Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘Nikolai von Kreitor’

NATO and the Architects of the American Lebensraum (Nikolai von Kreitor)

Friday, August 30th, 2002

American Blueprint for World Hegemony

It was John O’Sullivan who in 1845 formulated the concept of American Lebensraum – the Manifest Destiny Doctrine. He coined the term to signify the mission of the United States “to overspread the continent allotted by Providence for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions.”(1) For Josiah Strong, the American missionary imperialist par excellence, the Manifest Destiny had geopolitical destination—the creation of a world empire. The America would be the greatest of all empires. “Other nations would bring their offerings to the cradle of the young empire of the West , as they had once taken their gifts to the cradle of Jesus.”(2) Since the destiny and its destination were preordained by God , Americans possessed supreme title to space, preempting and superseding the right of others. Combined with the Monroe Doctrine, the theological rationale of the Manifest Destiny Doctrine provided an almost evangelical explanation of the geopolitical manifest design to conquer and subjugate space, first the whole Western Hemisphere and then, beginning with the war against Spain in 1898, the whole world. As Carl Schmitt has pointed out, in 1898 USA embarked on a war against Spain and latter against the world which has not ended yet. In this context the American war against Yugoslavia is only a continuation of the one hundred years war which the United States began in 1898.

In the history of the United States the expansionist impulse has been as powerful as religion. The continuity of American expansionist war aims since the time of the Manifest Destiny Doctrine has been the most predominant feature of American foreign policy in which the three components of American expansionist Weltanschauung confluence: The Manifest Destiny Doctrine – the theological component – conquest preordained by God and Providence to carry the will of the Almighty, and subsequently, conquest to establish democracy or in the interests of democracy or mankind, The Monroe Doctrine –the geopolitical component and the Open Door Doctrine —the economical component.

It was at the end of the last century that the intellectual foundations of the American geopolitical doctrine were formulated by Frederick Jackson Turner, Brooks Adams, admiral Mahan, and its implementation begun by Theodore Roosevelt and subsequently Woodrow Wilson. The geopolitical concepts advanced by Frederick Jackson Turner, Brooks Adams and admiral Mahan “became a world view, an expansionist Weltanschauung for subsequent generation of Americans and … important to understand America’s imperial expansion in the twentieth century,” writes the noted American historian William Williams. The policies of American Lebensraum, called “Open-Door” imperialism, and the enlargement of the American empire through expansion of the perimeter of the Monroe Doctrine, is the explanation of America’s foreign policy during this century, including the present policies of NATO expansion, assertion of American preponderance of power over the whole Eurasia and the war against Yugoslavia.

The architects of the American Lebensraum provided also the rationale for NATO. NATO as a geopolitical construct is firmly anchored in the “Frontier thesis” of the American expansionist foreign policy, appearing as a function and instrument of the Atlantic Grossraum, as envisioned by Turner, Adams and Mahan. Or as Senator Tom Connally stated: “the Atlantic Pact is the logical extension of the Monroe Doctrine”. The creation of the NATO signified the extension of the Monroe doctrine to Europe – Europe would become for the United States another Latin America, points out the American historian Stephen Ambrose. (3)

Frederick Jackson Turner’s main concept was that America’s uniqueness was the product of an expanding frontier. He defined American historical existence as perpetual geopolitical expansion toward new frontiers in the West. “The existence of an area of free land , its continuous recession , and the advance of American settlement westward explains the American development”(4) The “universal disposition of the Americans”, an “expanding people, is to enlarge their dominion” and that the ongoing geopolitical enlargement “is the actual result of an expansive power which is inherent in them”(5), claimed Turner. Thus American history is a history of “continually advancing frontier line…The frontier is the line of most rapid and effective Americanization…Movement has been its dominant, and …the American energy will continually demand a wider field for its exercise”(6)

“The other idea ( in the American imperialist Weltanschauung) is the thesis of Brooks Adams that America’s uniqueness could be preserved only by a foreign policy of expansionism.”(7) Adams idea was calculated to preserve Turner’s explanation of American past and project it into the future. “Taken together, the ideas of Turner and Adams supplied American empire builders with an overview and explanation of the world, and a reasonably specific program of action from 1893 to 1953”, points out William Williams. “Expansion was the catechism by this young messiah of America’s uniqueness and omnipotence…Turner gave Americans a nationalistic world view that eased their doubts… and justified their aggressiveness.”(8) Turner, looking at the American past , saw in the final conquest of West the realization of Manifest Destiny in the Western Hemisphere. Adams saw the coming new frontier – the whole world. His mondial vision was inevitable leading to a one world empire—the American World Empire, not plurality of Grossraüme or Panregions, as envisioned by Carl Schmitt or general Haushofer.

Brooks Adams’ The Law of Civilization and Decay(9) (1895) was “a frontier thesis for the world.”(10) He propounded a policy of aggressive expansionism designed to make Asia an economic colony, allowing America to acquire a large new frontier in Asia. Essentially the conquest of Eurasia was commenced then. “One even reissued his foreign policy recommendations of the 1890’s as a guide for the United States in the Cold War,”(11) points out William Williams. In his book “American Empire”(12) (1911) Brooks Adams envisioned the coming of the American world empire and the conquest of all Eurasian geopolitical space. Theodore Roosevelt’s, and Woodrow Wilson’s interpretation of the westward movement as a civilizing conquest of Eurasia was influenced by the works of Turner and Adams. Adams” use economic and military power to expand the frontier of the United States westward”(13)

Brooks Adam’s expansionist design was the foundation of American foreign policy —expansionism first in Asia, then in Europe. “Wilson relied extensively on Turner’s frontier thesis in presenting his own interpretation of American history” ‘All I ever wrote on the subject came from him’”, pointed Woodrow Wilson.(14) Borrowing from the vocabulary of the Manifest Destiny Doctrine – Wilson’s slogan “World safe for democracy” – meant in reality world safe for policies of American Lebensraum. As William’s adds ” even more than in the case of Theodore Roosevelt, the policies of Woodrow Wilson and subsequently Franklin Delano Roosevelt were classic Turneris.(15) Turner’s frontier thesis made democracy (i.e. American dominion ) a function of an expanding frontier.” F.D. Roosevelt has always been …a Turnean in foreign policy…Roosevelt ‘s Turnerism was meanwhile blended with the realpolitik of Adams.” (16)

Woodrow Wilson was the first who gave a glimpse of the coming American world hegemony. Already conceiving Great Britain subjugated by the United States and thus John Bull transformed to an obedient servant of the overseas Atlantic Master, Adams saw the main enemy in continental Europe.

“The acceleration of movement, which is thus concentrating the strong, is so rapidly crushing the weak that the moment seems at hand when two great competing systems will be pitted against each other, and the struggle for survival will begin…Whether we like it or not , we are forced to compete for the seat of international exchange, or, in other worlds, for the seat of empire…..Our adversary (France, Germany and Russia) is deadly and determined…If we yield before him , he will stuffle us” (17)

Economic supremacy, claimed Adams, was the basis for all power (18). Free trade and economic internationalism i.e. international economy under American control, was the key to world domination. “Adams argued that the United States must take an increasingly large role in policing the world order. “Economic (and moral) power had to be translated into military power if America was to have, as Franklin D. Roosevelt (influenced by Adams) put it, its “rendezvous with destiny”.(19) Adams American Economic Supremacy (20)(1900) was the old handbook for American empire builders.

Childs writing in 1945 pointed out: “If Adams had written last year, for publication this year, he would have had to alter scarcely anything to relate his views to the world of today”(21). The same is true for the period after 1991. The father of containment George Kennan , in explaining and defending the policy of containment, mentioned Adam’s as one of the small number of American’s who had recognized the proper basis of foreign policy…Kennan’s analysis and argument was in many respects similar to that of Adams.”(22) The Truman Doctrine was a classic example of the Frontier Thesis designed to facilitate American expansionism, and in one speech Truman called it “The American Frontier”.

“By the end of W.W.II , American leaders were thinking even more explicitly within the pattern evolved in the 1890s.”(23) “Like a good many aspect of 20th century American history, the military definition of the world was a direct product of the frontier-expansionist outlook.(24)

Admiral Mahan provided the earliest rationale for NATO. “Expressing himself in a menacing and efficient attitude of physical force”, Mahan envisioned a future in which the industrial expansion led to a rivalry for markets and sources of raw materials and would ultimately result in need of power to open and conquer new markets. Sea power was the ultimate vehicle for this expansion, the new “open door’ colonialism demanded the services of American navy.

As Walter LaFeber points out, Mahan summarized his theory in a postulate : “In these three things—production , with the necessity of exchanging products, shipping , whereby the exchange is carried on, and colonies…—is to be found the key to much of the history , as well as the policy , of nations bordering on the sea”(25) Production leads to a need for shipping , which in turn creates the need for colonies.(26)

John Hay’s “Open Door Notes” – the proclamation of American Lebensraum in 1899, and 1900 signified the beginning of the American commercial invasion of the world, the future American imperialist expansionism through the policy of Open Door.(27) As I have already pointed out Woodrow Willson’s words “World safe for democracy” translated in reality “World safe for American Lebensraum”. Wilson saw overseas economic expansion as the frontier to replace the American continent that has been conquered. In a section of volume V of his “History of the American People”, which reads as a paraphrase of essays written by Brooks Adams, Wilson claimed that United States is destined to command “the economic fortunes of the world” through the “Open Door” expansionism. “Diplomacy, and if need be, power, must make an open way.” In a series of lectures at Columbia University in April of 1907, he was even more forthright:

“Since trade ignores national boundaries and the manufacturer insists on having the world as a marked, the flag of his nation must follow him, and the doors of the nations which are closed must be battered down…Concessions obtained by financiers must be safeguarded by ministers of state, even if the sovereignty of unwilling nations be outraged in the process. Colonies must be obtained or planted, in order that no useful corner of the world may be overlooked or left unused”(28).

F. D. Roosevelt conceived his New Deal in geopolitical tradition of Turner and Adams (29)— the New Deal as a New Frontier. American freedoms could not be preserved in a frontierless society. United States was again in search of new frontiers. “To expand the Open Door Policy to the world” became the leitmotiv of American foreign policy.(30) The Secretary of Commerce said: “We cannot permit the door to be closed against our trade in Eastern Europe anymore than we can in China.”(31) The Secretary of State Hughes extended the Open Door Policy to all European colonies and Eastern Europe(32). The Cold War was about the opening of the Russian and the Eastern European frontiers for American expansionism and Open Door imperialism. The policy of “containment”, i.e. the traditional blockade of the Fortress Heartland served the same purpose. Austin Bears had challenged in 1934 the New Deal (Roosevelt’s Administration) to break with the expansionist tradition. He implied that the New Deal would be involved in another war for empire. Speaking through the National Foreign Trade Council the corporation community opposed Beard resolutely: “National self-containment has no place in the economic policy of the United States.”(33)

“American leaders predicted that commercial expansion, as long as the door remained open, would provide the United States with the economic advantages of a formal empire without the political responsibilities and moral liabilities connected with colonies”(34) Nevertheless the end result of the “Open Door” expansionism was the economic colonization of new geopolitical space. As the German geopolitician Otto Maull remarked: “Complete economic penetration is the same as territorial occupation”. “Open Door” warfare inevitably leads to “Open Door ” occupation.

AMERICAN BLUEPRINT FOR WORLD HEGEMONY

The British geopolitician Peter J. Taylor introduces in his book “Britain and the Cold War.1945 as Geopolitical Transition” the concept of “Geopolitical world order” which denotes a geopolitical regime of hegemony by a historical country- hegemon in the international word-system and points out that “the geopolitical order that preceded the Cold War has been termed the World Order of the British Succession.”(36) Both Nazi Germany and the United States had identical plans for Weltherschaft and both countries were involved in a struggle for world hegemony as successor of the previous geopolitical order of Pax Britannica. “…we can interpret the two world wars as contests for the British succession between Germany and USA”(37). As a result of the World War II the dominant British political empire was replaced with a new American economic empire.(38) Already prior to World War II United States began to plan for the coming American world hegemony.

The minutes of the closet meetings that were held between the State Department and the Council on Foreign Relations beginning in 1939 explicitly detail the role of the U.S. as a replacement for the British…The minutes of the Council’s Security Sub-Committee of the Advisory Committee of the Post-War Foreign Policy set the likely parameters of U.S. post-war foreign policy: ‘..the British Empire as it existed in the past will ever reappear and…the United States may have to take its place…’. The US ‘must cultivate a mental view toward world settlement after this war which will enable us to impose our own terms, amounting… to Pax Americana.’(39) . Americans could retain their vitality only by accepting the logic of endless expansionism.(40) In 1942 , the Council’s director , Isaiah Bowman , wrote, ’The measure of our victory will be the measure of our domination after victory…(The US must secure areas) strategically necessary for world control.’”(41)

The War and Peace Studies Project, initiated by the Council on Foreign Relations during the F.D. Roosevelt Administration immediately prior to the Second World War, was then the master plan and blueprint for a new global order for the postwar world, an order in which the United States would be the dominant power…The War and Peace Studies groups, in collaboration with the American government ,worked out an imperialistic conception of the national interests and war aims of the United States.” The American imperialism “involved a conscious attempt to organize and control a global empire. The ultimate success of this attempt made the United States…the number one world power , exercising domination over large sections of the world—the American empire… Such blueprinting was by its very nature determining the ‘national interest “(42) of the United States….The purpose of postwar planning was the creation of an international economic and political order dominated by the United States.(43)

Isaiah Bowman, Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s chief geopolitician, defined the foreign policy objectives of the United States as pursuit of global policy of American Lebensraum in response to Nazi Germany’s Lebensraum. Thus the war aims of United States and nazi-Germany were identical. Bowman in collaboration with H.F. Armtrong even secured an article from MacKinder on the danger of a strong Soviet Union which was published in Foreign Affairs under the title “The Round World and the Winning of the Peace”(44)

The article is remarkable because in it the old British imperialist MacKinder in essence argues for transformation of the British Empire into an American dependence and for the establishment of American hegemony in Europe: …”Britain—moated stronghold—a Malta on a grander scale (for the westward movement of the American empire) and France as a defensible bridgehead”(45)

Memorandum E-B19 concluded with a statement of the essentials for the United States foreign policy, summarizing the “component parts of an integrated policy to achieve military and economic supremacy of the United States within the non-German world.” Another main element was the “coordination and cooperation of the United States with other countries to secure the limitation of any exercise of sovereignty by foreign nations that constitutes a threat to the minimum world area essential to the security and economic prosperity of the United States and the Western Hemisphere.”(46)

At a meeting on October 19, 1940 Leo Posvolski, the Department of State’s chief postwar planer , “agreed with the Council’s initial blueprint for world power. His belief that the United States had to have more than just the Western Hemisphere as living space is indicated in his statement that ‘if you take the Western Hemisphere as the complete bloc you are assuming preparation for war’(47). Posvolski thus felt that the United States would have to go to war to gain more living space if limited to the Western Hemisphere, a conclusion clearly following from the Council’s work.”(48) American economy need an elbow room, a new extended living space in order to survive without major readjustments, claimed the planners of the Council on Foreign Relations. That elbow room was conceptualized as the Grand Area, (Grossraum) — the United States -led non German bloc which the United States during 1941 called “world economy”(sic!).

The Economic and Financial Group’s studies had shown how dangerous a unified Europe, with or without Nazi domination, would be to the United States. Hamilton Fish Armstrong pointed out in mid-June 1941 that a unified Europe could not be allowed to develop because it would be so strong that it would seriously threaten the American Grand Area. Europe, organized as a single entity, was considered fundamentally incompatible with the American economic system.”(49)

AMERICA’S MINIMUM LEBENSRAUM – THE GRAND AREA

The extensive studies and discussions of the Council group determined that, as a minimum , most of the non-German world, as a new American ‘Grand Area’, was needed for elbow room.’ In its final form, it consisted of the Western Hemisphere, the United Kingdom, the remainder of the British Commonwealth and Empire, the Dutch East Indies, China and Japan itself.(50)

Noam Chomsky summarizes the concept of American Lebensraum: “The Grand Area was to include the Western Hemisphere, Western Europe, the Far East, the former British Empire (which was being dismantled), the incomparable energy resources of the Middle East (which were then passing into American hands as we pushed out our rivals France and Britain), the rest of the Third World and, if possible, the entire globe.”(51) The whole China was also included.

Unlike Carl Schmitt who in his geopolitical works used the concept of Grossraum, (and Greater Area is the exact translation of Grossraum), and who advocated a world order based on coexistence of Grossraüme, the American concept had nothing to do with a delimited geopolitical space. US deliberately rejected after the war the scenario of several Monroes (52). Instead American expansionism had to be unlimited, rejecting thus the very notion of competing national interests.

The War-Peace studies conceptually embodied the geopolitical expansionism of Turner and Adams, the Weltanschauung of the American Open Door imperialism. NSC -68 was nothing by restatement of those geopolitical objectives, coached in the heavy theology of a modernized Manifest Destiny Doctrine. (53)

ATLANTICISM

“The main political objective , both in peace and war , must therefore be to prevent the unification of the Old World centers of power in a coalition hostile to her own interests”, wrote the American geopolitician Nicholas Spykman in his book Geography of Peace,(54) restating the main geopolitical objective of the United States in the post-war Europe. “Spykman simply is repeating for the United States what has been an overriding principle for British statecraft since the time of Henry VIII”, comments David Galleo (55).

To the same conclusion came also Hans J. Morgenthau : “United States European policies largely parallel those of Great Britain from Henry VIII to the end of the British Empire”. Like Great Britain in the past United States pursues one single objective in Europe— prevention of European unity, rejection of the principle of balance of power and assertion of unilateral American hegemony and preponderance of power.(56) After the war the policies of American Lebensraum resulted in the formation of the Atlantic Alliance, the new Grand Area envisioned by the planners of the Council on Foreign Relations and the War and Peace studies project. The American Grand Area was conceptualized and institutionalized as the Atlantic Alliance.

The Atlanticism—the organizing principle of American postwar policy toward Europe—was build on Europe’s political dependency. NATO— the linchpin of American post war control— was the instrument to manage American power projection in Europe, points Ronald Steel in his book “Temptations of a Superpower” (57), in which he emphasizes that for the American post-war planers a major objective was to prevent Europe from becoming in the future an economic competitor because an economic competitor is likely to become a political one too. The American national interest demanded prevention of Continental unity.

