by Natella Speranskaya
Carl Schmitt regarded the earth as a single whole and was looking for its global mission. This “whole” was formed by Schmitt in the concept of Nomos. He used the Greek word derived from the verb «nemein», which is identical to German “nehmen” – “to take”. Nomos comprises three acts of the drama: “taking”, “division and distribution of the taken”, “exploitation and use of the taken and distributed.” According to Schmitt, Nomos of the Earth existed always. First Nomos is described as a “promised land” of ancient peoples. It is the Nomos of the ancient times and the Middle Ages. It ceased to exist after the exploration of the great oceans and the American continent. Thus began the Second Nomos, the Nomos of national sovereign states that had the Eurocentric structure. Events of the World War II led to its destruction, so that the land was divided into east and west, which were in a state of “cold war”. It is not about mere geographic opposites, but a more original and profound contradistinctions. Carl Schmitt wrote: “The whole history of the planetary confrontation of East and West in its entirety is reducible to the fundamental dualism of the elements: Earth and Water, Land and Sea. What we now call the East, is a single mass of solid land: Russia, China and India – a huge piece of land, the “Middle Earth”, as named by the great English geographer Sir Halford Mackinder. What we call today the West, is one of the world’s oceans, hemispheres, where the Atlantic and Pacific oceans are placed. Confrontation of the sea and land powers, worlds – is the global truth that lies at the heart of explanation of civilization dualism that constantly generates a planetary stress and stimulates the whole process of history .” Thus, the birth of a third Nomos was caused by division of the world between the West and the East. However, it was destroyed with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Schmitt’s understanding of “three Nomoses of the Earth” brings us to the question, what will be the fourth Nomos of the Earth? Alexander Dugin, the founder of the theory of a multipolar world, the founder of the Russian school of geopolitics, believes that the new Nomos of the Earth will be a Nomos of large continental logic of the Eurasian continent. Certainly, the worst possible option would be a unipolar, globalist Nomos. Which of the Nomoses will be established depends on the strategic decision of Heartland, Russia, the civilization of land.
Italian political scientist Tiberio Graziani thinks, that Russia “has everything necessary to fulfill the historical role of the cornerstone of the whole global system,” and he regards its location in the heart of Eurasia to be one of its most important elements. That is why all the strategic decisions of Atlanticists imply fragmentation of the Heartland, considering that this process will provide the accession of a unipolar order. Alexander Dugin says, “On that, whether Russia can be sufficiently weakened, split and destabilized, and subjected by its fragments to the external power, largely depends the fate of globalization.” And further: “For anyone who is serious about counter American hegemony, globalization and planetary domination of the West (Atlanticism), the axiom should become the following statement: The fate of the world order is decided at the moment only in Russia by Russia and through Russia.” To describe the time in which we now live, the prominent sociologist Zygmunt Bauman applies the concept of Interregnum – so was called in ancient Rome the period between the death of Caesar and the accession of another one. It is a state of instability, uncertainty, unpredictability, when the demolition of the old order is as obvious as the emergence of the new one is. But what this new order (and, accordingly, the new Nomos) will be – is unknown. In the context of the changes of the new world order, we can speak of paradigmatic shift from the “unipolar moment” to the formation of a multipolar world order. In other words, the focus should be on the end of the era of unipolarity, because there are all essential conditions for the realization of the alternative project. According to Huntington, the unipolar state is able to “effectively deal with all the major international problems alone, and none of the unions of other states can even be hypothetically capable of stopping it.” It is difficult to deny that the hegemon represented by the United States now has no serious opponent, whether a coalition of states or, quite incredibly, a single state that shows such strong potential that it inevitably involves the speedy restoration of the bipolar order.
According to Zygmunt Bauman, about 60-70 years ago an event occurred that contributed to a fundamental change in global politics: the gap between Macht and Staat, in other words, between Might and Politics, Might and the State (which are integral aspects of the Power) led to the situation, when Macht (Might) moved to supra-national space. Thus, the nation-state could no longer control it. In unipolar paradigm namely national states are actors of international relations. The said gap means neither more nor less than a gradual slippage to non-polarity. Namely, this, according to Richard Haass, Director of Foreign Policy Studies at the Brookings Institute and head of CFR, will determine international relations in the XXI century. Nation-states are nearly deprived of possibility of efficiency, “of doing things” (as Bauman understands Macht), emerging into a state of political paralysis. Antonio Gramsci treated Interregnum as a period when the old is no longer working, and the new has not yet appeared.
