INTERNATIONAL ASPECTS OF EURASISM

Gennady N. Seleznev

Entering the new millennium, we necessarily must find some general parameters of collective life. Otherwise we are threatened with chaos, internal struggles, ever rising conflicts, juridical uncertainty in its domestic and international aspects. Not incidentally today many talk about a «new world order ». We have to soberly recognise it: the old world order has failed, it belongs to the past. The Yalta world, juridically establishing at the level of international institutions a real balance of power and distribution of strategic roles among the world powers, belongs today to the past, as this balance has irreversibly changed. Evident is the crisis of the international organisations, such as the United Nations, OSCE, PACE, UNESCO, whose function in the world system is rapidly changing, while old routines and methods exist more and more from inertness, entering into contradiction with the real challenges. Hence the increasing paralysis of traditional international institutions, their inability to adequately solve the new arising problems. A «New world order», really, is mature, but the whole question is: on what will it be built? What is its basic pole?
In the present moment we have two global scenarios of this world order in formation - the unipolar (American-centred) one and the multipolar one (alternative to the America-centred). The unipolar world, which today is de facto established as a result of the exit from the world scene of the mighty Soviet block, generates more problems than it solves. At the basis of the unipolar project of «globalisation» or «mondialisation» lays the idea of the so-called « Pax Americana », of the « American-way-of-peace ». It supposes not simply the guiding role of the US in the creation of such world system, but also imposing on all peoples and states on earth the « American way of life », the liberal-democratic system of values, the universalisation and forced assimilation of those cultural, social, political and economic principles which historically developed only in one sector of mankind - in Western Europe - and reached their apogee in the Anglo-Saxon environment (Great Britain, after the US). Some authors call such project as «atlantist». The sketch of the unipolar world and the consequences of its establishment in Eurasia, our common Homeland, are openly described in the book of the leading American geopolitician Zbigniew Brzeszinski « The Grand Chessboard ». The destiny of Russia in his recital is unenviable: Russia should be partitioned into a number of second-rank States, and the territory of Eurasia as a whole should either turn into some kind of «new Balkans», a hotspot for ethno-confessional conflicts, or become a «black hole» of uncontrolled chaos. In the unipolar world the geopolitical concept of Eurasia is counted among the «scapegoats», being represented as a raw materials appendix, a place for dumping ecologically harmful waste from the world production. Even in the most optimistic forecast for Russia, her remaining role as a «regional power» would be challenged, since Russian interests should be limited only to her own territory, and any claims to possessing strategic interests outside her borders should be rigidly blocked. And not only Russia becomes the «scapegoat» in the unipolar world. The same role of «objects of globalisation » would pertain also to other Asian countries and states of the Third world which would not fit into the category of the « golden billion » or of the «rich North». It is obvious that such unipolar project categorically does not suit many today. But the simple discontent and desire to defend one's own strategic independence, cultural originality, national and state specificity is not enough yet. In order to balance this geopolitical wreck it is necessary to put forward a creative strategic project - wide enough to represent a real force able to defend the right to originality, and organic enough to be understood by the world community and the population of their own countries. The alternative to the unipolar, global strategic project centred upon American peace has two almost synonymic names: the multipolar world or Eurasian project. Both terms describe, in fact, the same strategic reality. Instead of the simplified unipolar American-centred model, a more complex system of «new world order» is offered, supposing a number of poles, where the Western atlantist pole is being balanced by a mighty bloc of Eastern states, by the Eurasian bloc or simply by Eurasia. This alternative world system of the XXI century has a set of levels - economic, legal, cultural, ethno-confessional, military and strategic, diplomatic, informational, technological, resources, financial, demographic etc. Its basic meaning can be synthesized as follows: on the basis of the strategic alliance of several mighty Eurasian States - each of them unable to stand on its own the competition of the US and the American-centred world - a continental bloc is formed, possessing as a group all the components (military, economic, demographic, cultural etc.) indispensable to create for all the peoples and states of the world the chance of an open civilisation choice: either atlantism, the path of the American-centred West, or eurasism, the wide spectrum of the Eastern traditional societies and the other regions of the earth having their own civilisation style. It is obviously necessary to stress that the multipolarity supposed by the Eurasian project will not mean the simple return to the bipolarity of the cold war era. Firstly, today no single state of the potential Eurasian