On May 28, 2008, the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences hosted a scientific conference "A new Geopolitical map of Asia and Hotbeds of International tension at the beginning of the XXI century", organized by the Department of Complex Problems of International Relations of the Institute.

The conference was attended by researchers, teachers of higher educational institutions in Moscow, and employees of the Carnegie Moscow Center. About 20 conference participants made presentations. A wide range of issues related to new factors and trends that emerged in international relations in Asia at the beginning of the XXI century were discussed.

Opening the conference, Head of the Department of Complex Problems of International Relations of the Institute of International Relations of the Russian Academy of Sciences A. M. Khazanov said that in recent decades the roles of key players in the new geopolitical configuration of forces in the international arena and in the global economy have been redistributed. "We see a kind of narrow specialization of these key countries: the United States and Japan-a brain trust (knowledge-intensive industries, high technologies). Europe is an experimental laboratory where high technologies are tested; China is a global factory. India is a forge of programmers for developed countries. Africa-raw materials warehouse. Russia is a gas station in Europe." Speaking about Russia's foreign policy, A. M. Khazanov said: "In order to achieve the goals arising from national interests, Russia must adhere to a strategy of balancing between global centers of power, avoiding a tilt in one direction or another. It should pursue a policy of "equal proximity" to the West and China. Russia's status as a leading power, a permanent member of the UN Security Council, and the geopolitical position of the Eurasian bridge enable it to find such a reasonable balance and survive as a balancer, arbiter, and mediator in the system of international relations in the twenty-first century. But the Russian elite is sick with anti-Americanism and is experiencing phantom pains from the loss of empire. These thinking patterns are very difficult to treat. They can lead us very far and, moreover, according to the most dangerous and unfavorable scenario for us."

Yu. V. Chudodeev (IB RAS) in his report "The Rise of China and the Russian-Chinese Strategic Partnership (problems and Prospects)" analyzed the results of three decades that have passed since the famous third plenum of the CPC Central Committee of the 11th convocation, which began Chinese reforms. According to him, the results were really impressive. Today, China ranks fourth in the world in terms of GDP, third in terms of foreign trade, and first in terms of gold and foreign exchange reserves. By 2020, the Chinese leadership plans to quadruple per capita production, and in terms of GDP to reach the second place in the world after the United States ($6 trillion).

page 131
Speaking about Russian-Chinese economic cooperation, the speaker noted: "Hypothetically, it is impossible to exclude the appearance of certain confrontational elements in Russian-Chinese relations. It cannot be ruled out that certain circles of the Russian political and economic elite are very reserved about the economic activity of Chinese circles in the Central Asian region. In turn, the decision of the Russian leadership, which was unexpected for the Chinese side, to change the route of the oil pipeline from Western and Eastern Siberia and bring it to the Pacific coast (to Nakhodka), however, with a branch to north-eastern China (to Daqing) it caused, to put it mildly, a certain bewilderment in Beijing.

As the speaker emphasized, it is important for us to realize that the main lesson learned by the Chinese from the 20th century is the need for peaceful and stable development. Despite (or perhaps even in spite of) our Russian pro-European mentality, which has been well-established for centuries, and which is stubbornly drawn to Europe, we need to understand the place and role of China in the strategic perspective of our historical development.

A. Kadyrbayev (Institute of History of the Russian Academy of Sciences) made a report on "Uyghur and Tibetan Issues in relations between the United States and China and Russia in Central Asia". According to him, the US military operation in Afghanistan could not but affect the interests of the PRC, since Afghanistan has a common border with China, and with its region, where the Chinese authorities have been fighting for years to suppress the Uyghur underground armed movement for the separation of East Turkestan or the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) from the PRC. and the creation of an independent state. This movement has a national and social base in XUAR among Uighurs and conducts "guerrilla warfare" in Chinese cities, which is expressed in mass riots on ethnic grounds, attacks on government officials and the military, explosions in public places.

As the speaker noted, Tibet is also an unstable territory of the PRC. The events of 2008 showed that the aggravation of the" Tibetan " issue is no less dangerous for the Chinese state than the actions of the anti-government underground in East Turkestan, since they have a much greater foreign policy resonance and moral and material support not only from international human rights organizations, but also from leading Western countries, India and many Buddhist countries.

According to the speaker, along with the growing confrontation between China and the United States in the Asia-Pacific region, primarily in the Taiwan Strait, China's borders from Central Asia are becoming potentially vulnerable. The situation for China may worsen if the United States changes its passive position on the "Uyghur" issue, similar to what happened in the "Chechen" issue. As A. Kadyrbayev emphasized, the main thing is that in the struggle for influence in Central Asia, China has a powerful rival - the United States, which is more powerful than Russia. For the Central Asian countries, this increases the threat to their security, since there is no guarantee that the great powers of the West will not choose Central Asia, in particular East Turkestan, as a sphere of influence for their confrontation with the PRC.

