The multipolar world. An interview with Boris Nad

 

Natella Speranskaya: The collapse of the Soviet Union meant the cancellation of the Yalta system of international relations and the triumph of the single hegemon - the United States, and as a consequence, transformation of the bipolar world order to the unipolar model. Nevertheless, some analysts are still talking about a possible return to the bipolar model. How do you feel about this hypothesis? Is there a likelihood of emergence of a power capable of challenging the global hegemon?

Boris Nad: The collapse of the Soviet Union and the consequent triumph of the United States, and the attempt to impose the American model at the global level open a real Pandora's box: it was a prelude to two decades of permanent instability, social and economic, military intervention and brutal wars with millions of victims, from those in the Persian Gulf to the wars in the Balkans or in the Middle East, whether by direct involvement of the global hegemon or foreign agency, for American interests.

 

At the same time, the attempt initiated or accelerated the opposite process, under the principle of action and reaction. Today, in the twilight of that era, after the war in Libya, while there is still very brutal war in Syria, the world looks very different from the projection of American geostrategist two decades ago. Russia was able to rise again from the ruins of the Soviet Union and stop planed splitting of its territory, consolidating its economic and military power, and, with more or less success, opposes to U.S. efforts. China's rise has surprised many, but had been predicted even by Oswald Spengler, in the thirties of the last century. South America is less and less under the control of Washington, deeply divided Arab world, regardless of the puppet regime has yet to determine its position in relation to this issue, but there is a dominant anti-American sentiment. Formation of the BRIC is the consequence of this new reality. America is, as well as at the beginning of the period, stuck in the Iraqi desert sand and also, which has an enormous symbolic importance in the war in Afghanistan, without any strategy to come out of this conflict, despite the peaceful rhetoric and promises of President Obama at the start of his first mandate. America will take some time to try to keep the role of global policeman. But, in fact, there are more and more U.S. competitors, and multipolar model seems likely of a bipolar distribution of power. It is interesting to note that neither globalization is coming in hand to the western, liberal dominance, and is now accelerating its downfall.

 

Natella Speranskaya: Zbigniew Brzezinski openly admits that the U.S. is gradually losing its influence. Here it is possible to apply the concept of "imperial overstretch", introduced by renowned historian Paul Kennedy. Perhaps, America has faced that, what was previously experienced by the Soviet Union. How do you assess the current state of the U.S.?

Boris Nad: In this case, the role of U.S. President Obama would be equal to that of Mikhail Gorbachev in the Soviet Union. Zbigniew Brzezinski forecasts did not materialize, and he was a bad prophet, a strategist who, let’s recall, among other things advocated splitting of Russia into several independent states. Now he is forced to revise his views. On the other hand, it is evident that the scenario presented by Paul Kennedy has largely been achieved. American power today is falling inwards and also faster on the outwards, under pressure of competitors. There's no way for U.S. to hide that they are in a deep crisis, probably the deepest in its entire history. The transition of world power is therefore inevitable. The process itself would have ran less painful if the American political and intellectual elites were able to understand that. But their own ideological blindness prevents them: the inability to perceive reality beyond the basic premise, or dogmas of Americanism. Thomas Molnar spoke about the inability of Americans to understand the history, since in their minds America has always been seen as a historical exception, precedent, something that is generally opposed to its normal flow. In this case, the America's answer could be  new wars across the globe, in a feverish effort to maintain Pax Americana, until the U.S. has adequate resources to lead them. But it will, in all likelihood, only accelerate America's downfall.

 

Natella Speranskaya: The loss of global influence of the U.S. means no more, no less, as the end of the unipolar world. But here the question arises as - to which model will happen the transition in the nearest future? On the one hand, we have all the prerequisites for the emergence of the multipolar world, on the other – we face the risk of encountering non-polarity, which would mean a real chaos.

Boris Nad: "New World Order", which proclaimed the U.S. President Bush at the beginning of the 90's, was no order, but a truly global chaos. ("Cold War" in the present general opinion, was better, that was a period of relative stability, with only local conflicts, and for many, many countries of the so-called Third World, was the period of true prosperity.)

