Political map of Eurasia and features of the ethnic and religious composition of the population. Political party "Eurasia"

18.08.2019

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation

Blagoveshchensk State Pedagogical University

Naturally - Faculty of Geography

Department of Geography

Test

Option No. 26

Topic: “Modern political map of Eurasia”

Completed:

4th year student, general education

Dementiev O.V.

Checked:

Teacher

Alekseeva T.G.

Blagoveshchensk 2009

6. Drawing up a political map of Eurasia, showing on it the states of the monarchy (absolute, constitutional and theocratic), states of the federation. Indicating the year of independence of the former colonies, their affiliation

1. The main stages of the formation of the modern political map of Eurasia

The process of forming the political map of Eurasia, like the map of the world, goes back several millennia. Many historical eras have passed, so we can talk about the existence of periods in the formation of the political map. We can distinguish: ancient, medieval, modern and modern periods.

The ancient period (from the era of the emergence of the first forms of the state to the 5th century AD) covers the era of the slave system. Characterized by the development and collapse of the first states on Earth: Ancient Egypt, Carthage, Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, etc. These states made a great contribution to the development of world civilization. At the same time, even then the main means of territorial changes were military actions.

The medieval period (V-XV centuries) is associated with the era of feudalism. Political functions The feudal state was more complex and varied than that of states under the slave system. The internal market was taking shape, and the isolation of regions was overcome. The desire of states for long-range territorial conquests manifested itself, since Europe was already completely divided between them. During this period there were states: Byzantium, the Holy Roman Empire, England, Spain, Portugal, Kievan Rus and etc.

The era of the Great Geographical Discoveries greatly changed the map at the junction of feudal and capitalist socio-economic formations. There was a need for markets and new rich lands and, in connection with this, the idea of circumnavigating the world.

From the turn of the XV-XVI centuries. distinguish the New period of history (up to World War I of the 20th century). This is the era of the birth, rise and establishment of capitalist relations. It marked the beginning of European colonial expansion and the spread of international economic ties throughout the world.

1420s - the first colonial conquests of Portugal: Madeira, Azores, Slave Coast (Africa).

1453 - fall of Constantinople (Turkish domination in the southeastern direction. The Ottoman Empire controls the land routes to Asia).

1494 - Treaty of Tordesillas - division of the world between Portugal and Spain.

1519-1522 - the round-the-world voyage of Magellan and his companions.

1648 - travel of Semyon Dezhnev (Russia - Siberia).

1740s - travels of Bering and Chirikov (Siberia).

During the Age of Discovery, the largest colonial powers were Spain and Portugal. With the development of manufacturing capitalism, England, France, the Netherlands, and Germany came to the forefront of history. This period of history was also characterized by colonial conquests.

The political map of the world became especially unstable at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, when the struggle for the territorial division of the world sharply intensified between the leading countries. Thus, in 1876, only 10% of the territory of Africa belonged to Western European countries, while in 1900 it was already 90%. And by the beginning of the 20th century, the division of the world was actually completely completed, i.e. Only its violent redistribution became possible.

The beginning of the Newest period in the formation of the political map of Eurasia is associated with the end of World War I. The next milestones were World War II and the turn of the 80-90s, which was characterized by major changes on the political map of Eastern Europe (the collapse of the USSR, Yugoslavia, etc.).

The first stage was marked by the appearance of the first socialist state (USSR) on the world map and noticeable territorial shifts, and not only in Europe. Austria-Hungary collapsed, the borders of many states changed, sovereign countries were formed: Poland, Finland, the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, etc.

The second stage (after World War II), in addition to changes on the political map of Europe, is associated primarily with the collapse of the colonial system and the formation large number independent states in Asia.

The third stage is still ongoing. To qualitatively new changes on the political map (these are changes that usually do not lead to a change in the territory of the state, the essence of which is a change in socio-economic formations, the conquest of state independence by the former colonial countries, the introduction of a new government system, etc.) and having a great influence on the socio-economic and socio-political life of the entire world community include the following:

· The collapse of the USSR in 1991, the establishment of the political independence of the three former Soviet Baltic republics, and then the rest, incl. Russia.

· Education CIS;

· Mostly peaceful, people's democratic revolutions of 1989-90. (“velvet”) in Eastern European countries.

· The cessation of the activities of the Warsaw Treaty Organization (WTO) and the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA) in 1991, which seriously affected the political and economic situation not only in Europe, but throughout the world;

· collapse of the SFRY, declaration of political independence of Slovenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia, Croatia, Federal Republic Yugoslavia (as part of Serbia and Montenegro). The most acute political crisis former federation resulted in a civil war and interethnic conflicts, continuing to the present day;

· 1990-91 -- the process of decolonization continues: Namibia, the last colony in Africa, gained independence; new states were formed in Oceania: the Federated States of Micronesia (Carolina Islands), the Republic of the Marshall Islands;

· January 1, 1993 - the formation of two independent states (the collapse of Czechoslovakia) - the Czech Republic and Slovakia.

The scale of future changes on the political map of the world will be determined by the further course of ethnocultural processes in multinational countries, the nature of economic, political and cultural relations between countries and peoples.

2. Modern political map of Eurasia

On the modern political map of the world we can see many states (countries) that differ from each other in their form.

By the form of a state we understand the totality of the external characteristics of the state, determined by its content. In the science of constitutional law, two main forms of state are distinguished - the form of government and the form of government, which are very diverse.

The main reasons for the diversity of state forms:

Historical tradition of the development of national statehood;

Historical features of the formation of national statehood itself;

The national composition of the population of a given country;

In young countries that have freed themselves from colonial dependence, there is the influence of the metropolis.

