Video from the visit of Ilhan Kyuchyuk, the Special Rapporteur of the European Parliament for Uzbekistan, to the University of World Economy and Diplomacy

On November 28 of this year, at the University of World Economy and Diplomacy, a meeting was held with Member of the European Parliament, rapporteur on Uzbekistan Ilhan Kyuchyuk.

The event was also attended by First Deputy Chairman of the Senate of the Oliy Majlis Sodyq Safoev, Ambassador of the European Union to Uzbekistan Charlotte Adrian, Managing Director of the European Neighborhood Council Samuel Doveri, as well as professors and students of the university.

Introducing the guests, Rector of UWED Sodyq Safoev emphasized that they are long-time friends of our country, making a great contribution to strengthening the multifaceted relations of Uzbekistan with the European Union.

“During their stay in Uzbekistan, the delegation led by Ilhan Kyuchyuk held many important meetings. Of course, this visit will serve to further expand relations between our country and the European Union, raising it to a new level,” said S. Safoev.

As part of the meeting, a solemn ceremony was held to confer upon Ilhan Kyuchyuk the title of Honorary Doctor of UWED.

“It is a great honor for me to meet with students and teachers, as well as to become an Honorary Doctor of the University of World Economy and Diplomacy. I will continue to work to strengthen relations between Uzbekistan and the European Union,” said I. Kyuchyuk.

In his speech, the Member of the European Parliament focused on bilateral relations between Uzbekistan and the European Union, listing important steps to strengthen cooperation between the parties.

The students asked the guests many questions regarding EU integration, educational exchange programs, the Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities, as well as prospects for bilateral cooperation.

         The recent speech of the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan Shavkat Mirziyoyev at the 78th session of the United Nations General Assembly (20.09.2023) has aroused great interest among the world expert community and political figures. In clear, concise phrases, the President, characterising the fundamental changes in the system of international relations, stressed that now "...there is a crisis of confidence, increasing problems in the activities of global security institutions and departure from the norms of international law. All this causes growing tension in the world. Geopolitical contradictions are creating new obstacles to the free flow of trade, investment and innovation. Even dialogue on issues that concern the fate of humankind as a whole, such as climate change, hunger and inequality, has been markedly undermined"[1] . The emergence and growth of various, primarily violent, military conflicts in various regions of the world is causing increasing discontentment and concern.

 "The history of mankind is the history of wars" - who has not heard this common phrase?!..... Indeed, during its five thousand years of written history, mankind has lived in relative peace for only 150-200 years, the rest of the time spent in wars and conflicts that claimed the lives of 14 billion (!!!) people. It can also be argued that HISTORY OF HUMANITY IS A HISTORY OF CONFLICTS.

1. Wars: causes and casualties
2. Between 1900 and 1938, 24 wars broke out, and between 1946 and 1979, 130. and in 40 years, twice as many. The human cost became greater and greater. In the Napoleonic wars 3.7 million people died, in the First World War - 10 million, in the Second (together with the civilian population) - 57 million, for all the wars of the XX century - 100 million people. To this we can add that the First World War captured an area in Europe of 200 thousand kilometres² , and the second already - 3.3 million kilometres² .

For example, the Heidelberg Institute (Germany) recorded 278 conflicts in 2006 and now 350. 150 of them were of an acutely violent nature. Both regular troops and militant groups are involved in armed clashes. But they are not the only ones to suffer human losses: there are even more civilian casualties. In 150 cases, the conflicts were less violent, i.e. the use of force occurred only occasionally. In the remaining 200 cases, the conflict situations were not accompanied by hostilities. Of these, 100 were declaratory confrontations and 250 were covert confrontations.

According to estimates by the Centre for Defence Information (USA), there were only 15 major conflicts in the world in 2016 (losses exceed 1,000 people). Experts from the Stockholm Institute SIPRI believe that in 2022 there were more than 20 major armed conflicts in 16 points of the planet. 

The African continent accounts for more than half of all hotspots. In the Greater Middle East there have been conflicts in Iraq, Syria, Yemen for several years. In Ukraine in the first 6 months more than 100 people per day were killed, in the further period the number of victims increased 2-3 times, similarly we can assume about losses from the Russian side, the data about which are still kept secret. Military operations have been going on for more than a year and a half, it is not difficult to calculate that each side has lost at least 50 thousand people on each side (remember, in Afghanistan the USSR lost more than 18 thousand people during 7 years of hostilities). And Afghanistan itself, where NATO has unsuccessfully tried to restore order, is also far from being pacified, and the intensity of attacks by al-Qaida militants on mosques, government structures and military units of the Taliban government is only increasing.

