The Russian Federation has extensive experience in building trust and partnership relations with the countries of the Islamic world. An example of this can be seen in the international events attended by representatives of Muslim countries around the world. The Global Forum of Young Diplomats from the OIC countries, held in Kazan in late August, was no exception.
In order to better understand Russia’s place in the international arena and to learn about the current level of Russia’s relations with the countries of the Islamic world, we asked Konstantin Viktorovich Shuvalov, Special Representative of the Russian Foreign Minister for Interaction with Organizations of Muslim States, Ambassador-at-Large and Deputy Chairman of the Group of Strategic Vision ‘Russia – Islamic World’, several questions.
-Konstantin Viktorovich, good afternoon! Thank you very much for taking the time and opportunity to meet with us and answer our questions.
The Group of Strategic Vision ‘Russia – Islamic World’ has been functioning since 2006. A large number of events have been held over these years. Which events would you personally call significant and what are the prospects for the further work of the Group of Strategic Vision ‘Russia – Islamic World’?
-The Group was founded by Evgeny Primakov and Mintimer Shaimiev. They began to reflect on how to make Russia and the Islamic world closer, what to undertake in order to get rid of residual misunderstanding and suspicions that had formed in the Islamic world towards our country in the past, and to tell how our country lives today, how Muslims live in it and what the role of Islam is today. It was decided to hold a joint discussion on the situation in the world, engaging well-known figures in Russia and Muslim countries. It was about dialogue, which rises above the news of a particular day, namely about the relationship between civilizations.
The Strategic Vision Group has gone through different stages in its development. After the founders left the leadership of the Group, there was hiatus in its activities, which was overcome when, on instruction from Vladimir Putin, the Group was headed by President of the Republic of Tatarstan Rustam Minnikhanov.
We adjusted the objectives and made them more specific. The Group of Strategic Vision ‘Russia – Islamic World’ evolved from a discussion club of intellectuals into a broad platform of initiatives.
We are not a state institution or an international organization. We do not carry out the tasks of promoting inter-state cooperation that are done by the governments of Russia and Muslim states. But we provide opportunities to promote this to all other people interested in the development of relations between Russia and the Islamic world. There are many such people both abroad and in our country. We have particularly many of them in the regions where Islam traditionally spreads.
Tatarstan took a pioneering, leading role. The Group merged with the KazanSummit International Economic Forum. The Summit grew from a regional initiative into a forum of federal importance, and became the main venue for meetings, networking between business people from Russia and Islamic countries, as well as a place to discuss Islamic economic issues.
The Strategic Vision Group has many representatives of the clergy and the topic of interreligious dialogue, as well as the situation in Islam in its various aspects, is always present in our discussions. Not only leaders of Islamic communities but also hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church participate from our side. Meetings of the Group are held both at home, most of which have been held here, in Kazan, and abroad. We hope that the Group will not turn into a site to which people from abroad come just to visit us. We are counting on active participation of our foreign colleagues, who can inform the political elite, academics and theologians in their countries about our understanding of the global problems and the results of the Group’s work.
We actively cooperate with journalists of the Islamic world. We have had several special meetings with their participation to discuss the role and capabilities mass media in the fight against terrorism.
The latest plenary session of the Group, held in Kazan in May and set in the context of the festivities marking the 1100th anniversary of the adoption of Islam by Volga Bulgaria, focused on civil identity in multinational countries – a topical issue for all Muslim countries. Our experience here is unique. It is recognized by everybody and needs to be described in more details.
The Group’s media activities should also be noted. After your holding (Khuzur Publishing House) began running the website of the Strategic Vision Group, there have been many positive changes in its activities. Apart from topical articles, news is published on the problems of Russia’s relations with Muslim countries and the Islamic world, which in a compiled form cannot be found in other resources in Russia.
The website exists both in the Arabic and the English languages. The quality of these versions has significantly improved.
