Tweet
THE MULTIPOLAR REALITIES, MIDDLE EAST AND NEWS TICKER GENOCIDE (Part 2)
http://www.noravank.am/eng/
09.09.2013
Gagik Harutyunyan
Executive Director, Noravank Scientific Educational Foundation, Yerevan
"In my opinion, any future defense secretary who advises the president
to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle
East or Africa should have his head examined."
Robert Gates, US Secretary of Defense (2006-2011)
"The scenery after spring"
Today it can be stated that the developments initiated in the Arab
world have yet a long way to go: as some well-known ideologists dreamt
in the beginning of the 20th century, the revolution in Egypt becomes
permanent, and confrontation between Islamists and their opponents
has spread even into Turkey that had been considered a stable country.
Syria has to be reviewed separately, as war there entered its third
year, and we shall return to this issue later. Today one may summarize
some preliminary outcomes. Apart from somewhat different Tunisia, where
processes occur in a relatively soft manner, the overall result for
the countries of the region is their "destatization"1. For instance,
Libya used to have a certain degree of political influence and
economic development, and now it has actually turned from a state
into a "territory" with energy reserves and groups of population
clashing with each other. Characteristically, after the final act
of war, i.e. Gaddafi's murder, Libya (or rather, "former Libya",
as dubbed by some commentators) all of a sudden fell into the "grey
zone" of the world media, and even terrorist attacks on diplomats
just slightly enliven this country's spot in the information space.
Egypt, which is considered the leader of Arab world, is now ruled by in
principle illegitimate "junta", while the Muslim Brothers who won the
election, along with supportive Salafis try to restore ousted Morsi to
presidency. Regardless of the outcome of this standoff, the country's
society has been split and degraded, perhaps irreversibly: the crime
rates skyrocketed (e.g. over the last 12 months the number of robberies
increased by 350%). Quite naturally, the economy plummeted, too: apart
from bare figures of IMF and other international organizations, what
speaks volumes is the fact that since 2011 4500 plants were closed
down and 25% of population fell below the poverty line (by Egyptian
standards) [9]. This combination of problems practically deprives
Egypt of any development prospects, at least for the near future.
Regardless of the mechanisms applied, Iraq was pushed into a status of
a "territory" even earlier. After the American invasion the country
is split along ethnic and confessional lines, the government system
practically does not function, while inter-confessional clashes and
terrorist attacks occur routinely. Thus, development prospects for
Iraq are as dubious as those for Libya and Egypt.
There is another commonality in the region. In Iraq, for instance,
after the reform of the state governance system the government is led
by representatives of the Shia majority, who do not concur with the
American policies on Syria, but rather have a largely pro-Iranian
stance. Situation was almost the same in Egypt, where no full
collaboration was achieved between the USA and Muslim Brothers
who took the power (that is despite the American "track record"
of ex-President Morsi, who at some point used to work in the USA).
Judging from the suspension of military aircrafts supply, things
did not work out well with the Egyptian military either, who are in
charge now. If any common pattern is to be observed among the "new
governments", then it is only the "re-Islamization" of the region,
perhaps inspired by somewhat outdated ideas of the RAND Corporation
on "moderate Islamism" described in the project Building Moderate
Muslim Network2.
So it turns out that the traditionally main goal of the externally
inspired revolutions or direct interventions, i.e. forming loyal
governments (as in cases with Ukraine, Georgia or Afghanistan), was
not achieved. It follows that replacing the ruling regimes with "own
cadres" was not the main motive of what was happening. One may not rule
out previously mentioned assumption about independent actions of NGOs,
mass media or "states within a state", while the US administration
had to face the fait accompli. But rather, the actions of these NGOs
and/or "states within a state" emphasize the complicated structure
of the concept of "national interest" in modern world, particularly
in America.
In this context, especially given the developments around Syria and
Iran, one of the main motives for transformation of the region's
countries could have been ensuring the security of the "number 1"
ally Israel. Obviously, no matter how warlike is the governments'
rhetoric, if their countries are in condition of collapse, they could
pose no threat to the Jewish state that has a successful track record
of fighting terrorist groups. However, this is true only in the short
term, since further evolution of the existing situation is not all
that unequivocal and we shall return to this issue later.
