Assistant, Institute of International Relations at the Kyiv T. Shevchenko National University

* * *

International Conflicts: Comparative Analysis

The criterion of symmetry may a basis for classification of international conflicts in the post-bipolar system. An evident activation of the asymmetric threats and inadequacy of the mechanisms for their neutralization are displayed together with emergence and development of the asymmetric international conflicts. This is a manifestation of both changes in the structure of the international system and preservation of some parameters of the previous system, first of all, a central position of the state as a subject of international conflict or its regulator.

The notion of asymmetric conflict is more often associated with the latest manifestations of international terrorism. Another steadfast idea clearly resulting from the first one is that the asymmetric conflict is much more dangerous for the international system as a whole and for a separate state, in particular, because in terms of conflictology it is dysfunctional. At the same time a traditional symmetrical conflict is accepted as the one capable to resolve dialectical differences. Finally, the third prevalent idea concerns the "normality", traditional nature of the symmetric conflict in contrast to abnormality, nontraditional character and thus temporality of asymmetric conflicts understood as a negative and harmful manifestation of international relations that should be removed or transformed into familiar symmetric response.

This article is devoted to theoretical verification of the above statements on the basis of comparative analysis of symmetric and asymmetric conflicts. The comparison is underlain by an assumption of structural differences and functional similarity of both conflict types. A difference between them is often conditional. The experience shows that both conflicts co-exist in the international system performing the same constructional and destructive functions.

At the same time the existence and use of such notions as "symmetrical" and "asymmetrical" in the sphere of international conflicts displays the differences in principle. These differences lie both in the system reasons of different conflicts or in their structures, participants and possible ways of solution. Let us consider each of these parameters in a consequence determining them as the comparison criterion.

Asymmetrical international conflicts are conflicts between the participants of international relations that use qualitatively different methods to reach their individual objectives. These objectives may often be very different. Foreign policy strategies of the conflicting participants as a rule differ. The participants of these conflicts are not necessarily the states:

стр. 46

the conflicts become international often due to their consequences.

Different Forms of International Conflicts

Asymmetry in most cases arises in relations between the subjects different in their potential. This can be seen in the structure of foreign trade, correlation of mutual investment volumes, ideological differences. In the course of the international conflict this leads to the use of totally different strategies conditioned by different resources and different understanding of the conflict structure: its targets, possible duration, acceptable level of escalation etc.

At the same time the symmetric conflicts are not conflicts between absolutely equal subjects. Symmetry in the conflict is determined by a joint estimation of the roles of different factors, targets of the conflict and its consequences. The post-bipolar system of international relations is unique from the point of view of expansion of asymmetric conflicts, on the one hand, and, on the other, by preservation of the symmetry in relations between the two poles. The task is to determine what structural indices preserve the symmetry with simultaneous increase of asymmetric responses.

Conflict as a social phenomenon arises as a consequence of differences between social groups organized in a certain way. In this sense the reasons of all types of conflicts are similar.

However, similarity is distorted after considering the forms of conflicts. A form assumed by a particular conflict not only conditions a way of its development but also affects its consequences, implementation of its stabilizing potential or its loss. Plainly speaking, a form of the conflict is accepted by the parties as the optimal algorithm for implementation of the counteraction strategies at any moment of time. So, the state policy seems to play its role rather in the process of the development of a particular conflict than in its outbreak. On the whole, a set of reasons for appearance of different forms of the conflicts, including symmetrical and asymmetrical embrace different factors: structural, procedural, strategic, operational, tactical, psychological and others. In their combination the action of these factors enables the parties to select a specific method for regulation of available differences varying from negotiations to beginning of military actions.

The use of asymmetric and symmetric strategies in the conflict is mostly conditioned by structural factors. Structural factors include the current system of international relations, a degree of the system homogeneity and a possibility to implement the force potential.