 

As it turned out, the concept of Bush and his successors was simply unsustainable. Dispersal of American power finally became unstoppable. Changes that will inevitably follow will be dramatic, with lots of twists; along with the dispersal of American hegemony there will be reconfiguration and redistribution of power and a new division of spheres of interest. The fight of nowadays regional powers, such as Russia, China and Germany, for its own sphere of influence, perhaps a future "great areas", is at full tear process; it's part of the transition to a future multipolar world. Before that there will be tectonic disturbances in the global economy, which is now based on the hegemony of the dollar as a global currency. Collapse of the dollar will mark the real and symbolic end of the west, therefore the American hegemony over the "rest of the world".

 

However, any outcome is better than the artificial maintenance of Pax Americana, especially since this "peace" extends by more or less open violence, incessant wars across the globe. On the other hand, the status quo is largely the result of inertia or incompetence of the political elites, blindness, such as those leading today's European Union. The fact is that the European political elite precisely show the incomprehensible inability to cope with new circumstances, and they are now changing from hour to hour.

 

It is in our interest that this transition, which is inevitable, passes away as much as possible in an orderly manner and that the dissolution of the American Empire goes on with less violence and blood. Finally, this should be a very certain collapse of the United States itself - preferably non-violent, consensual, or eventually with limited, local conflicts, which will not jeopardize global security. The scenario in which the United States would finally break up into several independent states, or would be transformed into a loose confederation, becomes increasingly probable, and one of the main reasons is the lack of internal cohesion within this world power.

 

 

Natella Speranskaya: The project of "counter-hegemony," developed by Cox, aims to expose the existing order in international relations and raise the rebellion against it. For this, Cox calls for the creation of counter-hegemonic bloc, which will include those political actors who reject the existing hegemony. The basis of the unipolar model imposed by the United States, is a liberal ideology. From this we can conclude that the basis of the multipolar model just the same has to be based on some ideology. Which ideology, in your opinion, can take replace the counter-hegemonic one, capable of uniting a number of political actors who do not agree with the hegemony of the West?

 

Boris Nad: Liberal ideology, like many other political ideologies of the modern era, as rightly noted by Alexander Dugin, is indeed a totalitarian ideology. It may be, however, relating to its opponents less brutal than others, but that does not change the fact. In addition, its language now seems out of place, it no longer corresponds to reality, and it is more reminiscent of the language of Marxist ideologies in the late 80-ies of the last century. We definitely need a different ideology, which will be able to reconcile the differences, and it cannot be nor liberalism, albeit modified, nor communism or fascism. Concerning Russia and Serbia, it can only be Eurasianism, because it provides clear enough and also wide enough, ductile frame. This of course applies to the entire Eurasian continent, for all the nations of Eurasia. As for the other centers of global power, or "large areas" in other continents currently emerging, they will define their own ideological position, their own ideological answers. In South America, it might be a peculiar form of socialism, China is increasingly turning to its own tradition, in the Islamic world it will be a synthesis based on religion, rooted in Islamic teachings. They are all formed as a reaction to a long-lasting liberal hegemony, less or more drawing the elements of previous three political theories of modern world. And also, they are all more or less directed against postmodernism, in the sense in which the term is used by Alexander Dugin, the postmodern as "globalization, ultra-liberalism, the domination of a unipolar world, the priority of nets, the elimination of all forms of traditional identity ..."

Eurasianism, however, has another advantage, especially for areas such as the Balkans, marked by profound national, ethnic, religious and cultural divisions. It can unite the differences and overcome contradictions in their common opposition to hegemony of the West, especially America, which has been for too long using the principle of divide et impera, to the detriment of all the peoples of the Balkans.

Natella Speranskaya: If we project the multipolar model on the economic world map, then we’ll get the coexistence of multiple poles, and at the same time, will create a completematrix for the emergence of a new economy - outside of Western capitalist discourse. In your opinion, is the concept of “autarky of big spaces”, suggested by List, applicable for this?