Anticipating the creation of NATO, the leading American geopolitician of US postwar expansionism Nicholas Spykman, propounded in 1943 the idea that “European power zone can be organized in a regional League of Nations with the United States as a extra-regional member.”(58) Commenting on Spykman’s proposal, a leading American political scientist Clyde Eagleton pointed out that : “This is simply incredible-either that the United States would take on such a risk , or that other states would permit such interference from outside.”(59) Acceptance of the American proposals would only mean consent to the establishment of American protectorate over those European states.

Reformulating the old Turnerian “Frontier thesis” Spykman wrote “We have seen the frontier from an international point of view as an expression of a relative power relationship, as that line where conflicting pressures became equalized. From a national point of view of the individual state, the frontier is the front trench held during the temporary armistice called peace”(60)

The Europeanist influence tended to see the Atlantic system built around American hegemony as a transitional construction, born of exceptional European weakness, bound to be transformed if not discarded once that weakness had passed. Implied was the view that Europe was not to be dominated indefinitely.

Geopolitical Atlanticism envisioned just that indefinite domination. Political Atlanticism saw NATO as a pillar for such indefinite domination and as instrument for power managing of European geopolitical space. Atlanticism is a sort of political religion of expansionism with its geopolitical catechism and doctrine of immaculate conception of American foreign policy. (Although- befitting its Anglo-Saxon origin, the Atlantic catechism appears less systematized and less doctrinaire)”(61), write David P. Galleo and Benjamin M. Rowland in their book “America and the World Political Economy. Atlantic Dreams and National Realities”.

In the frameworks of the American imperialist Weltanschauung the establishment of American protectorate over Europe could be accomplished through NATO.(62) The Atlantic imperial mantle and American grand schemes for a world military empire were epitomized in the Atlantic Alliance. David Galleo and Benjamin Rowland point out that: “Hull’s free-trade imperialism might have been expected , but not a new Roman Empire with an Atlantic Mare Nostrum. It was almost as the United States , spurning Europe’s colonies, had decided to annex the mother countries instead (63).

The Atlantic Alliance, envisioned already by Brooks Adams, “marked the hegemony of America over Europe (64). Henceforth an American general , answerable to the President , will usurp the political prerogatives of Europe. And with the Truman Doctrine a spatially alien power —the United States, asserted and gained control over Western Europe, obliterating thus the independent political existence of former Great Powers, including its own ally Great Britain.

NATO AND THE MONROE DOCTRINE

The geopolitical concept of American Lebensraum—the Atlantic Great Area of American power preponderance —needed a direct power projection in order to guarantee American dominion. NATO became the institution of hegemony par excellence.

The architects of the American Empire envisioned for NATO the same role as admiral Mahan envisioned for the Navy – a vehicle for conquest of new markets and geopolitical space and an instrument for the implementation of the “open door ” policy and geopolitical space management. In short NATO became the military arm of the westward movement of the American Empire. The “frontier thesis” of the American foreign policy and the Monroe Doctrine did confluence in NATO. The Marshall Plan, followed by NATO, began in earnest the era of American military, political , and economic dominance over Europe, points Stephen Ambrose.(65)

Senator Henry Cabot Lodge considered NATO as one of series of regional organizations designed to hem in the Soviet Union. Thus NATO was also constructed as an instrument of the strategy of blockade of the fortress “Heartland” , identical with the Soviet Union. (Spykman’s concept of the countries of Rimland which had to be controlled by the United States must be seen as geopolitical theory of blockade).

NATO would assert American domination over Western Europe while simultaneously allowing the United States to assume a position of undisputed hegemony over Europe. What that hegemony would be “was adequately , if somewhat crudely , summed up in the frequent references to the extension of the Monroe Doctrine. Europe would become, for the American businessman, soldier and foreign policy maker, another Latin America” Senator Tom Conally declared “the Atlantic Pact is but the logical extension of the Monroe Doctrine.”(66)

NSC -68 represented the practical extension of the Truman Doctrine , which has been world-wide in its implications but limited to Europe in its application . The document provided justification for America’s assuming the role of world policeman.(67) It was designed to not only to preserving the power of USA but to extend and consolidate power by absorbing new satellites and to prevent the rise of competing system of power.

In order to understand the threat that NATO poses against the security of Russia and other European countries, it is necessary to go to the origin of the so called Atlantic Alliance. The North Atlantic Treaty, in its origin, was not an alliance at all, but an unilateral US guarantee of what US termed European security, and factually an assertion of American hegemony in Western Europe under the disguise of security. The essential condition of the original US-European relationship , formulated in 1949, was totally one-sided. Its raison d’etre allegedly was security — in reality it was hegemony, in fact an enlargement of the Monroe Doctrine, such as the announcement of the Truman Doctrine, which initially mostly effected Great Britain which had to cease—as in the case of Greece— her spheres of influence to the United States. It allowed the United States to gain supreme command over Western European armed forces and also to station American troops on European soil. An editorial in the Wall Street Journal in April of 1949 correctly characterized the North Atlantic Treaty Organization “as nullifying the principles of the United Nations.”(68)

Historically speaking the unilaterally proclaimed Truman Doctrine was an extension of the Monroe Doctrine across the Atlantic, i.e. a major enlargement of the American Grossraum— a globalization of the principles of the Western Hemisphere Grossraum, where the United States is the sole bearer of sovereignty — and thus the first direct assault on the sovereignty of European states. Although ostensibly promoted as a device of containment and a policy for global intervention, it was in reality a device of subjugation and expansionism, serving American policy of Lebensraum.. The British foreign policy scholar Kenneth Thompson called the Truman Doctrine a national and expedient act designed initially to replace British with American power in Central Europe.(69)

Charles de Gaulle, the great French statesman with a kin eye for geopolitics and propensity to dismantle American myths, rightfully asserted that NATO was a mere appendage to the United States and that NATO and (French) national sovereignty were incompatible objectives. Already in 1951 (June 12) the Paris weekly Le Monde summarized the essence of the Atlantic Alliance and its military arm NATO:

“The fundamental inequality of the alliance is turning it more and more into a hidden protectorate in which protestation of national pride are not enough to compensate for a growing enslavement. The Roman Empire had its citizens, its allies, and its foreigners. The new American Empire has its allies of the first zone (the Americans), its allies of the second zone (the British), and its continental protégés: In spite of all their haughtiness, the latter are becoming to an ever increasing extend the Filipinos of the Atlantic.”

Leopold Kohr concluded that the Atlantic Alliance is not a partnership of equality , and that there is only one nation which is truly free in this new arrangement, “the imperial nation, the American.”(70) As Walter LaFeber has pointed out with the formation of NATO United States accomplished their victory in what LaFeber calls the First Cold War which President Wilson started already at the Versailles Peace Conference after the end of the First World War and the end result of which was the establishment of American control over the Western Europe i.e. over a significant portion of Eurasia.

After the end of the Cold War the role of NATO as instrument of American expansionism, an instrument for administration, control and enlargement of the American empire, became more clear than ever. Quoting the French author J.J. Servan Schreiber Benjamin Schwarz and Christopher Layne describe the roll of the USA in the post-cold war period as a head of world empire. “Fifty years after NATO founding, as the post-cold war alliance finds itself at war, the time has come to reassess US imperial policy in Europe. The war in Yugoslavia is a watershed in NATO’s history. Today , the United States has expanded the alliance’s geographical scope and created a new role for it: intervention in the internal affairs of sovereign states whose domestic policies offend NATO’s values – even when such states pose no security threat to the alliance’s partners… Hidden by all lofty (and misleading) rhetoric about NATO and transatlantic partnership is a simple fact: US policy in Europe aims not to counter others’ bids for hegemony but to perpetuate America’s own supremacy…NATO expansion may prove to be a diplomatic blunder on a par with the 1919 Versailles Treaty…”.(71)

Schwarz and Layne point out that NATO serves the following important functions:
Defending and expanding the imperial frontiers of the United States.

Establishment of permanent US protectorate over the continent and

Undermining the emergence of independent Western Europe.

NATO was used to undermine the pre-existing world order based on the Helsinki agreement and to obliterate the independent role of the United Nations. NATO became an instrument of conquest of the Eastern Europe – “peacefully” as in the case of the Visegrad–countries (Poland, Hungary and Czech Republic ) or by resorting to outright war of aggression (Yugoslavia). Containment of Western Europe and conquest of the Eastern Europe are the two main functions of NATO.

In the verdict rendered at the concluding session of the International War Crimes Tribunal Investigating U.S. NATO War Crimes in Yugoslavia on January 23, 2000 in Kiev, Ukraine, NATO was declared a criminal institution within the purview of the Nuremberg codex.

Once again, and now after the end of the Cold War, Europe as a geopolitical entity is faced by a historical choice — either independent geopolitical existence as a Mitteleuropa or European community, or a future as dependent appendage to the American empire. An independent geopolitical existence — Europe for Europeans — translates into a Mitteleuropa as antihegemonic block facing and competing with the American Atlantic Grossraum. The most simple geopolitical axiom is that NATO is a threat to a future European independence. And above all- NATO is a threat to Russia.

ENDNOTES

(1) See Anders Stephenson Manifest Destiny. American Expansion and the Empire of Right (Hill and Wang, New York, 1995) p. XI.

(2) Josiah Strong Our Country: Its Possible Future and Its Present Crisis (New York, 1985) , p. 20. Here quoted from Walter LaFeber The New Empire (Cornell University Press, Ithaca, 1963) , p. 74.

(3) Ambrose, Stephen E. The Military Dimension: Berlin, NATO and NCS-68 in Paterson, Thomas G.(ed.) The Origins of the Cold War (D.C. Heath and Company, Lexington, MA, 1974) p. 178.

(4) Turner, Frederick Jackson The Significance of the Frontier in American History (Henry Holt and Co, New York, 1995) p. 1.

(5) Turner, Frederick Jackson ibid. p.33.

(6) Turner, Frederick Jackson, ibid. p.p. 33, 59.

(7) William Appleman Williams The Frontier Thesis and American Foreign Policy in Henry W. Berger (ed.) A William Appleman Williams Reader (Ivan R. Dee, Chicago, 1992) p. 90.

(8) William Appleman Williams The Frontier Thesis and American Foreign Policy p. 91.

(9) Brooks Adams, The Law of Civilization and Decay (The MacMillan Co, New York, 1896).

(10) William Appleman Williams The Frontier Thesis and American Foreign Policy p. 92.

(11) William Appleman Williams The Frontier Thesis and American Foreign Policy p. 96.

(12) Brooks Adams The New Empire (The MacMillan Co, New York, 1900).

(13) ibid. p. 96.

(14) Williams ibid. 97.

(15) ibid. p. 98.

(16) ibid. p. 99, 100.

(17) Brooks Adams America’s Economic Supremacy, p.p. 80, 104-05, David P. Calleo and Benjamin Rowland America and the World Political

Economy p. 273.

(18) Thomas J. McCormick America’s Half-Century (John Hopkins University Press , Baltimore, 1995) p. 18.

(19) McCormick ibid. p.p. 18-19.

(20) Brooks Adams America’s Economic Supremacy (The MacMillan Co, New York, 1900).

(21) Ibid. p. 100.

(22) ibid. p. 101.

(23) William Appleman Williams The Contours of American History , Norton and Company, New York, 1988, p. 474.

(24) William Appleman Williams Contours of American History p. 473.

(25) A.T. Mahan The Influence of Sea Power upon History, 1660-1783 (Boston, 1890) pp.. 53, 28.

(26) Walter LaFeber The New Empire. An Interpretation of American Expansion 1860-1898 (Cornell University Press, Ithaca, 1963) p. 88.

(27) Williams ibid. p. 86.

(28) Williams, William Appleman The Tragedy of American Diplomacy p.p. 71, 72.

(29) Graebner p. 134.

(30) Graebner p. 134.

(31) (Charles Evans Hughes p.. 86).

(32) William Appleman Williams The Contours of American History p. 454.

(33) Lloyd C. Gardner The New Deal, New Frontiers, and the Cold War: A Re-examination of American Expansion, 1933-1945 in David Horowitz (ed) Corporations and the Cold War (Monthly Review Press, New York, 1969) p. 108.

(35) Dorpalen, Andreas The World of General Houshofer. Geopolitics in Action (New York, 1942), p.224.

(36) Peter J. Taylor “Britain and the Cold War. 1945 as Geopolitical Transition” (Guilford Publications,Inc, New York 1990) p. 17. The concept of “Geopolitical regime of hegemony” , used by Taylor, is quite similar to the concept of “Historical regime of hegemony ” in the political writings of Antonio Gramsci.

(37) Peter J. Taylor ibid. p. 17.

(38) Peter J. Taylor ibid . p. 17.

(39) Michio Kaku and Daniel Axelrod To Win a Nuclear War. The Pentagon’s Secret War Planes (South end Press, Boston, 1987) p.p. 63, 64.

(40) Those views were expressed by Reinhold Niebuhr who, like many American Cold War planners viewed the American future political destiny as Manichean interpretation of the virtually uninterrupted warfare- from the point of the revamped Manifest Destiny Doctrine. In this conjunction one may recall the view of the American foreign policy by William Appleman Williams.

In order to understand the foreign policy of expansionism of the United States Williams urged his students “to study the pirates as a protocommunity which sought in the Renaissance era and afterwards to create its own rules , and prompted widespread fear in the existing empires”. See Paul M. Buhle and Edward Rice-Maximin William Appleman Williams . The Tregedy of Empire (Routledge, New York and London, 1995) p. 236.

One may also recall that while still allies already during the World War II the United States started to prepare for war with the Soviet Union. In the summer of 1945 , at the time of the Conference in Potsdam United States adopted a policy of ‘string the first blow’ in a nuclear war against the Soviet Union. To that effect a secret document JCS 1496 was drafted on July 19, 1945. (p. 30).

The first plan for nuclear attack was drafted soon afterwards by General Dwight Eisenhower at the order of PresidentTruman. The plan. called TOTALITY (JIC 329/1) envisioned a nuclear attack on the Soviet with 20 to 30 A-bombs. The plan earmarked 20 Soviet cities for obliteration in a first strike: Moscow, Gorki, Kuibyshev, Sverdlovsk, Novosibirsk, Omsk, Saratov, Kazan, Leningrad, Baku, Tashkent, Chelyabinsk, Nizhni Tagil, Magnitogorsk, Molotov, Tbilisi, Stalinsk, Grozny, Irkutsk, and Jaroslavl Michio Kaku and Daniel Axelrod To Win a Nuclear War. The Pentagon’s Secret War Planes (South end Press, Boston, 1987) pp. 30, 31.

(41) Michio Kaku and Daniel Axelrod To Win a Nuclear War. The Pentagon’s Secret War Planes (South end Press, Boston, 1987) pp. 63,64.

(42) Lavrence H. Shoup & William Minter Imperial Brain Trust (Monthly Review Press, New York 1977, p. 117.

(43) Lawrence Shoup & William Minter ibid. p. 118.

(44) Martin Geoffrey The Life and Thought of Isaiah Bowman (Archon Books, Hamden, Connecticut, 1980) p. 177. One may also recall that Isaiah Bowman already in his in 1921 published book “The New World” envisioned the coming American world empire. Carl Haushofer published in 1934 a trilogy of books titled “Macht und Erde” which, according to Otto Maull, was written as the German response to Bowman’s “The New World”. Martin Geoffrey, ibid. p. 165.

(45) MacKinder, Halford “The Round World and the Winning of the Peace” in Democratic Ideals and Reality (W.W. Norton & Co, New York, NY 1962) p. 274. MacKinder’s article was originally published in Foreign Affairs, vol.1 (July 1943) p.p. 595-605.

(46) Memorandum E-B19, October 19, 1940, CFR, War-Peace Studies , NUL. Here quoted after Shoup & Minter, ibid. p. 130.

(47) Posvolsky’s statement is in Memorandum A-A11, October 19, 1940 War Peace Studies , Baldwin Papers, Box 117, YUL from which Shoup &

Minter quote .

(48) Shoup & Minter ibid. p. 131.

(49) Shoup & Minter, ibid. p. 137.

(50) Shoup & Minter , ibid p. 136.

(51) Noam Chomsky What Uncle Saw Really Wants p. 12 (Odonian Press, Berkeley, 1992). The policies of American Lebensraum and the geopolitical construct of the American Greater Area are discussed in dept in Joyce and Gabriel Kolko The Limits of Power. The world and United States Foreign Policy (Harper and Row, New York, 1972) .

(52) See Taylor, Peter J. Britain and the Cold War. 1945 as Geopolitical Transition (Gilfor Publications, New York, 1990. Not only Carl Schmitt but also General Haushofer advocated peaceful coexistence of several competing “Grand Areas” or “Monroes”. Carl Schmitt used the concept of Grossraum, General Haushofer of “Pan-region”.

(53) The political objectives stated in the NSC-68 were after the end (sic!) of the Cold War again restated in the Pentagons Defense Planning Guidance. With the Soviet Union gone United States embarked on a new policy of expansionism.

(54) Nicholas Spykman Geography of Peace , New York, 1944.

(55) David Galleo ibid. p. 30.

(56) Hans J. Morgenthau The Mainsprings of American Foreign Policy Robert A. Goldwin (ed) Readings in American Foreign Policy (Oxford University Press, New York, 1971) p. 642.

(57) Ronald Steel Temptations of a Superpower ( Harvard University Press, 1995) p. 70.

(58) N. Spykman America’s Strategy in World Politics p. 468.

(59) Clyde Eagleton, Review of America’s Strategy in World Politics , 222 Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (July 1942), 189-190, P. 190. here quoted in David Willkinson Spykman and Geopolitics in C. Zoppo and C. Zorgbibe (eds) On Geopolitics: Classical and Nuclear (Martinus Nijhoff, Dortrecht, 1985), p. 82.

(60) Nickolas J. Spykman and A.A. Rollins “Geographical Objectives in Foreign Policy I, American Political Science Review , vol. 33 , 1939 , p.394

(61) David P. Galleo and Benjamin M. Rowland America and the World Political Economy. Atlantic Dreams and National Realities (Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 1973) p. 18.

(62) Ibid. p. 44.

(63) Ibid. p. 46.

(64) Ibid. p. 61.

(65) Stephen E. Ambrose, The Military Dimension : Berlin, NATO and NSC-68 in Thomas G. Paterson The Origins of the Cold War (D.C. Heath and Company, Lexington, 1974) p. 178.

