Idea Transcript
When Empire Meets Nationalism
This page has been left blank intentionally
When Empire Meets Nationalism Power Politics in the US and Russia
Didier Chaudet Sciences Po, France Florent Parmentier Sciences Po, France benoÎt PÉlopidas Sciences Po, France, University of Geneva, Switzerland and Monterey Institute of International Studies, USA
First published 2009 by Ashgate Publishing Published 2016 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017, USA Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business Copyright © 2009 Didier Chaudet, Florent parmentier and benoît pélopidas Didier Chaudet, Florent parmentier and benoît pélopidas have asserted their right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as the authors of this work. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data When empire meets nationalism : power and politics in the Us and russia. 1. balance of power--history. 2. nationalism--United states. 3. nationalism--russia (Federation) 4. imperialism. 5. political culture--United states. 6. political culture-russia (Federation) 7. United states--Foreign relations. 8. russia (Federation)--Foreign relations. i. Chaudet, Didier. ii. parmentier, Florent. iii. pélopidas, benoît. 327.1'01'0947-dc22 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Chaudet, Didier. When empire meets nationalism : power politics in the Us and russia / by Didier Chaudet, Florent parmentier and benoît pélopidas. p. cm. includes bibliographical references. ISBN 978-0-7546-7805-2 (hardback) 1. nationalism--United states. 2. Conservatism--United states. 3. nationalism--russia (Federation) 4. Conservatism--russia (Federation) 5. imperialism. 6. United states--politics and government. 7. russia (Federation)--politics and government. i. parmentier, Florent. ii. pélopidas, benoît. iii. title. JC311.C4563 2008 327.1--dc22 2009019237 ISBN 9780754678052 (hbk) ISBN 9781315547367 (ebk)
Contents List of Boxes Acknowledgements
vii ix
Introduction
1
Part I The Apostles of the Empire: Intellectual Genealogies 1 Neoconservatives, Old and New
11
2
39
From Eurasianism to Neo-Eurasianism:Nostalgia for the Empire
Part II Imperial Calling and Nationalism 3 Anatomy of the Empire: Imperial Nationalism? 4
67
American History through the Neoconservative Looking Glass: Imperial Calling Derived from Nationalism 83
5 The Empire, Neo-eurasianists and Russian Nationalism
99
Part III Geopolitics of Imperial Invocations: Between Cynicism, Ideology and Incoherence 6 Islam
121
7
137
Turkey and Central Asia
8 The Middle East
157
Conclusion The Impossible Empire of Ressentiment
179
Afterword Changing People, Continuing Patterns?
189
Select and Thematic Bibliography Index
197 207
This page has been left blank intentionally
List of Boxes East Coast Jews? A Rapid Characterization of the Neoconservatives AIPAC and Neoconservatism Declinism Peter the Great, the Modernizing, Westernizing Tsar Russia and the Mongol Period Russian Emigration Scythianism The Post-Soviet Russian Political Scene The Founding of Dugin’s Eurasia Party Citizenship and Nationality The Rise of Anti-Americanism in Russia The “Platt Amendment” “Near abroad” Why this Eurasian Turnaround in the Russian Energy Sector? Accommodationism and Confrontationism: A Divergence among Orientalists Russian Muslims Turkish Eurasianism Neoconservative Fears and the Kyrgyzstan Tulip Revolution Kazakh Eurasianism The Soviet Afghan War (1979-1988) and Beyond
12 16 30 40 44 45 47 50 55 57 58 88 104 111 123 132 142 152 154 162
This page has been left blank intentionally
Acknowledgements Our warmest thanks go to Richard Descoings, Alexis Keller, Zaki Laïdi, Ghassan Salamé and Sciences Po for their support. Philippe Forget must be thanked for his continued interest in our work and his numerous and useful comments. We also thank Natalja Mortensen for her kindness, her reactivity and constant dedication to the improvement of the manuscript. When Empire Meets Nationalism was translated from the French by Chris Flower with the help of the authors.
This page has been left blank intentionally
Introduction The terror of the Roman arms added weight and dignity to the moderation of the emperors. They preserved peace by a constant preparation for war; and while justice regulated their conduct, they announced to the nations on their confines that they were as little disposed to endure as to offer an injury. Edward Gibbon, The History of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1776). Vol. 1, Chapter 1: ’The extent and military force of the Roman Empire, in the age of the Antonines’. Edition provided by the online library of Liberty.