Boris Nad: In our opinion, the concept of "autarchy of big spaces" is the only real alternative to the existing American neocolonial economic model and Western capitalist discourse. It is the only one that could provide a harmonious and organic economic development, to eradicate hunger and poverty, which consequently affected large portions of the world. There are two reasons for this. First, nation-states have simply become too small; in today's world, self-sufficiency requires precisely the space of imperial proportions. Yes, in our opinion, it is a real alternative to the American model which is obviously in a deep crisis. This crisis is now affecting large part of the world, but it has started and is generated by the USA, and now American model exposes all its weaknesses. Quite simply put, it is no longer functional. Moreover, it is dangerous and harmful.

 

Natella Speranskaya: We are now on the verge of paradigmatic transition from the unipolar world order model to the multi-polar one, where the actors are no more nation-states, but entire civilizations. Recently in Russia was published a book "Theory of multipolar world", written by the Doctor of Political and Social Sciences, Professor Alexander Dugin. This book lays the theoretical foundation, basis, from which a new historical stage can start, and describes a number of changes both in the foreign policy of nation-states and in today's global economy, which involve a transition to the multipolar model. Of course, this also means the emergence of a new diplomatic language. Do you believe that multipolarity is the natural state of the world and that transition to the multipolar model is inevitable?

Boris Nad: Multipolarity is, beyond any doubt, the natural state in the world, as it acknowledges and respects the reality of the existence of cultural, political, religious, racial and ethnic diversities, and does not deny nor annihilate them as liberalism in its late stage, in its openly totalitarian forms. Unipolarity has always been urged, either by force or through so-called soft power. Speaking about America, both ways are included. The American model is model is a totalitarian one. To oppose that uniform model, for the multipolar world, is strife for freedom and identity. That is one of the essential reasons why American hegemony hegemony can't last long. Her diplomatic language is now the expression of this: it is the language of dictation, naked coercion, force, shameless blackmail and frank ultimatum. The language spoken by present-day U.S. Secretary Hillary Clinton is no longer possible to denominate with the term "diplomatic language", it is a kind of public hysteria, with no respect for its opponents or enemies, which offends a sense of decency and limit. On the one hand, this is good, because it exposes what really hides behind perhaps pleasing rhetoric about concern for democracy and human rights.

 

Unfortunately, I have not had the opportunity to get acquainted with the Alexander Dugin’s work that you mention, but I will certainly read it with great interest. Anyway, there is no doubt that we are now entering a new historical epoch, which certainly would not be idyllic, but one thing is certain - the American global hegemony is rapidly nearing its end, and we must be ready and waiting for its denouement. Moreover, the future of the world will be decided in Eurasia, in its middle earth, Heartland, where Russia will have the decisive role. Therefore, eyes of Eurasian people are focused on Russia.

 

 

Translated by: Zorana Lutovac

 

 

 

About the author:

 

Boris Nad, Serbian writer and publicist, was born in Vinkovci, Slavonia, in 1966. He studied in Zagreb and Belgrade, graduated from the University of Belgrade. Since 1994. Boris Nad published various essays and articles in diverse journals and periodicals.

 

Some of his most important works are:

Vreme imperija (Beograd, „Rivel Ko”, 2002), geopolitical writings (with Introduction by Dragoš Kalajić)
Gozba pobednika (Beograd, „Žagor”, 2005), short epic science-fiction novel
Nova Itaka, (Niš, „Unus mundus“ – Niški kulturni centar, 2007), selection of essays, poetry, short stories and short prose
Nemi bogovi, (Beograd, „Žagor“, 2008.), short prose
Povratak mita (Ideja centra, Nova Itaka, Argonauti, Simboli Hiperboreje), (Niš, Niški kulturni centar, 2010), selection of essays and (geo)political writings, poetry, short prose and stories

Postapokalipsa (Niš, „Unus mundus“, br. 38, Niški kulturni centar, 2011), essay Poslednja Tula (Niš, „Unus mundus“, br. 40, Niški kulturni centar, 2011), stories