Some international experts estimate that armed conflicts claim up to 300,000 lives annually, mostly civilians. They account for 65 to 90 per cent of casualties (the figure varies depending on the intensity of hostilities). Statistics show that only 5 per cent of those killed in the First World War were civilians, and in the Second World War about 70 per cent of those killed were non-combatants.

In today's armed conflicts, clashes between different countries, without detracting from their enormous negative significance, are not a common occurrence. Fighting also takes place within disadvantaged states. Governments are opposed by various paramilitary groups of rebels, militants and separatists. And all of them pursue a variety of goals.

Back in 2001, after the large-scale terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, the United States declared war on international terrorism, but even today, 22 years later, there is no end in sight, and more and more forces are being drawn into it.

For example, the wave of protests, unrest and violence in Iraq continues unabated.  Today, Iraq is sliding further and further into the abyss of instability and strife. And the reasons should be sought not only on the basis of the current realities of Iraq... After the occupation of this country and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime in 2003, the troops of the United States and its allies were hit by militant attacks.... Many US experts, and, above all, the members of the special commission that presented President George W. Bush with 79 recommendations for resolving the situation in Mesopotamia, insisted on the withdrawal of US troops from the region. However, at the request of the generals and in accordance with his intentions to win at all costs, the White House master decided to increase the number of the contingent. The results, alas, are now known to everyone!...

For 20 years, Sudan has seen a violent struggle between the Muslim north and the Christian south seeking autonomy. The first clashes between the Sudan People's Liberation Army and the Justice and Equality Movement took place in 1983. In 2003, the confrontation took the form of a ruthless war in Darfur. The consequences of the conflict still reverberate to this day; the country has split into two parts.

Conflicts for what?

3. Let us try to understand the causes of wars and conflicts on different scales.

If before the 20th century, the fight for territories rich in minerals was led primarily by states, now the fight is joined by numerous PMCs - private military companies like Wagner, irregular armies of separatists and just bandits.

Renowned analyst Michael Clare, author of the book "Resource Wars" is convinced that the world has entered the era of resource wars, and from year to year these wars will become more frequent and fierce. The reason is the growing needs of mankind and shrinking reserves of natural resources. And, according to Clare, the most likely wars will be fought for control over fresh water reserves.

Throughout human history, nations have fought each other over territories rich in mineral resources. The bloody war between Iraq and Iran was started because of Iraq's claims to a number of Iranian territories rich in oil. As the great W. Churchill said: "All wars of the XX century will be fought over oil". For the same reason Iraq in 1990 occupied Kuwait, which Baghdad considered a part of Iraqi territory. America's seizure of Iraq in 2003 was also caused by the struggle for hydrocarbons.

Today, about 50 out of 200 countries in the world claim territories from their neighbours. Quite often these claims do not become the subject of diplomatic disputes, because it is too dangerous to make these claims an integral part of bilateral relations. However, some politicians are in favour of resolving such problems as soon as possible. According to American researcher Daniel Pipes, there are 20 such disputes in Africa (for example, Libya disputes with Chad and Niger, Cameroon with Nigeria, Ethiopia with Somalia, etc.), 19 in Europe, 12 in the Middle East, and 8 in Latin America. China is a peculiar leader in the number of claims - it claims more than 50 areas of land about which its neighbours have a different opinion.

The "resource" component, i.e. the factor of the presence of significant mineral reserves on the disputed territory or on the part of the ocean belonging to it, usually complicates the settlement of interstate disputes. Examples of such conflicts are the situation around the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands, claimed by Great Britain and Argentina (large oil deposits have been discovered in the Falkland area), the islands in Corisco Bay, claimed by Equatorial Guinea and Gabon (oil has also been found there), the Abu Musa and Taib (otherwise known as Big and Little Tunb) islands in the Strait of Hormuz (Iran and the United Arab Emirates, oil), the Spratly archipelago (disputed between China, Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia, the Philippines and Brunei). This area is rich in high quality oil, competing countries have opened hostilities several times), etc.