Even though it may not have been up to everyone’s expectations, Episode III of Star Wars, Revenge of the Sith, is in fact extremely revealing on a political level. Indeed, in the United States, while George Lucas was in Cannes in 2005, a controversy was seeing the light of day: the director declared he had developed his saga in reference to the Vietnam War and felt there was a disturbing parallel between this event and the invasion of Iraq. By comparing the “philosophy” behind his work to the current political situation, he was stating that “most bad people think they are good people, they are doing it for the right reasons” and, as if to underline the polemical aspect of his declaration, he added to the parallel between the American political context and the leitmotiv of his Episode III that “In terms of evil, one of the original concepts was how does a democracy turn itself into a dictatorship”, in other words, how a prosperous Republic, albeit in a crisis, becomes a moralistic and militarist dictatorship. A process which some, on the political left, would use to define George W. Bush’s policy-making. Such statements provoked anger among right-wing American groups. The position of the pro-republican group, the PABAAH (Patriotic Americans Boycotting Anti-American Hollywood), was to call for a boycott of Lucas’s latest film upon its release in the United States. However, over and above these reactions, one totally unexpected response was formulated by the intellectuals: the conservatives, and more particularly those categorized as the “neoconservatives” went along with Lucas, adding that the director was simply mistaken in his definition of Good and Evil: Anakin Skywalker, who becomes Darth Vader, chose, according to them, the good side, the Empire. The promotion of an imperial ideal had in fact already begun. As early as 2002, Jonathan V. Last, a journalist at the neoconservative Weekly Standard, had written Chris Burns, “Lucas on Iraq War, Star Wars”, CNN.com, 16 May 2005. The group proposes a petition for criminal charges against Michael Moore, for treason. They consider his documentary “Fahrenheit 9/11” (2004) as a support for the enemy in war time.
When Empire Meets Nationalism
a long article based on the universe of Star Wars to promote an imperial strategy. He put forward disturbing arguments for those who recognized in America the anti-imperialistic power par excellence. According to him, Empire represents order rather than slavery. Obviously the Emperor is a dictator, but a “kindly” dictator: to underline his point, the neoconservative journalist used the example of Pinochet, a reference that is in itself more edifying than any critical analysis of his vision of the “enlightened dictatorship”. He presents the Republic as a system in decline, following the example of the United Nations, and contemplates the justification of the use of force to subjugate populations and territories, in light of the current global situation. The analysis of a movie became in turn an unexpected political debate: American intellectuals and political analysts, sometimes in direct contact with those in power, turned out to be supporters of a so-called imperial strategy. Such thinking would appear to be at work in Russia, only a few years after the fall of the Empire, both externally (the popular democracies in 1989) and internally (dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991). The Gorbachev years, Yeltsin’s desire to move on from the USSR and post-1991 westernization would clearly suggest a backward surge in imperial thinking. However, a decline in Russian dominance certainly complicated the consolidation of a democracy and, even if the two notions are not a priori incompatible, a strengthening of the State and its power has entered the agenda rather than a continuation of the democratization process. Thus, the crisis of the 1990s led to nostalgia for a period during which the country was respected, and the Empire was considered as the fitting political form. This nostalgia was expressed just a short time before the sixtieth anniversary celebrations of 9 May 1945 in Moscow: during his speech to the Nation on 25 April 2005, Vladimir Putin presented the collapse of the Soviet Union as the “century’s worst geopolitical catastrophe”. Likewise, Boris Kagarlitsky, director of the Institute of Globalization and Social Movements (Moscow), considered the fall of the Eastern bloc as a personal catastrophe for many ex-Soviet citizens, with globally negative consequences, including those relating to personal freedom. This renewed interest in the USSR, and for the imperial idea in general, is illustrated by a kind of Russian counterpart to neoconservatism, neo-eurasianism, of which Alexander Dugin is the best known standard-bearer. The neo-eurasianists would appear to have evolved from political insignificance to a position of ideologists close to the former President, Vladimir Putin, who seems to be seeking a synthesis between Eurasian and Soviet values and the necessities of a globalized economy and the modernization of the country. Jonathan V. Last, “The Case for Empire”, Weekly Standard, 16 May 2002. Claire Bigg, “Was Soviet Collapse Last Century’s Worst Geopolitical Catastrophe?”, Radio Free Europe, 29 April 2005. A biography of Alexander Dugin is available at the following address - Radio Free Europe: http://www.rferl.org/specials/russianelection/bio/dugin.asp.
