Open Revolt is happy to present USA and The New Order: Excerpts from the Alexander Dugin and Olavo De Carvalho Debate Part 2.
We start part 2 with the foundation of the debate – the question posed to Alexander and Olavo, followed by Alexander Dugin’s introduction…
“What are the historical, political, ideological and economic factors and actors that now define the dynamics and configuration of power in the world and what is the U.S. position in what is known as New World Order?”
Alexander Dugin’s Introduction:
Global Transition and It’s Enemies
The World Order questioned
New World Order as a concept was popular in a concrete historical momentum – precisely that when the Cold War ended (late 80’s, Gorbatchev era) and the global cooperation between the USA and Soviet Union was considered near and very probable. The basis of NWO was presumably realization of the convergence theory predicting the synthesis of Soviet socialist and Western capitalist political forms and near cooperation of the Soviet Union and USA in the case of regional issues – for example first Gulf War in the beginning of 1991. Hence, as the Soviet Union split soon after, this project of NWO was naturally set aside and forgotten.
After 1991 the other World Order was considered as something being created under our eyes – Unipolar World with open global hegemony of USA. It is described well in Fukuyama’s political utopia “End of history”. This World Order ignored any other poles of power except the USA and its allies (first of all Europe and Japan) and was thought as universalization of free market economy, political democracy and human rights ideology as global pattern accepted by all countries in the world.
The skeptics thought that it was rather illusion and the differences between the countries and people would reappear in other forms (for example, in the famous clash of civilizations of S. Huntington or ethnic or religious conflicts). Some experts regarded unipolarity not as the properly speaking World Order but as the unipolar momentum (J.Mearsheimer). In any case, what is questioned in all these projects is National Statehood. The Westphalian system did not correspond any more to the present global balance of powers. New actors of transnational or subnational scale affirm their growing importance and that was clear that the World was in need of new paradigm of International Relations.
So our actual contemporary world cannot be regarded as properly realized NWO. There is no definitive World Order of any kind at present. There is a Transition from the World Order we knew in XX century to the some other paradigm whose full features rest to define. Will the future be really global? Or the regionalist tendencies will win? Will there be a unique Order? Or there will be different local or regional Orders? Or may be we are going to deal with World Chaos? It is not clear yet, the Transition is not accomplished. We are living in the middle of it.
If the global elite (first of all the United States political elite) has the clear vision of the desired future (that is rather doubtful), even so the circumstances can prevent the realization of it in practice. If the global elite lack the consensual project – the issue is much more complicated.
So only the fact of Transition to some new paradigm is certain. The paradigm as such is on the contrary quite uncertain.
World Order from USA point of view
USA position in this shift is absolutely assured but the future of USA is under question. The USA undergoes now the test of global imperial rule and they have to deal with many challenges – some of them quite new and original. They could proceed in three different ways:
1) Creating an American Empire strictu sensu with a consolidated technically and socially developed central area (Imperial Core) while the outer spaces would keep divided and fragmentized in the state of permanent unrest (near the chaos); it seems the neo-cons are in favor of such a pattern.
2) Creating multilateral unipolarity where the USA would cooperate with other friendly powers (Canada, Europe, Australia, Japan, Israel – possibly other countries) in solving the regional problems and making pressure on the «rogue countries» (Iran, Venezuela, Belarus, Northern Korea) or on the hesitating counties striving to assure their own regional independence (China, Russia and so on); it seems that democrats and Obama are inclined to do so;
3) Promoting accelerated globalization with the creation of World Government and swift desovereignization of the National States in favor of creation of United States of the World ruled by the global elite on the legal terms (that is the CFR project represented by the strategy of George Soros and his foundations; the colored revolutions are viewed here as the most effective weapon destabilizing and finally destroying States).
It seems that USA tries to go by these three ways simultaneously promoting all three strategies at the same time. This three directions strategy of USA creates the global context in International Relations, USA being the key actor on the global scale. Beyond the evident differences of these three images of future they have some essential points in common. In any case USA is interested in affirming its strategic, economical and political domination; in strengthening of the control or other global actors and in weakening them; in gradual or accelerated desovereignization of now more or less independent States; in the promotion of “universal” values reflecting the values of Western world (the liberal democracy, parlamentarism, free market, humans rights and so on).
So we are in the contemporary world in strong and permanent geopolitical field where in the Core is situated USA and where the rays of its influences (strategic, economical, political, technological, informational and so on) permeate all the rest of the World depending of the grade of the will to accept it in the case of different countries, ethnic or religious ambiances. It is a kind of “global imperial network” operating on a planetary scale.
This USA-centric global geopolitical field can be described on different levels:
Historically: The USA considers itself to be the logical conclusion and the peak of the Western civilization. In the ancient terms it was presented as the Manifest Destiny of USA. Now they speak in the terms of human rights, promotion of the democracy and of technology, free market institutions and so on. But in the essence, we deal with a new edition of the Western universalism that passed by Roman Empire, Medieval Christianity, the Modernity (with the Enlightenment and colonization) and up to present day postmodernism and ultra-individualism. The history is considered to be univocal (monotone) process of technological and social progress, the way of growing liberation of individuals from all kind of collective identities. The tradition and conservatism are regarded as the obstacles for the freedom and should be rejected. The USA is in vanguard of this historical progress and has the right and obligation (mission!) to move the history further and further. The historical existence of USA coincides with the course of the human history. So “American” means “universal”. The other cultures have only an American future or no future at all.
Politically: there are very important trends in World politics that define the Transition. We watch the passage from the liberalism becoming global and only possible political option (as the peak of the political thought of Modernity won the victory over alternative political doctrines – fascism and socialism) to the post-modern and post-individual concept of politics (generally described as post-humanism). The USA plays again here the key role. The politics promoted by USA globally is liberal democracy. So USA supports the globalization of the liberalism preparing thus the next step to the political post-modernity (described in the famous book of A.Negri and M.Hardt “Empire”). There is some distance between liberal ultra-individualism and properly postmodern post-humanism (promoting the cyborgs, genetic modification, cloning and the chimeras), but in the periphery of the World we have the common tendency – the accelerated destruction of any holistic social entities, the fragmentation and atomization of society included in the technology (internet, mobile phones and so on) where the principle actor is strictly individual and excerpt from the natural and social context. There is important testimony of dual use of promotion of democracy explicitly described in the article of American military and political expert Stephen R. Mann who affirms that democracy can work as self-generating virus strengthening the existent and historically rife democratic societies but destroying and immersing in chaos the traditional societies not properly prepared for it. So democracy is thought to be an effective weapon to create the chaos and to govern the dissipating world cultures from the Core emulating and installing everywhere the democratic codes. We see how it works in the last events in the Arabic countries. After the accomplishing the full fragmentation of the societies to the individual atoms there will begin the second phase: the division of the individuals themselves on the parts and new (genetic, for example) combinations of the elements in the way of post-human creativity. That can be described as the post-politics as the last horizon of the political futurism.
Ideologically: There is the tendency in the case of the USA to link more the ideology and politics in the zone of the periphery. Before, USA acted on the basis of the pure realism: if the regimes were pro-USA they were tolerated with no regards of their ideological principles. The Saudi Arabia represents the net example of that. So some features of the double morality were ideologically accepted. It seems that recently the USA have began to try to deepen the democracy, supporting popular revolts in Egypt and Tunis whose chiefs were trustfully friends of USA being at the same time corrupted dictators. The double standards in the ideology is vanishing and the deepening of democracy progresses. The culminant point will be reached in the case of the probable unrest in the Saudi Arabia. In this moment this trend of promoting the democracy on the ideological basis – including in the politically difficult circumstances – will be tested.
Economically: the USA economy is challenged by the Chinese growth, the energy issue, the critical disproportion between the financial sector and the zone of real industry. The overgrowth of American financial institutes and the delocalization of the industry have created the discontinuity between the sphere of the money and the sphere of the classical capitalist balance of the industry and demands. It was the main cause of the financial crisis of 2008. The Chinese economical politics tries to reaffirm its independence in front of the USA global strategy and once can become the main factor of the competition. The Russian, Iranian, Venezuelan and some other relatively independent (from USA) countries control over the huge amount of the natural resources puts the limits to the American economical influence. The economy of European Community and the Japanese economic potential represent the two poles of competition inside the strategic partners and military allies of USA. So the USA tries to solve all these problems using not only purely economic instruments but also politics and sometimes military power. We could interpret in this manner the intrusion in Iraq and Afghanistan, the possible intervention in Libya, Iran and Syria. Indirectly promoting opposition in Russia, Iran and Chine and trying to cause some problems with Turkey and radical Islamism in general for Europe USA wants to reach the same goal. But these are only technical solutions. The main challenge is how organize the post-modern and financially-centered economy with granted growth overcoming the more and more critical gap between the real sector and the financial instruments whose logic become more and more autonomous.
So we have observed the main and asymmetric actor USA situated in the center of the present Transition state of world affairs. This actor represents the true hyperpower (H.Vidrine) and the strongest geopolitical field (that includes all the levels revised before) is structured around this American Core, representing its multilevel networks. The question can be raised here: is this actor fully conscious of what it does and whether it understand well what he will obtain in the end; which kind of Order it is going to get? It seems that the opinions on this most important point are divided: the neocons proclaim the New American Century being optimistic as to the future American Empire. But in their case it is obvious that they have clear (that doesn’t mean necessary realistic) vision of the future (American, more precisely North-American future). In this case the World Order will be American Imperial Order based on the unipolar geopolitics. At least theoretically is has some positive point: it is clear and honest.
The multilateralists are more cautious and insist on the necessity to invite the other regional powers to share with the USA the burden of the planetary rule. It is obvious that only similar (regarding the USA) societies can be partners, so the success of promoting democracy becomes here the essential care. The multilateralists act not only in the name of USA but also in the name of the West, considered as something universal. The image of the future World Order is foggier. The fate of the global democracy is misty and not so clearly defined as the image of American Empire.
Yet hazier is the extreme version of promoters of accelerated globalization. It could effectively overthrow the existing national states but in some cases it will only open the way to much more archaic, local, religious or ethnic forces. So the earth-scale open society is such fantastic a perspective that it is much easier to imagine the total chaos and the war of everybody against everybody.
So the image of the future World Order differs with regard to the group of American ideologists and decision makers. More consequent strategy is at the same time more ethnocentric, openly imperialistic and hegemonic. It is unipolar World Order. The other two versions are much more dim and uncertain. Up to certain point they can give way to world disorder. They are called summarily “non-polar” (R. Haass).
So the Transition in question, in any case, is Americano-centric by its nature and the global geopolitical field is structured so that main global processes would be moderated, orientated, directed and sometimes controlled by the unique actor performing its work lonely or with the help of the essentially pro-American Western (or at least pro-Western) allies.
The World Order from the non-USA point of view
The Americano-centric world perspective described above being the most important and central as global tendency is not the only one possible. There can be and there are the alternative visions of World architecture that can be taken into consideration. There are secondary and tertiary actors that are inevitable losers in the case of the success of USA-strategy: the countries, states, peoples, cultures that would loose all and gain nothing when the USA strategy realizes. They are multiple and heterogeneous. We could group them in the different categories.
1) The first category is composed by the more or less successful national States that are not happy to let their independence to the supranational exterior authority – not in the form of open American hegemony, nor in the Western-centered kind of World Government, nor in the chaotic dissolution. There are many of such a countries – beginning from China, Russia, Iran, India, including many Southern American and Islamic States. They don’t like the Transition at all, suspecting (with good reasons) the inevitable loss of the sovereignty. So they are inclined to resist the main trends of the planetary Americano-centric geopolitical field or adapt to it in such a manner that it would be possible to avoid the logical consequences of the success of American general strategy (it doesn’t make difference whether imperialistic or globalist). The will of the conservation of the sovereignty represents the natural contradiction and the point of resistance in front of the pro-American (or globalist) trends. These countries in general hardly possess the alternative vision of the future World Order. What they want – it is to preserve the status quo and national States in the present form adjusting and modernizing them if necessary. Between the members of this national Statehood clubs there are three kinds of actors: 1) those who try to adapt their societies to the Western standards and to keep friendly relations with the West and USA, but to avoid the direct desovereignization (India, Turkey, Brazil, up to the certain point Russia, Kazakhstan);
2) Those who are ready to cooperate with USA but under condition of the non-interference in their inner affairs (Arabia Saudi, Pakistan and so on);
3) Those who, cooperating with USA, strictly observe the particularity of their society making permanent filtration of what is compatible in Western culture with domestic culture or what is not, at the same time trying to use the dividends received by this cooperation to the strengthening of nation independence (China);
4) Those who try to oppose the USA directly rejecting the Western values, the unipolarity and the USA hegemony (Iran, Venezuela, North Korea).
All these groups lack the global alternative strategy that could be symmetrically comparable with the American (there is not even a consensual or clear) vision of the future. Everybody acts by themselves and in their own direct interests. The difference consists only in the radicalism of the rejection of Americanization. We could define their position as reactive. This strategy of reactive opposition varying from the rejection to adaptation is sometimes effective, sometimes it is not. In sum it doesn’t give any kind of future vision. The future of the World Order is considered as eternal conservation of status quo – Modernity, national Statehood, Westphalian systems, current ONU configuration and so on.
The Second category of actors who reject the Transition consists of subnational groups, movements and organizations that oppose Americanism as the structures of the global geopolitical field by ideological, religious or cultural reasons. These groups are quite different and vary from one concrete state to another. They are mostly based on the religious faith incompatible with the secular doctrine of americanization, westernization and globalization. But they could be motivated by the ethnical or ideological (for example, socialist or communist) doctrines. Some other act on the regionalist grounds. The paradox is that in the globalization ambiance that aims to uniform all particularities and collective identities on the basis of purely individual identity, such subnational actors easily become transnational – the same religions and ideologies being present in different countries and national States. So in these circles we could find some alternative vision of the future World Order that can be opposed to the Transition and its structures.
We can roughly summarize the different ideas of some of the most important sub-national/trans-national groups:
1) The most famous one is the islamist world vision which represents the utopia of Islamic World State (Global Caliphate). This project is as opposed to the American architecture as to the status quo of the modern national States. Bin Laden is the symbol of such a trend of ideas and the two towers of New-York World Trade Center 9/11 are the prove of the importance and seriousness of such a network.
2) The other project can be defined as neo-socialist plan represented in the South American Left and personally by Hugo Chavez. This is roughly a new edition of Marxist critic of capitalism strengthened by nationalist emotion and in some cases (Bolivia, Zapatistas) ethnic sentiments. Some Arab regimes (as Libya of Kaddhafi until recently) can be considered in the same line. The next World Order here is presented as global socialist revolution preceded by the anti-USA liberation campaigns in every country. The Transition is identified by this group as the incarnation of classic imperialism criticized by Lenin.
3) The third example of such kind can be found in the Eurasian Project (aka “multipolar”, aka “great spaces”) proposing the alternative model of World Order based on the principle of civilizations and great spaces. It presupposes the creation of different transnational political strategic and economic entities united by community of civilization and main (in some cases religious in some – secular and cultural) values. They should consist of integrated States and represent the poles of the multipolar world. European Union could be example of such a form. There can be also Eurasian Union (project of Kazakhstan’s President N.Nazarbayev), Islamic Union, the South-American Union, Chinese Union, the Indian Union, Pan-Pacific Union and so on. The North-American great space can be regarded as one of the several other more or less equal poles, nothing more.
We could add some other theories but they are of smaller scale.
There is, in the present state of affair, a serious gap between the national States and ideological movements mentioned above operating on the different levels. So the national States lack the vision, and movements lack sufficient infrastructure to put their ideas in practice. If we imagine that, in some circumstances, that gap could be bridged, the alternative to the Transition and to the Americano- or Western-centric tendencies (taken in consideration the demographical, economical and strategic weight of the Non-Western world) will obtain the realistic shape and can be regarded seriously as consequent and theoretically founded plan of concrete future Order.
Part 3, Olavo de Carvalho’s Introduction, follows shortly here on Open Revolt…