Full implementation of this "regional scenario" is currently under a
big question mark. The mechanism of triggering an inner turmoil, or if
that is not enough, then staging a small military campaign to "save
the opposition from physical extermination" that ultimately results
in a country degrading in all senses, did not work in Syria. It is
the third year that a hard-fought war rages in this country, with
yet unknown outcome3.
"The Multipolar War I"
At the initial phases the processes in the Middle East kind of
followed the rules of monopole world. Even occupation of Iraq or
military intervention in Libya did not encounter serious opposition,
as the international community has already gotten used to disapproving
comments from leaders of some countries (including those of NATO member
countries) or rather devalued UN resolutions. Situation changed during
developments in Syria, where:
Relying on multiethnic population overwhelmingly loyal to the
authorities (note that Syria was not even included in the above
mentioned Revolting Index list), the government of Bashar al-Assad
exercised political will and started rigorously suppressing the
armed mercenaries, the actions of which targeted not only government,
but also peaceful population and religious/confessional minorities.
Mercenaries come to Syria (according to some estimates less than 20%
of the militants are Syrians) from the countries of the region and
even CIS (particularly from Azerbaijan, North Caucasus and Central
Asia). These include various terrorist groups, among which Al Qaida
and Jabhat al-Nusra stand out. The militants receive arms and materiel
from the USA, France and UK. Support of the militants is particularly
considerable from the countries of the region, first of all Turkey,
Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
The events in Iran's important ally Syria had a clear anti-Iranian
orientation from the very beginning and were perceived as "force
supplement" to the economic sanctions against Iran. Naturally,
Iranian government provided real military support to Syria (both
military hardware and volunteers from elite troops). Remarkably,
Syria receives support also from immediate neighbors: Iraq (Iraqi
Shia leader Muqtada al-Sadr's militia) and Lebanon's Hezbollah (from
areas under Hezbollah control).
Capabilities of Syria-Iran tandem enabled Russia and China to more
persistently defend their national interests, and hence, their
pro-Syrian stances in the international arena. And this is not only
about diplomacy: Russia and Syria assist Syria both economically
and with military hardware supply (especially Russian-made, as in a
recent case of agreement to supply $4-5 billion worth of aircrafts
and missiles).
Thus, a rather large number of countries and religious, militant
and terrorist structures related to (and sometimes not so related
to) these countries were involved in the events around Syria. The
current conflict possesses all attributes of Cold War era local
conflicts: the countries widely use all possible diplomatic, military,
informational/psychological4, economic and terroristic leverages. The
intelligence services are particularly active in Syria, implementing
their specific information/diversion functions: there are numerous
media reports about participation of Turkish, French, British special
forces and Iranian Revolutionary Guards in the military operations.
All of this prompts that the Syrian crisis has gained a status of a
"global" one. An important element of the Syrian war is that first
time ever after the Cold War interests of Russia and NATO clashed in a
'hot war" outside CIS. In some aspects reminiscent of the Vietnam War,
this conflict can be called the "Multipolar War I". The following
has to be noted in this respect.
Although the military strength of the USA considerably exceeds that of
the other countries, the political and economic capabilities of this
superpower are significantly restricted. This reality is adequately
recognized by the USA and the American policy making structures
strive to use this already "temporary" advantage to strengthen their
positions to the best possible extent. However, this is understood
also by the opponents of the USA: their "disobedience" is caused
not just by the philosophy of the multipolar world order, but also
by specific calculations. The American project of turning the "New
Middle East" into a "turbulent territory" not only is intended to
deprive Russia and China of military/political and economic leverages
in one of the critically important regions, but also poses a threat
of "infecting" these two nations. Hence, their counteraction to such
plans is likely to be based on critical necessity. At the same time,
Russia-China-Iran relations have not grown yet into a large-scale
military/political cooperation. In this sense, positions of the USA,
Israel, their European and regional partners look much better, as over
decades they have gained a rich experience of strategic partnership
and a common political culture.
