The problem and danger of interethnic conflicts. What are the causes and dangers of interethnic conflicts?
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. more 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 highlighted 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.
Reasons national conflicts, if we look at them in more detail, they are very similar in many respects:
- 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 in the 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 causes of interethnic conflicts are diverse:
Political reasons. First of all this is a crisis and then the collapse of the USSR - a major transnational world power. This reason is universal in nature, since confrontation between ethnic and religious groups always intensifies during periods of collapse of multinational asymmetric states. Another, The derivative political cause of the conflict is the struggle of both new and old political elites for the redistribution of the “imperial inheritance.” In this struggle, the national factor is used without any restraint. It is being conducted in the conditions of the virtual absence of rules of the political “game” (the old rules have been abolished, and the rules are new; a new political culture is just beginning to take shape). Therefore, in a number of cases one can observe shameless speculation on national feelings, despite the obvious damage, grief and even blood that such “games” bring to the population of all nationalities. Moreover, the national “card” is sometimes played with success even by openly criminal, mafia structures.
Economic reasons are closely related to political ones. On the one side, here there is a largely similar political struggle for the redistribution of national wealth, on the other hand- regions that are traditionally poor, deprived of natural resources or do not have a developed economy, but which received some centralized support, now, having lost it, are trying to somehow get out of the situation by appealing to the categories of national survival, preserving the national home, while resorting to any available to them means of economic pressure or even blackmail. Besides, economically more powerful regions seek to block trends of national separatism, also using economic and financial levers for this. The core problem of ensuring national security, including in matters of countering separatism, is the strengthening of statehood. Independence and independence of its individual most important systems - legislative power, regional power structures is currently largely symbolic in nature. This is the vulnerability of the modern public administration system. Moreover, such a system is less able to withstand evolving threats from separatist tendencies. Another important area of countering separatism in the Russian Federation in modern conditions is the improvement of the state structure of Russia and its federal foundations.
Many interethnic conflicts can, in a certain sense, be called false, since they are based not on objective contradictions, but on a misunderstanding of the positions and goals of the other side, attributing hostile intentions to it, which gives rise to an inadequate sense of danger and threat. There are many examples that can be given here: this includes distrust of the Russian-speaking diaspora in neighboring countries, and fear of Caucasians or natives of Central Asia and Central Russia. Naturally, such feelings are rationalized through a tendentious selection of everyday and other examples that influence everyday consciousness. And of course, politicians playing the national card are trying in every possible way to use this fertile soil. Really, the phenomenon of psychological opposition between “us” and “them” rooted in deep layers the public subconscious, and it is very difficult to fight it, although it is absolutely necessary. The weakening of the false conflict can be achieved through educational, educational and explanatory work among the population. Moreover, one should appeal not only to the rational, intellectual levels of the human psyche, but also to emotions, to mass sentiments. In this regard, a few words should be said about the role of the national intelligentsia. One of the noble traditions of the Russian intelligentsia has always been supporting peoples oppressed by imperial power on the territory of their own state, protecting them from oppression by the central government. And such a position, as a rule, was by no means considered in intellectual circles as a national betrayal, but, on the contrary, had a clear patriotic motivation. And in recent times, during the period of the far from bloodless agony of the USSR, the Russian intelligentsia for the most part supported the republican movements for self-determination - on the issue of the Baltic states, in the Tbilisi events. She saw her moral duty as the intelligentsia of a large nation in helping small nations gain freedom. And here she was united with the intelligentsia of these small nations.
Plan:
1. The concept of interethnic conflict
1.1 The concept of interethnic conflict
1.2 Classification of interethnic conflict
2. Reasons and possibilities for preventing interethnic conflict
2.1 Causes of ethnic conflicts in Russia
2.2 Ways to resolve interethnic conflicts
1.1 The concept of interethnic conflict.
A conflict is a clash of opposing interests, views, positions, and aspirations. Among the most complex and intractable are ethnosocial (interethnic) conflicts. This is a form of intergroup conflict in which groups with opposing interests differ along ethnic (national) lines.