(66) Stephen E. Ambrose The Military Dimension : Berlin, NATO and NSC-68 in Thomas G. Paterson The Origins of the Cold War (D.C. Heath and Company, Lexington, 1974) p. 117.

(67) Stephen E. Ambrose , ibid. p. 182.

(68) The Wall Street Journal, April 5, 1949.

(69) Kenneth Thompson -Political Realism and the Crisis of World Politics- An American Approach (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1960) – at p. 124.

(70) Leopold Kohr -The Breakdown of Nations -ibid., at p. 203.

(71) Benjamin Schwarz and Christopher Layne “NATO: At 50, It’s Time to Quit” (The NATION Magazine, May 10, 1999 pp.17, 18.

The Concept of Großraum in Carl Schmitts Jurisprudence (Nikolai von Kreitor)

Friday, August 30th, 2002

The Historical Necessity of a New Russian Grossraum
by Nikolai von Kreitor

The most fundamental principle in geopolitics is the principle of Grossraum (=Great Area) formulated by the prominent German jurist Carl Schmitt in his book Völkerrechtlishe Grossraumordnung mit Interventionsverbot für Raumfremde Mächte (1) and seen by him as a foundation for the science of international law and international relations.

A Grossraum is an area dominated by a power representing a distinct political idea. This idea was always formulated with a specific opponent in mind; in essence ,the distinction between friend and enemy would be determined by this particular political idea. As an example Carl Schmitt cited the American Monroe Doctrine and its concept of non-intervention by foreign powers in the American Raum. “This is the core of the original Monroe Doctrine, a genuine Grossraum principle, namely the union of politically awakened people, a political idea and, on the basis of this idea, a politically dominant Grossraum excluding foreign intervention.”

Carl Schmitt’s knowledge and sense of history were equaled by his ability to define core issues. That ability enabled Schmitt to quickly grasp the essence of national foreign policy , articulate it in his book, relate the idea and implementation of the American Monroe Doctrine to the concept of Grossraum , subject Grossraum to analysis, incorporate it into the framework of international law and contrapose American Grossraum to a new German Grossraum, opposed to and competing with the American. By subjecting Grossraum to scholarly investigation and by placing it in the context of global politics, Schmitt had hoped to enlarge the horizon of learning and to update the state-centered system of international law to include relations between Grossräume (Different Great Areas).(2)

In so doing he subjected the political theology of American expansionism, the American state-policy and objectives of world domination formulated and codified in the Monroe Doctrine and its various extension, to a demystifying and critical analysis showing that the essence of Wilsonian universalism before, during and after the World War II was in fact an insidious ideology to equate American national interest, American expansionism and the principles of the Monroe Doctrine with the interest of mankind(3). Discussing emerging political realities , Schmitt noted that Germany needed to formulate her own Grossraum and to conceptualize the nature of international law as a relationship between different Grossräume, rejecting thereby the universalistic claims of the United States.

The center of Carl Schmitt’s discussion was the geopolitical and the ideological substance of the Monroe Doctrine, especially the series of ideas articulated prior to Theodore Roosevelt’s reinterpretation of it justifying a “capitalist imperialism”(4) and Woodrow Wilson’s reinterpretation that sough to justify a “kind of pan-interventionist world ideology”(5) , i.e. to justify the principles of the Monroe Doctrine and the new international law it created in the Western Hemisphere to principles valid for the whole world. The substance of the new American international law, created by the Monroe Doctrine, was in fact an absence of international law, understood traditionally as law of nations created by mutual consent of those nations, in the Western Hemisphere, since the Monroe Doctrine postulated that the only source of the new international law was the will of the United States. According to Schmitt the Monroe Doctrine, historically seen, was the vehicle of American subjugation of the Latin American countries and transformation of those countries into virtual American protectorates.

President Woodrow Wilson’s objectives at the end of the W.W. I to elevate the principles of the Monroe Doctrine to universally valid principles for the whole world was in fact America’s first bid for world domination. On April 12, 1919, at the Paris Peace Conference , President Wilson assured the delegates that the Monroe Doctrine was “the real forerunner of the League of Nations” and asked rhetorically ,”Indeed are we not assembled here to consecrate and extend the horizon of this document as a perpetual charter for all the world.”(6)

The Monroe Doctrine, that nineteenth-century formulation of American foreign policy, has according to Schmitt a profound relevance for the Germany of his day. Though Schmitt recognized that the realities of power politics in the Western Hemisphere of the nineteenth century were different from those on the European continent of the twentieth century , he realized that the Monroe Doctrine had extended the parameters of international relations. As far as Schmitt was concerned, the Monroe Doctrine was “the first and until now the most successful example of a Grossraum principle”(7) that had over a period of time acquired validity, for it was referred to in every important text and dictionary of international law and was defended by the United States as “an expression of the inalienable right to self-defense”(8) Calling the Monroe Doctrine, i.e. the American expansionism, a “right to self-defense”, clearly showed the substance of American political theology-the ideological justification of U.S. imperialism as well as the equation in the ideology of expansionism with self-defense: an important ideological component that will became a center-peace of American mystification of U.S. expansionism.

Carl Schmitt points out that at the end of the W.W. I, at the Paris Peace-conference which resulted in the Treaty of Versailles and the creation of the League of Nations , United States succeeded to include the Monroe Doctrine in the Article 21 of the League’s Covenant. Inclusion of the Monroe Doctrine in the Article 21 in the League of Nation’s Covenant, which reads “Nothing in this Covenant shall be deemed to affect the validity of international engagements, such as treaties of arbitration or regional understandings like the Monroe Doctrine, for securing the maintenance of peace.” symbolized for Carl Schmitt Europe’s defeat by the United States and the end of the old Jus Publicum European, which had been the foundation for all preexisting international relations. For one thing , the League of Nations, purportedly an universal international organization and predecessor of the United Nations, was excluded from asserting any jurisdictional claims in the American Grossraum, i.e. the Western Hemisphere. Western Hemisphere was excluded from the purview of the League. Thus the United States asserted the pre-eminence of its will and the ordering principles of her Grossraum, i.e. her unrestricted hegemony in the Western Hemisphere, over the League of Nations.

Schmitt emphasizes that before Grossraum could be anchored in international law it had to be legitimized by a political idea. The geopolitical and ideological conviction behind the original Monroe Doctrine, proclaimed in 1823 – the belief that the Americas had to be defended from the “status quo powers of legitimacy”(9) , the Holly Alliance, the European Con-cert formed after the defeat of Napoleon – justified its proclamation and gave it credibility. President James Monroe announced the doctrine in response to rumored intervention in America of the Holy Alliance. The United States justified its policy on the basis of its inalienable right of self-defense , a principle on which international law is found. Hence the declaration warning the members of the Holy Alliance that the United States “would consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety” and that the U.S. government would “view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European power in no other light than as manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States”. As a corollary of the principle of nonintervention, Monroe declared that the United States was committing itself to a policy of non-intervention “in the internal concerns of any European powers.”(10)

Carl Schmitt notes that the Monroe Doctrine , originally proclaimed as a vehicle of defense against interventionism and European colonialism, transformed itself into it’s opposite, becoming the main legal and ideological instrument of American interventionism, expansionism, economic imperialism and colonization of the Western Hemisphere.(11) The language of the Monroe Doctrine lended itself to a political-semantic corruption of the English language: American interventionist policies were still presented as defense, American colonialism was heralded as establishment of democracy, installation of puppet regimes in Latin-America serving their American masters was called a preservation of civilized forms of government, the many repeated American military interventions to keep the puppet regimes in power and to expand American economic penetration – a peace-keeping operations and, quite consistent with what George Orwell would latter call a New Talk, the enslavement of Latin-American countries, their transformation into protectorates was heralded as enlargement of the frontiers of freedom.

The interventionist substance of the Monroe Doctrine was clearly emphasized in 1904, in the so called Roosevelt Corollary pronounced by President Theodore Roosevelt shortly after the Hague Peace Conference the same year. Roosevelt proposed to make an exception to general international law in favor of the Western Hemisphere and this exception were to be made by ” a unilateral American pronouncement , not through a universally agreed amendment to international law.”(12) Roosevelt explicitly rejected the notion that the new international law in the Western Hemisphere could be created through multilateral, inter-American action, instead, Roosevelt asserted, its creation was only through unilateral action by the United States, i.e. the source of the new international law was solely the will of the United States.

“Instead of abolishing intervention in the Western Hemisphere, Roosevelt explicitly sanctioned this practice and claimed for the United States a monopoly of the right to engage in it… Finally the Roosevelt corollary applied to American intervention of all kind and for whatever purpose.”(13) The new international law in the Western Hemisphere, as formulated by Theodore Roosevelt, was in fact an absence of international law, or, to put it in another way, the foreign expansionist policy of the United States was elevated into a quasi international law. Thus the Roosevelt corollary defined the principle of organization and control of geopolitical space under American domination. That principle of domination suspended the operation of general norms of international law and elevated the imperialist will of the United States into the sole normative source. Or, as Secretary of State Olney had earlier expressed it: “United States is the sole sovereign in the Western Hemi-sphere and its will is a fiat.” Carl Schmitt also emphasized the territorial criterion of the Monroe Doctrine for the international law. He noted that the doctrine introduced territorial lines of delineation and demarcation into the body of international law, infused the international law with the concept and substance of geopolitics.

THE CONCEPT OF GERMAN GROSSRAUM

Based on the perception that the Monroe Doctrine provided the precedent for justification for both German and Japanese Grossraum, Schmitt observed that the traditional Eurocentric order underlying international law- relations between and among sovereign states- had been superseded by relations between and among sovereign Grossräume(14) As far as Germany was concerned , her Grossraum consisted, according to Schmitt’s view during the 30-ties, predominantly of Central and Eastern Europe. Though Schmitt failed to define the precise territorial dimensions of Germany’s Grossraum, he cited the Monroe Doctrine as the basis for maintaining that Grossraum in not something abstract and diffuse but contains “recognizable territorial limits”(15).

According to the Monroe Doctrine, Schmitt argued, the leading or hegemonial power is the one that determines the governing political idea for its realm. United States asserted the political idea that it had the hegemonial right to exclude from the Western Hemisphere any foreign power, or any foreign influence. After the end of the Word War I United States also asserted that the newly formed international organization , the League of Nations , was also excluded from asserting any jurisdiction in the Western Hemisphere. Schmitt emphasized that the new German Grossraum , seen by him as analogous to the American Grossraum, should also exclude any foreign interference, and above all American influence, and argued for the proclamation of a Ger-man Monroe Doctrine. Schmitt rejected the false universalist claims of the United States and noted that as a matter of principle non-interference by European states in the affairs of the American continent cannot be justified unless the United States likewise refrains from interference in the affairs of the European continent. In Carl Schmitt’s view geopolitics and international law have been joined in the Germanic Monroe Doctrine underlying the German Grossraum.

Carl Schmitt defined also the concept of a national Grossraum principle by extending his analysis to encompass the Reich . Though “the concept of Grossraum belongs to the concept of Reich (Empire, Realm) , the two are not identical because “not every state or every people within the German Grossraum is part of the Reich”. A Reich, according to Schmitt, “is the leading and sustaining power whose political idea radiates over a specific Grossraum”. And the code that governs relations between Grossräume is that of nonintervention.(16) Schmitt asserted that in the middle of Europe the German Reich faces the interventionist claims of the Anglo-Saxon pseudo-universalism. Against those claims it contraposes the principle of national life style “based on the principle of national respect.”(17)

Whereas relations between Grossräume were to be governed by the principle of nonintervention , intra-Grossraum relations in Schmitt’s construct were to be based on respect for every nation and nationality. Although in Schmitt’s configuration this connoted a policy of domination exercised without the need to resort to the extraordinary means of intervention , decision about whether to intervene, reflecting power-political realities, would not be made in any capital of the German Grossraum other than Berlin. One possible justification for intervention in a nation in the Reich was that it pursued foreign policy goals inimical to the security interests of Germany. In another work Carl Schmitt defines the Reich as “the leading and supporting powers whose political idea is radiated over a specified major territory and which fundamentally exclude the intervention of extra-territorial powers with regard to this territory.”(18)

It should be noted that Carl Schmitt, while recognizing that the historically changing world order and nature of international relations necessitated the reformulation of the international law in terms of equal relationship between competing Grossräume, he nevertheless never advocated an unrestricted expansion of a singular Grossraum i.e. geopolitical objectives of total world hegemony by for example Germany. Quite to the contrary : the substance of his work Grossraum gegen Universalismus is a strong criticism of the American ideology of universalism and from that ideology derived foreign policy on which U.S. embarked in a limited scope during the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, and which became the ideological hallmark of the Wilsonianism during and after the World War I.

American universalism , emphasized Schmitt, globalized the principles of the Monroe Doctrine to principles valid for the whole world i.e. to universal principles and thus , ideologically and politically, laid claims for extension of American hegemony in the Western Hemisphere to a hegemony over the whole world. American objectives for world conquest and domination used the ideology of universalism to revise the geographical limitations of the Monroe Doctrine- the very principle of geographical delimitation and demarcation of the concept of Grossraum- and to justify American interventionism in the European continent. While American universalism was a rejection of the idea of co-existence of different Grossräume and thus not only a rejection of the concept of Grossraum with its principles of geographic delimitation but also a claim for global world hegemony, so was also Hitler’s concept of Lebensraum which served as an ideological device for foreign policy objectives of establishment first of German continental hegemony and latter of global world hegemony . In other words there were ideological and geopolitical similarities between Wilson’s universalism and Hitler’s Lebensraum. Both Wilsonian universalism and Nazi-Germany’s Lebensraum were falsification of a genuine Grossraum principle and both universalism and Lebensraum rejected the very notion of international pluralism, of co-existence of Grossräume.

Both universalism and Lebensraum as concepts were antithetical to Schmitt’s concept of territorial limits of Grossraum and both universalism and Lebensraum encompassed no territorial limits serving as ideological justification for global world domination.(19)

In formulating the concept of Grossraum Carl Schmitt wanted to broad the framework of international law to include relations between Grossräume. His concept allowed for the rational conduct of international relations and provided a compelling principle for the international law that would correspondent to new historical realities.

THE RELEVANCE OF THE CONCEPT OF GROSSRAUM FOR RUSSIA

Prior to the dissolution or , I would rather say, subversion of the Soviet Union in 1991, in the bipolar world of two superpowers , there existed two competing Grossräume ( Great Areas) or two opposing political blocks, each with its sphere of influence and thus geographical delimitation and demarcation: the Atlantic Grossraum, dominated by the United States, and the Eurasian Grossraum, dominated by the Soviet Union. The political competition between the two blocks gave a substantial latitude for autonomy and independence for countries included in the sphere of influence of the two blocks. However after 1991 a completely new world order has been created. The bipolar world landscape of two superpowers has been transformed into a mono landscape of one superpower imposing its will on the rest of the world. The concept of a New World Order, propounded first by President Bush and now implemented by the neo-Wilsonian foreign policies of President Clinton, must be seen as a realization and assertion of the principles on the Monroe Doctrine to principles valid for the whole world, or, in other words, as a Roosevelt corollary for the whole world, with a new international law equated with the U.S.’s will. The globalization of the Monroe Doctrine , the pronouncement of the Bush/Clinton corollary is the assertion of the legitimacy of American intervention in the world for whatever purposes United States deem necessary, in other words , it is the equation of the United States will with grounds for intervention, an equation which is not only a radical repudiation of the priciples of non-intervention contained in the United Nations Charter, and thus a repudiation of the essence and substance of the United Nations, but is also the substance of the new international law of the New World Order. In the post-Cold War political landscape , United States, invoking and asserting her principles of legitimacy of American world-wide hegemony , is in a position visavi Europe similar to the position of the former Holy Alliance visavi America in the past. American intrusion into the Eurasian geopolitical vacuum after the demise of the Soviet Union, has necessitated a formulation and implementation of a global policy of pseudo-universalism and intervention. Therefore an absolute geopolitical necessity for Russia now, tantamount to her national survival, is the re-establishment of her Grossraum, which is a prerequisite not only for the future independence of Russia but also for the independence of other European countries as well. Re-establishment of the Russian Grossraum and a necessary new geopolitical alliance, which one my symbolically call “a second Treaty of Rappalo”, will be the beginning of disintegration of the global system of American universalism and interventionism and thus a necessary prerequisite for the rebirth of America-free Europe. During the interwar years, in the Europe after the Treaty of Versailles , Carl Schmitt, observing the universalist claims of international law of American and British imperialism, asserted that “behind the facade of general norms of international law lies, in reality, the system of Anglo-Saxon world imperialism”(20)

Today, observing the new American expansionism, the American invasion in the geopolitical vacuum of the Eurasian Grossraum, the decline and fall of the United Nations and the perversion of this international body into a legitimacy facade for the United States bid for world conquest and hegemony in the New World Order , one may say, as it was said once before by Carl Schmitt , that behind the facade of general norms of international law , lies now in reality the system of American world imperialism and expansionism. For the substance of the New World Order is the globalization of the American hegemony without any geographical limitations, the triumph of the old Wilsonian universalism or the neo-Wilsonian policies of President Clinton, a universalism that is a radical rejection of the notion of peaceful co-existence of Grossräume, of a pluralistic world order build on respect for existing state sovereignties.

The primary foreign policy objective of Russia must be the formulation of her own Monroe Doctrine, geographically delimiting Russian Grossraum, which would exclude the intervention on foreign powers and above all the United States.

A formulation of a Russian Monroe Doctrine implies by necessity a rejection of the pseudo-universalist claims of the American New World Order and the validity of a new international law that legitimizes that order. It also implies a firm rejection of American legal nihilism and revisionism, it mandates a restoration of a world order codified by the Helsinki Accord. Thus a Russian Monroe Doctrine will be an expression of a genuine and inalienable right to self-defense against American expansionism and it’s new territorial ambitions. Integral to the purpose of self-defense must be a Russian claim for respect for Russian minorities in any state where they are to be found as well as prevention of foreign policy inimical to the security interest of Russia , such as membership in NATO , prevention of coming into power of governments serving as agents of foreign power , in short , of governments of American Quislings.

The geographical delimitation of the Russian Grossraum is the territory of the former Soviet Union, countries belonging to the former socialist block , including Yugoslavia, now subjected to a war of aggression by the United States.