The list of above said factors playing important role in the Syrian
conflict can be expanded. Such multitude of variables makes it
extremely difficult, if not impossible, to predict outcomes of the
war in Syria.
Apparently, the anti-Syrian bloc's assumption about a quick military
victory turned out to be a delusion. In the military respect the
government troops and supportive regional forces have overtaken the
initiative and the mercenaries suffer significant defeats. After
information became available that the terrorists have perpetrated
cruel acts of violence on prisoners of war and peaceful population,
the overall informational environment around Syria had changed, too.
There is no doubt that defeat in Syria will first of all disgrace the
USA. With this in mind, idea-wise repeating the provocative Iraqi
scenario President Obama accused the Syrian government in chemical
attack and decided to carry out at least some "limited strikes" on
Syria. It is rather hard to predict all repercussions of such a new
development, especially given the possible involvement of Iran in
military actions. Such war would definitely bring drastic changes to
the regional (and global) situation. However, regardless of various
military scenarios, the main outcome of the Syrian war is that it
became a catalyst in the process of shaping the multipolar world order
and was kind of a wakeup call not only to Iran, Russia and China, but
possibly to some other countries as well. If this wakeup call prompts
Russia and China to come closer (a silhouette of such rapprochement
is already observed to some extent), then it may put under a question
mark the correctness of the big strategy of the USA and its allies.
Yet this is not the only problem.
Some scenarios/predictions suggest5 that the crisis phenomena in the
current system of global governance may lead to fragmentation of the
global space along the civilizational or other lines. The segments
formed in this manner, i.e. associations of nations and peoples, strive
to isolate themselves from the globalizing world with its rules. With
the current realities and persistent trend of regional Islamization
it is possible that development of the NME countries may take this
direction. Needless to say, emergence of such a vast, ideologically
radicalized Islamic world may result in creation of geopolitical
ruptures and hence, higher likelihood for various conflicts in the
style of the Clash of Civilizations theory. Of course, it cannot
be ruled out that the final goal of the modern global political
technologists was exactly the creation of such "fragment" next door to
Russia and China. However, such structure with dominant anti-Western
sentiments in its societies and relatively easy access to nuclear
technologies would be extremely explosive and might result in dire
consequence for the USA itself, not to mention its regional allies.
Meanwhile, apocalyptic scenarios happen not only in future. Today
already a major humanitarian catastrophe is ongoing in the Middle East.
The News Ticker Genocide
Any attempt to accurately count casualties and refugees among the
peaceful population of the Middle East is doomed to fail. Data
provided by different sources (UN, UNICEF, statistical services of
the region's countries, reputable organizations like The Lancet,
Costs of War Project, Business Survey, Associated Press, etc.) often
vary considerably. This is hardly surprising: amid the chaos reigning
in the region human life is worth little and necessitates no special
recordkeeping. However, having discarded some apparently exaggerated
figures and sticking to near-minimal numbers, we shall try to get at
least an approximate idea about the human dimension of the Middle
Eastern processes for the countries where armed hostilities had
taken place.
Table
These impressive numbers are comparable to those of casualties among
peaceful population of Vietnam (ca. 2 million people), though the
difference is that in Indochina the war in a way was classic, with
participation of regular (as well as other) troops, and also Americans
used chemical weapons, carpet bombed settlements, etc. Conversely, in
the Middle East extermination of people is mostly a result of actions
by the natives of the region. It would not be entirely correct to
describe these events as civil war, given the foreign intervention.
There is some evidence suggesting that in this case a somewhat unique
form of genocide is taking place6.
The UN convention defines genocide as "acts committed with intent to
destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious
group."7This definition matches to what is happening in the Middle
East. However, unlike the previous instances known from the history,
such as the Genocide of Armenians in Turkey or Holocaust of Jews in
Nazi Germany, it is problematic to identify the perpetrators of the
committed crime. Perhaps the following paragraph of the convention
should be used as basis: "Deliberately inflicting on the group
conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction,
in whole or in part." If the external interference theory is taken
as basis, it is possible that the designers of the current NME format
initially did not intend causing mass extermination of people. However,
sometimes it is useful to judge by the outcomes.
