MOSCOW. (Sergei Karaganov for RIA Novosti) I was loath to write this article immediately after the grim anniversary of 9/11. My main idea - that the world is losing the war on terror - would have been out of place at a time when the world was remembering the thousands of innocent victims of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack.
On the other hand, it would be irresponsible to the memory of the victims as well as unprofessional if I did not say that the lessons of 9/11 have been disregarded or interpreted incorrectly.
Not that we are losing the war against terror on all fronts. We have won some battles, but they have mostly been tactical ones. Russia, which fought the world's first battle against militant Islamic terrorism in Chechnya, has won it, but at a huge price. It has foiled plans to create an Islamic caliphate stretching from the Black Sea to the Caspian, possibly spreading up the Volga.
Those in Russia who were attracted to the militant branch of Islam and received foreign assistance, have been taught a harsh lesson. As far as I know, there are no more Wahhabi madrasahs (Islamic schools) in Russia.
However, we have only won a battle, not the war. Russia has opted for military and psychological methods of suppressing extremism and separatism, but has done little to root out their fundamental causes: poverty and underdevelopment in some regions of the North Caucasus, which is mostly populated by Russia's Muslims.
The Americans have won two tactical battles, too. Using Russian and Iranian assistance, they routed Afghanistan's Taliban, who at the time were surging across the borders of the former Soviet republics in Central Asia. Al Qaida has lost quite a few of its bases, but it has not been defeated.
In the other of its tactical victories, Washington applied internal security measures which, although undermining the attractions of American society, have allowed it to prevent a repetition of the 9/11 tragedy for the time being. Acting both separately and jointly, security agencies have prevented many, but not all, terrorist attacks in Russia and other European countries.
And yet all of these measures ignore the main issue. Believing that using force to spread democracy was the best way to fight terrorism, the U.S. initiated a war in Iraq and has suffered a political defeat as a result. Iraq has been pushed into the quagmire of civil war and become a training ground for all kinds of terrorists. When the Americans leave, which is bound to happen soon, the terrorists now fighting in Iraq will spread across the world, including, I'm afraid, to Russia.
The Iraqi war has reaffirmed an obvious truth: large-scale military operations are powerless against Al Qaida and similar networks; the worst part is that on the contrary, such actions only spur their growth.
Almost nothing has been done since the 9/11 tragedy to stimulate a rational and broad dialogue of civilizations, involving the Muslim Mideast countries and elites, who lag behind the industrialized part of the world, in "soft modernization".
The West, or rather U.S. leaders, have failed to see that it is not differences in values, culture or even religion that are the root cause of anti-Western and anti-Christian sentiments; Bin Laden does not go out of his way to attack Western culture. No, these sentiments were largely engendered by the West's unfair policy towards the region's countries. Combined with their underdevelopment, whose causes I have written about, these sentiments are provoking a growing Muslim "Weimar syndrome", which can be defined as a liberal democratic nation-state unable to defend itself against internal anti-democratic forces.
But it is not the West alone that is to blame for growing anti-Western sentiments. Bin Laden's ever-more-numerous followers are not just defending or avenging themselves, but are also launching offensives. Their objective is to root out Western and any other external military and political influence in the Middle East, to overthrow relatively moderate Islamic regimes, and to ensure the domination of radical political Islam.
Unfortunately, when the West saw that it was losing because of America's glaring mistakes and Europe's inaction, it went on the defensive ideologically. This, however, is a mistake: It should not try to justify silly cartoons in a small Danish newspaper or the not quite politically correct statement by Pope Benedict about Islam's aggressiveness. And it certainly must not ask official forgiveness for silly actions and slipshod statements against which the other side organizes "spontaneous" protests. Doing so amounts to trying to appease the aggressor, which can only whet the appetite of militant Islamists, who think that the West (including Russia, which they see as a weaker and less evil part of the West) can be defeated.
The current aggressive and unsuccessful attempt to spread democracy, which only provokes protests and jeering, and the ideological fulfillment of absurd demands look like political infantilism, especially against the background of defamation and threats by Middle Eastern religious and official leaders aimed at the West, Christianity and Judaism.
What should Russia do in this situation, whereby an explosive mix of democratic and Islamic messianic beliefs, aggressiveness and appeasement is pushing the world toward a war of civilizations?
Firstly, it must do everything humanly possible to prevent becoming a battleground in such a war.
Secondly, it should develop a cooperation and security structure as soon as possible for Central Asia and the Middle East jointly with countries that have not made gross mistakes and are respected worldwide. I am referring specifically to India and China. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization can fill in the vacuum of mistrust and insecurity, and prevent a war of civilizations.
Thirdly, Russia should fight against the spread of nuclear weapons in the Middle East together with all willing partners, but not at its own expense. Russia does not want Iran to become a nuclear power, but it cannot and should not become an enemy of Iran.
Fourthly, if the proliferation of nuclear weapons puts them in the hands of irresponsible groups or terrorists, which is quite possible as a result of a likely social and political explosion in Pakistan, we should be ready to act resolutely. Russian officials deny that they would consider using nuclear weapons in any situation, but I think we have no right to rule this out completely.
And lastly, we must redouble our efforts to mitigate the conflict, encourage a dialogue between Islam and the West, and avoid involvement in a clash of civilizations. Russia should aim for armed neutrality, although neutrality is never absolute. We should try to avoid a situation where we will have to make a choice. We have made our choice in Chechnya, and we must not be forced to make a choice again because of the silly actions, messianic aspirations, fanaticism or political escapism of others.
Sergei Karaganov is the chairman of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and may not necessarily represent the opinions of the editorial board.