Form of government is the organization of supreme power in the state, characterized by its sources and principles of relationship between government bodies and with the population. The form of government is that side of the organization of power in which the principles of the organization of supreme, sovereign power in the state and the legal status of the head of state are expressed.

Sometimes the form of the state includes political regime. The question of whether the political regime is an integral element of the form of the state remains debatable. Without going into details of scientific discussions on this matter, I will only point out that the categories of political regime and state form are closely interrelated. Their mutual influence is so great that the form of the state must be considered only in relation to the political regime.

The political regime influences the form of the state, and influences it in a decisive way. The determining influence of the political regime on the form of the state is expressed in the fact that:

1) specific forms of state are interconnected with certain political

regimes (a democratic state cannot be absolute monarchy, V authoritarian regime there is no parliamentarism).

2) the political regime shows the actual content of a particular form of state.

The shape of each specific state is formed under the influence of many factors.

Among the factors influencing the form of the state are:

1. features of the historical development of the state;

2. historical traditions;

3. various political and legal ideas;

4. national composition of the population;

5. external factors (international situation, etc.).

The relationship of social forces, political struggle and results directly and directly influences the establishment of the form of a particular state.

In foreign countries, there are two main types of republican forms of government - presidential and parliamentary republics. A dualistic (presidential) republic is a form of government that is characterized by the combination of the powers of the head of state and head of government in the hands of the president. Theoretically, it is built on the principle of a strict separation of powers.

Distinctive features:

Absence of the position of prime minister;

Extra-parliamentary method of electing the president;

Extra-parliamentary method of government formation;

Absence of the institution of parliamentary responsibility;

The president does not have the right to dissolve parliament.

The judiciary controls the constitutionality of both parliament and the president, thereby ensuring the observance of law and order by both the legislative and executive branches.

Presidential republics are common in Latin America. This form of government is also found in some countries in Asia and Africa. True, sometimes in these countries the power of the head of state actually goes beyond the constitutional framework, and, in particular, Latin American presidential republics were characterized by researchers as super-presidential. In the last 10-15 years, however, the situation in many of these countries has begun to change and move closer to the constitutional standard.

A parliamentary republic is characterized by the proclamation of the principle of the supremacy of parliament, to which the government bears political responsibility for its activities.

Distinctive features:

Availability of the position of Prime Minister;

Parliamentary method of electing the head of state;

The parliamentary method of forming a government from among the leaders of the party that has a majority in the lower house;

Political responsibility of the government to parliament.

The extensive powers that the constitution sometimes vests in the president of a parliamentary republic are exercised, as a rule, by the government, which, in the person of its head or minister, countersigns acts of the president. A parliamentary republic is largely characterized by a gap between the legal and actual position of all supreme bodies of state power.

There are not so many purely parliamentary republics.

These include: Italy, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Finland, Iceland, Israel, Lebanon, Turkey, Hungary, India, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Estonia and some others.

A mixed (semi-presidential) republic combines the characteristics of both a presidential and parliamentary republic. But this combination can be different.

For example, according to the Constitution of the French Republic of 1958, the President is elected by citizens and runs the government, which is typical for a presidential republic. At the same time, the government he appoints must enjoy the confidence of the lower house of Parliament - the National Assembly, which is characteristic of a parliamentary republic. At the same time, the President can dissolve the National Assembly at his own discretion, which is not typical for either type republican form board.

Experience has shown that this form of government is effective provided that the government, based on a parliamentary majority, and the President adhere to the same political orientation. Otherwise, a conflict may arise between the President, on the one hand, and the Prime Minister and the parliamentary majority, on the other, for the resolution of which constitutional means are not always sufficient.

In a number of countries, the president is elected by citizens, which is typical for a presidential republic, and has a number of powers that give him the opportunity to actively intervene in the political process, but in practice he does not use them. Example

Austria, Ireland, Iceland can serve.

Switzerland has a unique form of government. The government is appointed by and accountable to parliament, but the political responsibility of the government to parliament is not constitutionally provided for, and the state regime is therefore dualistic.

There are also forms of government that combine elements of a presidential and parliamentary republic (Colombia according to the 1991 constitution), absolute and constitutional monarchy(Kuwait), monarchies and republics (for example, in Malaysia).

The form of government is a national-territorial organization of state power, characterized by the principles of interconnection between the individual components of the state and their authorities between themselves and the state as a whole.

The form of government shows:

What parts does it consist of? internal structure states;

What is the legal status of these parts and what are the relationships between these bodies;

How are relationships built between central and local government bodies;

In what form of government are the interests of each nation living in this territory expressed?

3. Monarchy states, their features

Monarchy is a form of government in which the supreme state power belongs to one person who exercises this power by his own right of kinship or inheritance, legally indefinitely and irresponsibly.

Monarchy can be:

Absolute (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, UAE);

Constitutional, which in turn is divided into dualistic (Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco) and parliamentary (Great Britain, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and etc.).

An absolute monarchy is characterized by the fact that all state power is concentrated in the hands of the monarch. He himself makes laws, can directly manage administrative activities or appoint a government for this purpose, and the highest court rules. There are no restrictions on his power, at least legal ones, although political, moral, ethical, religious and other ones can be present and usually are present to one degree or another. Subjects are initially legally powerless, since the monarch did not endow them with any rights and did not take away these rights.

Dualistic monarchy is the original form of limited, or constitutional, monarchy. It is characterized by certain characteristics:

The simultaneous existence of two political institutions - the monarchy and parliament, which share state power among themselves;

Legal and actual independence of the monarch from parliament in the sphere of executive power;

The formal nature of the legislative powers of parliament, severely curtailed by the monarch, who is granted the right of veto, the right of appointment to the upper house, and the right to dissolve parliament.