I would not like in this interview to judge the outcome of the Strategic Vision Group by the quantity and quality of individual events. Such assessments have already been given by its leadership. Let us look at the activities of the Group of Strategic Vision ‘Russia – Islamic World’ from another perspective. As I said, we are a platform, and our task is to broaden public support for efforts to develop relations and achieve greater understanding with the Islamic world. Our aim and desire is to widen the circle of people who are interested in this, and there certainly is one. A circle of friends has formed around the Group, and this is probably the most important result of our activities.
-Konstantin Viktorovich, you mentioned earlier the Group as a platform for interaction. I would continue your point, if I may. It is the interaction of people often with different interest. And if I am not mistaken, Vladimir Putin, at one of his meetings with Recep Tayyip Erdogan and the former President of Iran, I think it was the Astana troika format, quoted an ayat from the Quran: ‘And remember the mercy of Allah to you, when you were enemies, and He brought your hearts closer together and you became brothers by His mercy!’ This quote from Vladimir Putin caused a furor both among the Iranian clergy and among our Turkish partners. Tell us please, what the successes of the Group for rapprochement of people with different points of view are, because as far as we know, the member of the Strategic Vision Group from Iran represents the Organization for the Convergence of Madhhabs, which is essentially an organization for the convergence of Sunni and Shiite Islam.
-The Group does not promote the ideas of religious syncretism, which seeks to make existing religions into something common and unified. As far as I know Orthodoxy and Islam, this goal does not correspond to the essence of their teachings. I have had occasion to discuss this issue with Supreme Imam of Al-Azhar Tayyib. He fully agreed that dialogue of religions should not aim at revision of doctrines. But the world religions have a lot in common. Their coexistence has a history of thousands of years.
They formulated guidelines on how to deal with dissenters. These attitudes in no way imply what, let us say, the so-called ‘Islamic State’ preaches in the name of Islam. In the Group with the participation of invited guests there is a talk about the place of religion nowadays, how religions should interact and what the culture of dealing with people of other faiths should be like.
In the West, the culture of abolition that became the pinnacle of their formerly rich ideological journey actually involves the abolition of religion. This is not said directly, but if you consider the place given to religion by neoliberalism, it is a place in the kitchen, behind closed doors. Religion is denied to be a social phenomenon, reduced to a purely personal matter. Religion, however, cannot be a purely personal matter. The word ‘religion’ means ‘connection’. Yes, a connection with God, but also a connection between people.
This approach particularly brings Muslims and Russian Orthodox closer together.
The proximity of our vision was recently spoken about by His Holiness Patriarch Kirill.
Saint Theophan the Recluse wrote about it in the century before last. We here in Russia, Orthodox and Muslims, as well as Muslims abroad, differ from neoliberals in the West and even from those who practice a religion but modernize it in terms of adapting it to neoliberalism. We differ in that we recognize the collective rights of believers, we do not atomize society and do not break it down into individuals and small cells. We see society as a whole, as a process, not just as a set of components. This generally distinguishes the Orthodox and Islamic way of thinking from that which has existed in the West for centuries and which has led to the threat of dehumanization. We need to offer people understandable answers to the questions of how to deal with otherness, what differences between people are – obstacles that can and should be removed, or a given that one has to learn to live in accordance with conscience.
There are relevant surahs in the Quran and instructions in the sacred texts of Christianity about differences of thought. Logic itself suggests that there are definitely some because the absence of differences simplifies the system, making it primitive. The system which has exactly the same elements will not develop – it is dead. And we are for life. And this is why we want the differences to remain, but to be a resource for development, not an object for enmity.
-Speaking at the Forum, you mentioned the collapse of the ideology of a unipolar world. When did this unipolarity emerge and what is its downside?