V. V. Evseev (Moscow, Russia) The Carnegie Center) in his report "Some aspects of US policy towards Iran" suggested that the United States threatens Iran, but does not seriously think to move from threats to real military actions. The United States seeks to intimidate Iran with threats as much as possible in order to have the best possible negotiating position. According to the speaker, none of the presidential candidates-neither Barack Obama nor John McCain-is ready to strike at Iran. Bush is also unlikely to do so. There is no immediate nuclear threat from Iran, and there will be none in the next five years.

E. M. Savicheva (RUDN University) in her report "The Lebanese Diaspora: features of formation" analyzed the history of migration from Lebanon and the geographical distribution of the Lebanese diaspora. According to her, "international, regional, internal conflicts and the resulting economic and social decline have forced Lebanese residents to leave their native lands and seek a better life abroad for many decades. The speaker noted that the Lebanese now represent the largest and most diverse Arab diaspora worldwide. 70% of Lebanese migrants live in the United States, Australia and Canada. Brazil is currently home to about 7 million people, which is twice the population of Lebanon. According to Brazilian President Lula da Silva, the Lebanese were able to make a significant contribution to the creation of the Brazilian nation and integrated into all spheres of life of Brazilian society, bringing their energy and knowledge to them. As highlighted

page 132
Speaker, migration has created an acute problem of long-term "brain drain" from Lebanon. A country that is in dire need of restoring its social, political and economic spheres is losing the most qualified and young resources. This situation has not yet been reversed.

K. A. Belousova (MSU) in her report "Analysis of the situation in Lebanon on the eve of the 1958 intervention in declassified US documents" spoke about declassified documents of the CIA, the National Security Council and the State Department concerning US policy in Lebanon. In the late 1950s, Lebanon was part of an American plan to create a network of States opposed to Nasser. In June 1958, the success of opposition forces in the Lebanese civil war prompted the United States to launch an intervention. Operation Blue Bat was the first peacetime U.S. military operation in the Middle East. As the speaker noted, the US intervention and its constant interference in the internal life of Lebanon have deepened the contradictions between Muslims and Christians and set Lebanon in contrast to other Arab countries.

K. A. Belousova came to the conclusion that the biggest problem for Americans was precisely the nature of Lebanese society: its polyethnicity, poly-confessional nature, and multi-level nature in all spheres of existence. The American experience itself denied the possibility of a national pact, which was natural for a Lebanese. And since by its very nature Western society cannot accept diversity, the only U.S. response to it could only be an attempt at unitarization.

In her report "The problem of Development of Iran-Pakistan Economic Cooperation" M. R. Arunova analyzed the relations between Iran and Pakistan after the Islamic Revolution in Iran in early 1979. As the speaker showed, shortly after this, there was an activation of Iranian-Pakistani relations, which was associated with the identity of their positions on Afghan affairs - a sharp rejection of the PDPA Kabul regime, condemnation of the introduction of a Soviet military contingent into Afghanistan, and support for the Mujahideen. In October 1994, the Taliban, with the assistance of Pakistan and the United States, invaded Afghanistan and soon occupied the entire country. At the turn of the XX-XXI centuries. Islamabad, while remaining one of the few allies of the Taliban, continued to support them. According to Arunova, the persistence of Pakistan in this matter negatively affected its relations with the United States, European countries, Russia, India and, of course, Iran, and was one of the main reasons for both the country's international isolation and the complication of its internal situation.

A significant place in the report of M. R. Arunova was occupied by the analysis of Iran-Pakistan relations after the overthrow of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. During this period, trade relations intensified, and the intention was announced to implement the Iran-Pakistan-India (GILI) gas pipeline construction project. At the end of 2007 Tehran and Islamabad signed a "Gas purchase and sale Agreement" under which Pakistan will buy 190 million cubic meters of gas per day. According to the speaker, Gazprom may participate in the implementation of the GILI project. Pakistani experts believe that Russia's participation in this project could accelerate the start of construction of the highway and, in addition, would serve as a positive signal for major international investors and fuel and energy consortia.

