Interethnic conflicts. Examples and reasons

Clashes and other conflict situations on interethnic grounds are a rather serious problem in modern world. What this is will be discussed in more detail in the article, and we will also look at when ethnic conflicts arose. Examples from history will also be given below.

What is ethnic conflict?

Clashes based on national contradictions are called ethnic. They can be local, at the everyday level, when individual people conflict within the same locality. They are also divided into global ones. An example of ethnic conflict at the global level is Kosovo, Palestinian, Kurdish and the like.

When did the very first ethnic conflicts arise?

Situations accompanied by tension interethnic relations, began from ancient times, we can say that from the emergence of states and nations. But in this case we will not talk about them, but about those confrontations that are known from relatively recent historical events.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the peoples who were once a single Soviet nation began to exist on their own, separately. Various conflict situations have escalated. An example of an ethnic conflict in the post-Soviet space is the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh, the clash of interests of two states: Armenia and Azerbaijan. And this situation is far from unique.

Confrontation of national interests and military operations on the territory of the former USSR affected Chechnya, Ingushetia, Georgia and other countries. Even today's relationship between Russia and Ukraine can also be considered an example of ethnic conflict.

The situation in Nagorno-Karabakh

At the moment, the focus is on a conflict that has a very long history. Since ancient times, there has been a confrontation between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the question of whose territory Nagorno-Karabakh is. In part, this situation clarifies the answer to the question of when and why ethnic conflicts arose. There are numerous examples, but this one is more understandable within the framework of the Post-Soviet space.

This conflict has its roots in the distant past. According to Armenian sources, Nagorno-Karabakh was called Artsakh and was part of Armenia during the Middle Ages. Historians of the opposing side, on the contrary, recognize Azerbaijan’s right to this area, since the name “Karabakh” is a combination of two words in the Azerbaijani language.

In 1918, the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic was created, recognizing its rights to this territory, but the Armenian side intervened. However, in 1921, Nagorno-Karabakh became part of Azerbaijan, but with the rights of autonomy, and quite broadly so. For a long time, the conflict situation was resolved, but closer to the collapse of the USSR it resumed.

In December 1991, the population of Nagorno-Karabakh expressed its will in a referendum to secede from Azerbaijan. This was the reason for the outbreak of hostilities. At the moment, Armenia stands for the independence of this territory and protects its interests, while Azerbaijan insists on maintaining its integrity.

Armed conflict between Georgia and South Ossetia

The next example of ethnic conflict can be recalled if we go back to 2008. Its main participants are South Ossetia and Georgia. The origins of the conflict lie in the 80s of the 20th century, when Georgia began to pursue a policy aimed at gaining independence. As a result of this, the country “fell out” with representatives national minorities, among whom were Abkhazians and Ossetians.

After the breakup Soviet Union South Ossetia formally remained part of Georgia: it is surrounded by this state, and only on one side borders on North Ossetia, a republic that is part of the Russian Federation. However, it is not controlled by the Georgian government. As a result, armed conflicts broke out in 2004 and 2008, and many families had to leave their homes.

At the moment, South Ossetia is declaring itself as an independent state, and Georgia is aiming to improve relations with it. However, neither side is making mutual concessions to resolve the conflict situation.

The situations discussed above are not all ethnic conflicts. Examples from history are much more extensive, especially on the territory of the former USSR, since after its collapse what united all peoples was lost: the idea of ​​peace and friendship, a great state.

Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine

Sevastopol National Technical University

INTERNATIONAL CONFLICTS IN THE MODERN WORLD

Abstract on the discipline "Sociology"

Completed by: Gladkova Anna Pavlovna

student of group AYA-21-1

SEVASTOPOL

Introduction

It is perhaps difficult to name a more pressing problem today than the one mentioned in the title. For some reason, it is difficult for people of different nationalities to live on the same planet without trying to prove the superiority of their nationality over others. Fortunately, the sad history of German National Socialism is a thing of the past, but it cannot be said that interethnic strife has sunk into oblivion.

Taking any news report, you can come across a message about another “protest” or “terrorist attack” (depending on the political orientation of the media). Periodically, more and more new “hot spots” appear with all the ensuing processes - casualties among both military and civilians, migration flows, refugees and in general, - crippled human destinies.

In preparing this work, we used, first of all, materials from the journal “Sociological Research” as one of the most influential sociological publications today. Data from a number of other tools were also used mass media, in particular Nezavisimaya Gazeta and a number of online publications. Whenever possible, different points of view were provided on the most controversial issues.

