This report is not a finalized set of provisions in the field of humanities and, above all, political science and international relations, but a critical theory that is built on the analysis and long-term observation of the system of international relations with its contradictions, internal conflicts and imperfections that are inherent in any human communities. We can say that this theory, that is, speculative judgment, is tested and respected listeners in your person can draw conclusions on this matter, express their comments and constructive suggestions. Perhaps the subsequent discussions will help to outline additional paths and identify those levels that should be worked out in more detail to finally put points on the “and” and the proposed theoretical model would help to move along the path to a more equitable multipolar world order.
In our opinion, the key problem of modern international relations is that a certain Western model is being imposed all over the world, which has not withstands the test of time, as evidenced by numerous crises and conflicts. It is called “the order based on the rules”, although opponents rightly claim that these rules were formulated by the West itself in its own interests. Although it is assumed that this model is based on the Bretton Woods system, which dates back to 1944, in fact its origins are much earlier and go to the Age of Enlightenment.
As a result, despite a number of theories, some of which are recognized throughout the world and have an outwardly balanced approach, the West lacks a deep understanding of the strategic thinking of the Global South and the Global East. This applies to the main theoretical areas on which direct practices are based on their work, whether political advisers or decision-makers. It is liberalism and realism in international relations, but also constructivism and Marxism, not to mention the emergence of extravagant postmodern theories. We are now talking about theories of international relations, although this is true in relation to the theories of law, public administration, politics and economics – they are largely the product of Western civilization, which, if it allowed the ideas of other civilizations and cultures, then, as a rule, exposed them to vulgar interpretation and simplification.
It is also important to note the current inclusion of religious components in international politics, which indicates the failure of the Westphalian system, based on the division of the principles of religion and politics, another achievement of Western civilization, implemented in the global agenda. In recent years, the growth of political Islam in the region from North Africa to South Asia has become more than obvious. At the same time, “the Muslim view of reality, which is a metaphysical contemplation of the visible and invisible world, including a view of life as a whole, has nothing to do with a worldview, which consists of a set of artificially collected objects, values and phenomena” 11 that can be attributed to secular politics. Ideally, religion and politics should be in a single continuum and represent a whole. Since this does not happen, in the current situation, clear links are formed between secular politics and religion, and this phenomenon is dangerous. As Jean-Claude Milner argued, there are conceivably knits between rebellion and thought, and there are obviously thoughts with material effects.2
The reference to political Islam was made to emphasize the most major conflicts in recent years, related to it – in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. But the same can be said about other religious traditions and cultures with all their diversity. At the same time, when considering cultures (political, ethical, religious), different from one’s own or close in a number of ways, there is necessarily an effect of the ethnocenter (division into one’s own and others), and the object we consider may change depending on the perceived position of the observer.
Before we consider in more detail these nuances in the modern geopolitical context, let’s ask ourselves – which is one of the key engines of human societies and political associations? There are different views on this issue. However, no one will deny that fear is one of the primary emotions that plays an important role in determining how individuals, groups, tribes, and states influence the choices and actions of human organizations
And fear is closely related and intertwined with culture, identity, symbolic politics, rationality, and emotions that make up the core of human motivation. Well-known philosophers who have meditated on politics, one way or another, often talk about fear. And in the twentieth century, the internal and foreign policies of many states, including the United States and the Soviet Union, were founded on fear.
According to Hobbes, in its natural state, life is conditioned by the fear of violent death, and in order to avoid it, a state-Leviathan is necessary, which makes life safer, but still filled with fear. Instead of being afraid of sudden death in a situation of bellum omnium contra omnes – the war of all against all – man is now afraid of the state that will punish him for disobedience, and this fear of the power of the state becomes a means of overcoming the fear of sudden and violent death. In fact, a person changes fear and uncertainty about fear and confidence.