Introduction
In both cases, a calling for what could be considered as an Empire lies at the heart of an intellectual and strategic edifice. It is precisely this convergence and renewed interest for a once old-fashioned notion that we have chosen to analyze. However, whereas the choice of the Americans speaks for itself, why Russia rather than the rising great powers of China or India? The similarities mentioned above are not enough to justify our choice. It should not be forgotten that, unlike the two Asian giants, Moscow has the experience of a world power, with an international influence and presence. We also take into consideration the pivotal role it has in the coming geopolitical order: the United States will continue to be the first world power for another twenty years at least, and the growth of Beijing and New Delhi in the mid-term is undeniable. But the return of bipolarity is in no way guaranteed. The future of Russia, the world’s leading exporter of natural gas and second world exporter of oil could play a decisive role in the reconfiguration of the international system to come, all the more so as China, India and the United States, in a desire to diversify their reserves, are eager to procure Russian hydrocarbons. Even if the heir to the Soviet Empire has only the world’s seventh largest oil reserves, approximately 5 percent of available resources, this is enough to satisfy demand until 2020. More importantly, it has the world’s largest gas reserves which will last for at least another 70 years according to the Minister for Natural Resources Yuri Trutnev. Consequently, Russia is in the paradoxical situation of a collapsed Empire whose role will be decisive in the future division of power. And President Putin knew this. In his annual address to the Federal Assembly in May 2006, he denounced the “American fortress”. “As the saying goes, comrade wolf knows whom to eat. It eats without listening and is clearly not going to listen to anyone” he declared with some irony before proposing the creation of a unified European strategy for energy resources. Beyond the stakes of nuclear proliferation, we felt the comparison between the United States and Russia would be both enlightening for tomorrow and intellectually stimulating. However, before beginning a true analytical comparison, let us first explain our theoretical and methodological choices. In this volume, we make the case for ‘analytical eclecticism’10 in International Relations (IR), combining material and ideational factors in the study of Empire. In doing so, we pretend to avoid the excesses of the two dominant paradigms in Lucio Caracciolo, “The Importance of Being Russia”, available at the following address: http://www.eheartland.com/geopolitics_russian_empire_putin.html. Information available at http://www.iags.org/futureofoil.html. Information available at http://www.aneki.com/fr/gaz.html. He announced this estimation in an interview given on Radio Maïak, 19 November 2005. 10 Peter J. Katzenstein, Nobuo Okawara, “Japan, Asian – Pacific Security, and the Case for Analytical Eclecticism”, International Security, Vol. 26 No. 3, Winter 2001/2002, pp. 153-85.
When Empire Meets Nationalism
contemporary IR theory: neorealism and social constructivism.11 Both originally admit the interplay between material and ideational factors in shaping the international scene but they only explain how one of the two aspects can lead to change.12 Broadly speaking, neorealism focuses on the relative distribution of capabilities among sovereign States, considering the international system as fundamentally anarchic; it deals with the art and practice of power politics. However, it underestimates the role of social forces in international relations, the diversity of socialization processes and provides a narrow view of competition between the different actors. On the other side, social constructivism underlines the role of the ideational factor, that is to say identity, ideas, norms and discursive practices, which provide broad orientation for behavior and policy. Yet, the heuristic potential of the interplay between material and ideational change is rarely fully explored. Thus, we argue that “the ideas and shared knowledge which are in focus in constructivist analysis never operate outside a specific material context.”13 That is why we will combine an in-depth study of the worldviews of neoconservative and neo-eurasianist intellectuals considered as political forces competing with others to shape the foreign policy agenda of their country14 and more material factors. We will do so at two levels. First, in our presentation of these movements, we take into account the material mediations, either institutions, media, or techniques, our two groups of intellectuals mobilize to broadcast their worldview both inside and outside the political sphere. Second, we include in our analysis the geopolitical constraints that weight on the way they formulate their worldview and try to impact foreign policy making. The intellectual movements we will analyze are commonly referred to as “neo-eurasianists” and “neoconservatives”. This first approach relates more to designation rather than definition and requires developing throughout our analysis. We have to keep in mind that these categories may result either from an auto – or a hetero-designation. The latter may come from two different sources: neutral observers and actors, whether political or intellectual, who qualify the opposition. “Neo-eurasianists” and “neoconservatives” retain, under their respective labels, all their intellectual and social complexity. The status of the subject in question, which calls upon the approaches of historical sociology, the history of ideas and
11 We completely recognize the fruitful efforts of the liberal tradition, the English school and Robert Cox’s neo-Gramscianism for providing balanced theories of material and ideational factors to explain change in IR. They nonetheless remain a minority. 12 Georg Sørensen, “The Case for Combining Material Forces and Ideas in the Study of IR”, European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 14, No. 5, 2008. 13 Ibid., p. 21. 14 See the seminal work by Robert O. Keohane and Judith Goldstein (eds), Ideas and Foreign Policy. Beliefs, Institutions and Political Change, Ithaca, Cornell University Press, 1993.
Introduction
political philosophy, confronts us with an “epistemological indetermination”.15 In the face of this complexity, we could call upon the concept of political culture which in the French case is defined as follows: [a coherent whole] that reflects a true vision of the world for those who adhere to [its] principals. [Its] strength lies […] in the interiorization of a whole series of parameters whose interweaving guarantees the solidity of the whole and makes any criticism difficult: philosophical bases or doctrinal vulgate, historical references, institutional conceptions, vision of economic relations and social organization, analysis of foreign relations, all expressed through symbols, rhetoric, rituals.16
We will not refrain from referring to one or other of the social dimensions included in this list but the extension of such a concept is problematic as this would revive an understanding of a whole as a whole via a process of assembling the infinite number of its elements. If we have decided to analyze globalizing conceptions, worldviews, it is through an extremely precise prism: that of the Empire. Our voluntary caution serves our initial ambition, which is to not know a whole in order to perform a localized examination to produce results of a scientific nature and likely to contribute to a better understanding of these intellectual groups. A detour via the concept of political culture warns us against the error of postulating an apparent coherence among the positions under analysis. We propose therefore the following hypothesis: Neoconservatives and neoeurasianists’ worldviews both evoke the rehabilitation of an imperial strategy. The concept of Empire is used here on both an historical and analytical level. However, the neoconservatives are more recalcitrant concerning the term imperial to describe their worldview than their Russian counterparts. This hypothesis, which we shall develop with a view to validating the comparison, will need to be confirmed later. Because we use the concept of Empire as an instrument for interpretation, it will need to be clearly defined to show whether it is more relevant than great power or hegemony to understand the phenomenon in question. Our analysis will contain three sections. The first will be to understand the historical construction of the rationalities and imaginations as developed by the actors under analysis. To do so, we shall develop an intellectual genealogy of the neo-eurasianists and neoconservatives, paying particular attention to the “neo” prefix that is common to both. Indeed the very definition of our object via this prefix requires a clear distinction from all that is “paleo”. We cannot begin to hope to understand the 15 Christian Delacroix analyzed this notion in Esquisses psychanalytiques, No. 18, Autumn 1992, pp. 211-15. 16 Serge Berstein, “Les cultures politiques à la fin du XXe siècle” in Serge Berstein (ed.), Les cultures politiques en France, Paris, Seuil, 1999, pp. 391-96, p. 391.