We are “stuck” between unipolarity and multipolarity, and have no idea what should the solution to this situation be. Of course, the question arises: what to do? And, above all, question themselves nation-states, de jure retained the ability to make decisions , but Zygmunt Bauman rightly argues that under current circumstances, the question should be formulated in a different way: who will do what is necessary rather than what to do? Which actor will assume responsibility for the actions that solve fundamental problems? Sure, we do not consider like such nation-states. Instead, we turn to the theory developed by Alexander Dugin, the Theory of the Multipolar World. Book with the same title gives a clear picture of what is happening in the field of international relations today: when the bipolar model of the world order has changed to unipolar one, it came to mean the triumph of the liberal-democratic ideology . The West has modeled values and guidelines system that were imposed upon the world as universal. Thus, the West came to the consistent implementation of the control (dictatorship) of cognitive and strategic spheres. The area of international relations became “American Science”, the content of the discussions was reduced to polemical confrontation between realists and liberals. The diplomatic corps itself was formed within the unipolar world and the Western discourse, Western mentality, where political actors are the national states. Another model of the world order, namely the multi-polar model, involves a form of organization of spaces based on several actors – “civilizations”, as rightly pointed out by Samuel Huntington. This leads us to the formation of a new diplomatic corps and the new diplomatic language based on a multipolar world order. And the most progressive political thinkers have already come to a conclusion about the need to change the paradigm of international relations. One of them just raised the question of what will be next, others – have found the answer and freely operate the basic concepts of the new system. It is impossible not to recognize the fact that the vast majority of politically engaged figures remain under the old paradigm, failing to perceive the ongoing shift, which will commence the new historical period, completely changing the picture of the world politics . The Unipolar world – is yesterday. Here and now we are discussing the change of the unipolar paradigm to the multi-polar one, poly-civilizational.
Theory of the multipolar world suggests to establish new actors in international relations, which are of civilizations , and each of them, by definition, has a strategic center, serving as the subject of dialogue in international relations and, therefore, the subject of power. The transition from national states to civilizations is an inevitable consequence of the rupture described by Zygmunt Bauman.
Specialist in International Relations, Professor Adam Roberts notes the loss of a leading U.S. role in the current world order. Asked who will perform their receiver , he gives a completely obvious answer: no one. More precisely, we have not yet entered the period of interregnum, but just got close to it, and all that is happening in global politics – is the agony of the dying Caesar (USA).
The genuine emergence into Interregnum will happen with the final loss of the U.S. role as the world’s hegemon and the cancellation of a “unipolar moment.” It is here that the danger appears, that in the period of interregnum and consistent implementation of the formative stages of a multipolar world order will come “The variable geometry” of the nonpolarity and everything will be in the melting pot of globalization; we are immersed in liquid modernity (Z.Bauman), the main feature of which is “non-directedness of changes”, that is lack of strict direction, guideline, which ultimately makes us unprepared to respond to sudden challenges, elusive from any calculations and projections. The collapse of the Soviet Union occurred suddenly as lightning, completely changing the landscape of history. Non-polarity, which seems to come, may become a needed respite, a period of possibility of full value formation of the new model of the world order – for it is impossible to deny that the paradigmatic shift, followed by the demolition of numerous structures, will not be able to quickly create in all areas of Political all the necessary conditions for the accession of the multipolar order. Non-polarity, Interregnum in the XXI century – are the funeral of the retired Caesar and the preparation for the enthronement of the new rulers (in the plural), that is rise of the poles, power centers.