Obviously, over the past centuries, which from time to time were filled with optimism of the Enlightenment, the thesis of Immanuel Kant about the eternal world, the failure of Francis Fukuyama’s hypothesis about the end of history during the beginning of the unipolar hegemony of the United States and even the pathos of anti-globalization movements around the world during this period, fear remains the engine of world politics. Moreover, the technologies that were counting on representatives of various ideological trends as some persuasives of fear have become a kind of animators of fear. To the various phobias characteristic of the twentieth century, such as unemployment, man-made disasters and the threat of war, the fear of terrorism, the power of corporations, the uprising of machines with the help of artificial intelligence, cyber attacks, biological warfare and artificial epidemics (which was demonstrated by the coronavirus epidemic in 2020), manipulation of social networks and social engineering, global warming, water scarcity and food. Some of them have very real reasons.
The vision of solving these problems differs in a number of attitudes – from political affiliation to the geopolitical habitat of habitat and civilizational identity. The perception of the world as a common heritage and a single family, where it is possible to jointly solve current problems and respond quickly to current challenges and possible future threats, is now perceived as a utopia. While the main section takes place between the collective West, which is trying to defend its own “rules-based order” and the Global South and Global East, where a group of countries is trying to shape a more equitable global world order based on the principles of mutual respect, sovereignty and multipolarity, the problem is deeper and larger.
For example, take the term “Fukidid’s trap” that is widely used by American authors to describe growing contradictions between the United States and China.4 4The original setting is that the fear of the growth of the power of Athens and the spread of their influence and regional hegemony inspired Sparta with the inevitability of war, which soon followed and ended with the defeat of Athens. Graham Allison interpreted this in the modern context as the possibility of a future war of China as a developing power on the rise with the United States, which is the dominant power and hegemon.
However, Thucydides, as probably the first well-known author, who mentioned fear as one of the drivers of the political life of the ancient policies, described the causes of the Peloponnesian war between Greek cities, belonging to a single culture where there were common values and traditions, including philosophical and metaphysical attitudes and religious beliefs. While the United States and China represent completely different peoples and traditions, including war and political decision-making. For example, we can take the issue of human rights, which are extremely important for Western discourse. At a meeting held in Moscow a few years ago, a Chinese professor quite succinctly explained why China has a different view of this topic. He said that the concept of human rights arose on the basis of the theme of the Enlightenment that God created all people equal. But in China there is no concept of God as such, so from the point of view of the Chinese tradition, people cannot be equal to each other. And they do not recognize the Western doctrine of human rights. At the same time, China has never declared its own racial superiority, but, on the contrary, there were cases in history when the Chinese were under strong oppression and humiliation of Western civilization. And, of course, there are still a number of serious differences in the worldview, which are associated with deep historical traditions.
The same can be said about other countries and regions to which the West project its own vision, including the solution of local problems. Hence the expected failure of the negotiation process on Palestine, which was overseen for many years by the United States and the UN, and the problem of the divided Kashmir, which has not been solved for decades, and the inevitability of the failure of American troops in Afghanistan, and future sacrifices in Syria and, of course, the escalation of the Ukrainian crisis, which was provoked by Western arrogance.
In addition to fear, the resetyant is of great importance in Western politics. We can recall the historical rivalry of European powers (including in the struggle for colonies in Asia, Africa and the New World), the Napoleonic Wars, Hitler’s coming to power in Germany and his desire to take revenge for the results of the Treaty of Versailles, which led to the Second World War. In the United States, the resentimant was inherent from the very beginning – from the Boston Tea Party, which led to the declaration of independence from the British crown to the zeal to the Soviet revolution because of the real democratic transformations that began to be implemented under the rule of the Bolsheviks. As the American historian Gordon S pointed out. Wood “The Cold War actually began in 1917. The USSR threatened nothing more than the displacement of the United States from the standpoint of the avant-garde of history. Now the Russians, not the Americans, claimed to point the way to the future.”5
And, of course, the resentitude of Washington in relation to Cuba is more than obvious, and in the rhetoric of Donald Trump to Greenland, Canada, the Panama Canal and the Gulf of Mexico, we see nothing more than the manifestation of the deep impulses of the US power and psychological contours with the doctrine of predetermined fate and the idea of world superiority.
Although the resentment is directly related to delayed revenge, as noted by the French philosopher Renee Girard, it itself occurs because of non-recognition.6 For this reason, the resentment arises wherever different cultures meet, especially those claiming historical uniqueness.
