Considering such phenomenon as anti-war movements and their impact on conflicts prevention it is worth noting another side of this problem, specifically the reasons why such conflicts appear and the mechanisms of preventive actions that exclude such conflicts. Military conflicts may be divided into interstate conflicts and internecine quarrellings. Both groups in their turn are divided into several categories and specifications.
Internecine quarrellings suppose cultural, political, economic factors, and intolerance of one ethnic group to another one. The latter from my point of view is the rarest. I would like to concentrate on several reasons why the conflict in Chechnya appeared and to make comparisons with the Russian realities of 2012 pattern.
It is known that the source of the military conflict in Chechnya was the disorganization of the work of the authorities and a popular The Russian President Yeltsin’s opinion that all the subjects of the Federation could have as much sovereignty as they could.
The Chechen Republic being ruled by an autocratic leader Djohar Dudaev was in a hurry to declare its actual Federation withdrawal. Taking into account that fact that the process of the republic sovereignization was accompanied with its going down to radical Islamism with all the circumstances (slave-owning market appearance, open arm trade, acts of terrorism in neighboring regions) the federal authorities had to start the operation “to bring the constitutional discipline” to the Republic.
One could concentrate on the undoubtedly interesting organizations acted as ambassadors and tried to prevent the conflict, such as OSCE and Parliamentary Assembly of Council of Europe. But I would like to consider the reason of this conflict appearance in 1999 and its throwback.
One of the main reasons of this conflict was the USSR migration policy and the absence of it in the Russian Federation in the 90s.
Holding a course for the policy of communism and a soviet citizen forming, the USSR often pursued and extremely tight migration policy forcibly making peoples move from one traditional area of their living to another one. The situation worsened when one state passed territories to another one without taking into consideration the ethnic and cultural peculiarities of the population that lived on the passed territory.
This policy didn’t have any great consequences until the USSR existed. More than that such policy step by step allowed forming the national middle class, to set up the way of life of a higher society where strict religious law had dominated for hundreds of years. The Soviet Union succeeded in many things.
In this kind of policy there was one essential problem^ the process could be developed only under a great administrative and forceful control.
As soon as the USSR was demounted and the expenses for education were reduced many times, other principles had come into force – the wave of nationalism overflew the former Soviet Republics. It worsened by peoples’ comeback to the areas of their traditional living. And if the migration of ethnic Russians to the RSFSR wasn’t dangerous, the North Caucasians comeback was accompanied with the splash of nationalism in these republics. On the one hand it was a kind of compensational reaction for resentment connected with the deportation, and on the other hand nationalism was approved by the destructive processes that were taking place in the state.
Therefore it is easy to follow up the interrelation between interethnic conflicts on the territory of the former Soviet republics and political programs of migration and education, that were accepted by the Soviet government and then by the government of Russia.
To sum up I would like to say that Kosovo was separated from Serbia because of the engaging the international organizations (among them anti-war organizations), though the Serbian government contributed to it a lot as well. The Chechen Republic on the territory of which there worked the international organizations is still the part of the Russian Federation, though it has much more rights than other republics. There can be just one conclusion: there are no such international organizations that can change the situation without political will of such important subject as a state, because its own attitude depends on its political decisions. The role of the international movements and their constructive influence is negatively related to their political nature in this or that conflict.