Conţinutul numărului revistei |
Articolul precedent |
Articolul urmator |
808 6 |
Ultima descărcare din IBN: 2021-12-09 11:06 |
SM ISO690:2012 ALBU, Natalia. Dimensiunea strategică a asimetriei. In: Revista Moldovenească de Drept Internaţional şi Relaţii Internaţionale, 2011, nr. 4, pp. 30-38. ISSN 1857-1999. |
EXPORT metadate: Google Scholar Crossref CERIF DataCite Dublin Core |
Revista Moldovenească de Drept Internaţional şi Relaţii Internaţionale | |||||
Numărul 4 / 2011 / ISSN 1857-1999 /ISSNe 2345-1963 | |||||
|
|||||
Pag. 30-38 | |||||
|
|||||
Descarcă PDF | |||||
Rezumat | |||||
Identification of the adversary‘s action modalities means to know exactly his/her nature, to identify his/her objectives and the way in which he/she intends to achieve them. The notion of „asymmetry‖ appears in this framework of tackling the stakeholders‘ strategic actions. In the area of military and national security issues, this term represents the action, organization, and thinking which are different from those of the adversary, so as to maximize his/her own advantages, to exploit the adversaries‘ weak points, to obtain initiative or to win some action freedom. Making an overview of the different concepts regarding the meaning of the term ―asymmetry‖, this article refers to the main factors determining the need to develop asymmetric strategies. In general, the conceptualization of the asymmetry is seen in the context of three links: symmetry, asymmetry and dissymmetry, taking into account three factors: the importance of the content of the conflict, used means, culture and values‘ system. The inclusion of asymmetry in the official strategic documents shows that this concept – thoroughly studied over the last years, including and mainly by the big powers – is very topical.
The strategies of present-day big powers try to shift their defense systems (force structures, as well as doctrines, thinking, and visions) from industrial configuration to timely procedures, such as RMA (Revolution in Military Affairs); for instance in the United States, the key terms are transformation/adaptation, just like in the North Atlantic Alliance, Russia, and China. Talking about the modern asymmetric strategies, the French concept of ―strategic revolution‖ seems more adequate in use, as it aims to optimize knowledge and exploit information in real time.
On the other hand, the assaults from September 11, 2001 remind us the fact that no one holds monopoly on asymmetry, thus leading to the need to differentiate between the ―positive asymmetry‖ and ―negative asymmetry‖. At the same time, attention should not be limited for the strategic thinking trends of the ancient authors, referring especially to the Chinese thinker, Sun Tzu, who is considered to be the first author who left us an approach to asymmetry that covers also psychological and informational aspects, according to present-day terms.
When referring to the modern Chinese thinking about asymmetry in the security context, we can say that is does not differ from the widely accepted definitions. The Chinese doctrine supports that asymmetry allows the weaker actor to chose the battle space or target zone where his/her adversary is not waiting to be attacked. The gravitation center of the assault is always a place which will provoke major psychological traumas for the adversary. In conclusion attention should be paid to the fact that asymmetry should not be perceived only like the equivalent of the expression ―the strategy of the weak against of the strong‖, even though this strategy was applied successfully in the past.
In this context, the asymmetry thinking framework aims to maintain the power by controlling the proactive and agile tools, if no preventive actions are involved, which provide to an equal extent for mobilizing efforts and coming up with counter-strategies for a larger range of asymmetric scenarios applied by powerful adversaries. Today, it is obvious that asymmetry occurs more frequently as a natural immediate modality, which is borrowed by those who cannot face a dissymmetric escalade and are interested to modify the moral context and the nature of the used means. |
|||||
|