Medvedev’s doctrine

The Five Planks of the Russian Foreign Policy presented by Dmitry Medvedev in the end of August 2008 are the doctrine. As any other doctrine it has enough minimal components - points to build a clear and definable function. The US Monroe doctrine had only one point «America for Americans». Thus along with proscription of other nations (France, Russia, England, and Mexico) from the continent this one point has become a basis for the US foreign policy for the next 200 years.

Now it’s clear that before the August events in Zhinval our foreign policy was unsatisfactory. The presence of too many indefinable points in it made it impossible to build from them any function at all. While The Five Planks voiced by Medvedev are points of a clear, definitive and irreversible doctrine.

The First Foreign Policy Plank is: Russia recognizes the main international law principles, which define the relations between the civilized nations. At the first glance it seems banal, obvious, and simply polite. A country without recognition of the main international law principles would make no sense.

Geopolitically speaking, the international law is being built by the main political figures only according to their interests of power. This is why it changes throughout the history of mankind. The international law includes Jus Belli and Jus Paci principles, which mean the Law of Peace and the Law of War. But these laws change.

The interesting conclusion here is that the modern mankind follows the Yalta law – the Second World War final treaty. It was based on the fact that the Soviet Union along with its allies – Great Britain, France and USA defeated the Fascist regime. This international law has included the results of that victory.

Had Hitler won, the international law would have been conceptually and ideologically different.

Thus the international law after the Second World War has been set as double-polar. This means that since the 40s USSR and USA as the main nuclear powers are holding the current international law paradigm. Double polarity has been the basis on which UNO and UNSC have been built, as well as the procedure of settling any conflicts possible among all of the international community members.

The two zones – the capitalist and the socialist – were the poles for the countries of The Third World to choose their path. The US deterrence doctrine, that has arisen from this condition was the Cold War law.

The International law described above is now being demounted by the USA, who is changing it into single-polar, thus destroying the Yalta Peace treaty and proclaiming an idea to dissolve UNO into a Democracy League. Such league would define the new world order with the USA as a single decision maker in the world and its vassals as its supporters. This situation is the result of the US idea that it has won in the Cold War. If we are to agree with that, then the International law must consider the fundamental transformation as a result of the Cold War in order to build a new single polarity model.

Medvedev says NO to such model.

Looking banal and external this thesis is geopolitically revolutionist and ultraconservative. Medvedev says that despite the change of the world power balance into the single polarity, we will continue insisting on a certain double polar form of the International Law. This plank also means that we deny our loss in the Cold War. It was not a loss but a temporary retreat, which may be understood as a repeated commission of the Soviet political consciousness as well as something completely different. In Zhinval we have shown the maintenance of the second pole, which challenges the building of a new world model.

The Second Plank of Medvedev’s doctrine says that «the world must be Multipolar…Russia cannot accept the world order with only one decision maker, even as serious as the USA».

Here Medvedev decodes his view of the order, alternative to the one being created in our sight. If the USA have won in the Cold war, then what is the reason for us, losers, to dispute over the hyper power’s right to create it’s own world architecture? The reason is the Osetian massacre. If we hadn’t come into Osetia, then this talk would have become useless. But we have shown that we will be protecting the Yalta Peace and the based on it Double polarity model by force. Because it’s the force what the law bases on.

The Multipolarity of the world is a very serious topic. I’ve been asking many US politicians if it is acceptable for the local establishment. The answer was always «No». Multilateralism is the maximum, when it’s possible to make one decision together with only one other country. But since Multipolarity is considered a self-destructionist appeal in the USA, where people who use this word are enemies of the state, then Medvedev, who calls for Multipolarity is declaring a war to the USA.

Now let’s talk about Single polarity, which is understood very little in our society.

This is neither an accident, nor a USA’s claim on an unbearable geopolitical supremacy. Single polarity is not a joke. The USA has been approaching it over the last 200 years and now has actually and ideologically reached it. It’s the Manifest Destiny for the US elite, and «ideas do matter» for the countries where it brings its democracy and «freedom» economically and / or militarily to. It’s been doing so well, that Francis Fukuyama even wrote about the End of History.

