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? First of all, it’s necessary to consider that in Carl Schmitt’s opinion the empty, neutral and unidentified space which initiated the British thalassocracy, was replaced by new “global” space, designed by modern mass and transport media during the 20th century. So, British thalassocratic hybris flows into the conquering of infinite air aequor. A logic connection link these different moments. The world power which has comprehended these moments, making them on its own, is the hegemonic world power of our times: United States.
However, since that it’s a logic deployment of the typical unlimited will to power shown by a thalassocracy, this power is necessarily founded on the eradication from any other ethos: a perfect overthrow of the idea of “limit”, “right size”, which was the foundation of Greekness and so of European civilization. It’s a will to power which was able to show its real face, trying to subjugate “different” times, places and peoples, after the fall of the Soviet Union (which got a role as katechon, because it could “contain” and “restrict” the spreading of “negative” in some way).
Anyway, furor by homo occidentalis necessarily clashes to the resistance by who is not prone to eradicate his roots and change them with a delusive and transient freedom. Even the Hollywood’s powerful media machine collide (luckily) with hard obstacles in this sense. This is why neo-atlantist “unipolar system” has probably already failed only twenty years after the fall of Berlin wall. This means that it’s possible yet to set both a “dia-logos” founded on mutual recognition of “different identities” and the keeping of every people’s roots against the homogeneous-totalitarian space of globalism made in Usa, of “rhizome” perfectly integrated into the global market, founded its own identity on the denial of any other identity and any other difference.
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?
The one-world government idea – despicable in iself – is founded on the belief that the “Political dimension” and so the conflict, are not the “destiny” of mankind. This is completely fake. Nowadays there are new geopolitical actors – BRICS, Shanghai Cooperation Organization, Eurasian Union and of course European Union – that, even if they didn’t replace the nation-States, represent the evidence that this kind of “entity” are too much limited to be competitive in the 21st century political challenges. The validity of Schmitt’s Grossraumteorie – according to which between the future utopist unity of the world and the past age of old geographical dimensions, the formation of great spaces stands in the while – is so confirmed. This induces Schmitt to exploit, significantly, the “iconography” (different images and conceptions of the world, came out from different religions and traditions) of the different geopolitical entities.
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? In the late 80s Atlantism and Zionism became fundaments of new unipolar American international system, aimed to impose turbo-capitalist logic all over the world and to prevent the rising of new geopolitical actors able to change the rules of this “Great game” for their own advantage. Nowadays we stand in a situation in which unipolarism has failed, but without a real multipolarism. Although this, we can’t deny that the role of the USA is clearly changed: the super-power that in the 90s was on the point of reaching the domination of Eurasia and the entire planet, now shows to have a weak economic basis to support the giant Welfare State which allows USA to play the role of world guardian and to be able not only to finance its own debt with stranger capitals but also to avoid that any rising “multipolar trend” could even syndicate the American hegemony.
About it, we need to remind that we don’t know any law of history according to which we can adfirm that American thalassocracy is going to fall. Otherwise, we can observe that probably the strategic initiative will stand still on American hands, until a new bloc of nations will rise to prevent USA the access to geostrategic vectors which allow the domination of Eurasian continent. 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? Even if during last years Schmitt’s hypothesis about formation of “great spaces” (something between world State and single countries) was confirmed, we have also observed the renaissance of Russia, after the Eltsin’s dark years, and the reinforcement of nation-States like China, India, Iran, Turkey and Brazil. This is a historical phenomenon that seems to be hardly definable simply as a “sort of westernization”. This would be a description – beyond the connection between modernization and “westernization” and the other one between modernity and post-modernity, or, using other terms, beyond the questions concerning the essence of the “Western world” – surely very unconvincing in terms of politics; and not only politics, since that everyone of these “resistances” to the global market is also the “result” of a certain cultural “sub-stratum” that, although numerous fractures of every tradition, continues to condition the social and political struggle. In fact, even “european krisis”, since that it is mainly a political and cultural phenomenon, was absolutely not solved with the end of socialism (“real” or less it could ever be), as we can see through the replay of conflict between the needs of a “public Reason” – that represents (and corresponds to) various “iconographies”, communitarian links and different traditions, so able to articulate a certain “geopolitical field” – and the interest of the “Western world”. That is the interest of a terrible Wille zur Macht, which must to prevent the action of those “historical energies” that, although just potential (so not immediately recognizable and able to increase different and even “contradictory” cultural and political items), constitute even nowadays a possible sense horizon, completely opposed to the “organized chaos” (“geopolitics of chaos”) that “in-forms” Western political system. How do you see the role of your country in a possible multipolar system? If you take into account our country, it’s clear not only that institutional decay is at the point to undermine the basis of State, but also that political system does not represent any interest but lobbies ones, of which some men of the State are part of. These men have no problems to serve stranger economic groups. This situation is even more dramatic if we look at the crisis of public debt, that has brought our country under European Central Bank and “markets” direct control, who fear that the crisis of “sovereign debts” could start a new European political stage, since that there is no doubt that the solution to the crisis – as “krisis”, so a choice, a “decision” – consists of recognizing that the independence of European continent from USA is conditio sine qua non of any other autonomy of European peoples.
From this point of view, the future of our country seems to be already established. As it is known, this is a crisis that concerns all European countries, and it is linked to the “relative” decline of United States, who keeps the prevalent control of financial system. So, it is logic that the friction, the heterogenesis of aims, the struggles inside the leading group and among “sub-leading” groups, the choices that Europe will need to make to avoid its collapse and the need to confrontation with new “geopolitical realities” can “inter-act” with the crisis of American unipolarism in an unpredictable way.
Anyway, if, as Aleksandr Dugin rightly says the alternative to Atlantism and Liberalism must be reached out not into the past, whatever it might be, but in the future, so it is absolutely not impossible that what now seems to be “destined” for a sure defeat, will be able invert the situation for its own advantage. Or rather it is absolutely not impossible that some conditions able to set the rights and the “sovereignty” of Eurasian peoples against the “haughtiness” (and hybris) of Atlantism and the “sovereign markets”, will be seriously realized. If it comes true, the “Economic side” won’t “decide”, but the “Political side” will do it. For this reason, it is right to believe that it is worth fighting for a “different” Italy, i. e. an Italy not just in European perspective, but also and especially in an Eurasian perspective.