Non-polarity is a “decapitation” of the U.S., but at the same time it can be called the attempt of the hegemon to maintain its influence through self-dispersion, dissolution. Under these circumstances it is strictly necessary to prevent delays, getting stuck in post-liberal environment and humility with a “coherent non-polarity.” New actors must challenge the postmodern “non- directedness of changes” now and knowingly take absolute responsibility for strategic decisions and actions in the field of political practice. The leading research associate of the New America Foundation, Parag Khanna, analyzing the current situation and the precarious position of the U.S., discusses a critical role of diplomacy towards which the focus should be shifted . For improvement of the global diplomatic structure is laid the responsibility of the strengthening of U.S. hegemony . However, he does not take into account the fact that the diplomatic language is undergoing a significant reformatting in the context of paradigmatic shift to multipolar model, and this process is irreversible. Now we have to discuss the dialogue of civilizations. The dialogue is built on a completely different level, which is beyond the rules of the dialogue between national states (i.e., outside the imposed Western discourse), with the U.S. having the unltimate decision-making power . Unless we understand that the battle for the world domination is not between civilizations, but a single (western) civilization with all the “other” ones, which are offered only two options: 1) to be on the side of this civilization, 2) or to be against it, defending the right for their own independence and uniqueness – we are not able to form a new diplomatic language for civilizational dialogue. And this should be understood, above all, by the elite of civilization, responsible, according to Alexander Dugin, for the conduct of the dialogue. If all the “others” agree with the unipolar project, our battle is lost, but if they make a radically different choice, we are waiting for the “rise of the rest” (Fareed Zakaria). We should note that the world-famous British political scientist Paul Kennedy expresses his concerns about the emergence of the ideological differences between the U.S. and Europe, due to opposition to one of the projects of the world order – unipolar or multipolar. In the current environment we should not just rely on the increased conflict between Europe and America, but prepare the situation of split and division of the former from the hegemonic influence of the latter . Here Russia has a special role.
However, we must admit, that during the last decades, Russia increasingly moved away from its original purpose – to be a bridge between East and West. Interregnum can be our chance to recover, a chance for Russia to become and be. The theory of a multipolar world can be considered to be the starting point of the end of the unipolar era and of entry into the “post-American” period, a feature of which will be the presence of several poles (the subjects of inter-civilizational dialogue) and the certain elimination of an identity crisis, because in a multipolar world identity acquires a civilizational character. Today our dialogue with Europe is a dialogue of “big spaces”; in the new system of international relations GROSSRAUM becomes an operational concept of multipolarity. Alexander Dugin offers the “FOUR-polar” or “quadri-polar” model of the world, which consists of four world zones.
In the first zone, under the full control of the United States, there are two or three “big spaces.” We get two “big spaces” by combining the U.S. and Canada – on the one hand, and Latin America – on the other. According to Alexander Dugin, three “big spaces” can emerge when “we shall divide those Latin American countries that are sufficiently well integrated with the U.S. and are completely under their control, and those that tend to create their own geo-political zone, challenging the U.S.”..
The second zone is the area of Euro-Africa with the European Union as Its undoubted pole . Here appear three “big spaces”: the European Union, the black Africa and the Arab GROSSRAUM.
The third zone is Eurasia with Russia (Heartland ) as its pole. Meanwhile, Prof. Dugin indicates, there are also a number of regional centers of power, namely Turkey (if it chooses the Eurasian path), Iran, Pakistan and India. Thus, the Eurasian zone consists of several “great spaces”: Russia and CIS countries are the Russian-Eurasian GROSSRAUM. Three “great spaces” are also Turkey, Iran, India and Pakistan.
The fourth zone – is the Pacific region. Its pole can become either China (which is a “big space”) or Japan (potential GROSSRAUM, having all the essential factors – economic, geopolitical, technological, etc.- for its recovery:).
Justifying the basic guidelines for practical action to build a multipolar world, Professor Dugin focuses on the following directions:
1. Strategic reorganization of Heartland.
This implies the geopolitical activity of “middle earth” and the implementation of integration projects aimed at strengthening of the multipolar model.
2. Changes in the minds of the political elite of Russia.
Mainly he focuses on acquiring geopolitical thinking, as well as the high level of competence in the field of social science, sociology, and history. “The elite of Russia should understand themselves as the elite of Heartland, should think in Eurasian categories, not just on a national scale, herewith being clearly aware of the non-applicability of the atlanticist and globalist scenario to Russia” – writes A. Dugin. We cannot speak of any awakening of elite, until it makes a conscious choice towards Eurasianism, rejecting blind attempts to play up anti-Russian scenarios of Atlantist strategists.
3. The model of building relations between Russia and the United States.
With the understanding of destructive U.S. policies aimed at dismantling Russia for the absolute control of the whole Eurasia, these relationships become irreversibly hostile. We need to undertake drastic actions in order to prevent the NATO presence in the Eurasian “big space” and weakening of Heartland.
4. The model of building relations with Europe.
This model involves a strategic partnership with countries, adhering to the policy of the continental tradition – France, Germany, Italy and Spain. Here it is appropriate to talk about the project of axis “Paris-Berlin-Moscow”. Another situation is deployed with countries of “New Europe”, as well as England – that are oriented against Russia and have a tendency to adapt to the requirements of Washington.