We have to admit that on many points there is no agreement even among sociologists; Thus, there is still debate over what is meant by the word “nation”. What can we say about the “simple people” who do not bother themselves with sophisticated words, and who simply need a specific enemy to give vent to the discontent that has been accumulating for centuries. Politicians catch moments like these, and they skillfully take advantage of them. With this approach, the problem seems to fall outside the sphere of competence of sociology itself; however, it is she who must capture such sentiments among certain groups of the population. The fact that such a function cannot be neglected is clearly shown by the flaring up “hot spots” every now and then. Therefore, for the vast majority of even developed countries, it is vitally important from time to time to test the waters on the “national question” and take appropriate measures. The problem is even more acute in the post-Soviet space, where ethno-political conflicts, expressed in large and small wars on ethnic and territorial grounds in Azerbaijan, Armenia, Tajikistan, Moldova, Chechnya, Georgia, North Ossetia, Ingushetia, have led to numerous casualties among the civilian population . And today the events taking place in Russia indicate disintegration and destructive trends that threaten new conflicts. Therefore, the problems of studying their history, mechanisms for their prevention and settlement are more relevant than ever. Historical studies of ethnonational conflicts in various specific historical and ethnocultural conditions are becoming important in order to identify their causes, consequences, specifics, types, participation of various national and ethnic groups in them, methods of prevention and resolution.

1. The concept of interethnic conflict

In the modern world there are practically no ethnically homogeneous states. Only 12 countries can be conditionally classified as such (9% of all countries in the world). In 25 states (18.9%), the main ethnic community makes up 90% of the population; in another 25 countries this figure ranges from 75 to 89%. In 31 states (23.5%), the national majority ranges from 50 to 70%, and in 39 countries (29.5%) barely half the population is an ethnically homogeneous group. Thus, people of different nationalities one way or another have to coexist on the same territory, and peaceful life does not always develop.

1.1 Ethnicity and nation

In the “grand theory” there are different concepts of the nature of ethnicity and nationality. For L.N. Gumilyov, ethnic groups are a natural phenomenon, “biological units,” “systems arising as a result of a certain mutation.” For V.A. Tishkova, the ethnicity of nations is created by the state; it is a derivative of social systems, appearing rather as a slogan and a means of mobilization. Abroad, constructivists, for whom nations are not given by nature, are close to this position; these are new formations-communities that used culture, historical and past heritage as “raw materials”. According to Yu.V. According to Bromley, each nation - a “socio-ethnic community” - has its own ethnoculture and differently expressed national identity, which is stimulated by leading power and socio-cultural groups.

Nations, as a rule, arise from the largest ethnic group. In France it is the French, in Holland it is the Dutch, etc. These ethnic groups dominate national life, giving the nation a unique ethnic coloring and a specific way of manifestation. There are also nations that practically coincide with ethnic groups - Icelandic, Irish, Portuguese.

Most existing definitions of ethnicity boil down to the fact that it is a collection of people who have general culture(often they also add a commonality of psyche), usually speaking the same language and aware of both their commonality and their difference from members of other similar communities. Research by ethnologists shows that ethnic groups are objective formations that do not depend on the will of the people themselves. People usually realize their ethnicity when the ethnic group already exists, but the process of the birth of a new ethnic group is, as a rule, not realized by them. Ethnic self-awareness - ethnonym - manifests itself only at the final stage of ethnogenesis. Each ethnic group acts as a sociocultural mechanism for adapting a given local version of humanity to certain, initially only natural-geographical, and then social conditions. By inhabiting one or another natural niche, people influence it, change the conditions of existence in it, develop traditions of interaction with the natural environment, which gradually acquire an independent character over a certain period. This is how the niche turns from only natural to natural-social. In addition, the longer people live in a given area, the more significant the social aspect of such a niche becomes.

It is obvious that the vectors of development of ethnic and national processes themselves must coincide; otherwise, detrimental consequences for the respective ethnic and ethnosocial communities are possible. Such a discrepancy is fraught with the assimilation of ethnic groups, their division into several new ethnic groups, or the formation of entirely new ethnic groups.

The clash of interests of ethnic groups sooner or later leads to the emergence of ethnic conflicts. Ethnosociologists understand such conflicts as a 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.

There cannot be ethnic conflicts in their pure form. The conflict between ethnic groups occurs not because of ethnocultural differences, not because Arabs and Jews, Armenians and Azerbaijanis, Chechens and Russians are incompatible, but because conflicts expose contradictions between communities of people consolidated on an ethnic basis. Hence the interpretation (by A.G. Zdravosmyslov) of interethnic conflicts as conflicts “which one way or another include national-ethnic motivation.”

1 .2. Causes of conflicts

In global conflictology there is no single conceptual approach to the causes of interethnic conflicts. Social and structural changes in contacting ethnic groups, problems of their inequality in status, prestige, and remuneration are analyzed. There are approaches that focus on behavioral mechanisms associated with fears for the fate of the group, not only the loss of cultural identity, but also the use of property, resources and resulting aggression.