U. Z. Sharapov (Institute of Internal Affairs of the Russian Academy of Sciences) in his report "Hotbeds of international tension in the BSV (Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran)" showed the peculiarities of their strategy in the Middle East by the example of the military operations of Western powers in Iraq and Afghanistan and the upcoming military actions against Iran. In his opinion, the invasion of Iraq by the US army and its allies destroyed the stable regime of Saddam Hussein (although dictatorial and repressive) and played a destructive and negative role in the united Iraqi statehood, social stability, and the viability of the population. The country has effectively split into three ethnic and religious communities fighting each other. The speaker expressed the opinion that the war in Afghanistan is essentially lost by the Americans - sooner or later they will have to withdraw their troops from this country. The United States is busy preparing military actions against Iran-either by the Pentagon or by Israeli strike aircraft. The likelihood of military actions against Iran, according to the speaker, is indicated by the pull-in of the US Navy to the Persian Gulf zone. The danger of either an American or Israeli (under American cover) attack on Iran is obvious, " U. Z. Sharipov said.

I. I. Ivanova (IV RAS) reviewed all aspects of the complex relations between the United States and Turkey after the US military operation in Iraq in 2003.-

page 133
the verdict authorizing the deployment of American troops on the territory of Turkey was too much for him. The United States was forced to reconsider the ways of transferring troops to Iraq. After the American invasion of Iraq, the fears of the Turkish leaders were justified - the Iraqi Kurds achieved de facto autonomy in the north of the country. Turkish officials express concern that the creation of a Kurdish state near the borders of Turkey will strengthen separatist sentiments on the part of Turkish Kurds and pose a threat to the territorial integrity of the country.

During 2004-2006, the Kurdish issue was the main issue of the Turkish-American dialogue. Ankara demanded that Washington take decisive action against the Kurdistan Workers ' Party (PKK) units based in northern Iraq. An explosion of public indignation in Turkey was caused by the adoption in October 2007 by a subcommittee of the US House of Representatives of a resolution recognizing the Armenian Genocide in Turkey during the First World War. Ankara has threatened to deny Americans access to a crucial military airbase used to supply troops in Iraq, and has recalled its ambassador from Washington. The situation was corrected by the meeting of Bush and Erdogan at the White House on November 5, 2007, which opened a new stage in Turkish-American relations. It is noteworthy that for the first time in many years, Bush again spoke of a "strategic partnership." According to Ivanova, it seems that the White House is determined to support Turkey in everything, and especially in the joint struggle against the PKK.

B. V. Dolgov (IB RAS) in his report "Algeria between democracy and radical Islamism" examined the political evolution of Algeria in recent decades. It showed that President Bouteflika, who was elected in 1999, managed to suppress radical Islamism and initiate the process of restoring civil harmony. Bouterflika supports the Prime Minister and head of the FLN, Abd Al-Aziz Belkadem, whom many cannot forgive for being the chairman of the Parliament in the early 1990s, he showed sympathy for the Islamic Salvation Front (IFF), which contributed to the success of the IFF in the elections of 1991-1992. He also did not support the military's forcible interruption of the parliamentary elections in 1992. At present, the moderate wing of the Algerian Islamic movement is fairly fully represented in the National People's Assembly by three political parties. In Algeria, there is also a radical trend of Islamism, which includes two armed groups, numbering in their ranks about 1 thousand militants. The speaker concluded that the main forces of extremist groups in Algeria are suppressed, they can only commit individual terrorist acts. The Algerian leadership managed to lead the country out of the crisis in which it was in the mid-1990s.

V. F. Urlyapov (IB RAS) analyzed the crisis in the Democratic Republic of Timor - Leste, which broke out shortly after the declaration of independence. The speaker considers this crisis to be a consequence of a split in the political elite. The Democratic and Social Democratic Parties did not recognize FRETILIN's victory in the 2001 general election. In April 2006, there were pogroms and arson attacks in the capital, and the population left the city. At the request of the Government, Australian and Portuguese troops arrived.

Since 1999, Australia has spent US $ 4 billion on its own resources. for a military-police operation in Timor, and only $ 550 million for "official development assistance". However, this assistance was mainly intended to strengthen the position of Australian oil and gas companies. The formation of the government of the" alliance of the parliamentary majority " led by Gusmao in 2008 did not defuse political tensions. Moreover, a number of unpopular measures of the authorities caused further aggravation of the crisis trends: a significant reduction in taxes on private companies, cuts in pensions for veterans of the liberation struggle, as well as food rations for refugees. Inflation continues to spiral steadily, especially in fuel and rice prices.

Summing up the conference, M. A. Khazanov noted that the discussion was very useful and made a certain contribution to understanding the serious changes that have taken place in recent years in the geopolitical configuration of forces in the international arena in general and in Asia in particular. The exchange of ideas during the conference was very productive and revealed the need for further study of new factors and trends that emerged in international relations in Asia at the beginning of the XXI century.

Permanent link to this publication: