Abstract

This work aims to answer how Human Needs Theory can be applied to the conflict in Chechnya. In its first part, the paper will be looking at Human Needs Theory and some of its theorists, and then move on to consider the usefulness and the criticisms of Human Needs Theory. In the second part, the conflict in Chechnya will be presented briefly and some of the main issues of the conflict outlined. Human Needs Theory will then be applied to the conflict, to see whether it may prove useful in moving towards resolution. It will also consider issues of perception, enemy images and lack of trust when outlining how to move towards resolution. The paper will finally conclude with how Human Needs Theory could effectively give new insights into finding strategies which may work for both parties.

Keywords: Human Needs Theory, conflict resolution, violence, Chechnya.

Author: Havva KÖK[1]

First published in Review of International Law and Politics (RILP), Vol. 3, No. 11, 2007, pp. 89-108. To subscribe please call 0090 312 212 28 86, or fax: 0090 312 212 25 84.  All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION

“[H]uman needs are a powerful source of explanation of human behaviour and social interaction. All individuals have needs that they strive to satisfy, either by using the system [,] ‘acting on the fringes [,]’ or acting as a reformist or revolutionary. Given this condition, social systems must be responsive to individual needs, or be subject to instability and forced change (possibly through violence or conflict).”[2]

The Seville Statement on Violence, written by twenty leading scientists from around the world, in Seville, Spain, on 16 May 1986, concluded clearly that ‘violence was not human nature.’[3] It convincingly argued that violence was not genetic, and was simply a social construct, an invention.[4] Unfortunately, it has not been given much attention. One reason may be that it would be more difficult to justify the need for war if it is proven that no one is violent by birth, that there is no ‘evil’, no natural aggression, still, there is violence. More than 100.000 people are believed to have lost their lives, and some 350,000 Chechens have become refugees in the war which has been going on since 1994. (There are conflicting reports about the number of victims the conflict produced.)

Now, in determining the source of conflicts there is a basic question we cannot afford to ignore. Are conflicts -at all social levels-due to inherent human aggressiveness? Or are conflicts due to the emergence of inappropriate social institutions and norms? If violence is a learnt behaviour, why do we behave violently? And how can such violent behaviour successfully be deterred, prevented?

Within international relations and peace studies, conflict resolution approaches look at these questions. Through conflict resolution, one considers the sources of conflict in order to address the roots of the problem, thereby avoiding or preventing violence. One theory which looks at the roots of conflict is Human Needs Theory. Implied in Human Needs Theory, therefore, is the proposition that aggressions and conflicts are the direct result of some institutions and social norms being incompatible with inherent human needs. The needs that are frustrated by institutions and norms require satisfaction.

The Human Needs Theory has evolved only in the last few decades, and largely as a reaction against these limited separate discipline explanations of social problems. Often ignored and neglected by peace researchers, Human Needs Theory may offer valuable insights into the sources of conflict, and thus possible resolutions. This paper will look at how Human Needs Theory can be applied to a current conflict, the one being fought between the Russian and the autonomous Chechen Republic. In its first part, the paper will be looking at Human Needs Theory and some of its theorists, and then move on to consider the usefulness and the criticisms of Human Needs Theory. In the second part, the conflict in Chechnya will be presented briefly and some of the main issues of the conflict outlined. Human Needs Theory will then be applied to the conflict, to see whether it may prove useful in moving towards resolution. Also considering issues of perception, enemy images and lack of trust when outlining how to move towards resolution, the paper will finally conclude, observing that Human Needs Theory could effectively give new insights into finding strategies which may work for both parties.

