Today the Levant is a place where not only the future of Iraq and Syria is being moulded, but that of the world as a whole. Three historically leading forces in the region, the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds, are ready to decide on their political preferences. It was the opening of a representative office of Western Kurdistan in Moscow on February 10 that triggered such a motion.

Throughout the twentieth century the West has used the traditional regional ethnic and religious differences for political destabilization of the Middle East countries with a view to economic expansion. The formation of modern states of Syria, Turkey, and Iraq was a result of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the activities of the League of Nations “to achieve international peace and security.” In the summer of 1920, the League of Nations authorised the occupation of Mesopotamia by Britain; France received its mandate on Syria in 1922, after which the mandate-holders began external management of their new territories and the formation of states. Special attention was paid to the development of the economies of these countries, more precisely, the economies of the mandate-holders.

Businesses that were set up in the Middle East were under complete control of the Europeans. The presence of religious and inter-ethnic conflicts in the mandated territories allowed Britain and France for a long time to deny the new member states their independence. For instance, in 1936, France refused to ratify the treaty that foresaw independence of Syria. UK, nonetheless, granted Iraq its independence in 1932, while retaining the real power. And, if the policy of Charles de Gaulle led to the actual independence of Syria and Lebanon (the former remained a part of Syria until 1926) in 1941 and 1943 respectively, the United Kingdom in its policies began to actively use national and religious differences between the peoples in the region: Iraq oil fields belonged to the concession of a Turkish consortium Turkish petroleum; and one of the aims of the Saadabad Pact signed by Iran, Turkey, Afghanistan and Iraq in 1937 was to fight against Kurdish separatists in Iraq, Iran and Turkey. Britain increased its military presence in the region following the conclusion of the Baghdad Pact in 1955.

It should be noted that the creation of an independent Kurdistan was foreseen even by the Treaty of Sevres of 1920; according to it, the United Kingdom, France and Turkey had to jointly define the boundaries of the state. However, the Lausanne Peace Treaty of 1923 ignored the right of this ancient people, who lived in the oil-rich and fresh water areas, to form a state of their own. These riches were divided between Turkey and France (in the face of Syria) while the United Kingdom received a mandate over Iraq. Since then, the Kurds have been struggling for their independence.

At the beginning of the new millennium, Iraq and Syria saw a rise of the IS terrorist group on their territories that sought to create its own state in the Levant and in 2014 proclaimed itself a Sunni “Islamic caliphate”. The impetus that brought ISIS to life was the dismantling of the Iraqi state, where the parliament does not assemble; the laws are not being passed or executed. And only in the Kurdistan areas, whose autonomy was recognized by the 2005 Constitution of Iraq, the authorities still perform their functions.

In 2012, the Syrian West Kurdistan de facto became autonomous. However, Kurdistan cannot stand alone against the terrorist threat. It should not be forgotten, that the global community has hardly changed their attitude towards the Kurds since the time of the Lausanne Peace Treaty. What makes the Kurdish people so special is their unity; despite the fact that the Kurds now live in different countries, practice different religions (60% Sunni are Muslim), they are united by a common idea of statehood, which has been denied them by the West for over 100 years.

And today Kurdistan, the steadfast tin soldier of the Middle East, was finally recognized and supported by Russia. This event did not go unnoticed, not only in the West but also in the Muslim world. Kurdish forces have long been providing support to the Syrian authorities in the fight against ISIS, and on February 14 several Iraqi Shiite divisions, formerly supported by the US, joined forces with the Syrian government troops. This is not the first time that Shiites demonstrate support of Bashar al Assad: Iran firmly stands the ground with regard to supporting the legitimate regime in Syria.

Maybe we will soon hear about an idea of revival of Mesopotamia, a land of peace and tranquility for the Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis, who would jointly defeat the terror threat in the region.

As for Turkey, with nearly a quarter of the Kurdish population, it is high time it reconsidered its policy in relation to the war in Syria and support of ISIS, otherwise Turkish Kurdistan will decide its future independently.

Ekaterina Ryzhkova, PhD, associate professor of MGIMO, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.“

Since January 1, 2016, increasingly more stories about attacks and sexual harassment of European women in Germany on the part of migrants have been covered by the mass media

Since Germans as well as the citizens of some other European countries cannot count on the state forces of law and order to resolve the situation of the indecent behavior of refugees in the EU, people have been organizing neighborhood watch groups to patrol public places in a number of European cities.

How could such a situation even become possible and what are the prospects of coexistence of representatives of the two different cultures in Europe?

In Islam, it is traditionally thought that women, aged men, children and the sick are under the protection of Allah. The call to treat women with respect is set forth in the ayah (verse) 19 of the sura (chapter) “Women.” In his Hadith No. 1772 (5185, 5186) al-Bukhari quotes the Prophet, who said: “Whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day, should not hurt his neighbor! And (always) treat women well.” A homily on treating the elderly with reverence can also be found in Hadiths: “He is not one of us who does not show mercy to our little ones and respect to our elders.” (Sunan at-Tirmidhi, No. 1925, 1926). And Muhammad himself showed that each of Allah’s creations should be respected, even if he/she does not deserve such respect, for such an attitude will teach him/her to behave in a proper way. The Prophet made a promise to personally protect people of other faiths hurt by Muslims: “If anyone wrongs a person protected by a covenant, violates his rights, burdens him with more work than he is able to do, or takes something from him without his consent, then I will plead for him on the Day of Resurrection.” (Sunan Abu Dawud 3052, Grade: Sahih).

