The multipolar world. An interview with Wagnão Correia

 

 

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?

 

Wagnão Correia: Bipolarity has always been present in modern world history, specifically in the mythic conflict between Land and Sea, where it materialized in the antagonist pole Russia-USA, and continues to be alive, although it is not the central point of international relations anymore. This possible return to bipolarity that some analysts show, can be dispute for global power among countries that defend multipolarity and those who are against or indifferent to it. But international bipolarity, as it existed in the Cold War won’t be, in my opinion, revived. This happens because of the appearance of other poles of power and because of the enormous difference of power between Russia and the United States.

If there is a way to fight seriously against the yankee global hegemony, it is only with the development of a political theory that is not linked to the status quo (liberalism) and with the construction of a multipolar power distribution. There is the possibility for a fourth political way, in which there will be elements of the other political ways that have already been beaten and defeated. We feel that now is the time to organize ourselves , bring to light questions of geopolitics for the creation of a identity in various countries, especially in Latin America; searching for its own hegemony and free from the Atlantist and American economic dependence.

 

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.?

 

Wagnão Correia: I don’t believe that the USA will completely lose its influence. It’s more probable that its force against other powers, as Russia and China, and also some developing countries in Latin America, won’t be total. I believe that the economic crisis of this system, especially in Europe, is just an interval before a global military catastrophe.

The main form to oppose American imperialism, is economically and culturally, two strategies used on its universal expansion. It is like what happened in the Roman Empire; it territorially extended too far and generated countless conflicts, until it collapsed because of the size of its “universality”.

 

 

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.

 

Wagnão Correia: If this organization, this “call to arms”, doesn’t come into existence against the current system, there will certainly be chaos, starting from Europe. Obviously, American influence won’t be total, but still significant. If there are some centers of resistance, they can be exploited as a fourth political way is built as an alternative.

 

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?

 

Wagnão Correia: Ideologically, it is only possible to build a counter-hegemonic bloc with the development of a political theory that is anti-liberal and that is not tied to the errors and barbarisms of the 20th Century ideologies. Geopolitically, Eurasianism is a wonderful form of contact with the various other anti-hegemonic cultures and theories. Although it is restricted only to Europe and Asia (Eurasia), there can be people and movements with “eurasian” ideas in toher places, like the USA, Brazil, Venezuela, Argentina, Cuba, Japan, Australia, etc.

I think that the best option is Eurasianism, a Eurasian Alliance where the whole universality of the different countries through the world is respected, taking into account their cultural diversities.

 

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?

 

 

Wagnão Correia: It is important to remember that the autarchy of the big spaces and a new economy have to be not only out the Western Capitalist discourse, but out of any Capitalist discourse, that per se, is Western (in the pejorative sense of Western) and modern. If a new economic model is developed and applied, this is a herculean task, because current economy is essentially Capitalist, we can think in an autarchy of the big spaces in a positive way, otherwise, we’ll only change the name from “American Capitalism”, to “National Capitalism”.

 

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?

 

Wagnão Correia: Multipolarity has always been the structural base of nations and civilizations, there never was permanently only ONE civilization; with the exception of the Roman Empire, which eventually fell and had problem with its “unipolarity”, because of its extension and dimension, that absorbed many other civilizations that were still in their bases. Europe in the 16th and 17th Centuries, and also on most of the 18th and 19th Centuries, was marked by a multipolar system, with many powers and blocs. We know that it only stopped being multipolar for short periods of time, when continental wars happened, when almost messianic dualism was forcibly created for the maintenance of power.

I completely believe that there aren’t other ways or basis more suitable than the ones exposed by Prof. Dugin; of course some particular questions, in different countries, will have to be well adapted to their realities. Therefore, I believe that all forms of Liberalism have to be repelled and revoked in order for these countries to organize in political blocs, where unipolarity and bipolarity will be incompatible.