When Empire Meets Nationalism
historical players better than they understood themselves; rather, we shall aim at reconstructing how they understood their action, whether political or intellectual, in their time.17 We thus follow in the tradition of comprehensive sociology, from Dilthey to Raymond Aron, who applies it as follows to the international scene: The role of the empirical study of foreign affairs involves determining the historical perception which determines how the players act […]. Any concrete study of foreign affairs automatically becomes a sociological and historical study.18
The first stage is therefore a presentation of two parallel itineraries, based on the testimonies of the key players at the time of their commitments, without however developing a comparison, and without seeking to analyze any transfer of ideas or persons between the movements. It also aims to measure the contemporary influence of the movements in Washington and Moscow.19 Once this influence has been established, the neo-eurasianist and neoconservative positions will be confronted to the concept of Empire. This confrontation will allow us to elaborate more precise categories for analysis, which will be included in the third section. This will use geopolitics to investigate the position of the movements in relation to foreign policy. It will follow a similar pattern as the previous sections by analyzing the influence of the ideas proposed by the intellectuals and also their conformity with the concept of Empire, or any of its variants. This will also be an opportunity to outline an analysis of the status of such discourses, bearers of an ideology20 which leads its instigators to neglect the resistance which opposes the 17 For a greater development of what this implies concerning the unmasking of the authors intentions in the text, as opposed to what is behind the writing, cf. principally Quentin Skinner, “Motives, Intentions and Interpretation”, Visions of Politics 1, Regarding Method, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2002, pp. 90-102. For a wider panorama of the debates surrounding intellectual history and the various paradigms available, cf. part two of François Dosse, La marche des idées, histoire des intellectuels, histoire intellectuelle, Paris, La Découverte, 2003, pp. 139-320. 18 “Qu’est-ce qu’une théorie des relations internationales?”, Revue Française de Science Politique, Vol. 17, No. 5, 1967, in R. Aron, Etudes politiques, Paris, Gallimard, 1972, p. 367 and 371. Our translation. 19 We take the text as an act, a meaningful speech that has an effect. Thus, we have adopted the findings of the theory relating to speech act. Cf. the works of Lucien Jaume concerning what he refers to as “idéopraxies”, and his text “Philosophie en science politique”, Le débat No. 72, November-December 1992, pp. 134-45. 20 For the conceptions and justifications of empire in the American colonies of the 16th to 19th centuries, we shall refer to Anthony Pagden, Lords of All the World: Ideologies of Empire in Spain, Britain and France, 1500-1800, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1995. We mention this work since it refers to the imperial figure from a perspective of the comparative study of the history of ideas.
Introduction
real to those who intend to dismantle it, or legitimizing devices which do not stand up to classical Realpolitik.21 The lack of research devoted to the neo-eurasianists,22 and the almost total absence of related comparative political analyses involving the two sides of the Pacific pushed us to put pen to paper. Convinced of the fecundity of a consistent transdisciplinarity23 in social sciences, we hope to indicate a deficiency in the literature and create a passage way to future research.
21 The device in question is not indifferent. Its very existence denotes a relation with the holder and the world and a need for recognition. It distinguishes this practice from plain power, unless the device is so unrefined that it is simply another sign of the arrogance of the dominator. 22 With the exception of the works of Marlène Laruelle, which deal with the history of ideas, and some other articles devoted almost exclusively to Dugin, the man, there are some militant analyses by neo-eurasianist theoreticians, such as Jean Parvulesco. 23 We use this neologism in opposition to interdisciplinarity which often simply leads to the coexistence of autonomous approaches. We go beyond this coexistence to open a path for dialogue.