The dependence of symmetrical and asymmetrical conflicts on the current structure of international system can be traced on the examples of bipolar and post-bipolar systems. Though both systems contain symmetric and asymmetric conflicts a correlation of these forms and primarily their system effect essentially differ. What is behind it?

First of all, it is a capability of the structure to determine the behavior of its own elements, i. e. capability of configuration of forces in the international policy to essentially affect strategies of particular countries enabling them to choose certain forms of correlation. A structure of bipolar system of international relations is determined by the presence of two poles of forces and their ability to exert organizational influence on the rest of the system. Abstract consideration of the problem allows a conclusion that bipolar systems may be different. According to M. Kaplan, they may be divided into "tough" and "flexible" ones [1]. It means that the force potential of two poles may face the counteractions of different intensity, which implies either possibility or impossibility to remove certain tasks and objectives common for both poles as well as possibility and impossibility of joint actions to resolve them. With some assumptions one can say that the tougher is the bipolar system, the less grounds are for the limited cooperation for the homogeneity increase. With a specific example of such system, which is the Yalta-Potsdam one, it may be characterized as a "flexible" bipolar

стр. 47

system with high level of homogeneity.

In general, the bipolar system of international relations, specifically the Yalta- Potsdam one, determined the dominance of the symmetric type of the conflict while the post-bipolar international system stimulates manifestation of asymmetry in the international relations [2]. This conclusion follows, first of all, from the nature of the asymmetry. Asymmetric conflicts are typical for unstable systems and in case of international systems - for the systems with a distorted principle of the force balance. In the bipolar system of international relations the main stabilizers are the bilateral relations between the poles aimed at preservation of the system stability which in case of "flexible" systems is also targeted at preservation of own relative hegemony. Besides, the hierarchy of blocks within the bipolar system just as a mutual need in high predictability of the actions of the opponent make irrational the use of asymmetric strategies by the superpowers and almost improbable and risky if used by their satellites.

Bipolar system in contrast to the post-bipolar one provides a high level of coordination of actions. What is the result of the necessity for such coordination? First of all, it enhances elements that provide predictability of the opponent's actions. For exampe, the nuclear policies of the superpowers or their participation in the regional conflicts during the cold war. In this case the use of the asymmetric strategies proves irrational: possible advantages are leveled by a lower predictability of the opponent's actions and general destabilization.

This does not mean that the epoch of bipolarity did not use the asymmetric strategies. There are enough of such examples in relations between the superpowers and between the superpower and a weaker state. An example of national-liberation wars or the war in Vietnam is a vivid example of the asymmetry spread. However, it is evident that such asymmetry was aimed at achieving limited targets often related to such factors as time or normative value and not capable to challenge the current world system. Confrontation of two superpowers is another example of asymmetry in relations in the period of bipolarity characterized by the use of different military-political strategies, qualitative difference in the structure of force (correlation of military, economical and organizational components). However, it is not appropriate to speak about asymmetry in strategies in a full sense of this notion since a high level of stability of the bipolar system and mechanisms for regulation of the local conflicts accepted by both sides testify to a similarity in strategies of the superpowers, at least in the parts related to determination of the foreign policy objectives and acceptance of the opponent.

The latter determines the high homogeneity of the bipolar system. Correspondingly, the absence of these features testifies to the heterogeneity of the post-bipolar system. Homogeneity of the system of international relations consequently leads to stabilization on condition that the Great Powers stick to the status quo strategy, as it was, for example, in the Vienna system of international relations. In these conditions a nature of their foreign policy activities reduces the probability of using asymmetry strategy to the minimum. Heterogeneous systems enhance the effect of using the asymmetry strategies decreasing in the first place the possible losses. At the same time it is necessary to take into account that by restraining the effects of the target asymmetry the homogeneous system may cause the use of the asymmetry of methods at the strategic level, especially in crisis regulation.

