эссе выпало, так что моя очередь больше ничего не пропустила. дальше писать эссе предлагаю также в порядке живой очереди. то есть Вика допишет свое по 18-20 (или какие там), а текущее, соответственно получается, Андрей, твое.... хорошая идея:) ???? возражения и замечания?

#
Avatar for amix спустя 2 дня (30 ноября 2003)
amix сотрудник

heh, ok

[color=green]2: Nastya ?/color
[color=green]3: Andrei/color
[color=green]4: Vika/color
[color=darkred]5: Nastya/color
[color=green]6: [final exam]/color
[color=green]7: Vika/color
[color=green]8: Andrei/color
[color=green]9: Nastya/color
[color=red]10: Vika/color
[color=green]11: Andrei/color
[color=blue]12: Nastya/color
[color=blue]13: Vika/color
[color=blue]14: Andrei (if there's gonna be a task)/color

like that?
not that «живая очередь», but...
if there's no task on week 14, i can help in writing some other essay instead.

*

What a mess! Open the «020» folder on CD4. Lecture 20. On the same disc there's a «028» folder. Lecture 28? Nopes! #20, but another one. The CD5 begins with folder 021 with lecture 22 inside. Lecture 23 is in the folder «022» and so on.
So, let's forget about lecture numbers not to mix things up...

#
Avatar for amix спустя 11 часов (1 декабря 2003)
amix сотрудник

Done.
I replied to the 1st question (Lapidus vs. Stedman).

We (this time me):
[quote]<div align=right><i>“failure to find a political resolution to separatist conflicts
in their early stages make them progressively more difficult to resolve”</i>
(G. Lapidus, lecture 21)</div>
The conflict in Chechnya could hardly be prevented in the political situation which existed at the time of forming of the conflict. The only way to decrease its scale from the side of the international community was to cut financial support of the terrorists and to block the flow of weapons and hirelings into the region.

Russia acts violently in Chechnya, but nobody can force Russia to stop it because Russia is not a Yugoslavia which can be destroyed and dismembered with no consequences to the actors; the same thing with USA and Iraq. Russian soldiers sometimes kill civilians during “cleanups”, local counter-terrorist operations – that’s terrible. American soldiers shoot down defenseless Iraqi civilians who just shout something like “Americans go home” – not less terrible. Especially if we take into consideration the fact that while Chechnya is a Russian territory, Iraq historically has nothing in common with US.

But what evokes most anxiety, is the fact that both Presidents – Bush and Putin – feel rather comfortable in this situation and help each other to suppress the opposition despite they would like also to prevent each other from proceeding with his politics in either region. UN, Red Cross and other international organizations are being crowded out from Chechnya and Iraq.
Both regions have been highly destabilized after overthrowing previous regimes (Maskhadov and Hussein – both cruel but both were supported by some part of population); in both cases it’s unclear how to settle the situation because extremists always take advantage of instability to pursue their objects, especially in politically underdeveloped regions. The same happened in Afghanistan after Soviet attempts to change its government.

What could be the international community’s «large range of instruments»?
If it cut the financial and other channels of international extremist organizations, the problem would be much easier to reduce – but, of course, not to solve. This was done too late.
Also, the neighbor countries could help by closing the doors to terrorists – but this was not done. For example, the Pankisi ravine was considered to be an asylum for the terrorists – they could come to there, replenish their forces and return to Chechnya; Federals could not chase them in order not to cross the Georgian border. It’s proven that some terrorists were treated in Turkey before coming back to Russia. US had same problems in Afghanistan with Pakistan.

It’s no doubt that the measures listed above are one-sided, they imply helping the government, but it’s also clear that by helping terrorists (or not preventing extremist organizations to help) we cannot stop the violence from both sides. Also, it’s hard to imagine other measures, taking into consideration the brutal Shamil Basaev’s band performance in Budennovsk (June 14, 1995: about 30 armed terrorists captured hostages in a hospital and held them for six days; up to 130 people died, 415 injured, terrorists escaped).