A Russian Grossraum can only be a genuine, geographically delimited Grand Area and the international law it would create will be, according to Carl Schmitt’s visions, an international law encompassing the co-existence of Grossräume and thus a rejection of the international law of the New World Order- the universalization of American principles of legitimization of global and unlimited American expansionism and domination. A peaceful co-existence of Grossräume can hardly be achieved without the geopolitical expulsion of the United States from Eurasia.

In the past the United States has been successful in theologization of American geopolitical objectives of world domination – the ideology of Wilsonian pseudo universalism-and demonization of geopolitical competitors and thus rejection of the very notion of geopolitical pluralism. The restoration of the Russian Grossraum is therefore the only guaranty for international peace and renewed respect for international law, constructed not as the will of the United States but as the collective will of sovereign countries and geopolitical blocks. Russian Grossraum is the only guaranty against the future anti-utopia of a Monroe Doctrine for the whole world.

The historical necessity and actuality of a new Russian Grossraum, excluding American interference in Eurasia, confluence with Charles de Gaulle’s vision of a free Europe from Atlantic to Urals and beyond to Vladivostok, which could only exist as America-free Europe. Without a reconstitution of a Russian Grossraum, the future not only of Russia but also of other European countries, will be the present of Latin America. In other worlds, the historical necessity of a Russian Grossraum is a decision for a future of freedom and national and cultural authenticity, a decision against the future as American protectorate. And again, the Russian choice is also the choice of Europe.

ENDNOTES

(1) Carl Schmitt -Völkerrechtliche Grossraumordnung mit Interventionsverbot für Raumfremde Mächte- Ein Bitrag zum Reichsbegriff im Völkerrecht (Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, 1991)

(2) some authors trace the concept of Grossraum in earlier writings of Friedrich Naumann and others. “According to their concept of Mitteleuropa , modern political, economic, and technological considerations necessitated the creation of a German empire in the center of Europe that would allow Germany to survive in a world dominated by political units larger than a typical European nation-state, namely Russia, the British Empire , and the United States..Raumtheorie was first established as a specialized field of study in the twenties , when it became an integral part of the developing sciene of geopolitics” -see Joseph W. Bendersky-Carl Schmitt (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1983) – at p. 251

(3) Carl Schmitt – Grossraum gegen Universalism in Positionen und Begriffe im Kampf mit Weimar- Genf- Versailles 1923-1939 (Duncker & Humblot , Berlin , 1988)

(4) Carl Scmitt -Völkerrechtlische Grossraumordnung – ibid. p. 37

(5) Carl Schmitt- Völkerrechtlische Grossraumordnung- ibid. pp 38-39

(6) Stephen Bonsal -Unfinished Business (New York, 1944) pp. 184-185; also Arthur P. Whitaker-The Western Hemisphere Idea (Cornell University Press, New York, 1954) at p. 125

(7) Carl Schmitt- Völkerrechtlische Grossraumordnung- ibid. p. 23

(8) Carl Schmitt- Völkerrechtlische Grossraumordnung- ibid. pp. 17, 19, 27-30

(9) Carl Schmitt- Völkerrechtlische Grossraumordnung- ibid. p. 34

(10) see Thomas A. Bailey – A Diplomatic Hisstory of the American People (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1980), pp. 183-184

(11) see Carl Schmitt -Völkerrechtliche Formen des modernen Imperialismus in Schmitt Positionen und Begriffe

(12) Arthur P. Whitaker- The Western Hemisphere Idea -ibid. – p. 100

(13) Arthur P. Whitaker- The Western Hemisphere Idea -ibid. – p. 100

(14) Carl Schmitt – Volkerrechtliche Grossraumordnung- ibid. p. 76, 77, 81

(15) Carl Schmitt – Volkerrechtliche Grossraumordnung- ibid. p. 16

(16) Carl Schmitt – Volkerrechtliche Grossraumordnung- ibid. p. 66

(17) Carl Schmitt – Volkerrechtliche Grossraumordnung- ibid. p.71

(18) Carl Schmitt – Der Reichbegrif in Völkerrecht in Positionen und Begriffe – ibid. at p. 303

(19)in fact American universalism can be seen as Lebenraum for American economic imperialism

(20)Carl Schmitt – Völkerrechtliche Formen des modernen Imperialismus ibid. p.43

Conservative Revolution in Sweden (Nikolai von Kreitor)

Saturday, August 8th, 1970

The Swedish magazine ResPublica, published by Brutus ?stlings Bokf?rlag Symposium, has made the first substantial presentation of the historical and ideological phenomenon of German Conservative Revolution in both Sweden and
Scandinavia.(1) The theme issue has been edited by G?ran Dahl and Carl-G?ran Heidegren.(2) The issue contains translations from Carl Schmitt s works Politische Theologie , Land und Meer and Glossarium , Ernst J?nger s book Der Arbeiter , as well as theoretical analyses of the concept of Conservative Revolution by the editors, Eric Bolle, Louis Dupeux and Ellen Kennedy.

G?ran Dahl s and Carl-G?ran Heidegren s introductory essay The Magic Zero Hour is the most interesting in the issue. Its reference point is Armin Mohler s standard work on German Conservative revolution Die Konservative Revolution in Deutschland 1918-1932. Grundriss ihrer Weltanschaungen . Mohler differentiates between three main ideological lines within the revolutionary conservatism which constitute a development from German Myth, through German Legal Idea and to a Prussian Principle.

Völkische Rasse, Volk germanisch
Jungkonservative Reich deutsch
Nationalrevolutionïre Bevegung preussisch

The Völkische current can be characterized as an entirely anti–intellectual and irrational and its influence on the ideological development during the Weimar-republic is relatively very limited. However during the Third Reich Himmler, Rosenberg and to a large extend also Hitler, were exponents of the irrationalism of the Völkische ideology.

The Jung-konservative is the current most closely associated with the older traditional conservatism which preserves Christian influence and values. It is the least revolutionary group which does not expose an irreconcilable opposition to the Weimar Republic. A central ideological leitmotif in their ideology is the concept of the Reich (=Empire) as a supra-state formation, different and opposed to both the nation-state as well as the imperialist state. Their ideal is a decentralized multi-ethnic empire under German dominance achieved by virtue of the size of the German population as well as the German industrial and cultural development and pre-eminence. (3)

The national-revolutionaries are the most radical, anti-Weimar and anti-capitalist group. Characteristic for their ideological world-outlook is the anti-West and anti-Civilization orientation intellectually conceived in a way similar to Thomas Mann’s thoughts in Reflections of a Nonpolitical Man. Civilization-criticism was equated with criticism of Anglo-Saxon influence and capitalism, disguised as progress, liberalism and democracy. Or as Thomas Mann wrote:

“Whatever the state of Germany s spiritual power of resistance may be today (May 1917), in 1914 she had recognized as superstition the belief that the Western ideas were still the leading, victorious and revolutionary ones; she was convinced that progress, modernity , youth, genius, and novelty were on the German side; she thought it patently clear that compared with the conservatism of the immortal principles , her own psychological conservatism signified something truly revolutionary.” (4)

Thomas Mann noted further that:

“Whoever would aspire to transform Germany into a middle-class democracy in the Western-Roman sense and spirit would wish to take away from her all that is best and complex, to take away the problematic character that really makes up her
nationality; he would make her dull, shallow, stupid, an un-German, and he would therefore be an antinationalist who insisted that Germany become a nation in a foreign sense and spirit.”(5)

The term West was seen as synonymous with Anglo-Saxon and therefore the anti-West orientation in concrete political terms translated into corresponding East orientation, toward Russia.(6)

Ernst Jünger, the National-Bolshevik Ernst Niekisch and Otto Strasser, the anti-capitalist National Socialist and leader of the Black Front, are the most prominent representatives of the national-revolutionaries. The capitalism was ideologically perceived as anti-German, as Anglo-Saxon imposition and a deadly threat to culture and to the quality of life, note Dahl and Heidegren. The work of the sociologist Werner Sombart Händler and Helden, published in 1915, had an important influence on the criticism of capitalism: it contraposed the Hero against the Händler (= the shopkeeper(7)) .

In the Fourteen Theses of the German Revolution , published in 1929 as the manifesto and program of the Black Front, Otto Strasser clearly defined the extent of his faction s commitment to socialist social change. The main points of the program were:
“nationalist, against the enslavement of Germany by the Versailles powers; socialist, against the tyranny of money and Volkish, against the destruction of the German soul.” (8)

His first point placed him in the company of Moeller van den Bruck , for he advocated a foreign policy oriented toward the East , toward what van den Bruck described as the territory of the young Russian nation. His second point demanded nationalization of all land and abolishment of all unearned income. And the third point was directed against foreign elements and institutions working to undermine and enslave the German soul and German historical and cultural traditions.(9)

Conservative revolutionaries were also critical of the political form of expression of capitalism: the liberalism. The liberalism, built on an atomistic, individualistic principle, had undermined all organic Gemeinschaft or as Moeller van den Bruck asserted in Das Dritte Reich : The liberalism has ruined cultures, it has undermined religions. It has destroyed nations and fatherlands. The liberalism is the self-dissolution of the mankind.

Against the liberalism he envisioned a new ethical-political German or Prussian socialism. Oswald Spengler stated in his book Preussentum und Socialismus that:

“Power belongs to the whole. The individual serves it. The whole is sovereign…Together Prussianism and socialism stand against the England within us , against the world view which has penetrated the whole existence of our people, paralyzed it, and robbed it of its soul .”(10)

The basic mood of the ideology of Conservative Revolution is best summarized by the distinction between Culture and Civilization as well as between organic unity and economic liberalism.

A Culture, to recall Oswald Spengler s words, has a soul, whereas Civilization is the most external and artificial state of which humanity is capable. The acceptance of Culture and rejection of Civilization meant for many people and end to alienation from the society. The word rootedness occur constantly in their vocabulary. They sought this in spiritual terms, through an inward
correspondence between the individual, the native soul, the Volk and the universe. In this manner the isolation they felt so deeply would be destroyed.

The external was equated with the present, disappointing society; the state was opposed to the Volk, and the divisive parliamentary politics contrasted with that organic unity for which so many Germans longed. Moreover, the external signified a society which had forgotten its genuine, Germanic purpose . (11)

Following Armin Mohlers thoughts Dahl and Heidegren concentrate on the Nietzschean elements in the ideology of the Conservative Revolution: the dichotomy between linear versus cyclical (Nietzsche, Spengler)-without beginning or an end- concept of history and the notion of the Return of the Eternal , the contraposition of progress versus inner and outer organic development, the conviction that the fall, the destruction are at the same time a rebirth. Those irrational elements have a certain historical significance, but they are neither generally representative nor decisive for the ideology of the Conservative Revolution.

More interesting is the discussion of the relationship between cultural pessimism, the feeling of doom, and decisionist voluntarism, a relationship similar to that of illness and medicine. According to Loius Dupeux the decisionist voluntarism became the intellectual foundation of a new optimism, a conservative optimism as Moeller van den Bruck called it, centered on notions
of national rebirth, resurrection and self-affirmation, on assertion of a new national identity as a trans-individual subject of history. Therefore in his book Die Entscheidung Christian Graf von Krockow correctly calls Carl Schmitt, Ernst Jünger and Martin Heidegger the prophets of decision during a historical period which already Oswald Spengler had described as The Hour of Decision.

LEBENSPHILOSOPHIE

The Weltanschauung of the Conservative Revolution , its vitalistic and decisionist approach to society, human being as well as to international relations, can not be understood without the reference to the concept of life identified with experience, central in the German tradition of Liebensphilosophie, the latter, in the words of Georg Lukacs, using the intuition as its organom and the irrational as its natural object (12), conjured up the necessary elements of a vitalistic world-view. The epistemological
rationale of Lebensphilosophie proceeded from the thesis that experiencing the world is the ultimate basis of knowledge and that an epistemological solution to man s relationship with the objective external world could only be elucidated by way of praxis.

Louis Dupeux asserts in his contribution to the issue(13) that the most important ideological characteristic of the Conservative Revolution- is the emphasis on the concept of life which, after Nietzsche, takes the roll of the Right-wing antagonist to the Left s concept of reason, a concept of life which Thomas Mann defined as key concept of every modern Weltanschaung.

GLOSSARIUM

The translation of part of Carl Schmitt s book Glossarium-Aufzeichungen 1947-1951 , first published in 1991 in Germany and consisting of short philosophical and existential reflections, contains several interesting observations, written with aphoristic clarity, concerning Carl Scmitt s criticism of neo-Kantian legal positivism, American political theology- the
Wilsonian pseudo-universalism – used as a ideological vehicle for imperialist expansionism, notes dealing with Schmitt s high esteem for Georg Lukacs and his intellectual affinity with Heidegger, as well as the juridical interpretation of the existential theme of the trowness in history.

Schmitt compares his own criticism of legal positivism with the young Hegel s rejection of positivism. Positivism=Legality=Judaism=Despotism=the cramp of the Duty and the Norm. On the split between legality and legitimacy Schmitt notes The jurist s and the legal profession s fate on the Continent: since the French Revolution 1789-1848 the law is split in legality and legitimacy, it ends with the jurist falling in the pitfall of mere legality, in pure positivism. After this split followed after 1848 a split of legitimacy. The tendency appeared first during the Restoration, from 1815 to 1850, as a pure historical, dynastic and restoration legitimacy. Against it appeared a new revolutionary legitimacy which finally prevailed and was victorious. The criterion is: good conscience in respect to legality and legitimacy. The manifesto of the victory as well as its
authentic legal philosophy is Georg Lukacs History and Class Consciousness .

The political ideology of the American imperialism and expansionism- the Wilsonian pseudo-universalism- is compared with the dogmas of the Catholic Church. This ideology reconstructs and totalizes the world in a mold for American domination and hegemony. Thus the ideology of universalism is not only dogmatically-ecumenical to its essence, it is above all totalitarian. American political ideology is compared with political theology and as such it is not only totalitarian but also totalizing in Hegelian sense.(14)

On the relationship between theology and technique he observes that both are totalitarian preserves. The theology is out of necessity totalitarian to both its substance and its consequences; the technique is totalitarian in its methods, out of its functionality. The result is always totalization . On the subject of the existential fate of man Schmitt remarks that the human being of today is exposed to the same fate as Kaspar Hauser . Several months latter he notes: The beautiful Nietzschean though: With wide shoulders the Room resists the Nothingness. Where Room exists, exists the Being.

I disagree with Ellen Kennedy s assertion that Carl Schmitt created an expressionistic concept of the political in his book The Concept of the Political (15). I mention that only because also Jürgen Habermas advances a similar notion in his essay The horrors of autonomy: Carl Schmitt in English, published in the book The New Conservatism .(16) The political manifests
itself in the collective organized self-assertion of a politically existing people against external and internal enemies…A people welded together in a battle for life and death asserts its uniqueness against both external enemies and traitors within its own ranks. The political extreme case is characterized in terms of the phenomenon of defining one s own identity in the struggle
against the alienness of the enemy who threatens one s very existence, and thus in terms of the situation of war between people or civil war , writes Habermas and concludes that thus Schmitt created an expressionist concept of the political.

Habermas, however, is misstaken. Rather, as Georg Lukacs has noted, Schmitt created an existentialist concept of the political, the nature of the state sovereignty and of the international law(17) and if so only because the Versailles system was perceived by him as a threat to the national existence and the national substance of Germany. Therefore a concept of international law,
preserving and defending the national existence was necessary, and that concept had a very strong Hegelian influences .

A discussion on similarities between Hegel s and Schmitt’s concepts of international law is clearly beyond the scope of this short review. However a few brief observations are necessary. Hegel defines the individuality of the sovereign state in the states existence as a unit in a sharp distinction from other states. Only in preserving its uniqueness can a state maintain and preserve its sovereignty. Since the sovereignty of a state is the principle of its relations to other states , the rights of sovereign states are actualized only in their particular wills and not in an universal will with constitutional powers over them.

Hegel rejected Kant s idea of an early League of Nations, a formalized Holy Alliance in the post-1815 Restoration Europe. Hegel claimed that the nature of the sovereignty was the right of a sovereign state to create and oppose an enemy. And whenever war breaks out because two sovereign states oppose each other, it is because two sets of rights, each legitimate in its own way, clash. Wars to Hegel are always clashes between two rights, not between right and wrong. Hence the outcome of a war never proves one side right and the other wrong. It only regulates which right will yield to the other.(18)

Agness Heller has noted that Lukacs , Heidegger and Schmitt all focus on the concept of existential choice.

The idea of collective existential choice thus emerged almost naturally in their closely similar visions and theoretical interests. The political appeared to them to identify the essence and existence in community. When a collective entity chooses itself and thus its own destiny , the political act par excellence has already been accomplished. In Lukacs it is the empirical
proletariat, this merely economic class, which is bound to choose itself and thus its own destiny. The moment of proletarian revolution is the very moment of constituting the political. In Heidegger it is the nation, the empirical German nation, which is bound to become fully political in the gesture of self-choice. This is what happens in the German revolution which is a quintessential political gesture .(19)

For Carl Schmitt it is also the empirical German nation as a collective entity, surrounded by alien entities, which must become political and thus emancipate itself from the dictates of Versailles. In History and Class Consciousness Georg Lukacs quotes Karl Marx words in Critique of Hegel s Philosophy of Right :

“When the proletariat proclaims the dissolution of the previous world order it does no more than reveal the secret of its own existence, for it represents the effective dissolution of that world order. The self-understanding of the proletariat is therefore simultaneously the objective understanding of the nature of society. When the proletariat furthers its own class-aims it
simultaneously achieves the conscious realization of the objective aims in society , aims which would inevitably remain abstract possibilities and objective frontiers but for this conscious intervention…The proletariat makes its appearance as the product of the capitalist social order. The forms in which it exists are the repositories of reification in its accutest and direst form and they issue in the most extreme dehumanization.”(20)

In a sort of a paradoxical way one may compare the reificatory, dehumanizing effects of the commodity fetishism on the proletariat as a collective subject, as well as on the society, in the marxian tradition, with the dehumanizing effect of the Versailles system and its dictates on the German nation as a collective subject in Carl Schmitt s jurisprudence.(21)

THE SWEDISH MODEL

What I would have liked to see in the magazine is a discussion on two important issues: the historical tradition of the ideology of the Conservative Revolution in Sweden(22) as well as the relevance and actuality of that ideology today.