It is also characteristic that the new genocide has assumed a curious
informational guise. When several innocent marathon runners and
bystanders fall victim of a terrorist attack, it becomes a topic for
global discussions. At the same time terrorist attacks are carried out
on daily basis in Iraq and Syria, every day taking lives of hundreds,
but in the informational dimension currently they appear only in
news tickers.
1 Harutyunyan, G., New Middle East: Reality and Prospects.
http://www.noravank.am/eng/articles/detail.php?ELEMENT_ID=6353.
2 http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2007/RAND_MG%&$.pdf.
3 Harutyunyan G., War in Syria: Probable Scenarios
http://www.noravank.am/eng/articles/detail.php?ELEMENT_ID=6769.
4 See, for example: aкопян a., ПрEемы E способы
EнформацEонно-псEхолоCEческоCо воздействEя в EнформацEонном
протEвоборстве воюющEх сторон в oEрEE. Центр стратеCEческEх оценок
E проCнозов. - М.: 2013.
http://www.csef.ru/files/csef/articles/4445/4445.pdf
5 Global Governance 2025: At a Critical Juncture. National Intelligence
Council, European Union Institute for Security Studies, September
2010,http://www.iss.europa.eu/uploads/media/Global_Governance_2025.pdf.
6 aрутюнян c., На БлEOнем Востоке реалEзуется новая форма CеноцEда.
http://www.noravank.am/rus/articles/detail.php?ELEMENT_ID=7124
7 http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/260(III)
References
1.Тер - aрутюнянц c., МноCополярная E асEмметрEчная Холодная война.
ВестнEк aкадемEE Военных наук, #4(21), с.23, 2007.
2. aерлуCьян c., Внезапны, но EноCда предсказуемы. uксперт, #29(859),
с.60, 2013.
3. Zakaria F. The post-American World. - N.Y.-L. : W.W.Norton, 2008.
4. ПараC Ханна, Второй мEр. - М.: eзд-во , 2010.
5. Крауч, К., . - М.: eздательскEй дом
cосударственноCо унEверсEтета - Высшей школы UкономEкE, 2010. КолEн
Крауч, oтранная не - смерть неолEбералEзма. - М.: eздательскEй дом
, 2012.
6. aрутюнян c., eнтернет структуры в контексте
E EнформацEонной безопасностE. 21-й Век, #4(16), с.3, 2010.
7. cрEняев o., Поле бEтвы - кEберпространство. - МEнск: Харвест, 2004.
8. aрутюнян c., Распад E формEрованEе будущеCо. - Ереван:
НОФ , 2011.
9. МEрзаян c., РеволюцEя пошла вразнос. uксперт, #27(858) с.54, 2013.
THE MULTIPOLAR REALITIES, MIDDLE EAST AND NEWS TICKER GENOCIDE (Part 1)
Return ________________________________ Another materials of author
A NEW KIND OF GENOCIDE HAS BEEN PERPETRATED IN THE MIDDLE
EAST Interview of Gagik Harutyunyan to ArmInfo Information
Agency[13.06.2013] REGNUM: NEW KIND OF GENOCIDE IS BEING PERPETRATED
IN SYRIA (from the press-conference of Gagik Harutyunyan)[16.05.2013]
ON SOME MAIN ISSUES OF INTEGRATION IN THE CONTEXT OF A VALUE
SYSTEM[29.04.2013] INTEGRATION PROCESSES AND INFORMATION POLICY
[28.02.2013] CHALLENGES TO ARMENIA IN THE GLOBALIZING WORLD[27.12.2012]
WAR IN SYRIA: PROBABLE SCENARIOS[04.12.2012] THE EUROPEAN UNION:
NEW TENDENCIES[03.07.2012] TURKISH NUCLEAR THREAT[26.04.2012] NEW
MIDDLE EAST: REALITY AND PROSPECTS [15.03.2012] NEW STATEHOOD AND
NEW CHALLENGES[20.09.2011]
http://www.noravank.am/eng/
09.09.2013
Gagik Harutyunyan
Executive Director, Noravank Scientific Educational Foundation, Yerevan
"In my opinion, any future defense secretary who advises the president
to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle
East or Africa should have his head examined."