HUMAN NEEDS THEORY

Human needs theorists argue that one of the primary causes of protracted or intractable conflict is people’s unyielding drive to meet their unmet needs on the individual, group, and societal level. For example, the Palestinian conflict involves the unmet needs of identity and security. Countless Palestinians feel that their legitimate identity is being denied them, both personally and nationally. Numerous Israelis feel they have no security individually because of suicide bombings, nationally because their state is not recognized by many of their close neighbors, and culturally because anti-Semitism is growing worldwide. Israeli and Palestinian unmet needs directly and deeply affect all the other issues associated with this conflict. Consequently, if a resolution is to be found, the needs of Palestinian identity and Israeli security must be addressed and satisfied on all levels.[5]

Thus, Human Needs Theory offers insights into a range of peace building processes that are involved in “the reduction of both direct and structural violence.”[6] According to this theory, in order to live and attain well-being, humans need certain essentials. These are called human needs or basic human needs. Human needs theorists argue that conflicts and violent conflicts are caused by unmet human needs. Violence occurs when certain individuals or groups do not see any other way to meet their need, or when they need understanding, respect and consideration for their needs. Rosenberg states that violence is a tragic expression of unmet human needs, implying that all actions undertaken by human beings are attempts to satisfy their needs. If we are able to connect with our needs and those of others, we will therefore be able to look at other ways of meeting such needs, avoiding violence and destruction.[7]

Often, human needs or basic human needs are confused with subsistence needs. However, such a view of human needs may limit our understanding of the human being to simply exist as a biological creature. Although there are conflicts over subsistence, most conflicts have to do with other unmet human needs, such as protection, identity, recognition, participation and understanding. Only by giving more importance to these latter needs, truly recognising them as human needs essential to the wellbeing of all human being, will we be able to address current and intractable conflicts. Our confused view of human needs as subsistence needs only is also in part due to the alienation of “needs” we have created in our society. Needs are often associated with weakness, and someone who needs is considered weak and fragile. This also further impedes the inclusion of needs approaches in conflict transformation and peace processes.

Various researchers have applied human needs theory. Here, the proposals of Abraham Maslow, John Burton, Marshall Rosenberg and Manfred Max-Neef will briefly be explored. In his Pyramid of Human Needs, Abraham Maslow puts emphasis on the hierarchy of needs, stating that some are more urgent than others. He says although all needs are instinctive, some are more powerful than others. The lower the need is in the pyramid, the more powerful it is. The higher the need is in the pyramid, the weaker and more distinctly human it is. The lower, or basic, needs on the pyramid are similar to those possessed by non-human animals, but only humans possess the higher needs. On the base of the pyramid he places food, water, and shelter. On a second level, he places the need for safety and security, followed by belonging or love. The need for self-esteem is found on a fourth level and finally on a fifth and final level, personal fulfilment.[8] Maslow argues that human needs are arranged in a hierarchy in terms of their potency and each human being is trying to meet needs on a certain level at any one time. An individual looking to meet needs for food and water will not be looking to meet needs of belonging, love or self-esteem. Only when the needs on the lower end of the Pyramid are met, will humans look to meet their need for personal fulfillment.[9]

John Burton, since the publication of his book, Deviance, Terrorism and War: The Process of Solving Unsolved Social and Political Problems[10], has been closely identified with the theory of basic human needs. Burton did not invent the theory, which posits the existence of certain universal needs that must be satisfied if people are to prevent or resolve destructive conflicts, but he gave it its most impassioned and uncompromising expression. He has been applying human needs theory more actively to current social and political conflicts. In his work on protracted, social conflicts, he looks at how universal human needs often are neglected, leading groups to use violence to claim their rights and satisfying their needs. In what is really a compatibility of human needs, Burton argues that education and culture make parties manipulate the issues and dehumanizing the other parties.[11] In Burton's view, the needs most salient to an understanding of destructive social conflicts were those for identity, recognition, security, and personal development. Over time, however, he tended to emphasize the failure of existing state systems to satisfy the need for identity as the primary source of modern ethno-nationalist struggles. The great promise of human needs theory, in Burton's view, was that it would provide a relatively objective basis, transcending local political and cultural differences, for understanding the sources of conflict, designing conflict resolution processes, and founding conflict analysis and resolution as an autonomous discipline.[12]

In Marshall Rosenberg’s approach, human needs are universal and meeting them is essential to human survival and well-being. Rosenberg groups the needs in sub-groups, and is open to the existence of needs beyond what he has defined. He states that our education and culture often alienate us from connecting with our real needs, and through Nonviolent Communication, he proposes a model for connecting with our own and others’ needs, an approach he applies in all levels of society and which he has used in mediation in several countries.[13]