5. The project “Great Eastern Europe.”
This project includes the Slavs (Slovaks, Czechs, Poles, Bulgarians, Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, Bosnians, Macedonians, Serbs-Muslims), Orthodox (Macedonians, Serbs, Bulgarians, Greeks and Romanians). Prof. Dugin says that Hungarians are the only people who do not fall into the “Orthodox” category and at the same time they cannot be called the “Slavic”. Hungarians have a Eurasian-Turanian origin.
6. Heartland and Western CIS countries.
It is about the multi-polar integration of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus, which belong to the area of Heartland, a single strategic structure. This political action will prevent the risk of entry of Belarus and Ukraine into NATO. Special attention is given to Moldova, whose integration with Romania, which is a part of NATO, seems to be impossible until the implementation of the project of the “Great Eastern Europe.”
7. Eurasian Middle East and the role of Turkey.
Prof. Dugin mentions the American project the «Greater Middle East Project» concerning the Middle East. It implies the democratization and modernization of Middle Eastern societies, and strengthening of the military presence of the U.S. and NATO. Guided by conflicting interests, the strategy of Heartland in this direction should include political actions directed towards Turkey’s exit from NATO and the creation of the axis “Moscow – Ankara.” Furthermore, the project of axis “Moscow – Tehran” should be taken with the utmost attention. According to Alexander Dugin, Iran is a “strategic space that automatically solves the problem of converting Heartland into a force in the global world.” Neither Russia nor Iran should allow the implementation of the scenario, laid in the project of the “Greater Central Asia” (Greater Central Asia Partnership). Its launch would inevitably lead to the emergence of the “sanitary cordon”, which would hardly separate Russia from Iran. In addition, having included such countries as Georgia, Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, this cordon would make those countries controlled by American influence. The union of Russia and Iran, of course, will solve yet another fundamental problem, namely, it will open the “anaconda’s terret”, depriving American strategists of any possibility of preventing marine operations of Russia.
The strategy of Heartland should include projects of integration of Russia, Kazakhstan and Tajikistan into a single economic and customs space. In turn, the relationship with Pakistan should be built in strict accordance with the strategy of displacement of U.S. forces from this area. Alexander Dugin points to the need for a new model of relations with Afghanistan’s Pashtun majority.
8. Axis “Moscow-Delhi.”
Relationships with politically neutral “big space” of India should be directed towards achieving partnership. The main objective of this axis is to deter attempts of Washington to deploy its dominance in the South Asian region.
9. Russian-Chinese relations.
Prof. Dugin focuses on two difficult issues such as:
– Demographic spread of Chinese in sparsely populated areas of Siberia,
– China’s influence in Central Asia.
It is necessary to build a balanced relationship with China, focusing on the fundamental point of strategic contact – support of the idea of the multipolar world.
10. Russian – Japanese relations.
Prof. Dugin indicates the need for the release of Japan from the American influence and the support of Japan as a sovereign regional power. Here it is appropriate to talk about the project of axis “Moscow – Tokyo” as an integral part of Asian politics of Eurasia. “The alliance with Japan is vital – says Alexander Dugin, in his work “The bases of Geopolitics” – the Moscow-Tokyo axis, contrary to the Moscow – Beijing axis is an important and perspective, providing such prospects for continental empire-building, that will finally make Eurasia geopolitically completed, at the same time extremely weakening the Atlantist empire of the West, if not destroying it finally”.
11. The geopolitics of the Arctic zone.
The following countries tend to control this zone: USA, Canada, Norway, Denmark and Russia. All of these countries (except Russia) are NATO members. Conquering territories in the polar region, and joining the race to develop large deposits of minerals, to its future plans Russia included the creation of a widescale system of communication and monitoring in the Arctic. Russia claims the polar area with size of 1.2 million square kilometers, with the incoming North Pole. In 2011 a brave move of the Russian researchers who had planted a Russian flag on the seabed of the Arctic Ocean has been highly publicized by American media.
There is no doubt that we enter into a battle for the fundamental changes of the rules of political discourse, carrying out the task of undermining the basic principles of Western hegemony. The implementation of the multi-polar project, contrary to the considerations of skeptical Western political scientists, depends on the political course which Russia will adhere. The choice towards Eurasianism shows the approaching readiness to take the next step in building a new world order.