Skip to Content

IERI chair Irnerio Seminatore, Screenshot from YouTube

Chisinau Forum: IERI chair addresses Eurasian challenge

University professor Irnerio Seminatore has been instrumental in the creation of the European Institute of International Relations. He shares his in-depth views on Eurasia's challenges.

Published: September 28, 2019, 11:45 am

    Read more

    Chisinau

    The European Institute of International Relations (Institut Européen des Relations Internationales IERI) is an independent research center, providing training and debates on major international issues. It was established in 1997. It’s areas of study and research cover different fields of international relations, including economic, political, strategic and security aspects.

     

    THE PRESENT INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM,

    FROM GLOBALISM TO MULTIPOLARITY

    Table of contents

    The system and situation

    The system and its levels of power

    Strategic movements and antinomies of alliances in Eurasia

    The multipolar system. „A global concert of nations” or „strengthened global governance”?

    From Europe to Eurasia. A change in geopolitical paradigms

    The decline of Hegemon. Hegemonic alternation or „systemic revolution”?

    To whom does the future belong? Planetary space, democracy and nationstates

    ********************

    System and situation

    The current international system, which includes the interstate system, global society and economic globalization, is characterized by a triple dynamic, of i) fragmentation, ii) polarization and iii) confrontation, with the latter translating into a reconfiguration of military alliances, given the risks of conflicts between China, the United States and Russia, faced with the Thucydides trap (G.Allison).

    These risks belong to the historical order and produce ambivalent politics of rivalry-partnership and antagonism. These politics are all about control of Eurasia and the Indo-Pacific Ocean Area, articulating the two complementary strategies of Heartland (1) and Rimland (2).
    The rivalries, which are now shaking many parts of the world, have forced the East and West to tighten their military alliances and to start looking for a new project to ensure security in Europe, and the strategic stability and unity of the European space.

    However, any attempt to define any regional order can be conceived today only in the perspective of a global planetary order and of the search for forms of planetary equilibrium and stability.

    It is by reference to the geopolitical and strategic triangulation of Russia, the United States and China and, in sub-order, of Europe, India and Japan, that the freedom of manoeuvre of the regional powers in the Middle East, the Gulf and Iran must be understood. It is here that one of the keys to the general strategy of the great powers lies.

    The system and its levels of power

    From an analytical viewpoint, the international system superimposes several levels of power:

    – the classical power poles, pluri-centric and virtually conflicting (America, Europe Russia, China, India ..)

    – a concealed global bipolarism, based on an asymmetric condominium (United States and China)

    – three major zones of influence, inspired by three civilizational areas, these being Europe, the United States and the Middle Kingdom.

    In this context, the big world stage becomes the setting for a multitude of strategies: universal for the United Nations, economic for the Bretton Woods institutions, and security and military through the system of regional alliances (NATO).

    The geopolitical uniqueness of the United States, the world’s largest island, is that it will be forced to come to terms with the vast expanse of Eurasia, the centre of gravity of history.

    Will America become a power pole among others, disputed, but still dominant?

    Strategic movements and antinomies of alliances in Eurasia

    In any international system, the decline of the hegemonic player is signalled by a tightening of military alliances. This moment presents itself as an antinomy of options between conservative powers („status quo”) and disruptive powers (revisionists or dissatisfieds).
    Today, the strategies of the major players on the world stage break down into, for the West, a defensive strategy of stabilization and active vigilance, and for the East, an offensive strategy of subversion and challenging the existing power hierarchy.

    Thus, in the current situation, two rival strategic movements are emerging at the planetary level:

    – the Sino-Russian alliance, aimed at ensuring the strategic autonomy of Heartland in the case of conflict, and promoting, in peacetime, intercontinental cooperation on major infrastructures (OBOR [One Belt One Road] with the participation of about 70 countries).

    – the strategy of „containment” of the continental powers by the maritime powers of „Rimland” (America, Japan, Australia, India, Europe, etc.), as a peninsular belt outside Eurasia

    Let us remember that both sides are in a situation of declared rivalry, with opposing strategic goals.

    Indeed, the Sino-Russian couple is defined as a „strategic competitor” or a „systemic competitor” (notably by the EU),a competitor refuses to submit to the international order resulting from the Second World War and designed by the United States.

