The Eurasian Century

The world is entering a new era. The name of this new era is Eurasia. The determinants that will shape the 21st century are being moulded in Eurasia, which was once called the “geopolitical gap”. Eurasia has a geopolitical meaning much deeper than the coming together of two continents. For some, Eurasia will provide a solution to the acute energy needs of developing economies. For others, it will remedy the instability created by a unipolar world. Four countries stand out as the axis that will determine the main trends in this new era:

1. Russia, moving towards re-establishing itself as a “pole”,
2. China, an undisputed candidate for superpower,
3. India, with its nuclear power and productive population,
4. Turkey, propelled to dominance by historical forces.

With the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Eurasia became a determining factor for balance of power in the future. Certain countries are now rising to a whole new level by progressing beyond long term instability and obsolete political traditions. These are, of course, the countries that stretch from the Balkans to the Caucasus, Central Asia and China.

Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo and Iran are considered as the most problematic regions in the world and hence dominate the news. However, the unstoppable rise of China and India, energy sources in Central Asia, achievement of stability in Russia and Turkey’s powerful role between the East and the West also present the world with new opportunities.

The world has so far depended on Western sources to follow the developments that take place in the modern successors of old civilisations in Eurasia. Such a one sided and often manipulative coverage gave rise to prejudices, which in turn determined policy making.

Eurasia Critic is being published in order to reverse this situation.
The new realities emerging in Eurasia are a consequence of historical necessity. In our day and age–be it called the age of information, communication or technology- international systems do not survive for too long. A new era is rising out of the ashes of ancient cultures and histories. The West is aware of Eurasia’s historical role. The heart of the matter is whether the West will side with Eurasia or stand against it. But how long can the West expect to delay the onset of the new era by standing against Eurasia? The answer to this question is inextricably linked to the fate of the crises in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo and Iran.

The West has from time to time betrayed the very values it had created and tried single-handedly to impose an order on Eurasia. Whenever the West tried to sow such “goodwill”, it has reaped hatred. And this hate cannot be attributed merely to radicalism.

Successful resolution of crises in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and in the field of energy security can only be achieved if Eurasia is taken into account. If not, Eurasia will go its own way just as it has done with the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO). The course of events seems to confirm this. Under the circumstances, there will soon be demands for establishing a new supranational organisation in Eurasia. It must be said that the formation of this new organisation will be nothing like the rebirth of the League of Nations as United Nations.

It is foolhardy to think that such a phenomenon will be limited to Eurasia. The new pact may attract the membership of not only “new core” countries such as China and Russia but also “old core” countries such as Japan, South Korea and those in Latin America as well as frontier countries such as Turkey, Indonesia and India. In fact, by forcing its hand the West is in a sense facilitating the creation of such a pact. There are substantive signals that herald the new era: China has now joined the space race and India is close on its heels. The Russian fleet has access to warm seas once again and Turkey has intervened militarily into a territory (Northern Iraq) controlled by its “largest ally.”

Furthermore, Russia is once again pursuing a Cold War strategy in terms of energy politics. This will be followed by the reinstatement of a Cold War military (nuclear) strategy. As a part of the same process, Russia will try to establish itself as the most loyal ally of the Muslim world. If Moscow succeeds in this, it will have a profound influence on Muslim communities in Europe who have been increasingly alienated. The population of European Muslims is burgeoning, and they will soon start reacting against the ghettoisation of their communities in Europe and the ghettoisation of their native countries in the world. In “Islamic Europe” this reaction will fuel a fire much bigger than what we have seen in France.

The instability triggered in the Caucasus and Crimea is set to spread to the whole Black Sea region. Washington has been trying to contain Russia from the Black Sea, but Turkey may as well ally itself with the “other side” and the US must be prepared for such an eventuality. In time the transit revenues received from the existing pipelines (whose supply control systems are located abroad) will not be sufficient for Turkey. In its quest for diversifying energy sources, Europe should be ready for new pipelines that transport Russian or Iranian controlled energy sources through Turkey.

The question of European Security within the EU-NATO-UN triangle may turn gangrenous with the Kosovo conflict. Today the European Union is dependant on NATO for its security. Could the EU expect to ensure its security in a system that excludes Turkey? Could it at all depend on the new NATO members that were formerly a part of the Warsaw Pact and may easily change sides?

Turkey is faced with a security threat coming from Iraq. Could the threat possibly be created in order to dissuade Turkey from seeking cooperation with Moscow, Peking and Tehran in the field of new energy supplies and transfer of military technologies? Or is it a blackmail attempt to prevent Turkey from using its veto power in NATO?

Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan (a new target), Kosovo, the Caucasus and Central Asia: The victory attained in a “war” that ignores Eurasia as a whole will cost the world much more than what his victory had once cost King Pyrrhus