Islamic State Originated by US
Published in Nezavisimaya Gazeta
(Russia) on 29 May 2015
by Veniamin Viktorovich Popov (link to original)
(Russia) on 29 May 2015
by Veniamin Viktorovich Popov (link to original)
Translated from
by Julia Pashkovskaya.
Edited by Helaine Schweitzer.
The Middle East is on the brink of a humanitarian catastrophe.
Currently, foreign ministers of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation are meeting in Kuwait for the 42nd session to find a coordinated response to the growing trend of destabilization in the Middle East. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said in his address to the participants of the session that the OIC, created to promote unity and solidarity with the Muslim people, should take the initiative to restore trust and understanding among the followers of different Islamic movements. “The crisis situations in Libya, Syria, Iraq and Yemen have become prolonged fratricidal conflicts, with an increasing number of countries getting involved in it,” he noted.
The events of the past 10 to 15 years in this important strategic region are a reflection and consequence of the geopolitical shifts that are taking place since the disintegration of the USSR. Immediately, the ruling U.S. establishment tried to use this short period to convince the global community that from now on it was the only superpower and had the right to teach others and, when necessary, the right to impose its ideas and norms of a “right” structure of a state on other nations, all the while punishing some regimes and encouraging others as it sees fit.
The attack of Sept. 11 was used as a ground to launch this course. Despite the enormity of this crime, to some extent, it was the outcome of Washington's policy of manipulation and flirting with the emerging movement of Islamic radicalism, which was done to keep control of the allies and undermine the governments not loyal enough to the United States.
The highlight of the course of action was sending U.S. military forces to Iraq in 2003 on the grounds of protecting the world from Saddam Hussein’s regime. Hussein, according to the Americans, possessed weapons of mass destruction. It was an act of classic neo-colonialism pure and simple, and the people of the Middle East have paid a high price for it: the lives of hundreds of thousands, devastation, destruction, chaos … the American invasion resulted in a rapid shift of the decades-long fragile balance of power. In particular, it disrupted a well-established balance between Shiites and Sunnis. Then followed a period, referred to by Arab publicists as “a period of neo-colonial violence.”
Attempts by the West to use groups of Islamic radicals to overthrow Bashar al-Assad’s regime and bombings by NATO in Libya are links in this chain. Recently published documents from Hillary Clinton’s correspondence during her work as the U.S. secretary of state show that England and France were developing a plan to distribute Libya’s oil wealth behind the backs of the people of Libya. What is more, the breakdown of Libya as a whole country was considered.
Today, global mass media openly admit that the U.S. and other Western countries were the originators of the Islamic State group, which is spreading like a cancerous growth and threatens Arab and other nations in Asia and Africa. Having seized considerable territory in Iraq and Syria, Islamic State group militants came to the borders of Jordan and Saudi Arabia, and more than once threatened to seize Mecca. It is known that not only do they plan new terrorist acts in a number of European countries and the U.S., but they also are out for weapons of mass destruction. What if they succeed? Meanwhile, the global community is terrified by the brutal murders committed by Islamic State group militants, as well as the fact that their actions — actions that are beyond the norms of human beings and displayed as a struggle for social justice (the way it was in the times of the Prophet Muhammad) — attract thousands of young Muslims from different countries.
Western capitals deny the realities, underestimating the danger of new international terrorism. Such a position leads the Middle East, with its explosive atmosphere, to a state of high turbulence and unpredictability.
The absence of distinct policy regarding the new threats confuses different social groups. It results in radicals in many Western nations becoming more active. According to American economist Muhammad Eitan, this phenomenon, together with the inability of Western leaders to prioritize, leads to a virtual political collapse. Even Senator John McCain publicly accuses the American president of setting wrong priorities in his foreign policy.
The absolute failure of EU immigration policy serves as an example of this. The Mediterranean Sea is turning into a grave for thousands of refugees from Africa and Asia, who try to cross over to the northern shores of paradise, hoping for a better life in Europe. The situation with refugees from Syria and Iraq poses a serious danger – more than 15 million people, and their number continues to grow! An unprecedented flood of refugees together with the conflict of war has placed the region on the brink of a humanitarian catastrophe.
The colonial aspirations of some Western leaders are covered up by beautiful words about human rights. In an article published almost ten years ago in the Armed Forces Journal, American army officer Ralph Peters insisted that the borders of Turkey, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states should be changed. This is the very redrawing of the map of the Middle East we are witnessing now, and it brings serious problems for the people of the region. It remains on the conscience of Western governments. They acknowledge the mistakes but only when it comes to those of previous leaders; for example, Barack Obama readily acknowledges the mistakes of the Bush administration.
The fate of mankind directly depends on the joint efforts of all countries to face new challenges and dangers. Success can be achieved only if the main centers of the world coordinate their actions. If, as partners, they consider each other’s interests, even the most dangerous situations could be stabilized. An example of this would be agreement on the use of chemical weapons in Syria and the Iran nuclear program. Logic dictates that the only way for humanity to survive is through mutual respect and mutual trust, equal dialogue and common sense. This is particularly true for the people of the Middle East, who, as they did 100 years ago after the Anglo-French Sykes-Picot agreement, have fallen victim to selfish Western policy.