-I will try to explain what I think of this. Unipolarity means ruling the world from a single centre, building the world according to the pyramid principle, which implies the rejection of equality and democracy. Of course, democracy is valuable to the Western heart as an analogue of the West itself, as its tried and tested political and ideological slogan, but even some scholars in the West, describing the state of modernity, speak about the post-democratic period of human development. Remember the Great French Revolution, where the Western miracle began: ‘liberty, equality, fraternity’ was its slogan. Fraternity has been forgotten and for a long time. Equality has also been virtually forgotten. Firstly, there is no economic equality, but it was never intended by the founders of Western democracy. But there is no political equality either. It is clear to everybody that electing the president of the United States is not the same as electing the village headman. It is another level of association, other principles and complexity of governance. Before our eyes, the West is destroying the system of world order, which is based on the equality of sovereign states.
It no longer exists even in the relations of the Western allies between each other, because what equality we can talk about when comparing the United States with Estonia. It is ridiculous to think about. As far as Afro-Asian, Latin American countries are concerned the West has never had the feeling that these peoples and countries are equal to them. The colonialist worldview has not gone anywhere – the people of Africa, Asia and Latin America have no doubt about that when they see all sorts of penitential gestures towards the Black.
There used to be a contemptuous smirk in the West when it was said in our country that Western democracies were a sham and that it was the financial oligarchs and the secret services that really made decisions. Now the existence of the system of government, which has become known as the deep state, is not seriously disputed by anyone. Is there democracy in the relationship between the golden billion, a bunch of Western countries, and the rest of the world? There is none at all. They do not want to think about it. They deny the diversity of civilizations and ways of development. For them, the West has only one civilization, their own one, which is the example, the pinnacle; the rest are striving towards it at different rates, but without the hope that they will ever reach the end.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States considered them to be the only superpower and prepared to rule the world in accordance with Pax Americana principle. What is Pax Americana? There was once Pax Romana. What is it? In its own way, this is a unique system of ruling a vast territory. By subjugating new peoples, the Romans did not banish local nobility, but simply integrated them, providing external protection while subjecting them to Roman law. It worked easier then, really worked, for a long time, but ended in collapse. The USA also allows subordinate countries in exchange for giving up genuine sovereignty to some extent, but as soon as there is an order on a really important issue, these countries are obliged to carry it out. And they do, as we are now witnessing in the situation with the lauded Western solidarity against us.
What is the fundamental weakness of the unipolar world order? Probably that any power pyramid is limited in its ability to govern effectively, does not respond quickly and effectively to changes, and, most importantly, is not perceived as equitable power because it does not sufficiently account for the diversity and positivity of differences among its objects of governance.
What could be an alternative to unipolarity? Firstly, multipolarity we are talking about. In principle, monopolarity is opposed to a network structure of governance, existence of many centres interacting with each other, not according to the rules of war, otherwise we will return to feudalism, but on the basis of law, on the basis of international law. Not the kind of law that the West would invent without our participation in the form of new rules of international behavior, but international law that arises on the basis of common consent and is voluntarily obeyed. That is how I see the possibility of an alternative to unipolarity.
A networked or multipolar way of world order has the advantages of being more democratic and more equitable for its participants. In principle, it is now in focus, because both science and human development are now revealing the advantages of the network over systems controlled from a single centre. The Internet is a network. As a network, our brains and, to some extent, our minds work. Non-Western forms of thinking learned this a long time ago, with Islam among the first.
The principle of ummah, the principle of ijma, the consent of Muslims as the key principle in governance, emerged with Islam. Within the ummah, we observe the possibility and feasibility of multipolarity itself. Diverse teachings and different madhabs coexist, and there are different schools within madhabs. You spoke about the Iranian Organization for the Convergence of Madhabs. It was used to be headed by the late Ayatollah Taskhiri, whom I knew personally. In many respects the aforementioned organization became known thanks to the irrepressible energy of that person, and his constant activity. I will not say how the Organization for the Convergence of Madhabs now defines its aims for itself, but from my talks with Taskhiri I did not conclude that the declared convergence of madhabs there was seen as mutual absorption and a way to a kind of madhabs without madhab. Attempts are being made to reach more mutual understanding, since apart from purely theological points of disagreement between Shiites and Sunnis there are also those that owe their emergence to a cultural and historical situation that has already receded into the past. The ‘zealots not of reason’, as the Orthodox say, have multiplied mutual accusations. They exist in memory to this day and sometimes arise again in a radical environment. The Organization for Convergence of Madhabs has in some cases successfully overcome the residual elements of disagreement. This Organization has remained the main mechanism for dialogue on the Iranian side, a participant in numerous dialogue movements that exist in different countries and in the world as a whole.
