Is forecasting or planning for the future fiction? IMO, it’s very serious stuff. Recently there were references in Alastair Crook’s SCF essay to Isaac Asimov’s invention known as Psychohistory from his famous Foundation and Empire trilogy, which grew to seven volumes. With the advent of AI and growing importance of robotics, we shouldn’t neglect Asimov’s contribution via what’s known as his Robot Series that introduced the Three Laws of Robotics in 1942 and throughout its 43 volumes for the global public to debate—a debate that has yet to occur. In Foundation, we are introduced to a Galactic Empire that has forgotten how to operate atomics which are absolutely vital for the continued functioning of not just the Empire but its central planet, Trantor; the parallel with today is the Outlaw US Empire’s slow loss of its ability to fuel and maintain its atomic/nuclear power plants, nuclear weapons and ability to design, build and operate a 4th Generation nuclear power plant—all of which its government admits. Admittedly, Isaac Asimov was unique, but others have provided predictions that eventually became reality.

A young Hari Seldon.

Two topics that Lavrov addresses are central to the Symposium: Future of Civilizations and Future of Multipolar World. Others are Future of Human and Future of Technology. The Russian page links to suggested points of discussion that are absent from the English page. I’ll leave that as an FYI since Lavrov’s speech is holistic, yet specific on numerous points related to current affairs that we’ll now read:

(ER: Karl Sanchez put in the bold-italic text)

Dear colleagues and friends,

It is a pleasure to be on this new project, aimed at bringing peoples as close as possible, looking for common denominators and developing recommendations that will help all mankind live as the ancestors of each nation and nationality bequeathed.

In this sense, the platform of the National Centre “Russia”, which is being created at the initiative of President Vladimir Putin, should contribute to the consolidation of Russia’s socio-economic, scientific, technological and cultural potential with a view to accelerating its further progressive development and promoting our experience, traditions and ideals in the dialogue with the international community, which, I hope, will be launched today.

We are gathering on November 4, National Unity Day, a public holiday dedicated to the feat of the people’s militia forces. Exactly 412 years ago, under the leadership of K. Minin and D. Pozharsky, they liberated Moscow from the Polish interventionists and their accomplices. This bright page of history is an example of what achievements a people is capable of when united for a common goal.

The topic of one of the sessions of our symposium, which has just been announced by Dimitri Simes, is “The Future of a Multipolar World”, which fully reflects the essence of the discussions that have unfolded in scientific, expert and political circles in Russia and abroad. Today it is difficult to imagine that in the early 1990s it seemed to many that the “end of history” had come and unipolarity had reigned forever. A global Pax Americana, when all affairs in any part of the world should be under the “supervision” of Washington. It was at that time that the outstanding statesman Yevgeny Primakov formulated and began to promote the concept of multipolarity, which was innovative at that time.

Few of our foreign partners (to be honest, in our country) were ready to sign it and took it seriously. However, Primakov’s ideas were shared by our Chinese friends. In 1997, the Joint Declaration on a Multipolar World and the Formation of a New International Order was signed. It was the first foreign policy document on this topic in history. Today we see that the forecasts of Yevgeny Primakov and his associates turned out to be correct.

The global balance of power is undergoing revolutionary changes. This is due to the objective trends in the development of the world economy, where the positions of the countries of the Global South and East and the World Majority as a whole are strengthening. The share of the BRICS countries in world GDP in terms of purchasing power parity by the end of 2024 will be about 37%. It confidently exceeds the share of the Group of Seven (30% at the end of 2023).

Economic growth allows an increasing number of non-Western states to consistently strengthen their sovereignty and implement a nationally oriented course in practice both in foreign and domestic policy. Just like Russia, these countries are increasingly advocating the democratization of international relations and a multipolar world, and are becoming more resistant to external interference.

This is also reflected in practical politics. It is manifested, first of all, in the growing interest in such associations as the SCO and BRICS. I am sure that everyone was impressed by the Kazan summit, which was attended by delegations from 36 countries. The association received more than 30 applications with requests either for membership or for the establishment of special relations. It is safe to say that the strengthening of BRICS has become one of the driving forces behind the formation of a polycentric world order, which has both ardent supporters and open opponents and ill-wishers.

Not everyone (we understand this) is ready to accept the natural course of things. The Western community, which at one time took the lead as a result of well-known historical events (great geographical discoveries, the development of capitalism and the creation of its well-being largely at the expense of colonial empires), would like to forever retain its privileged position. The United States and its subordinate Western countries are reviving the spirit of the Cold War and in their doctrinal documents declare the need to eliminate certain “threats” to their dominance from Russia, China and other countries pursuing an independent national policy.

After the start of a special military operation in Ukraine, Washington and its satellites carried out a real sanctions aggression against Russia as part of their hybrid war. Over the past ten years, more than 21,000 sanctions have been imposed against our country in the economy, finance, trade, investment, the media, culture, sports, and people-to-people contacts in general.

Developing countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America suffer primarily from such neocolonial practices of the West. The extraterritorial application of unilateral restrictions harms the poorest states, depriving them of affordable energy, food, fertilizers and basic technologies, not to mention advanced scientific achievements and developments.