Researchers based on collective action focus on the responsibility of elites who fight for power and resources through mobilization around the ideas they put forward. In more modernized societies, intellectuals with professional training became members of the elite; in traditional societies, birth, belonging to an ulus, etc. mattered. Obviously, the elites are primarily responsible for creating the “enemy image,” ideas about the compatibility or incompatibility of the values ​​of ethnic groups, the ideology of peace or hostility. In situations of tension, ideas are created about the characteristics of peoples that prevent communication - the “messianicism” of the Russians, the “inherited belligerence” of the Chechens, as well as the hierarchy of peoples with whom one can or cannot “deal.”

The concept of the “clash of civilizations” by S. Huntington is very influential in the West. she explains modern conflicts, in particular recent acts of international terrorism, religious differences. In Islamic, Confucian, Buddhist and Orthodox cultures, the ideas of Western civilization - liberalism, equality, legality, human rights, market, democracy, separation of church and state, etc. - do not seem to resonate.

The theory of the ethnic border, understood as a subjectively perceived and experienced distance in the context of interethnic relations, is also known. (P.P. Kushner, M.M. Bakhtin). The ethnic boundary is determined by markers - cultural characteristics that are of paramount importance for a given ethnic group. Their meaning and set may vary. Ethnosociological studies of the 80s-90s. showed that markers can be not only values ​​formed on cultural basis but also political ideas that concentrate ethnic solidarity. Consequently, the ethnocultural delimiter (such as the language of the titular nationality, knowledge or ignorance of which affects the mobility and even career of people) is replaced by access to power. From here the struggle for a majority in representative bodies of power and all the subsequent aggravation of the situation may begin.

Throughout the history of our planet, peoples and entire countries have been at enmity. This led to the formation of conflicts whose scale was truly global. The nature of life itself encourages the survival of the strongest and the fittest. But, unfortunately, the king of nature not only destroys everything around him, but also destroys his own kind.

All the major changes on the planet over the past few thousand years are associated precisely with human activity. Maybe the desire to conflict with others has a genetic basis? One way or another, it will be difficult to remember a moment in time when peace reigned everywhere on Earth.

Conflicts bring pain and suffering, but almost all of them are still localized in some geographic or professional area. In the end, such skirmishes end with the intervention of someone stronger or the successful achievement of a compromise.

However, the most destructive conflicts involve the largest number of peoples, countries and people. The classics in history are the two World Wars that took place in the last century. However, there have been many other truly global conflicts in history that it is time to remember.

Thirty Years' War. These events took place between 1618 and 1648 in Central Europe. For the continent, this was the first global military conflict in history, which affected almost all countries, including even Russia. And the skirmish began with religious clashes in Germany between Catholics and Protestants, which developed into a struggle against Habsburg hegemony in Europe. Catholic Spain, the Holy Roman Empire, as well as the Czech Republic, Hungary and Croatia faced strong opponents in the form of Sweden, England and Scotland, France, the Danish-Norwegian Union and the Netherlands. There were many disputed territories in Europe, which fueled the conflict. The war ended with the signing of the Peace of Westphalia. He essentially put an end to feudalism and medieval Europe, establishing new boundaries of the main parties. And from the point of view of military operations, Germany suffered the main damage. Up to 5 million people died there alone; the Swedes destroyed almost all metallurgy and a third of the cities. It is believed that Germany recovered from its demographic losses only after 100 years.

Second Congo War. In 1998-2002, the Great African War unfolded in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. This conflict has become the most destructive among the numerous wars on the Dark Continent over the past half century. The war initially arose between pro-government and anti-presidential forces and militias. The destructive nature of the conflict was associated with the participation neighboring countries. In total, more than twenty armed groups representing nine countries took part in the war! Namibia, Chad, Zimbabwe and Angola supported the legitimate government, while Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi supported the rebels who sought to seize power. The conflict officially ended in 2002 with the signing of a peace agreement. However, this agreement looked fragile and temporary. Currently, a new war is raging again in the Congo, despite the presence of peacekeepers in the country. And the global conflict itself in 1998-2002 claimed the lives of more than 5 million people, becoming the deadliest since the Second World War. Most of the victims died from hunger and disease.