Robert Gates, US Secretary of Defense (2006-2011)
"The scenery after spring"
Today it can be stated that the developments initiated in the Arab
world have yet a long way to go: as some well-known ideologists dreamt
in the beginning of the 20th century, the revolution in Egypt becomes
permanent, and confrontation between Islamists and their opponents
has spread even into Turkey that had been considered a stable country.
Syria has to be reviewed separately, as war there entered its third
year, and we shall return to this issue later. Today one may summarize
some preliminary outcomes. Apart from somewhat different Tunisia, where
processes occur in a relatively soft manner, the overall result for
the countries of the region is their "destatization"1. For instance,
Libya used to have a certain degree of political influence and
economic development, and now it has actually turned from a state
into a "territory" with energy reserves and groups of population
clashing with each other. Characteristically, after the final act
of war, i.e. Gaddafi's murder, Libya (or rather, "former Libya",
as dubbed by some commentators) all of a sudden fell into the "grey
zone" of the world media, and even terrorist attacks on diplomats
just slightly enliven this country's spot in the information space.
Egypt, which is considered the leader of Arab world, is now ruled by in
principle illegitimate "junta", while the Muslim Brothers who won the
election, along with supportive Salafis try to restore ousted Morsi to
presidency. Regardless of the outcome of this standoff, the country's
society has been split and degraded, perhaps irreversibly: the crime
rates skyrocketed (e.g. over the last 12 months the number of robberies
increased by 350%). Quite naturally, the economy plummeted, too: apart
from bare figures of IMF and other international organizations, what
speaks volumes is the fact that since 2011 4500 plants were closed
down and 25% of population fell below the poverty line (by Egyptian
standards) [9]. This combination of problems practically deprives
Egypt of any development prospects, at least for the near future.
Regardless of the mechanisms applied, Iraq was pushed into a status of
a "territory" even earlier. After the American invasion the country
is split along ethnic and confessional lines, the government system
practically does not function, while inter-confessional clashes and
terrorist attacks occur routinely. Thus, development prospects for
Iraq are as dubious as those for Libya and Egypt.
There is another commonality in the region. In Iraq, for instance,
after the reform of the state governance system the government is led
by representatives of the Shia majority, who do not concur with the
American policies on Syria, but rather have a largely pro-Iranian
stance. Situation was almost the same in Egypt, where no full
collaboration was achieved between the USA and Muslim Brothers
who took the power (that is despite the American "track record"
of ex-President Morsi, who at some point used to work in the USA).
Judging from the suspension of military aircrafts supply, things
did not work out well with the Egyptian military either, who are in
charge now. If any common pattern is to be observed among the "new
governments", then it is only the "re-Islamization" of the region,
perhaps inspired by somewhat outdated ideas of the RAND Corporation
on "moderate Islamism" described in the project Building Moderate
Muslim Network2.
So it turns out that the traditionally main goal of the externally
inspired revolutions or direct interventions, i.e. forming loyal
governments (as in cases with Ukraine, Georgia or Afghanistan), was
not achieved. It follows that replacing the ruling regimes with "own
cadres" was not the main motive of what was happening. One may not rule
out previously mentioned assumption about independent actions of NGOs,
mass media or "states within a state", while the US administration
had to face the fait accompli. But rather, the actions of these NGOs
and/or "states within a state" emphasize the complicated structure
of the concept of "national interest" in modern world, particularly
in America.
In this context, especially given the developments around Syria and
Iran, one of the main motives for transformation of the region's
countries could have been ensuring the security of the "number 1"
ally Israel. Obviously, no matter how warlike is the governments'
rhetoric, if their countries are in condition of collapse, they could
pose no threat to the Jewish state that has a successful track record
of fighting terrorist groups. However, this is true only in the short
term, since further evolution of the existing situation is not all
that unequivocal and we shall return to this issue later.
