CHAPTER 1
1.1. GLOBAL PROBLEMS OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE EMERGING MULTIPOLAR WORLD
The modern world is experiencing an era of global change. The current political reality "is increasingly determined by the global political instability, where the world has moved due to the erosion of the Westphalian system. In the background of its disintegration and chaos in international relations is the formation of a new world order based on the principles of multipolarity." The system of international relations is becoming increasingly anarchic. There is a growing crisis of the idea of a "democratic peace" - the pivotal concept of era of unipolarity.
The rate and the speed of global changes are continuously growing. Western political consultants needed just one year, in order to transform a peaceful and prosperous North Africa, where some countries' (such as Tunisia) standard of living is almost the same as in southern departments of France, into a hotbed of brutal civil war, international terrorism and radical Islam. Now the same fate awaits Syria, along with the entire Middle East, including the chief implacable opponent of the US - Iran.
It seems that today the very foundations of the Westphalian system are eroding, the platforms and mechanisms are being destroyed that for decades served as the maintenance of peace and political stability and kept the balance between different forces and interest groups in global politics. Today, all this rapidly disintegrates into fragments under the onslaught of legal nihilism, double standards and "controlled chaos." Forces that have long advocated ideological opponents of the democratic world with its universal values are seeking to penetrate the vacuum: political extremists and radicals, terrorists, Islamists of all suits, nationalists, and finally, in the case of Ukraine - the neo-fascists.
For many years international organizations that emerged after World War II and designed to prevent its recurrence were in the way these forces; secular regimes in the Middle East andAfrica, which led a relentless struggle against Islamic radicals; and, finally, the Soviet Union and the socialist camp, which supported the global balance. Today, the Soviet Union does not exist anymore, and NATO has shifted to the problem of global governance. Yugoslavia has turned into "a powder keg" of Europe, and perhaps the entire world, as a result of the collapse of the Balkans.
The system of government in the Arab countries established over many decades was destroyed by the color revolutions of the "Arab Spring", plunging the region into an armed chaos, in which the Americans are trying to build new architecture of international relations, close to the ideals of their North American "democratic peace." Technologies of color revolutions, used in Libya and Syria, spread to Ukraine that is on the verge of civil war like the Yugoslavia or the Libyan scenario.
However, even when faced with new global issues and challenges, we continue to remain largely incurable optimists. Despite the chaos in international relations, as some politicians call "manageable," we continue to believe that even though the world is rapidly plunging into the abyss of conflicts and wars, it is still changing for the better. Today, in the minds of many citizens there still exists the myth that with the end of the "Cold War," peace has finally completed its existence within the paradigm of conflict and moved to a new, higher quality and level of development, characterized by reduction of conflict in all the regions of the world.
The global problems of international relations today are associated primarily with three main factors: the increasing chaos in international relations, closely interconnected with the color revolutions in the Middle East and North Africa, and most recently in Ukraine; international conflicts that the United Nations is unable to resolve; struggle with web-based forms of international terrorism and theAfghan drug trafficking, being both a source of funds for terrorist organizations and the factor that the US is actively using to weaken its strategic competitor that is the gaining power of the European Union.
One of the most pressing global problems of human civilization in the light of developments in the Middle East and the ongoing crisis in Ukraine is the wave of chaos that engulfed the regions, which the United States considers "manageable" and sees it as a new tool for the democratization of the modern world. Other countries, including Russia, consider this process a universal evil and an impending global catastrophe. "Controlled chaos," covering all major areas in the wake of the color revolutions of the "Arab Spring" and Euro Maidan, homogenizes the structure of traditional societies, destroying communal way of life and transforming society into a set of "inserted" individuals deprived of the protection of communities and civil society institutions from any external destructive impact. In the wake of "controlled chaos" comes hacking and destruction of the systems and mechanisms of collective security historically formed in the regions, as well as balance of forces. It is not the democrats and liberals that come to the formed vacuum but nationalists, neo-Nazis (in Ukraine) and the Islamists, including radicals. A global problem is created for the system of international relations, so undermining the fundamentals of the existing world order, that it raises the question of the future of its existence.