Thus respect, dignity, honor are not empty words for Muslims. But why is it that some of them, having come to another country, forget about Allah’s instructions?

When describing today’s wave of migrants that have flooded Europe, politicians make note of only the social cause of the phenomenon: war, starvation, and political persecution. This reflects the approach adopted by the prosperous Europe proclaiming equality and freedom for everybody, as long as they do not violate the freedom of the others.

Nobody would argue the conclusion that starvation and the war are the key driving forces of the process. But normally, those in need remain grateful to those, who gave them shelter, food and treated them with kindness, it has always been the case, that those in need would adopt the rules of conduct of the hosting party, would assimilate into the society (that’s what it was like in the middle of the 20th century, when former colonies gained independence and when tides of the natives of North Africa and Asia flooded Europe). Today’s refugees, however, disregard the rules of conduct accepted in European society and instill their own instead. Islamic Sharia Law pertaining to personal status has already been incorporated into Great Britain’s legal system. Islamic banks are opening in some European countries. This is only the tip of the iceberg.

The cause of the future problem of Europe lies in its foundations. Human rights laws protect the rights of any person, regardless of the gender, race, nationality, denomination. Legislations of all countries recognize and implement these basic principles and guarantee their enforcement. But, when Muslim refugees violate them, states fall short of protecting the honor and dignity of their citizens. The law enforcement agencies, whose duty is to maintain public order, fail their mission.

Why did the wave of violence sweep through Germany?  In 1923, in his interview to George Sylvester Viereck, Adolf Hitler said that National Socialists are not internationalists, that their Socialism is national, and that for them race and state comprise a single whole. The tragic outcomes of this statement manifested themselves in the massacre of peoples and the Holocaust. Germany is still bearing the cost of fascism, and in today’s German society any manifestations of nationalism are considered unacceptable.

But today a group of youths attacks a woman and society condemns not the attack itself, but the nationality and religious affiliation of the criminals. Thus, the wrongdoings of certain people, who must be punished according to the law, spark a global movement condemned by all the civilized societies.

Having missed the opportunity to bring a migration process under control, Europe is gradually losing its values. While politicians are engaging in futile debates over the desirable separation of the influx of migrants, moaning over the money necessary to support the worthy existence of refugees and setting boundaries, the illegal smuggling of people, primarily, children is thriving in Europe.

The population of once tolerant Europe is taking the path of nationalism.

How can it be stopped without the abolishment of some of the democratic achievements and the reduction of the degree of attractiveness of the country to migrants. It does not seem that Europe understands that its actions are regarded as the demonstration of its feebleness. From the perspective of Islam, however, it does not matter how its adherents ended up in another country. Once it has happened, the new task is to create an Islamic society in the new place. After all, the Prophet Muhammad and righteous caliphs devoted their lives precisely to that. And there are plenty of ways to convert others to Islam: from homily to war. And the choice of the method depends solely on the religious upbringing of a particular Muslim, and on how he/she perceives non-Muslims: as kafirs (unbeliever), dhimmi ( ahl al-ḏimmah — non-Muslim population of conquered territories paying jizya (tax)) or People of the Book ( Ahl al-Kitāb — the Christians and the Jews honoring Holy Scriptures). The Qur’an prescribes that these categories of people be treated differently. 

Radical Islamist groups, however, believe that there is no division and that all non-Muslims should be regarded as kafirs and that their persecution by faithful Muslims is the righteous thing to do: “And fight with them until there is no more persecution (fitnah) and religion should be only for Allah” (8:40 (39), “So obey not the rejecters of faith, but strive (jahidhum) against them by it (the Qur’an) with a great endeavor.” (25:54(52)).

This is precisely why the refugee policy has turned into a real modern Trojan horse able to destroy the very foundations of Europe. In these circumstances, the countries either have to relinquish some of their universal values by disregarding some of the recognized human rights and freedoms, or the clashes between the two cultures will progress to tragic atrocities.

At this point, it is not too late for the politicians to choose between the lesser of two evils.

Ekaterina Ryzhkova, PhD, associate professor of MGIMO, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.“

In the modern history of independent Tunisia such a state of emergency was introduced five times. Under the rule of Habib Bourguiba saw three similar states of emergency called. On September 9, 1957 the then newly elected first president of independent Tunisia was forced to resort to such a measure to secure Tunisia’s legitimate right to ensure the integrity of its territory in the face of an immediate threat looming at its borders. On that day a state of emergency was introduced in five southern governorates: Souq el Arba , Kef, Sbeitla, Gafsa and Tozeur (Law № 57-29). The introduction of this security regime was imperative for the protection of the new independent state.

However, later on this radical measure was to be introduced due to various cases of political and economic instability in the country itself. In October 1977 a factory in the town of Ksar Hellal saw the first strike against the economic policy of the president, which resulted in harsh clashes with army units, which Habib Bourguiba sought to keep away from internal conflicts. In just four days the disputed factory was liberated, leaving 50 people injured and 30 more arrested. But the political crisis deepened, which resulted in the so-called “Black Thursday” which occurred on January 26, 1978. This was the first general strike since the creation of the new state. The population”s dissatisfaction with liberal trends in the government was so great that it assaulted police units head-on. On the same day Habib Bourguiba,in accordance with Article 46 of the Constitution, signed two decrees: Decree № 78-49 introducing a state of emergency while decree № 78-50 regulated its conditions. From that moment on a state of emergency could be introduced in the face of an imminent threat to the state, which can be posed by public unrest or natural disasters. At this time Tunisia’s Minister of the Interior is entrusted with extraordinary authority. In this situation, the then Prime Minister of the Tunisian Hedi Nouira appointed Zine Ben Ali the head of the National Security, his decisive actions allowed to suppress the revolt in record time, more than 500 people were convicted, and the state of emergency was canceled in less then a month. However, some 46 civilians were killed and over 325 injured during this time.

In December 1983 Tunisia’s government was raising prices by 30-50% on bread, sugar, and cereals, under an extensive amount of pressure from the International Monetary Fund. The couscous which is North Africa’s national dish was on the list. Massive “bread riots” that followed this decision were suppressed by police and army units. On January 3, 1984 Habib Bourguiba introduced a state of emergency across the country. On January 6, 1984 the government reversed its decision on the price raise, however, according to official figures some 70 civilians lost their lives in the riots. The unofficial figures are even more grim – 140 people killed. Despite the reversal of this questionable move, Habib Bourguiba lost the trust of Tunisians overnight. He was thereafter relying heavily on Zine Ben Ali, which  he would later describe as a man with a strong grip that would be more than capable of keeping the country in his hands.

On November 7, 1987 Zine Ben Ali launched a coup d’etat and seized all power in the country. It is noteworthy that in 23 years of his rule, Ben Ali, who was nicknamed “general crisis” never resorted to the introduction of a state of emergency, but his followers failed to carry on this legacy.

As a result of the Second Jasmine Revolution on January 14, 2011, Ben Ali was forced to leave Tunisia. On the next day local authorities introduced a state of emergency in the riot-ridden Tunisia that lasted until March 6, 2014. It is curious that local authorities were using Habib Bourguiba’s political heritage in order to restore order in the country. The good-old decree № 78-50 that was signed back in January 1978, is designed to contain the discontent of the people, and it remains the basis for maintaining law and order in Tunisian society today. However, the government failed to attain stability, despite the fact that the state of emergency lasted for more than three years.

In 2014, for the period from 8 to 22 May a state of emergency was reintroduced in the the border areas close to Algeria.

It would seem that the adoption of a new Constitution, along with the election of a new president must have been a milestone for the country, with all the righteous provisions that were adopted with this basic law on 26 January 2014. However, a new law has not brought security and prosperity to Tunisia. The surge of Islamism that was kept in check by President Ben Ali for so long broke the moment he was overthrown. The situation was aggravated even further by various radical groups, namely the Islamic State, that began carrying out its operations in Tunisian territory. The first terrorist attack occurred on March 18, 2015, when militants stormed the National Bardo Museum, leaving behind 23 dead. On June 26, ISIL terrorists murdered some 40 civilians in a local hotel. In the aftermath of this attack Tunisian authorities decided to close a total of 80 mosques for inciting violence within the next week. The week has expired in an attempt to prevent civil unrest and violent clashes authorities introduced a state of emergency.

But so far, it remains unknown whether the Tunisian government has fulfilled its promise to close the above mentioned mosques, or was the state of emergency a mere attempt to reassure the international community that the government is still able to keep the situation in the country under control.

It seems that Islamists have come to stay in this once prosperous and secure state. Will the introduction of a new state of emergency be of any use? Time can only tell. In any case this regime that grants army and police units more freedom in their fight against terrorism, won’t change anything. Without a certain amount of educational work that would cancel the poisoning propaganda of Islamists, nothing can be achieved. However, the pressing social problems of Tunisia must be properly addressed, since they are being actively used by representatives of the Islamic State to attract new followers. But are Tunisian politicians capable of addressing such issues is the question that time can only answer.

Ekaterina Ryzhkova, PhD in Law, Associate Professor at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations of the RF, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Needless to say that any military conflict is no solution in any dispute. Such “scenarios” do not simply imply the loss of life by members of armed forces, but all too often civilians are getting caught in gunfire. In this context, in addition to urging different forces to seek a peaceful resolution of their disputes, it is imperative to remind those Muslims how the Sharia perceives their actions. The importance of such a reminder cannot be overstressed in today’s context, since certain groups like the so-called “Islamic state.” have stated their intentions of cleansing the world of infidels on behalf of the Sharia.

According to the Shariah murdering a person is a grave offence, since the value of human life is praised on numerous occasions in the Koran. But to this day no society can claim that it has consigned manslaughter to oblivion. It gets even more scary as neighbor kills neighbor and brother backstabs brother. Today Muslims are waging wars against their own kin with a total disregard of the norms of the Koran. While the Book is pretty explicit in this domain: “But whoever kills a believer intentionally – his recompense is Hell, wherein he will abide eternally, and Allah has become angry with him and has cursed him and has prepared for him a great punishment “(4:93).

However, in recent years the East became plagued by organizations that brand their followers as “the only true Muslim believers”. Many of those have been transformed into terrorist organizations, such as Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis, Boko Haram, Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula that subsequently joined the “Islamic State” and the notorious Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The possibility of creation of such organizations was foreseen by the Messenger of Allah, and the warning he passed to ancestors is written in the Hadith (collections of the reports of the teachings, deeds and sayings of the Islamic prophet Muhammad ). One of the largest collections of Hadith are the works of Muslim Ibn al-Hajjaj (821-875 AD) titled Sahih Muslim, along with the works of Imam Muhammad al-Bukhari (810-870 AD) titled Sahih Al-Bukhari. According to the hadith 1066 of al-Hajjaj and the hadith 1436 (3611) of al-Bukhari, the Messenger of Allah said: “There would arise at the end of the age a people who would be young in age and immature in thought, but they would talk (in such a manner) as if their words are the best among the creatures. They would recite the Qur’an, but it would not go beyond their throats, and they would pass through the religion as an arrow goes through the prey. So when you meet them, kill them, for in their killing you would get a reward with Allah on the Day of Judgement.”

Back in the day those words concerned the Kharijites, but recently this hadith has become relevant once again due to the fact ISIL claims that its actions are governed by the Koran, even though its members didn’t even make an attempt to grasp the basic notion that that there’s only one truth and that it belongs to God. Another Muslim scholar Ismail ibn Kathir (1301-1373 AD) has condemned the ideas expressed by the Kharijites in his book Ibn Kathir’s Al-Bidāya wa-n-nihāya (the beginning and the end) (10/584): “If the Khawarij ever gained power, they would corrupt the entire earth, Iraq, and Syria. They would not leave a boy or a girl or a man or a woman, for in their view the people have become so corrupt that they cannot be reformed except by mass killing.”

Those are precisely the doings that we can witness today on the territories occupied by ISIL. But at this point the Islamic world seems pretty determined to defend its sacred believes from the heresy of ISIL.

No Muslim that remains faithful to Islam would allow a murder of a man, regardless of the fact that the latter can be non-Muslim, since from the point of view of Islam a person may take the path of true faith at any point in his life, even on the verge of his death. For the “the believers are only the ones who have believed in Allah and His Messenger and then doubt not but strive with their properties and their lives in the cause of Allah . It is those who are the truthful.“(49:15).

Muslims are allowed to fight infidels in only one case, when those infidels are invaders that try to defy their religious customs, traditions, morals – “So do not obey the disbelievers, and strive against them with the Qur’an a great striving.” (25:52).

The Koran protects all the people who took the path of one God, as well as places of worship. After all, we should not forget that until the twentieth century no temple, church, place of prayer was desecrated or ruined in the whole Arab world. Ensuring protection of such places has always been considered by Islam as the basis of faith and love. “And were it not that Allah checks the people, some by means of others, there would have been demolished monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques in which the name of Allah is much mentioned. And Allah will surely support those who support Him. Indeed, Allah is Powerful and Exalted in Might.” (22:40).

It would be only logical to conclude this article by hadiths 10 and 11 of Imam Muhammad al-Bukhari , according to which the Prophet said that “a Muslim is the one who avoids harming Muslims with his tongue and hands “, and therefore Islam is better in understood by those “who avoids harming the Muslims with his tongue and hands .” That is why in case of a conflict a true Muslim will protect the world for the benefit of the Muslim Ummah and the people of the Book.

Ekaterina Ryzhkova, PhD in Law, Associate Professor at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations of the RF, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

In other words, first the West is raising fanatics in areas of strategic interests, then it advises those fanatics to wage wars on its enemies, and then abruptly, Western rhetoric changes in order to launch and assault “against the world’s most dangerous evil.” Well, this modus operandi has been known since the World War II, when Harry Truman said that: “If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible.”

In fact, the ISIL militants have been acting boldly since the first manifestations of Washington‘s sympathy towards them, at that point in time they were perceived as members of a “moderate opposition in Syria and Iraq.” But their leaders have become assured of their exceptionalism, assured that would enjoy impunity far too easily. From the first days of the Islamic State declaration, while mimicking US arrogance, they have been violating a number of universally recognized legal principles.

Firstly, it is worth noting that from the point of view of the theory of law, an organization can not be called a “state” since it is lacking a number of defining characteristics. The area ISIL claims to be their own is assigned to the recognized states, particularly Iraq and Syria. In addition, the Islamic State has stated that is going to occupy the Levant, which refers to the territories of a number of countries of the eastern Mediterranean that includes Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, Palestine, Egypt and Turkey.

In addition, there is no body of law implemented in the Islamic State, a body that constitutes the binding rules of conduct that are essential in actual states. As for the Shariah law, that ISIL is citing most of the time, it is nothing more than a set of religious norms, the highest law of a Muslim state, but modern Muslim societies demand additional standards that would regulate legal relations.

Above all, the financial basis of any state in existence is provided by a system of taxes and fees. Muslim tax systems in its modern state is unable to satisfy the demands of the Islamic State. ISIL has no budget, no financial institutions, nothing… Cash inflow is provided by spontaneous donations made by individuals that sympathize with the Islamic State ideology, along with oil profits. It would be naive to assume that the international community would refuse to buy certain oil due to its origin. All of this revenue is serving a single purpose – to ensure that ISIL military and terrorist activities continue, the Islamic State is not going not to solve anybody’s social problems.

It should also be noted that the principle of justice is one of the governing principles of Islamic law. Islamic rulers have always been preoccupied with supporting their people, especially those who found themselves in dire need, in accordance with the lines of the Qur’an and Sunnah. However, the Islamic State couldn’t care less.

As for the population, which is yet another defining attribute of a state, it’s a big question as far the Islamic State is concerned. Any population must be able to reproduce, but all the activities of ISIL, as mentioned above, are aimed at fighting external enemies, hence its population is increased by the capture of women. But Islam has always condemned violence against women! Throughout its history Islamic civilization, especially the Sunnis, defended women’s right to marry voluntarily. The relationships between the sexes outside of marriage are generally considered adulterous, and it is believed to be one of the most grievous of sins in Islam. Violence against women of other religions is still a grave sin, since the Qur’an explicitly allows Muslim men to marry Jews and Christians, and such people have the same set of rights as Muslims.

The Islamic State can not be considered an Islamic organization. The ideas, principles and methods of the ISIL militants are in direct contradiction to the norms of the Qur’an and Sunnah. Violence, the killing of Muslims and the “people of the Book” (ahl al-Kitab), ie Jews and Christians, to whom God, as well as to Muslims, revealed his will and gave religious and moral instructions, have always been considered the second gravest sin in Islam. However, ISIL is clearly urging its followers to kill the Shiites. Hence, this organization is using Islam as a cover when in reality it has nothing in common with this religion.

So what is attracting people from all over the world to join the ranks of the ISIL militants? Primarily their impunity.

At the present stage of development of international relations any seizure of territory is recognized as an act of aggression that could lead to the consequent use of force against the aggressor. However, the example of ISIL shows how helplessness the international community is today. The organization was created in Iraq, once the United States initiated the destruction of this state. At a certain point in time it could no longer be fully recognized as a state, since there were no government bodies, the Parliament ceased to exist hence there were no laws to be passed, while the real power was divided between various factions. As a result, a country that had been completely torn apart by internal feud, was overrun by radical Islamists. And since there was nobody to stop ISIL militants in Iraq it has been transformed into a springboard for the further spread of the Islamic State’s wicked ideas. Now, once they received the financial assistance and the support they needed, after capturing oil and gas production lines, ISIL militants are ready to drown the Levant in blood.

Since the territory occupied by ISIL militants is officially attributed to other states (Iraq, Syria), in order to carry out air strikes, or any other form of military operation, a state or a group of states must obtain the permission of Iraq and Syria along with the UN Security Council first. Given the fact that territories that the Islamic State believes to be its own are populated by radical men and women prisoners, any strike against this group can potentially endanger civilian lives. In addition, the countries of the Middle East, North Africa and even Central Asia have already been infiltrated by ISIL agents that are preparing local radicals to revolt against their governments once the time is right.

But the Muslim states are not going to suffer the plots of ISIL alone, the EU, and even the United States are next in line. Once jihadists with real combat experience begin returning home the problem of “domestic terrorism” will become as topical as it can possibly be. Especially if one is to consider the statements the Islamic State has made about its forthcoming attacks. Especially when such plans have already been successfully executed in the London Underground.

That is why the fight against ISIL should not be based on the illegal air strikes Washington has been carrying out in Iraq and Syria, but instead it should be a joint effort that would target radical extremism wherever it manifests itself.

Ekaterina Ryzhkova, PhD in Law, Associate Professor at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations of the RF, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

January 2014 was rich in constitutional reforms for the North African region. The two leading countries in the region, Egypt and Tunisia, adopted new constitutions, designed to consolidate the achievements of the “Arab Spring”.

Tunisia has always been considered a successful country in terms of law. Ideas of protecting human rights and freedoms have been implemented in this country in the second half of the 19th century. Thus, on April 23, 1861, Muhammad Sadiq Bey created the country’s first constitution, which included provisions found in the Founding Covenant of Tunisia dated September 10, 1857. It included inviolability of honor, person and property, equality in law as well as enterprise and trade freedom. The Constitution of 1861 clearly regulated the formation and powers of higher authorities, and their relationships. In 1881, France established a protectorate over Tunisia that lasted until 1956. After becoming an independent state, having abolished its monarchy in 1957, the state started forming a new constitution, which was adopted on June 1, 1959. In many respects, the provisions of the 1959 Constitution duplicated the French Constitution, providing the executive body, and primarily the President, with extensive powers, which in March 1975, allowed declaring Habib Bourguiba the lifelong President of Tunisia.

Results of the first constitutional Jasmine Revolution were the development of the political system in Tunisia and the recognition of a multiparty system. The Constitution of 1959 carefully regulated the legal status of the person and citizen, reinforced the fundamental human rights and freedoms, and clearly regulated relationships between higher authorities. However, high level of youth unemployment (Tunisia has one of the highest rates in the world, in terms of young people with higher education – 95%), and the conservative government and its fusion with business led to a revolution on January 14, 2011. Any revolution requires a change in the constitutional foundations. Thus, in October 2011, the Constituent Assembly was convened, whose goal was to develop the text of the new constitution of the country, underlining the achievements of Tunisian democracy.

The result was the adoption of the new Tunisian Constitution on January 26, 2014. Its main achievement, of course, is a significant expansion of personal and citizen’s rights and freedoms. Particular attention is paid to women’s rights. The principle of equality of female and male citizens is proclaimed in Article 21. In addition, according to Article 46, the State undertakes to protect women’s rights, guarantees equal opportunities for men and women in all fields, aims to achieve parity between men and women in the elected government bodies, as well as to take the necessary measures to eliminate violence against women. These provisions deserve special attention, because they are often absent in the constitutions of the most democratic countries in the world.

In addition, the new Tunisian Constitution pays special attention to the social rights of citizens, guarantees the right of scientific research, free compulsory education up to 16 years and the free health care. In addition, the State protects persons with disabilities from discrimination by providing the right to disability benefits, depending on the nature of the disability and provides full integration into society (Article 48). It is necessary to note that the provisions of Chapter 2 of the Constitution do not have a declarative character. For many decades, there has been established an effective mechanism for the implementation of the provisions of the Constitution in Tunisia. Therefore, these articles should be taken as a statement of current reality and confirm the pursuit of harmonious human development in Tunisia.

According to Chapter 6 of the Constitution, there have been created special independent constitutional bodies, responsible for elections, human rights, sustainable development and the rights of future generations, as well as the struggle against corruption. As a result, according to the second Jasmine Revolution, the President of the country cannot hold office for more than two terms (Article 75).

Thus, the main achievements of the Tunisian Constitution in 2014 should be considered its social orientation, gender equality, protection of women, the broad scope of political, personal, social, human and civil rights and the strict regulation of the relationships between government branches. Undoubtedly, the 2014 Constitution is a worthy and logical continuation of the country’s democratization policy and the worthy position of the individual and citizen in society.

Despite a rather long history of constitutional development, Egypt has not reached significant achievements in this field. Egypt’s first Constitution was adopted by King Ahmed Fouad I on April 19, 1923, shortly after abolition of the British protectorate. This constitution included the constitutional achievements made ​​in the country since 1881. Despite a temporary suspension, this constitution was used until 1952. From that time on, Egypt underwent constitutional reforms: constitutions were adopted (1956, 1964), then suspended, then some constitutional declarations were enacted, until finally, on September 11, 1971, in a referendum, the new Constitution of Egypt was adopted. It laid the foundations for Egyptian society and state. Despite the fact that its provisions were more declarative in nature, it was valid until February 13, 2011.

From that moment, there were again attempts to adopt a new Constitution: first, the Interim Constitution was adopted in 2011, then, a new constitution followed. It was adopted on December 15 and 22, 2012, in a referendum and signed by the President of Egypt on December 26, 2012. However, its power was suspended by the Egyptian Army on July 3, 2013, after impeachment of the President. Only on January 14-15, 2014, the current Constitution of Egypt was approved via a referendum. However, the question of its longevity remains open. The fact is that, in comparison to Tunisia’s Constitution, the 2014 Egyptian Constitution prescribes the ideals of Egyptian society, which have to be reached. In reality, there is no mechanism to fully implement the constitutional norms and declarations. Legislators described, in detail, the formation and interaction of the highest state authorities, limited the President’s power to two four-year terms (Article 140) and imposed a ban on the formation of political parties on the religious principle (Article 74). Touching upon human and civil rights, despite the abundance of rules governing political, civil, social and economic rights, these rules have only a declarative character and rather express the wishes and aspirations of the Egyptian society, which, are far from today’s reality.

In particular, speaking about the health service system (Article 18) and education (Article 19) that are declared as human rights, the state is obliged to create an appropriate system and allocate money based on a GDP percentage (3% and 4%, respectively), with a gradual increase of these sums up to the world level. It should be noted that illiteracy has not been completely eliminated yet, and in Article 25, the State undertakes to develop a general plan to eliminate alphabetic and numerical illiteracy among all citizens of all groups, and to develop implementation mechanisms with the participation of civil society institutes, in accordance with a specific timetable.

Women’s rights are considered in the context of the family as the foundation of society (Article 10). Again, the State, in accordance with the provisions of this article, is only committed to achieving equality between women and men in all civil, political, economic, social and cultural fields, in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, and to take the necessary measures to ensure adequate representation of women in the Houses of Parliament, as determined by law.

List of declarations of the Egyptian Constitution can take a very long time to enumerate. Practically all of the provisions of Chapters 2–4, and this is 95 articles, have no implementation mechanisms. Thus, the people of Egypt in January 2014 voted only for their dreams, which the state cannot implement at the moment. This is the difference between the constitutions of Tunisia and Egypt. Tunisia’s Constitution consists of real foundations of modern Tunisian society.

Ekaterina Ryzhkova, PhD in Law, Associate Professor at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations of the RF, exclusively for the online magazine New Eastern Outlook.

Now there is very little left to do: Universal National Congress will have to create a special commission that will be responsible for the preparation of the future constitution of Libya. In addition, the Commission should, in the short term, examine the laws currently existing in the country, particularly in the banking, financial and criminal sectors, to determine their compliance with the principles of Sharia, and propose the necessary amendments to Libyan legislation.

The transition of Libya to the use of Sharia Laws should have some impact on the country’s financial regulation and investment rules. This issue is becoming especially important now, taking into account the current degradation of the Libyan economy and losses to the budget running into billions. Thus, only the conclusion of contractual agreements this year, according to the International Monetary Fund, will fall by more than 5%. In connection with the protests and strikes in the oil industry, which is the basis for the replenishment of the country’s budget, from the end of July 2013, there has been a sharp drop in income in this sector, estimated at $13 billion. The crude oil output fell to 250,000 barrels per day, compared to one and half million before the summer of 2013.

This crisis has also affected the natural gas industry. Thus, after many days of demonstrations in the northwestern terminals, gas supplies were interrupted to Italy in the end of November 2013, through the pipeline that used to transit 17 million cubic meters of gas daily.

Under these conditions, due to the absence of the essential foundations for business cooperation with foreign investors, such as a Constitution (its effect was canceled due to the revolutionary events of 2011) and applicable national legislation, the Prime Minister Ali Zeidan said recently that the country would be in quite a difficult situation when paying its external debts starting next month.