Parliamentary monarchy usually exists in highly developed states. Among developing countries, Malaysia, Thailand, and Nepal can be classified as parliamentary monarchies; however, taking into account the real influence of the monarch, we have to admit the presence of elements of a dualistic state regime here.

Signs of a parliamentary monarchy:

The limited power of the monarch not only in the field of legislation, but also in the field of public administration and control over the government;

Lack of actual responsibility of ministers and government to the monarch;

The centrality of government in the system government agencies and his responsibility to Parliament.

The monarchical form of government in countries that are dominions of the Commonwealth of Nations (Canada, Australia, Jamaica, New Zealand, Barbados, etc.) has a number of specific features. The Dominions are in a personal union with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and do not have their own monarchs. The Queen of England is the queen of each of the dominions, but in her absence, the functions of the head of state in the dominion are exercised by the governor-general, who is appointed by the queen on the proposal of the government of the dominion from among its inhabitants. Republic is a form of government in which all the highest bodies of government are either elected or formed by a national representative institution, and therefore supreme power is urgent and legally responsible.

In modern conditions, there are monarchs where the head of state is not lifelong or hereditary, but is re-elected after a certain period of time. Such a system exists in Malaysia and the United Arab Emirates, peculiar federal elective monarchies. In each of these states, the head of state is re-elected every 5 years. This brings the head of state - the monarch - closer to the president, and the monarchical form of government to the republican one. However, both states remain monarchies, because the head of state cannot be elected by any citizen who meets the electoral qualifications and requirements for the presidency, but only by one of the “local monarchs” - the rulers of the constituent parts of the federation. In Malaysia, 9 of the 13 federal subjects are headed by hereditary sultans (government in the other four is organized differently), and only these 9 form the Council of Rulers, which elects the head of state once every 5 years. The Council of Rulers does not have power, and the power of the monarch is also significantly limited (especially after the constitutional reform of 1983-1984). Malaysia is a parliamentary monarchy.

In the UAE, the Supreme Council of the seven emirs - the subjects of the federation - has full power - it passes laws. The National Assembly, appointed by the emirs (each emir appoints a certain number of members established by the Interim Constitution of 1971, and depending on the size of the emirate), has only a consultative nature. The Supreme Council of Emirs elects the head of state every 5 years. Despite such elections, the main powers of the head of state are concentrated in the Council of Emirs. The UAE has essentially a collective monarch.

4. Federation states, their features

According to the form of government, a state can be unitary (simple) and federal (complex).

Federation - is a voluntary unification of previously independent state entities into one union state.

The federal government structure is heterogeneous. In different countries it has its own unique characteristics, which are determined by the historical conditions of the formation of a particular federation and, above all, national composition population of the country, the uniqueness of life and culture of the peoples included in the union state.

At the same time, we can highlight the most common features that are characteristic of most federal states:

1. The territory of the federation consists of the territories of its individual subjects: states, states, lands, republics, etc.

2. In a union state, the supreme executive, legislative and judicial branch belongs to federal government agencies.

3. Subjects of the federation have the right to adopt their own constitution, have their own supreme executive, legislative and judicial bodies

4. In most federations there is union citizenship and citizenship of federal units.

5. Under a federal government structure, there is a chamber in parliament that represents the interests of members of the federation.

6. The main national foreign policy activities in the federations are carried out by the union federal authorities. They officially represent the federation in interstate relations (USA, Brazil, India, Germany, etc.).

The federal form of government, in contrast to the unitary one, is complex and multifaceted and in each specific case has unique specific features. The federation is a fairly common form of government (USA, Canada, the Republic of Argentina, Brazil, the Republic of Venezuela, the United Mexican States, Germany, Austria, India, the Federation of Malaysia, etc.).

A federation is a complex (union) state consisting of state entities that have legal and certain political independence.

The federal form in young states is characterized by a high degree of centralization.

In some foreign countries, in one form or another, there is administrative autonomy provided by their structural divisions with significant national, ethnic, geographical or historical characteristics (Denmark, Spain, Finland, Portugal, Sri Lanka, India). Typically these are countries with a unitary form of government.

General provisions on autonomy are established by the constitutions of the respective countries and special parliamentary laws.

Distinctive features:

Wider rights than municipal bodies of ordinary administrative-territorial units;

Representative institutions and bodies are more independent in relation to the central government than ordinary municipalities;

The scope of powers is significantly less than that of the federal subjects.

5. The influence of the form of government on the economic development of countries

Political forms modern states took shape over several centuries. These forms were ultimately determined by the economic system of society, its basis. Historical traditions have a great influence on the form of the state, as well as the features of the modern internal political development of a given country and its international position.

The diversity of state forms increased further as a result of the collapse of the colonial system, when a number of young people appeared on the political map of the world sovereign states. The vicissitudes of political struggle lead in many liberated countries to frequent modifications of state forms.

The concept of historical type is associated with the establishment of a natural dependence of the class essence of the state and law on the economic relations that dominate in class society at a certain stage of its development. Because ultimately the requirements economic development, force states to abandon undemocratic regimes, outdated forms of government, and forms of state that are inadequate to the level of economic development. A clear example here is the “instant” collapse of the Soviet Union from a historical point of view.

Bibliography

1. Arin, O. Asia-Pacific region: myths, illusions and reality / O. rin. - M.: Ecopros, 1997. - 235 p.

2. The whole world: an encyclopedic reference book. - Mn.: Literature, 1998.

3. Maksakovsky, V.P. Geographical picture of the world: in 2 books/V.P. Maksakovsky. - M.: Bustard, 2004. - Book. 2: Regional characteristics of the world.