References www.weeklystandard.com www.commentarymagazine.com www.nationalinterest.org www.ndol.org www.danielpipes.org Himmelfarb, Gertrude , Roads to Modernity: the British, French and American Enlightenments, New York, Vintage, 2005. Kagan, Robert , Of Paradise and Power, America and Europe in the New World Order, New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 2003. Kristol, Irving , Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea, New York, Free Press, 1995. Kristol, Irving , Reflections of a Neoconservative, New York, Basic Books, 1983. Lewis, Bernard , The Future of the Middle East, London, Phoenix House, 1997. Bolton, John , The Prudent Irishman, The National Interest, Winter 19971998. Garfinkle, Adam , The Impossible Imperative?, The National Interest, Autumn 2002. Kagan, Robert , Power and Weakness, Policy Review, June 2002. Kirkpatrick, Jeane , Dictatorships and Double Standards, Commentary, vol. 68 No. 5, November 1979. Kirkpatrick, Jeane , A Normal Country in a Normal Time, The National Interest, Autumn 1990. Krauthammer, Charles , The Unipolar Moment, Foreign Affairs, Winter 199091. Kristol, William and Robert Kagan , Toward a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy, Foreign Affairs, July-August 1996. Moynihan, Daniel Patrick , The United States in Opposition, Commentary, Vol. 59, No. 3, March 1975. Tucker, Robert W. , Oil, the Issue of American Intervention, Commentary, Vol. 59, No. 1, January 1975. Weigel, George , Creeping Talbottism, Commentary, Vol. 97 No. 3, March 1994. Bacevich, Andrew J. , American Empire, the Reality and Consequences of U.S. Diplomacy, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 2002. Bacevich, Andrew J. , (ed.), The Imperial Tense, Prospects and Problems of American Empire, Chicago, Ivan R. Dee, 2003. Bacevich, Andrew J. , The New American Militarism, New York, Oxford University Press, 2005. Badie, Bertrand , Limpuissance de la puissance, essai sur les incertitudes et les espoirs des nouvelles relations internationales, Paris, Fayard, 2004. Baer, Robert , Or Noir et Maison Blanche. Comment lAmrique a vendu son me pour le ptrole saoudien, J.C. Latts, Paris, 2003. Brock, David , The Republican Noise Machine. Right Wing Media and How it Corrupts Democracy, Crown Publishers, New York, 2004. Chaudet, Didier , Les noconservateurs amricains face lIslam, Paris, UniversCits, 2005. Corm, Georges , Le Proche-Orient clat, 19562000, Paris, Gallimard, 1999. Daalder, Ivo H. and James M. Lindsay , America Unbound: The Bush Revolution in Foreign Policy, Brookings Institute Press, Washington D.C, 2003. Drury, Shadia. B. , Leo Strauss and the Political Right, New York, St Martins Press, 1997. Ehrman, John , The Rise of Neoconservatism. Intellectuals and Foreign Affairs, 19451994, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1995. Frachon, Alain and Daniel Vernet , LAmrique messianique: les guerres des noconservateurs, Paris, Seuil, 2004. Frdric, Louis , LInde de lIslam, Paris, Arthaud, 1989. Gerges, Fawaz , America and Political Islam: Clash of Cultures or Clash of Interests?, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1999. Halper, Stefan and Jonathan Clarke , America Alone: The Neo-conservatives and the Global Order, New York, Cambridge University Press, 2004. Hoffmann, Stanley , LAmrique vraiment impriale. Entretiens sur le vif avec Frdric Bozo, Paris, Louis Audibert, 2003. Johnson, Chalmers , The Sorrows of Empire. Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic, New York, Verso, 2004. Klare, Michael , Blood and Oil, London, Penguin Books, 2004. Kramer, Martin , Ivory Towers on Sand: The Failure of Middle Eastern Studies in America, Washington Institute on Near East Studies, Washington, October 2001. Lipset, Seymour Martin , American Exceptionalism: A Double-Edged Sword, New York, W.W. Norton, 1996.