As for the choice of Libya towards the Islamic side, this is not surprising. Immediately after the victory of the Revolution of the Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in 1969, its “Brotherly Headman and Leader” Muammar Gaddafi already introduced many provisions of Sharia Laws in the country. In the preface to the Soviet edition of his famous “Green Book”, which represented both the constitutional foundations of the country and a program of action, published in our country only in 1986, Gaddafi actually compared his main ideological work with the Koran, and himself – with the Prophet Mohammed “I, a simple Bedouin who rode a donkey and was a barefoot goat herder, who has lived the life among the same ordinary people, present to you my little, consisting of three parts, Green Book, similar to the banner of Jesus, Moses’ tablets, and a brief sermon of the one who rode a camel. At the initiative of Gaddafi, parliament was rejected in Libya, “as an instrument of dictatorship”. In addition, it was established that “the true Law of the society was either customs or a religion, and laws that were not based on religion and customs, were specially created by man against man and therefore were illegitimate, because of not being based on a natural source – custom sand religion”. He also spelled out the conditions of economic activity, based on the principle of fairness and equality borrowed from the Quran, officially established the zyakat – a charity tax for the poor, and prohibited gambling and drinking. Criminal legislation fully complied with Islamic law, including the amputation of hands for theft. In fiscal legislation, usury was forbidden, with the corresponding reference to the Koran on this issue.

During the civil war in 2011, and after their victory, the focus on Islam was confirmed by the Libyan rebels. After all, the active participants in these events were not Libyan soldiers or intellectuals, but the poor people, who were brainwashed against the previous government through mosques and largely through the Muslim Brotherhood.

Exactly for this reason, back in November 2013, the extremist group Ansar al-Sharia, which gained a footing in Libya, with the assistance of the Muslim Brotherhood, expressed its confidence in the establishment of Sharia Laws in this country. After the visit of the Libyan prime minister to Benghazi, caused by the concern of the country’s parliament about the debauchery and banditry of various armed groups, Ansar al-Sharia made an official statement: “Peace and security in Libya depend only on the speed of application of Sharia Laws. Our goal, and what we are working for, is the return of Islamic Law. We do not recognize the power of any ministry, any government agency or any apparatus relating to public safety, except Sharia Laws.” The Ansar al-Sharia group itself gained notoriety in Libya, due to its direct involvement in the murders of many representatives of law enforcement and judicial authorities of Libya in the east of the country, as well as of the American consul in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. Now this extremist group controls, in addition to Benghazi, two of the largest Libyan cities – Derna and Sirt.

Statement of the Libyan Parliament on the application of Sharia as the main source of the country’s legislation in the future, which coincided with the discovery of 53 bodies of Gaddafi supporters in Sirt, has raised concerns in Western Europe. In particular, the European Parliament’s Rapporteur for Libya, Anna Gomez, said that “the introduction of Sharia was not based on democratic decision-making”. At the same time, Gomez stressed that “free Libya had to fully respect human rights,” while “in the Sharia there are interpretations that clearly violate human rights and discriminate against women.” In this regard, the EU warned Tripoli that Europe would refrain from supporting “any government that violated fundamental human rights or international obligations, including those relating to the rights of prisoners of war”.

Taking into account the fact that in the Islamic doctrine, in international relations there is a “World of Islam”, i.e., the Muslim states, and on the other hand, the “World of War”, the foreign policy of the Muslim states, that have taken the path of Sharia, is clearly focused on religious affiliation of partner or opponent. We should therefore expect that the foreign relations of Libya in the future will be mostly based on Islamic solidarity.

Ekaterina Ryzhkovа, PhD of Juridical Sciences, associate professor at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations University of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Let’s first look at some statistics. More than 76 percent of the world’s debt is situated in five major industrial countries: the U.S., Japan, Germany, France and Great Britain. That being the case, the market for U.S. government debt is the largest in the world. That share is growing at a fast clip and now stands at 45 percent of the world market for government debt instruments. However, it should be noted that foreign debt accounts for only 28 percent of the debt obligations. That’s on the order of $5 trillion. The remaining 72 percent is owed to private entities and, above all, to residents of the United States.

After approving the increase in the national debt threshold, Congress approved payment of planned government expenditures, although this agreement is temporary. So the new debt ceiling will be reached in February 2014 because of the breakneck speed with which the amount rises. The Wall Street Journal, citing a widely distributed Oct. 17 press release from the U.S. Treasury Department, reported that the U.S. national debt officially exceeded $17 trillion, increasing by $328 billion dollars in just one day.

It ought to be noted that the primary revenue stream in the budget will be applied to spending on social services, which will not bring in any revenue for the country, even in the future. Expenditures on the economy total slightly more than $200 billion, and $600 billion will be spent on defence. Question: How is the United States going to pay for such enormous borrowing? What sources does the government plan to tap to cover its outlays? The classical theory of finance says that the country will have to levy higher taxes, accept higher inflation or continue increasing public debt, which would never be paid off, although a default would not be declared. And forcing the U.S. to pay off its debts is impossible because of the protections afforded by state sovereignty.

However, this is only the visible part of the iceberg. In actuality, the United States relies on another source of income. Paradoxically, it is military in nature: development of the military-industrial complex and expansion of the market for domestic military output, revenues from arms sales, payments to military advisers and peacekeepers from international and foreign funds, the establishment of military and economic domination. Yet despite the scope of such transactions, they do not bring returns sufficient to cover the costs of the U.S. military. In fact, they don’t even come close.

