DO YOU GET WHAT YOU FIGHT FOR?

The senior fellow at the Institute of World Economy and International Relations of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Doctor of Historical Sciences Georgiy Mirskiy, answers questions from R+.

The consequences of the "Arab Spring" are still occupying the minds of the analytical community, generating more and more questions.

In Tunisia, the first elections since the revolution were won by the Islamist party Ennahda (Revival-Islamic Action, which in the past had been driven underground), while in Libya, the National Transitional Council promised life according to Shariah. Although some analysts argue that a real threat of radical Islam is hanging over the Middle East, others prefer a different formulation - "moderate Islamism", which, in their opinion, does not constitute a counterweight to the West's plans.

Which of these assumptions most accurately reflects the realities? How does the outcome of the Arab revolutions fit into the West's plans? Did the West really get what it fought for? What consequences may the "Arab Spring" have for the countries of our region, particularly Iran? We discussed all this in an exclusive interview with the famous Russian political analyst, Georgiy Mirskiy.

- In all the countries where the "Arab revolution" won - in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, the main contenders for power are representatives of Islamic organizations. How likely is the formation of a zone of countries with Taliban-like governments in North Africa?

- The situation is different in each of these countries. For example, in Egypt, the military will never allow the Islamists to take power. The only danger is that if the Muslim Brotherhood wins the election in April, they might take control of such vital areas as education and the media. If they educate the new generation in the radical Islamic spirit, a situation similar to the one in Pakistan might come about. There is a terrible war going on between sects there - a confrontation between Sunnis and Shias. There is no such thing in Egypt. They are all Sunnis there, with the exception of the Christian Copts. In any case, the establishment of Shariah law, not in the moderate spirit prescribed by the holy book of Muslims, but in the misanthropic Taliban spirit would be the worst thing. Such developments are least likely in Tunisia, the most Europeanized Arab country which has a more educated population. In Tunisia, polygamy was banned. While this ban may be lifted, the time is different now and Tunisian men will hardly rush to have four wives. Another thing is that Shariah law may be restored. This is quite natural. Shariah law is not just Muslim legislation, but a set of rules and regulations that define the whole of human life. The introduction of Shariah by the Taliban is quite different from the introduction of moderate Shariah, as is the case in Turkey. Naturally, there's no reason to fear the emergence of radical tendencies.

With regard to Libya, things are quite chaotic there. In Libya, there were no political organizations, parties, associations, etc. During the civil war there, Islamic militants, who were driven underground by Gaddafi, came to the surface. They have now come to the surface again and have taken Tripoli. Even if there is no Islamic state in Libya, Shariah law will be introduced in any case. And now Europe, without which the Libyan opposition would never have been able to take Tripoli, is agonizing about whether there will be moderate Shariah in Libya and other countries of the "Arab Spring" or whether radical forces will come to power, as in Algeria and Afghanistan.

Many believe that Islamic tendencies in these countries will grow. This is natural because they were persecuted under the former regime. In any revolution, those who were persecuted come to the forefront. But this does not mean that we should expect the emergence of theocratic states pursuing extremist policies. The establishment of a Shariah state does not mean that harsh medieval laws will be introduced there. For example, the same Muslim Brotherhood expresses sympathy with the Turkish model, where the AK Party observes Shariah law but provides freedom of the individual and conducts normal democratic elections. It should be noted that Al-Qaeda is in the background now. They tried for a long time to overthrow the regimes in Arab countries, but failed. As it turned out, it is not Al-Qaeda, but ordinary young people far from radicalism who can overthrow dictators in a short time. Al-Qaeda has now lost ground, but that does not mean that transnational Islamic extremism has stopped. The fact is that the problem of the US Army staying in Afghanistan is still there, the problem of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains very acute and so on. As long as these problems, and particularly the Palestinian problem, remain unsolved, hatred, especially for the United States, will remain. And here the idea that one can use suicide bombers in order to achieve independence and build an Islamic state comes to the fore. The unresolved Palestinian issue will always be grist to the mill of the most radical religious forces.

 - If the West was not sure that the Libyan opposition would be their future allies, why did they "clear" the opposition's path to government?

- When the riots broke out in Libya, there were no Islamists there. If the insurgents are fighting and shouting Allahu Akbar, it does not mean that they are Islamists. This is a common Islamic chant. France and Britain could not act otherwise. Gaddafi himself is to blame for all that has happened in Libya. It all started with the outrageous actions of the regime which promised to "clear every single house of rats and cockroaches". Had Gaddafi accepted dialogue with the opposition, everything would have been different. But the colonel proved himself to be an implacable dictator. In the West, there are fears that the new government of Libya will be their opponents. But there is nothing like that yet. After French aircraft took out a tank column of Gaddafi supporters bound for a bloodbath in Benghazi, the Libyan opposition has had very good relations with the West. But it is too difficult to say how the situation will develop there. Not a single person in the world can say how relations between the new Libyan authorities and the West will develop.

- Do you mean that the West will perhaps regret the overthrow of Gaddafi?

- It is possible. And this often happens in life.

- Today, there is a lot of talk about the likelihood of the Arab scenario repeating itself in Iran. Is this possible?

- No. There are a lot of people there who remember the Islamic Revolution and Ayatollah Khomeyni, their unshakable authority. It's Karl Marx and Lenin rolled into one. Although Ayatollah Khamenei is a much smaller figure, the desire to preserve the Islamic regime is a kind of guarantee of the independence of Iran. I do not think that anything similar to the Arab revolution is possible there. But at the same time, it is not yet known how the conflict between President Mahmud Ahmadinejad and Khamenei will end. Developments around Iran's nuclear programme are also unpredictable.

What will happen if Iran continues developing a nuclear bomb? What will Israel do if they find it necessary to carry out a pre-emptive strike? In this case, there will be such turmoil that destabilization will engulf all the neighbouring regions, including the post-Soviet area. After all, we also have extreme Islamists and Wahhabis who would like to create an Islamic state. And if there is a war between Iran on the one hand, and the United States and Israel on the other, and if it becomes a war of civilizations, it is difficult to imagine the disaster it will cause. The best case scenario is to prevent a war. But nobody knows how to do it, since no sanctions on Iran work. They continue to go their own way. The IAEA will soon release a report, indicating that Iran is deceiving the international community and that there is a reason to believe that Tehran is going to create an atomic bomb.