The so called Swedish model was not only the most successful implementation of the ideology of the Conservative Revolution, but also the world s most advanced implementation of corporativist state, a model of political-economic organization known as corporativism. Sweden perfected the essential elements of the economic strategies employed in Italy and Germany in the interwar years. The particular type of society the Swedish social democracy created -Folkhemmet (Peoples Home,Volksstaat, a corporativist organic gemeinschaft)- was heralded as The Third Way, a social formation between liberal capitalism and Marxist socialism; a Swedish socialism analogous to the concept of Prussian socialism.(23)

The concept of Folkhemmet was originally developed by the Swedish geopolitician Rudolf Kjellen in 1910 and it included two components -Realm (Reich)- the geographical component -, and Folk, the racial component. Folkhemmet was both a
racial as well as a geographical concept, i.e. a racial existence of Volk in geopolitical space. In his book Kjellen The State as a Live Form ( Staten som livsform ) conceptualized the People s Home (Folkhemmet, Volksstaat) as a geopolitical construct.

The foundation of the People s Home (Volksstaat) was laid after the Saltsj?baden Agreement of 1938, concluded between the trade unions and the employer s association, which outlawed strikes and created the institution of centralized wage bargaining for the entire nation. The most obvious effect of the Saltsj?baden agreement was the entrenchment of industrial peace, but the most profound consequence was the establishment of the corporative State. Through the Saltsj?baden agreement, unions and employers, labor and capital, coalesced into a single corporate structure.

Per Engdahl, the most prominent Swedish fascist and a personal friend of leading Social-Democratic politicians, such as the long-time Prime Minister Tage Erlander and the Finance Minister Gunnar Str?ng, asserted in his memoirs Fribrytare i Folkhemmet that the creation of the People s Home has been the most successful realization of the political idea of corporativism.

The ideology of the Swedish Social Democracy incorporated also many ideological völkisch components. The national substance of the Folkhemmet was a racially defined Folkgemenskap (Volksgemeinschaft, People s Community).(24) A
nationalistic overtone was attached to the membership in the Folkgemenskap, members were exclusively those belonging to Den Svenska Folkstammen (Volkstum, Swedish Racial Group), minorities on the territory of Sweden, like the Tornedal
Finns, were on the other hand excluded by virtue of not being members of the Volkstum.(25)

The social democratic slogan of national and political unity became staten, r?relsen, folket (Staat , Bewegung, Volk (26); State, Movement, People), the organic totality of the state, the movement-the social-democratic party-, and the people. Sweden even constructed Scandinavia, and above all Finland and Norway, as a Swedish Grossraum, a small one but nevertheless a Grossraum. (After Karl XII The Great s Russian misadventures a Swedish Grossraum could not be anything but a miniature one.)

The Swedish leading socialdemocratic jurist and the most prominent theoretician, Axel H?gerstr?m, can be seen as a Swedish equivalent of Carl Schmitt. The criticism of Swedish legislation during the 70-ties stressed the non-normative, decisionist substance of the legislation, the use of the so called general clause as a legislative technic conferring to the legislation the character of promisses imperecta; attached to the law it served as a conduit of the decisionist free will of the civil servants, it had the function of a general exception to the normative use and substance of the legislation.

Axel H?gerstr?m equated power with law asserting that the structure of power is the structure of law . The state and the power are identical with the persons who exercise permanent, real power in such a way that their collective will becomes acknowledged as the will of the State. Upper bureaucracy, in Swedish ?mbetsm?n (higher civil servants) is identical with power and, consequently, also with the State. In consistency with this view Axel H?gerstr?m wrote in R?tten och viljan (The Law and the Will) that:(27)

The constitutional laws which regulate the actions of the highest holders of power and the limits of their sphere of power, should be regarded as standardization of declarations of will and thus the constitutional laws express the common will of those same power holders as having the actual power. Then, if one of them doesn t want to follow the laws in one aspect or another, the laws cease to have legal validity. An unconstitutional procedure by such holder of power (makthavare) is thus impossible. The constitution then also becomes, as far as it regulates the power holder s actions and sphere of power , without any
legal meaning. It can also be said that the constitution, like every rule of law, ceases to have any legal meaning when it is no longer in use. In my opinion the constitutional laws are not applicable to the highest holders of power. They can proceed in any way they like and as far as they like, arbitrarily breaching the established law- this would not be against ! any of the provisions of the constitution from the viewpoint of the constitutions own meaning .

According to the Carl Schmitt s maxim that sovereign is he who decides on the exception (28) the omnipotent sovereign in the Swedish People s Home became the ?mbetsm?n, resulting, as critics claimed, in an absolutist civil servant state.(29)

Folkhemmet, the Swedish People s Home, in now, during the 90-ties gone, replaced by an American style economic liberalism. The new liberal-economic universalism turned however in reality to be an accelerated economic Thatcherism, resulting
in a sharply lowered living standards for the majority of the Swedish population, in dismantling of the protective social security and labor legislation, in economic destabilization, decline of culture and increase of criminality. The Swedish economy, once a prototype for many countries, is now in shambles.

The prominent Swedish economist Professor Rudolf Meidner defines the demise of the Peoples Home as a System Shift . The economic consequences of this system shift are the dismantling of the welfare state, privatization of state monopolies, abandoning of the policy of full employment, upsurge of non-productive speculative investment, resulting in destabilization of the
economy and substantial loss of jobs in manufacturing. The system shift required an assault on the core institutions sustaining wage earner solidarity, especially the system of nationwide collective bargaining through which the unions had pursued their solidaristic wage strategy. (30)

Decentralization of the collective bargaining, which has obtained since the Saltsj?baden Agreement, led to a gradual destruction of the institution through which wage solidarity had been pursued. The system shift-the counterrevolution of universalism-has led to assault on labor unions, labor laws, labor movement and social welfare, in short on all that traditionally has been associated in Sweden with substantive human rights.

Rudolf Meidner states that deregulation of currency flows and regulations pertaining to investments abroad has resulted not only in substantial capital outflow abroad and transferal of Swedish companies abroad in the name of multinationalism, with sharp decrease of job opportunities and employment in Sweden, but also in a virtual deindustrialization of the country and
pauperization of large segments of the population. Should the tendencies emanating from the system shift continue the institutional underpinnings of working class solidarity and, more broadly, the alliance of wage earners (i.e. blue and white collar workers) will have been demolished. In other words, what are at stake are the very political foundations of the model .(31)

In retrospect the omnipotence and fiats of the concrete social democratic ?mbetsm?n -the Swedish Nomenclatura- appear as very benevolent in comparison to the omnipotence and fiats of the abstract capital.

In a way one may say that after the fall of the Berlin wall of the People s Home and the intrusion of Americanism, the resulting experience of life is that of allm?nt f?rj?vligande, an expression which is difficult to translate but corresponds to a general backlash, a decline and worsening of the structures of the Life-World, a sort of a ground-zero. That is why G?ran Dahl and Carl-G?ran Heidegren write at the end of their introduction that:

Our time, in similarity with the Weimar epoch, is a time of conflict, crisis and transition. The optimism from 1989 has , confronting the development in Russia and Yugoslavia, been substituted with a total pessimism. In turbulent epochs the old concepts no longer can grasp the reality. And the perception of an unstructured reality is a fertile soil for new or old-new ideas to sprout. Whatever one thinks about the idea of the Conservative Revolution, we believe it is an idea to take into account in the future.

And that brings us to the relevancy of the idea of Conservative Revolution in the post-Cold War period, the epoch after the D-Day of the American pseudo-universalism.

The ideological and above all political phenomenon of Conservative Revolution can not be correctly understood without taking into account the three historical traumas: the trauma of The God is dead , which Nietzsche heralded, the trauma
of the W.W.I and the trauma of the Treaty of Versailles and the world order, tailored after Anglo-Saxon dominance, it created.

In many aspects Carl Schmitt s jurisprudence, his criticism of the Wilsonian pseudo-universalism and his definition of the enemy, can be seen as an ongoing polemic against the Versailles Treaty, its prodigy- the League of Nations-, and the inner England – seen outward as an Anglo-Saxon world domination and inward in the political institutions as well as in the cultural values of the Anglo-Saxon liberal capitalism: liberal democracy and parliamentarianism.

The resurgence of the ideological tendencies in Europe now, similar to the Conservative Revolution in the past, can in many respects be seen as a reaction to a similar trauma of the American New World Order, perceived as a threat to existing state sovereignties, national identities and national culture. What was once defined as rejection of the inner England is now a rejection of the inner America .

One can paraphrase Oswald Spengler s words in Preussentum und Socialismus: Europe as political and cultural entity stands against America within us, against the world view which has penetrated the whole existence of people s in Europe, paralyzed it, and robbed it of its soul. All that being said, its is obvious that one can not talk about American Conservative Revolution because the original Conservative Revolution was anti Anglo-Saxon then and is anti-American now.

In this context , as a political as well as an ideological alternative to the New World Order, the concept of Europe as a New World has been constructed in above all French debate. The substance of this concept is the notion of reversal of historical roles: when the original Monroe Doctrine was pronounced in 1823, America was conceived as a New World in opposition to Europe of the Holly Alliance- the Old World. In the 90-ties the positions have become reversed.

United States is the interventionist world of old values, of the past-the Old World; the New Europe on the other hand, Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals, and further, to Vladivostok, is the New World, the world of the future. And it
is an existential imperative for the New World to reject and oppose the interference and interventionism of the Old World, which by necessity leads to a formulation of a Monroe Doctrine for Europe. Because if the New World is not the
negation of the Old World, but to a great extend integrated in it, then the new political forms and national entities are confronted with a situation where authentic expression of national life exists but can not be attached to a particular form of ideological resistance, political expression and national substance.

In the intellectual climate of the post-Cold War Europe not only the ideas of Europe as a New World, but also elaborations of the ideology of the Conservative Revolution , by virtue of their otherness, can stand against the homogenizing,
neutralizing impact of the Old World, against the American managers of ideological oppression and their clients and customers. The threatening ideological homogeneity of the American totalitarian political theology and its prodigy – the American universalism- has been loosening up, and alternatives are beginning to break into the repressive continuum.

The notion of Europe as a New World and alternative ideologies such as the ideology of the Conservative Revolution , are therefore not only a firm rejection of the American jargon of universalism but also an expression of growing opposition to the global domination of the American New World Order.

Francis Fukuyama recently asserted in a deeply apologetical book (32) that Americanism constituted the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution and the final form of human government and as such constituted the end of history .
The historical actuality of the contemporary resurgence of the ideology of the interwar Conservative Revolution is then situated in the existential necessity to recapture the history- the powerful humanizing and liberating force of its continuing evolution. In a critical historical period in Europe when the old is no more but the new is not yet, the recapturing of the history is possible only
if one follows the old Nietzschean maxim expressed in the Genealogy of Morals: No American Future. (33)

ENDNOTES

(1) Carl Schmitt s book The Concept of the Political has also been translated into Swedish and published as a part in Sven-Erik Lidman(ed)-Fr?n Machiavelli till Habermas (Bonniers, Stockholm, 1991).

(2) G?ran Dahl, who is a professor in sociology at the University of Lund and responsible for the Carl Schmitt s part in the issue, has written works in the tradition of the German so called Hannover School of Socialization which in many
respects build on and develop the Lukacs tradition of subjectivist Marxism. One of his most interesting papers is Individ och Kapital. Till begripandet av den subjectiva faktorn under kapitalismen (Tekla, 6/1979, Lund) which is a presentation of Alfred Crovoza s ideas on the political dimension of societal socialization and the interrelationship between commodity fetishism and
socialization (Alfred Crovoza-Production und Socialization, EVA, 1976). Other books written by Dahl are Beg?r och kritik (1986) and Psykoanalys och kulturkritik (1992). Carl-G?ran Heidegren has published Filosofi och revolution. Hegels v?g till visdom (1984) and Hegel. Behovet av filosofin (1992)

(3) G?ran Dahl and Carl-G?ran Heidegren – Den magiska nollpunkten, ResRublica -at p. 7. Derived from the idea of Reich is Carl Schmitt s concept of Grossraum and a world order build on a plurality of Grossr?ume. see Grossraum versus
Universalismus in Positionen und Begriffe – p.p. 295-302. Carl Schmitt defines the empire as the leading and supporting powers whose political idea is radiated over a specified major territory and which fundamentally exclude the
intervention of extra-territorial powers with regard to this territory. see Der Reichsbegrif im V?lkerrecht in Positionen und Begriffe -p. 303. It is also interesting to note the resurrection of the concept of Empire in Russia in
contemporary Russian Conservative Revolutionary debate. see for example the Chairman of the National-Republican Party Nikolaj Lysenko s work Nasha celj sozdanie velikoj imperii -in Nash Sovremennik, Nr 9, 1992 (Moscow) p.p. 122-130,
Alexander Dugins contributions on the subject in the Journal Elementy and also the program of the Russian National-Bolshevik Party. Recently the concept of The Third Russia , reminiscent of Moeller van den Bruck s Das Dritte Reich , has been advanced in the National Conservative debate in Russia.

(4) Thomas Mann -Reflections of a Nonpolitical Man (Frederick Ungar Publishing, Co., New York, 1983) at p. 256.. Thomas Mann quotes Dostoevski who wrote that The most characteristic, most essential trait of this great, proud, and special
people has always been, since the first moment of its appearance in the historical world, that it has never, neither in its destiny nor in its principles, wanted to be united with the far Western World – ibid. p. 26

(5) Thomas Mann- ibid. p. 36

(6) the anti-West and pro Russian orientation had many supporters within the German General Staff-General von Seeckt is the most prominent representative-, and within the Foreign Ministry- the so called group of Osterners, the architects of the Rappalo Treaty. One may recall that already Nietzsche in the Genealogy of Morals had envisioned a political union between Germany and Russia.

(7) England was ideologically conceived as a nation of shopkeepers.

(8) Vierzehn Thesem der Deutschen Revolution in Wilhelm Mommsen and G?nther Frantz Die Deutschen Partej-Programme (Leipzig and Berlin , 1931), p. 118.

(9) George L. Mosse- The Crisis of German Ideology (Closet & Dunlap, New York,1964) p.288.

(10) Here a quote from Peter Gay Weimar Culture (Harper Torchbooks, New York, 1970) p.86

(11) George L. Mosse- The Crisis of German Ideology (Closet & Dunlap, New York, 1964) p.6,7

(12) Georg Lukacs- The Destruction of Reason (Humanities Press, Atlantic Highlights, 1981) -at p.402

(13) Louis Dupeux – Conservative Revolution and Modernity in ResPublica- p.p. 140-169

(14) Totalitarianism can be defined from the point of view of what is the constituting, totalizing principle of society: Race (Nazism), Class (Marxism), Abstract Capital (Liberal capitalism, American universalism.) On the political aspects of the American totalitarianism Carl Schmitt has written in Grossraum gegen Universalismus.

(15) Ellen Kennedy -Kulturkritiska och metafysiska k?llor till begreppet det politiska hos Carl Schmitt- in ResPublica- pp. 96-116. Carl Schmitt s jurisprudence could be possibly called expressionistic only in a context of Wilhelm Worringer s theories developed in his book Formprobleme der Gotic (1911) in which he counterpoised the rebellious, governed by a metaphysical
restlessness German Geist, best expressing itself in the form of Gothic, to the balanced Roman Geist, expressing itself in the form of Classicism, in the form of the Renaissance. Different late interpretation of Wilhelm Worringers theories tended to see the Expressionism in the same way Wilhelm Worringer saw the style of Gothic? as an expression of metaphysical restlessness immanent in the German Geist.

(16) Jürgen Habermas-The New Conservatism (The MIT Press, Cambridge, 1990) – pp.
128-139

(17) see Georg Lukacs-The Destruction of Reason (Humanities Press, Atlantic Highlands, 1981) -at p. 658.

(18) see G.W.F. Hegel -Philosophy of Right (Oxford University Press, London , 1967) – at p.p. 208-216; also Sclomo Avineri -Hegel s Theory of the Modern State (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1989) – at p.p. 194-207

(19) Agnes Heller -The Concept of the Political Revisited in David Held (ed) -Political Theory Today (Stanford University Press, Stanford, 1991) – at p. 334.

(20) Georg Lukacs – History and Class Consciousness (The MITT Press, Cambridge, 1985)- at p. 149.

(21) it is interesting to note that the reception of Carl Schmitt as well as the ideology of the Conservative Revolution in Russia are focused on the existential predicament of Russia- with the post-Cold War settlement compared to a Second
Treaty of Versailles-, and the necessity of decision to repeal the dehumanizing impact and aliennes of the American New World Order.

(22) the elements of the predominant Swedish V?lkische ideology during the 20-ties are discussed in Rolf Torstendahl -Mellan nykonservatism och liberalism (Uppsala, 1969)

(23) Oswald Spengler defined the Prussian Socialism build on alliance of conservatives and socialist toward a common aim- a corporativism as a truly German form of government . Politische Schriften (Munich ,1932) p. 64

(24) see also Rudolf Kjellen Staten som livsform (Hugo Gebers F?rlag, Stockholm, 1916).

(25) In the Swedish government s bill in the Rikstag (Parliament) introducing the 1927 Immigration Law it was stated that the value of the homogenous and pure race of the people of our country can not be overestimated (see Thomas
Hammar-Sverige ?t svenskarna, Stockholm 1964, at p. 367; also Hans Lindberg – Svensk flyktingpolik under internationellt tryck 1936-1941, Allm?na f?rlaget, Stockholm, 1973, at p. 37) The main function of the 1927 Immigration Law was to
protect the racial purity of the Swedish Volkstum.

How strong those sentiments remained can be illustrated with the following conversation about the status of minorities in Sweden I had with Gunnar Myrdal in 1974. He had written An American Dilemma, dealing with the minority question
in the United States. I, on the other hand, had published in 1974 a longer essay Invandrarfr?gan-ett svenskt dilemma ( The Minority Question. A Swedish Dilemma).During the course of the conversation I suggested that in similiarity
and analogy with the Finland-Svenska Folkpartiet i Finland (Finnish-Swedish Peoples Party in Finland), representing the Swedish minority in Finland, the minorities in Sweden and above all the Tornedal-Finns (a large Finish minority
in Sweden) should form their own party. Gunnar Myrdal became red in the face and exclaimed: Minorities can and must exist only in total integration in the majority society. God protect them if the minorities will start organizing their own party. That will be a suicide for them.

