The debate in the framwork of “Aravot” online “Face to Face” program is conducted by the Head of the Armenian Institute for International and Security Affairs, Stepan Safaryan, and the leader of the “National Security” Party Garnik Isagulyan.
Gohar Hakobyan – Why did the Paris terrorism happen and the front reached from the Middle East to Europe?
Garnik Isagulyan – Terrorism was used by major powers and influential countries in different circumstances and in different ways, it has a long history. Especially recently, related to the events in the Middle East, I think that the main reason was that during the first round of unipolar world order it was decided that the whole world and all states should live by the same values system, irrespective of the degree of the development of these countries. Certainly, its purpose was different. In this geopolitical developments, each one, especially the West that was left alone as the main dictator of the world, overthrew regimes, which was called an “Arab Spring”, there were series of revolutions trying to overthrow the so-called totalitarian regimes and establish democratic states in its place.
We saw what outcome it had in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. Now, the same thing is taking place in Syria. And as the world was preoccupied with Syria, the famous “Islamic state” terrorist group and various groupings were created in Iraq that originated from “Al-Qaeda” or the like, and the world that was trying to establish democratic rules created chaos. In this chaos, the terrorist groups, in fact, were able to possess most of the territories and natural resources in Syria and Iraq, and with the help of the states supporting this natural wealth, they brought serious financial opportunities to the newly formed terrorist groups, which at a certain moment were left out of the control of these states, while they were thinking that these groups would always remain under their control.
Read also
Russia also saw what could happen after Syria, Iran was the next, and then, of course, everything was going to be directed against Russia as again the same type of a state, where again democracy should be introduced. Under this wave, the terrorists thought that they are so strong and have so many opportunities that, first of all, the famous Russian airplane accident occurred, and then the horrific events in Paris. Everyone must fight against terrorism and choke it in its nest. If they do not understand this, it will have very dire consequences … It is encouraging that the presidents of Russia and France were able to develop a program of joint military operations, it is also unacceptable to me that Obama declared that they are ready to join their efforts with Russia to fight against the “Islamic state”. Francois Hollande announced that he is going to meet with Obama and Putin in the coming days and will try to bring them to a common table for the fight against the “Islamic state”. I believe that all states should eventually come to this.
G. H. – Mr. Safaryan, which of the observations do you agree with Mr. Isagulyan? Whose fingers do you see mingled here, especially since Mr. Isagulyan hinted on it…?
Stepan Safaryan – Mr. Isagulyan mentioned the big countries, he said, including Russia, America … I’m looking at the problem a little differently. I am quite familiar with the position that was presented, and I would not say that I disagree with everything. On the other hand, if we follow these judgments, it will turn out that the terrorists emerged born after the “Arab Springs”, or if we listen to others, it will turn out that they emerged after Iraq intrusions … These matters are in my spotlight still in the early 90s, I can even provide a respective literature published in those years. When the USSR collapsed, many well-known and experienced theorists were saying that the main challenge of the 21st century would be the terrorism.
At that time, there were neither exports of democracy, nor the “Arab Springs”, nor Iraq’s failures… I assure you, citing prestigious manuals and articles on international security published in the 90s about why these people were thinking so. They were thinking so because they were seeing the development of machinery, weakening of the borders between the states, globalization outlines, and they were understanding that the free mobility will be easier, people’s mobility will increase, people’s knowledge about the technologies will grow, consequently, the risk of acquiring nuclear, mass destruction and chemical weapons by the groups that pursues not a good purpose will also increase.
In other words, still in the ’90s, serious experts at least of this field were voicing alarm pertained to the terrorism. Later, it was followed by organized terrorist acts on the US Embassies, about which many people do not know, but at least the specialists who are in touch with the terrorist problems, know for sure that such cases have happened in the late 90’s. I agree with Mr. Isagulyan that during the bipolar world order, be it Vietnam, Georgia or the Middle East, two poles form groups operating against each other, which includes various extremist groups or fighters. But the biggest thing that happened at the end of the Cold War, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, was the vacuum that was created.
As a result, in the ‘90s, the same Salafism penetrated up to Caucasus, Chechnya, in other words, it was not so that America was expanding, simply this vacuum was filled, the former political institutions did not exist, the new ones were not created, and the local aggressive groups filled in this empty space with themselves. Salafism reached up to North Caucasus, we had the first Chechen war. Now, let’s go back to the “Islamic state.” Many people do not know that the “Islamic state” once was Bashar al-Assad’s close tactical partners as a small group, simply, now they are fighting against each other. Later, other states like Turkey, Saudi Arabia and others began playing with the same “Islamic state” too. In other words, the teammates are always changed, each one has tried to use it as a tool. Now about what important developments have happened. First, in 2004, the US failed and was amazed that Turkey refused to render its territory during the Iraqi operations. With regard to the international terrorism and so on, it should be noted that during the available terrorist acts especially in Turkey that were organized, using Turkey’s fears, at least the US gained an access to use Incirlik for the operations against the “Islamic state”. In other words, one front was added here since early September, the second front was added by the Russian invasion, and now the “Islamic state” has appeared in a dead-end situation. It turns to the right, Assad’s troops are there, it turns to the left, the American shelling, it looks straight ahead, the Russian shelling. It turns out that this playground has become smaller, while before all of this, the “Islamic state” once was occupying territories: Sinjar, including a part of Iraq. So, what was left to do. In this dead-end situation, it naturally was to transfer, and as it had global networks, it moved to other territories, one of its two operations was implemented in Sinai, Egypt, where there are many “Islamic state” proponents, they hit the Russian aircraft there, the other took place in France. The moves of the “Islamic state” are very rational. They are targeting the fronts that prevent them from expanding to establish a Caliphate. Hence, they were trying to intimidate France and make to withdraw the air shootings. I am happy that France overcame all of this very quickly and started firing at the “Islamic state” assaults.
Prepared by Gohar HAKOBYAN,
“Aravot” daily
