“The Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) acted with pride and security after the dissolution of its potential and its hegemony. The former Communist states decided to make a tabula rasa to fulfil the will of the capitalist countries of the West. Today’s Russia, and some former communist countries, depends on corrupt and anti-Russian people. They are not worthy of governing the state. An example of this is Albania. The powerful Western states could support President Ramiz Alia during the transition, as he had the knowledge of the country and the apparatus of state, but, among other things, the United States and France sought to change government immediately. The inpatience of the capitalist countries was evident in changing those in power. Of course, it was also a mistake in the policy of the former communist countries, because they needed capital. The same mistake that the United States made in Iraq has now been made in the Arab country, Syria. The officers of the Iraqi Republican Guard (faithful to Saddam Husseini) were then rejected instead of those who supported him. They ran out of pay. Many of these military personnel are currently in the Daesh Army,” says Nils Andersson, an expert in international politics.

What is ISIS about? How has US foreign policy influenced the creation of ISIS?

Daesh or Islamic State is the production and the result of war; it is, in a way, the succession of Al Qaeda. These wars always start against the local states, against those in power, especially against armies. But these kinds of wars are airborne, bombed, and therefore massacre the population. This has facilitated the recruitment of jihadists in this new phase. At the same time, there is great anti-imperialist opposition in the population, contrary to the occupants and foreign presence. They are situations made by wars themselves, they feed back. Consequences? For example, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan caused 1,300,000 deaths, according to official figures, which are the death toll.

After Osama bin Laden, leader of Al Qaeda, Daesh has arrived. What's the difference?

Daesh is a continuation of al Qaeda, but it's organized in a different way. Behind Daesh is Salafism. Al Qaeda is limited to military operations, while Daesh is a formed State. Daesh was founded in the interior of the city of Califa. It's a Califa Daesh affair. Caliph is an ancient idea of the Muslim world. Many of those in Al Quaeda are now in Daesh. The strategy has changed, but what is behind it is the Califa, and the Koran as a basis. Bin Landen apparently did not like the Califa, he was not completely in agreement with the Califa strategy. The Daesh people are totally in favour of the Califa strategy. Al Qaeda is an anti-imperialist movement, a project to spread the Muslim myth Daesh. They're strategically different, ideologically not so much. To understand the two groups, account must be taken of the clans and tribal parties of the Arab world. The Arab peoples are diverse, the countries of the South and the North are different, even the same. These characteristics and the dependence of the European States on them have a major influence on their relations. I have known all this in Algeria, and in part in Albania.

Each country has its own interests: geographical, economic, strategic ... For example, it is said that Turkey can end Daesh if it wants to.

Yes, in a way. But the issue is very complex. Mouammar Kadhafik and Saddam Hussein, former head of state of Libya and Iraq, placed a barrier to Salafism. The Westerners used both for their interests and for their interests. Barack Obama just said: “The policy conducted in Libya was one of my biggest mistakes.” Kadhafi was expelled from the head of state in Libya. The United States was already involved, then Obama himself was involved, with the Europeans through: “We will help you,” he told European heads of state. The Americans spent a lot of bombs and weapons on the war in Libya and, if they did not, the French would. The reason is that it is a question of controlling the NATO base in Italy. After the war, in the UN debate, U.S. Army General Colin Powell said: “We’ve been wrong.” The role played by Libya and the role played by Turkey today are virtually the same. Turkey controls the exit to Europe. They gave Libya the opportunity to do the door. It probably went cheaper than Turkey. Libya, compared to neighbouring countries, is a very rich country thanks to oil. That's the key. Algeria too. However, Libya has less population. Libya is not geopolitically so fast, so it gives money to Mali or Chadi to control the territory. In other words, Libya plays the role of controlling the region. They're border issues. For example, Tunisia is weak today, because Libya is by its side. The borders with Libya and Tunisia are very weak, and Al Qaeda and Daesch are very active.

As far as border surveillance is concerned, the situation is very different. In Algeria, however, the pressure of the Islamic fundamentalists is very strong. The majority of Algerians are in favour of these insurgencies, where the situation is very comfortable because the citizens have social aid. Algeria knows the black years because of the civil war, which is very hard. And they don't want to revive war. In other words, the United States ended Hussein and Kadhafi in order to impose democracy. At present, however, the situation has worsened. It is the catastrophic situation created by the Westerners. Libya is divided into three or four sides, there is no state, borders and footsteps are not fixed. Local groups are lobbyists who have overcome the Salafist discourse. The current speech is very Islamist-Integrist.

Syria is at war. How can we explain what happened?