And even today Swedish law does not recognize the concept (and existence) of minorities in Sweden.(see Gustaf Petren-Minoriternas r?ttsst?llning i Sverige in David Schwarz -Identitet och minoritet, Almquist&Wiksell f?rlag, Stockholm,
1971, at p. 28)

(26) see Carl Schmitt – Staat, Bewegung, Volk: Die Dreigliederung der politischen Einheit (Hamburg, 1933)

(27) Axel H?gerstr?m – R?tten och viljan (Lund, 1961) – at p. 71

(28) Carl Schmitt – Political Theology (The MIT Press, Cambridge, 1988)- p. 5

(29) see Nikolaj-Klaus von Kreitor -Beamtendiktatur -auf Schwedisch (Demokratie und Recht 4/1979, Pahl-Rugenstein Verlag, K?ln, 1979); Nikolaj-Klaus von Kreitor-Das Ausnahmegesetz- das schwedische Model der repressiven Gesetzgebung
(Democratie und Recht 4/1979); Nikolaj-Klaus von Kreitor -Schweden bricht das Abkommen von Helsinki (Frankfurter Hefte 9/1980, Frankfurt, 1980); Nikolaj-Klaus von Kreitor -Das schwedische Model…der Zenzsur (Bl?tter f?r deutsche und
internationale Politik 10/1978, Pahl-Rugenstein Verlag, K?ln, 1978); Nikolaj-Klaus von Kreitor -Berufsverbot en Suecia (Argumentos 27/1979, Madrid, Spain 1979); Nikolaj-Klaus von Kreitor-Undantagslagen: Skyddar h?gre ?mbetsm?n.
Kr?nker fri- och r?ttigheter (Jusek, 4/1980, Stockholm, 1980); Nikolaj-Klaus von Kreitor-Undantagslagen och r?ttsstatens kris (Svensk r?ttsforum, 18, 1979, Lund, 1979); Nikolaj-Klaus von Kreitor -M?ls?gandetalan mot h?ga ?mbetsm?tsm?n upph?vd (Oikeus 2/1979, Helsinki, 1979 and Medborgarr?ttsr?rel! sen 4/1979, Stockholm, 1979); Nikolaj-Klaus von Kreitor-Folkhemsmytens nedgang och fall. Charta 79 och den demokratiska oppositionen i Sverige (Soihtu 5/1980.
Helsinki, 1980); Nikolaj-Klaus von Kreitor -Undantagslagen- ett exempel p? repressiv lagstiftning (Retfaerd-Scandinavian Law Review 11/1979, Arhus 1979, Denmark); Nikolaj-Klaus von Kreitor-Kansankodin kuokavieras.Omael?m?kerralinen
ruotsalaisen yhteiskunnan korporativismen kritiikki (Gummerus F?rlag, Jyv?skyl?,
Finland, 1980).
see also the recently published book by Stephan Wehowsky (introduction by Christian Graf von Krockow)-Schatten Gesellschaft (Hanser Verlag, M?nchen, 1994)

(30) Rianne Mahon and Rudolf Meidner – System Shift ; or What is the Future of Swedish Social Democracy , Socialist Review at p. 65

(31) Rianne Manon and Rudolf Meidner – System Shift – ibid. p. 63
(32) Francis Fukuyama-The End of History (Avon Books, New York, 1992)

(33) The Philosophy of Nietzsche (Modern Library, New York, 1954) p. 802

The Concept of Grossraum in Carl Schmitt’s Jurisprudence (Nikolai von Kreitor)

Friday, August 7th, 1970

The Historical Necessity of a New Russian Grossraum
by Nikolai von Kreitor

The most fundamental principle in geopolitics is the principle of Grossraum (=Great Area) formulated by the prominent German jurist Carl Schmitt in his book Völkerrechtlishe Grossraumordnung mit Interventionsverbot für Raumfremde Mächte (1) and seen by him as a foundation for the science of international law and international relations.

A Grossraum is an area dominated by a power representing a distinct political idea. This idea was always formulated with a specific opponent in mind; in essence ,the distinction between friend and enemy would be determined by this particular political idea. As an example Carl Schmitt cited the American Monroe Doctrine and its concept of non-intervention by foreign powers in the American Raum. “This is the core of the original Monroe Doctrine, a genuine Grossraum principle, namely the union of politically awakened people, a political idea and, on the basis of this idea, a politically dominant Grossraum excluding foreign intervention.”

Carl Schmitt’s knowledge and sense of history were equaled by his ability to define core issues. That ability enabled Schmitt to quickly grasp the essence of national foreign policy , articulate it in his book, relate the idea and implementation of the American Monroe Doctrine to the concept of Grossraum , subject Grossraum to analysis, incorporate it into the framework of international law and contrapose American Grossraum to a new German Grossraum, opposed to and competing with the American. By subjecting Grossraum to scholarly investigation and by placing it in the context of global politics, Schmitt had hoped to enlarge the horizon of learning and to update the state-centered system of international law to include relations between Grossräume (Different Great Areas).(2)

In so doing he subjected the political theology of American expansionism, the American state-policy and objectives of world domination formulated and codified in the Monroe Doctrine and its various extension, to a demystifying and critical analysis showing that the essence of Wilsonian universalism before, during and after the World War II was in fact an insidious ideology to equate American national interest, American expansionism and the principles of the Monroe Doctrine with the interest of mankind(3). Discussing emerging political realities , Schmitt noted that Germany needed to formulate her own Grossraum and to conceptualize the nature of international law as a relationship between different Grossräume, rejecting thereby the universalistic claims of the United States.

The center of Carl Schmitt’s discussion was the geopolitical and the ideological substance of the Monroe Doctrine, especially the series of ideas articulated prior to Theodore Roosevelt’s reinterpretation of it justifying a “capitalist imperialism”(4) and Woodrow Wilson’s reinterpretation that sough to justify a “kind of pan-interventionist world ideology”(5) , i.e. to justify the principles of the Monroe Doctrine and the new international law it created in the Western Hemisphere to principles valid for the whole world. The substance of the new American international law, created by the Monroe Doctrine, was in fact an absence of international law, understood traditionally as law of nations created by mutual consent of those nations, in the Western Hemisphere, since the Monroe Doctrine postulated that the only source of the new international law was the will of the United States. According to Schmitt the Monroe Doctrine, historically seen, was the vehicle of American subjugation of the Latin American countries and transformation of those countries into virtual American protectorates.

President Woodrow Wilson’s objectives at the end of the W.W. I to elevate the principles of the Monroe Doctrine to universally valid principles for the whole world was in fact America’s first bid for world domination. On April 12, 1919, at the Paris Peace Conference , President Wilson assured the delegates that the Monroe Doctrine was “the real forerunner of the League of Nations” and asked rhetorically ,”Indeed are we not assembled here to consecrate and extend the horizon of this document as a perpetual charter for all the world.”(6)

The Monroe Doctrine, that nineteenth-century formulation of American foreign policy, has according to Schmitt a profound relevance for the Germany of his day. Though Schmitt recognized that the realities of power politics in the Western Hemisphere of the nineteenth century were different from those on the European continent of the twentieth century , he realized that the Monroe Doctrine had extended the parameters of international relations. As far as Schmitt was concerned, the Monroe Doctrine was “the first and until now the most successful example of a Grossraum principle”(7) that had over a period of time acquired validity, for it was referred to in every important text and dictionary of international law and was defended by the United States as “an expression of the inalienable right to self-defense”(8) Calling the Monroe Doctrine, i.e. the American expansionism, a “right to self-defense”, clearly showed the substance of American political theology-the ideological justification of U.S. imperialism as well as the equation in the ideology of expansionism with self-defense: an important ideological component that will became a center-peace of American mystification of U.S. expansionism.

Carl Schmitt points out that at the end of the W.W. I, at the Paris Peace-conference which resulted in the Treaty of Versailles and the creation of the League of Nations , United States succeeded to include the Monroe Doctrine in the Article 21 of the League’s Covenant. Inclusion of the Monroe Doctrine in the Article 21 in the League of Nation’s Covenant, which reads “Nothing in this Covenant shall be deemed to affect the validity of international engagements, such as treaties of arbitration or regional understandings like the Monroe Doctrine, for securing the maintenance of peace.” symbolized for Carl Schmitt Europe’s defeat by the United States and the end of the old Jus Publicum European, which had been the foundation for all preexisting international relations. For one thing , the League of Nations, purportedly an universal international organization and predecessor of the United Nations, was excluded from asserting any jurisdictional claims in the American Grossraum, i.e. the Western Hemisphere. Western Hemisphere was excluded from the purview of the League. Thus the United States asserted the pre-eminence of its will and the ordering principles of her Grossraum, i.e. her unrestricted hegemony in the Western Hemisphere, over the League of Nations.

Schmitt emphasizes that before Grossraum could be anchored in international law it had to be legitimized by a political idea. The geopolitical and ideological conviction behind the original Monroe Doctrine, proclaimed in 1823 – the belief that the Americas had to be defended from the “status quo powers of legitimacy”(9) , the Holly Alliance, the European Con-cert formed after the defeat of Napoleon – justified its proclamation and gave it credibility. President James Monroe announced the doctrine in response to rumored intervention in America of the Holy Alliance. The United States justified its policy on the basis of its inalienable right of self-defense , a principle on which international law is found. Hence the declaration warning the members of the Holy Alliance that the United States “would consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety” and that the U.S. government would “view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European power in no other light than as manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States”. As a corollary of the principle of nonintervention, Monroe declared that the United States was committing itself to a policy of non-intervention “in the internal concerns of any European powers.”(10)

Carl Schmitt notes that the Monroe Doctrine , originally proclaimed as a vehicle of defense against interventionism and European colonialism, transformed itself into it’s opposite, becoming the main legal and ideological instrument of American interventionism, expansionism, economic imperialism and colonization of the Western Hemisphere.(11) The language of the Monroe Doctrine lended itself to a political-semantic corruption of the English language: American interventionist policies were still presented as defense, American colonialism was heralded as establishment of democracy, installation of puppet regimes in Latin-America serving their American masters was called a preservation of civilized forms of government, the many repeated American military interventions to keep the puppet regimes in power and to expand American economic penetration – a peace-keeping operations and, quite consistent with what George Orwell would latter call a New Talk, the enslavement of Latin-American countries, their transformation into protectorates was heralded as enlargement of the frontiers of freedom.

The interventionist substance of the Monroe Doctrine was clearly emphasized in 1904, in the so called Roosevelt Corollary pronounced by President Theodore Roosevelt shortly after the Hague Peace Conference the same year. Roosevelt proposed to make an exception to general international law in favor of the Western Hemisphere and this exception were to be made by ” a unilateral American pronouncement , not through a universally agreed amendment to international law.”(12) Roosevelt explicitly rejected the notion that the new international law in the Western Hemisphere could be created through multilateral, inter-American action, instead, Roosevelt asserted, its creation was only through unilateral action by the United States, i.e. the source of the new international law was solely the will of the United States.

“Instead of abolishing intervention in the Western Hemisphere, Roosevelt explicitly sanctioned this practice and claimed for the United States a monopoly of the right to engage in it… Finally the Roosevelt corollary applied to American intervention of all kind and for whatever purpose.”(13) The new international law in the Western Hemisphere, as formulated by Theodore Roosevelt, was in fact an absence of international law, or, to put it in another way, the foreign expansionist policy of the United States was elevated into a quasi international law. Thus the Roosevelt corollary defined the principle of organization and control of geopolitical space under American domination. That principle of domination suspended the operation of general norms of international law and elevated the imperialist will of the United States into the sole normative source. Or, as Secretary of State Olney had earlier expressed it: “United States is the sole sovereign in the Western Hemi-sphere and its will is a fiat.” Carl Schmitt also emphasized the territorial criterion of the Monroe Doctrine for the international law. He noted that the doctrine introduced territorial lines of delineation and demarcation into the body of international law, infused the international law with the concept and substance of geopolitics.

THE CONCEPT OF GERMAN GROSSRAUM

Based on the perception that the Monroe Doctrine provided the precedent for justification for both German and Japanese Grossraum, Schmitt observed that the traditional Eurocentric order underlying international law- relations between and among sovereign states- had been superseded by relations between and among sovereign Grossräume(14) As far as Germany was concerned , her Grossraum consisted, according to Schmitt’s view during the 30-ties, predominantly of Central and Eastern Europe. Though Schmitt failed to define the precise territorial dimensions of Germany’s Grossraum, he cited the Monroe Doctrine as the basis for maintaining that Grossraum in not something abstract and diffuse but contains “recognizable territorial limits”(15).

According to the Monroe Doctrine, Schmitt argued, the leading or hegemonial power is the one that determines the governing political idea for its realm. United States asserted the political idea that it had the hegemonial right to exclude from the Western Hemisphere any foreign power, or any foreign influence. After the end of the Word War I United States also asserted that the newly formed international organization , the League of Nations , was also excluded from asserting any jurisdiction in the Western Hemisphere. Schmitt emphasized that the new German Grossraum , seen by him as analogous to the American Grossraum, should also exclude any foreign interference, and above all American influence, and argued for the proclamation of a Ger-man Monroe Doctrine. Schmitt rejected the false universalist claims of the United States and noted that as a matter of principle non-interference by European states in the affairs of the American continent cannot be justified unless the United States likewise refrains from interference in the affairs of the European continent. In Carl Schmitt’s view geopolitics and international law have been joined in the Germanic Monroe Doctrine underlying the German Grossraum.

Carl Schmitt defined also the concept of a national Grossraum principle by extending his analysis to encompass the Reich . Though “the concept of Grossraum belongs to the concept of Reich (Empire, Realm) , the two are not identical because “not every state or every people within the German Grossraum is part of the Reich”. A Reich, according to Schmitt, “is the leading and sustaining power whose political idea radiates over a specific Grossraum”. And the code that governs relations between Grossräume is that of nonintervention.(16) Schmitt asserted that in the middle of Europe the German Reich faces the interventionist claims of the Anglo-Saxon pseudo-universalism. Against those claims it contraposes the principle of national life style “based on the principle of national respect.”(17)

Whereas relations between Grossräume were to be governed by the principle of nonintervention , intra-Grossraum relations in Schmitt’s construct were to be based on respect for every nation and nationality. Although in Schmitt’s configuration this connoted a policy of domination exercised without the need to resort to the extraordinary means of intervention , decision about whether to intervene, reflecting power-political realities, would not be made in any capital of the German Grossraum other than Berlin. One possible justification for intervention in a nation in the Reich was that it pursued foreign policy goals inimical to the security interests of Germany. In another work Carl Schmitt defines the Reich as “the leading and supporting powers whose political idea is radiated over a specified major territory and which fundamentally exclude the intervention of extra-territorial powers with regard to this territory.”(18)

It should be noted that Carl Schmitt, while recognizing that the historically changing world order and nature of international relations necessitated the reformulation of the international law in terms of equal relationship between competing Grossräume, he nevertheless never advocated an unrestricted expansion of a singular Grossraum i.e. geopolitical objectives of total world hegemony by for example Germany. Quite to the contrary : the substance of his work Grossraum gegen Universalismus is a strong criticism of the American ideology of universalism and from that ideology derived foreign policy on which U.S. embarked in a limited scope during the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, and which became the ideological hallmark of the Wilsonianism during and after the World War I.

American universalism , emphasized Schmitt, globalized the principles of the Monroe Doctrine to principles valid for the whole world i.e. to universal principles and thus , ideologically and politically, laid claims for extension of American hegemony in the Western Hemisphere to a hegemony over the whole world. American objectives for world conquest and domination used the ideology of universalism to revise the geographical limitations of the Monroe Doctrine- the very principle of geographical delimitation and demarcation of the concept of Grossraum- and to justify American interventionism in the European continent. While American universalism was a rejection of the idea of co-existence of different Grossräume and thus not only a rejection of the concept of Grossraum with its principles of geographic delimitation but also a claim for global world hegemony, so was also Hitler’s concept of Lebensraum which served as an ideological device for foreign policy objectives of establishment first of German continental hegemony and latter of global world hegemony . In other words there were ideological and geopolitical similarities between Wilson’s universalism and Hitler’s Lebensraum. Both Wilsonian universalism and Nazi-Germany’s Lebensraum were falsification of a genuine Grossraum principle and both universalism and Lebensraum rejected the very notion of international pluralism, of co-existence of Grossräume.

Both universalism and Lebensraum as concepts were antithetical to Schmitt’s concept of territorial limits of Grossraum and both universalism and Lebensraum encompassed no territorial limits serving as ideological justification for global world domination.(19)

In formulating the concept of Grossraum Carl Schmitt wanted to broad the framework of international law to include relations between Grossräume. His concept allowed for the rational conduct of international relations and provided a compelling principle for the international law that would correspondent to new historical realities.