The Chilean economist Manfred Max-Neef also proposes nine universal human needs, through which he argues that we can achieve human development and peaceful societies. Max-Neef defines his main proposal, Human Scale Development, as "focused and based on the satisfaction of fundamental human needs, on the generation of growing levels of self-reliance, and on the construction of organic articulations of people with nature and technology, of global processes with local activity, of the personal with the social, of planning with autonomy, and of civil society with the state."[14] Like Burton and Rosenberg, Max-Neef agrees that no need is superior to other, and that they are all complementary and essential to human life.

The main contribution that Max-Neef makes to the understanding of needs is the distinction made between needs and satisfiers. Human needs are seen as few, finite and classifiable (as distinct from the conventional notion that "wants" are infinite and insatiable). Not only this, they are constant through all human cultures and across historical time periods. What changes over time and between cultures is the way these needs are satisfied.[15]

In Table 1, needs as defined by Maslow, Burton, Rosenberg and Max-Neef have been presented. Please note that there is no relationship between needs in each row. They are merely listed according to the theorist who refers to them. Only Maslow ranks them by importance. The other theorists’ lists of needs are random.

Table 1: Human Needs, as presented by various theorists

Needs vs. Strategies or Satisfiers

Rosenberg and Max-Neef both mention the importance of distinguishing between needs and strategies or satisfiers. In mediation, strategies and satisfiers are referred to as positions. While needs are universal and non-negotiable, strategies/satisfiers are cultural, contextual, specific and negotiable. They also point out that needs are always compatible, while strategies or satisfiers may not be. This concept is key to the human needs approach, as it implies that all conflicts are resolvable when we focus on human needs.[20] What seemed to be an irresolvable conflict between Egypt and Israel in the 1960s, was indeed resolvable when needs were taken into account. While both states wanted the Sinai Peninsula (their strategies/satisfiers/positions were incompatible), their underlying needs were compatible. While Egypt’s need was integrity and identity (due to Sinai’s historical importance), Israel needed protection and security. Clarifying their needs through the Camp David negotiations, new compatible strategies were discovered. Egypt kept the Sinai Peninsula and Israel was allowed to place troops there. In a conflict, it is essential to become clear on all unmet needs, and find strategies which will meet both or all parties’ needs.

Max-Neef also mentions that some satisfiers, while satisfying one need, may well hinder or impede another need from being met. These are then inhibiting satisfiers. Other satisfiers can satisfy several needs, or needs of several persons, at the same time, and are considered synergic satisfiers. He also refers to pseudo-satisfiers, violators and destroyers.[21] Without going into detail in this paper, it clearly remains important to clearly identify needs to find synergic satisfiers which can meet several needs at the same time.

The Role of Perception

Human perception also plays an essential role in conflict resolution. Culture, education and societal influences shape our minds and our perceptions. Enemy images are created, convincing groups and individuals that certain needs can only be met by certain strategies and that other groups are intrinsic obstacles to their needs being met. While a certain ethnic group’s needs for identity, autonomy, protection and equality may be met through a range of strategies, lack of trust and enemy images of the “other” may convince the group that the only acceptable or possible solution is a separate state. Building trust, deconstructing enemy images and fostering cooperation are therefore key elements in human needs-based conflict resolution.

Usefulness the Human Needs Theory

Much can be said to the usefulness of Human Needs Theory in working with violent conflict. Firstly, it has wide applicability. While some see it merely as a tool to be applied in prevention or post-conflict peace-building, practitioners like Marshall Rosenberg also use Human Needs Theory in mediation in violent conflicts. It has also been useful in reconciliation efforts, and Nonviolent Communication (NVC) is being used currently in restorative justice structures in countries like Brazil and the US. Equally, it can be applied in all levels of society, for intra- and interpersonal conflict, inter-group conflict and in an international setting. Secondly, it focuses on the source of conflict, looking at how best the parties can have their needs met, and those of others. Finding strategies to meet underlying needs, we may be able to reduce the use of expensive peacekeeping, peace enforcement and creating of buffer zones. Thirdly, Human Needs Theory emphasises common humanity. In a world context where differences are accentuated, Human Needs Theory attempts to unify human beings from different regions and cultures, creating a common understanding of who we are and how others need and feel the same way we do. Sandra Marker also notes a fourth advantage, in that Human Needs Theory points out that human needs are non-negotiable.[22]

