On the Threshold of Global Transition (Part One)

By Alexander Dugin (Izvestiya, Russia):

Spring 2011 denotes the commencement of preparations for a most significant event: precisely one year remains before the 2012 Russian presidential elections.

It’s entirely natural that the faintest movement inside the government now, from every symbolic gesture and allusion, to a reprise or any other leakages from the center of the Russian government, will be noted with great attention. What on earth will they decide? This will be a long lasting affair that will slowly make its way to a climax, but in my opinion, the suspense will continue till the last moment.

And now, I would like to talk not of signs, allusions and non-disclosures, but also of the context we are now in, inside Russia as well as globally.

Let’s begin with the global system. Despite all the details and nuances, it is evident today that the United States remains a leading superpower and, therefore, the main actor in world politics. Certainly, there are differences between the neoconservative project of “American Empire” (“Save the U.S., the rest will follow!”), Obama’s multilateralism, which assumes a more equal distribution of power among Washington and its allies (“Save the West, the rest will follow!”) and a project of accelerated “intensification of democracy” (seen in the color revolutions and Soros’s* slogan: “Global open society here and now!”). In any case, non-Western countries, in such environments, are pushed to either submit to the West and its values, political and economic models or, at best, to side with the West as a vassal. As for the project of accelerated “intensification of democracy,” it is currently fraught with controlled chaos and a decomposition of existing states. Whatever the case, the United States and the West are leading the world toward a step-by step deprivation of the sovereignty of all existing political units; this is the axiom of the current global transition.

Considering all the existing antagonisms inside the United States, nevertheless, a general vector of transition for Washington is clear: the course of modern history that has led the West (and the United States) to build an effective, technological, liberal and capitalist civilization based on economic freedom, human rights and principles of personal identity is to be followed (at the expense of all forms of collective identity).

The reaction of non-Western states varies. Some oppose desperately (like Iran, North Korea, Venezuela and Libya). Others try to cooperate with the West in order to strengthen their country but are careful about allowing the weakening of their sovereignty and thus falling into a relationship of dependence with the West. An indisputable and quite efficacious champion in this subtle game is China. India, Turkey, Brazil and others are drawn toward this model. And, lastly, there are states that are ready to make their way towards this transition and submit completely to the rule of the global West.

One thing is for sure: We are in a stage of global transition. We have an approximate idea what we are making the transition from, but it remains an open question where we are heading towards. The United States and the West have, in general, similar visions of this transition, while other major players are trying to leave everything as it is. A global alternative that sees this transition turning into different ways is being developed in non-governmental circles: the creation of a world of Islamic states, a world revolution or a multi-polar model of the international system.

So far, the situation is as follows: The transition itself is opposed only by marginal world powers, though their influence is increasing. States hesitate (with rare exceptions) to challenge the current structure and are trying hard to leave everything as it is, at any cost. Another option is to “saddle the tiger,” that is, to ride the wave of globalization as smoothly as is needed to strengthen national sovereignty, while hoping to leap off at a critical moment (“turning poison into cure”). Thus, consistent and methodical anti-Western powers are weak in terms of infrastructure but strong ideologically. On the other hand, the states that possess a defined infrastructure but are ideologically reactive depend on the global system. Centers of serious and powerful resistance spring up where ideology (even if only partially) combines with a state in the rejection of this global transition (as in Iran and Venezuela), and gives the United States and the West a bad headache. However, non-governmental structures like al-Qaeda have demonstrated their potential to make the United States suffer great losses.

This is what the global context, which the political life of modern Russia is part of, looks like one year before the presidential elections.

*Translator’s note: George Soros, founder and chairman of the Open Society Foundations

Leave a Reply