A Georgian military truck drives in the region of South Ossetia. (Credit: Special Report bortnikau/Bigstockphoto.com) Hybrid challenges to integration processes Copyright © 2019 by Dialogue of Civilizations Research Institute The right of Gagik Harutyunyan, Ashot Tavadyan, Aghasi Tavadyan to be identified as the authors of this publication is hereby asserted. The views and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the original author(s) and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views and opinions of the Dialogue of Civilizations Research Institute, its co-founders, or its staff members. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law. For permission requests, please write to the publisher: Dialogue of Civilizations Research Institute gGmbH Französische Straße 23 10117 Berlin Germany +49 30 209677900 [email protected] Dialogue of Civilizations Research Institute 1 Hybrid challenges to integration processes Gagik Harutyunyan, Ashot Tavadyan, and Aghasi Tavadyan Abstract There are both supporters and opponents to processes of rapprochement between countries and peoples. Hence, the success of integration in many ways depends on the given society’s ability to adequately perceive the challenges posed by the opponents and the skills required to counter those challenges. In the current multi-polar epoch, the challenges to integration processes are complex in content and have become important elements of hybrid confrontation. Therefore, there appears to be an urgent need to study integration processes in the context of hybrid challenges. This study attempts to briefly present the trends of integration and disintegration processes in the Eurasian continent in three interrelated areas: military-political, economic, and humanitarian-informational. Such a multidisciplinary approach allows us to assess the integration developments in a more comprehensive and wide manner. It has to be noted that the humanitarian-informational factor does not always receive due attention from scholars and, therefore, this study reviews in somewhat more detail the methods and tools of information warfare, which often are a key element in hybrid operations aimed at the destruction of integration associations. At the same time, although there are many valuable studies of hybrid wars, many aspects of this complex phenomenon still contain uncertainties that make it difficult to objectively assess their impact on the integration processes. Thus, this study attempts to make sense of the concepts of ‘peace’ and ‘war’ in hybrid realities in the context of permanent hybrid confrontations. 2 Dialogue of Civilizations Research Institute 1. Integration vectors ‘Integration’, ‘empires’, and ‘colonies’ The Latin word integratio may have two meanings: integrum – whole, complete; and integratio – restoring, renewal. Both concepts are positive and in harmony with each other. The integration processes were the basis for shaping ethnicities and countries, and the concept of integration also contains the notion of complementing each other in practically all areas of human activities between countries, ethnicities, and societies. In certain cases, the shaping of empires with civilisational content may also be considered integration. Media often present these in exclusively grim tones and characterise them as evil exploiters of conquered countries and peoples. However, sometimes empires became locomotives of integration and development. Unsurprisingly, some scholars consider that processes in certain aspects similar to modern globalisation and integration had already started in the epoch of Alexander the Great. As far as the negative epithets for empires are concerned, it has to be noted that, unfortunately, so far no country has developed an ideal governance system, and this objective circumstance has prompted philosophers to introduce the concept of a “utopian country”. In the light of the aforementioned considerations, it is hard to agree with recent ideas stating that trends toward inter-country integration processes appeared only in contemporary history. There are even such statements as “just half a century ago integration projects looked like some risky, if not adventurist political experiments”.1 Without starting a polemic on this topic, our further narrative will be based on the strict definition of the term “integration” formulated by Gonidec and Charvin (1984, p. 435): “Integration is both a process and a state that has a tendency to replace the fragmented international relations, 1Интеграционные процессы в современном мире: новые тенденции и вызовы https://www.webeconomy.ru/index.php?page=cat&cat=mcat&mcat=133&type=news&newsid=1646, Интеграционные процессы в современном мире, https://studbooks.net/2211248/ekonomika/integratsionnye_protsessy_sovremennom_mire Dialogue of Civilizations Research Institute 3 composed of independent units with new, more or less wide associations, endowed with a minimum of decision-making powers, or in one or more specific areas, or in all the areas that fall within the competence basic units”. Returning to the current epoch, we will attempt to review the patterns of integration processes in Greater Eurasia, which had always been an epicentre of global developments and where over 5 billion people live in 99 countries (of which 50 are in Europe). After World War I, the successor of the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union (USSR), became an example of a large, multiethnic and maximally integrated state in Greater Eurasia. At its peak, the integration capabilities of the USSR stretched from East Berlin to Beijing. After losing the Cold War, the USSR was replaced by its minimised and liberalised successor, the Russian Federation. In the second half of the 20th century, the European Union became an example of a large-scale integration megaproject, which in some sense can be called a liberal-democratic and pacifist version of the USSR. The upsides of integration can be shown even through the example of the USSR, which is often called an empire in its exclusive negative sense (often quite justifiably). For example, the core of the empire, the Russian Soviet Federal Republic, produced a lot more than it consumed, and part of these revenues were provided to other republics of the Union – “the exploited colonies” (Sulakshin and Baghdasaryan, 2018). Consequently, many of these republics developed scientific, technological, cultural, and educational infrastructures, while the living standards of their populations were higher than those of the “imperial nation”.2 This tradition continues in modern Russia. For example, the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) has a population of just 1 million, yet runs eight theatres, two large museums and 11 higher education institutions. These institutions publish monographs and journals, some 2 Currently, the GDP of some ex-Soviet republics has still not reached the levels of the 1980s. 4 Dialogue of Civilizations Research Institute of which are quite renowned (e.g., Mathematic Notes).3 Thus, the relationship between “empires” and their “colonies” largely depend on the civilisational code and traditions of the “colonisers”. In this context it is appropriate to recall that the native Indian populace of the United States (about 5 million) live in reservations and possess practically no economic and cultural resources. Due to various objective and non-objective circumstances, the integration processes often are affected by both external and internal forces. The effectiveness of unifying efforts to solve whatever issues largely depends on the strength proportions of integration and disintegration processes. It has to be also noted that today virtually the whole arsenal of the so-called hybrid confrontations is used to promote disintegration trends, which will be discussed later. Hybrid technologies are quite effective, which creates a pressing need to study the mechanisms of disintegration challenges in a more detailed manner, which in turn implies adequate understanding of the environment where both integration and disintegration processes occur. Interdisciplinary methods are required to investigate this combination of issues, which will be attempted below. The ‘triad’ of integration and disintegration vectors In practice, as well as sometimes in the scholarly literature, the effectiveness of economic and military-political cooperation is considered the main indicator for the characteristics of integration processes. However, these dimensions of cooperation, although extremely important and quantitatively measurable, do not fully reflect the purpose and essence of an integration process. Unfortunately, when studying the phenomenon of integration, the analyst community often ignores the humanitarian component, the significance of which in certain conditions may even prevail over pragmatic factors. At the same time, all the 3 Арутюнян, Г., «Колонии», «империи», цивилизации и безопасность. Доклад на конференции «Четыре года участия Армении в ЕАЭС: реалии и перспективы Евразийской интеграции», Ереван, 22.12.2018 г. http://www.noravank.am/rus/articles/detail.php?ELEMENT_ID=17851&sphrase_id=71919. Dialogue of Civilizations Research Institute 5 mentioned components are closely