“Needs, unlike interests, cannot be traded, suppressed, or bargained for. Thus, the human needs approach makes a case for turning away from traditional negotiation models that do not take into account nonnegotiable issues. These include interest-based negotiation models that view conflict in terms of win-win or other consensus-based solutions, and conventional power models (primarily used in the field of negotiation and international relations) that construct conflict and conflict management in terms of factual and zero-sum game perspectives.”[23]

Human Needs Theory is, in sum, widely applicable, may provide sustainable solutions as it focuses on the source of the conflict, it promotes understanding from a base of our common humanity and it highlights the distinction between negotiable and non-negotiable issues in a conflict.

Some Criticisms of Human Needs Theory

Many questions surround the human needs approach to solving conflicts. Firstly, how do we really define human needs? Table 1 shows several discrepancies between the various theorists, even between Burton, Rosenberg and Max-Neef, who agree that all needs are universal, non-hierarchical and complementary. If a human need is simply what we perceive it to be, it will be hard to truly address human needs in a conflict situation. Secondly, should we prioritise certain needs over others? Is Maslow right in asserting that needs for food and shelter should be met before considering needs for self-esteem and self-fulfilment? Or is protection, rest and play equally important to secure human well-being? Thirdly, there seems to be an exaggerated belief in the importance of dialogue. How can warring parties sit down and talk things through, identifying their needs? And even if it is so, that Human Needs Theory cannot be applied in violent situations, and how useful will it be in conflict management today? Finally, assuming we identify needs for conflicting parties. Is there any assurance that these needs are the most important ones? Who will decide? And how will we know whether the identified needs and the strategies to be applied, are the most accurate ones?

Surely, more study needs to be carried out on the validity, applicability and usefulness of Human Needs Theory in today’s violent conflicts. Nevertheless, by attempting to apply Human Needs Theory to real cases, and knowing that mediators often and successfully apply the concepts of “positions and interest” similarly to “strategies and needs” in Human Needs Theory, there is some value to its application. Before applying Human Needs Theory to the conflict in Chechnya, let us now move on to looking at the conflict in question. A complex and intractable conflict which has been going on for more than a decade, or even centuries, according to some, this paper can in no way offer a comprehensive understanding of the many issues, actors, variables and factors in the conflict. It will therefore look at main issues in the conflict between Russian Federation and the Chechens since the uprising of the latter in 1996, setting a time period for the study.

THE CONFLICT IN CHECHNYA

When Chechnya declared independence in 1991, the self-proclaimed President, Dzhokhar Dudayev, rejected a federation treaty with Russia.[24] As a result, Moscow supported Dudayev’s opponents. The first conflict began in December 1994 when 35,000 heavily armed Russian troops re-entered the republic. Fierce fighting broke out as Russian units attempted to seize the capital Grozny in the face of stiff resistance from the less numerous and lightly armed Chechen rebels. After a few months around 80% of the Chechen regions were under their control, including the capital Grozny. This resulted in a guerrilla war. Dudayev’s was killed in April 1996 by a Russian missile. Aslan Maskhadov, the new head of the transitional government, concluded a further ceasefire. As a consequence the Russian troops did actually withdraw and Maskhadov, who had in the meantime been elected head of state - a semi-independent but still nominally Russian republic-, signed a peace treaty in May 1997.[25] However, this did not sufficiently clarify Chechen’s political status. The situation remained unstable. Numerous incidents of hostage taking and murders continued by Chechens. Not even the state of emergency could ease the situation. Russian units invaded again in the summer of 1999. President Maskhadov went underground and joined the rebels. In March 2005 he was killed by the Russian army in a ‘special operation’. of terrorism, concentrated mainly in Moscow and other Russian towns. [26] Moscow regards the war officially an anti-terror campaign. A decree was issued, putting the republic of Chechnya under the direct rule of the Kremlin. The Russian policy, however, has not yet led to a solution.