So, the bipolar system of international relations stimulated the symmetry at the strategic level. In this case the asymmetric conflicts, though periodical, were only marginal. By contrast, structural preconditions both for expansion of the asymmetric conflicts and for continuation of the symmetric ones are created in the bipolar system. None of these conflict forms lose their regulatory functions while there are similar possibilities of destructive impact in symmetric and asymmetric international conflicts similarly.

стр. 48

In the modern post-bipolar system the symmetric conflicts that can be called "traditional" are likely to expand their homogeneous subsystems, for example in the western world. Asymmetric conflicts are typical for relations between different poles and for local differences where the interests of the Great Powers are involved. Since the "shift" of conflict probability from the global to the regional and local levels is typical for the post-bipolar system of international relations one may say that the current structure stimulates the active asymmetry.

Strategies of the states, basic targets and ways of their achievement, estimates of correlation of possible losses and gains are other factors determining the breakup of symmetrical and asymmetrical conflicts. Therefore, it is hard to develop a matrix that would consider all parameters in the decision making; however, the general moments may look as follows.

States facing simultaneously several threats to their own interests usually resort to asymmetric strategies since the asymmetry strategy allows using the advantageous factor of time. This situation becomes most urgent in the situation when the total potential of the adversaries considerably prevails [3]. Geographical and technological factors play in this case an important role, which is well displayed by the policy of Germany in the 1910s and the Great Britain in the 1930s of the past century.

Probability of using the asymmetry strategy increases if the state lacks powerful allies, since the asymmetry strategy allows to effectively use the threat of war. Foreign policy of the Hitler Germany is a vivid example of this. In other words, the asymmetric strategies are often employed by the states that are not bound by coalition commitments. At the same time the participants of different alliances abstain from using asymmetry. This means that the probability of asymmetry decreases in the hierarchic and institutionalized systems. Complex process of decision-making usually is not reduced to such comparatively simple imperatives. They include the state's evaluation of a possible victory in different conflicts, potentialities of using different preventive strategies, so they often depend on specific circumstances.

The use of asymmetric strategy is not the consequence of inefficient symmetric strategy. The strategist considers all enumerated factors and chooses from two equal possibilities. His decision is affected both by current state interests and general parameters of the international system.

These are the two groups of factors, which mainly determine the outbreak of symmetric and asymmetric conflicts. Considering the structural peculiarities of the above post-bipolar system and with due regard to the factors of state policies we can conclude that the tendency for increasing the conflict asymmetry in the system will go down-together with the conflict-to the regional and local levels. In this case the symmetric conflicts will exist in the homogenous subsystems. The traditional conflicts originated in the period of bipolarity were asymmetric either from the beginning (as the Arab-Israel conflict with the elements of partisan struggle, terrorism etc.) or will further assume the features of asymmetric conflicts with gradual decrease of deterrent of surroundings.

Comparison of Symmetric and Asymmetric Conflicts

An international conflict includes the elements (participants, parties of the conflict), object of the conflict and strategies to obtain it.

The above pattern of the asymmetric conflict with manifestations of international terrorism may be the basis for conclusions on (1) indefiniteness or at least informal nature of the object of the asymmetric conflict; (2) irrationality in the strategies of the participants or initiators of the asymmetric conflict; (3) somewhat accidental nature in formation of the parties of the conflict. At the same time, the symmetric conflict by definition provides existence of the parties similar in their organization, pursuing definite objectives and capable anytime to decisively affect them.

In reality both symmetric and asymmetric

стр. 49

international conflicts are structured around one element that in the long run acts as a basic element of the most conflicts which is force. With all this in mind one may say that the object of symmetric and asymmetric conflict is the "force" concretized in a different way. At the same time a common understanding of the content of this category is typical for symmetric relations. For example, the FSU and USA during the cold war accepted growth of their own force as expansion of the zones of geopolitical control, increase of the geopolitical control and the ideological impact in the zones and outside them as well as military advantages. This determined a symmetrical nature of the conflict. Similarly, in relations of the USA-EU in post-bipolar system the object of these relations is accepted mainly as economical categories or rules of international regime thus forming symmetry in relations. At the same time, for example, relations of the USA with Poland are not symmetrical in the sense that the object of these relations for the USA is a geopolitical factor, for Poland it means economical and organizational factors. On the other hand, this does not mean that all asymmetric relations have the same dissimilarity. The parties may accept the object of the conflict in the same way but use different mechanisms.

