Universal anti-terrorist front essential
The fact that the international community is still unable to effectively rally UN as a united, universal antiterrorist front certainly arouses serious concern and regret. Every country should genuinely try to form an antiterrorist front like world peace movements in the past
Monaem Sarker
The past 2016 leap year was not easy. In addition to the troubles befall leap years, some man-made events also took place which were not conducive to strengthening international security. We can only say that year did not see any reduction in threats. We are referring above all to the threat of international terrorism, which continued doing its dirty business. It has affected residents of cities in Europe, the Middle East and other countries as a result of a heinous terrorist attack, Russian ambassador to Turkey, Andrey Karlov. Terrorism has become a genuinely systemic problem. The fact that the international community is still unable to effectively rally UN as a united, universal antiterrorist front certainly arouses serious concern and regret.
Why all these happenings? There are probably a lot of reasons. We see that pooling efforts to fight terrorism, organized crime, drug trafficking and many other threats is becoming a systemic problem that is compounded by basic differences between the objective trend toward the formation of a polycentric world, on the one hand and the actions of those trying to hold on to the outdated concept of unipolarity, on the other hand. We are referring to the domination not even so much of one state as one group of states with their own system of values. More and more we are running up against a conflict that has been growing over the past several years and that has asserted itself in a very naked form at the current stage. We are referring to the divide between what underlies the foreign policy of a particular country- pragmatism, correctly understood national interests- versus messianism, the aspiration to disseminate values across the world, whats more, according to the interpretation that has evolved and developed within this group of states.
If we talk about Western and European values, which are constantly put forward as example for us, these are probably not the values the grandfathers of todays Europeans espoused but something new and modernized, a free-for-all, we would say. These are values that can be called post-Christian. They are radically and fundamentally at odds with the values handed down from generation to generation for centuries in our countries, which we would like to cherish and hand down to our children and grandchildren. When during foreign policy battles we and many others face a demand to accept these new post-Christian Western values, including permissiveness and the universality of liberal approaches to the life of the individual, we think it is indecent on a human level. But in terms of professional diplomats, it is a colossal mistake and a completely unacceptable overestimation of your own influence on international relations.
There is a struggle between two trends. The messianic addiction to propagating values (there was the export of democracy and now we can see an attempt to export values) stands in opposition to the growing desire of serious politicians to focus on pragmatically assessing their own interests, on trying to understand to legitimate interests of other countries and finding areas of overlap in approaches to certain issues, be it terrorism or economic development, without undermining their own interests, and so on. We believe the clash between pragmatism and messianism in foreign policy is adding a new dimension to the contradictions that have been observed over the past few years.
At present the Russian Federations choice is well known. They are not intending of course, to export anything. In USSR history they used to be the practice of exporting revolution. Russia has ceased doing that, but a bad example is contagious. The export of democracy and values continues to sow problems in international relations. It is precisely the export of values and the demand to accept only the European view of things that triggered the crisis in Ukraine. The export of democracy and values led to the so-called Arab spring, and we are now reaping the consequences. The Arab spring has, in turn, sparked the import of migrants in Europe. So, export-import transactions, unfortunately, do occur and dont benefit security one bit. USA is not facing any problem of migrants but USA initiated the Arab Spring.
Present choice is pragmatism based on the core interests of the Russian Federation. Those interests are simple. They remain unchanged and consist of ensuring that there country does well, that the wellbeing of there people improves and that there economy and social sector develop steadily in an atmosphere of security and under the most favourable external circumstances possible. In Russian Federation there is no room for any idealized position or messiansim. They are looking for overlapping interests with all who are ready to work toward a global economy that develops in the interests of all countries and people without exception. They are looking for common approaches with those who realize that there is no alternative to united efforts against terrorism and other modern challenges, with those who are ready to work with equal and mutually beneficial basis, taking into account mutual interests. Present Russia adheres to these positions to work at the UN, BRICS, the G20, the CIS, the SCO, the CSTO, the EAEU and other multilateral structures. And they adhere to the same positions in building relations with their partners and allies in various regions of the world, whether individual countries or interstate integration associations or other kinds of associations. They are ready to build relations with the United States, the European Union even NATO on the principles of equality, considerations of each others interests, mutual respect and without the import of values or attempts to impose any values on them, all the more so now that- as the latest information wars suggest- those values or pseudo-values have already been seriously discredited.
Both during and after the US election campaign, there were claims of Russian interference in the process. How did the diplomats working conditions change in 2016 in general? We all know that Russia made great efforts in 2016 to settle the internal conflicts in Syria and advance political talks the Syrian Arab Republic. In the international community it is placing considerable hope on the talks.
At present there have been many forecasts and statements expressing hope the every individual country should genuinely try for an antiterrorist front like world peace movement in the past Russia-US relations will improve after Donald Trump assume office we will have to wait to see US policy under Trump. As we all know about cold war era and also detente. Only future can say a new international climate of Delente will emerge between two countries (US-Russia) or more countries which have been unfriendly towards each other in the past. Now the ball is in the Donald Trumps hand. If Putin can manage Trump for strengthening international security we can see a peaceful atmosphere around the globe. Otherwise terrorism will be a problem for all the countries of the world.
The writer is a freelancer
