A NEW GENERATION OF CONFLICTS FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

Let's try a different approach to the theory of conflicts. Why is such a debate necessary in the first place? The only thing you have to do is press any button on your zapper in the evening and watch several news bulletins simultaneously. You will see that most pieces of news are about conflicts, either incipient or in progress, or about the consequences of those conflicts for people’s lives. Whether they are close or far, all those international conflicts have direct consequences for us all and they are noticeable either in the oil price rise or in various embargoes on trade with other countries. Jan Sadlak, director of the European Center for Higher Education says that there are no grounds any more for anyone to nourish a feeling of comfortable isolation:“It is quite clear that there are many conflicts going on, some frozen, set aside in the “refrigerator with problems”, some very hot; and there are also conflicts we are yet unaware of, but they will surface very soon. This vacillation between optimism and pessimism will be a characteristic of this millennium for quite some time to come. “We” has become an all encompassing term. It could mean: here in our country, but in the context of globalization it could stand for the entire society. The feeling of comfortable isolation does no longer exist, it is what distinguishes the second from the third millennium. We never know when and where we can be directly affected by events which we considered to be quite remote from our every day living environment.”
In the past, conflicts were settled either on the battle field or by scheming at royal courts. The 21st century is up against another type of conflict: planes that crash into skyscrapers, suicide bombers who detonate bombs strapped to their own bodies, children who wave machine guns on the streets or simply shoot their classmates because they’re bored or because they don’t like a particular subject. Adrian Severin, OSCE President Emeritus, calls this phenomenon “the guerrilla globalization”: “I think we are facing what I would call “guerrilla globalization” as a form of conflict and threat. What we call globalized terrorism is in fact a guerrilla war waged at an international level and which can strike any time with technological means produced by other people than those actually involved in the conflict. As to conflict sources, one such source that I find highly significant is fundamentalism. I know it is not politically correct to talk about the conflict of civilisations but I think we are dealing with a civilisation issue. I don’t think this is a conflict between civilisations belonging to different religions but the whole issue is caused by the strict and inflexible patterns of society organisation. I believe that the way in which one community or another relates to the organization of society as a whole, the stubborn belief that a certain way of organizing society should be preserved and promoted… all these beliefs they hold fast to, therefore, generate the civilization framework of some societies which, refusing dialogue and debate, end up clashing, the conflict often taking the shape of a globalized guerrilla”.
Wars broadcast live on tv stations world-wide are no longer a curiosity. And yet, we’ve got accustomed to thinking of conflict areas as very far from where we live. According to Adrian Severin, new conflicts call for new ways to combat and prevent them. The old conflict prevention formulas don’t work any more. The pre-emptive strike concept is not something new but it is regarded as a solution to globalised guerrilla. Adrian Severin: “ We shouldn’t simply dismiss this new approach; let’s try to see beyond transient interests what is their rationale, motivations and expectations because in a world of globalised guerrilla, the old deterrence and reaction formulas may not work efficiently. The old conflict prevention formulas lack in efficiency. The pre-emptive strike is already suggested, but we still have to work on these new solutions. One thing is clear though. Old prevention methods are no longer fit to deal with the new threats we face nowadays.”
Ambassador Sergiu Celac says that along history, conflict has been an engine of development and not an intrinsic evil: “ If a conflict is not necessarily a bad thing in itself and may generate positive tensions leading to new developments, stability does not carry exclusively positive connotations either. Even more, we have noticed lately that clinging to some institutions or concepts that have lived their life can generate negative tensions which could lead to those kinds of conflicts we have to be wary about. Ironically, the incipient economic crisis now threatening the European Union member states has been sparked off by what is known as “The Economic and Monetary Stability Pact”. Clinging to this kind of stability together with a lack of flexibility can lead to negative tensions, not to say conflicts, which may cause trouble. So I wouldn’t regard stability as a sacred virtue just as I don’t see conflicts as the absolute evil.”
Midway between optimism and pessimism, between theory and practice, filtered through the infinite nuances of diplomatic thinking, the 21st century is gaining an increasingly firm contour line, not like Damocles’ sword, but like an easy to cut, soft and flexible cloth, shaped by the good faith and good will of the people.