Before the war there were three riots in Syria. The first revolt triggered the “state of peace”. Since then, for example, several young Syrians have been in prison, detained for their status as communists, the NGO has reported. They are deeply questioned about their view of the state. Repression in Syria is brutal. As a result, several young people have come to Europe, organised via social media, which have fought against the Syrian President, Bachar el-Assad. There is another sector, unlike them, which has fallen into corruption, the opportunists. They have moved to Cyprus in search of the support of the western states. On the other hand, to tell the truth, those who have really fought are the Kurds, in Koban, against Al Qaeda. However, the balance is bad, a total failure. Since there is no structure, opponents of the regime have acted divided, they have not really done resistance. Saudi Arabia and Qatar have provided them with economic means, including the West, with Europe included. But the Western states are not talking militarily against Bachar el-Assad. It had already fallen, the problem is the same, but the Western states really have no interest in taking it out of power.

How has the role of France been in the war in Syria?

The role of France is curious, no realista.Lo worse is that the war in Syria has come after that in Libya, after the riots there deployed. The war in Libya ended badly. The UN issued a resolution in which it granted France the right of interlocution, but the French have not respected the agreement properly. They've done it as in Iraq and Afghanistan. Once again, the security zones have been overcome and excesses have occurred in the same areas. Syria is a fundamental state for Russia. It's not Libya or Iraq. Russia and China have taken over the intervention in Syria. However, France has said: “We will bomb Syria.” This is incomprehensible and unacceptable. Obama didn't want to, and yet, France has gone to Syria alone. It doesn't have an army, it doesn't have money. And the same was when there was a negotiation with Iraq. Obama wanted an agreement and a compromise with Iraq, while France said: "I don't want."

What logic is there to act like this?

For Israel is behind. Israel has a great influence on France. For the French socialists Israel is exceptional, and with François Hollande and the French socialists in power... France “appeared” twice and was intervened by the bombers. In Iraq, Laurent Fabius also decided to leave on his own, in order to act in defence of his interests. However, their conduct is futile. If the United States does not want to send, it does not want to send. As in Iraq, Syria is not what France decides. Of course, it has its logic, Israel regrets the influence of Iraq. However, France’s behaviour is not realistic, but rather behaves badly in the correlation of international forces, as it has always done. This form of action by the French is Gaullist. He wants to demonstrate the strength that France had in the past, the Socialists play that role. De Gaulle’s performance was “consistent”, but then the correlation of international forces was different. De Gaulle had the strength that the French do not have today. France wants to ensure its relationship with Saudi Arabia and Qatar, which are countries that invest a lot of money in France. But the world has changed. Proof of this are the market states of Russia and China.

To what extent do Saudi Arabia and Qatar influence European policy, as well as the new situation in Russia and China?

The Middle East problem has a huge impact on European policy and its construction. I am referring to military areas and interventions: In the last strategic plan of the Pentagon, agreed four years ago, there has been a kind of transfer of centrality. China has become the main concern of the United States strategies, both for its development and for China’s position at sea. There is a change: the US strategy has moved from Western Europe to Eastern Europe. Simultaneously EE.UU. said to Europeans: “You must be more militarily committed, especially in your environment. In other words, in North Africa and the Middle East, they are very close to Europeans. That is why, in the intervention in Syria, the United States has lagged behind. Britain has done nothing either. It is a question of strategy. The Europeans must ensure military control of their immediate environment and France has a great responsibility in this game, not least because it has a great colonialist past; the English and the Portuguese have also had it, but they have not maintained their military bases in Africa, they do so too, but they do not have the same excommunication. France is the only European power that has maintained its bases in the former colonies. In the belief that this is the White Paper, it says: “We are the first power in Africa.” This confirms their conduct. However, the problem has come to France when the State of Daesh has been formed and the conflict has erupted, which has taken on another geographical and geopolitical dimension.

For example, Daesh or Jihadism has not committed any attacks in Germany, as in France.

In part it is understandable: the Germans have barely entered the war, do not want to get involved. France wants to secure its position in defence of Africa, but others do not want to help it. There is also a bit of a political game. Germany has sent several aircraft to Syria, but the German soldiers have not put their foot in the Middle East. France has intervened on land in the Middle East. Furthermore, the Muslim people are more implanted in France than anywhere else, especially the Maghreb people. In Germany the majority are of Turkish origin. Turkey is another type of state in its relations with Europe and Germany. Colonialist history has enormous weight in everything that is happening, especially in France. Today, in a way, France has not emerged from the war in Algeria. Algeria was a military defeat, similar to that of the Americans in Vietnam.

Does the Algerian War of Independence continue to influence France?

Of course. A kind of racism remained after the war. The phobia of Islam was growing then, and Islamophobia has come to our days. The feeling that remained is still rooted in public opinion. If in Europe and France there is a feeling against the Berbers and the Arabs, that feeling is religious, but not just religious. For example, the cartoons that have been made about Islam in French publications like Charlie Hebdon are an example of this. If you publish a cartoon over and over again, as well as black and white, because it promotes racism towards the Arabs, it is obvious. Islamism is Arab, racism with Arabs is traditional in France. Black and white painting is a sign of racism. Caliph is a specific representation. The French population is, in part, racist. There is no racism with blacks, but there is racism with Arabs. This still has a great influence in France, it is a consequence of colonialism. Indeed, the war in Algeria weighs heavily. In a way, these French Arabs are “kidnapped”, they are French and Muslim in France, but they live in a terrible contradiction. The problem of immigration has multiplied by that.

You mentioned Charlie Hebdo. The problem is the way to understand the expression of freedom. Is that the question?

Yes. People have either easily forgotten it or wanted to forget the cartoons that were published in Charlie Hebdon. The problem of humor lies behind that, the difference and the clash between cultures. Traditionally, European or French humor is not the same thing. Charlie Hebdo can be understood in Paris in one way or another, but in the Arab world it is not acceptable, they don’t “understand.” On one occasion, Charlie appeared on a cover of Hebdo a caricature of Christ. Catholics protested, well, it's legitimate. Society accepted the protest. However, the Arabs ' protest has been rejected by the Security Council. The murders of Charlie Hebdo members are not admissible, but we must try to “understand” the reason. Moreover, in recent attacks, the French population has responded to numerous racist attacks that have affected the population. Therefore, the reaction of the jihadists can also be described as "normal".

In this connection, in the context of the war, Hollande has expressly addressed public opinion to ensure that the Algerian War is finally concluded.

Yes, but the reaction of the French extreme right (FN) has been the opposite. The Fn has received it as a gesture of repentance. In a way, Hollande has been convinced that France "has to apologize" for what it did. That is the least that France has to do. It still has to do justice. After all, Hollande has shown that France is far from making progress on the Arab issue, to heal its wounds. If there is normalcy in Algeria, the internal problem is more or less on the way to solving it. Because Algeria went independent, won the war. Algerian generations have evolved, they cause no problems. On the contrary, the successive French generations have not overcome the problem with the Arabs. French society is blocked. 15 years ago, when the Minister of the Interior, Charles Pasqua, returned an aircraft from Algeria. The relationship between the airlines of Air France and Algeria was interrupted. Negotiations began and France tried to implement the CRS police at Algerian airports to ensure the safety of the airline. No State allows foreign police on its territory, let alone Algerians. It is an example of the attitude of the French State. In Algeria I found myself casually with the former head of the Algerian Federation of France, Omar Boudaund, who had fought in the FLN. “France is the church’s excrement,” he told me. In other words, when will the French understand that Algeria is also a waste of France? France lacks political maturity. The Algerians have attained maturity, but the French have not achieved it.

France is, however, regarded as the cradle of democracy.

It is democracy, but it is not consistent. After colonialism, Algeria marked France ' s inconsistency. They wanted to manage Algeria as a department, without implementing the rights of democracy. The ideal of French democracy is fertile, but colonialism has not allowed it to develop a healthy democracy. There have been a number of articles that have not been properly dyed, and in that case, whether right-wing or left-wing, no matter what. It's a cultural problem.

Turning to the question of Islamic State, you have written: “France has begun to face the problem of Islam.”

Yes. Daesh is a problem for many years and hard. It's the radicalism of Islam. In Britain, especially in England, there are many fundamentalists, but in England and France the problem of Islam is not the same. It is true that there are also Muslims there, including Pakistanis. But France is not the same thing, in France there are Muslims from the Middle East, especially Maghreb. Racism is a curious thing in France, France has well integrated immigrants, but there is a kind of broad racism. In the Banlieu, the Maghreb population is 100,000, they have never been properly integrated. It is logical, moreover. Let's take the example of strings. They are the Algerians, the Arabs, who decided to fight in Algeria for the annexation of France to Spain. The Algerian people, the Algerian Muslims, and those who have been forced to leave Algeria must be distinguished. They cannot be generalized. They have been given the opportunity to live in France. At the end of the war, a number of Harkis remained in Algeria, but the majority arrived in France and settled in special, marginalized areas. The winnings were very badly received, they did not have the least recognition. The Harkis were traitors in Algeria and rejected in France. There are still second and third generations of predators. Daesh, matizing nuances, is a kind of revenge of this situation. That hatred has been conserved and passed down from generation to generation. It is true that generations before today’s young people were integrated, but today’s generations have not considered proper integration, have rebelled.