Mann, James , Rise of the Vulcans: The History of Bushs War Cabinet, New York, Viking, 2004. Meddeb, Abdelwahhab , La Maladie de lIslam, Paris, Seuil, 2002. 199 Mnoret, Pascal , Lnigme saoudienne. Les Saoudiens et le monde, 17442003, Paris, La Dcouverte, 2003. Micklethwait, John and Adrian Wooldridge , The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America, New York, The Penguin Press, 2004. Ricci, David M. , The Transformation of American Politics: The New Washington and the Rise of Think Tanks, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1993. Salam, Ghassan , Quand lAmrique refait le monde, Paris, Fayard, 2005. Schlesinger, Arthur M. Jr. , The Vital Center: The Politics of Freedom, Boston, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1949. Scotchie, Joseph , Revolt from the Heartland: The Struggle for an Authentic Conservatism, New Brunswick, Transactions Publishers, 2002. Daalder, Ivo H. and James M. Lindsay , Debating the Exit Strategy, Center for American Progress, 12 November 2003, www.americanprogress.org. Shindler, Colin , Likud and the Christian Dispensationalists: A Symbiotic Relationship, Israel Studies, 2000, Vol. 5, No. 1. Bennis, Phyllis , Before and After: US Foreign Policy and the September 11th Crisis, New York, Olive Branch Press, 2003. Bicheno, Hugh , Rebels and Redcoats: The American Revolutionary War, London, HarperCollins, 2004. Marienstras, lise , Nous, le peuple: les origines du nationalisme amricain, Paris, Gallimard, 1988. Zinn, Howard , A Peoples History of the United States: 1492-present, Harper Perennial, 2005, [1st edn. 1980]. Adas, Michael , From Settler Colony to Global Hegemon: Integrating the Exceptionalist Narrative of the American Experience into World History, The American Historical Review, Vol. 106, No. 5, December 2001, pp. 16921720. Schulzinger, Robert D. , The End of the Cold War, 19611991, The OAH Magazine of History, Winter 1994. www.evrazia.org www.zavtra.ru www.politcom.ru www.polit.ru www.prognosis.ru www.regnum.ru 200 www.kreml.org www.patriotica.ru. Dugin, Alexander , Le prophte de leurasisme, Avatar, 2006. Dugin, Alexander , Osnovy Geopolitiki. Geopolitieskoe buduee Rossii [Basics of geopolitics. The Geopolitical Future of Russia], Moscow, Arktogeja, 1997. Panarin, Alexander , Pravoslavna civilizaci v globalnom mire [The Orthodox Civilization in a Globalized World], Moscow, Algoritm, 2002. Panarin, Alexander , Revan istorii: rossijska strategieska iniciativa v 21 veke [Revenge of History: The Strategic Initiative of Russia in the XXIe Century], Moscow, Logos, 1998. Primakov, Yevgeny , Au cur du pouvoir, Paris, Editions des Syrtes, 2002. French translation by Galia Ackerman and Jean-Christophe Thiabaud . Primakov, Yevgeny , A World Challenged: Fighting Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century, Washington D.C., The Nixon Center: Brookings Institution Press, 2004. Ziuganov, Guennadi , Geografi pobedy: osnovy Rossijskoj geopolitik [The Geography of Victory. Basics of Geopolitics in Russia], Moscow, 1997. Ziouganov, Guennadi , La Russie aprs lan 2000. Vision gopolitique dun nouvel Etat, Morsangsur-Orge, Mithec, 1999. Translated from Russian by Michel Secinsky . Gumilev, Lev , Men nazyvat evracijem [They call me eurasianist], Na sovremennik, No. 1, 1991. Rasianovsky, Nicholas , Asia through Russian Eyes, in Wayne S. Vucinich (ed.), Russia and Asia: Essays on the Influence of Russia on the Asian Peoples, Stanford, Stanford University Press, 1972. Rasianovsky, Nicholas , Oriental Despotism and Russia, Slavic Review, Vol. 22, No. 4, December 1963. Trubetskoy, Nicola , Pan-Eurasian Nationalism, in The Legacy of Ghengis Khan and Other Essays on Russias Identity, Ann Arbor, Michigan Slavic Publication, 1991. Bourmeyster, Alexander , LEurope au regard des intellectuels russes, Toulouse, Privat, 2001.
Laruelle, Marlne , Lidologie eurasiste russe ou comment penser lempire, Paris, LHarmattan, 1999. de Tinguy, Anne , Contribution ltude de la puissance dans le monde de laprsguerre froide. Le cas de la Russie, Paris, Institut dtudes politiques, 2003. Rubinstein, Alvin Z. , Oles M. Smolansky , Regional Power Rivalries in the New Eurasia. Russia, Turkey and Iran, New York, Sharpe, 1995. Basin, Mark , Russia between Europe and Asia: The Ideological Construction of Geographical Space, Slavic Review, Vol. 50, No. 1, Spring 1991. 