The most peaceful dispute is over the Antarctic territories (which also contain significant reserves of various minerals), claimed by Australia, France, Norway, New Zealand, Argentina, Chile and the United Kingdom, with the latter three countries disputing a number of territories on the ice continent from each other. A number of the world's nations do not recognise these claims in principle, but others reserve the right to make similar claims.

Since all the claimants for a piece of the Antarctic pie are parties to the Antarctic Treaty signed in 1959, which recognises the Sixth Continent as a weapons-free zone of peace and international cooperation, it is practically impossible for these disputes to move to the military stage. However, in the 1970s and 1980s, the military dictatorships of Chile and Argentina defiantly declared the Antarctic islands as territories of their countries, which provoked protests of the international community. Global warming and, as a consequence, the melting of the ice cover of Antarctica, which is very rich in natural resources, once again draws the greedy eyes of some politicians to this continent.

However, in the modern world, the bloodiest wars are not between two states, but between the inhabitants of one country. The vast majority of modern armed conflicts are not between states, but were or are ethnic, religious, class, etc. (Rwanda, Congo, Nigeria, Kampuchea, Myanmar, etc.). (Rwanda, Congo, Nigeria, Kampuchea, Myanmar, etc.). According to former financier and now researcher Ted Fishman, with very few exceptions, these wars were primarily wars for money. In his opinion, wars started where competing clans began to fight for control over oil, gas, gold, diamonds, etc.

In the United States, at least 30 scientific papers have been published in the last 10 years to find a link between the country's natural resources and the risk of war. Most researchers agree that the exact relationship has not yet been determined. It is generally accepted only that mineral resources become an excellent "fuel" for conflict. The reasons for this are quite prosaic: a rebel group that has no stable sources of funding (apart from minerals, this may include income from the sale of drugs, weapons, racketeering, etc.) is unable to arm a significant number of its supporters, much less wage a systematic and long-term military campaign. It is also important that the war is fought for control over resources that are not only easy to sell, but also easy to extract. As a result, the main goal of many such groups is not to overthrow the central government or to gain civil rights that their social, ethnic, religious, etc. group has been deprived of, but to establish and maintain control over resources.

Several attempts have been made to identify the "risk factors" that favour the outbreak of such a war. Economists Paul Koller and Anke Heffler found that countries with one or two major resources used as their main exports (e.g., oil or cocoa) are five times more likely than diversified economies to experience conflict or civil war. The most dangerous level is 26 per cent - meaning the share of a state's gross domestic product derived from the export of a single commodity.

Public administration, political regime

The less developed a country's economy is and the less diversified it is, the more likely it is to experience conflict or civil war. James Fearon and David Laitin, authors of Ethnicity, Guerrilla and Civil War, come to a similar conclusion. Ibrahim Elbadawi and Nicholas Sambanis, authors of the study "How many wars await us?" argue that the presence of a resource component does not increase the risk of war

William Renaud, a professor at Northwestern University/Northwestern University, identifies another "risk factor" as the ineffectiveness of the central government. War often begins where those in power are primarily concerned with personal enrichment. Michael Renner, the author of the study "Anatomy of Resource Wars" notes that quite often armed conflicts have arisen because of the existence of vicious schemes for generating income from the exploitation of natural resources (for example, Mobutu, the ruler of Zaire, had a personal fortune that exceeded the annual GDP of the country. Furthest from all African dictators is Ugandan dictator Idi Amin Dada, who is undoubtedly one of the top five most odious politicians in history. He styled himself King of Scotland and conqueror of Britain, he made obscene proposals to Elizabeth II and challenged the President of Tanzania to a boxing match.  His full title was: "His Excellency Field Marshal, Doctor, President for Life Idi Amin Dada, Lord of all beasts on earth and fish in the ocean". In 1975, Idi Amin declared war on the United States. He made a fiery speech about how he would wipe out Washington and other major cities of the United States, and the very next day he announced that the war was over. Uganda was declared the victor. It is still not known for sure whether Washington knew that the U.S. was at war with an African nation).

The problem is particularly acute in other parts of Africa, where ruling clans have gained control of major sources of raw materials and major enterprises through privatisation. Aggrieved clans and factions sometimes resort to armed force to redistribute property in their favour.