However, ISIS is not just a consequence of it.

No, of course. The one from Algeria is a kind of sample to understand Islamism. To understand Daesh, you have to understand the Caliphate. Caliphate is an Islamist state, it has no borders. It is settled mainly in a region, in a part of Syria, and is widespread in Iran. Moreover, it is outside local states, it is superior to nations. At the time of the Ottoman Empire there was the Califa, but Califa disappeared. Daesh has once again claimed the people of Califa and has done so in Mosul. Why in Mosul? The old caliphate was dissolved in Mosul. The issue comes from an old one. It's not a spontaneous phenomenon, it has deep roots. For example: Daesh occupied the Turkish Embassy in Mosul, because the members of the Consulate were kidnapped by Turkey as a symbol, to intimidate them, to denounce Turkey’s relationship with Europe.

How is Daesh organized?

Daesh already has his direction. Those in France have a relationship with him. They have money and make better use of today's media, like the Internet. It is interesting to highlight the following: Those members of ISIS are sent as kamikazes, commit attacks, do not worry about making proselytism. When you look at how the latest networks work, they have no hides, they have no room to go back. Following the last attack, one of these jihadists has called Brussels from Paris through the Civil Guard: “Come and search me.” It is curious, however, that in recent attacks not all of them were kamikazes, not all of them choose to immolate themselves. Two have left. They make crac. They're not all heroes. However, they don't have a rearguard, for the police that's a problem. And the rearguard is siblings or cousins. It's a family. This is very significant.

The war is now in Syria, and there's Daesh.

Now the game of war is in Syria. War is important because Westerners want to retain the local dictator, they want a fort, they want to secure a strong state to control the region. Syria, Iraq and Libya have historically had economic and arms interests. But now the problem goes further. Because other radical Islamist groups that rely on Daesh or al Qaeda are formed, rebuilt and dissolved. It's a social problem. In Africa, Nigeria and Mali, for example, these groups are based on tribal wars, traditional wars, very powerful and difficult to control and manage.

The end of wars is getting harder and harder, because it's somehow harder to negotiate with ISIS.

Here is an example of this, coming back to Algeria: In the 1991 elections, the Islamists won a lot of seats in Parliament. On the second round, they were about to win, ready to form an Islamic state. The military hit on 11 January 1992: “Second round, no,” they said. The Algerian Government in office sent a delegation to several European states to explain the causes of the coup in Afghanistan. I spoke to a representative of the French Socialist Party. I was offended. In his view, democracy was undervalued. But, for example, Austria’s President, Bruno Ransky, was clearly in favour of the Algerian coup. In Spain, the President of the Government, Felipe González, also stated that he "understood" the decision of the Supreme Court. In Sweden or France, in the arguments of our democracy, that does not happen. Of course, it must also be said why the Islamists won. We must understand why the Algerians came to this situation: because of the mistakes of the regime’s policy, because of corruption, because of the mismanagement of power. Totally unacceptable situations. There were therefore reasons to win the FIS (Islamic Front du Salut/Islamic Front of Salvation). We must, of course, warn of the danger of ISIS and Islamism. If we come to the FIS, the argument is as follows: “Power has come from God.” There would therefore be no elections again. The danger is there. You can't negotiate with ISIS because they are said to be descendants of the Califa. They want to take power and consolidate it in the name of their God. FIS comes from the same tradition, from God. To understand it in another way, also historical: Hitler won the elections in 1933, and many people, especially young people, chose Hitler to face the Communists. Hitler did not make elections again. Of course, those young people did not want to go as far as Hitler came, but the danger always exists, that cannot be ruled out. The ESF strategy could be the planned end of democracy.

Unfortunately, Europe has not calculated very well what happened in Algeria. In Algeria or Saudi Arabia, they are not salafists. The Salafists always have a power objective, they are very militant, although they have the economic aid of Saudi Arabia, which is very important. Today, in any case, it doesn't give that much money, or it has reduced it, because Daehes looks at Saudi Arabia, which he does in some way. On the avenue there was a certain doubt, that is, that Saudi Arabia is not entirely Salafist.

Are we on the road to the end of Western democracy?

