CC BY
20
security and well-being of the citizens. Given the great ideological and emotional burden of the contemporary stage of development of the CA states for the wide public circles, particularly for the ruling politicians, it should be quite evident that Russia will not be able to achieve its national interests by avoiding problematic zones and by leaving the region. It is necessary to work thoroughly and jointly with the representatives of political and economic republican elites, to advance its cultural values into wide strata of the population, to consolidate its political and economic presence. Russia has objective grounds for the success of this work in the region and, consequently, for preservation of its influence in Eurasia.
"Svobodnaya mysl", M., 2010, N10, p. 30-46.
Tiberio Graciani,
editor-in-chief of the magazine "Eurasia.
Review of Geopolitical Research"
STRATEGY OF THE USA AND PROBLEM
OF NARCOTICS IN AFGHANISTAN
The ideologically unbiased and honest appraisal of the problem relating to narcotics' production and corresponding international problems is a must for determination (at least schematic) of the geopolitical structure and a more profound comprehension of some notions usually taken as well known and generally accepted.
Afghanistan jointly with the Caucasus and the republics of the Central Asia represents a vast territory marked by activities of some main global subjects (the USA, Russia, China and India), which differ in their geographic position in two unlike regions - America and Eurasia - primarily by their might and geo-strategy. The destabilization of the situation in this region serves the purpose of the USA, i.e. the
political player, which is external in relation to the Eurasian environment. In particular, the destabilization of this vast zone creates for the USA at least three geopolitical chances: a) the rising penetration into the lands of Eurasia; b) deterrent of Russia, c) creation in the continent of "a painful sore".
The USA, located between two oceans, is an island, which is outside the Eurasian continent, by H. Kissinger definition. From the geopolitical point of view, exactly such location determined the main vectors of the USA expansion in the world. Primarily, the control was established over the whole western hemisphere (North and South America), and further the race for hegemony in the European and African lands, in other words, in the Eastern hemisphere was started.
It is worth recalling that the penetration of the USA into the Eurasian continent was started in the course of the First World War by means of interference of Washington in international disputes among European states and Empires. Its penetration was going on during the Second World War. In April 1945 the so-called "liberators" occupied the western part of Europe up to East Berlin. Since that time, Washington and Pentagon regarded Europe, i.e. the western part of Eurasia only as a springboard of the USA, created in the Eurasian space.
The USA imposed the same role on the other occupied state -Japan, which closed from the east the Eurasian arch. From the Eurasian point of view, just the North-American "pincers" became the real outcome of the Second World War. In the end of the 1970s, one of the most important pillars of western geopolitical architecture headed by the USA was demolished by ayatollah Homeini coming to power in Ian. The shah Pehlevi dynasty could be easily used as a pawn in the struggle between the USA and the USSR. Its disappearance forced Washington and Pentagon to ponder on a new role of the USA in world
politics. New Iran, having become an independent state, caused emergence of new combination in the regional geopolitical "game of chess", and, probably, this event promoted a deep crisis of the "strong" bi-polar system.
The new "the one-polar" geopolitical era replaced the bi-polar era. However, the new one-polar system was doomed to a short life and terminated in the beginning of the XXI century, when Russia proclaimed itself as a strategic player, which was ready to set at defiance the global affairs; at the same time, two Asian giants - China and India became the economic and strategic powers. It is necessary also to take into account the rising significance of some Latin American countries, such as Brazil and Venezuela. The rather important relations of these countries with China, Russia and Iran seem to obtain a strategic significance and create a prototype of the new multi-polar system with two main supports - Eurasia and Latin America.
From the geopolitical point of view, Afghanistan represents an evident crisis zone, since the ancient time marked by conflicts among big powers. At present, this territory, named the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, is "governed" by the government entity, created and functioned with the support of the USA armed forces, although by the old tradition the Pushtu tribes keep their dominance over other ethnic groups (Tajiks, Hazars, Uzbeks, Turkmen and Beludgis).
After the Soviet soldiers left the Afghan "chess-board" the Taliban movement started to play a more significant role in the region. At least three factors determined the situation: a) the ambiguous relations with some components of the Pakistani secret services; b) the ambiguous relations with the USA (a kind of "heritage" left by former contacts between the USA and some participants of "mudjahed" movement maintained in time of the Soviet-Afghan war; c) wahhabism as an ideological-religious platform serving directly the interests of
Saudi Arabia in terms of projection of such zones, as Bosnia, the Near East and the Caucasus (namely - Chechnya and Dagestan).
Thanks to these three factors the Taliban movement was able, on the one side, to consolidate its position on the Afghan territory and to obtain the rising capacity in military (creation and strengthening of the so-called shelters) and economic (namely - the control over the narcotics' trade) spheres. On the other side, they hindered it to become an autonomous organization. In essence, due to penetration of agents of the USA, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia in the Taliban movement, it should be regarded as an organization guided by the external players.