4. Socio-economic geography foreign world/ floor ed. V.V. Volsky. - M.: Bustard, 2001. - 560 p.

5. Economic, social and political geography of the world. Regions and countries / ed. S.B. Lavrova, N.V. KALEDINA. - M.: Gardariki, 2002. - 928 p.

Political party "Eurasia"

Introduction

Chapter 1. Leaders of the Eurasia Party

1.1 A.G. Dugin

1.2 T. Tajuddin

Chapter 2. Goals and objectives of the party

Chapter 3. Ideological views of Eurasianism

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

The Eurasia Party is the only party of its kind that represents the interests of Eurasian countries.

The purpose of my essay: to analyze the activities of the Eurasia party and its ideological guidelines.

Therefore, my tasks are the following:

· Consider the biography and activities of party leaders;

· Consider the goals and objectives of the party;

· Analyze the activities of the entire Eurasian movement;

CHAPTER 1 Leaders of the Eurasia Party

1.1 Alexander Gelievich Dugin

Philosopher (Ph.D.), Orthodox (co-religionist - Old Believer consensus, accepting the priesthood of the MP), publicist.

Founder ideological trend"Neo-Eurasianism", the creator of the modern school of geopolitics.

1988-1991 – editor-in-chief of the publishing center “EON”;

Since 1990, editor-in-chief of the almanac “Dear Angel”;

Since 1991, editor-in-chief of the magazine “Elements”;
Since 1991 Chairman of the Historical and Religious Association "Arktogea";
1996-1997 author and host of the radio program “FUNIS MUNDY” (Radio 101 - FM);
1997 –1999 author and presenter of the program “Geopolitical Review” (Radio Free Russia);
Since 1998 Advisor to the Chairman State Duma;

Since 1998, Rector of the New University (Moscow);
Since 1999, Chairman of the section “Center for Geopolitical Expertise” of the Expert Advisory Council on National Security Issues under the Chairman of the State Duma;
Since 2000, the course “Philosophy of Politics” at MNEPU;
Since 2001, Chairman of the Political Council (leader) of the All-Russian Social and Political Movement “Eurasia”;

Main works (monographs):
, M., 1990
, M., 1992
, M., 1993
, M., 1994
, M., 1996
, M., 1996
, M., 1996
, M., 1997
“Absolute Motherland”, M., 1999
, M., 1999
, in 2 vols., M., 2001
"Russia. Misterio de Eurasia", Madrid, 1990
, Milano, 1991
"Seminal writings of A. Dughin", v.3, London, 1999.

1.2 Talgat Tajuddin

Mufti, Sheikh-ul-Islam, Chairman of the Central Spiritual Administration of Muslims of Russia and the European CIS countries (CDUM).

On June 19, 1980, he was elected Mufti of the Spiritual Administration of Muslims of the European Part of the USSR and Siberia (DUMES). Since 1990 he has been the Chairman of the Central Spiritual Administration of Muslims of Russia and European countries CIS - the legal successor of DUMES. Some Muslims recognize him as the “Supreme Mufti of Russia.”

Participant in religious international conferences of a peacekeeping nature (Tashkent, 1980; Baku, 1986; Kabul, 1988, etc.).

CHAPTER 2 Goals and objectives of the party

The goals of the Eurasia Party are:

· Participation in political life society through the formation and expression of the political will of citizens, their participation in public and political actions, in elections and referendums.

· Strengthening Russian statehood, based on the principles:
- Eurasianism – as an axial political concept;
- traditionalism – as a patriotic philosophy and a guarantor of interfaith and interethnic harmony;
- sovereignty - as the basis for strengthening the vertical of state power;
- national security - as strengthening the socio-political significance of law enforcement agencies and departments responsible for maintaining the integrity of the State;
- priority social orientation economic reforms, activation of the role of youth in the life of the State and society, development of the national culture of the peoples of Russia.

· Promoting the strengthening of the federal structure, Active participation in carrying out and deepening federal reforms in order to strengthen the national unity of the peoples of Russia and its regions.

· Promotion of building an organic democratic society, the creation of a State with social guarantees, based on the historical and cultural traditions of the country.

· Formation public opinion, explaining to citizens of the Russian Federation the Party’s position on various issues social and political life.

· Representing the interests of citizens of the Russian Federation in government bodies and local governments.

· Expressing the opinions of citizens on any issues of public life, bringing these opinions to the attention of the general public and government authorities.

· Nomination of candidates for elections to legislative (representative) and executive bodies state authorities and local government bodies, participation in elections to these bodies and in their work.

The main objectives of the Eurasia party are:

· Participation in the development of criteria for the State National Idea of Russia, the formation of its theses through the Eurasian-traditionalist complex.

· Organizing broad participation of citizens in the socio-political life of society, explaining to Russian citizens the main goals and Program of the Party, and on this basis attracting supporters of the Eurasian political doctrine.

· Participation in the development and implementation of social and state development programs in accordance with the logic of the Eurasian tradition and integration.

· Organization of a comprehensive study of economic, socio-political, legal and spiritual problems in order to preserve and develop the traditions of spirituality and social justice.

· Promoting reform of the domestic economy based on a harmonious combination of government regulation and market mechanisms of individual, public and state interests.

· Participation in the development and implementation of federal and regional educational and cultural programs aimed at developing intellectual potential, raising the cultural and spiritual level Russian society, as well as social, national and other programs for the protection of economic, social, national and legal interests, spiritual values of citizens and peoples of multinational Russia, Russian citizens abroad and internally displaced persons.