Napoleonic Wars. Under this collective name, the military operations that Napoleon waged from the time of his consulate in 1799 until his abdication in 1815 are known. The main confrontation arose between France and Great Britain. As a result combat battles between them manifested itself in a series of naval battles in different parts of the globe, as well as a major land war in Europe. On the side of Napoleon, who gradually captured Europe, were his allies - Spain, Italy, Holland. The coalition of allies was constantly changing; in 1815, Napoleon fell to the forces of the seventh composition. Napoleon's decline was associated with failures in the Pyrenees and the campaign in Russia. In 1813, the emperor ceded Germany, and in 1814, France. The final episode of the conflict was the Battle of Waterloo, lost by Napoleon. In total, those wars killed between 4 and 6 million people on both sides.

Civil war in Russia. These events took place on the territory of the former Russian Empire between 1917 and 1922. For several centuries the country was ruled by tsars, but in the fall of 1917 the Bolsheviks, led by Lenin and Trotsky, seized power. After the storming of the Winter Palace, they removed the Provisional Government. The country, which was still taking part in the First World War, was immediately drawn into a new, this time internecine conflict. The People's Red Army was opposed by both the pro-tsarist forces, who longed for the restoration of the former regime, and the nationalists, who were solving their local problems. In addition, the Entente decided to support the anti-Bolshevik forces by landing in Russia. The war raged in the north - the British landed in Arkhangelsk, in the east - the captured Czechoslovak corps rebelled, in the south there were Cossack uprisings and campaigns of the Volunteer Army, and almost the entire west, under the terms of the Brest Peace, went to Germany. Over five years of fierce fighting, the Bolsheviks defeated the scattered enemy forces. The civil war split the country - after all Political Views They even forced relatives to fight against each other. Soviet Russia emerged from the conflict in ruins. Agricultural production decreased by 40%, almost the entire intelligentsia was destroyed, and the level of industry decreased by 5 times. In total, more than 10 million people died during the Civil War, and another 2 million left Russia in a hurry.

Taiping Rebellion. And again we will talk about the civil war. This time it broke out in China in 1850-1864. In the country, the Christian Hong Xiuquan formed the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom. This state existed in parallel with the Manchu Qing Empire. The revolutionaries occupied almost all of southern China with a population of 30 million people. The Taipings began to carry out their drastic social transformations, including religious ones. This uprising led to a series of similar ones in other parts of the Qing Empire. The country was split into several regions that declared their own independence. The Taipings occupied such large cities as Wuhan and Nanjing, and troops sympathetic to them also occupied Shanghai. The rebels even launched campaigns against Beijing. However, all the concessions that the Taipings gave to the peasants were nullified by the protracted war. By the end of the 1860s, it became clear that the Qing dynasty could not put an end to the rebels. Then Western countries, pursuing their own interests, entered the fight against the Taipings. It was only thanks to the British and French that the revolutionary movement was suppressed. This war led to a huge number of victims - from 20 to 30 million people.

First World War. The First World War marked the beginning of modern warfare as we know it. This global conflict took place from 1914 to 1918. The prerequisites for the outbreak of war were contradictions between the greatest powers of Europe - Germany, England, Austria-Hungary, France and Russia. By 1914, two blocs had taken shape - the Entente (Great Britain, France and Russian empire) and the Triple Alliance (Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy). The reason for the outbreak of hostilities was the assassination of the Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo. In 1915, Italy entered the war on the side of the Entente, but the Turks and Bulgarians joined Germany. Even countries such as China, Cuba, Brazil, and Japan took the side of the Entente. By the beginning of the war, there were more than 16 million people in the armies of both sides. Tanks and planes appeared on the battlefields. The First World War ended with the signing of the Treaty of Versailles on June 28, 1919. As a result of this conflict, four empires disappeared from the political map at once: Russian, German, Austria-Hungary and Ottoman. Germany found itself so weakened and territorially reduced that this gave rise to revanchist sentiments that led to the Nazis coming to power. Participating countries lost more than 10 million soldiers killed, and more than 20 million civilians died due to famine and epidemics. Another 55 million people were injured.

Korean War. Today it appears that a new war is about to break out on the Korean Peninsula. And this situation began to develop in the early 1950s. After the end of World War II, Korea was divided into separate northern and southern territories. The former adhered to the communist course with the support of the USSR, while the latter were influenced by America. For several years, relations between the parties were very tense, until the northerners decided to invade their neighbors in order to unite the nation. At the same time, the communist Koreans were supported not only by the Soviet Union, but also by the PRC with the help of its volunteers. And on the side of the South, in addition to the United States, also Great Britain and UN peacekeeping forces. After a year of active hostilities, it became clear that the situation had reached a dead end. Each side had an army of millions, and a decisive advantage was out of the question. Only in 1953 was a ceasefire signed and the front line was fixed at the 38th parallel. But a peace treaty that would formally end the war was never signed. The conflict destroyed 80% of Korea's entire infrastructure and killed several million people. This war only intensified the confrontation between the Soviet Union and the United States.

