Many events amaze people, including the processes developing in the geopolitical environment that provoke many questions. Different opinions are expressed regarding the substance and content of the factors underpinning the events with global impact. In the meantime, some aspects are being silently dismissed. What is the reason? Why are there so many conflicts in the world, resolution of which is still being protracted? Perhaps, there are behind-the-scenes scenarios?
Similar events in different regions: coincidence or concrete plan?
Nature and substance of the processes developing in the modern world provoke contemplation among the experts, while approaches differ. Renowned experts offer in many aspects fascinating analyses, with one point drawing more attention. Thought-provokingly, most of those analysts remain silent on this issue. Question remains whether it is done deliberately. The problem itself is intriguing and deserves a research.
We are referring to the nature of some events happening in different parts of the world and some intriguing aspects of interference. The point is that it is yet unclear if the hotspots emerge by themselves or come about in the outcome of external actions. What is happening in Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, Syria, South Sudan or the Central African Republic? Are the events happening there associated with the domestic factors only? External factors are always taken into account in the analyses by the experts. In that case, what seems to be the true nature of the events?
Seemingly, scenarios are prepared well in advance and then interference plans are executed. With conflict in one region not over yet, a similar scenario is initiated to spark new developments elsewhere. Renewed efforts are made as the time goes on, as if there was no end to the processes. Leading countries of the world and international organizations are ostensibly endeavoring to resolve the very processes. Results are nowhere to be seen.
Some countries are constantly active in a certain region (U.S. and U.K. in the Middle East), while others have more prominent presence elsewhere (France in Africa). Indeed, why can’t the countries enjoying great political, diplomatic, economic and military prowess prevent a conflict even in a small country? Perhaps, they are reluctant to do it at all? If that is the case, then realistically, two scenarios have to be focused upon.
First, big powers are prearranging scenarios conformant to their interests. Second, although not being the organizers of the events, they nevertheless oppose the resolution, protract the process and make sure that the international organizations display only formal posture on those conflicts. Both scenarios are unacceptable. Honestly, we believe in reality the first scenario prevails. Facts to explain it are in abundance.
It was the USSR that first interfered into Afghanistan, allegedly to preclude the spread of the Western influence there. Thus, Afghan issue apparently emanated more from the struggle for clout of the two big geopolitical powers than the domestic factors. However, the previous experience demonstrated that it was just a beginning. “Taliban” and “Al-Qaeda” stepped into the scene. They used to fight the Soviets and saw vigorous support of the West. One would expect that peace and stability would come to Afghanistan upon Moscow’s troop pullout. The picture that followed was totally different.
Scenarios before the problems: contemplations in the vicious circle
As NATO became more actively involved in Afghanistan it was confronted by “Taliban” and “Al-Qaeda”. This country is yet to find peace and the Afghans are set to suffer in the course of the process. Hence, the primary objective at this stage is not alleviating Afghanistan’s problems but to wage a struggle for influence. We witness comparable processes developing in Egypt and Syria. G. Bush produced various pretexts to invade Iraq. In the end, he came up with the weapons of mass destruction issue and started a war without validating legitimacy of the claims. Back then, events in Iraq were undoubtedly developing based on the externally produced scenario. This was attested by many Western experts.
Articles by famous analysts dedicated to the Middle East address the issue not from the perspective of national interests of the regional states but from the point of view of retaining global dominance. For example, analyzing domestic picture of Iraq, Kurdish separatism issue is viewed in the context of geopolitical, economic, cultural and military hegemony of the West. In this connection, role of the religious sectarianism in the political life of the countries is highlighted, with main focus on forecasted contradictions to emerge in the Muslim countries. That is to say, the processes are propagated to lead to difficulties in the Islamic world.
Comparable situation is at hand in the South Caucasus, embodied by the developing events. Nagorno Karabakh was made a subject of political speculation aimed at bringing the Soviet Union down in the last decade of the XX century. First, Armenians fomented radical nationalist and anti-Muslim sentiments. Prevailing Islamophobia in the West only attests that a religion factor was the key catalyst for the Armenian separatism of the time, namely that a prearranged scenario of Armenian aggression against Azerbaijan was implemented step-by-step.
After active military phase finished the Armenians’ political-diplomatic and ideological defensive became more evident. OSCE Minsk Group’s designated co-chair countries are also performing in line with the scenario elaborated elsewhere. Active only superficially, they have thus failed to produce tangible results. Perhaps, they are aiming to protract the resolution of the conflict under predetermined conditions.
With this on the backdrop, Armenia’s truly capricious conduct, forwarding of absurd claims, and acting spoilt is thought-provoking. Apparently, resolution of conflicts in the South Caucasus turned into a hostage of someone’s geopolitical ambitions. Therefore, it is difficult to forecast direction in which regional processes may develop.
Where does the analysis of the aforementioned lead us? Figuratively speaking, an age-old question comes to mind: which came first the chicken or the egg? Events in different regions are presented in such a complex manner that situation begs this question. Nature may have created some complexities but it’s detrimental for the mankind that the conscious people deliberately complicate the picture. To put it clearly, the humanity is heading towards self-destruction by putting itself into a predicament.
The issue is even more compelling from the perspective of the future of international relations and creating new world order. The problem is that if processes in different regions of the world are developing based on some external scenarios, this questions the establishment of a system of sustainable relations. Interests of today may not conform to the aspirations of tomorrow. Namely, conditions may change and new landscape can emerge after some time. In that case the global disorder may prevail. Should this be the logic behind the new world order, it would be difficult to imagine a bright fate of humanity.
What can international community do in such a situation? The world itself has to come up with an answer. We believe it must first abandon the policy of double standards. Same set of criteria must be applied in every corner of the world, to be followed by the principle of justice on the global scale. History demonstrates that only just conduct may preserve the balance. If interests of one nation are upheld, it provokes resistance and fosters intrigues, conflicts and wars. Driven by such a spirit the world only plunges into more problems.
Kaynak: Newtimes.az