· Promotion of state policy aimed at the civic, professional and moral development of young people, their acquisition of a worthy place in society.

· Organization of public opinion research, sociological research and surveys, public events, including meetings, rallies, demonstrations, processions and pickets in accordance with current legislation.

· Implementation of publishing, television broadcasting, communication and other types of information activities in accordance with current legislation.

· Development of own financial and material and technical base.

CHAPTER 3 Ideological views of Eurasianism.

3.1 Eurasianism and domestic politics

The Eurasia Party assumes domestic policy the following guidelines:

· revival of the country's defense capability;

· priority of national security over all other criteria;

· evolutionary transformation of the political system of Russia from the liberal-democratic type to the Eurasian Federation.

Eurasian Federation- a new concept, different from the classic bourgeois nation-state, just as ancient empires or the modern European Union differ from it.

The Eurasian Federation involves two levels of governance:

Ethno-federal;

At the strategic level, a rigid supra-ethnic unified centralist management system has been established, similar to the model of management of power ministries and departments. This level is associated with the management of the entire geopolitical mechanism, including both the Russian Federation itself and the strategic spaces included in the Eurasian zone, and is staffed by the federal elite, which forms the “geopolitical administration.”

The “geopolitical administration” is in charge only of those areas of life that directly affect issues of defense, security, territorial, economic, transport, information integration, as well as legal issues related to interethnic relations. The leadership of the “geopolitical administration” is concentrated in the hands of the President of Eurasia, the Eurasian Security Council, the Administration and the State Council of Eurasia. Territorial and administrative division of Russia (hereinafter referred to as Eurasian Union) is based on strategic districts (historical analogues - voivodships, provinces, modern federal districts).

The configuration of strategic districts depends on the geopolitical structure and national security interests and is in no way connected with ethnic, religious and economic features regions. At the second level the main political subject is ethnicity (or autonomy).

Ethnicity (people) must be recognized as the main political subject. In all matters that do not affect the strategic and geopolitical context, ethnic groups (peoples) should be given the maximum degree of freedom in self-organization and self-government.

No people have the right to impose their ethical, cultural, legal, confessional, linguistic, legal, and moral principles on another people.

Ethnic groups organize a system of self-government and legal norms in accordance with their historical and cultural traditions - in this matter the widest freedom of choice is allowed. Ethnic groups can, within their own boundaries, create various political systems - both electoral democratic and dynastic authoritarian or religious-charismatic.

3.2 Eurasianism and foreign policy.

In foreign policy, Eurasianism offers a “third way” – neither the Cold War nor American-style “globalism”. This means that Russian foreign policy should not directly recreate the diplomatic profile of the Soviet period (tough confrontation with the West, restoration of strategic partnerships with pariah countries - North Korea, Iraq, Cuba, etc.), but at the same time do not follow obediently and silently American politics. Eurasianism offers its own foreign policy doctrine.

Its essence boils down to the following:

Modern Russia can survive as an independent and independent political reality, as a full-fledged subject of international politics, only in a multipolar world. Recognition of a unipolar American-centric world is impossible for Russia, since in such a world it will be equated to a simple object of globalization and will lose its independence and originality.

Countering unipolar globalization and advocating for a multipolar model are the main imperatives of modern Russian foreign policy.

Russia must respond to globalization according to the Atlanticist model, to the creation of a “one world” under the auspices of the West by putting forward the Eurasian Project. The Eurasian Project comes down to the consistent affirmation of the following geopolitical truth: reducing the diversity of cultures and civilizations to a single unifying model is unnatural and immoral. Every culture, every people has the right to follow its own historical path. Only a multipolar world can be fair, in which the power centers of geopolitics are in a state of dynamic balance. The unification of the world under the auspices of Atlanticism, the modern civilization of the West (and especially the USA) - this phenomenon is usually called “globalism” - will never lead to real multipolarity and will always be strictly centralized (at least in ideological, economic and cultural senses).

Eurasia has a historical purpose: to balance the Atlanticist vector, thereby creating a geopolitical space for freedom of choice for the countries of the Third World and all the peoples of the earth.

Russia's main geopolitical priority in the new millennium is the creation of a Eurasian strategic bloc - with a flexible and differentiated worldview and multi-level membership - as a counterweight to the Atlanticist and globalist processes.

Unlike previous eras, the axis of such a bloc should not be a worldview or the specifics of an economic system or political structure, but geopolitical and strategic principles, civilizational imperatives.

Russia must fully understand itself as the “geographical axis of history”, as the core of Eurasia, and with full responsibility approve at a new stage and in new terms the global scale of its historical and civilizational destiny (taking into account the mistakes and misconceptions of previous historical periods).

In the long term, it is necessary to focus on creating a free, genuine and fair multipolar world, organically developing around diverse cultural, civilizational, social and historical centers. The wealth of humanity is directly related to the diversity of civilizations, which must be preserved and reaffirmed. Eurasia itself, in the best periods of its history, was distinguished by precisely this diversity, where strategic and geopolitical unity was combined with a constellation of organic and culturally autonomous parts. The Eurasian pole must initially emerge as a stronghold of civilizational liberation, so that the future multipolarity becomes a natural and desirable result for Eurasia of a temporary return to the bipolar model.

Consequently, the very structure of the new Eurasian bloc must initially carry within itself the germs of cultural pluralism, differentialism, diversity, and “blooming complexity.” In this case, the future formation of a truly multipolar world will be an organic continuation of the Eurasian line, counteracting the unifying, one-dimensional logic of Atlanticism.

The Atlanticist West emerged victorious from the geopolitical confrontation with the USSR, and strives to implement its own version of the world order, globalism, in a totalitarian and uncontested manner.