A functional approach to understanding conflict is typical for most ethno-conflictologists. V.A. Tishkov defines interethnic conflict as any 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.”
L. M. Drobizheva emphasizes the functional basis of the ethnic conflict, which lies not in ethnicity, but in social problems arising between groups consolidated on a national basis.
A. Yamskov defines interethnic conflict through a description of collective actions: “ Interethnic conflict- this is a dynamically changing socio-political situation generated by the rejection of the previously established status quo by a significant part of the representatives of one (several) local ethnic groups and manifested in the form of at least one of the following actions of members of this group:
a) the beginning of ethno-selective emigration from the region;
b) the creation of political organizations that declare the need to change the existing situation in the interests of the specified ethnic group;
c) spontaneous protests against infringement of their interests by representatives of another local ethnic group.”
Z. V. Sikevich, in his definition of interethnic conflict, shifts the emphasis from the behavioral component to the analysis of the intersection of ethnic and political spaces: “By ethnic conflict we understand a social situation caused by the divergence of interests and goals of individual ethnic groups within a single ethnic space or ethnic group, with on the one hand, and the state, on the other, at the intersection of ethnic and political space, expressed in the desire of the ethnic group (groups) to change ethnic inequalities or political space in its territorial dimension.” 1
IN the latter case the definition strictly links the subjects of the conflict and the underlying goals of their political activity, no matter what declarations they hide behind, and no matter in what forms the interethnic conflict itself manifests itself.
In everyday practice, when discussing interethnic relations, the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the national policy of the state, certain nations are usually meant. At the same time, various small ethnic groups are not particularly distinguished, although their number, for example, in Russia, is quite significant. The interethnic policy of the state is designed to regulate socio-political relations in order to harmonize the interests of various ethnic and national groups and most fully satisfy their needs.
Interethnic conflict is a complex sociological phenomenon and has its own characteristics. Conflict situations between social groups and classes come down to confrontation regarding the possible complete satisfaction of their interests. This concerns primarily power relations. Interethnic and interstate conflicts affect literally the entire spectrum of relations between the conflicting parties, the entire society.
The parties to the conflict have a complex structure. Nation or _________________________________________________________________ 1 Zdravomyslov A.G. Sociology of conflict. M., 2004.- p.237-246
An ethnic group does not always act as a collective entity. It can be an individual, a specific organization or movement that takes upon itself to represent a nation or ethnic group. People not only do not realize their national interests, but lose much of what they had, including human and civil rights.
1.2. Classification of conflicts
There is also a classification of conflicts according to forms of manifestation and development:
Conflicts such as “fights”, when the opposing sides share irreconcilable differences and the result can only be a victory for one of the parties;
Conflicts of the “debate” type, when there is a dispute, maneuvering and both parties expect to reach an agreement (compromise);
Conflicts such as “games”, when the parties act within the framework general rules and therefore the conflict does not end with the destruction of the entire totality of relations between the conflicting parties.
Interethnic conflict has its own stages, stages of development mechanisms and solutions. Armed conflicts pose the greatest danger to society. IN modern world countries and peoples are so interconnected that even minor conflicts in one country can serve as an incendiary mixture for the entire world community, especially in those countries, like the Russian Federation, that have nuclear weapons.
Such conflicts are characterized by a certain level of organized action along with mass unrest, separatist uprisings and even civil war. Since they arise in multinational states, any internal conflict in them inevitably acquires a political character. Therefore, it is sometimes difficult to draw a clear line between social, political and interethnic conflict. Ethnic conflict can be expressed in various forms, from intolerance and discrimination at the interpersonal level to mass protests for separation from the state, armed clashes, and a war of national liberation.
2.1 Causes of ethnic conflicts
Interethnic conflicts in the Russian Federation and in the CIS countries have specific historical objective and subjective reasons. Until 1986, nothing was said publicly about interethnic conflicts in the USSR. It was believed that it national question was finally decided. And we must admit that there were no major open interethnic conflicts. At the everyday level, there were many interethnic antipathies and tensions, and crimes were also committed on this basis. The latter were never separately accounted for or tracked.