Mr. Lapidus says that “role of foreign jihadis has been exaggerated, although some money and some support penetrated into the region”. The foreign jihadis, whose role was exaggerated, were among the leaders of the army which invaded Dagestan in the September 1999 (for example, Hattab, the 2nd leader after Shamil Basaev). This army was not purely foreign or Chechen, but mixed. The money had been penetrating into the region mainly until September 11, 2001 when some Western countries decided to freeze accounts of certain international extremist organizations, like Al-Quaeda. It would be untrue to say that the civil war in Chechnya was wholly sponsored by such organizations, but their role was important in forming (and encouraging in expansion) a force that could resist the federal army in open combat. On the other hand, we should not forget about those people in federal army who sold weapons to terrorists, and about functionaries who were (and are) interested in the war to go on: a lot of money ‘disappeared’ on the way to Chechnya.

Almost every day somebody is killed or kidnapped in Chechnya or Iraq. And the international community did nothing in both cases to prevent the conflicts, despite it was obvious that they were going to begin. Probably because the international community could not prevent them?/quote
Malnay's comments will be quoted below after his replying in the Stanford forum...

#
Avatar for amix спустя 4 дня (5 декабря 2003)
amix сотрудник

Malnay:
[quote]YOU ARGUE THAT THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY (WHATEVER THAT IS) CAN DO NOTHING AGAINST GREAT POWERS, SO IT HAS BASICALLY TWO CHOICES: EITHER REMAIN INACTIVE OR ELSE HELP THE GREAT POWERS THEMSELVES (BY CUTTING THE FINANCIAL FLOWS TO THEIR ADVERSARIES AND ROOTING THEM OUT FROM THEIR SANCTUARIES IN THE NEIGHBORING COUNTRIES). BUT ARE THESE REALLY THE ONLY OPTIONS THIRD PARTIES HAVE? EVIDENTLY, IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN A WISE IDEA (FOR, SAY, THE E.U. OR WHOEVER ELSE) TO TRY TO OPPOSE THE RUSSIANS IN CHECHNYA OR THE AMERICANS IN IRAQ BY MILITARY FORCE. BUT COULDN'T THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY PUT NON-MILITARY PRESSURE ON THE GREAT POWERS WHEN THOSE ABUSE THEIR POWER? IN FACT, U.S. ACTION IS IRAQ WAS AT LEAST DELAYED AND SERIOUSLY DELEGITIMATED BY THE OPPOSITION OF WHAT CAN MAYBE CALLED «THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY,» OR AT LEAST A SIGNIFICANT PART OF IT. ANOTHER EXAMPLE MAY BE THE RUSSIAN INTERVENTION IS KOSOVO, WHICH AT LEAST MODIFIED NATO'S ACTIONS AND GENERAL CALCULUS. SO COULDN'T THE U.N. (OR WHOEVER ELSE) HAVE FOUND A WAY TO PUT PRESSURE ON RUSSIA TO TRY TO ACHIEVE A MORE PEACEFUL RESOLUTION IN CHECHNYA? OR COULDN'T SOME MEDIATOR WHO WOULD HAVE HAD RESPECT ON BOTH SIDES HAVE SUCCEEDED IN AMELIORATING THE SITUATION? I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT EITHER NON-MILITARY PRESSURE OR MEDIATION WOULD HAVE MADE A DIFFERENCE — ALL I'M SAYING IS THAT YOU DIDN'T SEEM TO CONSIDER SUCH NON-INTRUSIVE OPTIONS AT ALL.

BESIDES, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN USEFUL FOR YOU TO DEFINE THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS OF YOUR ANALYSIS, SUCH AS «INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY» AND «GREAT POWER.» WHAT IS THE «INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY» ABOUT WHICH YOU MADE YOUR STATEMENTS: WORLD PUBLIC OPINION, OR THE GOVERNMENTS OF ALL COUNTRIES TAKEN TOGETHER, OR THOSE OF THE GREAT POWERS ONLY, ETC.? ALSO, WHICH ARE THE GREAT POWERS WHOM YOU CLAIM THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY IS HELPLESS TO STAND UP AGAINST: ONLY THE PERMANENT MEMBERS OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL OF THE U.N., OR A HANDFUL OF THE STRONGEST COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD, OR REGIONAL POWERS ARE ALSO INCLUDED, ETC.?