A truly multipolar world is possible only in spite of Atlanticism, through its containment, and in the future through its overcoming. True multipolarity is possible only by abandoning the universalist approach to the human and civilizational factor.

The Eurasia Party is responsible for developing a system of strategic alliances.

· Main (subject) partners in Eurasianism

Building a multipolar world (vital for Russia) is possible only through a system of strategic alliances. Russia alone cannot cope with this task; there are not sufficient resources for complete autarky. Consequently, everything depends on the adequacy and activity of foreign policy.

In the modern world there are several geopolitical entities that, for historical and civilizational reasons, are also vitally interested in multipolarity. These entities should logically be Russia's preferred partners.

They are divided into several categories:

First category: powerful regional entities (countries or groups of countries) that have complementarity relative to Russia. The principle of complementarity means that these countries have something that is vital for Russia, and Russia has something that is vital for these countries, and the strategic exchange of capabilities strengthens both geopolitical entities.

This category (symmetrical complementarity) includes: European Union, Japan, Iran, India. All these geopolitical realities may well lay claim to the role of independent poles in a multipolar environment, and American-centric globalism deprives them of this opportunity. In the absence of an ideological enemy in the person of new Russia (which provided the United States with the main argument for keeping Europe and Japan in its orbit, and did not allow Islamic Iran to get closer to the USSR during the Cold War), the imperative of complete subordination of these countries to American geopolitics is practically no longer justified (except for historical inertia). Consequently, the contradictions between the United States, on the one hand, and these powers, on the other, will constantly increase.

If Russia is active and reinforces these multipolar trends with its potential, finding for each of the geopolitical entities an argument for a strategic alliance and differentiated conditions for its implementation, the “club of supporters of multipolarity” will become powerful and influential, capable of effectively insisting on its own project for the future structure of the world.

At the same time, Russia has something to offer each of these powers - resources, strategic weapons potential, political weight. In return, Russia receives an economic and technological sponsor in the form of the European Union and Japan, and a political and strategic partner in the South in the person of Iran and India.

Eurasianism formulates, develops, and details such a foreign policy course, justifying it with the methodology of geopolitics.

· Relative (subjective) partners

Second category Russia's foreign policy partners are geopolitical entities interested in multipolarity, but are not symmetrically complementary for Russia. These are China, Pakistan, Türkiye, Arab countries. The traditional policy of these geopolitical entities is of a pragmatic situational nature, based on a balance of regional interests, taking into account global strategy USA. They do not have direct comprehensive benefits from an unconditional partnership with Russia, especially since Russia’s Eurasian alliance with countries of the first category strengthens the traditional rivals of countries of the second category on a regional scale. China has traditional tensions with Japan and India, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt – with Iran.

Russia's relations with China represent a special case, complicated by demographic problems, China's increased interest in the sparsely populated territories of Siberia, and its lack of serious technological potential capable of positively solving the most important problem for Russia in the development of Siberia.

· States that do not have geopolitical subjectivity.

Third category represent Third World countries that do not have sufficient geopolitical potential to claim even limited subjectivity. In relation to these countries, Russia must pursue a differentiated policy, promoting their geopolitical integration into zones of “common prosperity”, under the control of Russia’s powerful strategic partners in the Eurasian bloc.

This means that in the Pacific zone Russia benefits from a predominant strengthening of the Japanese presence.

In continental Asia, the geopolitical ambitions of India and Iran should be encouraged, and in the West, the expansion of the influence of the European Union on Arab world and Africa in general.

· Geopolitics of Russian-American relations

Russia's international Eurasian policy should be focused on convincing the United States of the failure of a unipolar world, the conflict-prone nature and irresponsibility of the process of American-centric globalization.

While harshly and actively (primarily through the instrument of the Eurasian Alliance) opposing such globalization, Russia, on the contrary, should support isolationist tendencies in the United States and welcome the limitation of US geopolitical interests to the American continent. The United States as the most powerful regional power, with a circle of strategic interests concluded between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, can be a strategic partner for Eurasian Russia. Moreover, such an America will be very important for Russia, since it will limit both Europe and the Pacific region, as well as Islamic world and China, if they strive to follow the path of unipolar globalization based on their own geopolitical schemes.

The Eurasia Party in international life

The Eurasia Party attaches great importance to the practical implementation of foreign policy arising from the principles of Eurasianism.

In this regard, the Eurasia Party develops and promotes the implementation of geopolitical projects and programs aimed at a comprehensive understanding of the main directions of international politics, and is actively involved in monitoring and analyzing the most important processes. Application of geopolitical methodology, which is the property of the “Eurasia” party, the product of many years scientific activity her intellectual asset to international life is distinctive feature consistent Eurasianism.

The Eurasia Party is active in the field of party diplomacy, establishing inter-party connections in international sphere with various political parties and movements in other countries.

The Eurasia Party attaches particular importance to cooperation with representatives of anti-globalist forces, as well as with political parties that indicate in their programs an orientation towards building a multipolar world.

Priority is given to inter-party contacts with countries that are geopolitical allies of Russia (Eurasia) in the Eurasian project - Europe, Japan, Iran, India.

Since the ideology of Eurasianism is geopolitical in nature, the most active participation of the party structures of “Eurasia” is expected in the formation of the foreign policy course of the Russian Federation, in the steps for its implementation.