Holy Crusades. Military campaigns in the 11th-15th centuries are known under this name. Medieval Christian kingdoms, with religious motivations, opposed the Muslim peoples who inhabited the sacred lands in the Middle East. First of all, the Europeans wanted to liberate Jerusalem, but then the Crusades began to pursue political and religious goals in other lands. Young warriors from all over Europe fought against Muslims in the territory of modern Turkey, Palestine and Israel, defending their faith. This global movement has great importance for the continent. First of all, there was a weakened eastern empire, which eventually fell under the rule of the Turks. The crusaders themselves brought home many oriental signs and traditions. The campaigns led to a rapprochement between classes and nationalities. The seeds of unity began to emerge in Europe. It was the Crusades that created the ideal of the knight. The most important consequence of the conflict is the penetration of the culture of the East into the West. There was also the development of navigation and trade. One can only guess about the number of victims due to the long-term conflict between Europe and Asia, but it is undoubtedly millions of people.

Mongol conquests. In the 13th-14th centuries, the conquests of the Mongols led to the creation of an empire of unprecedented size, which even had a genetic impact on some ethnic groups. The Mongols captured a vast territory of nine and a half million square miles. The empire stretched from Hungary to the East China Sea. The expansion lasted more than a century and a half. Many territories were devastated, cities and cultural monuments were destroyed. The most famous figure among the Mongols was Genghis Khan. It is believed that it was he who united the eastern nomadic tribes, which made it possible to create such an impressive force. In the occupied territories, states such as the Golden Horde, the country of the Khuluguids, and the Yuan Empire arose. Quantity human lives, which the expansion took away, ranges from 30 to 60 million.

The Second World War. Just over twenty years after the end of the First World War, another global conflict broke out. The Second World War was, without a doubt, the largest military event in human history. The enemy troops numbered up to 100 million people, representing 61 states (out of 73 in total that existed at that time). The conflict lasted from 1939 to 1945. It began in Europe with the invasion of German troops into the territory of their neighbors (Czechoslovakia and Poland). It became clear that German dictator Adolf Hitler was striving for world domination. Great Britain and its colonies, as well as France, declared war on Nazi Germany. The Germans were able to capture almost all of Central and Western Europe, but the attack on the Soviet Union was fatal for Hitler. And in 1941, after the attack on the United States by Germany's ally, Japan, America entered the war. Three continents and four oceans became the theater of conflict. Ultimately, the war ended with the defeat and capitulation of Germany, Japan and their allies. And the United States still managed to use the latest weapon - the nuclear bomb. It is believed that total number Military and civilian casualties on both sides amount to about 75 million. As a result of the war, Western Europe lost its leading role in politics, and the USA and the USSR became world leaders. The war showed that colonial empires had become irrelevant, which led to the emergence of new independent countries.

Examples of such events were given to many peoples at a very significant cost. The bloody world wars of the twentieth century will long be remembered in every corner of the globe. Modern society, it would seem, opposes any military actions and conflicts; its development is based on liberal ideas, healthy competition and world globalization. However, in reality everything is somewhat different. The number of conflicts on national and religious grounds is only increasing every year, and everyone is involved in the cycle of such battles. large quantity participants, which leads to a gradual expansion of the scope of the problem.

The discrepancy between national interests, territorial claims, negative perceptions of each other by the parties - all this creates interethnic conflicts.

Examples of such situations are covered in political news with enviable consistency.

It is a type of social conflict, which is based on many factors and contradictions, usually ethnosocial, political, national and state.

The causes of national conflicts, if we look at them in more detail, are in many ways very similar:

• Fight for resources. Depletion and uneven distribution natural resources providing the most often leads to inciting disputes and strife.
• Population growth in conditions of closed territory, uneven level of quality of life, mass forced
• Terrorism as a phenomenon requiring tough measures and, as a consequence, escalation

Religious differences

The interethnic ones, which will be given below, relate primarily to the largest power of the twentieth century - the Soviet Union. Many contradictions arose between the union republics, especially regarding Caucasus region. A similar situation persists after the former received components Soviet countries have sovereign status. Since the collapse of the USSR, more than one hundred and fifty different conflicts have been registered in Chechnya, Abkhazia, and Transnistria.

The presence of the disadvantaged within a sovereign country directly forms the basis of the concept of “interethnic conflicts,” examples of which are becoming more and more common. This is the Gagauz conflict in Moldova, the Abkhaz and Ossetian conflict in Georgia. Usually, with such contradictions, the population within the country is divided into indigenous and non-indigenous, which leads to an even sharper aggravation of the situation.

