After the “crisis of the false Covid 19 pandemic” tested the ability of peoples, under the effect of fear induced by the means of mass communication, to give up freedom, as well as the potential of political power to limit civil rights without suffering the consequence of popular revolt, so that then the “war in Ukraine” divided humanity into a collective Western minority with claims to dominance in the name of a false moral superiority, and a global majority that refuses to accept domination, invoking even the precepts of morality preached by the former, the relative victory achieved in the USA, the country of the old “global gendarme” by the followers of national realism against the revolutionary globalists promoters of neo-Bolshevik internationalism, led to a paradigm shift in American foreign action, namely to the rediscovery of the usefulness of dialogue.

Chiar în aceste zile Președintele SUA, Donald Trump, dar și vicepreședintele Vance sau secretarul de stat Rubio, precum și trimișii lor speciali au făcut turnee în Orientul Mijlociu, în calitate de lideri ai Americii, iar nu de conducători ai lumii. În Arabia Saudită s-au întâlnit delegațiile SUA și Rusiei. Tot acolo, s-a purtat un dialog discret între americani și rebelii houthi din Yemen, prin care Washingtonul a încercat să asigure traficul liniștit al navelor sale comerciale prin Marea Roșie, fără să mai impună măsuri de protecție în favoarea protejatului său israelian. Cu sprijinul Omanului, au început discuții între SUA și Iran menite să rezolve tensiunile dintre acestea, în special cu privire la programul nuclear iranian; simultan, Casa Albă a refuzat sprijinul cerut de premierul israelian Benjamin Netanyahu, de a tăia cu sabia nodul iranian. Qatarul a fost și va rămâne un loc al dialogului inter-sirian. China și America încearcă să încurajeze Pakistanul și India a-și soluționa disputele teritoriale prin dialog. Turcia găzduiește negocieri directe ruso-ucrainene, Președintele Trump anunțând că este dispus să se alăture personal dialogului la momentul potrivit. 

In a world where international law and international institutions are in crisis, dialogue is important, because their crisis is the crisis of the international order and it is preferable to reach a new order based on a negotiated and agreed project, rather than going through a war that would make inevitable what today seems unacceptable. Unfortunately, we are experiencing the paradox that, although the crisis requires a new order and the new order requires dialogue, dialogue is increasingly difficult to carry out. Why? Because many of the creators and/or beneficiaries of the old order (called pax americana) reject dialogue and sabotage any alternative project in the hope that in this way it can be perpetuated.

The paradox of the last few days is that the protagonists of the EU (mainly France) or old allies of the US outside the EU (mainly Britain) have become more American than Americans and want to perpetuate the American global order even after the US administration has concluded that it has reached the limits of history and has decided to give up claiming the privileges of being its gendarme. The strategic irrelevance that the EU reached as soon as it decided to slavishly align itself with the rigors of American geopolitical aggression is now sought to be overcome by occupying the place left vacant with the end of the American occupation of Europe. Therefore, another paradox, while complaining about being excluded from the peace negotiations conducted by the US with Russia, the EU complains that these negotiations are taking place and does everything in its power to sabotage them, refusing dialogue.

Since the old order (with its good and bad) has died, the environment in which we live is one of international disorder. Disorder means war, and it is no wonder that in times of war we talk more about how to provoke or wage wars than about how to build peace. When the old order has died and the new one has not yet been born, it is the time of monsters; that is, the time of hatred, exclusion and death. The map of conflicts that continue to unfold in the year 2025 speaks for itself; from west to east and from north to south, we can identify: i. the drug war in Mexico and Colombia; ii. the post-colonial wars in the Sahel, West Africa and the African Great Lakes region; iii. the civil war in South Sudan; iv. the Euro-Atlantic West’s war with Euro-Asian Russia in Ukraine; v. the Zionist-Palestinian war in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria; vi. the cold war in the Persian Gulf involving primarily Iran but also Iraq, with extension to Yemen; vii. the territorial/geopolitical conflict in Kashmir between Pakistan and India; viii. the civil war in Myanmar. Added to these is the economic war between the US and China, as well as that between the US and Iran.