Resentism is a companion of fear, which is included in the system of international relations and its main theories. In liberalism and neoliberalism, there is a fear of war and fear of anarchy or chaos in international relations. In realism, the fear of changing the balance of power, that is, that the other power will become stronger and it will be necessary to obey it to one degree or another. But also in Marxism we see an element of fear, it is now from the bourgeoisie, which fears the proletariat. This concept was described by Adam Smith, but Karl Marx made it a kind of imperative.
As a response to this potential challenge to its well-being and status quo, the theorists of bourgeois capitalism in the West have developed the theory of the middle class, which has no means of production, depends on the owners of the means of production, but its living conditions are quite comfortable, so it will not seek revolt and revolution. Next there is the theory of economic development and the concept of dependence, which is projected on the countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America. At the same time, the United States proclaims the concept of the first, second and third worlds as industrialized countries, partially developed countries and developing countries. What is really nothing more than open discrimination on a global geopolitical scale! And the problem is that even the critics of the capitalist system and neoliberalism, which refer to the Global East and the Global South, continue to use these terms. Instead of developing adequate theoretical models and implementing them in practice. This is evidence of intellectual and scientific colonization by the mentioned self-styled first world in the face of the collective West.
Now we are returning to the problem of not recognizing, not understanding and rejection characteristic of Western political thinking, but through its dissemination of the existing effect and on the entire world system.
As an explanation of this position of the West, which claims to be universality through its institutions and the so-called “rules-based order,” and with reference to the already mentioned antiquity, I propose to use the Greek term parallusk (παράλλαξις – deviation), which is used in astronomy. In simple terms, it is a change in the visible position of the object relative to the remote background, depending on the position of the observer. In other words, the same object can be viewed differently and see it differently. This approach is used in the political theory of the frame, when the same object or phenomenon can be represented and shown in different ways, depending on the focus, primary data and the task. In the media industry, such an effect with appropriate directing can be used to manipulate public opinion.
And this effect in international relations is proposed to be called a geopolitical parallax. Since the current era is characterized by a transition from a unipolar world to multipolar 7, this transformation gives an additional etymological justification (the Greek word παράλλαύις comes from παραλλαγή which means “change, alternation”).
Geopolitical parallax, in this case, is an observation of another actor of international relations through the prism of its own strategic culture, as well as indicators of the economy, politics, demography and military power. Graham Allison assessed the rise of China from such a position, relying on the theory of balance of power and the theory of realism in international relations. Therefore, its phobias tend to be transmitted to others, which similarly assess the growth of the power of their neighbors or, conversely, reflect on their decline. This is not the Thucydid trap, it is the optical effect of geopolitical parallax, which ignores Allison and similar scientists.
However, if we objectively and responsibly approach the analysis of the international situation and try to adequately understand the motivation and actions of other actors, we must necessarily take into account the geopolitical parallax in order to make the necessary adjustments and correctly assess both our own and foreign positions and the existing potential.
The etymology of the term parallax forces us to make another remark. This is a time context or what is commonly called the term chronopolitics. Since the policy of any state is in constant motion, the factor of correct perception of the actions of another actor is also important. Just as the situation of the object is changing in relation to the general background and place of the observer, the various speed regimes in States and political associations indicate that the assessment scale and standards must be constantly adjusted. Databases with existing models of analysis and methodologies are rapidly becoming obsolete, while it remains only to rely on predicting trends, and not a real course of action by numerous actors of international relations. Both the existing international treaties and the existence of the UN institution do not give any guarantees, which objectively showed the crisis in Palestine.
Another aspect related to time is its very perception. According to Aristotle, there is a certain goal-setting, teleology that leads us along a certain path. Do we take the goals and that path? What is the appropriate criterion in this regard? Where is the place for the past, the future and the present? How do you take it all into integrity? Sometimes excessive optimism about the future is noticeable, you can often find retrograde motives about the “golden age”. It is seen that only a holistic approach that includes the past, present and future will give a more correct understanding of the goal. In other words, a political strategy, although it may have short-term, medium- and long-term plans, should come from its own positioning in relation to eternity. And not in an abstract sense, but through the coordination of care for future generations.