Full implementation of this "regional scenario" is currently under a
big question mark. The mechanism of triggering an inner turmoil, or if
that is not enough, then staging a small military campaign to "save
the opposition from physical extermination" that ultimately results
in a country degrading in all senses, did not work in Syria. It is
the third year that a hard-fought war rages in this country, with
yet unknown outcome3.
"The Multipolar War I"
At the initial phases the processes in the Middle East kind of
followed the rules of monopole world. Even occupation of Iraq or
military intervention in Libya did not encounter serious opposition,
as the international community has already gotten used to disapproving
comments from leaders of some countries (including those of NATO member
countries) or rather devalued UN resolutions. Situation changed during
developments in Syria, where:
Relying on multiethnic population overwhelmingly loyal to the
authorities (note that Syria was not even included in the above
mentioned Revolting Index list), the government of Bashar al-Assad
exercised political will and started rigorously suppressing the
armed mercenaries, the actions of which targeted not only government,
but also peaceful population and religious/confessional minorities.
Mercenaries come to Syria (according to some estimates less than 20%
of the militants are Syrians) from the countries of the region and
even CIS (particularly from Azerbaijan, North Caucasus and Central
Asia). These include various terrorist groups, among which Al Qaida
and Jabhat al-Nusra stand out. The militants receive arms and materiel
from the USA, France and UK. Support of the militants is particularly
considerable from the countries of the region, first of all Turkey,
Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
The events in Iran's important ally Syria had a clear anti-Iranian
orientation from the very beginning and were perceived as "force
supplement" to the economic sanctions against Iran. Naturally,
Iranian government provided real military support to Syria (both
military hardware and volunteers from elite troops). Remarkably,
Syria receives support also from immediate neighbors: Iraq (Iraqi
Shia leader Muqtada al-Sadr's militia) and Lebanon's Hezbollah (from
areas under Hezbollah control).
Capabilities of Syria-Iran tandem enabled Russia and China to more
persistently defend their national interests, and hence, their
pro-Syrian stances in the international arena. And this is not only
about diplomacy: Russia and Syria assist Syria both economically
and with military hardware supply (especially Russian-made, as in a
recent case of agreement to supply $4-5 billion worth of aircrafts
and missiles).
Thus, a rather large number of countries and religious, militant
and terrorist structures related to (and sometimes not so related
to) these countries were involved in the events around Syria. The
current conflict possesses all attributes of Cold War era local
conflicts: the countries widely use all possible diplomatic, military,
informational/psychological4, economic and terroristic leverages. The
intelligence services are particularly active in Syria, implementing
their specific information/diversion functions: there are numerous
media reports about participation of Turkish, French, British special
forces and Iranian Revolutionary Guards in the military operations.
All of this prompts that the Syrian crisis has gained a status of a
"global" one. An important element of the Syrian war is that first
time ever after the Cold War interests of Russia and NATO clashed in a
'hot war" outside CIS. In some aspects reminiscent of the Vietnam War,
this conflict can be called the "Multipolar War I". The following
has to be noted in this respect.
Although the military strength of the USA considerably exceeds that of
the other countries, the political and economic capabilities of this
superpower are significantly restricted. This reality is adequately
recognized by the USA and the American policy making structures
strive to use this already "temporary" advantage to strengthen their
positions to the best possible extent. However, this is understood
also by the opponents of the USA: their "disobedience" is caused
not just by the philosophy of the multipolar world order, but also
by specific calculations. The American project of turning the "New
Middle East" into a "turbulent territory" not only is intended to
deprive Russia and China of military/political and economic leverages
in one of the critically important regions, but also poses a threat
of "infecting" these two nations. Hence, their counteraction to such
plans is likely to be based on critical necessity. At the same time,
Russia-China-Iran relations have not grown yet into a large-scale
military/political cooperation. In this sense, positions of the USA,
Israel, their European and regional partners look much better, as over
decades they have gained a rich experience of strategic partnership
and a common political culture.