-Konstantin Viktorovich, I would like to ask you about your participation in the Global Youth Forum of Russia and the OIC countries. What, in your opinion, is the main goal of this forum?
-This forum is not the first. The novelty of the situation now is that for the first time it is being held in a state that does not have official membership status in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. The choice of Kazan as the OIC Youth Capital for this year is an interesting decision, which we appreciate. This is an indicator that the many years of efforts to develop relations with the Islamic world and its main organization – the OIC – are bearing fruit of trust. We have really become more trusted and in this a great merit, of course, of Tatarstan, because it is Kazan that has been declared as the capital.
The agenda of this youth summit has a number of points. A meeting of this forum was held today and it was said about this. I would not like to retell in full what was said by the organizers of the forum. The key goal for which the Youth Movement of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation exists is to promote optimum forms of self-realization of young people in the Islamic world and Islamic countries. Unlike other regions of the world, Islamic countries are younger in terms of the fact that the percentage of young people is higher there. There is a more acute problem of employment after education. In poor countries there are difficulties with getting education as such, and with education for women. The discussion at the forum will be about how to help young people, what policies to choose so that young people move as quickly as possible apprenticeship and adolescence to full citizenship, when they participate in political life, and most importantly, find themselves in economic and social life.
It is often the case that a dysfunctional situation in general creates inflates expectations. It is important to reach understanding that young people are not opposed to other generations within society, that they are not outsiders. It is necessary to ensure that young people are not left without occupations which interest them, which feed them, so that young people can create families in time, have children, knowing what social responsibility they assume for themselves. Of course, society itself has an obligation not to look down on this segment of population, remember that it is the young people who will have to defend us, if necessary, with weapons in their hands.
-Konstantin Viktorovich, is the voice of the young being listened to in world politics today? And do they need to?
-I have a counter-question – where is that voice? Who tells them what we can call the voice of youth? The young are not a party, not a separate ethnic group. They are the same part of society. They have their own interests; they have novelty in their approach to life and vision of it; they even have that experience in some areas that their parents do not possess. Everybody perfectly knows that IT specialists are all young. We look up to and learn from them in this area. Opposing young people to the rest of society either in a subordinate or leading group is counterproductive and does not lead to anything. We need to create conditions in which society lives and gets old according to natural laws. There should be no superfluous people; any deprivation of youth is detrimental to society itself.
On the other hand, I would like to highlight that experience in solution of problems of socio-economic integration of young people that Islamic countries have. It was, in particular, very interestingly talked about at a meeting of this forum. But I am pessimistic about, for instance, attempts to quota positions for any groups of population, be they young people, women or people with other identities. We can see many such attempts in the West. And if in elections we do not vote for someone who expresses our interest, but rather put together a puzzle of different social age, gender and other strata, what kind of government would that be?
There may be different perceptions about the voice of the young, but today in relation to Tatarstan, its representatives spoke, referring to President Minnikhanov, of his approach that issues concerning youth should not be resolved without youth. One cannot disagree with that.
-The year 2022 is significant in that it marks the 1100th anniversary of adoption of Islam by Volga Bulgaria. It is known that this date is widely celebrated at the federal level. Has this circumstance influenced cultural and political interaction within Russia and between Russia and the Islamic world?