bloc has enough domestic strategic resources to compete alone against the US at their level of aggregate power factors (including economic and military): therefore no country can be a self-sufficient pole, and the alliance of the several mighty and sovereign powers of Eurasia is an indispensable condition. Secondly, today there is - and probably there can be - no single dogmatic ideology comparable to the model of Western liberal-democracy, which would serve as a strictly unifying, cementing world-view . The unitary liberal-democratic complex in the modern world is countered not by one single, but by many world-view systems - religious, social, national, economic, cultural and ethical. Therefore the second Eurasian pole will obviously represent a rather heterogeneous and actually multipolar picture, with several primary centres of influence in different places of the Eurasian continent and Northern Africa. Moreover, in its widest meaning the Eurasian (multipolar) project can spread far beyond the borders of the Eurasian continent, reaching Africa, Southern and Central America and the Pacific zone. Exactly as in the case of Saudi Arabia and Turkey it is quite correct to speak about atlantism - though geographically these countries lie far from the Atlantic coast - stressing their strategic and geopolitical orientation, in an equally wide sense it is possible to understand the Eurasian project in its maximal, global and planetary dimension. Let's return now to the stricter concept of eurasism. It is obvious that such large scale strategic union of continental poles of force will put on the agenda regional projects of an intermediate level. The preliminary condition to continental strategic integration must be the union of countries and peoples inhabiting the «core land» of Eurasia (the Heartland, according to Halford Mackinder's expression). Here again we run across a very interesting phenomenon - the CIS [Community of Independent States] dimension of eurasism. This integrationist trend works at different levels. On the one hand, a significant percentage of the population of CIS countries very clearly understands the catastrophic character of the disintegration of the USSR, not only disrupting the normal political development of a whole constellation of brotherly peoples, but also drawing a huge blow to cultural harmony, and - what is most important - to the economic level of life, to the social sphere, to an organism of resources and industries which could not be dismembered without huge losses. Today the vast majority of CIS citizens regrets what happened. It is however necessary to recognise the following circumstance: though the new union of the peoples of the former USSR in a common state is only a political slogan of the communist and socialist parties of our countries, the social sectors supporting this project are much wider, including people from both the right and left-wing, internationalists, and even nationalists. For this reason eurasism - being an ideological current stressing the common future of the nations of CIS countries and leading to the new union in a single political, social and economic space (be it the Eurasian Union, the Eurasian Federation or the Eurasian Confederation) - is simply doomed to winning the support of wide strata of the population and to become a world-view component of our future reunification. The beginning of this process lies in the formation of the Russian-Byelorussian United State, in the formation of a “customs union” within the framework of the CIS. Special mention deserves that mission which for many years has been carried forward by the President of Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbayev with enviable constancy and despite of a varying political situation, professing the necessity of the Eurasian Union, of the reference to the Eurasian idea, as to a consolidating link in working out a plan for of CIS countries and Russian-Kazakhi relations. The cultural-historical aspect of the Eurasian philosophy is founded on the affirmation of a community of geopolitical and civilisation destiny of the Slavs and the Turkish. The Slavic and Turkish ethnic worlds by far exceed not only the borders of the Russian Federation, but also the border of the CIS. The Eurasian cultural-geopolitical beginning, thus, is discovered in a huge section of the population of Eurasia, and affirming the historical unity of their path, their cultural affinity, their equal involvement in the construction of the Eurasian Statehood - in which there were also a Turkish-Mongolian stage (the empire of Gengis Khan, the Golden Hoard), a Russian-Slavonic stage (Kiev Rus', the Moscow empire, the Romanov empire) and a mixed-international stage (USSR) - gives a serious basis for the development, world-view formation and technical-political realisation of a large scale integration project. Eurasism also has a purely economic aspect. The CIS countries today represent from the point of view of industrial-economic development a very peculiar reality: though severely lagging behind the advanced countries of the post-industrial West (or rich North), their standards of living and per capita incomes of the population is sharply differ (in their best part) from the countries of the Third world. This circumstance allows some economists and geoeconomists to speak about Eurasia (meaning by it the CIS) as about the «second world». The «second world» is characterised by the presence of natural resources, an advanced industrial system, a liberal market system in the sphere of medium and small business and services, but a feeble level of application and elaboration