Determination of the "transformation" of different factors between each other [4] is very important. When the states share the opinion on the significance of one and the same factor of force, the struggle is centered around this factor and projections of each of the state concerning possible actions of the opponent also concern the latter. Therefore, asymmetry arises rarely in the post-bipolar system in relations of the states that use similar force resources, for example, between the OPEC members states or states of Central Africa.

At the same time the asymmetry may spread in other way. One of the conditions for such spread is an essential difference in the might of the participants. This situation is especially urgent for the post-bipolar system when the most international conflicts are not military in their nature and when the non-state elements become the subjects of these conflicts.

Emergence of the non-state elements as the sides of the conflict means its release from the impact of the most of traditional regulation mechanisms, specifically, the international laws. The unitary principle and rationalism of decision-making in the conflict are breached. In other words, those elements of the symmetric conflict that may be united under the category of "state interest" disintegrate in the asymmetric conflict into separate targets, tasks and interests of various elements different in their organizational structure. Besides, the structure of asymmetric conflict with the non- state elements becomes less perceptive for application of any general principles. Participants of the "stateless" conflict are transnational social groups with identity differing from the nation and state. A single strategic goal and the absence of tactical planning are distinctive features of these structures. Without going into military particulars it is worth noting that similar structures in the military terminology are called SPIN (Segmented Polycentric Ideologically Integrated Network); they are related to a concept of the network war using the geographical dispersion of forces, their high intellectual level and the availability of communications [5].

The opponents of the asymmetric conflict use qualitatively different methods developing strategies with the aim of getting maximal effect from using these methods. It is worth considering the notion of strategy in the international especially asymmetrical conflict applying the game theory proposed by Thomas Schelling [6]. Therefore, the strategy is a set of rules monitoring behavior of the player with the obligatory consideration of the possible actions of the opponent. The asymmetric strategy should take into account the latter aspect [7]. In this connection one can distinguish long-term, medium-term and short term asymmetric strategies. As to symmetric strategies, they are determined by the action of structural factors.

Therefore, symmetric and asymmetric conflicts in the post-bipolar system have the

стр. 50

identical object. This object is "force", which in the attempts of its concretizing decomposes into separate components. Among these components in the asymmetric conflict the largest significance is acquired by structural advantage, psychological factors and innovation possibilities. But in any case it is not possible to say that the asymmetric conflict is "senseless" and asymmetrical strategy is occasional. Both of them obey general laws of force confrontation.

Regulation & Consequences

Regulation of the conflict is underlain by the nternational law. As a result, the symmetric conflicts in the post-bipolar system have all chances to be regulated. Common understanding of the significance of the conflict object is typical for symmetry. The use of similar resources by the parties in the course of the conflict, correlation of similar types of strategies create the grounds for control over escalation/ de-escalation processes by the participants of the conflict and by the third parties. Generally, correlation of approximately equal in size and structure force potentials remains the basis for regulation of the symmetrical conflicts.

Is it possible to use similar procedures in regulation of the asymmetric conflict? In principle it is possible but this is complicated by a number of circumstances.

Asymmetric conflict develops with participation of the states that are qualitatively different for their force potential. Asymmetric conflict has a number of specific features caused by a restricted pool of measures for weaker participants. Often a strong partner in the asymmetric conflicts does not need to resort to additional force measures to impose his will. So, the conflict often develops latently occasionally transforming into a military phase in the form of cruel and seemingly irrational actions: terrorist acts. Such actions are measures from the restricted arsenal of a weaker partner that uses them to influence the stronger opponent. It is very difficult to regulate the conflict at this stage, because the parties by using different strategies are pursuing different targets: for weaker states this is survival, for stronger-governance.