David Keane, a lecturer at the London School of Economics, notes that such wars are quite difficult to end. The reason is that war enriches certain groups of people - officials, military, businessmen, etc., who profit from the clandestine trade in resources, weapons and so on. If officials and soldiers receive small salaries, they seek to remedy the situation and, in fact, turn into field commanders doing business on the war.

The amount of valuable mineral resources illegally supplied to the world market by rebel and other illegal structures is impossible to determine. For example, in 1999, De Beers concluded that rough diamonds mined in conflict zones accounted for 4 per cent of global production. A year later, a UN panel of experts stated that up to 20 per cent of all rough diamonds circulating in the world were of illegal origin.

Transnational corporations, which occasionally try to capitalise on the conflict, also play a negative role. According to the Worldwatch Institute, the De Beers Corporation has bought diamonds put on the market by rebel groups, while oil companies Chevron and Elf have sponsored and trained the armed forces of several African states in an effort to secure their control over oil fields.

The issue of arms control

One of the most important issues in the sphere of strategic security is arms control and disarmament in the world. This issue has been raised since the late 19th century, and in the 20th century, after the bloody Second World War, it became even more important. In this regard, efforts have been made by the United Nations and other international organisations to control arms and disarmament in three areas: nuclear, conventional and biological weapons. Unfortunately, however, the human community still lacks a clear programme for general disarmament.

In 2022, countries around the world spent a total of more than one trillion dollars on the military, with the United States spending 850 billion. -, Russia - 78 - 85 billion dollars. This amount means allocating more than 6 per cent of the entire world's gross output to arms development and procurement. According to a report by the International Peace Research Institute in Stockholm, of the total amount of military spending in the world for 2018, about 35 per cent is attributed to the United States alone.

At present, the arms trade represents a significant part of the total world trade, more precisely about 16% of the 18 trillion dollars of world trade, that is more than 2.5 billion. The sale of arms and military equipment in the world continues to grow, so that arms and defence companies increase their production by 25%. In 2003, these enterprises received $236 billion from arms sales, with U.S. companies accounting for 63%. The United States has remained the largest arms supplier in the world since the end of the Cold War. It is followed by Russia, the United Kingdom, and France.

It is interesting to know that in 2021, the total value of arms sales in the world was $450 billion, indicating a significant increase in the production of weapons in a limited number of countries and the supply of these weapons to countries involved in armed conflicts, such as in the Middle East. For the last half century, Middle Eastern countries have been among the world's major arms buyers. Evidence suggests that there is an inextricable link between arms transfers and the outbreak of crises and subsequent armed conflicts in various parts of the world. The military actions in Ukraine over the current two years will also make significant upward adjustments to this data.

Because of the enormous profits generated by the sale of arms worldwide, some arms-producing countries have created an opportunity to increase the sales of their weapons by provoking friction and disagreements between other countries, which then escalate into political and ethnic conflicts. For example, the US military-industrial complex is a conglomerate of private defence companies, which includes very influential and powerful companies and concerns. The military conflict in Ukraine allowed them not only to significantly (according to some sources - 1.5-2 times) increase their profits, but also to significantly modernise the production of weapons of all types. This super-powerful conglomerate has a strong influence on the domestic and foreign policy of governments, for example, in the USA and Great Britain. Thus, on 22 May 2000, when the so-called fight against terrorism had not yet unleashed Bush's hands for aggression and wars, the British newspaper "The Guardian" wrote: "George Bush does not hide his main presidential task. That task is to reward all those corporations and companies that helped him get into the White House. In addition to oil corporations and large tobacco companies, military-industrial complex companies are expected to be rewarded with a total of $200 billion from the US budget. To fulfil this task, Mr Bush is looking for the image of a new enemy under the guise of national security, and he is looking for a new enemy all over the world".

After the events of September 2001, Bush, Rumsfeld and others in the Pentagon had the excuse they needed to go to war. The war against international terrorism was the pretext that helped the administration to increase the defence budget from $310.5 billion to $343 billion in 2002. This was followed by the largest defence contract in history, worth $200 billion, with Lockheed-Martin Corporation. James Morris, executive director of the UN Food Programme, believes that a small fraction of the Iraq war budget could feed all the hungry and poor people in the world and serve world peace and security. In 2004, the UN Food Programme needed three billion dollars to provide humanitarian aid to millions of people. At the same time, several hundred billion dollars had already been spent on the war in Iraq and irreparable damage had been done to the Iraqi people. Unfortunately, even today the international community, under the pretext of ensuring world security, spends huge amounts of money on the purchase of the latest weapons.