If we have an understanding of the effect of the geopolitical parallax, then the next step is how to overcome fear and the Resetype in international relations? Obviously, this is necessary, since any world held by these two emotions will be short-lived and fragile.
To achieve the unity of the worldview and political empathy, we must think about how we look at each other, as we see and evaluate the behavior of others, but to our own kind. American anthropologist William Sumner coined the term “ethnocentrism”, implying that all societies are divided into “us-group” and “e-group” – and this thesis is often used in the analysis of modern conflicts. It is likely that such an idea could be born in the United States was not an accident, and José Martí often made similar conclusions from his observations, being inside this country.
The fundamental point of view is the position of the Russian ethnographer and traveler Nikolai Miklouho-Maclay, who in polemics with European scientists proved that there are no worse and better peoples. Miklouho-Maclay was the discoverer of New Guinea and introduced the method of “included observation”, that is, the need for life among the peoples that are the object of research. Thus, the researcher becomes part of society, the subject, as it were, enters the object.
At the same time, you need to remember the law of darkness, which says that it is impossible to 100% understand the object being studied.
At the same time, we are talking not only about the diversity of peoples, but also political systems, which makes the task more difficult. Moreover, some political systems are agents of neoliberal hegemony, which claims global importance, and is trying to achieve this in two ways. One way is to suppress and control, including military interventions, as we see as the U.S. invasion of Iraq. The second way is to reach the agreement that Antonio Gramschi spoke of, and this consent can be achieved indirectly through cultural, identification, ideological and other instruments, ultimately leading to a universal formula for the distribution of capital and dependence on the supranational institutions of the Bretton Woods project.
If we follow the dichotomy of the unipolarity of the hegemony of the United States and its satellites on the one hand, and the multipolarity of the countries advocating for sovereign development on the other, we will come to the following scheme. If the neoliberal order in its actions follows a pair of suppression-consent, then in a multipolar camp there is an agreement-dissenting couple. On the one hand, such a statement looks paradoxical. However, according to Hegel’s dialectic, apparently, we are now in the final phase of unity and the struggle of opposites, where they (types of struggle) are now most manifested in a variety of spheres and regions. Therefore, such a paradox should not surprise.
If, with neoliberal unipolarity, in general, there is a fairly clear understanding of the reasons for criticizing such a model, including Western theories, let’s take a closer look at the couple of consent and disagreement on a multipolar model. Herein, the agreement is somewhat different from the historical pact mentioned by Gramsha, as well as the neoliberal method, and lies in the importance of protecting one’s own sovereignty and recognition of the rights of other countries to their own unique path of development and political governance, which are based on the cultural traditions of this people or peoples. Disagreement is the other party to this agreement, when we do not recognize the neoliberal model as a guiding star, and when consensus is maintained on mutual respect for interests and values, it is not necessary to completely separate them. For example, I, as a Russian person professing Orthodox Eastern Christianity, I cannot follow the Vatican’s dogmas, which are adhered to by people of the Catholic faith living in Cuba and in Latin America. However, we can interact in political, cultural, scientific and technical fields for the common good. We may disagree with traditional community-based decision-making practices, such as a palaver in Africa or Jirga in the Pashtuns of Afghanistan and Pakistan, when these methods are offered to practice us. But we agree that they have the right to exist in their historical environment and their transformation or adaptation must be held organically, in accordance with the needs of societies and the challenges of the era.
Multipolar dissent is a kind of positive freedom, which gives, on the one hand, the potential for creative self-expression, but also a huge responsibility on the other, including the scope of action. The responsibility must be backed by knowledge. Therefore, the solution of the current misunderstandings and conflicts is seen in a radical change in the education system and the adoption of a new international legal model, along with the active role of non-Western international organizations and associations such as BRICS.
As a practical solution, I would like to give a concrete example that is being implemented in Russia. On the basis of the Russian State Humanitarian University, there is a Higher Political School, which is engaged in the reorganization of the complex of humanities. This training and scientific center was established on the initiative of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education and has been working for the second year at the federal level.
The activities of the Higher Political School are aimed at the full and comprehensive introduction of the basics of state policy in the system of higher education and science to preserve and strengthen traditional Russian spiritual and moral values and the conceptual justification of the civilizational identity of Russia.
