Divided World

Another anniversary of the tragic events in New York and Washington D.C. on September 11, 2001, leads to less than inspiring reflections on the outlook for international co-operation in the war on terrorism. It seemed to many 22 years ago that the world was irreversibly moving towards unity, and the obvious need to jointly confront the terrorist threat would be one of the factors accelerating this dynamic.

Contemporary geopolitics is fueling terrorism’s further rise. The multiplication of regional conflicts with direct or indirect involvement of external actors inevitably leads to additional opportunities and resources for potential or actual terrorists.

In addition, the confrontation between the great powers in one way or another leads to an aggravation of many socio-economic problems in the least stable countries and regions of the world. The prerequisites for the rise of political radicals and extremists who willingly resort to terrorist methods in pursuance of their goals are being created. The rise of terrorism, in turn, makes it even more difficult to solve fundamental problems of socioeconomic development and, accordingly, fuels radicalism and extremism. A vicious circle of chronic instability is emerging, and breaking it is getting increasingly difficult as time goes by.

Reflecting on the possibilities of international co-operation in countering terrorism, we have to assume that the geopolitical stand-off between the great powers is serious and long-lasting. In the foreseeable future, the world will remain divided and fractured, and there will hardly be a common understanding of terrorism. The odds look slim that a global strategy to withstand the threat arises.

Another wave of international terrorism is already on the horizon. It is fueled by climate change, aggravated food security problems, failed states in different regions and many other factors. It is further whipped up by illegal migration, the global arms race and modern military technology. The rising tide means a threat of new shocks to the entire humanity. And we must be prepared to withstand this threat today, even if other challenges and problems obscure our view of the approaching tsunami.

Another anniversary of the tragic events in New York and Washington D.C. on September 11, 2001, leads to less than inspiring reflections on the outlook for international co-operation in the war on terrorism. It seemed to many 22 years ago that the world was irreversibly moving towards unity, and the obvious need to jointly confront the terrorist threat would be one of the factors accelerating this dynamic.

Immediately after the air strikes on the towers of the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, the leaders of Russia and China, as well as the UN Security Council, expressed their full solidarity with the people and government of the United States. Soon, the world community almost unanimously supported the U.S. military operation in Afghanistan with support of its allies.

Few people today remember that bilateral Russian-American collaboration on countering terrorism was quite robust at the turn of the century. For several years, the Trubnikov-Armitage high-level working group, named after its co-chairs, First Deputy Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Trubnikov and U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, met on a regular basis. The algorithms of interaction that were in place between the intelligence services were used both in launching other bilateral co-operation mechanisms and in creating the relevant multilateral formats.

Andrey Kortunov:
How the US Miscalculated the War on Terror

A little more than two decades have passed, and the world has become a very different place. The war on terrorism is no longer the top priority of global politics: it has given way to the more familiar geopolitical confrontation between great powers. Russia and the West, the United States and China constantly accuse each other of directly or indirectly supporting terrorist organizations and movements.

Successful joint war on terror involves, among other things, the exchange of more than sensitive information, the daily coordination of operational work plans, the joint preparation of analytical materials, as well as the solution of many non-trivial organizational and logistical tasks. For example, according to the authoritative testimony of FSB Director Alexander Bortnikov, to prevent terrorist attacks during the 2018 FIFA World Cup in Russia, the Centre for International Cooperation was established, with representatives of 55 special services and law enforcement agencies from 34 countries involved. Such an engagement is impossible without a minimum level of trust between partners. In the absence of this trust, even the obvious upsides of co-operation will immediately be called into question.

It would be tempting to reduce the whole problem to the fact that there are increasingly divergent perceptions in the West and the East about the origins, drivers and the very nature of modern terrorism. But the problem is not confined to a single, albeit crucial, dimension. No less serious difficulties arise within the Collective West and the “Global Majority”. For example, the fundamental differences between India and Pakistan in their assessments of the situation in Kashmir make it very difficult for the Shanghai Cooperation Organization to agree on a unified stance on terrorism. Similarly, the entry of Saudi Arabia and Iran into BRICS, given their directly opposing views on the Yemeni Houthis, will make coordination of the organization’s approach to the entire terrorist agenda rather problematic. Within the European Union, there is serious disagreement on, say, the Israeli-Palestinian issue or the status of Kosovo, which also hinders internal consensus on how to counter the terrorist threat.

Contemporary geopolitics is fueling terrorism’s further rise. The multiplication of regional conflicts with direct or indirect involvement of external actors inevitably leads to additional opportunities and resources for potential or actual terrorists. It is no coincidence that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently noted that some samples of anti-tank weapons supplied by the West to Kiev have already been found near Israeli borders.

The Nigerian terrorist organization Boko Haram (banned in Russia) was able to significantly replenish its military arsenals at the expense of Libyan stockpiles that had been abandoned after the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi. By the same token, some of the weapons left by the Americans in Afghanistan were not only grabbed by the incumbent government in Kabul, but also by much more radicalized fundamentalist groups in the country’s remote provinces.

In addition, the confrontation between the great powers in one way or another leads to an aggravation of many socio-economic problems in the least stable countries and regions of the world. The prerequisites for the rise of political radicals and extremists who willingly resort to terrorist methods in pursuance of their goals are being created. The rise of terrorism, in turn, makes it even more difficult to solve fundamental problems of socioeconomic development and, accordingly, fuels radicalism and extremism. A vicious circle of chronic instability is emerging, and breaking it is getting increasingly difficult as time goes by.

Kirill Semenov:
Islamic State in Africa: Affiliates and Competition

Reflecting on the possibilities of international co-operation in countering terrorism, we have to assume that the geopolitical stand-off between the great powers is serious and long-lasting. In the foreseeable future, the world will remain divided and fractured, and there will hardly be a common understanding of terrorism. The odds look slim that a global strategy to withstand the threat arises.

In all likelihood, under the current circumstances, cooperation should develop around certain specific problems where the convergence of interests is obvious while the associated political risks are negligible. Even today, there are no fundamental disagreements between the great powers on issues such as the presence of the Islamic State (banned in Russia) in the Middle East, Boko Haram in West Africa, or al-Qaeda (banned in Russia) in South Asia.

Hardly any responsible international player is willing to put up with the prospect of terrorist groups acquiring weapons of mass destruction. No one stands to gain anything from a resumption of piracy in the Gulf of Aden or the Strait of Malacca. Situational and one-off arrangements on specific, relatively non-toxic issues will set the stage for more comprehensive engagement in the longer term. Perhaps, such agreements should be mostly of an operational, behind-the-scenes nature.

Another wave of international terrorism is already on the horizon. It is fueled by climate change, aggravated food security problems, failed states in different regions and many other factors. It is further whipped up by illegal migration, the global arms race and modern military technology. The rising tide means a threat of new shocks to the entire humanity. And we must be prepared to withstand this threat today, even if other challenges and problems obscure our view of the approaching tsunami.