201 Halperin, Charles J. , George Vernadsky, Eurasianism, the Mongols, and Russia, Slavic Review, Vol. 41, No. 3, Autumn 1982. Ingram, Alan , Alexander Dugin: Geopolitics and Neo-fascism in post-Soviet Russia, Political Geography, Vol. 20 No. 8, 2001. Karaganov, Serguey , New Contours of World Order, Russia in Global Affairs, No. 4, OctoberDecember 2005. Laruelle, Marlne , Jeux de miroir. Lidologie eurasiste et les allognes de lempire russe, Cahiers dtudes sur la Mditerane orientale et le monde turco-iranien, No. 28, June-December 1999. Laruelle, Marlne , Le no-eurasisme russe. Lempire aprs lempire?, Cahiers du Monde Russe, Vol. 42, No. 1, January-March 2001. Laruelle, Marlne , The Two Faces of Contemporary Eurasianism: An Imperial Version of Russian Nationalism, Nationalities Papers, Vol. 32, No. 1, March 2004. Lester, Jeremy , Overdosing on Nationalism: Gennadi Zyuganov and the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, New Left Review, 221, January-February 1997. OLoughlin, John , Geopolitical Fantasies, National Strategies and Ordinary Russians in the Post-Communist Era, Geopolitics, Vol. 6, No. 3, Winter 2002. Schmidt, Matthew , Is Putin Pursuing a Policy of Eurasianism?, Demokratizatsiya, Vol. 13, No. 1, Winter 2005. Smith, Graham , The Masks of Proteus: Russia, Geopolitical Shift and the New Eurasianism, Transaction, Institute of British Geographers, NS 24, 1999. Stolberg, Eva-Maria , The Siberian Frontier between White Mission and Yellow Peril, 1890s1920s, Nationalities Papers, Vol. 32, No. 1, March 2004. Tishkov, Valery , Russia as a European Nation and Its Eurasian Mission, Russia in Global Affairs, No. 4, October-December 2005. Vernet, Daniel , La Russie de Vladimir Poutine: lhritier du despotisme oriental se tourne vers lOccident, Paris, IFRI, 2002. Allensworth, Wayne , The Russian Question: Nationalism, Modernization, and Post-Communist Russia, Lanham, Rowman and Littlefield, 1998. Buer, Jean-Louis , La Russie, Paris, Le Cavalier Bleu, 2001. Carrre dEncausse, Hlne , La Russie inacheve, Paris, Fayard, 2000. Carrre dEncausse, Hlne , LEmpire dEurasie: une histoire de lempire russe de 1552 nos jours, Paris, Fayard, 2005. Donaldson, Robert and Joseph Nogee , The Foreign Policy of Russia: Changing Systems, Enduring Interests, Armonk, M.E. Sharpe, 2002. Grekov, Boris and Alexander Iakoubovski , La Horde dor. La domination tatare au XIIIe et au XIVe sicles de la mer Jaune la mer Noire, Paris, Payot, 1939. 202 Heller, Michel , Histoire de la Russie et de son empire, Paris, Plon, 1997, translated from Russian by Anne Coldefy-Faucard . Hosking, Geoffrey and Robert Service (eds), Russian Nationalism Past and Present, Basingstoke, Macmillan, 1997. Malcolm, Neil , Alex Pravda , Roy Allison and Margot Light , Internal Factors in Russian Foreign Policy, New York, Oxford University Press, 1996. Marcou, Lily , Les hritiers, Paris, Pygmalion, 2004. Milioukov, Pavel , Essais sur lhistoire de la civilisation russe, Paris, V. Giard & E. Brire, 1901. Milioukov, Pavel , Le Mouvement intellectuel russe, Paris, Editions Brossard, 1918. Rasianovsky, Nicholas , Histoire de la Russie. Des origines 1984, Paris, Robert Lafont, 1987. Translated from American by Andr Berelowitch . Roux, Jean-Paul , Histoire de lEmpire mongol, Paris, Fayard, 1993. Siraev, Eric and Vladislav Martinovic Zubok , Anti-Americanism in Russia: From Stalin to Putin, New York, Palgrave, 2000. Sokoloff, Georges , La puissance pauvre. Une histoire de la Russie de 1815 nos jours, Paris, Fayard, 1993. Sokoloff, Georges , Mtamorphose de la Russie, 19842004, Paris, Fayard, 2003. Struve, Nikita , Soixante-dix ans dmigration russe. 19191989, Paris, Fayard, 1996.
Walicki, Andrzej , The Slavophile Controversy: History of a Conservative Utopia in NineteenthCentury Russian Thought, Oxford, Clarendon, 1975. Arbatov, Alexe , Russias Foreign Policy Alternatives, International Security, Vol. 18, No. 2, Autumn 1993. Gloaguen, Cyrille , Les tropismes centre-asiatiques de la Russie, Dfense nationale, No. 11, November 2004. Gregor, James A. , Fascism and the New Russian Nationalism, Communist and PostCommunist Studies, Vol. 31, No. 1, 1998. Grimberg, Isabelle , La nationalisme russe, une catgorie en dbat in Gil Delannoi and PierreAndr Taguieff , (eds), Nationalismes en perspective, Paris, Berg International Editeurs, 2001. Karpovich, Michael , Klyuchevski and Recent Trends in Russian Historiography, Slavonic and East European Review. American Series, Vol. 2, No. 1, March 1943. Mandeville, Laure , Russie: retour en force dans lex-empire, Politique internationale, No. 103, Spring 2004. Tolz, Vera , Forging the Nation: National Identity and Nation-Building in Post-Communist Russia, Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 50, No. 6, September 1998. Walicki, Andrzej , Russian Social Thought: An Introduction to the Intellectual History of Nineteenth-Century Russia, Russian Review, Vol. 36, No. 1, January 1977. Wieczynski, Joseph , The Frontier in Early Russian History, Russian Review, Vol. 31, No. 2, April 1972. Armitage, David , Theories of Empire, 14001800, Aldershot, Ashgate, 1998. Baechler, Jean , Esquisse dune histoire universelle, Paris, Fayard, 2002. Doyle, Michael , Empires, New-York, Cornell University Press, 1986. Duroselle, Jean-Baptiste , Tout empire prira, Paris, Armand Colin, 1992. Duverger, Maurice (ed.), Le concept dempire, Paris, PUF, 1980. Kupchan, Charles , The Vulnerability of Empire, New