Examples of religious conflicts are no less common. The most striking of them is the fight against infidels in numerous Islamic countries and regions (Afghanistan, Chechnya, etc.). Similar conflicts are typical for the African continent; the fierce struggle between Muslim authorities and representatives of other faiths has claimed more than two million lives, and wars on the holy land between Muslims and Jews have lasted for decades.

The same sad list includes conflicts in Kosovo between Serbs and Albanians, and the struggle for the independence of Tibet.

The various consequences of conflicts can be divided into external and internal, i.e. in accordance with their territorial localization.

External ones led to a kind of transfer to Russian territory of the consequences of clashes that were widespread throughout the world, and especially in the territory of the former USSR.

Here, researchers from the Center for Demography and Human Ecology (Institute of National Economic Forecasting of the Russian Academy of Sciences) recorded the impact of five wars, which, in fact, were fought on a purely ethnic basis (Karabakh, Georgian-Abkhaz, Tajik, Georgian-South Ossetian, Transnistrian). On the territory of Russia, the Chechen and Ossetian-Ingush conflicts should be classified as ethnic. We will conditionally classify them as internal.

In addition to armed conflicts that have signs of interstate clashes, purely ethnic clashes are also recorded, where physical violence is also used, accompanied by explosions, pogroms, fights, house burnings, livestock theft, kidnappings (the so-called conflict of uncontrollable emotions).

Loss

That is why human losses should be highlighted as the first negative consequence. Experts believe that the number of dead and missing in the territory of the former Soviet Union could reach up to one million people. Of course, the lack of reliable sources of information usually leads to exaggerations. Thus, the Chechen side determined the losses Russian army for 1994-1996 100 thousand people. Some Russian politicians(D. Ragozin, G. Yavlinsky) are also inclined to a similar assessment, including the losses of the Chechens1. According to official information, the losses of federal troops amounted to 4.8 thousand people, separatists - 2-3 thousand. Direct losses of civilians as a result of the conflict amounted to approximately 30 thousand people. Mortality from indirect causes (severe injuries, lack of timely treatment, etc.) is estimated to be approximately the same.

Other more distant, but no less severe, losses are the increasing number of cases of families refusing to have children, especially in conflict zones and in the territories where these families have moved, and a decline in the quality of life.

Migration

A large-scale consequence of interethnic conflicts is the inevitable migration of the population from dangerous regions in such cases. It should be noted that Russia has become the main country receiving migrants. Moreover, the peaks of mass arrivals coincide with the most acute ethnic clashes. The RAS experts mentioned above, in particular V. Mukomel, provide the following data (Table 4):

Table 4. Arrivals in Russia, thousand people1

Country of release 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Azerbaijan 60.0 75.9 91.4 48.0 70.0 54.7 49.5 43.4 40.3 Armenia 23.1 22.5 13.7 12.0 15.8 20.8 46 .5 34.1 25.4 Georgia 33.1 42.9 54.2 69.9 66.8 51.4 38.6 Kyrgyzstan 24.0 39.0 33.7 Moldova 29.6 32.3 19.3 Tajikistan 19.0 50.8 27.8 72.6 68.8 45.6 41.8 32.5 Uzbekistan 66.0 84.1 104.0 69.1

The migration increase of the titular nationalities of Transcaucasia was especially noticeable. In all Russian national republics during the period under review, it was only positive. For 1994-1996 about 15 thousand migrants of the titular nationalities of Transcaucasia moved to the republics of the Russian Federation.

This is the largest volume of resettlement for the titular nationalities of the former Soviet republics. However, in relative terms this is only 7% of their total external migration balance over these three years. The second place in the migration balance on the territory of the Russian republics were Uzbeks, Tajiks, Kyrgyz (6 thousand people), and the third place is occupied by Kazakhs (approximately 2 thousand people). At the same time, despite the smaller volumes of influx, migrants from the titular nationalities of Central Asia and Kazakhstan are more likely to settle in the national republics of Russia than the titular nationalities of Transcaucasia. For 1994-1996 in the republics of Russia, respectively, 21 and 28% of migrants of the titular nationalities of Central Asia and Kazakhstan were concentrated1.

For example, it has become a kind of promised land for migrants. Rostov region, which is one of the most attractive regions not only for forced Russian-speaking migrants, but also for residents of nearby labor-abundant regions, in particular the indigenous population of the republics North Caucasus and Transcaucasia. It was this part of the migrants that gave rise to interethnic tension and conflicts throughout the region.

For example, it was noted: historically, representatives of non-Slavic nationalities live on the Don, who have a fairly high level of ethnic cohesion and a dense structure of intra-ethnic ties. In some cases, these ethnic groups generally have a higher social status and standard of living, which causes acute discontent among the indigenous population. IN last years Residents of Transcaucasia and Central Asia are actively migrating to the region, hoping with the help of relatives to gain a permanent place of residence here. In a region with a labor surplus population and a housing shortage, and in rural areas in the context of land privatization, this gives rise to social tensions that quickly become interethnic in nature.