Conclusion

Having studied the work and activities of the political party “Eurasia”, the following conclusions can be drawn:

· The issue of creating a Eurasian Federation occupies a priority place in the party program. The Eurasian Federation is a new concept, different from the classic bourgeois nation-state, just as ancient empires or the modern European Union differ from it. The Eurasian Federation involves two levels of governance:

Strategic (geopolitical);

Ethno-federal;

· In foreign policy, the Eurasia party offers its own foreign policy doctrine. Russian foreign policy should not directly recreate the diplomatic profile of the Soviet period (tough confrontation with the West, restoration of strategic partnership with pariah countries - North Korea, Iraq, Cuba, etc.), but at the same time, it should not obediently and silently follow American policy .

Bibliography:

Tutoring

Need help studying a topic?

Our specialists will advise or provide tutoring services on topics that interest you.
Submit your application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

Neo-Eurasianism.

The idea of passionarity by L. N. Gumilyov.

Geopolitical concept of Eurasianism. Eurasia as a special geographical world. Economic and political unity of Eurasia.

The Russian school of geopolitics has several trends. The most powerful of them is Eurasian. His central task was to defend the original foundations Russian history and culture, development of new views on Russian and world history. Eurasians viewed Russia as a special ethnographic and cultural world occupies the middle space of Asia and Europe.

The Eurasian movement arose among the Russian post-October emigration in the early 20s. The period of its formation and spread of Eurasianism covers 1921-1926. It originated in Sofia, but soon moved to Prague and then to Berlin.

The founders of Eurasianism were linguist and philologist N.S. Trubetskoy (1890-1938), geographer and economist P.N. Savitsky (1895-1968), Orthodox theologian, later priest G.V. Florovsky (1893-1979) and art critic P.P. Suvchinsky (1892-1985). The philosopher L.P. Karsavin (1882-1952), the historian G.V. took part in the Eurasian movement at its different stages. Vernadsky (1887-1973), lawyer N.N. Alekseev (1879-1964) and a number of others.

The heyday of the movement is associated with the publication of the Eurasian Temporary, and later, in 1926, the program document “Eurasianism. Experience of systematic presentation”, most of which was written by P.N. Savitsky, the undisputed leader and ideologist of Eurasianism, the founder of Russian geopolitics as a science.

At the second stage (1926-1929), the center of the movement moved to Paris, where the “Eurasian Chronicles” continued to be published and the newspaper “Eurasia” began to be published. The publication of the newspaper was an organizational form of the “left” wing of the movement.

Prague Center for Eurasianism, whose main theorist was L.P. Karsavin, focused on ideological and political rapprochement and cooperation with the Soviet government. N.S. Trubetskoy and P.N. Savitsky called this self-liquidation.

In the thirties, Eurasianism as a movement ceased to exist. The ideas of Eurasianism were revived in the 60s by L.N. Gumilev.

The identification by Eurasians of a special type of “Eurasian” culture was based on his theory of cultural-historical types, developed in the work “Russia and Europe”. If we compare the work of N.S. Trubetskoy “Europe and Humanity,” which gave an intellectual impetus to the Eurasian movement, with the work of N.Ya. Danilevsky, the ideological influence of the latter on the conceptual constructions of the Eurasians becomes obvious.

Eurasians under this thesis of N.Ya. Danilevsky was let down by geopolitical justifications.

The basis of the geopolitical thesis of the Eurasians, formulated by P.N. Savitsky, according to which “Russia is neither Asia nor Europe, but represents a special geographical world,” lies the concept of “place development.” This concept, originally introduced within the framework of natural science to denote the relationship between living organisms and their habitat, P.N. Savitsky applied to the analysis of the relationship and integrity of the socio-historical and geographical environment. It is a geographical individual, or landscape.

The concept of geographic space, unlike geometric space, is not only quantitative, but also qualitative. The socio-historical development of peoples does not take place in some impersonal space, but in a unique geographical environment. Depending on its geological structure, climate, soil quality and vegetation, the geographical environment can be of different types. Peoples in their socio-historical life adapt to a certain geographical environment and, in turn, adapt it to themselves. The geographical environment determines the forms of economic life of peoples.

By geographical criteria The division into Europe, Asia and Eurasia, which represent different types of local development, is natural. Eurasia is a place of development that is an integral form of existence of many smaller places of development. The concept of Eurasia as a place of development coincides in content with the concept of Grossraum, introduced by the German geopolitician K. Schmitt (1888-1985).

Eurasia in its borders approximately coincides with Russia. The need to distinguish within the territory of the Old World not two, as was traditionally done, but three continents, was not a discovery of the Eurasians. The Eurasians gave it the name “Eurasia”.

In the understanding of Eurasians, the space of Europe is exhausted by “Western Europe”, the geographical conditions of which are oceanic, and “Eastern Europe”, being continental, is part of Eurasia, not Europe. Eurasia cannot be identified with Asia. The territory of Eurasia consists of the East European, West Siberian and Turkestan plains and the mountains bordering them from the east, southeast and south:

On the territory of Eurasia, during its thousand-year history, a multinational nation called N.S. was formed. Trubetskoy Eurasian. The peoples of Eurasia were the creators of a special culture - Eurasian, comparable in its global significance to the cultures of the West and East, but with its own significance. The culture of Russia is not Slavic or European, but Eurasian: it includes elements of the cultures of the South, East and West. Eurasians resolutely reject cultural and historical “Eurocentrism” and view Eurasia as a special cultural world led by Russia, united in the contradictory diversity of its manifestations.

The Eurasians saw the form of organization of the world economy as a system of autarkic, i.e., economically self-sufficient worlds associated with the geographical features of their place of development. They argued that the economic processes of Eurasia should be determined by its objective geographical conditions, its continentality - this is a “special internal world.”

According to Eurasians, a single world economy is being created as an oceanic one. For continental countries subject to their intensive participation in the global oceanic exchange, the prospect of becoming “the backyard of the world economy” becomes a fundamental reality, since continental countries are in initially unfavorable conditions due to the enormity of distances and the remoteness of territories from the world ocean. This means we need to create our own autarkic economy.