York, Cornell University Press, 1994. Lieven, Dominic , Empire: The Russian Empire and its Rivals, New Haven, Yale University Press, 2000. Maier, Charles S. , Among Empires: American Ascendancy and its Predecessors, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 2006. Mnissier, Thierry (ed.), Lide dempire dans la pense politique, historique, juridique et philosophique, Paris, LHarmattan, 2006. Motyl, Alexander , Imperial Ends: The Decay, Collapse and Revival of Empires, New York, Columbia University Press, 2001. Motyl, Alexander , Nations, Revolutions, Empires: Conceptual Limits and Theoretical Possibilities, New York, Columbia University Press, 1999. Muldoon, James , Empire and Order, the Concept of Empire (8001800), New York: St Martins Press, 1999. Mnkler, Herfried , Empires, The Logic of World Domination from Ancient Rome to the United States, Cambridge, Polity Press, 2007. Salam, Ghassan , Appels dEmpire, ingrences et rsistances lge de la mondialisation, Paris, Fayard, 1996. Snyder, Jack , Myths of Empire, Ithaca, Cornell University Press, 1991. Tulard, Jean (ed.), Histoire gnrale des systmes politiques, volume 1: Les Empires occidentaux de Rome Berlin, Paris, PUF, 1997. Forget, Philippe , Hermneutique et grande politique, Lart du comprendre, No. 10, June 2001. Forget, Philippe , Lexprience de la mantique, la voix des sibylles. Epreuve de lvnement et vocation impriale, Lart du comprendre, No. 13, June 2004. Galtung, Johan , A Structural Theory of Imperialism, Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1971. Nederman, Cary , Humanism and Empire: Aenea Silvius Piccolomini, Cicero and the Imperial Ideal, The Historical Journal, No. 36, 1993. Pinchard, Bruno , Dante prophte du Saint Empire, Lart du comprendre No. 13, June 2004. Vasse, Justin , Les sens de lempire in Michel Viewiorka (ed.), LEmpire amricain? Paris, Balland, 2004. Wendt, Alexander and Daniel Friedheim , Hierarchy under Anarchy: Informal Empire in the Eastern German State, International Organization, No. 49, Autumn 1995. Appleman Williams, William , American-Russian Relations, 17811947, New York, Rinehart, 1952. Aras, Blent , The New Geopolitics of Eurasia and Turkeys Position, Portland, Franck Cass Publishers, 2002. Bouganel, Xavier and Nathalie Clayer (eds), Le Nouvel Islam Balkanique, Paris, Maisonneuve et Larose, 2001.
Bradsher, Henry , Afghan Communism and Soviet Intervention, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1999. Carter, Hannah and Anoushiravan Ehteshami (eds), The Middle Easts Relations with Asia and Russia, New York, Routledge Curzon, 2004. Ewans, Martin , Afghanistan: A Short History of Its People and Politics, New York, HarperCollins, 2002. Huntington, Samuel P. , The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, New York, Simon & Schuster, 1997. Laqueur, Walter , No End to War: Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century, New York, Continuum, 2003. Lo, Bobo , Vladimir Putin and the Evolution of Russian Foreign Policy, London, The Royal Institute of International Affairs, 2003. Miller, John J. and Mark Molesky , Our Oldest Enemy. A History of Americas Disastrous Relationship with France, New York, Doubleday, 2004. Pursiainen, Christer , Russian Foreign Policy and International Relations Theory, Aldershot, Ashgate, 2000. Sakwa, Richard , Putin. Russias Choice, London, Routledge, 2004. Akturk, Sener , Counter-Hegemonic Visions and Reconciliation through the Past: The Case of Turkish Eurasianism, Ab imperio, No. 4, 2004. Chaudet, Didier and Sabrina Vidalenc , Les Empires sur la Route de la Soie: Etats-Unis, Russie, Chine dans un nouveau Grand Jeu en Asie Centrale, Eurorient No. 20, Winter 2005. Dannreuther, Roland , Can Russia Sustain Its Dominance in Central Asia?, Security Dialogue, Vol. 32, No. 2, June 2001. Campion-Vincent, Vronique , La socit parano, thories du complot, menaces et incertitudes, Paris, Payot, 2005. Delannoi, Gil , Sociologie de la nation, fondements thoriques et expriences historiques, Paris, Armand Colin, 1999. Fenster, Mark , Conspiracy Theories: Secrecy and Power in American Culture, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 1999. Poliakov, Lon , La causalit diabolique, Paris, Calmann-Lvy, 1980. 205 Aron, Raymond , Quest-ce quune thorie des relations internationales?, Revue Franaise de Science Politique, Vol. 17, No. 5, 1967, republished in R. Aron , tudes politiques, Paris, Gallimard, 1972. Berlin, Isaiah , The Bent Twig: A Note on Nationalism, Foreign Affairs 51 (1972), 1130; reprinted in Hoge, James F. Jr , and Fareed Zakaria (eds), The American Encounter: The United States and the Making of the Modern World, Essays from 75 Years of Foreign Affairs (New York, 1997: Basic Books) Eurasia daily monitor, published by the Jamestown Foundation: www.jamestown.org/edm/ Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty: www.rferl.org Ria Novosti: http://fr.rian.ru/