Issues in the Chechen Conflict

So, what are the issues of the conflict? Is this an ethnic conflict? Does it have religious grounding? Often, the cause of all armed or violent conflicts appears to stem from demands by various communities living within states for the recognition of their own specific identities – ethnic, linguistic or religious. The conflict therefore is a divergence in opinion on how the state should be run, or how power should be distributed within the state.

Russia’s Arguments against Chechen Secession

From Russia’s point of view Chechnya’s secession is objectionable on two grounds: the fear of a precedent or the so-called domino effect and Russia’s security interests. According to the domino effect argument Chechnya’s breakaway would cause a chain reaction among other Russian ethno-national republics and lead to the eventual disintegration of the Russian Federation. It is based on the experience of the breakdown of the Soviet Union, which resulted in the emergence of the fifteen independent states. Advocates of this logic present the war against Chechnya’s separatists as a kind of “pre-emptive strike” against the potential collapse of the Russian Federation - that is, forestalling the second act of the crash of the USSR. As for the security issue, Moscow has repeatedly argued that Russia’s problem with Chechnya is not in the issue of Chechen secession but in security threats that such secession might pose. In his book of interviews, answering a direct question whether Chechnya’s secession was possible in principle, President Putin stated, “it is possible, but the issue is not secession”.[27] According to Putin “Chechnya will not stop with its own independence. It will be used as a staging ground for a further attack on Russia”. Putin presumes that the purpose of such attacks will be “to grab more territory”[28] On 18 June 2001 President Putin repeated Russia’s security interests in Chechnya at a press conference in the Kremlin. Albeit offering his usual justifications for the Russian military campaign and noting his own preference for a Russian dominated Chechnya, Putin reemphasized that “today the question of Chechnya’s dependence on, or independence from, Russia is of absolutely no fundamental importance”. Putin argued, “What is of fundamental importance to us is just one issue. We will not allow this territory to be used any longer as a bridgehead for an attack on Russia”.[29]

What do Chechens want?

Ilyas Akhmadov, the Chechen Foreign Minister, states “conditional recognition of a government or a state is the principle of making recognition of the entity in question (…). A proper application of this principle via the mechanism of an international administration can resolve the Russian-Chechen conflict in a positive sum game approach.”

He continues: “A state of their own is what Chechens have fought for over the last three centuries. An independent Chechnya can be made fully compatible with Russia’s genuine security interests. The formula (…), which makes Chechnya’s independence conditional on democratisation via a transitional period of several years of an international administration, clearly provides a path to achieve this end. Since incentives determine behaviour, the prospect of de jure recognition of Chechnya will be a strong motivation for the country to undergo decisive democratisation and demilitarisation.”[30]

Chechen Foreign Minister offers three strategies for the implementation of his offer:[31]

1)      Give full and genuine consideration to the notion of conditional independence and the need for an international transitional administration for Chechnya

2)      Establish the prompt and peaceful resolution Russia-Chechen conflict as a top priority in bilateral and multilateral relations with the Russian Federation; and

3)      Initiate, through the United Nations, a tripartite framework for implementing a cease-fire and resuming political negotiations.

HUMAN NEEDS THEORY APPLIED TO THE CONFLICT IN CHECHNYA  

When applying the Human Needs Theory (HNT) to the conflict in Chechnya, it may be useful to look at one party at the time, trying to identify what their needs are behind their positions or desired strategies. The Chechen government claims for an ‘independent state for Chechens’.[32] It also expects an application of this principle via the mechanism of an international administration[33] Thirdly, Chechens, claiming that there has been a continuous neglect of the frustrations of the Chechen people by all Russian governments since the outbreak of the war, demand recognition of their equal rights. These three issues– a separate, independent state, an international administration, and recognition of their equal rights – are all issues that the Chechen government pushing for or implementing. These are mostly strategies, and through applying HNT, the underlying needs in each issue may be the following, as seen in Table 2.