At the same time, there was an intensive process of Russification of non-Russian peoples. Reluctance to learn Russian did not entail any sanctions, as they are trying to do in Estonia or Moldova, but its study itself was placed at the level of a naturally necessary thing. At the same time, knowledge of Russian as a federal language opened up great opportunities for non-Russian peoples for learning, professionalization and self-realization. The Russian language made it possible to become familiar with the culture of all the peoples of the USSR, as well as with world culture. It performed and continues to perform the same function that falls to the lot of the English language in international communication. It would also be blasphemy to forget that the outskirts of the Union, being more backward, developed at the expense of infringing on the interests of the peoples of Central Russia.
All this, however, did not exclude the formation of latent ethno-conflict situations caused by the flawed national policy of the Soviet government. Even during the civil war, 35 republics of the red regimes and 37 of the white regimes were formed. This trend intensified after the Bolshevik victory. However, its full implementation was impossible. Yes, the Bolsheviks did not intend to implement it. Based on the principle of “divide and conquer,” they gave formal independence in the form of a national name for the territory only to “supporting” nations. Therefore, out of more than 130 nationalities inhabiting the USSR, about 80 did not receive any national education. Moreover, the “issuance” of statehood was carried out in a strange way. Estonians, for example, whose total number in the country as a whole, according to the 1989 population census, was 1,027 thousand, had union statehood; Tatars, whose number is more than 6 times greater than the number of Estonians (6,649 thousand) - autonomy, and the Poles (1,126 thousand) or Germans (2,039 thousand) did not have any national entities.
Subsequent volitional changes in the boundaries of national entities and the transfer of vast territories (for example, Crimea) from one republic to another without taking into account historical and ethnic characteristics, the deportation of entire peoples from their native lands and their dispersion among other nationalities, huge migration flows associated with the mass eviction of people political motives, with great construction projects, the development of virgin lands and other processes, finally mixed up the peoples of the USSR.
According to the 1989 census, 25 million 290 thousand people live outside Russia alone. In addition to Russians, there were 3 million Russian-speaking representatives of other nations outside Russia. And how many Russian and Russian-speaking citizens, being inside Russia, with their ancestral lands, were annexed to the territories of other national-state entities or arrived there due to some kind of “call”, in which they, regardless of their share (in 9 republics out of 21 titular peoples do not constitute the majority of the population, and in another 8 republics the number of Russians, Ukrainians and other non-titular nations is 30% or more) are listed among national minorities with all the ensuing consequences. The main problem is that titular nations, regardless of their number, claim exclusive control of state institutions and property, often created by the hands of “alien” peoples and at the expense of the national budget, as was the case in Estonia, Lithuania, and Kazakhstan. In some cases, the Russian-speaking population remains hostage to nationalist criminal adventures, as happened with the 250 thousand Russian-speaking population in Chechnya.
The conflict situation in the countries formed on the territory of the former USSR is due to many reasons, ancient and current, political (centralism and unitarism of power, repression and conquest of peoples), economic (economic crisis, unemployment, impoverishment), socio-psychological (interethnic barriers to communication, negative forms of national self-affirmation, open nationalism, ambitions of national leaders), territorial and others.
The vast majority of conflicts are interethnic and intertribal in nature. They were deployed on the territory of one or several countries, often turning into full-scale modern wars. Many of them were complicated by religious and clan contradictions. Some last for centuries, such as the Middle Eastern conflict between Jews and Arabs, the Transcaucasian conflict between Armenians and Turks (Azerbaijanis). The root causes of ongoing conflicts are often erased by time, disappearing into the subconscious and expressing themselves in inexplicable, almost pathological national intolerance. The immediate causes (causes) of periodically renewed clashes are usually immediate “injustices”. By putting this word in quotation marks, I mean that in most interethnic conflicts, a fair solution for all warring parties does not objectively exist, because each is guided by its own truth, its own historical periods, events, and facts.