If the FIS had taken power in Algeria, it would be the failure of democracy, the end of European democracy. If we consider what happened in Algeria, the absolutism of democracy has been imposed in some way. Mention should also be made of the failure of Soviet socialism. In the Arab countries there were socialist, progressive lines, both Muslim and believers. They did Ramadan and they went to mosques, they had the notion of democracy to go in the line of democracy. However, the end of communism wiped out all those lines and expectations in the Arab world; otherwise, religion has caught air and new impulses. This reality is very crude, terrible. Today we have begun to pay for the consequences. After the Algerian revolution there has been no revolutionary movement. It was the Spring Riots, but these evidenced the weakness of the leftist ideologies.

You were a militant of communism. Why did real socialism not materialize?

To explain it in a concise and concise way: the socialist states, which emerged from communism, were in no way able to win the economic fight against capitalism. The relationship of forces of capitalism is much stronger, it is indisputable. Since 1945, II. After the World War it had many more advantages than socialist countries. In military terms, both systems were balanced, not in economic terms. There is a vision that Socialists cannot lose: the rights of democracy and human beings. The socialist system must be the model of them, but it has not been the model, but quite the opposite. Our fault, always to say that it is also a mistake of all, is that we have put the socialist means for production and thought that a new human being will be created. This is an absolute mistake. Changing people's mindset isn't easy. Revolution is made by men and women, but they also make the counter-revolution. Human beings are basically the same. We have not reached the level of awareness of the new human being necessary to carry out socialism. Unfortunately, we thought that it was enough with the change of means of production and socialisation of society, and that is not the case. Individualism is very strong.

People have something to learn and work on.

Socialism won in Russia or China, as well as in Albania and other countries, but democracy did not develop because the regimes were strong. At first, people naturally assumed the hardness of the system or the regime. For the citizens themselves it was no less than the democratic deficit that had existed before in the regimes. In the old regimes, human rights violations were enormous. However, there is an antagonism between these regimes. In the Basque Country, the processes carried out in communism have also changed the relationship with death. Today, for example, the problem of dictatorship is interesting. I recently spoke to young people from Uzbekistan – in Azerbaijan and Moldova there are also dictatorships – and they said to me: “We prefer this situation to civil war.” It's partly normal, it's understandable. We live in a chaotic world in which there is no solution if we get into a civil war. There's nowhere to go.

Neoliberalism has been imposed, among others.

And from the Arab cultures we cannot expect anything, even from China we do not have high hopes. The crisis is total. The situation is fascinating, it's not wonderful because of that. In other words, we have begun to live the end of the Western Empire. That's fascinating. Our world has been victorious in five centuries, dominant. It has been in crisis in the last two centuries, now the century of disorder has come to us.

Does the Western authorities accept this situation or are they struggling to come to another situation? What is the position of the Western powers or Heads of State? Do you accept the death of the Empire and prepare something else?

I think they are fighting to ensure that this system does not die, but they have no horizon, they are unable to reflect, circumstances are overcome. Change is happening very quickly. The situation is uncontrollable. Disorder has prevailed.

The authorities are engaged in their struggle and their problems and in the meantime ...

The change of the digital world, the flow of information and the media is brutal, both in production and in human relations. This will result in a great loss of employment, on the one hand, in production, on the other, in human relations. The situation in the Caribbean country is apparently under discussion in a number of Governments. But to begin with, in the near future there is no guarantee that there will be a minimum wage for all people, because work will not be for everyone. The current structures are not going to follow the current model, there are no solid structures, and there are no, because there are more and more robots, because the structure is robotic. It is not true that more work is generated, that is a lie. It is estimated that there will be no possibility of returns or minimum wages so far. What will happen in society? The situation seems uncontrollable. By 2020, that is, the day after tomorrow, more than a hundred million people will work under the orders of the robots, according to their orders. In addition, hundreds of millions of other orders will depend on those who control those orders. This is just the beginning. We are talking about the West, about the empire I have already spoken about. In today ' s social debates there is a predominance of stupidity; this situation is a consequence of the political and ideological disorder of the world. For example, so far the sympathetic and admirable attitude towards the model of the French Republic has, however, been decadent. The ways of reasoning have aged, the Westerners have not realized that another world is emerging.

Are you not hopeful?

Yes. We cannot live as if the disaster were to become present in the future. I recently heard a 30-year-old smart, prepared woman who was suddenly out of work: “I am in the process of changing. The model and thought is to return to the times of the forms of production two centuries ago.” That is, the organization of tomorrow is the return to the life of the 18th century and to the different forms of work, because if not, there is no sustainable model. Human beings can only return to our relationship with the earth. He was absolutely right.