Beginning with O’Sullivan, Monroe’s and Wilson’s doctrines and up until CFR and modern neoconservatives goes one strait line of the US geopolitical model. So if the Single polarity is a USA’s project called a «good hegemony» by Robert Keigan, then the Multipolarity means war with the USA. If Medvedev offers a Multipolar world, then his thesis is a declaration of war to the US hegemony. If the USA identifies itself with its hegemony, which it does, then it’s a declaration of war to the USA along with its hegemony.

How else can the Multipolarity idea be decoded? The fact that Medvedev said Multipolarity and not Double polarity of the old Yalta Peace treaty means that several other poles come into the scene. Now there are a few of them, and later they will be acting not solitarily but in unity. Geopolitically it means equalizing the strength of the US influence with several big areas.

Which poles may be created in this process? The first one is the Eurasian space including Russia, Collective Security Treaty Organisation and The Eurasian Economic Community. The second one is economically and politically active China. Then it’s the Islamic World, that has problems with economy, but has successes in energy and ideology: this is where ideas do matter. The other independent pole is Europe, that is in a very bad condition now.

This is why the second plank in Medvedev’s doctrine is a doctrine in itself.

The Third Plank is «Russia does not want to confront any country… Russia doesn’t intend to isolate itself. We will be developing our friendly relations with Europe, USA and with other counties of the world».

Isolationism, either passive with brutal nationalism and separation from the whole world, or aggressive with double polarity return, is impossible. Medvedev has pointed out several times that isolationism is NOT the way Russia chooses. The alternative here is the openness to the countries and to the forces, that support the Multipolar system in the first hand. Russia will be building such front. The flight of the Russian strategic bombers to Venezuela confirms the fact that we will not isolate ourselves, but have our bases near US borders.

Supporters of such politics long exist in Europe. In the USA such supporters are marginal conservatives and left-wing democrats, which however include some great intellectuals such as Immanuel Wallerstein and Noam Chomsky. We need to strengthen contacts with them, because they support our foreign policy parameters.

In this situation the Multypolarity becomes an ideology, on which a strong long-term partnership is to be based. The ideology was Soviet before. The liberal ideology is impossible for us, because it is our enemy’s weapon. Constitutionally the USA has no ruling ideology but the American idea. Russian constitution also states that there is no ruling ideology in Russia. This is why the Multipolar ideology to be implemented may be called The Idea of Multipolarity.

The Fourth Plank: «We will also be protecting the interests of our business society abroad. Everyone should understand that any aggression committed will be returned.»

From the International law perspective, this statement is the right for ingeretion. What happened in Georgia after Zhinval shelling is a way of implementation of the Fourth Plank. Such manner has been adopted by us from the US custom to intervene into sovereign states, if these states endanger US citizens or show hostility towards strategic interests of the USA. The same right is being used by Israel, when it enters sovereign Lebanon in search for its own soldiers.

Now the club of inherent states is bigger and includes us too. We will also be intervening other territories in order to protect our interests and interests of our citizens. From now on this is not emergency measures, but a norm of our behavior: «Being like USA». Such an imitation of a US-Israel scenario may be useful for us.

The Fifth Plank is very close to the Fourth one: «Like other countries of the world Russia has privilege interests in regions, in which friendly states are situated.» This means that Medvedev has proclaimed a zone of geopolitical responsibility. Privilege interests mean that these territories are under Russian control, and if anyone tries to dispute it, then such dispute is a challenge to Russia with it’s atomic weapons. Concerning the Multipolar model we do not say like USA does, that we are proclaiming the whole world a zone of our geopolitical interests. However the post-soviet space and some other regions are definitely included in this zone. In Georgia we have reacted as a state with a zone of geopolitical responsibility.

Summing all the thesis’s the following picture appears. These five points generate a clear, sharply formulated figure, which cannot be interpreted in any other way. The Medvedev’s doctrine fundamentally predetermines our Foreign Policy course, and some events in international relations. It will as well greatly influence the internal political situation. Because what we know as Medvedev’s doctrine can not exist in our raw society, which should have other goals, priorities, and attitudes. If we take the Multipolarity Plank seriously, then the society must be mobilization-type like, not hedonic-ultraliberal type we have now.