A World Order or a Powder Keg?
After Yoshihiro Francis Fukuyama's famous prophecy of the end of history not finding its unipolar realisation following the collapse of the communist Eastern Bloc, the prevailing world order – which is increasingly falling into disorder – is not only facing a crisis of legitimacy, but is also increasingly coming into direct confrontation with new geo-political constellations and international institutions. Whether the US hegemony with its instruments (besides the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, NATO and the European Union) will succeed in repressively maintaining its status quo, or whether an international system will emerge that adequately reflects multipolar realities, is difficult to judge conclusively at present. However, it is largely undisputed that the former can be classified as conflict-prone in almost every case, and the latter is strongly dependent on the behaviour of the respective relevant actors.
World Order of Value Systems
A global and universal claim by the great power that is essentially responsible for the majority of international conflicts may quite rightly be regarded as a sad satire of history. Since the end of the Warsaw Pact, NATO reflects less and less the idea of a security alliance. Instead, it is to be regarded as an aggressive force, especially when one keeps in mind the alliance’s continuing pursuit of eastward expansion. Not least, in response to this, the Shanghai Co-Operation Organisation (SCO) developed into a functional Central Asian security format. The Middle East, however, has so far lacked a regional counterpart. Without any doubt, one conclusion cannot be denied any longer – institutional competences and multilateral co-operation must take into account cultural identities and different value systems instead of being an embodiment of one-sided imperial dominance. The vision of a future functioning world order should be a mutual co-ordination of internally autonomous, geo-political areas, without interference in others‘ respective internal sphere, and explicitly cannot be a synchronisation according to a single universal model.
Rejecting the Ideologies of Globalism
All this, however, demands a rejection of the globalisation model of today, fatally characterised by unreflected free-trade extremism, combined with certain privileges of market access according to defined conditionalities regarding areas of destination, in order to pursue normative expansion of the globalists´ set of regulations. This liberalist model of globalisation is no less imperialist/missionary in its arrogant and/or culturally-ignorant zeal for proselytising than is radical Islam, because it also does not tolerate any structural antipodes. Historically, the end of the post-war bipolar order following the collapse of the Soviet Union left only a transatlantic preponderance, but did not lead to a global equilibrium. The polarisation between the anti-imperialist centrifugal forces that have emerged since then, and the forces of the so-called "Great Reset" in Washington, increasingly raises to the surface certain geo-political lines of conflict, whose potential of danger should not be underestimated. Meanwhile, we witness – beyond the so-called Cold War 2.0 – numerous "hot" geo-political proxy wars (primarily in the Middle-East, but also in other regions, such as Eastern Ukraine or the South Caucasus). The military conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan regarding the region of Nagorno-Karabakh shows that Turkey – in addition to the great powers that are the USA, China and Russia – also harbours geo-political ambitions. This is no different with Turkey's actions regarding Northern Syria. Moreover, in both cases, it is fuelled by historical ethnic resentments between Turks, Kurds and Armenians. These problematic regions are particularly explosive because the foreign powers involved are associated with different international military alliances struggling for their spheres of interest.
More Than Just a Trade Conflict
The new US administration under the „Duo Infernale“ Joe Biden and Kamala Harris in Washington is not only articulating itself in a much more aggressive manner vis-à-vis Russia, China and Iran. Likewise, the most recent strategy papers of the relevant trans-Atlantic think tanks are becoming sharper, although not so intellectually. The most recent example is the new regime change-paper Russia After Putin: How to Rebuild the State, by the Atlantic Council of February 24th this year. None of the trouble spots ignited in the recent years has been defused in the meantime, whether in Donetsk or Luhansk in Eastern Ukraine, or whether in Libya or in Yemen (which can be seen as a surrogate battleground between US ally Saudi Arabia and Iran). Just as little has been resolved in the Syrian conflict, where US President Biden ordered an airstrike just recently. Following soon after, on March 16th, when Israel launched rockets of their own in Southern Syria. In addition, tensions between the USA and China – the latter of which has now undisputedly advanced to the stage of becoming a global superpower – are growing ever stronger. According to the South China Sea Strategic Situation Probing Initiative“ (SCSSPI), the US deployed aircraft carrier battle groups, amphibious assault ships, nuclear-powered submarines and B-52H and B-1B bombers to the South China Sea last year, and conducted exercises with two aircraft carrier groups twice in half a month in July 2020. The US has sent thousands of several types of spy planes over the South China Sea during its own operations in the region. This all undoubtedly goes far beyond a mere trade conflict.
Ending the Hydraulic Mindset
There are growing signs that the geo-political conflicts of interest are increasingly clashing irreconcilably. Given as a basis that nations – not least the demographically-threatened autochthonously diverse European ethnicities – should be able to enjoy their freedom (also in the collective sense, i.e. their conservative-traditionalist continuum of development), without any extra-continental heteronomy – be it under a global-imperialist Pax Americana or a Pax Sinica – then geo-politics should abandon the prevailing hydraulic way of thinking, which exclusively defines success in connection with the failure of the competitor. Geo-politics claiming to be sustainable should be discussed primarily in terms of whether they serve as a means leading to a clash of civilisations or in the service of cultural civilisations. True nationalism advocates the latter by pursuing a model of cultural areas along identity on an ethnic, self-determined basis. Occidental Europe should be an independent geo-political entity in such a multipolar world as sketched above, not according to the example of the dysfunctional deep state in Brussels, responsible for a maldevelopment that harbours the danger of losing the United Kingdom trans-Atlantically, and Russia to Asia.
Multipolarity Instead of Imperialism – Join Europa Terra Nostra for Geo-Political Change!