THE RELEVANCE OF THE CONCEPT OF GROSSRAUM FOR RUSSIA

Prior to the dissolution or , I would rather say, subversion of the Soviet Union in 1991, in the bipolar world of two superpowers , there existed two competing Grossräume ( Great Areas) or two opposing political blocks, each with its sphere of influence and thus geographical delimitation and demarcation: the Atlantic Grossraum, dominated by the United States, and the Eurasian Grossraum, dominated by the Soviet Union. The political competition between the two blocks gave a substantial latitude for autonomy and independence for countries included in the sphere of influence of the two blocks. However after 1991 a completely new world order has been created. The bipolar world landscape of two superpowers has been transformed into a mono landscape of one superpower imposing its will on the rest of the world. The concept of a New World Order, propounded first by President Bush and now implemented by the neo-Wilsonian foreign policies of President Clinton, must be seen as a realization and assertion of the principles on the Monroe Doctrine to principles valid for the whole world, or, in other words, as a Roosevelt corollary for the whole world, with a new international law equated with the U.S.’s will. The globalization of the Monroe Doctrine , the pronouncement of the Bush/Clinton corollary is the assertion of the legitimacy of American intervention in the world for whatever purposes United States deem necessary, in other words , it is the equation of the United States will with grounds for intervention, an equation which is not only a radical repudiation of the priciples of non-intervention contained in the United Nations Charter, and thus a repudiation of the essence and substance of the United Nations, but is also the substance of the new international law of the New World Order. In the post-Cold War political landscape , United States, invoking and asserting her principles of legitimacy of American world-wide hegemony , is in a position visavi Europe similar to the position of the former Holy Alliance visavi America in the past. American intrusion into the Eurasian geopolitical vacuum after the demise of the Soviet Union, has necessitated a formulation and implementation of a global policy of pseudo-universalism and intervention. Therefore an absolute geopolitical necessity for Russia now, tantamount to her national survival, is the re-establishment of her Grossraum, which is a prerequisite not only for the future independence of Russia but also for the independence of other European countries as well. Re-establishment of the Russian Grossraum and a necessary new geopolitical alliance, which one my symbolically call “a second Treaty of Rappalo”, will be the beginning of disintegration of the global system of American universalism and interventionism and thus a necessary prerequisite for the rebirth of America-free Europe. During the interwar years, in the Europe after the Treaty of Versailles , Carl Schmitt, observing the universalist claims of international law of American and British imperialism, asserted that “behind the facade of general norms of international law lies, in reality, the system of Anglo-Saxon world imperialism”(20)

Today, observing the new American expansionism, the American invasion in the geopolitical vacuum of the Eurasian Grossraum, the decline and fall of the United Nations and the perversion of this international body into a legitimacy facade for the United States bid for world conquest and hegemony in the New World Order , one may say, as it was said once before by Carl Schmitt , that behind the facade of general norms of international law , lies now in reality the system of American world imperialism and expansionism. For the substance of the New World Order is the globalization of the American hegemony without any geographical limitations, the triumph of the old Wilsonian universalism or the neo-Wilsonian policies of President Clinton, a universalism that is a radical rejection of the notion of peaceful co-existence of Grossräume, of a pluralistic world order build on respect for existing state sovereignties.

The primary foreign policy objective of Russia must be the formulation of her own Monroe Doctrine, geographically delimiting Russian Grossraum, which would exclude the intervention on foreign powers and above all the United States.

A formulation of a Russian Monroe Doctrine implies by necessity a rejection of the pseudo-universalist claims of the American New World Order and the validity of a new international law that legitimizes that order. It also implies a firm rejection of American legal nihilism and revisionism, it mandates a restoration of a world order codified by the Helsinki Accord. Thus a Russian Monroe Doctrine will be an expression of a genuine and inalienable right to self-defense against American expansionism and it’s new territorial ambitions. Integral to the purpose of self-defense must be a Russian claim for respect for Russian minorities in any state where they are to be found as well as prevention of foreign policy inimical to the security interest of Russia , such as membership in NATO , prevention of coming into power of governments serving as agents of foreign power , in short , of governments of American Quislings.

The geographical delimitation of the Russian Grossraum is the territory of the former Soviet Union, countries belonging to the former socialist block , including Yugoslavia, now subjected to a war of aggression by the United States.

A Russian Grossraum can only be a genuine, geographically delimited Grand Area and the international law it would create will be, according to Carl Schmitt’s visions, an international law encompassing the co-existence of Grossräume and thus a rejection of the international law of the New World Order- the universalization of American principles of legitimization of global and unlimited American expansionism and domination. A peaceful co-existence of Grossräume can hardly be achieved without the geopolitical expulsion of the United States from Eurasia.

In the past the United States has been successful in theologization of American geopolitical objectives of world domination – the ideology of Wilsonian pseudo universalism-and demonization of geopolitical competitors and thus rejection of the very notion of geopolitical pluralism. The restoration of the Russian Grossraum is therefore the only guaranty for international peace and renewed respect for international law, constructed not as the will of the United States but as the collective will of sovereign countries and geopolitical blocks. Russian Grossraum is the only guaranty against the future anti-utopia of a Monroe Doctrine for the whole world.

The historical necessity and actuality of a new Russian Grossraum, excluding American interference in Eurasia, confluence with Charles de Gaulle’s vision of a free Europe from Atlantic to Urals and beyond to Vladivostok, which could only exist as America-free Europe. Without a reconstitution of a Russian Grossraum, the future not only of Russia but also of other European countries, will be the present of Latin America. In other worlds, the historical necessity of a Russian Grossraum is a decision for a future of freedom and national and cultural authenticity, a decision against the future as American protectorate. And again, the Russian choice is also the choice of Europe.

ENDNOTES

(1) Carl Schmitt -Völkerrechtliche Grossraumordnung mit Interventionsverbot für Raumfremde Mächte- Ein Bitrag zum Reichsbegriff im Völkerrecht (Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, 1991)

(2) some authors trace the concept of Grossraum in earlier writings of Friedrich Naumann and others. “According to their concept of Mitteleuropa , modern political, economic, and technological considerations necessitated the creation of a German empire in the center of Europe that would allow Germany to survive in a world dominated by political units larger than a typical European nation-state, namely Russia, the British Empire , and the United States..Raumtheorie was first established as a specialized field of study in the twenties , when it became an integral part of the developing sciene of geopolitics” -see Joseph W. Bendersky-Carl Schmitt (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1983) – at p. 251

(3) Carl Schmitt – Grossraum gegen Universalism in Positionen und Begriffe im Kampf mit Weimar- Genf- Versailles 1923-1939 (Duncker & Humblot , Berlin , 1988)

(4) Carl Scmitt -Völkerrechtlische Grossraumordnung – ibid. p. 37

(5) Carl Schmitt- Völkerrechtlische Grossraumordnung- ibid. pp 38-39

(6) Stephen Bonsal -Unfinished Business (New York, 1944) pp. 184-185; also Arthur P. Whitaker-The Western Hemisphere Idea (Cornell University Press, New York, 1954) at p. 125

(7) Carl Schmitt- Völkerrechtlische Grossraumordnung- ibid. p. 23

(8) Carl Schmitt- Völkerrechtlische Grossraumordnung- ibid. pp. 17, 19, 27-30

(9) Carl Schmitt- Völkerrechtlische Grossraumordnung- ibid. p. 34

(10) see Thomas A. Bailey – A Diplomatic Hisstory of the American People (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1980), pp. 183-184

(11) see Carl Schmitt -Völkerrechtliche Formen des modernen Imperialismus in Schmitt Positionen und Begriffe

(12) Arthur P. Whitaker- The Western Hemisphere Idea -ibid. – p. 100

(13) Arthur P. Whitaker- The Western Hemisphere Idea -ibid. – p. 100

(14) Carl Schmitt – Volkerrechtliche Grossraumordnung- ibid. p. 76, 77, 81

(15) Carl Schmitt – Volkerrechtliche Grossraumordnung- ibid. p. 16

(16) Carl Schmitt – Volkerrechtliche Grossraumordnung- ibid. p. 66

(17) Carl Schmitt – Volkerrechtliche Grossraumordnung- ibid. p.71

(18) Carl Schmitt – Der Reichbegrif in Völkerrecht in Positionen und Begriffe – ibid. at p. 303

(19)in fact American universalism can be seen as Lebenraum for American economic imperialism

(20)Carl Schmitt – Völkerrechtliche Formen des modernen Imperialismus ibid. p.43

American Political Theology (Nikolai von Kreitor)

Saturday, August 1st, 1970

“It is an apparent paradox of history how a particular (and particularly powerful ) nationalism constitutes itself not only as prophetic but also universal, 
crystallizing itself in numerous acts of aggrandizement or interventionism.”
Anders Stephenson*   

 The prominent German jurist Carl Schmitt has characterized the ideology of American imperialism and expansionism as political theology, at the same time totalitarian, dogmatic and pseudo universalistic, equating with the zeal and fervor of a Torquemada the particular national  interests of the United States with the interests of mankind. For him the Wilsonian universalism,  in which confluence  the American  doctrines of  hegemony and expansionism – the Manifest Destiny Doctrine, the Monroe Doctrine and the “open door”  policy, is the most successful  totalitarian ideology  in modern history.
Hans Morgenthau notes that universalism is an ideology that serves the need of imperialism and expansionism. Expansionism is always in opposition to prevailing international order and existing status quo. Expansionism must prove that the status quo which it seeks to overthrow deserves to be overthrown and that the moral legitimacy which in the minds of many attaches to things as they are ought to yield to a higher principle of morality calling for a new distribution of power.(1) “In so far as the typical ideologies of imperialism make use of legal concepts , they cannot well refer to positive international law, that is, to international law as it actually is. In the domain of law it is the doctrine of natural law, that is , of the law as it ought to be, which fits the ideological needs of imperialism…When the expansionist imperialistic policy is not directed against a particular status quo resulting from a lost war, but grows from a power vacuum inviting conquest , moral ideologies which make it an unavoidable duty to conquer take the place of the appeal to a just natural law against an unjust positive law”. (2)

THE MANIFEST DESTINY DOCTRINE 

 

The main objective of the ideology of imperialism is to identify the political aspirations of a particular nation with the moral laws that govern the universe, i.e. a specifically Anglo-Saxon ideology to clothe particular aspirations and actions in the moral purposes of the universe, an ideology originated by Great Britain, but perfected and absolutized by the United States. “To know that nations are subject to the moral law is one thing, while to pretend to know with certainty what is good and evil in the relations among nations is quite another. There is a world of difference between the belief that all nations stand under the judgment of God, inscrutable to the human mind, and the blasphemous conviction that God is always on one’s side and that what one wills oneself cannot fail to be willed by God also.”(3)
A school example of such blasphemy is probably President McKinley’s assertion that the annexation of the Philippines (and the subsequent mass murder of civilians) was a sign of divine providence, that it was undertaken after the president received a Providential sign. Admiral Dewey claimed that the conquest of the Philippines was a token of divine approval.” I should say that the hand of God was in it”(4)
The arguments for the conquest of the Philippines centered on to religious themes. ”those themes were expressed in the words Duty and Destiny. According to the first , to reject annexation of the Philippines would be to fail of  fulfilling a solemn obligation. According to the second, annexation of the Philippines in particular and expansion generally were inevitable and irresistible”(5) , American imperial expansionism was a Manifest Destiny under a Providential sign. The Calvinist Doctrine became a ideological weapon for war of aggression and expansionism. “The quick victories won by American arms strengthened the psychological positions of the imperialists. The feeling that one may be of wrongdoing can be heightened when the questionable act is followed by adversity. Conversely, it may be minimized by the successful execution of a venture. Misfortune is construed as Providential punishment; but success, as in the Calvinist scheme, is taken as an outward sign of an inward state of grace…’Duty’, said President McKinley, ’determines destiny’. While duty meant that we had a moral obligation, Destiny meant that we would certainly fulfill it, that the capacity to fulfill it was inherent in us. Ours had been a continuous history of expansion; it had always succeeded before, therefore it was certain to succeed in the future. Expansion was a national and ’racial’ inheritance, a deep and irresistible inner necessity…Providence has been so indulgent to us, by giving us so richly of success, that we would be sinful if we did not accept the responsibilities it has asked us to assume.”(6)
The American imperialism developed a powerful theology of  chosennes. The American idea of providential or historical chosenness, inherent in the Manifest Destiny Doctrine, fused God and geopolitics and gave “legitimacy” for conquest and expansionism. 

 

The moral and religious gobbledygook of  the Doctrine of Manifest Destiny, so typically American in its profound primitivism, is easy to dismiss as an ideological rubbish. And yet, this repugnant rubbish became a foundation of the American political theology and foreign policy. Imperialist expansionism was elevated into a positive obligation, a duty. The more ruthless the expansionism was, the more divine approval was attached to it. The will of the American imperialists was equated with the will of God. Imperialism became “a virtue of the call of God.” To hold back was to ’ reject divine leadership.” Senator Albert J. Beveridge declared “God has not been preparing the English-speaking peoples for a thousand years for nothing but vain and idle contemplation and self-admiration. No! He has made us the master organizers of the world to establish system where chaos reigns. He has made us adepts in government that we may administer government among savages and senile people.”(7)
“The theme of Destiny was a corollary of the theme of Duty. Repeatedly it was declared that expansion was the result of a ’cosmic tendency’, that ’destiny always arrives’, that it was the ’inexorable logic of events’, and so on. The doctrine that expansion was inevitable had of course long been familiar to Americans; we all know how often Manifest Destiny was invoked throughout the nineteenth century. Albert Weinberg has pointed out, however, that this expression took on a new meaning in the nineties. Previously destiny had meant primarily that American expansion, when we willed it , could be resisted by others who may wish to stand in our way. During the nineties it came to mean that expansion ’could not be resisted by Americans themselves, caught, willing or unwilling’, in the coils of fate. A certain reluctance on our part was implied. This was not quite so much what we wanted to do; it was what we had to do. Our aggression was implicitly defined as compulsory – the product not of our own wills but of objective necessity (or the will of God).”(8) The Destiny had always Destination and that Destination was equated with geopolitical expansionism and thus the source of American imperialism was the will of God given to the elected as a Destiny.

 

THE POLITICAL MYTHOLOGY OF THE MONROE DOCTRINE 

 

Kenneth M. Coleman defines the political (and geopolitical) corollary to the Manifest Destiny Doctrine- the Monroe Doctrine – as political mythology:
“ A political mythology has emerged among North Americans to justify the reality of U.S. hegemony in the Americas. The Monroe Doctrine is an example of political myth creation that accompanied the creation of the American empire. It was necessary to find a rhetorical vehicle through which to suggest not expansionist intent, but self-abnegation…From its inception the Monroe Doctrine has been a rhetorical vehicle designed to reconcile professed values of disinterest and self-abnegation with highly self-interested, expansionist intentions. Thus the first defining characteristic of a political mythology is present…Hegemony, just as much as empire, requires the creation of legitimating mythology…In imperial situations the mythology must hold that ‘we rule you because it is your best interest to be ruled by us…In hegemonic situations , the mythology must generate the belief that existing relationships are mutually beneficial and that those who do not so perceive them are misguided or evil”(9) …The political mythology of hegemony is distinctive in that it denies the existence of political and economic domination. It is similar to the mythology of imperialism in asserting that existing relationships are just, appropriate, inevitable, or otherwise normatively defensible…The Monroe Doctrine carries a normative massage…that current causes are just, morally defensible, and in accord with the highest principles of a political order superior to other political orders”(10) and that American imperialism serve a higher moral purpose- the Manifest Destiny preordained by God himself.
Kenneth M. Coleman quotes Salvador de Madariaga who described the nature of the Monroe Doctrine in the following words:
“I know only two things about the Monroe Doctrine: one is that no American I have met knows what it is; the other is that no American I have met will consent to its being tampered with…I conclude that the Monroe Doctrine is not a doctrine but a dogma…not one dogma, but two, to wit: the dogma of the infallibility of the American President and the dogma of the immaculate conception of the American foreign policy”.(11) 

 

The belief that Americans are people chosen by God for continental expansion was inherent in both the Manifest Destiny Doctrine and the Monroe Doctrine. “The term that captured this sense of moral certainty in geographic expansion, Manifest Destiny, betrayed the comforting Calvinist certainty that God would reveal those who warranted His grace by making them prosperous”. If the United States represents the Promised Land of the Chosen People then “ its is all but impossible to conceive a situation in which the interests of mankind are not highly similar to those of the United States. Given such a presumption , opposition to the Manifest Destiny (of the United States) was no simple political opposition- it did not represent a mere difference in opinion . Rather it was a heresy against the people chosen by God Himself…If the authorities of the United States- the authorities chosen by the people favored by God himself- were in favor of a given policy, then to criticize the justice or the morality of that policy was impossible”.(12)
In this respect one may recall Werner Sombart’s conclusion that “Calvinism is the victory of Judaism over Christianity” and that “America is the quintessence of Judaism”. The political immorality of the Manifest Destiny Doctrine, the geopolitical expansionism under the space conquering Monroe Doctrine and the economic imperialism under the American “open door” policy , fused subsequently together in the Wilsonianism, are in fact the historically malignant appearances of the old Talmudic immorality.

 

Carl Schmitt has pointed out that the transformation of the Monroe Doctrine from a concrete Grossraum into an universal principle, i.e. the theologization of a particular-American imperialism into a universal World and Capital Power, allegedly serving the interests of the humankind, is the beginning of the theologization of American foreign policy objectives.(13) This process of theologization started during the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, but first President Woodrow Wilson elevated the Monroe Doctrine into a world-principle (Weltprincip). In the Talmudic morality of Woodrow Wilson the American weltherrschaft became the substance of his advocacy of a Monroe Doctrine for the whole world.