The usual appearance of non-Slavic refugees from zones of interethnic conflicts is also associated with an increase in the level of crime in the region, the export of weapons and “conflict, power psychology.”

Objectively, migration to the area of ​​residents of Central Asia, Transcaucasia and the North Caucasus oriented towards higher incomes than those of Rostovites led to a shortage of housing, rising food prices, and overload of the socio-cultural infrastructure, primarily secondary schools. However, an analysis of the social composition of these migrants shows that they occupy social niches that traditionally do not attract native Rostovites. Most of them are concentrated in retail establishments (kebabs, beer bars, small retail stalls). There are many Caucasians among garage managers and drivers, construction foremen and owners of intermediary enterprises. Experts note that in these areas the competition between migrants from Central Asia and Caucasians is higher than between migrants and native Rostovites.

In the context of a general economic crisis and impoverishment of the population, the purchase and export of relatively cheap locally produced products, “ruble intervention”, and the activities of shadow organizations built on a planned principle are flourishing. economic structures, serving as a significant factor in interethnic tension.

A tough position towards this group of migrants is taken by Cossack organizations, which occasionally demonstrate force, oppose representatives of certain nationalities, and act under the slogans of “illegal” protection of the indigenous population.

Using the low legal culture of the people, the Cossacks act as organizers of population gatherings, at which demands are made for the eviction of persons of certain nationalities from the village (district, city, region). Violation of the equality of citizens based on nationality is carried out not only in the form of direct calls for reprisals against them, but also through moral pressure - the formation of negative ethnic stereotypes: the use of derogatory labels, the implementation of the principle of “collective responsibility”, etc.1.

In order to prevent the aggravation of interethnic tensions, in August 1994, the Legislative Assembly of the Rostov Region adopted the Law “On Measures to Strengthen Control over Migration Processes in the Rostov Region,” which tightened the registration regime. However, some researchers (L. Khoperskaya) believe that it is necessary to take a differentiated approach to different categories of migrants, i.e. provide assistance to those entrepreneurs who pay not only for registration, but also for the infrastructure they use. As for administrative bans, their effectiveness seems problematic due to the possible mass bribery of local officials. The result of this - the illegal residence of tens of thousands of migrants - will lead to an increase not only in crime, but also in interethnic tension2.

Internal ethnic migration (republics of the Russian Federation) in 1994-1996. is characterized by an increasing outflow of Russians and a decrease in the migration growth of the titular population, however, there are exceptions: from Komi, Sakha (Yakutia), and Tyva there is a constant outflow of both the Russian and the titular population. Tatars, who make up the bulk of the population of Bashkiria, in 1994-1996. reduced migration to this republic. The greatest losses of the Russian population are recorded in Yakutia, Dagestan, Kalmykia, Komi, Tyva, Karachay-Cherkessia, Kabardino-Balkaria. The consolidation of the titular population is most noticeable in North Ossetia, Tatarstan and Bashkortostan.

Migration, in turn, gives rise to negative trends in the development of interethnic relations due to the fact that ethnic communities inevitably begin to compete in the areas of employment, residence and communication. Against the backdrop of unfavorable economic conditions and reduced opportunities to meet basic needs, migrants are simultaneously faced with the loss of their past status characteristics. In any case, the majority of those who come to a new place develop a negative and sometimes hostile attitude towards the new environment.

There are well-known disagreements in assessing the consequences of migration. Some researchers believe that any expansion of interethnic communication can in any case be considered a positive phenomenon that contributes to the emergence of cultures and the establishment of internationalized patterns of behavior. Others proceed from the fact that the expansion of interethnic contacts only leads to the optimal development of interethnic relations when it is based on voluntariness and is not accompanied by the emergence of socially competitive situations.

The first point of view is based on the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bethnos as a rather static collection of unrelated or weakly connected families or individuals. Indeed, with this approach it turns out that the wider the contacts with representatives of other nations, the easier it is for people to get used to them, learn the language of another ethnic group and (or) the language of interethnic communication, the easier it is to part with elements of their own culture. From this point of view, the expansion of interethnic contacts, if it can have any negative consequences, then only applies to individual individuals and does not in any way extend to the entire ethnic group or its layers. In the opposite concept, an ethnos is considered as a complex self-organizing system, for which the need for self-preservation is an integral property: the stability of an ethnos is determined by a set of close interpersonal ties. As long as the system maintains its internal integrity, any impact on it, intentional or unintentional, that could disrupt this integrity leads to resistance. The latter intensifies when representatives of contacting national groups find themselves in competitive relationships over some vital values. Moreover, the activities of the system usually involve people who are not themselves included in competitive relations, and generally do not experience any particular inconvenience from external influences on the ethnic group1.