    The multipolar system.”A global concert of nations” or „strengthened global governance”?

    The fundamental characteristic of the multipolar system is that it is not based on globalization, in the form of „strengthened world governance”, with multilateral institutions (UN, IMF, G7, or G20), complementing the U.S. system, and aimed at integrating their member states into a global cooperative game. The multipolar system seeks rather to identify the essential interests of the main players, whose objectives are virtually conflictual.
    Thus the aim is not to identify equilibriums, based on the concepts of exchange and cooperation, but to predict strategic breaks, beneath the surface of apparent stabilization.

    From Europe to Eurasia. A change in geopolitical paradigms

    Thus the end of bi-polarity, with the collapse of the Soviet empire, has generated a source of tension, between the centrifugal efforts of the neighbouring states, the „near foreigners”, seeking to free themselves from the imperial centre, and the opposite reaction of Moscow, keen to regain its authority on the periphery through a series of enveloping alliances. (CSTO, SCO)

    Russia and all the nations of Central Asia as far as the Gulf, Middle East and Maghreb countries lack leaders who have experienced democracy. The European Union in turn has, for the purpose of influence and control of tensions, no clear geographic-strategic concept of Heartland, which starts on the Mediterranean rim, and includes the Turkish plateau and the Caucasus, before arriving at the pivotal land area of Central Asia.

    It is to the Atlantic Alliance that has been devolved the vocation of welding the geopolitical interest of the West, in this vast expanse between America and Europe.

    The „decline of Hegemon”.Hegemonic alternation or „systemic revolution”?

    The question that emerges from the debate about the role of the United States in the current situation is whether the „hegemonic stability” (R. Gilpin) which has been guaranteed for seventy years by America is in the process of disappearing, leading to the decline of Hegemon and Western civilization, or if we are confronted with hegemonic alternation and a post-imperial world.

    The accompanying and equally central question can be formulated thus: „What form will this transition take?”

    Will it take the already familiar form of a series of conflicts, one leading to another, according to the model of Raymond Aron, based on a reading of the twentieth century, or will it take the form of an overall change of civilization, of the idea of society and of the figure of man, following the Strausz-Hupé model of „systemic revolutions”, marked by four great revolutionary periods in history, embracing the universe of the socio-political relations of the western world and covering the large and well-known civilizational areas.

    Each of you will understand that this is our own question, that of our time and our forum.

    To whom does the future belong?Planetary space, democracy and nation-states

    In an interdependent environment, nations that have been shaped as nationstates and civilization states will progress. These nations have sustainable configurations, with a basis of political stability, whether traditional or modern, and of geographical and environmental coherence which have allowed them to affirm themselves throughout history and which will today ensure their survival.

    Philosophically and strategically, the new approach to the historical process will be systemic, pluralistic and complex, antithetical to the dialectical and universalizing method of Western Hegelianism.

    Today, the undersides of History are revealing the bitter disappointments of a crisis of the legitimacy of democracies, of conceptions of the rule of law and of universal rights, guilty of pulling apart the intimate relationship between the universal and the individual in favour of concepts and visions of the world which lack transcendence, paving the way for the revolt of tradition and the past as authentic forms of historicity.
    Against this background, an enlargement of the „democratic model” appears, in its abstract form, as the expression of a utopian vision of History, clashing with a messianic interpretation of the historical world.

    In this analogy, tradition and traditional societies testify to the expression of other forms of „historicity”, indifferent to the idea of rationalism, doubt and „democracy”, apart, that is, from their cosmopolitan, libertarian and non-organic layers, which are in any case excluded from public office.

    To interpret democracy as a „model” is also to deny the fact that political regimes evolve according to their own laws, or according to their own historical individuality, which is in Europe sovereignist or stato-national.

    Brussels, 11 September 2019

    (1) Heartland, „The Geographical Pivot of History”, 1904, Halford Mackinder
    (2) Rimland, the sea border of Eurasia, or „inner crescent”, the geostrategic concept of Nicholas Johan Spykman.

    Text prepared for presentation at the „Third Chisinau Forum”, 20 and 21 September 2019

    Consider donating to support our work

    Help us to produce more articles like this. FreeWestMedia is depending on donations from our readers to keep going. With your help, we expose the mainstream fake news agenda.

