Volume 10, Number 1, 1979 L’analyse comparative des conflits Guest-edited by Albert Legault, Janice Stein, John Sigler and Blema Steinberg

EN:

When on July 16^th war broke out between Honduras and El Salvador, their comparative strengths were such that El Salvador quickly assumed the upper hand. Its troops routed the adversary and occupied large sections of Honduran territory. The advantage gained by El Salvador from its victory was of short duration however. The intervention of the OAS forced an end to the hostilities and obtained from El Salvador the evacuation of the conquered geographical space. This war nevertheless constituted only a moment of a conflict that has already lasted a very long time. Migratory questions are at the heart of the outstanding differences between the two countries. El Salvador refused to accept that its national domiciled in Honduras should have heir possessions seized and be returned to their country of origin while Honduras, alarmed and fearing the consequences of a clandestine occupation of its territory, intended to put an end to that situation. The two adversaries' determination was such that negotiations and bargaining were powerless to bring their positions closer together. Confronted with this impasse, the Honduran authorities decided to proceed unilaterally and war ensued. The calculation was not unfounded since El Salvador did not succeed in gaining the fruits of its victory. Its objectives — protection of human resources and systemic relations — were far from achieved. It was therefore Honduras that appeared to be in a better position. The expulsion and dispossession of Salvadoran nationals continued after the cessation of hostilities. The hoped for restructuration of systemic relations between the two countries is progressing despite the threats and protests of the Salvadoran government.

EN:

The Sino-Soviet conflict of 1969 constitutes part of an historical conflictual continuity between China and the Soviet Union. Three distinct phases have been delimited in this conflict. The approach employed makes it possible to give proper emphasis to the most critical period, that in which the greatest incompatibility in the stated objectives of the two parties occurred. Clearly, the apprehensions of the two States were formulated in terms of perception which enables due consideration of the systemic stakes of the crisis, the territorial aspect of which remained marginal. The density and the types of interaction identified throughout the conflict show the conflict's evolution with precision. As a complement to the application of the comparative analysis of conflict model, the search for domestic factors that could have been determinants of the origins of the border incidents enables a fuller understanding of this crisis.

EN:

The Berlin Wall was but an episode in what is referred to as the Berlin Crisis of 1961. The latter's context included two other conflicts : a domestic power struggle within the Soviet Union and a race for strategic superiority between the superpowers. The methodology employed makes it possible to show that the Berlin Crisis constituted a hiatus within the much larger conflict of the Cold War. It also reveals that the frequency with which objectives were formulated constitutes a very important « indicator » « reference point » or « signpost » within the crisis process. These findings would tend to demonstrate that the stimulus-response model, nothwithstanding its importance, should be completed by a much more methodical examination of the evolution of the objectives pursued by a State in the conduct of its foreign relations.

EN:

The « War of Attrition » constituted one of the crises of the ongoing Arab-Israeli confrontation. From March 8^th 1969 Arab revendications for restoration by Israel of the territories lost in 1967 took, under Egyptian direction and the urging of the Palestinian movement, the form of a limited armed conflict. We postulate that the evolution of this crisis depended not only on the capabilities of the belligerents nor on the intervention of the superpowers but also on the objectives of the principal actors. Analysis of these objectives confirms the radical nature of the hostility between Egypt and Israel and the both defensive and restitutory aspect of each country's goals. It emphasizes above all that the object of the crisis was basically the occupied territories dispute and that the cease-fire has left a legacy of heightened disaffection in comparison with the period preceding the crisis. Examination of the behavioral data enables the delimitation of not only the dyadic and polarized configuration of the confrontation but also the latter's context. The search for a purely interactional determination of behaviour leads one to put forward prudently that an increase in lsraeli coercion is related to deescalation while an aggravation of Egyptian belligerence produces the opposite effect. The latter being often preceded in Cairo by the articulation of negative objectives, one could conclude, provisionally, that the « War of Attrition » evolved according to a multivariate open model in which the objectives of Cairo determined the conduct of Israel subject to the intervening Egyptian behavioural variable.