Table 2: Identifying possible needs of the Chechen government

As Rosenberg points out, needs have to be verified with the party. This paper can only guess what needs may be underlying in a conflict like this. By verifying the needs, the party will also become more conscious of their needs, discarding some while emphasizing others. Verification is therefore key, and is done through processes like mediation. In the case of Chechnya, we may easily understand the logic behind the argument for a separate Chechen state.

Such a strategy can meet many needs, and it may be difficult to find another strategy which can meet the same needs in an efficient and effective way. This also shows that strategies which meet many needs are more difficult to negotiate than strategies that meet one or two needs. It would be easier to find ways to provide support and subsistence to the Chechen people replacing, for example, tax collection, than finding other ways to provide safety, consideration, respect and autonomy.

When looking at the Russian government’s strategies, President Putin has said that they insist on a solution that is the renunciation of the demand for a separate state the renunciation of violence.[34] Applying the above-mentioned positions to the HNT, it may look like outlined in Table 3.

Table 3: Identifying possible needs of the Russian Government

Identifying possible needs behind the desired strategies on behalf of the Russian government enables further exploration of options and new strategies. Before looking at possible perspectives for resolution, let us also look at other decisive factors in this conflict.

Enemy Images and Lack of Trust in Chechnya

Chechen Foreign Minister Ilyas Akhmadov spoke of how people throughout centuries have fought against each other “for Russia’s domination” or “for Russia’s purpose of domination”[35] over Chechnya. This in itself is not a useful way to look at conflict. Regarding groups as having the intention to dominate, we are not looking at our own unmet needs, but rather diagnosing, stereotyping and labeling others. Since the uprising of the Chechens in 1994, there has been an increasing alienation on behalf of each party, building enemy images of the other. The “other” becomes a threat to my existence, and elimination or separation therefore seems to be the only viable solution. A protracted conflict like the one in Chechnya, having lasted for more than a decade (in fact, for three centuries), promotes enemy images and a lack of trust which makes any communication difficult. It is difficult to see how your enemy actually has an intention to meet his needs behind what he is doing. Public statements, and media coverage, further alienate the parties. President Putin’s statement is a clear example of how culture and education throughout the years have created images of the “good and the evil”:

“We are engaging one of the world’s most ruthless and anti-democratic organizations which employ violent terrorist means, in a process of dialogue and negotiations in the search for a peaceful resolution of the conflict.” [36]

His intention with such a statement is most likely satisfying a need for recognition, appreciation for his Government’s efforts in dialoguing with the Chechen guerrillas At the same time, such statements may well create even more distance to the Chechen guerrillas. Where a party meets little understanding for its needs, it becomes difficult to establish openness, trust and resolution.

Obstacles to Resolution

There are three major obstacles to resolving the conflict: the danger that Chechenizatsiya is pushing anti-Moscow forces in the direction of radical Islam; four groups in Chechnya that are fueling the conflict; and ·the apparent unwillingness of the Chechen government to entertain any settlement short of a separate state.[37] To this, I would add the difficulties presented by the reiterated enemy images portrayed by media and the parties. Many of my Russian friends assert that there is little violence and crime in communities where Russians and Chechens live together, and that there is a generally peaceful cohabitation. The idea that the enemy image merely is a construction is therefore even more likely to come true for this conflict. In fact, the Chechen threat as perceived by Russians is part of this enemy image construct.

How to Reach a Resolution Based on HNT

Key to the Human Needs Theory -model is that both or all parties’ needs are presented and acknowledged by the other parties. This process of profound understanding of the other’s needs is also called empathy,[38] and is essential to conflict resolution. Lack of trust and enemy images often dehumanize the parties’ views of each other, and being seen for the intention, for the humanity, is therefore a turning point in peace processes. Chechens seeing the Russian Federation’s fear in splitting Russia and their need for recognition, respect and safety would be an important first step. The Russian government would also need to empathize with Chechens’ need for autonomy, equality, safety and recognition for their rights. Second, both parties’ needs will have to be addressed in the strategies. Which government arrangement will satisfy Chechens’ needs for autonomy, consideration, respect and safety, while also meeting the Russian government’s need for recognition, safety and subsistence?