A conflict situation in most cases develops as a resultant component of a complex of causes and conditions. The conflict arises when there are objective, and not rarely subjective, interethnic comparisons, which when he finds himself (real or not) in some way disadvantaged, offended, bypassed, oppressed; when in the psychology of peoples; when the solution to many problems is seen only in national self-affirmation.
There are always conflicting people (groups) in such cases. National political forces striving for power and property cleverly use spontaneous discontent. By fueling it, they present themselves as defenders of the nation. And although it has long been known that nationalism and ethnocratism are irrational, destructive, hopeless and destructive, they, as a rule, do not seem so to the rebellious people. On the contrary, it is ethnocratism and nationalism that become the most understandable, closest and unifying ideology. The unity of language, customs, traditions, faith unites people in a word, in a movement. What could be easier than to have a common object of negation and to internalize a common “ideology of falsehood”, in the name of which this object should be rejected? To say, for example, that for all the misfortunes of the world - and above all for every offended soul - Jews, Gypsies, Germans, Arabs, Negroes, Vietnamese, Hungarians or Czechs are to blame: This is so simple and clear! And there will always be a sufficient number of Vietnamese, Hungarians, Czechs, gypsies, or Jews whose actions can illustrate the idea that they are to blame for everything.
2.2 Ways to resolve interethnic conflicts
When an interethnic conflict arises within one state, judging by the bitter experience of countries formed on the territory former USSR, there are two options for the behavior of the official authorities. First: the authorities, maintaining balance, remain above the conflict, trying to extinguish the emerging conflict with acceptable forces and means, as, for example, was done, although not without mistakes, by the Russian authorities in the conflict between the North Ossetians and the Ingush. Second: the authorities themselves are drawn into the conflict, advocating the preservation of the territorial integrity of the country or on the side of the titular people, as was observed in Azerbaijan in the conflict between Azerbaijanis and Armenians, in Georgia in the conflict between Georgians and South Ossetians, between Georgians and Abkhazians, or in Moldova in the conflict Moldovans with a Russian-speaking population (Moldova with Transnistria). The Russian authorities in Chechnya were eventually drawn into similar situations.
In a multiethnic society, conflicts are inevitable. The danger is not in them themselves, but in the ways they are resolved.
There are six prerequisites necessary for resolving ethnic conflicts:
Each of the warring factions must have a single command and be controlled by it;
The parties must control territories that would provide them with relative security after the conclusion of a truce;
Achieving a state of certain equilibrium in the conflict, when the parties have either temporarily exhausted their military capabilities or have already achieved many of their goals;
The presence of an influential mediator who can increase the parties' interest in achieving a truce and achieve recognition of the ethnic minority as a party to the conflict;
Agreement of the parties to “freeze” the crisis and to postpone a comprehensive political settlement indefinitely;
The deployment along the line of separation of peacekeeping forces sufficiently authoritative or strong to deter the parties from resuming hostilities.
The presence of an authoritative unified command for each of the warring factions, which would have sufficient power to ensure control over the field commanders and whose orders would be carried out is the first a necessary condition for any ceasefire negotiations. Otherwise, reaching any agreements will not be possible at all. It is no coincidence that one of the first steps of the Russian authorities to resolve the Ossetian-Ingush conflict was the creation of power structures in Ingushetia in order to have a leader with whom they could conduct a dialogue. The presence of control over the territory, providing the parties with at least relative security, seems to be perhaps the key prerequisite for a settlement.
Actions to neutralize the confrontational aspirations of participants in interethnic conflicts fit within the framework of some general rules derived from the existing experience in resolving such conflicts. Among them:
1) legitimation of the conflict - official recognition by existing power structures and conflicting parties of the existence of the problem itself (the subject of the conflict), which needs to be discussed and resolved;
2) institutionalization of the conflict - the development of rules, norms, and regulations for civilized conflict behavior recognized by both parties;
3) the advisability of transferring the conflict to the legal plane;
4) introduction of the institution of mediation in organizing the negotiation process;
5) information support for conflict resolution, that is, openness, “transparency” of negotiations, accessibility and objectivity of information about the progress of the conflict for all interested citizens, etc.