Owing to the devastating consequences of the arms build-up, namely wars, conflicts, destruction and the enormous costs involved, the world community has for many years now been unsuccessfully endeavouring to curb the arms race and achieve general disarmament. In recent years, as a result of progress in the development of new weapons, it has become increasingly difficult to make qualitative and quantitative assessments of arms production in the world. On the one hand, the increasing precision of destruction and, on the other hand, the development of new means of intercepting these weapons add to the complexity. Today, the pace of qualitative and technical development of means of warfare is constantly accelerating. Therefore, the first thing to do is to "slow down". However, all indications are that the world community has still not achieved notable success in arms control, curbing the arms race and general disarmament.

Due to the enormous profits generated by the arms trade, military industries are constantly evolving and applying the latest technologies in production. At the same time, the growing investment in the military-industrial complex, mainly by the private sector in Western countries, has increased the anxieties and fears of the entire human community. In principle, the question of the need for arms control and even disarmament in the world arose at the beginning of the 19th century. However, after two bloody world wars in the 20th and the first quarter of the 21st century and the difficult experience gained at the cost of millions of lives, humanity is obliged to take this issue more seriously.

Conclusion

In summarising the above and looking at the entire process of arms build-up in the world, it can be noted that, despite the efforts made in the framework of arms control and global disarmament, the arms race in the world is still ongoing. Among arms-producing and exporting countries, the United States still retains its undisputed leadership.   The plans and ambitions of such powers as the USA, Russia and the UK since the Cold War have shown that the world community is still very far from realising its main aspiration, i.e. arms control and, if possible, global disarmament and achieving world peace. For in recent decades, China, the US, Russia and other arms manufacturers continue to develop ever new technologies for the production of the latest weapons. This shows the failure of all peacekeeping and disarmament efforts, including the agreements and conventions already signed on the control and prohibition of particularly dangerous weapons. As long as the major military powers do not fulfil their obligations under disarmament agreements, all these conventions, without enforceable guarantees, remain just beautiful projects on paper.

Literature used:

1. "Address by the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan Shavkat Mirziyoyev at the 78th session of the United Nations General Assembly" ( 20.09.2023)/https//prezident./en/lists/view/6677
2. Tchantouridze L. Geopolitics: Global Problems and Regional Concerns. - Winnipeg, Manitoba: Centre for Defence and Security Studies, 2014. - 215 p.
3. Jumaev R.3., Ubaydullaev U.A., Khuzhanov B.N. Conflictology asoslari. - T.: Academy, 2000. - 160 б.
4. Lebedeva M.M. Political Settlement of Conflicts (textbook). - M.: Aspect-Press, 2017 - 200 c.
5. Jumaev R.3. Conflictology (Monograph). - T.: TDSU, 2018 - 300 b.
6. Zdravomyslov A.G. Sociology of Conflict (textbook). - Moscow: Aspect-Press, 1996. - 175 с.
7. Resolving deep rooted conflict (textbook). Lanham, MD: University press of America, 1987.-154p.
8. Mitchell, C.R. The Structure of International Conflict (textbook). - New York: St. Martin's Lederach, John Paul. Building peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies. UN University, Tokyo, January 1994.-97-115p.

Links to sources from the internet:

1)https://www.dissercat.com/content/mirnye-strategii-upravleniya-politicheskimi-konfliktami/read

2)https://moluch.ru/conf/law/archive/140/7200/

3)https://peacekeeping.un.org/ru/what-is-peacekeeping

4)https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/mezhdunarodnye-vooruzhennye-konflikty-i-puti-ih-uregulirovaniya-metodologicheskie-aspekty-izucheniya-problemy

5)http://fgp.msu.ru/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/bazhukov-v.i.-arpd_mezhdunarodnye-konflikty_bak.pdf

[1] "Address by the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan Shavkat Mirziyoyev at the 78th session of the United Nations General Assembly" (20.09.2023)/https//prezident./en/lists/view/6677