The list of above said factors playing important role in the Syrian
conflict can be expanded. Such multitude of variables makes it
extremely difficult, if not impossible, to predict outcomes of the
war in Syria.
Apparently, the anti-Syrian bloc's assumption about a quick military
victory turned out to be a delusion. In the military respect the
government troops and supportive regional forces have overtaken the
initiative and the mercenaries suffer significant defeats. After
information became available that the terrorists have perpetrated
cruel acts of violence on prisoners of war and peaceful population,
the overall informational environment around Syria had changed, too.
There is no doubt that defeat in Syria will first of all disgrace the
USA. With this in mind, idea-wise repeating the provocative Iraqi
scenario President Obama accused the Syrian government in chemical
attack and decided to carry out at least some "limited strikes" on
Syria. It is rather hard to predict all repercussions of such a new
development, especially given the possible involvement of Iran in
military actions. Such war would definitely bring drastic changes to
the regional (and global) situation. However, regardless of various
military scenarios, the main outcome of the Syrian war is that it
became a catalyst in the process of shaping the multipolar world order
and was kind of a wakeup call not only to Iran, Russia and China, but
possibly to some other countries as well. If this wakeup call prompts
Russia and China to come closer (a silhouette of such rapprochement
is already observed to some extent), then it may put under a question
mark the correctness of the big strategy of the USA and its allies.
Yet this is not the only problem.
Some scenarios/predictions suggest5 that the crisis phenomena in the
current system of global governance may lead to fragmentation of the
global space along the civilizational or other lines. The segments
formed in this manner, i.e. associations of nations and peoples, strive
to isolate themselves from the globalizing world with its rules. With
the current realities and persistent trend of regional Islamization
it is possible that development of the NME countries may take this
direction. Needless to say, emergence of such a vast, ideologically
radicalized Islamic world may result in creation of geopolitical
ruptures and hence, higher likelihood for various conflicts in the
style of the Clash of Civilizations theory. Of course, it cannot
be ruled out that the final goal of the modern global political
technologists was exactly the creation of such "fragment" next door to
Russia and China. However, such structure with dominant anti-Western
sentiments in its societies and relatively easy access to nuclear
technologies would be extremely explosive and might result in dire
consequence for the USA itself, not to mention its regional allies.
Meanwhile, apocalyptic scenarios happen not only in future. Today
already a major humanitarian catastrophe is ongoing in the Middle East.
The News Ticker Genocide
Any attempt to accurately count casualties and refugees among the
peaceful population of the Middle East is doomed to fail. Data
provided by different sources (UN, UNICEF, statistical services of
the region's countries, reputable organizations like The Lancet,
Costs of War Project, Business Survey, Associated Press, etc.) often
vary considerably. This is hardly surprising: amid the chaos reigning
in the region human life is worth little and necessitates no special
recordkeeping. However, having discarded some apparently exaggerated
figures and sticking to near-minimal numbers, we shall try to get at
least an approximate idea about the human dimension of the Middle
Eastern processes for the countries where armed hostilities had
taken place.
Table
These impressive numbers are comparable to those of casualties among
peaceful population of Vietnam (ca. 2 million people), though the
difference is that in Indochina the war in a way was classic, with
participation of regular (as well as other) troops, and also Americans
used chemical weapons, carpet bombed settlements, etc. Conversely, in
the Middle East extermination of people is mostly a result of actions
by the natives of the region. It would not be entirely correct to
describe these events as civil war, given the foreign intervention.
There is some evidence suggesting that in this case a somewhat unique
form of genocide is taking place6.
The UN convention defines genocide as "acts committed with intent to
destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious
group."7This definition matches to what is happening in the Middle
East. However, unlike the previous instances known from the history,
such as the Genocide of Armenians in Turkey or Holocaust of Jews in
Nazi Germany, it is problematic to identify the perpetrators of the
committed crime. Perhaps the following paragraph of the convention
should be used as basis: "Deliberately inflicting on the group
conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction,
in whole or in part." If the external interference theory is taken
as basis, it is possible that the designers of the current NME format
initially did not intend causing mass extermination of people. However,
sometimes it is useful to judge by the outcomes.