-The interaction began not with the anniversary, this is clear. Nor will it end with the anniversary, this is also clear. And this anniversary is significant in particular because it came at a time when the West tried to declare us pariahs and to prove to everyone that we were in complete isolation. Foreign reactions to the celebration of the 1100th anniversary of adoption of Islam by Volga Bulgaria demonstrate that foreign Muslims have not listened to these appeals in the slightest. We cannot speak about any isolation of Russia. Guests have come to us. Moreover, they do not come here with Western cheat sheets telling them what to say or not on sensitive issues. They are expressing their own opinions, which are very unflattering for the West.
We do not expect full unanimity from foreign partners. We have already discussed this. Everyone has their own vision, but we respect that partner’s vision, which is their own, which comes from understanding their own interests and which is formed in respect for the partner’s interests.
-No country in the world considers conflicts as something normal. What is necessary to undertake by each individual and society as a whole to level out and resolve them diplomatically?
-I have to disagree with your first message in the question that nobody is interested in conflicts and nobody considers them something normal. There are so many people who are interested in this, who do not just believe that this is normal, but also consider this to be a way of human development. We see in practice, especially in the foreign policy of empires such as Britain’s, the use of the method of artificially creating conflicts to achieve their goals. This has been done for centuries and continues to be done. It is spoken about openly, so, unfortunately, not everyone shares our wish that conflicts should be avoided.
Conflicts are manifestations of contradictions, while contradictions are manifestations of differences. Differences, as we have already said, are a given, not given by us, but created by God. There is a relevant ayat on this subject that God created people to be different and what he did it for. But indeed, it is one thing to be different and another one to suppress that difference in another individual. A conflict arises on the basis of a desire to suppress a point of view that does not coincide with one’s own, and this, of course, is wrong and should be avoided. This is taught by religions that deserve to be called religions, although not all religions can be unified in this sense. The call for peace reflects perhaps an ideal view of people’s existence and relationships. It is a command that people with conscience, who think of others as fellow human beings, should follow without fail.
-Do Islamic young people today seek religious education abroad? What can you say about Russia’s experience in this direction?
-The question is rather complicated and ambiguous; I have been dealing with it for several years. In Russia, there is the Council for Islamic Education, the only structure in which all of our numerous religious Islamic associations and muftiates participate, in order to streamline religious education abroad, to bring it out of the chaotic state that really existed when anyone could go and get Islamic education anywhere, sometimes calling it something that is neither Islamic, not educational. Unfortunately, this is often the case even now. I agree with the Council for Islamic Education that our choice of foreign centres for education has led us to reject many of the relevant centres for various issues – some offer education in a language that is no longer needed by our returnees, some cost too much, some are of questionable quality, and some provide teaching that has nothing to do with religion and theology proper, but much ideology, often of an extremist nature.
It is certainly unwise to send abroad teenagers who have not received a proper secondary education in their homeland for Islamic education. It is unwise to send these boys to Al-Azhar to learn ‘alifba’ there. But if it is indeed necessary to study abroad, then, apparently, to obtain education of a higher level than the one available.
Education, like any form of activity, is directly linked to the demand for a particular specialty. When there are so many people with outward signs of a high degree of scholarship, but no way or opportunity to apply the knowledge gained, one wonders whether one has spent the best years of their life wisely in obtaining degrees and diplomas.
Education abroad was, is and will be, but I would like it to be, firstly, not chaotic, so that it serves the interests of the Ummah, rather than ending up as a collection of regalia. Does having an education abroad help the life of Muslims here, in our country, the life of Islam? That is probably the question to ask. If you do not ask it, if you alienate yourself from the interests of your Ummah beforehand, of course this option is also possible, but how compatible is it with the fact that a person considers himself a Russian Muslim? This is my view or my personal opinion as a result of observing what is happening.
-Thank you very much Konstantin Viktorovich for your answers and for making time for our readers!
GSV "Russia - Islamic World"