The global problem of managing international conflicts is closely related with the "controlled chaos." The task of managing and resolving international conflicts does not lose its relevance, on the contrary in the present conditions. On the contrary, today, we clearly see that as a result of the United States carrying out a conscious dismantling of the Yalta-Potsdam world order, the entire system of international security is collapsing; the world is rapidly sinking into chaos of big and small wars, ethno-political and religious conflicts.
As the war in Libya has shown and as we can see now in the armed conflict in Syria, in the face of increasing struggle for power of the world's leaders, regional conflicts easily outgrow their initial frame and pour into a large-scale clashes, reaching world wars. Activities of the United States and of their partners (NATO, Saudi Arabia, Qatar) in "peace enforcement" and "enforcement of democracy" in different regions of the world does not only eliminate the root causes of political conflicts taking place there, but in many cases, leads to escalation and the transition to a new more ambitious level. For the majority of countries' internal affairs, where the United States intervenes as a "peacemaker," they bet and cooperate with the very political forces and regimes that the world calls "terrorist" and "extremist."
Thus, the United States actively cooperates with the Taliban in Afghanistan (in the actual sense of the word "partnership"), but it was militias of al-Qaida that played a crucial role in the destruction of army units loyal to Gaddafi in the civil war in Libya, who were at the forefront of the impact caused by the joint forces of NATO and the rebels. Now, among the so-called united Syrian opposition warlords, at least half are heads of al-Qaida fighting cells, emerging from the underground, where they were driven by President Bashar al-Assad. In the conflict in Ukraine, on the side of neo-Nazis that came to power are the mercenaries of the American private military companies and all those same Islamists, who do not care where the fight against Russia. However, with the current international conflicts and crises, the world leaders that are engaged in peacekeeping activities have fewer opportunities for the application of purely military solutions.
In this regard, the world leaders put forward a "soft power" to the forefront of foreign policy, which has been increasingly discussed in Russian political circles. Today, many are coming to realize that in the context of growing political instability and immersion into the world of "controlled chaos," only "soft power" can be effective. In addition, the "soft power" is both a tool of the great powers, which can only be held by recognized or established leaders, and, at the same time, an indicator to see whether the State is a world leader or it is just pretending to be one.
According to the Russian diplomat A.V. Budaev, "soft power" "is playing an increasingly prominent role in the modern world politics, which continuously increases with the invention of new ways, methods and technologies of information and psychological impact on the international community, the world's power elite and the government of national states. Originating as a core concept of the school of American political liberalism, "soft power" has had a significant influence on the formation of the US foreign policy in Afghanistan, Iraq, Central Asia, Eastern Europe, giving rise to the concept of "democratic peace," "export democracy" and forming an irrational (idealistic) direction of American foreign policy. Such technology of American "soft power," like the color revolutions, have been shown in the European style countries and traditional countries of Asia, Africa, the Middle East, becoming the core of the "Arab Spring" revolutions - technologies of the external control of the region in terms of political instability and rising crisis."
As A.V. Budaev rightly pointed out, "in the Russian Foreign Policy Concept, soft power appeared only in 2013, adding to the arsenal of instruments of national diplomacy. Meanwhile, in this interpretation, the "soft power" rather coincides with the American definition of public diplomacy without having its own definition. All this requires clarification and specification of the Russian concept of "soft power," because copying of Western patterns can lead to losses in Russian foreign policy." It is difficult to disagree with this view.
The fight against international terrorism remains a global challenge for all of humanity, and it is particularly relevant in connection with the withdrawal of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in 2014.
The main problem is that throughout the decade of war in Afghanistan, not only did international terrorism suffer a crushing defeat, but it was strengthened and intensified through the processes of conflict mobilization and has finally formed as transnational terrorist networks in the armed opposition to the North American global neo-imperialism. It is safe to say that particularly disparate and opposing radical Islamist organizations and movements in the Middle East, Africa and West Asia came to realize their common goals, interests and values, and finally rallied on a confederal basis in the struggle against American neo-liberalism that is seeking to impose North American democratic values throughout. The states of Central Asia, Russia, India and the European Union will have many years to understand the result of the decade of war in Afghanistan.