of the newest technologies and post-industrial infrastructures. The economic specificity of the Eurasian «second world» is such the most favourable conditions for economic growth will be when basic commodity trade, exchange of energy resources and transportation and information systems will be developed between sectors of comparable level of development. The organic edification of multi-sided relations inside the «second world » must contribute to universal development up to such level when full economic interaction with the countries of the «rich North» becomes possible. To the definite features of the «second world» also belong some countries of Eastern Europe and some Asian states next to the CIS. Thus, the economic aspect of the Eurasian project bears an autonomous and very relevant meaning, supporting the economic structures by a common political line of integration. From the social point of view the Eurasian project is substantiated by that the majority of the peoples of Eurasia, including the Russian people, appreciably continue to remain varieties of the «traditional society», where collective, communitarian, social principles dominate above individualism and the private sphere. The forms of this common sociality differ from one case to another, but the same fact of its presence has given a perfect cultural-ethical basis for the eurasist ideas to receive broad support from the peoples of our countries. In the Constitution of Russian Federation is written that Russia is a Social State. These are not mere words, but the postulation of state priorities in the field of social politics. And at last, in the field of military union the advantages of a common security system for CIS countries are obvious, and already now this system exists and acts. The consolidation of co-operation in the military and strategic sphere and the prospective creation of an all-Eurasian system of collective security becomes a common achievement and will strengthen our common borders and heighten our position at the international level, as the element of force, alas, keeps saving its crucial relevance in the modern world, remaining the major constraining factor and powerful argument in the solution of controversial political issues. In the Eurasian project it is possible to outline some levels. The first level includes the integration aspects within the limits of the CIS. Two parallel lines here are traced: Slavic (predominantly orthodox) and Turkish (predominantly islamic). It is just the Eurasian approach that makes them not antagonistic, but complementary. The Slavic-orthodox line of integration is called to gather three brotherly peoples of Rus' - Great Russians, Small Russians and Byelorussians. The issue with Byelorussia is practically solved; here the deal concerns only Ukraine, who needs only to realise those reasons which are pledged in the Large Agreement ratified by the State Duma in its previous convocation. This direction is actively developed and there are signs that other countries – such as Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, and also orthodox (but not Slavic) Georgia, Greece and Romania, and also monophysite Armenia – are ready to join this process. Eurasism's Turkish line within the CIS supposes the consolidation of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kirghizia, Azerbaijan and Tadjikistan so that – once having created a unified political-strategic space – they can join the Russian Federation or, more widely, the Slavic Union based on the Russian Federation. Such configuration will complete the Eurasian model. The Turkish-islamic pole must become a unifying element also for islamic (but not Turkish) Tadjikistan and also for other powers of Eurasian feature - first of all, Iran. As a whole this gives us a new configuration of the lost Union, which, probably, it is more logical from now on to call Eurasian. In this respect it is once again necessary to pay due to the insight of the President of Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbaev, who for the first – in difficult political conditions, when the leaders of many newly founded countries of CIS were inebriated with independence and wanted to hear nothing about new integration – providently proclaimed the necessity of such Eurasian Union. For this reason, and also due to the strategic position of Kazakhstan in the ensemble of the Eurasian territories, Kazakhstan and its leader rightly holds the palm in the Eurasian integration process. Certainly, the contours of this Eurasian Union will differ a little from the borders of the USSR, and it is hardly possible to hope that it will be immediately joined by the Baltic countries or even all the countries of CIS. Besides, it is hardly probable that the Eurasian Union (at least at the beginning) will represent a unified State with a unitary administrative system, as it took place in the case of the USSR – let alone the unreality of returning to the Marxist ideology. Most likely, the newly formed Eurasian system will combine unitary management in the strategic directions – armed forces, military-industrial complex, strategic industries - with wide political, economic and juridical autonomy of its components. An example of such Eurasian configuration can become United Europe. The second level of the Eurasian project supposes the creation of a strategic alliance with the Asian powers of far foreign countries whose strategic, economic, civilisation, social and political orientation is similar to ours. We are talking, first of all, about Iran, India, China, the Arab countries of the Near East and Northern Africa. Their involvement