 

WILSONIAN IMMORALITY 

 

Case in point is the American slogan of “manifest destiny” which served the expansion of the Monroe Doctrine or the principle of self-determination which President Wilson used at the Paris Peace Conference to expand Anglo-Saxon spheres of influence and create a Cordon Sanitarire around Germany and Soviet Russia in Europe consisting of buffer states. Naturally President Wilson, in salivating about the right of self-determination, never denounced the Monroe Doctrine, which embodies the absolute negation of the very same right he propounded. What he meant with right of self-determination was clearly shown in 1914, when United States , subverting the elected government of  Mexico, bombarded the Mexican city of Vera Cruz, killing hundreds of civilians. After the bombardment, which ultimately led to the collapse of the Mexican government and installation of an American puppet, President Wilson, emphasizing the identity of American policy and universal justice, assured the world that “the United States had gone down to Mexico to serve mankind.”(14) (sic!) President Wilson truly believed in the Providentially assigned role of the United States to rule the world.
Today, if one looks at the situation in Yugoslavia, one can see that again the pseudo-universal principle of right of self-determination is used as an ideological device to overthrow an existing status quo, namely the border settlement in Europe reached through the Helsinki Accord, as well as to legitimize the war atrocities of first Bosnian and then the Kosovar-Albanian armed gangs, in fact an European equivalent of the Nicaraguan so called Contras, armed , trained and subsidized by the United Sates.
A historical irony is that Nazi Germany borrowed many American ideological concepts. Thus Nazi Germany based its demands for the revision of the status quo of the Versailles treaty primarily upon the principle of equality which the Treaty of Versailles had violated. Realizing that the existing international law was nothing but the universalization of Anglo-Saxon hegemony as well as theologization of particular national interest, German jurists spoke of a new international law which would serve German national interest and also used the concept of a “Just New World Order” as justification for expansionism and preparation for the overthrow of the existing international status quo through war.
The basic tenets of the American political theology can be summarized as follow:
a. The national interest of the United States is universalized as to be the universal interest of the human kind or the international community. Consequently American imperialist expansionism is then seen as advancement of the human race, promotion of democracy, struggle against totalitarianism etc. American interests, international law , and international morality are equated. What serves American interests is unabashedly said to further law and morality- in all cases.(15)
b. As a consequence of the universalization of the American national interest and  its transnational legitimization  in institutions of hegemony  which serve as a supra legitimacy facade- , is the apparent deligitimization of  the national interests of other countries. Through the Monroe doctrine the Latin-American countries were denied any national interests distinct from or opposed the American national interest , although an objective historical analyses clearly shows that the authentic national interest of Latin-American countries is by necessity opposed to the national interest of the U.S. The effect of the Monroe doctrine was that Latin-American countries ceased to exist politically, becoming protectorates and in true sense captive nations.
c. Beginning with the Briand-Kellog Pact , United States undertakes the next step in globalizing her political theology. Wars waged from national interests opposed those of the United States are branded as aggressive wars, while aggressive wars waged by the United States are constructed as “just wars”. U.S.’s reservations to the Kellog Pact are of particular importance: United States reserves for herself the right to be the sole judge of what constitutes a war of aggression. The American doctrine of recognition and non-recognition of states is also of significance: United States reserves for herself to be the sole judge of which state to be recognized and which not and the grounds on which U.S. is willing to recognize a state are synonymous with the national interest of the U.S. To what degree of dangerous but also farcical absurdity that can lead one can see in the example of American non-recognition of China after the W.W.II and the corresponding recognition of the puppet regime of Chiang Kai-shek, installed and maintained by the United States. U.S. used her doctrine of non-recognition, blocking China’s admission to the U.N., in order to sabotage the United Nations and also in fact to control two seats on the U.N. Security Council.
d. The ideological appropriation of the concept of war and the principles of recognition and non-recognition leads also to the dehumanization of the American adversaries: from an enemy with equal national interest they  become  international outcasts.
e. The final consequence of the development of the American political theology is the identification of international law- the Law of Nations – with the system of American imperialism, its source being, in the New World Order, solely the will of the United States. Such international law is obviously not the Law of Nations but the Law of the Land- an embodiment of American hegemony and expansionism. The national interest of the U.S. has in the New World Order being universalized to be the interest of the international community, and, moreover, United States herself, as a trans-national, omnipotent subject, has been universalized as world community itself.
The American political theology is inherently incompatible not only with the principle of state equality and sovereignty but also with any organization that purports to be a genuine international organization such as the United Nations. A state in the New World Order can exist only as a non-political entity, the prerogatives of  being political in Carl Schmitt’s terminology, being reserved solely for the United States. And an international organization can exist only if it is a functional equivalent of O.A.S.( Organization of American States) i.e. only as a multilateral facade for legitimization of American hegemonical will.
The British historian Edward Hallet Carr remarked in his book “The Twenty Year’s Crisis, 1919-1939″, published originally in 1939, that shortly before the entry of the United States in the W.W.I , in an address to the Senate on war aims, President Wilson explaining previously that the United States had been “founded for the benefit of humanity”(16) (sic!), stated categorically: ”Those are American principles, American policies…They are the principles of mankind and must prevail”.(17) Carr points out that “it will be observed that utterances of this character proceed almost exclusively from Anglo-Saxon statesman and writers. It is true that when a prominent National Socialist asserted that ’anything that benefits the German people is right, anything that harms the German people is wrong’ , he was merely propounding the same identification of national interest with universal right which had already been established for English-speaking countries by Wilson.”
Carr gave two alternative explanations to the universalization of particular national interest. The first, prevalent in continental countries was that English-speaking people are past masters in the art of concealing their selfish national interests in the guise of the general good, and that this kind of hypocrisy is a special and characteristic peculiarity of the Anglo-Saxon mind. The second explanation was more sociological: Theories of social morality are always the product of a dominant group which identifies itself with the community as a whole, and which possesses facilities denied to subordinate groups or individuals for imposing its view of life on the community. Theories of international morality are, for the same reasons and in virtue of the same process, the product of dominant nations and group of nations. For the past hundred years, and more especially since 1918, the English-speaking people have formed the dominant group in the world; the current theories of national morality have been designed to perpetuate their supremacy and expressed in the idiom peculiar to them.(18)

 

THE VOCABULARY OF EMANCIPATION 

 

One aspect of the political theology is the mythologization and ideomatization of the American expansionism as universal international morality. And what are the characteristics of the universalist mythology? To transform the meaning of political reality into a repressive illusion and to neutralize and deligitimize the language or acts of resistance. In other words political mythology is always a reality-robbery. And articulated language or acts of resistance, robbed by political theology, offer little resistance. To paraphrase Roland Barthes(19) , the political theology is expansive, it invents itself ceaselessly. It takes hold of everything, all aspects of international relations, of diplomacy, of international law. The oppressed countries are nothing, they have only one language, that or their emancipation, and that emancipation has already being deligitimized, the oppressor, the United States, is everything, her language has been elevated into dogma. In other words:, in the framework of the political theology, United States has the exclusive right to meta-language which aims to eternalize American hegemony. The political theology as a myth negates the empirical character of  the political reality; therefore theology resistance must aim to recapture and emancipate that same  empirical reality.
During the course of the American expansionism, inherent in the Monroe Doctrine and its various extensions, and in particular during the Cold War and its ideological justification in such documents as NSC-68, a destruction and ideologization of the language was accomplished. The history of the Cold War is the history of the collapse of American English into Pan-American jargon, with its weakness for slogans, simplifications, falsehoods and pompous clichés such as totalitarianism, defense of democracy, the red danger . American expansionism and the colonial machinations of the perfidious Washington forced in the language precisely what it needed to give voice to its savagery, disguised as universalism serving the mankind; to delegitimaze resistance and legitimize conquest and hegemony. It forced a big subversion of the language on which contemporary America has been nurtured.
To paraphrase Georg Steiner, America’s rulers built between the American mind and the empirical reality a wall of myth. Gradually words lost their original meaning and acquired the contents of the political theology. The language became a deception to the point the language was not able any longer to capture or express the truth. Words became instrumentalities of falsehood and disinformation, conveyors of deception and hegemony. “The language was infected not only with those great bestialities. It was called upon to enforce innumerable falsehoods”(20) , to persuade and indoctrinate Americans that numerous acts of subversion of nations and of international law, of military aggression and war crimes in Korea, Vietnam and most recently in Panama , Iraq and Yugoslavia, served the principles of mankind. The subversion of the language in the American political theology not only made the empirical truth unspeakable, it build a wall of silence and deception, it facilitated the collapse of English into Pan-American jargon. And when the language “has been injected with falsehood, only the most drastic truth can cleanse it.”(21)
There is a very peculiar American phenomenon not found in Europe: a Man of God- usually a preacher- who turns out to be con man. Well, on the political arena after the end of the W.W.I. President Wilson was such a Man of God veiling American expansionism in large quantities of moral saliva. For Wilson United States had a Providentially assigned role to rule the world. Wilsonianism was the origin and the embodiment of the universalist American totalitarianism.
Now the little Wilson, President Clinton, in the post- Cold War and post-Yalta international landscape, with all the moral saliva of a Man of God, has embarked on a course of neo-Wilsonian universalist expansionism with the same old Manifest Destiny and political theology infused in the New World Order. But once again the concepts of American universalist political theology unveil themselves as opium for the international community.

 

 

 

ENDNOTES 

 

* Anders Stephenson Manifest Destiny. American Expansion and the Empire of Right (Hill and Wang, New York, 1995).

 

(1) Hans J. Morgenthau -Politics Among Nations- (Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1948) at p. 64.

 

(2) Hans J. Morgenthau – Politics Among Nations -ibid., at p. 65.

 

(3) Hans J. Morgenthau -Politics Among Nations – in Stanley Hoffman (ed) -Contemporary Theory in International Relations (Prentice Hall, Inc, Englewood Cliffs, 1960) – at p. 61.

 

(4) Louis A. Coolidge -An Old Fashioned Senator: Orville H. Platt (New York, 1910) – at p. 302.

 

(5) Richard Hofstadter -The Paranoid Style in American Polics (The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1965) – at p. 174.

 

(6) Richard Hofstadter – ibid., at p.p. 175, 176, 177.

 

(7) Claude G. Bowers -Beveridge and the Progressive Era (New York, 1932) – at p. 121.

 

(8) Richard Hofstadter – ibid. – at p. 177.

 

(9) Kenneth M. Coleman The Political Mythology of the Monroe Doctrine : Reflection on the Social Psychology of Domination, p.p. 99, 100, 110.

 

(10) M. Coleman –ibid p. p. 97, 103.

 

(11) M. Coleman –ibid. p. 102. Coleman quotes after Salvador de Madariaga Latin America Between the Eagle and the Bear (Praeger, New York, 1962) p. 74.

 

(12) Coleman- ibid pp 105, 109.

 

(13) Carl Schmitt -Grossraum gegen Universalismus in Position und Begriffe- im Kampf mit Weimar-Genf-Versailles 1923-1939 ( Duncker& Humblot, Berlin , 1988) – p.p. 295-303.

 

(14) Edward Hallett Carr -The Twenty Year’s Crisis 1919-1939 (Harper Torchbooks , New York, 1964)- at p. 78; also R.S. Baker Public Papers of Woodrow Wilson: The New Democracy.

 

(15) see on that subject – Keneth W. Thompson -Toynbee and the Theory of International Politics- in Stanley Hoffman (ed) -Contemporary Theory in International Relations- ibid., at p. 97.

 

(16) R. S. Baker (ed) -Public Papers of Woodrow Wilson: The New Democracy- at p.p. 318-319.

 

(17) Edward Hallet Carr -The Twenty Year Crisis- ibid., at p. 79; also Toynbee -Survey of International Affairs, 1936, at p. 319.

 

(18) Edward Hallet Carr – ibid., at p.p. 79, 80.

 

(19) Roland Barthes- Mythologies (Hill and Wang, New York, 1987) at p.p. 131, 148, 149.

 

(20) Georg Steiner A Reader (Oxford University Press, New York, 1984)- at p. 212.

 

(21) Georg Steiner- ibid. p. 219.

 

Elements of the New Russian Nationalism (Nikolai-Klaus von Kreitor)

Saturday, August 1st, 1970

Among the nationalistic publications which have proliferated in Russia since the collapse of the Soviet Union is a journal begun in July 1992 called Elementy: Evraziiskoe Obozrenie (Elements: Eurasian Review), published by the “Center for Special Meta-Strategic Studies.” Edited by Alexandr Dugin, it lists as a co-editor Viktor Alsknis, the controversial former member of the former Russian parliament. Indicative of the character of this journal is the latest issue (No. 3, July 1993), which begins with an unsigned editorial statement (probably written by Dugin) titled “Auto-da-fe of the Intellectuals . . . Clearing the Way for the Elite.” Uppermost in Elementy’s agenda is the search for a new political orientation for Russia. Thus it is not surprising that this search has engendered an interest, albeit selective, in Carl Schmitt? as well as in some other well known right-wing writers such as Julius Evola, Arthur Moller van den Bruck, and the Austrian General Heinrich Jordis yon Lochhausen.

According to Dugin, who has already introduced Schmitt’s work in Russia,[2] “Schmitt’s writings are especially relevant for Russia because his brilliant analysis of emergency situations and the need tor a decision to preserve the Russian people’s national existence. . . . People exist politically only if they constitute an independent political community and only if, as an entity, they oppose other political entities in order to preserve the cultural specificity of their own community.” Dugin goes on to single out Russia’s enemy — the US — and expose the myth of American democracy and its pseudo-universal claims, while calling for the establishment of a Grossraum on the European continent, based on a coalition of Russia and European powers such as Germany and France — a kind of pax Euroasiatica opposed to the current pax Americana.

The second part of Elementy, headed “Geopolitical Notebooks” and devoted to translations and documents,[3] opens with an article titled “Geopolitical Problems of Neighboring Countries” identified only as “Material Provided by the Center for Special Meta-Strategic Studies” (Dugin’s thinking, however, is clearly discernable). According to this analysis, the New World Order envisioned by President Bush seeks to turn the world into one gigantic Grossraum dominated by the US and orchestrated through the UN to subvert the residual sovereignty of all other countries. This scenario ultimately foresees the UN losing all relevance or becoming merely a legitimating facade for US geopolitical objectives. For Dugin, this emerging New World Order may lead to a further disintegration of whatever remains of national sovereignty. In this respect, the bipolar world obtaining before 1991 allowed much more freedom to countries tailing within the spheres of influence of the two superpowers than is possible today within the new geopolitical framework. As Dugin sees it, the new world situation confronts all countries other than the US, especially the former members of the Warsaw Pact, with two alternatives: either become integrated into the projected “Atlantic Grossraum,” thus forfeiting whatever remains of their national sovereignty, or join Russia in the creation of a new Eurasian Grossraum able to oppose the US and to safeguard national sovereignty and cultural autonomy.[4] Reformulated within Schmittian categories, this essentially amounts to a call for the restoration of the for-met Soviet Empire.

Much of Dugin’s geopolitical analysis is focused on a Pentagon document rifled Defense Planning Guidance, drafted under the supervision of Paul D. Woltowitz, the Pentagon Under Secretary tor Policy. According to Dugin, this 46 page document constitutes a blueprint for world domination, outlines strategies to subvert the UN by substituting for it a US-dominated NATO, and asserts the right of the US to sidestep the UN and act unilaterally.[5] From this he concludes that the former US allies may become its future enemies, i.e., that the immediate US threat to Russia may eventually become a threat to France, Germany and Japan as well.

Two consequences of the New World Order are crucial for Dugin: the new framework of international law being created thereby and its implications for Russia and Europe (as exemplified by the war m the former Yugoslavia). Any analysis of the transformation of international law must focus on the Monroe Doctrine, which has been the basis of American imperialism from its very inception. Here Dugin applies Schmitt’s concept of Grossraum and his critique of American imperialism[6] to deduce the consequences of US policy for Russia and Europe. Thus the war in the former Yugoslavia is viewed as a re-run of the Spanish Civil War (with the US assuming the role of the former fascist powers) and as a general rehearsal for what may happen to Russia in the event the US gains a strategic nuclear superiority. In this respect, what outrages Dugin the most is the US threats of air strikes against Serbian forces.

Dugin also reintroduces Friedrich Naumann’s concept of Mitteleuropa. It is under this heading that he publishes Moller van den Bruck’s old analysis of “Germany Between Europe and the West” as an introduction to Lochhausen’s article, “War in the Persian Gull — War Against Europe.” According to the latter, “the US has understood that in order to maintain its world-wide domination it must position itself against its enemies of tomorrow — Japan and a United Europe. The US hass decided to take firm control of those oil resources on which Japan and Germany will depend in the future. . . . The war in Iraq was such a positioning and was made possible only because the Soviet Union had been eliminated as a player in the world arena. . . . One must remember that the country which controls Arab oil also controls Western Europe and Japan. . . . It is equally disturbing that the US forced Germany and Japan to finance a war which ultimately was meant to weaken and control them in the future.”[7] Lochhausen also claims that the war against Iraq was planned long in advance and that its blueprint was drawn by Henry Kissinger (in 1975 in Commentary and later in Harper’s Magazine) and that US participation in both WWI and WWII was largely parasitic: while the Allies made the decisive efforts, the US eventually reaped the fruits of victory. Dugin complements this analysis with his own “metaphysical geopolitics” articulated in his article on the “Metaphysics of the Continent” — the second part of an ongoing article titled “From Sacred Geography to Geopolitics.” Dugin also calls for a revival of the dichotomy between European Kultur and Anglo-Saxon (read: American) Civilisation. Reminiscent of the Rapallo Treaty, he calls for an alliance between Russia and other European countries, above all Germany and France, to develop a geopolitical strategy aimed at creating a new Grossraum opposed to the pax Americana. This pax Euroasiatica must have an enemy and this enemy is the American Grossraum. Consequently Dugin calls for what he prefigures as a Kulturkampj to challenge American hegemony as a threat to Europe not only as a historical formation but a cultural entity. Clearly, this search for a new political orientation is indicative of the crisis brought about by the collapse of communism — a development which has led Russian nationalists to look to the Right alter the failure of the Lett.

Notes:

  1. Schmitt’s The Concept of the Political has been translated into Russian and published in Voprosy Sociologii, No, 1 (Moscow 1992).
  2. See Alexandr Dugin, “Carl Schmitt — piati urokoe Rossii,” in Nash Sovremmennik, No. 8 (Moscow 1992), pp. 129, 130 and 135.
  3. Among them there is Carl Schmitt, “Novyi ‘Nomos’ Zemli,” preceded by an editorial introduction.
  4. Dugin cites National Security Council Memorandum 68, which called for a rollback strategy., to hasten the decay of the old Soviet svstem from within through a variety of overt and covert means.
  5. Excerpts from this document have been published in The New York Times (March 8, 1992). The US strategy is summarized as follows: “Our first objective is to prevent the reemergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power. These regions include Western Europe, East Asia, the territory of the former Soviet Union, and Southwest Asia. There are three additional aspects to this objective: first, the US must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests. Second, in the non-de-fensive areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order. Finally, we must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role. . . . NATO is the primary instrument of Western defense and security, as well as the channel for US influence and participation in European security affairs. While the US supports the goal of European integration, we must seek to prevent the emergence of European only security arrangements which will undermine NATO.” What Dugin does not seem to understand, however, is that Pentagon strategy is not ipso facto US strategy, and that the Pentagon’s Under Secretary for Policy can only make policy proposals, subject to subsequent approval by the Administration.
  6. See Carl Schmitt, Volkerrechtliche Grossraumsordnung mit Interventionsverbot fur raum-fremde Maichte: Ein Beitrag zum Reichsbegriff im Volkerrecht3 (1941), Second Printing (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1991).
  7. Here right-wing and left-wing interpretations of the Gulf War coincide in their anti-Americanism. For Left analyses parallel to Lochhousen, see Dario Da Re, Rossana Mungiello and Dario Padovan, “Intellettuali, Sinistra e Conflitto del Golfo: una lnterpretazione Retrospettiva del Dibattito,” in Altreragioni, No. 2 (1993), pp. 151-174, and Noam Chomsky’s recent work on the subject, such as his The New World Order (New Jersey: Open Magazine, 1991) and Terrorizing the Neighborhood. American Foreign Policy in the Post-Cold War Era (Stirling and San Francisco: AK Press, 1991).

[Telos, Summer 93, Issue 96]

Recommended Reading