Over its history, humanity has accumulated considerable experience in non-violent conflict resolution. However, only from the second half of the 20th century, when it became obvious that conflicts are a real threat to the survival of mankind, an independent area began to emerge in the world scientific research, one of the main subjects of which is the prevention of open, armed forms of conflict, their settlement or settlement, as well as the resolution of conflicts by peaceful means.
In the sphere of ethno-political conflicts, as in all others, the old rule is still valid: conflicts are easier to prevent than to subsequently resolve. This is what the national policy of the state should be aimed at. Our current state does not yet have such a clear and intelligible policy. And not only because politicians “can’t get enough of it,” but to a large extent because the initial general concept of nation-building in multi-ethnic Russia is unclear. There are modern political situations that require consideration of interethnic or interreligious conflicts that arise within a particular country in conjunction with international conflicts.
List of used literature:
1. Zdravomyslov A.G. Sociology of conflict. M., 2004.- p.237-246
2. 3dravomyslov A.G. Interethnic conflicts in the post-Soviet space. M., 2005. P. 6.
3. Ivanov V.N. Interethnic tension in the national aspect. Socio-political magazine, No. 7, 2006. pp. 58 - 66.
4. Kotanjyan G.S. Ethnopolitical science of consensus - conflict. M.: Luch, 2002.
5. Creder A.A. “Modern history of the 20th century.” Part 2 - M.: TsGO, 1995.
6. Peoples of Russia. Encyclopedia. M., 1994.- p.339
7. Russian ethnic group and Russian school in the 20th century. M., 1996. pp. 70-71.
8. Serebrennikov V.V. “War in Chechnya: causes and character” // Socio-political magazine, 2005 No. 3
9. Sikevich Z.V. Sociology and psychology of national relations: Academic manual. - St. Petersburg: Publishing House of Mikhailov V.A., 1999. - 203 p.
10. History of Russia: Textbook for universities / Ed. prof. V.N. Lavrinenko. - 3rd ed., revised. and additional - M.: UNITY-DANA, 2005. - 448 pp. - (Series “Golden Fund of Russian Textbooks”).
Interethnic conflicts……………………………….5 Solutions interethnic conflicts……………………….6 Conclusion……………………………………………………………...9 List of used...
Speaking about the causes of interethnic conflicts, first of all it should be noted that the most severe consequences causes arbitrariness and violence against any nation, prohibition and persecution of religion, culture, language, traditions. National feelings are very vulnerable, and any kind of arbitrariness towards any nation gives rise to hatred towards those who allowed violence. Bloody events in Azerbaijan, the North Caucasus, Georgia, Moldova, and also in the former Yugoslavia show that interethnic conflicts have turned into interethnic wars. A civil wars, which arose on national grounds, last a very long time. The war goes on until the last Serb, Croat, Albanian, Chechen, Georgian.
The cause of interethnic conflicts can also be national prejudice towards representatives of a particular nation. According to sociological surveys in Russia, more than 1/3 of respondents said that they dislike representatives of a certain nationality. At the same time, the absolute majority named persons of “Caucasian nationality.” Some political forces and parties deliberately incite national hatred, declaring that Jews, Russians, Armenians, Chechens, etc. are to blame for all the current troubles and problems in our lives. Thus, an “image of the enemy” is formed, the culprit of all troubles. And this is very dangerous phenomenon, since fertile ground is created for strengthening the ideology of nationalism, chauvinism, and often fascism.