FINALLY, I WAS HOPING THAT THE PART OF THIS COURSE ON TERRORISM HAVE CONVINCED YOU THAT IT'S TOO SIMPLISTIC TO BRAND ALL THOSE WHO ARE AGAINST THE GREAT POWERS SIMPLY «TERRORISTS.» ACTUALLY, BEFORE THE U.S. RAN IRAQ OVER THIS SECOND TIME, I'M NOT SURE IN WHAT SENSE COULD THE IRAQIS BE CALLED TERRORISTS. HUSSEIN'S REGIME WAS CERTAINLY CRUEL AND DETESTABLE BUT THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN THAT IT WAS TERRORIST AS WELL. AFTER ALL, ITS CONNECTIONS WITH AL-QAEDA HAVE STILL NOT BEEN PROVED.

APART FROM THESE, YOUR PAPER IS GOOD. YOU WRITE CLEARLY AND ARGUE YOUR POINTS WITH FORCE.

GRADE RANGE: 80-90/quote

Eeh.

#
Avatar for amix спустя 1 час (5 декабря 2003)
amix сотрудник

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Гм, меня прорвало. Ответил Малнаю.
По идее, так можно и оценку повысить - правда, надо отвечать по делу, а не... но вообще-то главной моей целью была последняя строка: «а вы эссе от 5-й недели проверите?».

Amix:[quote]Well, I actually was not saying that the war (or as the Russian president poses it, «counter-terrorist operation») in Chechnya is the only way to solve (and simultaneously intensify) the conflict. Chechnya was left independent de-facto, but the terrorists (of freedom fighters, or however we call them) accumulated their forces and intruded Dagestan. This was the beginning of the second Chechenian war (among these of the XX century). And, in my opinion, if the international community had prevented this, we would not face the widening war that we have now. Also, the int. community could have put pressure on Russia to not let it cross the river Terek (?).
And after losing the moment all the i.c. could do was just helping the refugees. And cutting the financial and other channels of extremists as the only way to stop the conflict since it will not end itself. I understand that my point weakens, if we take Iraq into consideration. We must not support just states and ignore non-state actors - but should we then help all the separatists worldwide in achieving their goals? During a growing conflict the best we can do is to establish stability and then introduce democratic principles; the more we wait, the more difficulties we will face. Furthermore, the more the population will suffer... only after all that the region may leave the federation without bloodshed and with no danger of further large-scale conflicts.
Unfortunately, no peace talks can help the Israeli-Palestinan conflict to end. In Chechnya the federal government tried using Ahmed Kadyrov, Beslan Gantamirov and other Chechens, respected by their clans, to control the situation, but it's still too hard. We all have seen the «elections», an attempt to make Kadyrov a legitimate president of republic. He is opposed to Maskhadov - despite in the 1st Chechen war they both fought against Federals. Different Chechen clans are in confrontation to each other; some of them are helped by federals, some had been helped by international Muslim extremist organizations (currently they are more interested in winning the Iraq war). But there barely is a person, country or organization which would be respected by both sides of the conflict so that it could become a mediator.

Great powers - it's generally highly economically developed countries (North America, Europe, Japan, etc., - recently joined by China), I suppose. And Russia, as it has a nuclear arsenal, and is a permanent member of the Security council of the UNO (but, be the Council reorganized, it would hardly include Russia). Also, India and Pakistan are regional powers but quickly develop their nuclear arsenals.

International community - all the developed (?) countries + states, affected by the conflict. It's quite difficult to define this since there is a complex worldwide structure of international ties.
Talking about UNO.. it was delegitimated by NATO in 1999 and USA in 2003 so by now it's not so important as it was before.
And the world public opinion has to be very strong in a country to change its position. Also, it's exposed to PR actions (e.g., the mass media forgot about Chechnya and public opinion changed).

If the international community (EU, Japan? I don't believe that Canada would, for example) puts economic sanctions on America and Russia, the consequences would be very bad for both sides (those that abuse their power and those that try to stop this). Tariff wars are destructive. The world economy would be damaged. Russia exports mainly oil, gas and metal; America has other sources, but for Europe blocking of Russian export would be painful. Putting sanctions on America seems even more senseless: America will hit back and both sides will suffer.

Concerning Russian intervention in Kosovo: this is quite another case - Jugoslavia was not a state of America, neither of the EU. This may seem cynic, but if NATO bombs Serbia, Why Russia cannot do the same? But in both cases described in the essay, such actions are impossible without globalizing the conflict.

I apologize for a chaotic reply.

By the way, we posted a late essay for the 5th week some days ago - could you please check it? We are very sorry for submitting it with such a delay./quote

Авторизуйтесь или зарегистрируйтесь, чтобы участвовать в дискуссиях.