There is a prospect that these conflicts will evolve in the coming period, and not in the direction of their resolution. Ultimately, they all originate in the crisis or death of the old world order, in the exhaustion of the global superpower that kept the revolt against unipolarism, neo-imperialism and neo-colonialism frozen for a while, together with the refusal so far of this senile superpower, as well as affected by decadence and welfare chauvinism, to enter into the global dialogue necessary to build a new multipolar, inclusive, solidaristic, symmetrical and de-ideologized world order, in which the competition of interests is replaced by the solidarity of interests, the right of force is replaced by the force of law, the illusion of individual security is replaced by the reality of the indivisible character of security that imposes international solidarity as the only intelligent form of national egoism and the search for peace not by accumulating military power but by multiplying the means capable of offering collective security to all, including by resorting to cooperative security mechanisms.

If the basic rules of an authentic dialogue are those of the existence of at least two people and the good faith that characterises both, in this case the dialogue also requires abandoning the refusal to recognise the reality of the end of a historical cycle placed under the domination of Euro-Atlantic civilisation and getting rid of the fear of change (it is about changing the model of order based on the idea of ​​peace through force with the model of order based on the balance of development obtained by promoting common projects circumscribed by the solidarity of dynamic interests). Will President Donald Trump accept these rules? Will he allow the occult oligarchic power constituted in the underground American state to apply such rules? Practice will be the criterion of truth.

In this world, over which the hawks of war and the ravens of death fly, hope comes from the emergence of the structures of the new global order, whose main features I have outlined earlier. Such structures are BRICS+, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, the Chinese “Belt and Road” Initiative (in fact a project of historical scope and global interest) and others like it which, not coincidentally, have their origin and main domicile in Asia (or Eur-Asia). This confirms the fact that humanity is currently living in the “Asian Century”. After several European centuries and an American century, centuries in which the epicentre of world order was alternately in Europe and the USA, defining the rules of international relations in accordance with the values ​​specific to their culture and their geopolitical and geoeconomic interests, the time has come for Asia, that is, for Asian states, to offer their cultural and civilisational models for ensuring peace at a global level (peace means order) in a manner that would positively respond to their legitimate aspirations for security, prosperity and dignity.

The arguments that legitimise the thesis of the “Asian Century” are multiple and irrefutable. These include natural resources incomparably greater than those available to the Euro-Atlantic space (especially the EU states); demographic resources; territorial scope; cultural and educational resources; research and innovation capacities, both current and, especially, potential; contribution to the global gross domestic product; spirit of sacrifice and spiritual coherence; historical patience; superior strategic firmness and tactical adaptability; and last but not least, military potential.

The paradigm of the Asian multipolar order excludes fixed alliances of the Euro-Atlantic type, formed on the basis of the unity, uniqueness and permanence of “values” characteristic of a certain way of organizing society, alliances in opposition to those marked by other ideologies and guided by the need for absolute superiority in relation to others, in order to replace them with bilateral or multilateral partnerships with variable geometry, established on a project basis, depending on the concrete interests of the moment, defined according to the geographical variable and the need to maintain balances of power. If the logic of Euro-Atlantic neoliberalism transferred some of the state’s prerogatives to capital, which, on the one hand, led to the emergence of parastatal political actors, and, on the other hand, allowed capital, barely put at the service of the citizen by the national state, to take refuge, merge and act outside its control as an occult suprastate power freed from any social control, the aristocratic traditions of the Asian world resort to the instruments of illiberal sovereignty made available to meritorious national elites, in order to discipline global corporatism and impose its alignment with the agenda of political powers consolidated through federalization at the regional level. Eternal loyalties to the strongest ally are thus giving way to loyalty to one’s own nation’s interests, defined, however, in the context of global security considered indivisible, developed through cooperation and guaranteed by the symmetry of the centers of power coagulation. Signs of such trends are evident.

By Adrian Severin

www.corectnews.ro