Parvin Darabadi

Professor of History 

Baku State University

Over the course of the last two decades, the world has entered into a new and qualitatively different era, one in which the bipolar system of ideological competition between Western democracy and Eastern Communism has been replaced by a conflict between the no less dangerous phenomena of international terrorism and militant separatism, on the one hand, and the system of existing and effective states, on the other.  As a result, the political map of the world ever more resembles an extraordinarily complex mosaic, one in which world and regional powers exist alongside small states that to one degree or another have been drawn into the vortex of globalization and international problems. 

Not surprisingly, these changes have affected some regions of the world far more profoundly than they have others.  Among the most affected have been the geo-strategically important Balkans and the large and resource-rich central Eurasian geopolitical space.  In both places, the West is seeking to create a number of geo-political strong points to promote the further fragmentation of Eurasia, an effort that has intensified since the September 11th terrorist attacks on the United States.  

Western actions in this regard have generated a countervailing response by others who believe that the new global system should be a “multi-polar” one.  They call for a new division of the planet into spheres of influence and insist that no one country or one geopolitical center can act without taking into account the interests of other groupings and their specific religious and cultural backgrounds.

The conflicts that have engulfed the Near and Middle East, in particular those in Iraq and Afghanistan, highlight beyond any doubt the ineffectiveness of the methods and approaches the United States and the West are employing in their struggle with international terrorism.  By this point in history, no country or group of countries can hope to be successful, however noble its intentions, if it calls the values of those in whose name it is fighting alien and if it ignores the centuries’ old religious traditions and civilizations of which the latter are a part. 

Indeed, the extraordinarily clumsy way in which the “counter-terrorist operation” has been conducted – one in the course of which thousands of innocent people have died – is already costing the world community a great deal.  As a result, there is a great danger that contemporary international terrorism is metastasizing into something far more dangerous: geo-terrorism, “a war of all against all.” If that in fact occurs, then the international system will not as now have to confront a variety of separate terrorist groups but rather with entire countries or groups of countries, operating on the basis of religious-political ideas and prepared to enter onto “the path of terrorist war.” As many have noted, the scientific-technical revolution in military affairs has given even the poorest countries access to weapons of mass destruction. 

A major reason for the rise of terrorism is directly connected with the globalization of economic and political life that has divided the world between the well-off “golden billion” and the increasingly impoverished “others” whose values are at risk and who are likely to turn to violence if the limited current efforts to address their economic problems fail.  Many of the members of the latter group appear likely to conclude very soon that they have nothing to lose by attacking the “golden billion” and seeking to gain some assets for themselves.

Other factors are at work as well.  Religious fundamentalism, unrestrained nationalism and racism, ethnic intolerance, organized crime, demographic explosions and uncontrolled migration, ecological disasters, and the exhaustion of natural resources all are pushing people in the direction of geo-terrorism.  And as this threat increases, no country, however well-off it may be, will be able to insure itself completely against attack.

Particularly important, especially in the Southern Caucasus, to the rise of international terrorism is militant separatism, a phenomenon that exists not only there but in many countries of the world.  All too often, the future cadres of terrorist groups receive their baptism of fire in such inter-national and inter-confessional fights over territory.  And it is entirely appropriate to speak of both the inter-penetration and the mutual and growing reinforcement of international terrorism and militant separatism.  

 

In both the third world and the post-Soviet space, many countries have already experienced the full measure of all the “charms” of the forcible realization of the principle of self-determination of national minorities and of the impact this has on state sovereignty.  And more than others, they recognize that any application of this principle almost certainly will entail to still greater chaos and still more terrorism around the world. 

When some members of the international community have ignored the principle of the inviolability of borders of sovereign states, as was the case recently with the recognition they extended to the self-proclaimed independence of Kosovo, that action undermined the importance and authority of the United Nations as a guarantor of international stability.  Not only did that action unleash “the spirit of Munich of 1938,” but it created a dangerous precedent that to one degree or another threaten the borders of practically every country in the world and consequently the ability of all states to prevent the rise of terrorism. 

One aspect of this pernicious phenomenon is particularly noteworthy.  These typically bloody and hysterical bacchanalias are usually justified by what in other contexts are humanistic and democratic ideas, such as “the awaking of national self-consciousness,” “the right of nations to self-determination,” “the freedom of oppressed peoples,” “human rights,” “re-unification with the Motherland,” and so on.  That makes such movements superficially attractive and justified to some, but their underlying reality, as the conflicts in the Caucasus in the 1990s showed, have brought innumerable misfortunes even to those who initially believed in them. 

During that decade, a series of illegal and marginal formations emerged with some elements of statehood but no recognition from the international community.  In most cases, an essential contributing factor to their appearance was the intense geopolitical competition among outside powers.  This was especially obvious during the course of the disintegration of the USSR and Yugoslavia, but it continues throughout “the arc of instability” in the Balkans, the Near and Middle East, Central Asia, and, in particular, the Black Sea-Caucasus-Caspian region. 

Because that region has enormous reserves of oil and gas and because it serves as a gigantic bridge between Europe and Asia, the Caucasus is extremely important to a variety of outside powers under conditions of globalization.  And their open competition concerning various transportation and communication networks has only added fuel to the fire of the national ambitions, historical enmities, and aspirations of the countries in the region itself. 

 

On the one hand, these conflicts have made it easier for the United States and its NATO allies to prevent Russia from becoming again the single dominant power in this region.  But on the other, they have meant that Russia itself has been limited, “chained” to Armenia,” its only close ally in the Southern Caucasus in its efforts to block the spread of Atlanticist influence there.  Moreover, this competition has profoundly limited the ability of either the United Nations or the OSCE to promote the resolution of the conflicts in the South Caucasus.  

Indeed, it is this region that shows the way in which militant separatism and international terrorism can combine, leading to the destabilization of entire regions and countries, when the powers involved fail to see that their actions in promoting their short-term goals may threaten their fundamental interests in the longer term. 

        

The only way to escape from the dangers this situation poses is the careful observation by everyone involved of the universal principles of international law, including the inviolability of inter-state borders even when they are in dispute, the resolution of all questions of an international character exclusively by peaceful means, and the defense of the rights of national minorities on the basis of the fundamental principles of human rights and civic freedoms.