Natella Speranskaya has interviewed the editor-in-chief of “Eurasia. Rivista di studi geopolitici”, Claudio Mutti, about the “Theory of a multipolar world”. An international conference about this theme has been organized by the Eurasian Movement at the State University in Moscow (April, 25th-26th, 2012). Here the questions of N. Speranskaya and the answers of C. Mutti.
Q. – What is your view of the modern world order/international system? Do you consider the current world order to be ‘just’? If yes, then why? If no, how do you think it might be changed? Is it already changing?
A. – If, as heirs of the Greek culture, we accept the Aristotelic point of view and think that the order is a harmonic disposition (táxis) whose cause is the universal Intellect (noûs), then we are obliged to say that the actual international system not only is not a just one, but neither can be called an order. It is not an order, because it is not founded on noûs, but on epithymía, i. e. on that immoderate appetite which historically has manifested itself as usurocratic imperialism and is represented at the highest degree by the United States of America. The actual international system is not a just one, because justice means to assign his own to everybody (suum cuique tribuere), while this system not only refuses the due to the peoples, but also withdraw earth and water from them, as for example in Palestine under Zionist yoke. Then the unipolar system appears as a world tyranny. But this tyranny begins to vacillate, because the emergence of other continental powers is announcing the future birth of a world less unjust than the actual one.
Q. – What is your opinion of theories of an American global Hegemony or Unipolarity? How does globalization relate to this? Is it a blessing in disguise or a curse for the people of our planet? What, in your opinion, is the primary characteristic of this Hegemony/dominance: military, cultural, economic, or some other factor or combination of factors?
A. – It is clear that the U.S. project of unipolar hegemony is founded on a combination of various factors. There is the military factor, which consists in a global net of military bases. There is the economic factor, which consists in expropriating the peoples from their wealthies and from the fruits of their work by means of the U.S.-based usurious institutions. There is the cultural factor, that is a colonization of the daily life manifesting itself not only in the symbology, in the arts, in the music, in the gastronomy and in the amusements, but also in the heideggerian “House of Being”, i. e. the language: in fact, even if we are not obliged to communicate between us speaking in English, usually we introduce English loanwords into our discourses. But in the U.S. hegemonic project there is also a powerful “religious” factor: a secularized messianism founded on a claimed divine consecration of old testamentary nature, a parodistic inversion which my Russian friends will easily recognise as the characteristic mark of the Antichrist.
Q. – What countries, groups of countries, or social and political forces might be able to challenge American Hegemony and how?
A. – The U.S. hegemony can be defied only by a power or a block of powers disposing of the same requisites that have allowed the U.S. to conquer the world: continental dimensions, demography, technology, industrial potential, nuclear armament, cultural prestige, strong political system, will to power. Only the Eurasian Union and China can constitute the strongest part of such a continental block, which would be able to expel U.S. from our hemisphere.
Q. – What do you think about the ideas of Globalism (i.e., a ‘One World’ world government) and/or global governance? Is such either possible or desirable?
A. – A half century ago, Ernst Jünger prophesied the Weltstaat as the crown of globalization, as the unavoidable result of the influence exerted by world powers such as the technique and the economy. Although Jünger admits that the human peculiarity is the freedom of will, nevertheless he considers the man as being a “son of the earth”, involved in a cosmic process determined by powers stronger than human freedom. It would be easy to reply that, according to the taoistic doctrine, the “True Man” is par excellence “Son of the Sky and the Earth”, so that his will, consciously cooperating with the Sky, can counterbalance the earthly destiny and neutralize it.
Q. – Is a multipolar world order possible? What might a multipolar world order in the modern era look like? Would a multipolar world order be preferable to a unipolar or bipolar world order? Why or why not?
A. – Certainly, the multipolar order would be better than the unipolar or bipolar one, because it would assure a more equitable distribution of geopolitical wealth. What might it look like? The Latin wisdom teaches that “every comparation lames”; nevertheless the idea of the multipolar order makes me think of Czar Alexander I’s project extended to the Eurasian scale: a sort of a new Holy Alliance, where the ancient European empires are substituted by the geopolitical poles emerging in the whole Continent. The Indio-Latin continental unity would complete the multipolar panorama and the United States would be an exclusively North-American power, unless Mr. Panarin’s prevision comes true.
Q. – What defines a ‘pole’ in international relations theory? How do you correlate the concept of a ‘pole’ with other structural concepts of international relations analysis such as ‘the sovereign state’, ‘Empire’ and, ‘Civilization(s)’? Is sovereignty, as a concept, being challenged by globalization and global governance? Is ‘Civilizational Theory’ valid as a conceptual tool in the study of international relations?
A. – Geopolitically speaking, a “pole” is an independent State which exerts a powerful influence upon the contiguous territories and is able to aggregate them. In other words, a “pole” is a catalyzer which orders and unites a geopolitical area having a common civilization. Concerning the concept of “empire”, I think that today it is totally misunderstood, so that many people, confounding the reality with its sinister caricature, speak of an “American empire”! To speak of “empire” properly and correctly, the indispensable conditions are the following: large territorial dimensions, coexistence of different peoples and religious communities, supranational constituting principle. “Fecisti patriam diversis gentibus unam”, according to the Roman formula.
Q. – How do you see the role of your country in a possible multipolar system?
A. – Being held subject by USA and being forced to perform the role of an American aircraft-carrier in the Mediterranean Sea, now Italy is not free to fulfil its natural function, which is connected with its geographic position, in the direction of Balkans and Northern Africa. Only after the disarticulation of the western system and the birth of a multipolar world order, Italy will be able to reach its highest potential, as the Mediterranean organ of a unified and independent Europe.
Q. – Which tendencies of modern world development do you consider to be positive and which negative? What, in your opinion, could be done to alleviate the negative or enhance the positive?
A. – The most serious maladies of the contemporary spirit are those represented by the western civilization: individualism, rationalism, materialism, hedonism. The origin of all these tendencies is the denying of the metaphysical Principle and consequently of an ultimate purpose orienting the course of our life. The medicines for the treatment of these typically “western” maladies can be found in the spiritual doctrines, which are the traditional patrimony of Eurasia.
Q. – Is there a realistic threat of a Third World War? What would this entail?
R. – Surely, it exists. The war against Iran, which has been waged with the terroristic attack on Sirya, is a part of the Northamerican strategical project of establishing the western hegemony in the Rimland, because this control is essential to block Russia and avoid that the Heartland becomes the centre of the world power. I should be glad if my opinion were wrong, but it seems to me that the economical crisis is inducing the U.S. to have resort to military force, accelerating the times of the clash.