With all the negative assessments of migration, one should not, apparently, reject the fact that migration shortens the distance between peoples; it constantly fosters mutual tolerance among all ethnic groups in contact.

The migration situation in the Russian Federation, in particular, its demographic consequences, is assessed by researchers as diametrically opposed.

Thus, Russian demographers L.L. Rybakovsky and O.D. Zakharov believe that intra-Russian interterritorial migrations remain the dominant component of the overall migration situation in the country (they account for about 4/5 of the total migration turnover). Their development as a whole does not go beyond the basic trends in migration exchange that began to take shape in the early 90s. But they are gradually modified under the influence of changing social conditions. There is a decrease in the scale of resettlement within Russia and a change in their geographical structure. By the mid-90s. In interregional migrations, a new general direction of population exchange has already fully formed - its redistribution from areas of new development to old ones, mainly to the European regions of the country. These changes were especially harmful for the eastern and northern territories. There is a destruction of the demographic and labor potential that was purposefully created over decades, including large-scale losses of the population adapted to extreme northern conditions, the restoration of which will take more than one generation.

And yet, the main one in terms of its consequences and severity of problems is the migration exchange of population between Russia and the new abroad. In recent years, various political factors have stimulated, on the one hand, the growth of the usual migration outflow of the population from the former Soviet republics to Russia; on the other hand, an increase in the flow of forced migrants (refugees). From 1989 to the beginning of 1995, 2.3 million more people arrived in Russia from the new foreign countries than returned. During these same years, Russia accepted over 600 thousand refugees. Its population grew by almost 3 million people precisely due to migrants and refugees from the new foreign countries. Of this number, 2.2 million are Russians. In turn, the Russian population in the new foreign countries decreased to 23 million people.

In the migration exchange between Russia and new foreign countries, three main characteristics can be distinguished: 1) since 1994, Russia has had a positive balance in migration exchange with absolutely all states; 2) the main share (about 80%) of Russia’s positive migration balance falls on Russians. Among the refugees, the share of Russians is two-thirds. Migration of Russians to all countries of the new abroad in 1989-1994. consistently decreased, while their outflow to Russia increased or remained at a consistently high level; 3) opposite trends are observed in the migration activity of representatives of the titular nationalities of the former union republics. The scale of their departure from Russia is decreasing in parallel with the decrease in their arrival.

A new destructive phenomenon for Russia in the post-perestroika period was the increase in the scale of emigration. Now tens of thousands of citizens are emigrating from Russia. Their total number for 1989-1994. exceeded 600 thousand people. Among the emigrants there are mainly Germans, Jews, and Russians. They are sent predominantly (90%) to the USA, Germany and Israel. The emigrants include technical and creative intelligentsia, highly skilled workers. As a result, Russia is losing its intellectual and professional potential. Together with people, ideas, labor skills, and production experience are exported.

Researchers recognize that as a result of the counter process - immigration - the country receives no less, if not more, population. The bulk of immigrants are illegal immigrants. This is facilitated by the transparency of borders, the unsettled issues of entry into the country from new and old abroad, and the political and other interests of a number of neighboring states in relation to Russian territory. This situation is considered negative, since Russia has become a septic tank and a transit point for immigration. The most important consequences of the immigration to Russia of hundreds of thousands of citizens of old and now new foreign countries are the following: 1) the creation of conditions for the penetration of new ethnic diasporas, their settlement, and their purchase of real estate in the largest cities and border, often disputed, regions of the country; 2) the entry into Russia of immigrants from the countries of Southeast Asia, Africa and other underdeveloped countries, predominantly a poorly educated and unskilled population, worsens its labor potential and increases the pressure of low-quality labor on the labor market; 3) with immigration, primarily illegal, associated with the strengthening of the crime situation (expansion of drug trafficking facilities, smuggling, organized crime).

Firstly, as for external migrants, there is a possibility that many of our compatriots will return with the material and spiritual capital acquired in the West. We cannot exclude the assistance that they are now providing to their relatives who remain in their homeland.

Secondly, internal migrants often do work that native residents of many Russian cities cannot or do not want to do (trade, construction, transport, etc.).

Thirdly, the temporary “liberation” of the regions of the North by the non-indigenous population means, despite all the negative consequences of this process, the simultaneous improvement of living conditions for the local population.

As we see, the consequences of migration are varied and ambiguous. It is premature to consider the situation related to ethnic migration catastrophic, which cannot be attributed to the assessment of the ever-increasing potential of interethnic conflicts themselves.