Any solution which seeks a ‘compromise’ that would satisfy the aspirations of all the parties is no good solution for Human Needs Theory. The reason for this is that in Human Needs Theory, there is no compromise. If compromise means “take a little, lose a little”, it will most likely not provide a long-term solution. In Human Needs Theory it is always possible to find a win-win solution, where all needs are met. It requires time, energy and creativity, but no compromise is necessary. Nevertheless, whenever there is an implied “loss”, the peace may not be as stable and sustainable as one would wish for.

CONCLUSIONS

Humans need a number of essentials to survive. According to the renowned psychologist Abraham Maslow and the conflict scholar John Burton, these essentials go beyond just food, water, and shelter. They include both physical and non-physical elements needed for human growth and development, as well as all those things humans are innately driven to attain.

Rejecting the use of violence to stop violence, conflict resolution approaches look at the roots of conflict in order to address them properly for a long, stable and sustainable peace. Military interventions have seldom led to peaceful societies, and Chechnya, having experience two interventions both in 1994 and 1999, is no exception. Within conflict resolution approaches, the Human Needs Theory has not received much attention. Human Needs Theory focuses on human well-being depending on whether our human needs are satisfied. Authors such as Maslow, Burton, Rosenberg and Max-Neef argue that violence surges when certain human needs are not being satisfied, and that the violence in itself is an attempt to meet such needs. This paper has attempted to show that applying the Human Needs Theory to the conflict in Chechnya may well help the peace process towards a sustainable resolution. By looking at underlying needs, such as recognition, safety, autonomy, equality, subsistence, respect and consideration, it becomes possible to look at strategies and solutions which may take all needs into account, on both sides. Being aware of the effect of enemy images and perceptions after more than a decade of war, a needs-based solution is within reach. It also remains key to work on the lack of trust between the parties.

It seems to be habitual that both parties expect certain demands to be met by the other party before committing to progress on certain issues. In President Putin’s continued efforts to dialogue with the Chechens’, it may facilitate the negotiation to view Chechens’ as trying to meet their needs, rather than implicitly labelling them “terrorists”. The Russian government may be attempting to secure US support when indirectly labelling the Chechens’ as terrorist. However, a continued use of negative labels and enemy images may slow the process down and stimulate resentment among the Chechens. The Russian government’s need to protect its people, its security, its unity, and its need for recognition from the international community may be met more constructively through naming the Chechens’ as a group representing people with urgent needs, whose strategies are less useful in meeting needs of all Chechens. Connecting with their needs, rather than using enemy images and labelling, while not justifying their acts, may prove successful in a continued dialogue in Chechnya.

APPENDIX

Appendix 1: Needs theorists’ list of human essentials include [39]

·         Safety/Security -- the need for structure, predictability, stability, and freedom from fear and anxiety.

·         Belongingness/Love -- the need to be accepted by others and to have strong personal ties with one's family, friends, and identity groups.

·         Self-esteem -- the need to be recognized by oneself and others as strong, competent, and capable. It also includes the need to know that one has some effect on her/his environment.

·         Personal fulfilment -the need to reach one's potential in all areas of life.

·         Identity -- goes beyond a psychological "sense of self." Burton and other human needs theorists define identity as a sense of self in relation to the outside world. Identity becomes a problem when one's identity is not recognized as legitimate, or when it is considered inferior or is threatened by others with different identifications.

·         Cultural security -- is related to identity, the need for recognition of one's language, traditions, religion, cultural values, ideas, and concepts. Freedom -- is the condition of having no physical, political, or civil restraints; having the capacity to exercise choice in all aspects of one's life.

·         Distributive justice -- is the need for the fair allocation of resources among all members of a community.

·         Participation -- is the need to be able to actively partake in and influence civil society.

Appendix 2: Manfred Max-Neef’s Model on Human Scale Development[40]

Appendix 3: Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs[41]