The main activities of this center are:
development and implementation of a new approach (a new socio-humanitarian paradigm) in the domestic teaching of humanitarian and social disciplines based on Russian civilizational identity and traditional Russian spiritual and moral values;
- professional retraining of employees of educational organizations of higher education responsible for carrying out educational work and youth policy; In other words, the work received is transferred to colleagues throughout the country, where representatives of other universities and academies at the level of rectors and deputy rectors undergo retraining and advanced training.
- scientific and methodological support of activities to form a harmoniously developed, patriotic and socially responsible person on the basis of traditional Russian spiritual, moral and cultural and historical values.
At the same time, when preparing proposals for the introduction of new educational and scientific programs and methodologies, those gaps that existed due to the dominance of the Western-centric point of view in the sciences are replenished. In other words, the resulting vacuum that arises when revising and abandoning the neoliberal paradigm, is filled more qualitatively and comprehensively, the philosophical thought and original experience of the countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America is studied. Therefore, focusing not only on traditional Russian values, but also on a deeper knowledge of the world. And I am convinced that this will help to overcome the distortions caused by geopolitical parallax.
The experience of the Higher Political School can be useful in other countries and scaled internationally.
Of course, for a more complete picture, we need to analyze similar examples in other BRICS countries and partners of this association. And then there is a synthesis of better experiences that could be applied on a global scale. Humanitarian and intellectual cooperation should be more profound than formal treaties and exchange of views. The sanctions of the West against the countries of the multipolar club – Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, Iran, the Democratic People’s Republic, partly China, show that unipolar hegemony is interested not only in economic suppression, but also in excluding alternative opinions and theories, so that all humanitarian processes are analyzed through the tools of the collective West, passed through certain limits and tamed by the capitalist neoliberal system.
Including for this reason, we need to intensify our joint efforts. And this site in Havana, like others around the world, is extremely important for promoting this agenda. As Fiedel Castro said, “We will continue to gather together, we will continue to fight, we will continue to proclaim our truths to the world.”8
In conclusion, I would like to note that we understand the concern of the Government and people of Cuba about the actions of the United States, both throughout the history of the struggle for independence and after the victory of the Cuban Revolution, and in the light of recent events. In the prism of geopolitical parallax, this country is a huge giant that hangs over Cuba and tries to obscure other actors of international relations. However, do not forget that in another part of the world there is no less a giant country – your friend and partner, and together we can do a lot to restore peace. As Fidel Castro said in the same building at the closing of the world conference of the dialogue of civilizations on March 20, 2005 in relation to Russia – “we must all unite, conduct a dialogue between the defenders of civilization.”9
1 Seyd Muhammad NAquib al-Attas. Prolegomena to the Metaphysics of Islam. Kuala Lumour: ISTAC, 1995.
2 Jean-Claude Miller. Constats. Paris: Verdier, 1999.
3 Muqtedar Khan and Isa Haskologlu. Fear as Driver of International Relations, E-IR, Sep 2 2020. https://www.e-ir.info/20/20/20/02/02/fear-and-driver-of-international-relations/
4 Graham Allison. Destited for War: Can America and China Escape Thucyddes’s Trap? Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2017.
5 Gordon S. Wood. The Idea of Anerica. Reflections on the Birth of the United States. The Penguin Press, 2011. R. 406.
6 Rene Girard. Achever Clausewitz. Entretines avec Benoit Chantre. Carnets Nord, 2007. P. 125.
7 Leonid Savin. Ordo Plurisalis: The End Of Pax Americana And The Rise Of Multipolarity London: Black House Publishing, 2020.
8 Fidel ante los problem del Mundo Contemporaneo. Discursos de Fidel Castro Ruz: 1959-2016. Centro Fidel Castro Ruzu/Manu Pineda. La Habana: Atrapasuenos, 2023. P. 429.
9 Fidel ante los problem del Mundo Contemporaneo. Discursos de Fidel Castro Ruz: 1959-2016. Centro Fidel Castro Ruzu/Manu Pineda. La Habana: Atrapazuenos, 2023. p. 699.