For Russia-Eurasia, the interests of the surrounding continental countries are also important, since only through economic exchange with them will it be able to overcome the economically unfavorable conditions of continentality.

The statehood of Eurasia has always had an ideocratic, authoritarian character, based not on a pragmatic commercial approach, but on an initial spiritual impulse, when the physical world is organically included in a single spiritual and creative process.

Neo-Eurasianism

The followers of the Eurasians made not only geopolitical conclusions from their heritage, but also formed a whole direction in science, called “neo-Eurasianism.” It has several varieties.

The current of national ideocracy on an imperial continental scale, united around the newspapers Den, Zavtra, and the magazine Elements, is based on the ideas of P.N. Savitsky, G.V. Vernadsky, N.S. Trubetskoy, L.N. Gumilyov and develops them. Its representatives oppose liberal Westernism and narrow ethnic nationalism. In their studies, Russia is the axis of the geopolitical “greater space”. Its task and mission is to create an empire of Eurasian socialism. The liberal economy created by Russian reformers, in their opinion, is a sign of Atlanticism.

A. Dugin believes that these reformers Soviet period Russian history is seen as a modernist form of the traditional Russian national desire for planetary expansion and “Eurasian anti-Atlantic universalism.”

Gumilyov’s theory of passionarity is enriched by the teachings of the “circulation of elites” of the Italian sociologist V. Pareto and the religious views of the school of European traditionalists Guenon and Evola. The ideas of traditionalists are “the crisis of the modern world”, “degradation of the West”, “desacralization of civilization”, etc. - are important components of this movement of neo-Eurasians. Based on the knowledge of the concepts of Haushofer, Schmitt, Nikita, the “new right” (J. Thiriard, C. Terraciano, etc.), this school of neo-Eurasians understands Europe as a continental power. The identified aspects of the paradigm were unfamiliar to Savitsky, Vernadsky and Trubetskoy - at that time the United States had not yet gained the corresponding geopolitical weight that it has now. This movement of neo-Eurasians recognizes the strategic importance of Europe for the completion of the Eurasian “Greater Space”.

Another current of modern neo-Eurasianism is based on the idea of a continental Russian-Iranian union. The choice of Islamic countries, primarily Iran and Iraq, and Russia as its strategic ally is the basis of the anti-Atlantic strategy in southwest Eurasia. Representatives of this current of neo-Eurasianism do not accept either Atlanticism or mondialism at all. This type of neo-Eurasianism has many points of contact with other alternative geopolitical projects: Islamic “socialism”, European National Bolshevism, theories of geopoliticians in African and Latin American countries.

Another current of neo-Eurasianism supports and develops ideas designed to recreate the economic interaction of the former republics of the USSR. Here we're talking about mainly about “economic Eurasianism”. The President of Kazakhstan N. Nazarbayev has been advocating this idea for several years now.

Interest in neo-Eurasianism in Russia did not fade away at the beginning of the 21st century. This is evidenced by numerous publications in Russian publications of various directions.

The main principle of the new movement, Eurasian philosophy, is the principle of “flourishing complexity”. This can be understood in such a way that under the sky of Eurasia there is a place for representatives of all 130 peoples, nationalities and national minorities of Russia. In political terms, neo-Eurasians, as emphasized in the report, switched to positions of political centrism. A new trend in Russian political and ideological life openly opposed itself to Atlanticism.

Other varieties of neo-Eurasianism - projects to develop a “national idea”, calls for studying the heritage of the first Russian Eurasians - are largely custom-made ideological in nature, speculating on the national feelings of Russians or Turkic peoples, national minorities. These projects do not have a more or less solid scientific basis, serious theory and methodology; they are artificial, fragmentary and cannot lay claim to an independent and serious geopolitical ideology and methodology.

The general methodological principle of Eurasianism is polycentrism. Both Russian Eurasians and neo-Eurasians believed: “European polycentrism assumed that there were many such centers. Europe is the center of the world, but Palestine is the center of the world, Iberia and China are the same.”

Many other prominent scientists look at this problem differently. 3. Brzezinski writes: “Eurasia is a supercontinent of the globe, playing the role of a kind of axis. The power that dominates it will have decisive influence in two of the three most economically developed regions of the planet - Western Europe and East Asia.” Pure Atlanticists (Huntington) assume that unipolarity will be relative, since the winning West (The West) will be forced to constantly resolve growing intercivilizational conflicts with “the rest of the world” (The Rest), while mondialists (Fukuyama, Attali) see the unproblematic dominance of the West as necessary the whole planet as something that has already happened

Neo-Eurasians of Russia cannot agree with the hegemonic claims of the Atlanticists and mondialists. In their opinion, bipolarity can counter monopolarity. This means that “the new continental alliance must either exclude all of Europe to the Atlantic and several important sectors of the southern coast of Eurasia - India, Iran, Indochina, etc., or ensure the friendly neutrality of these same spaces, i.e. to get them out of the control of Atlanticism.” It is especially emphasized that the new Eurasian bipolarism must proceed from completely different ideological premises and be based on completely different methods.

There is another point of view on the new world order. In the 21st century China may act as a geopolitical counterweight. There are many pros for this approach: the rapid economic growth of the PRC, a huge territory not inferior to that of the United States, large demographic potential that is more than 4 times greater than the potential of the United States, an active dynamic foreign policy, powerful, rapidly modernizing armed forces, etc. But China in practice balances between Atlanticism and Eurasianism. And this policy, apparently, will continue in the first decades XXI V.

Related information.