It is common knowledge that radical groups around the world have stepped up their presence. They mainly sow strife through terror and today this process is more pronounced in the Middle East. Experts project that this trend may overspill to other regions. While doing so, they are not always impartial. Especially they turn a blind eye on valid forces that endorse radicalism in the South Caucasus and chose not to mention those. Why?
Geopolitical interests and religious radicalism
There is a concern within the political quarters of the West about growing threat of radicalism in the South Caucasus. An international conference dedicated to this subject was held recently in the U.S. Participants, however, articulated the issue from the "Islamic radicalism as a source of threat'' perspective. Deliberations on the issue mainly focused on ideas how to curb the trend (see: Ариель Коен. Южный Кавказ, радикализм и интересы США / ''США-Россия: глобальный контекст'', 18 October 2013).
Seemingly benevolent gathering, in reality, signified a different threat. In essence, radicalism in the South Caucasus has nothing to do with religious affiliation. First and foremost, it is global scale geopolitical processes and double standards attitude of great powers that have to be taken into account here.
First, experts are emphasizing massive rise of nationalism in the world. The article in "The National Interest'' magazine, by Paul Pillar, a senior fellow with the Center for Security Studies at Georgetown University and the Brookings Institution, describes the modern age as the "The age of nationalism'' (see: Paul R. Pillar. The Age of Nationalism / "The National Interest'', 01 September 2013).
Author believes the trend is becoming intensified in the developed nations of the world, specifically pointing out U.S., Russia, China, Japan and powerful countries of the EU. Nationalism has individual content in each of these countries. It is "American exceptionalism'' in the U.S., "Russian nationalism'' in Russia and "absolute statehood'', in China. All of them primarily denote superiority through intolerance towards others (see: previous source).
Apparently, on the global scale, great geopolitical powers are more fiercely and mercilessly trying to secure their interests, thereby augmenting political radicalism and double standards. This is the angle Pillar uses to define an attitude of different great powers towards the events unfolding in different regions of the world. He is searching for consequences of such an attitude in the emerging contradictions. For example, the dire consequences of such policies in the Caucasus (Caucasians feel generally negative attitude towards themselves just like Soviet citizens migrating to Israel'') and the Middle East ("Idea on Palestine-Israel state is incompatible with strong national sentiments on both sides'') (see: previous article). On a more general note, Pillar reiterates: "U.S. policy makers should be continually conscious of how U.S. actions may step on someone else’s nationalist sentiments, not to elicit counteraction'' (see: previous article).
What sort of reality do these examples expose? First, controversies produced by policies conducted by the great powers play a key role in the emerging radicalism seen in various parts of the world. Without a hint of justification of religious intolerance, it has to be highlighted that radical religious responses, in most cases appear as retaliation against those policies. Studies by many experts attest that terrorist organizations operating under the disguise of religion were conceived by the intelligence services of the big powers. They direct their actions and offer military training. International media reported on many of these facts.
"Home front'' of dangerous plans
Presumably, if the threat of radicalism and possible reactions to it are being deliberated upon, then, some plans are probably under way. Usually, the threat is suggested as valid and then they start "confronting it''. For years now, South Caucasus has suffered from Armenian radicalism. Armenians have raised state-level territorial claims against all its neighbors while Armenian terrorism took thousands of innocent lives. The process continues as we speak. Official Yerevan’s claims are underpinned by religious slogans. They urge their people to rise against the Muslims of the region but for some reason, this subject is avoided in the West. Analysts and experts are also ignoring this aspect as they address religious radicalism in the South Caucasus.
Efforts to ignite strife on nationality grounds, is becoming more pronounced in Russia. It is the very Muslim community that is being purported as the radical stratum of the society. The explosion on a passenger bus in Volgograd is thought-provoking in this particular context. Allegedly, perpetrator of this crime is a Muslim woman named Naida. Some quarters are aiming to create an impression of escalating religious radicalism, existence of intolerance towards Muslims and retaliation of the formers to such an attitude.
The situation is surely being deliberately inflamed. Apparently, fears of some analysts are materializing, and "Al-Qaeda'' is gradually being directed towards the post-Soviet space (see: Дмитрий Седов.''Исламский'' терроризм американского разлива / ''Фонд стратегической культуры'', 23 September 2012). These are really grave threats but regrettably, this aspect is being concealed. Instead, an image of an "enemy already in place'' in the South Caucasus is suggested.
Attendees of the conference mentioned above pointed at Iran, as a source of radical religious views. They spoke of the issue in the context of Azerbaijan, a country closely cooperating with West. However, it was probably an effort to put two neighbors against each other. First, as it was already mentioned, radical religious groups emerge owing to Western endorsement. Second, Azerbaijan and Iran are pursuing good neighborly relations policy – relations based on the framework of principles of international law. Baku is absolutely not interested in spoiling its relations with its neighbor. Thus, excluding Armenia, none of the neighbors are seen as enemies.
Certainly, it is also known across the ocean. We believe there are deep-rooted aspects to the problem. In fact, Azerbaijan is the only country of the South Caucasus to conduct an independent foreign policy. Its achievements throughout all areas are obvious. For example, Joshua Walker, a former aide to Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, and presently a global programs director with the "APCO Worldwide'', referred to Azerbaijan as a developing country at the aforementioned gathering (Paul. R. Pillar. Previously mentioned article). That is why greatest powers of the world attach significance to cooperation with Baku. Those aspirations, however, provoke competition. Therefore, while seeking proximity with Azerbaijan, some opt to smear their rivals.
Addressing the issue of religious radicalism in light of the abovementioned ideas evokes somewhat conflicting and volatile picture. In geopolitical terms, such a situation is clearly dangerous, and at any moment, may produce unforeseen threats. Such risks may prove to be disastrous for the region. On the other hand, it is no secret that a rivalry for global leadership in the world has reached new heights that are most currently most evident in the Middle East. In the meantime, other regions may be affected by the same trend. It is extremely alarming that the developing process is coupled with increased presence of radical religious organizations. It must be taken into account that rising prominence of Russia, Turkey and Iran is viewed as a disaster, and a need to thwart it is expressed explicitly.
This aspect certainly only adds to the geopolitical uncertainty in the region. Identifying stakeholders with plans towards the South Caucasus is a risky business. However, articulation of religious radicalism and attempts to inculcate it into geopolitical agenda are thought-provoking indeed. This region has experienced tormented history. Consequences of religious radicalism that has become merciless as ever would be hard to cope with. Thus, to avoid that it would take more justice and fairness from the policy makers.
Newtimes.az