That's why main reason the exacerbation of interethnic conflicts is associated with attempts by various political forces to deliberately incite national hatred in order to thereby acquire a certain political capital. By inciting nationalism it is very easy to gain power. But in order to stay in power, such a regime will continue to have to base its policy on inciting national hatred. This is the main reason for the sharp escalation of interethnic conflicts on the territory of the former Soviet Union. According to a sociological survey conducted in the North Caucasus, 2/3 of respondents said that the main cause of interethnic conflicts in the region is the struggle for power. Ordinary people They begin to understand that politicians in the struggle for power are capable of causing conflict among people of different nationalities who have lived peacefully on the same land for centuries.
After the nationalists come to power, as a rule, a regime of ethnocracy is established, when all real power passes into the hands of only one indigenous nationality, the principle applies: one state - one nation. At the same time, methods of ethnic cleansing are actively used. Serbs, Albanians, Chechens, Georgians, Estonians, Latvians are trying to clear their territories of national minorities they do not like. Thus, in Estonia and Latvia, discriminatory measures against representatives of non-indigenous nationality are legislated. They are deprived of voting rights, citizenship, they are not accepted for public service etc. All these measures are designed to achieve the expulsion of the Russian-speaking population from these states. Similar situation characteristic of almost all former Soviet republics. Today all the former Soviet Union is an arena of interethnic conflicts between representatives of indigenous and non-indigenous nationalities. It is no coincidence that the number of refugees in the former Soviet Union has reached tens of millions and is constantly growing.
To prevent interethnic conflicts, the state, not in words, but in deeds, must ensure the equality of all nations. It is necessary to resolutely abandon attempts to create any benefits or advantages for one indigenous nationality, and to take into account the interests of all peoples living in this state. This the most important principle preventing interethnic conflicts.
Relations between nations and peoples were often tense and even dramatic. Russian lands, for example, were of interest to many invaders. They were attacked by Mongol nomads, German knights, and Polish conquerors. On Central Asia and Transcaucasia were encroached upon by Tamerlane's troops. When Columbus discovered America, many Indian tribes were destroyed. Colonizers captured the peoples of Africa. And these are not all examples from the history of Europe. Interethnic conflicts also broke out during the world wars of the 20th century.
National problems
Interethnic conflict is a historical enmity that has left its mark on national consciousness. And today, prejudices become the cause of hostility, the roots of which go back to the past. Previous options for solving the nation's problems have now exhausted themselves, since hostility and mistrust are the result of political mistakes and blunders that have accumulated over the years.
Growing international conflict
Heightened self-awareness of nations and intolerance even to minor violations equality - all this provokes ethnic conflicts in Europe. It is no coincidence that since the second half of the twentieth century, the national question has again emerged where it had previously been exhausted: Wales and Scotland, Canada and Quebec, France and Corsica, and so on. The world was amazed by the rapid growth of conflict in the early 1990s. Appeared new threat, for which the community of nations, which have been holding back nuclear challenges for 45 years, turned out to be unprepared.
National security
Interethnic conflicts pose a threat to people and nations, therefore the activities of states should be aimed at ensuring national security. To the Bolshoi Soviet encyclopedia the security of the nation was considered as protection from external enemies, but in reality it is necessary to protect both the external and internal spheres of the state, including both material and spiritual aspects. For example, the main factors in the defeat of Nazi Germany were resilience and unity Soviet people, his faith in ideas.
Interethnic conflicts: the cause of their occurrence
The main reason for the emergence of disagreements between peoples is the clash of interests of nationalities, national groups and others. If conflicts that arise are not resolved consistently or in a timely manner, a conflict arises. And nationalization and politicization of the interests of peoples become strong catalysts for its development. Interethnic conflicts mixed with political interests, reach highest stage exacerbation, which, in turn, provokes national antagonism.
Consequences of aggravated relations between nations and peoples
Every ethnic conflict leads to tragedies in the destinies of entire nations. In addition, there is a danger that past grievances and misunderstandings will be carried over into the memory of new generations. This can be avoided by giving a proper legal assessment of the situation that has arisen, since public censure can subsequently lead to unjust actions in resolving even simple matters.