It is common knowledge that the production of narcotics in Afghanistan has risen by 40 times after occupation of its territory by NATO forces. The estimation of the decisions, taken by the USA forces for the sake of reduction of narcotics' trade, in the general context of geopolitical practice of the USA, may be interpreted as a lost time: production and spreading of narcotics in the southern part of the country go on in full swing. The large-scale production of narcotics would have been impossible in case of military actions.
But the USA forces concentrated their strategic interest in the northern part of the country. They have constructed roads and bridges, connecting Afghanistan with Tajikistan, as well as the way to Russia via Uzbekistan, Kirghizstan and Azerbaijan. These activities clearly show genuine intentions of Pentagon and Washington: to commission and open transportation communications to Russia, starting from Afghanistan and the CA republics. In essence, NATO and other western forces do not actively struggle against production and trade of narcotics. They are engaged in rhetoric and are not marked by real facts.
At the same time, the struggle against Taliban movement seems to be dependent on the general strategy of the USA in Eurasia. At
present, this strategy consists in location of military bases of the USA and its allies along the belt from Morocco via the Mediterranean Sea to the CA republics. The main aims of these military detachments are as follows: separation of Europe from the Northern Africa; installation of the control over the North of Africa, the Near and the Middle East (particularly, the territory of Turkey, Syria and Iran, using the base Camp-Bondstill, located in Kosovo); deterrent of Russia and to some extent of China; an attempt to divide the Eurasian continent into two parts; the extension of "the crisis arch" up to the territory of the Central Asia (the definition of this region by Brzhezinski as "the Eurasian Balkans" means rather to be a program than a description of this zone).
The creation of the geopolitical spit in the Central Asia, i.e. of "the painful sore" in Eurasia, is able to lead to hostility and enmity among other main players in Asia - Russia, India and China. In this case, the USA would become the sole advantageous player. Trying to divide Eurasia by the arch from the Mediterranean Sea to the Central Asia, the USA (since 2008) after creation of the African Commandment of American Forces (AFRICOM) created a joint military mechanism in charge of common security in Africa with the aim of extending it to the Near East and the Central Asia.
Appraising the outcome of the international forum on production of narcotics in Afghanistan (Moscow, 9-10 June 2010) with the aim of finding out "common decision" of the Afghan narcotic question in the context of "international community", the analysts have to stress that instead of "international community" it is more feasible to speak about the actual players (actual and probable participants), who have chosen the Afghan zone as a sphere of their activities.
For the sake of analysis it is feasible to cite the three following categories of such players: the external players; the local players and
the players, which potentially might become the participants in the Afghan context.
As the external players should be considered the USA and NATO - the international forces promoting security (ISAF), except Turkey, since they are alien to any specific geopolitical region even in its extended meaning.
The local players are represented by the bordering countries (Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, China, Pakistan), the tribes, the insurgents, the talibs and the "government" entity headed by Karzai.
As the players of the third category may be regarded the Organization of the Treaty of Collective Security (ODKB, the Shanghai Organization of Cooperation (ShOS), i. e. the main Eurasian organizations with great experience in decision of questions, connected with border control and narcotic trade on the territory of the Central Asia, as well as the Eurasian Economic Community (EvrAzES). It is necessary to mention UN, particularly the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC).
In order to be able to settle the narcotics' issue in Afghanistan the potential partners should possess at least the following abilities: the knowledge of local dynamics in ethnic, cultural, religious and economic features of life; the recognition of the local population as a component of the same cultural context (the notion in the broad sense); the will to take collective actions without bias and internal reticence within the framework of any Eurasian program.
The stabilization of the Afghan zone is the most needed requirement of any plan with the aim of solving the problem of production and sale of narcotics. In this respect, the forces of the USA and NATO are not the acceptable candidates due to their clearly
displayed geopolitical practice aimed at hegemony on the territory of Eurasia.
The genuine players able to ensure stabilization are, without any doubt, the countries having the border with Afghanistan and the Eurasian organizations. Iran as a country contiguous with Afghanistan might play a special role. It is the sole country, which clearly displayed the definite security of the Afghan-Iranian border particularly in relation to the narcotics' trade. At the same time, Moscow and Beijing assume the significant function to stabilize the situation in this region and to struggle against narcotics' trade, since Russia and China, as it is worth recalling, are the leading powers in the mentioned Eurasian organizations.
The strategic axis between two "lungs" of Eurasia, balanced by the Central-Asian republics and India, might present a long-term solution for stabilization of the situation in this region and, consequently for decision of the narcotics' question. The dialogue with local tribes and with the insurgents' movements, which definitely are not governed by external players, is possible only within the framework of the common Eurasian plan aimed at stabilization (perceived and performed by the Eurasian players).
"Vestnik analitiki", M., 2010, p. 25-29.
A. Volodin,
orientalist
PAKISTAN: RELATIONS WITH INDIA AGAINST THE BACKGROUD OF INTERNAL INSTABILITY
In 1980, Hindu ambassador in Pakistan and later former foreign minister of India K. Natvar Singh described the relations between two countries as "awfully complicated". Thirty years later, this appraisal of