About the author: Veniamin Viktorovich Popov is the director of the Center for Partnership and Civilizations of the Institute of International Studies of the Moscow State Institute for International Relations of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Currently, foreign ministers of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation are meeting in Kuwait for the 42nd session to find a coordinated response to the growing trend of destabilization in the Middle East. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said in his address to the participants of the session that the OIC, created to promote unity and solidarity with the Muslim people, should take the initiative to restore trust and understanding among the followers of different Islamic movements. “The crisis situations in Libya, Syria, Iraq and Yemen have become prolonged fratricidal conflicts, with an increasing number of countries getting involved in it,” he noted.
The events of the past 10 to 15 years in this important strategic region are a reflection and consequence of the geopolitical shifts that are taking place since the disintegration of the USSR. Immediately, the ruling U.S. establishment tried to use this short period to convince the global community that from now on it was the only superpower and had the right to teach others and, when necessary, the right to impose its ideas and norms of a “right” structure of a state on other nations, all the while punishing some regimes and encouraging others as it sees fit.
The attack of Sept. 11 was used as a ground to launch this course. Despite the enormity of this crime, to some extent, it was the outcome of Washington's policy of manipulation and flirting with the emerging movement of Islamic radicalism, which was done to keep control of the allies and undermine the governments not loyal enough to the United States.
The highlight of the course of action was sending U.S. military forces to Iraq in 2003 on the grounds of protecting the world from Saddam Hussein’s regime. Hussein, according to the Americans, possessed weapons of mass destruction. It was an act of classic neo-colonialism pure and simple, and the people of the Middle East have paid a high price for it: the lives of hundreds of thousands, devastation, destruction, chaos … the American invasion resulted in a rapid shift of the decades-long fragile balance of power. In particular, it disrupted a well-established balance between Shiites and Sunnis. Then followed a period, referred to by Arab publicists as “a period of neo-colonial violence.”
Attempts by the West to use groups of Islamic radicals to overthrow Bashar al-Assad’s regime and bombings by NATO in Libya are links in this chain. Recently published documents from Hillary Clinton’s correspondence during her work as the U.S. secretary of state show that England and France were developing a plan to distribute Libya’s oil wealth behind the backs of the people of Libya. What is more, the breakdown of Libya as a whole country was considered.
Today, global mass media openly admit that the U.S. and other Western countries were the originators of the Islamic State group, which is spreading like a cancerous growth and threatens Arab and other nations in Asia and Africa. Having seized considerable territory in Iraq and Syria, Islamic State group militants came to the borders of Jordan and Saudi Arabia, and more than once threatened to seize Mecca. It is known that not only do they plan new terrorist acts in a number of European countries and the U.S., but they also are out for weapons of mass destruction. What if they succeed? Meanwhile, the global community is terrified by the brutal murders committed by Islamic State group militants, as well as the fact that their actions — actions that are beyond the norms of human beings and displayed as a struggle for social justice (the way it was in the times of the Prophet Muhammad) — attract thousands of young Muslims from different countries.
Western capitals deny the realities, underestimating the danger of new international terrorism. Such a position leads the Middle East, with its explosive atmosphere, to a state of high turbulence and unpredictability.
The absence of distinct policy regarding the new threats confuses different social groups. It results in radicals in many Western nations becoming more active. According to American economist Muhammad Eitan, this phenomenon, together with the inability of Western leaders to prioritize, leads to a virtual political collapse. Even Senator John McCain publicly accuses the American president of setting wrong priorities in his foreign policy.
The absolute failure of EU immigration policy serves as an example of this. The Mediterranean Sea is turning into a grave for thousands of refugees from Africa and Asia, who try to cross over to the northern shores of paradise, hoping for a better life in Europe. The situation with refugees from Syria and Iraq poses a serious danger – more than 15 million people, and their number continues to grow! An unprecedented flood of refugees together with the conflict of war has placed the region on the brink of a humanitarian catastrophe.
The colonial aspirations of some Western leaders are covered up by beautiful words about human rights. In an article published almost ten years ago in the Armed Forces Journal, American army officer Ralph Peters insisted that the borders of Turkey, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states should be changed. This is the very redrawing of the map of the Middle East we are witnessing now, and it brings serious problems for the people of the region. It remains on the conscience of Western governments. They acknowledge the mistakes but only when it comes to those of previous leaders; for example, Barack Obama readily acknowledges the mistakes of the Bush administration.
The fate of mankind directly depends on the joint efforts of all countries to face new challenges and dangers. Success can be achieved only if the main centers of the world coordinate their actions. If, as partners, they consider each other’s interests, even the most dangerous situations could be stabilized. An example of this would be agreement on the use of chemical weapons in Syria and the Iran nuclear program. Logic dictates that the only way for humanity to survive is through mutual respect and mutual trust, equal dialogue and common sense. This is particularly true for the people of the Middle East, who, as they did 100 years ago after the Anglo-French Sykes-Picot agreement, have fallen victim to selfish Western policy.
About the author: Veniamin Viktorovich Popov is the director of the Center for Partnership and Civilizations of the Institute of International Studies of the Moscow State Institute for International Relations of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.