    Keep ​your language polite​. Readers from many different countries visit and contribute to Free West Media and we must therefore obey the rules in​,​ for example​, ​Germany. Illegal content will be deleted.

    If you have been approved to post comments without preview from FWM, you are responsible for violation​s​ of​ any​ law. This means that FWM may be forced to cooperate with authorities in a possible crime investigation.

    If your comments are subject to preview ​by FWM, please be patient. We continually review comments but depending on the time of day it can take up to several hours before your comment is reviewed.

    We reserve the right to del​ete​ comments that are offensive, contain slander or foul language, or are irrelevant to the discussion.

    • LuciusAnnaeusSeneca

      Kudos to Free West Media for covering IERI’s Chisinau Forum, and its third anti-globalism conference. It is time for the international community to start thinking about what will come after the EU, and how the EU will finally collapse. The bizarre path followed by the EU since the early 1990s has many lessons for our world, as well as any future generation of thinkers on internationalism. And it is important to consider the EU as a case study for what never to have happen again in terms of an international organization. Its ancestral organization began as a necessary, beneficial, economic consortium, and it has ended up as a many-tentacled leftist-globaist monster that seeks to impose a unitary “European” state on the continent while promoting mass migration, the destruction of member country sovereignty, and the end of Western culture and civilization.

    Europe

    Everything in the EU is being done for the benefit of migrants

    BrusselsIn a speech given in the European Parliament by Silvia Sardone, an Italian MEP for the League Party, she said Europe’s priority remains focused on migrants: Housing and jobs for those who illegally disembark in the EU.

    The elephant in the room: The deadly flu epidemic of 2017/2018

    Covid-19 is undoubtedly a dangerous virus from which the aged with previous illnesses as well as younger people can die in exceptional cases. But the coercive measures ordered by globalist politicians in Europe override the basic rights of citizens, ruin the economy and by extension the livelihoods of large swathes of the population.

    ‘Identitarians are patriots who defend their country in a very hostile environment’

    ParisOn a daily news analysis programme of the French television channel CNews, commentator Eric Zemmour described the Identitarian movement as a heroic patriotic group. "The Identitarians are patriots who defend their country valiantly and in a very hostile environment." FWM provides some background on the raging debates in the country.

    Protests against strict new Covid measures seen across Europe

    CopenhagenThe Danish parliament was besieged by protesters for nine days in opposition to the proposed “vaccination law”, which would allow the police to “physically coerce vaccination through detainment”. These new “emergency powers” alongside new lockdown measures, have led to various protests across Europe.

    Two French Catholic schools on high alert after jihadist threats

    Le BouscatSeveral colleges in the small town of Bouscat in Gironde have been the target of jihadist threats, for the second time in a week.

    Armenian soldier speaks to FWM: ‘Stabbed in our backs’

    YerevanArthur Danielyan is leader of the Armenian opposition movement “Adekvat”. He volunteered in the Nagorno Karabakh war. In an exclusive interview with FWM he speaks about the recent political turmoil in Armenia and the agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Danielyan was previously detained by the Armenian police for his political activity. This interview was conducted right after his release.

    France: Worrying drop in educational level in ‘difficult’ areas

    ParisThe French Ministry of National Education has communicated the results of assessments on the educational level of students. It was carried out at the start of the school year. Students in "priority" education were the most affected by the Coronavirus confinement. But the ideological climate has also been deteriorating.

    Nagorno-Karabakh: Armenian press evokes Soros’ funding

    MoscowRussia, Armenia and Azerbaijan issued a joint statement on the cessation of hostilities in Nagorno-Karabakh. The ceasefire came into force on Monday. Once again, the presence of George Soros has been a point of contention.

    Massive terrorist attack shakes Austrian capital Vienna

    ViennaFederal Chancellor Sebastian Kurz (ÖVP) condemned the terrible events on Monday evening in downtown Vienna as a “disgusting terrorist attack” that was “very professionally prepared”.

    Swedish government prepares measures that could bring fresh immigration wave

    StockholmIn Sweden, Isabella Lövin (Greens) and Migration Minister Morgan Johansson (Social Democrats) announced at a press conference last month that there would be new measures included in the Migration Committee's previous proposal. If the Riksdag approves this proposal, it could mean a new large influx of migrants. 

    Go to archive