In contrast to symmetric conflict, regulation of the asymmetric conflict requires the narrowest consideration of the object of the conflict. Under regulation of symmetric conflict it is natural and rational to establish a real correlation of forces between the parties considering the whole complex of factors: their position in the structure of international relations, correlation of forces in the adjacent spheres and others. It may be dangerous for relations of the opponents different in their potential. As a consequence, a difference in positions of the parties and asymmetry of the conflict grow.

Attraction of international institutes is another important principle for regulation of asymmetric conflict. We will not go into a detailed description of theoretical aspects in the activities of the international institutes in the post-bipolar system. Let us only remark that it has a number of new elements in principle as compared to the bipolar period and the role of these institutes has considerably increased, which is a consequence of different forms of asymmetry. Development of international institutions increases mutual dependence of the states.

In a symmetrical conflict the mutual exhaustion of parties is a necessary precondition for regulation of the conflict. This principle is not acceptable for asymmetric relations. Asymmetric conflict is threatening with asymmetric consequences. Universalization and globalization of some asymmetric manifestations (international terrorism) strengthens unequal possibilities of the states, stimulates further more destructive use of asymmetric strategies. Among methods of regulation of asymmetric conflict the most important are both traditional procedures, such as international negotiations, mediation, peace-making activities and special methods, such as a wide international participatory process, creation of situations for mutual dependence, organization

стр. 51

of the mutual internal lobbying of the partner's interests. Using these methods it is important to consider all aspects of asymmetry: asymmetry of attention (a weaker partner pays more attention to the subject of discussion since for him it is more important), asymmetry of targets and interests; asymmetry of norms, values and methods. A weaker party can more successfully protect its own interests if it employs the tactics, which is not based on correlation of structural forces of the opponents.

There is a unique correlation of symmetric and asymmetric factors in the post-bipolar system of international relations. This creates additional threats but also additional advantages for the system stability. It is common that in both forms of the conflict the parties achieve regulation at the moment when the value of further dispute exceeds the value of the achieved agreement. If in symmetric relations the force potential in all manifestations and forms is the way of mutual pressure of the parties, then in the asymmetry conflict this role is played by asymmetry of time, targets and others as well as influence of the third parties and interdependence of partners. Conflicts where the parties are relatively independent on each other are most dangerous. Regulation of such conflicts is problematic. International terrorism is one example if we consider it in the context of "collision of civilizations". Enhancement of mutual dependence of the subjects of international relations and spread of the international regimes are the effective ways to prevent asymmetric conflicts.

References:

1. See: Morton A. Kaplan. System and Process in International Politics. - New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,1962.

2. For detailed analysis of structure of rea-sons and consequences of asymmetric conflicts see: М. Г. Капітоненко. Асиметричний конфлікт у постбіполярній системі міжна-родних відносин //Вісник Київського на-ціонального університету імені Тараса Шевченка. Міжнародні відносини. - В. 21-24. стор. 252-257.

3. Connection of force potential with different types of strategies in the foreign policy is shown in the book by Barry R. Posen "Explaining Military Doctrine" in "The Use of Force" ed. by Robert J. Art, Kenneth N. Waltz. Rowman&Littlefield Publishers, 1999.

4. See: David Baldwin, Paradoxes of Power. - New York: Blackwell, 1989.

5. See: Гриняев С. "Сетевая война" по-американски // Независимое военное обоз-рение, 15.02.2002.

6. See: Thomas Schelling. The Strategy of Conflict. - Harvard University Press, 1960.

7. Analysis of different forms of asymmetric strategies see: М. Г. Капітоненко. Асиметричний конфлікт... //Вісник Київського національного університету імені Тараса Шевченка. Міжнародні відносини. - В. 21-24. С. 254-256.

Translated by Alla Horska