Today, it is strange to realize that even ten years ago international terrorism was perceived as a myth designed and propagandized for Washington to justify the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. Indeed, all its power rested on phobias, embedded in the minds of the American citizens and associated only with one man - Osama bin Laden. He was the leader of a terrorist organization Al-Qaeda (The Rock) that Americans truly perceived as a global terrorist network with inexhaustible resources and the ability to reach out to every citizen of the United States; although in reality it was not. The image of al-Qaida was something that Washington copied off of the New York and the Sicilian Mafia, rooted in the American and European consciousness and invariably causing a panic reaction that occurs at the level of reflexes. The attention of American promoters to al-Qaida and its leaders made this organization one of the most popular among the radical Islamic youth and allowed it to establish their offices and cells in many Muslim countries (including an "official" one in Qatar) and to form militias out of local ethnic elements at their headquarters. Then, they took part in all of the Arab Spring" revolutions, fought with their warlords against Gaddafi, supported the Tuareg during their uprising in Mali, and now they are fighting against Bashar al-Assad on the side of the rebels of the so-called Free Syrian Army.
It is still not exactly clear, whether the Americans are going to withdraw completely from the region or "leave, so to stay." Evidence suggests the probability of either scenario. So, Obama has repeatedly stated that by the end of 2014 there will be no US soldiers in Afghanistan. Perhaps he will fulfill this promise, but literally. Pentagon considers the US army as our analogue of the Ground Forces. This category does not include a separate Marine Corps, any units (regiments, brigades, divisions) of Homeland (or, as it is called, national) security, or the Air Force. Thus, the 10th light Mountain Division remains outside the promises made by President Obama, which operates in the mountainous regions of Afghanistan and part of the units subordinated to the Ministry of Homeland Security (Department of Homeland Security, DHS.)
Numerous private military companies (such as the "X-Team," previously well- known as "Blackwater"), which accounted for more than half of all military operations against the Taliban in Afghanistan and the guerrillas in Iraq are also not included in the number of the US Army troops. These modern mercenaries are conveniently hiding under the descriptions of private military companies and, in general, they are not considered combatants. They are merchants and businessmen that leave the country only the leave would be beneficial to them. It is possible that some of these troops will remain in Afghanistan after 2014, including units of the Marine Corps, which the US president can manage on his own, without the consent of Congress.
After the withdrawal of the US troops, there are two problems that have already attracted the attention of the world community (except the US): what to do with drug trafficking and what to do with the Taliban that no longer will be held back. Both problems are significant resources that for a while will make the situation hopeless with many political forces trying to get their hands on them after the Americans leave. It is possible that Afghanistan is on the verge of a new war, fighting for the "American legacy."
After 2014, the Taliban will lose the main goal of their struggle - the extermination of Americans that will become an exotic and scarce commodity after 2014 in Afghanistan. Their further activity will be aimed at the Karzai government, a puppet of Washington, who cannot retain power much longer. Karzai, who was educated in India, although originally a Pashtun, does not have the Pashtun support. After the inevitable fall of the "democratic regime" of Karzai, not only will the last hope for the construction of the liberal-democratic state in Afghanistan collapse, according to the North American pattern, but also a vacuum will form in relation to the purposes that will further the expansion of the Taliban. There is no doubt that the Taliban are unlikely to be limited to the boundaries of their own nation-state in their "Islamic advocacy." Therefore, the main issue for the US now is to put the Taliban somewhere, to give them new business, preferably away from the borders of US ally - Pakistan that fears for its territorial integrity and not without reason. The Taliban are mainly Pashtuns in its ethnic composition, and Pakistan is home to more Pashtuns than all of Afghanistan. Many of them are obsessed with idea of creating their own nation-state - Pashtunistan.
At the same time, we do not say anything of the fact that it is necessary to divert them from returning to the idea of the terrorist attacks on the United States, that has lost its relevance after the Americans have destroyed the main al-Qaida bases in the first two months after the invasion of Afghanistan. It is no accident that the United States that formally continued to lead a relentless war against terrorists are, in fact, seeking to build partner relations with them, paying them off to not attack the military bases in Afghanistan or forming storm troops out of armed detachments of regional cells of al-Qaeda in Libya, Syria and Egypt that are fighting against the Alawite regime of Bashar al-Assad. Apparently, the idea to switch the military expansion of the Taliban to the regimes in Syria and other countries of the East unwanted by the US is popular in the Obama administration.