A country that has not faced an external attack in more than 70 years (taking the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour on Dec. 7, 1941, as the starting point) has the largest military budget in the world and is on a permanent war footing. Most military operations are carried out far away from the mainland U.S. It is noteworthy that even under these circumstances, the stumbling block in the last budget crisis was not excessive military spending, but rather social services.

What this means is that regardless of political affiliation, the U.S. government enthusiastically acquiesces in staging costly military activities under the guise of peacekeeping in order to acquire considerable income for the country. There was no time to assuage passions about the budget at the very moment State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki issued a statement from the agency condemning the prolonged siege around the capital of Syria and demanding immediate and complete “humanitarian access” to the region.

At the outset of the Iraq war, the administration of George W. Bush offered assurances that spending on the war would be offset by Iraqi oil revenues. Similar predictions were made with regard to the war in Libya and Syria. However, the theorists’ calculations are not supported by the facts. Not one military conflict involving the U.S. has brought so much as a single dollar of actual income to the treasury thus far. Americans have to hope for the long term, which is postponed indefinitely every year. Meanwhile, American taxpayers are forced into a situation of apparent prosperity to pay for a useless war in the countries of the East and invest in the ephemeral schemes of their rulers to delay the inevitable default of the United States, because the government will never be able to return more than it produces. U.S. debt not only reached $17 trillion but also exceeded 106 percent of GDP. So just in principle, paying off the national debt quickly can’t be done. And even if America’s foreign debt were forgiven, the government is unlikely to pay back the $12 trillion it owes to private entities.

The “well-being of America” that was declared on Oct. 17, 2013, is not on solid enough ground. And repayment for American boondoggles will fall to the citizens, who have been so rudely deceived by their government.

Yekaterina Ryzhkova has a PhD in legal studies, an instructor at the Moscow State Institute for International Relations and a special contributor to the New Eastern Outlook online magazine.

But what are the reasons for the continuous instability?

Any revolution is succeeded by legislation steps that are taken by the new government to establish its power. A new Constitution is to be written that will govern all the aspects of the day-to-day life for the years to come. The “Arab spring” period was perceived by many as the awakening of the national identity of the people, the strive for improvement in the economical, social and political shperes that have to be secured by the new legislative initiatives. Yet the actual outcome can hardly satisfy the people of the “Arab spring” countries.

It’s a sad fact that the people of the countries that saw revolutional movements in 2010-2011 are living without the primary source of law – a Constitution that should have established the founding principles of the new regimes, that should have granted people rights and freedoms, that should have established a set of rules for the new legislative initiatives to be accepted.

The revolutional movement started in Tunisia back in 2010 and over a couple of years it managed to reach Syria. In the course of political struggle a new set of regimes have replaced the old even though the legitimacy of those was provided by the existing Constitutions. A Constitution was widely regarded as a universal good in the middle of the 20th century for any of the North African countries that had been suffering from colonial oppression before it was adopted. But today we witness such countries like Tunisia, Libya and Egypt living without one. The existing Constitutions were suspended in all of these countries, as for the new ones they are being “under development” for quite a while now.

The new authorities of these countries state that it’s unacceptable to obey the old laws, since the old Constitutions were suspended, but at the same time for already two years now the citizens of the “Arab spring” countries are forced to obey the old laws since the new ones can only be drafted when a Constitution is in place.

The Tunisia’s Constitution of 1959 was suspended in the course of 2010-2011 revolutional movement. In order to draft a new one a Constituent Assembly was summoned on October 23 2011. While the new Constitution is being drafted Tunisia obeys the so-called “small constitution” – the Constitutional law of December 2011 that regulates different aspect of the political life but at the same time doesn’t go as far as touching upon the rights of citizens.

As for the Provisional Constitution of the Arab Republic of Egypt that was adopted after the referendum of December 15 2012. Next year it was suspended by the Egyptian military on July 3 2013 after they toppled the sitting president Mohamed Morsi. So Egypt has found itself with no Constitution once again at the times it needs it the most, since it could be of great help in settling the domestic conflict that rages on.

In Libya, after the bloody assault on the Qaddafi regime, the National Interim Council has signed on August 3 2011 a constitutional declaration that should have replaced the Constitution for the time a new one is drafted and approved by the forthcoming referendum. But until the present day there’s no Constitution in Libya, as well as there’s no accord on who should be presented in the Constituent Assembly that should be drafting one.

And in the meantime the National identity of the Arab spring countries is being gradually deformed. The fruits of a long fight against the colonial oppression are now all but lost. Now the old beliefs and norms have been broken, the once allowed the “Arab spring” citizens to live a decent life. The citizens of these countries, leading by the U.S. and the Persian gulf  propaganda assume that they fight for their political believes, but they are being masterfully manipulated.

But one shouldn’t forget that in the absence of a Constitution there’s no creating new laws that would reflect the latest experience of these countries. In the absence of those you cannot settle any political or financial crisis.

And all those striving for power in the “Arab Spring” countries should remember that a Constitution is the main source of legitimacy, especially when the human rights are a major concern. And any government that is “legit” in the eyes of its own people will be constantly facing  all sorts of oppositions.

Ekaterina Ryzhkova, Cand. Sc. (Law), is an Associate Professor at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University) of Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. This article was written expressly for New Eastern Outlook.