in the common strategic Eurasian project also will give a real basis to multipolarità. Eurasia can claim to a global role only if such powers of the rank of Iran, China and India will collaborate to the Eurasian project alongside with the Eurasian Union (the present CIS). Each of these large regional states has its points of strength - economy, demography, strategic weapons, resources, industrial development etc. And at the same time, according to commonly used indexes they lag far behind the Western countries, being to some extent countries of the «second world». For the Eastern countries – standing before the double-sided correlation «Asian regional power – West» – there is no different exit than becoming, sooner or later, the usual «objects of globalisation». And their inclusion in the united Western world will mean renouncing to cultural and political originality, to economic independence. Only in the composition of a wide Eurasian strategic ensemble they have the chance to turn from passive objects of globalisation under the American to active subjects of globalisation under the alternative, Eurasian, multipolar schema. This will gradually become obvious to the governments of these countries, and the issues of strategic partnership in Eurasia are debated more and more widely at the most various levels. The next - wider - aspect of the Eurasian project is the inclusion in it of those advanced countries of Europe and Asia which today either are allies of the US, or depend on them in the strategic, political and economic issues. We are talking about United Europe and Japan. In the absence of any «ideological threat» from the East, the uncritical and blind solidarity of these states with the globalist line followed by the US has lost its ideological ground. On the other hand, the high economic development of these regions (European and Pacific) leads to that the excessive tutelage on part of the US, not loosened even after the termination of the «cold war», becomes a burden for them, and the political class of these countries more and more often reflects on their own political role in the changed world, where full dependence from the US and the unipolar, American-centred world becomes self-evident and unjustifiable. Among the élites of these countries the concept of multipolarity (and consequently also the Eurasian project) can easily find support, if it will be correctly formulated and adapted to the European and Japanese mentality. It is especially important to adapt the Eurasian concept to United Europe, where a traditional society as such for a long time does not exist, and consequently the social tendencies express themselves in more secularised language – in the language of social-democracy or in national rhetoric of a “gaullist” kind. In an intermediate stage the Eurasian Union will be interested in any case in the political-economic strengthening of the European and Pacific zones, and it is significant to contribute to this in the field of resources and in the strategic sphere. An excellent initiative in this direction was put forward by the President of Russian Federation Vladimir Vladimirevic Putin, proposing to create a unified system of collective security in Europe with the full involvement of Russia. Similar initiatives can be developed both in the Far East and in the Pacific region. And finally we must not lose sight of the countries actually belonging to the Third World, the less developed countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America. The traditional pro-Soviet attitude meant for many of them not so much adherence to the Marxist dogma, how much aspiration to get rid of the geopolitical and economic neo-colonial dictate on the part of the US and the Western countries. This tendency to anti-globalism and national liberation did not disappear to the present, though it is now expressed in new forms. Very many peoples and countries do not want to become passive objects of globalisation and look for an escape to this situation. The Eurasian model could serve as a remarkable example of cultural and national self-preservation, and the involvement in the creation of the multipolar world would mean salvation for them. The flexibility and the anti-dogmatism of the Eurasian ideology will only ease this problem. All the enumerated levels of the Eurasian project (globally and locally) must not necessarily be practically realised as a sequence - one after the other. These directions can be elaborated already now, without any delay. The process of ethno-cultural integration between the Turkish and Slavic Republics of the CIS, the rapprochement with Russia, the strengthening of connections with the Eastern European and Asian states, the new spin to partnership relations with the European and Pacific countries, the recover of Russia's influence (on a new basis) in the Third World - all this can be developed in a parallel way and simultaneously in the economic, political, social, juridical, cultural and diplomatic perspectives. The conclusion is only one: we all need the new Eurasian order as the warrant of our freedom, our development, our prosperity.

From the magazine "EURASIA", #1-2 2001 Originally published by Arctogaia.

Trans. by M.Conserva

About the Author: Gennady Nikolaevic Seleznev (b.1947) was elected deputy at the 1993 elections of the State Duma of the Russian Federation in the lists of the KPFR (Communist Party of the Russian Federation). He is President of the Geopolitical Commission at the State Duma of the Russian Federation. In July 2000 he founded the Left- Democratic Movement «Russia», of patriotic and socialist orientation.