It is also characteristic that the new genocide has assumed a curious
informational guise. When several innocent marathon runners and
bystanders fall victim of a terrorist attack, it becomes a topic for
global discussions. At the same time terrorist attacks are carried out
on daily basis in Iraq and Syria, every day taking lives of hundreds,
but in the informational dimension currently they appear only in
news tickers.
1 Harutyunyan, G., New Middle East: Reality and Prospects.
http://www.noravank.am/eng/articles/detail.php?ELEMENT_ID=6353.
2 http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2007/RAND_MG%&$.pdf.
3 Harutyunyan G., War in Syria: Probable Scenarios
http://www.noravank.am/eng/articles/detail.php?ELEMENT_ID=6769.
4 See, for example: aкопян a., ПрEемы E способы
EнформацEонно-псEхолоCEческоCо воздействEя в EнформацEонном
протEвоборстве воюющEх сторон в oEрEE. Центр стратеCEческEх оценок
E проCнозов. - М.: 2013.
http://www.csef.ru/files/csef/articles/4445/4445.pdf
5 Global Governance 2025: At a Critical Juncture. National Intelligence
Council, European Union Institute for Security Studies, September
2010,http://www.iss.europa.eu/uploads/media/Global_Governance_2025.pdf.
6 aрутюнян c., На БлEOнем Востоке реалEзуется новая форма CеноцEда.
http://www.noravank.am/rus/articles/detail.php?ELEMENT_ID=7124
7 http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/260(III)
References
1.Тер - aрутюнянц c., МноCополярная E асEмметрEчная Холодная война.
ВестнEк aкадемEE Военных наук, #4(21), с.23, 2007.
2. aерлуCьян c., Внезапны, но EноCда предсказуемы. uксперт, #29(859),
с.60, 2013.
3. Zakaria F. The post-American World. - N.Y.-L. : W.W.Norton, 2008.
4. ПараC Ханна, Второй мEр. - М.: eзд-во , 2010.
5. Крауч, К., . - М.: eздательскEй дом
cосударственноCо унEверсEтета - Высшей школы UкономEкE, 2010. КолEн
Крауч, oтранная не - смерть неолEбералEзма. - М.: eздательскEй дом
, 2012.
6. aрутюнян c., eнтернет структуры в контексте
E EнформацEонной безопасностE. 21-й Век, #4(16), с.3, 2010.
7. cрEняев o., Поле бEтвы - кEберпространство. - МEнск: Харвест, 2004.
8. aрутюнян c., Распад E формEрованEе будущеCо. - Ереван:
НОФ , 2011.
9. МEрзаян c., РеволюцEя пошла вразнос. uксперт, #27(858) с.54, 2013.
THE MULTIPOLAR REALITIES, MIDDLE EAST AND NEWS TICKER GENOCIDE (Part 1)
Return ________________________________ Another materials of author
A NEW KIND OF GENOCIDE HAS BEEN PERPETRATED IN THE MIDDLE
EAST Interview of Gagik Harutyunyan to ArmInfo Information
Agency[13.06.2013] REGNUM: NEW KIND OF GENOCIDE IS BEING PERPETRATED
IN SYRIA (from the press-conference of Gagik Harutyunyan)[16.05.2013]
ON SOME MAIN ISSUES OF INTEGRATION IN THE CONTEXT OF A VALUE
SYSTEM[29.04.2013] INTEGRATION PROCESSES AND INFORMATION POLICY
[28.02.2013] CHALLENGES TO ARMENIA IN THE GLOBALIZING WORLD[27.12.2012]
WAR IN SYRIA: PROBABLE SCENARIOS[04.12.2012] THE EUROPEAN UNION:
NEW TENDENCIES[03.07.2012] TURKISH NUCLEAR THREAT[26.04.2012] NEW
MIDDLE EAST: REALITY AND PROSPECTS [15.03.2012] NEW STATEHOOD AND
NEW CHALLENGES[20.09.2011]