The flip side of the fight against undesirables is that the West is “cutting the branch” on which it is sitting, and destroying the global system of division of labor, which it has been spreading to the whole world since the early 1990s. The dollar, which has been touted to us for decades as the common heritage of mankind, has been turned into a weapon of suppression and punishment of geopolitical competitors and disobedient ones. Thus, in fact, they wrote a sentence to it as a world reserve currency and a means of international payments. As a result, the United States and its allies themselves are destroying the system of globalization, which they nurtured and advertised to the whole world.

I would like to remind you of President Vladimir Putin’s words during the Kazan summit that BRICS is not at all opposed to the dollar while developing alternative payment platforms and new interbank settlement systems. The United States itself is withdrawing the dollar from circulation as more and more countries begin to fear that they may be next. No one knows what they can be punished for and on which leg the head of this or that department in the United States will stand.

When economic pressure does not work and it is not possible to influence truly sovereign countries, the West, led by the United States, does not hesitate to resort to threats, blackmail, and even the use of force.

Force pressure takes many forms. After 2022, the goal of inflicting a “strategic defeat” on Russia has been proclaimed. It is indicative that London and Washington had similar plans as early as May 1945, when, until the end of World War II, they were developing Operation Unthinkable to destroy or dismember the Soviet Union, their ally in the fight against fascism. Today, the Anglo-Saxons expect to defeat our country with the hands of the Kiev regime, just like Hitler, gathering most European countries under the Nazi banner. As a fallback option in case the Zelensky regime fails, they are preparing continental Europe to rush into a suicidal adventure and enter into a direct armed conflict with Russia.

It is sad that the current ruling elites of many European countries clearly do not see a future for themselves in a multipolar world and are looking for salvation from an overseas hegemon. The German government has shamefully accepted the humiliating destruction of the Nord Stream gas pipelines to the detriment of the fundamental interests of the German economy and people. Now Berlin has “taken a visor” when the United States announced its decision to deploy American ground-based medium-range missiles on German territory. Chancellor Olaf Scholz only called this decision “good.”

Reckless proposals are being thrown in about strikes by Western long-range systems deep into Russian territory. I will not talk about the meaninglessness of the very idea of “fighting to victory” with Russia. At the very least, this will sharply reduce the chances of potential participants in such a war for any role in a multipolar future.

The desperate situation in which Western elites find themselves is expressed in the increasingly irrational behavior of the states they lead. The West (primarily the Anglo-Saxons) is never enough. The war that they unleashed against Russia in Europe is not enough. In July of this year, at a summit in Washington, the leaders of NATO countries confirmed their claims to the leading role of the alliance not only in the Euro-Atlantic region, but also in the Asia-Pacific region. If you read the NATO declaration, it turns out that in order to protect the territory of its members, this (let me remind you – defensive) alliance intends to conduct “defensive” battles in the South China Sea and in the Taiwan Strait – thousands of miles from its shores.

It is clear to all sensible observers that this is a “road to nowhere”. However, the Americans are purposefully introducing NATO military infrastructure in the Pacific, making no secret of the task of increasing pressure on China, North Korea and Russia. At the same time, the ASEAN-centric architecture of regional security and cooperation in Southeast Asia, which has been built for decades on the basis of equality, consideration of mutual interests and consensus, is being undermined. To replace the open mechanisms created around ASEAN, the United States and its allies are establishing “small geometry” alliances, such as AUKUS, Quad, various “fours” and “troikas” with the involvement of Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand. They are also trying to drag some ASEAN members there with an eye to the collapse of this association in order to eliminate a competitor to the bloc pro-Western configurations.

The obsession with controlling anything and everything has led to a series of tragedies in the Middle East. This includes the US intervention in Iraq under the false slogan of searching for non-existent weapons of mass destruction, and the destruction of Libyan statehood with tragic consequences not only for this country, but also for North Africa and the Sahel region.

This year, another independent UN member state, Yemen, was subjected to Anglo-Saxon aggression. To this day, the Syrian Arab Republic has not been able to recover from American interference. The Americans have actually blocked all multilateral mechanisms to facilitate a Palestinian-Israeli settlement. First of all, this applies to the work of the Quartet, which included Russia, the United States, the UN and the European Union. Now Washington continues to try to monopolize mediation efforts, organises improvised negotiation formats, and throws in new proposals that will allegedly stop the bloodshed in Gaza and Lebanon. Against the background of such mediation, the number of victims is growing catastrophically. These are mainly peaceful people – women, children and the elderly. At the same time, the West stubbornly avoids recognizing the facts.

In one year of the Israeli operation, twice as many Palestinian and Lebanese civilians were killed as the number of civilian casualties on both sides of the conflict in Ukraine in the ten years after the neo-Nazi coup d’état. In a year, almost twice as much as in ten years.

When the Americans and their satellites deal with international regional problems, they think about one thing – to maintain their privileged position and lead everything. Little attention is paid to the fates and lives of ordinary people. But the greatest challenges facing the world require equal unification, not submission to those who seek global domination.

In addition to armed conflicts, this also applies to the need to ensure democratic methods of legal regulation of the use of new technologies, including artificial intelligence, adaptation to climate change, joint exploration of outer space, prevention of epidemics of infectious diseases, overcoming socio-economic and digital inequality, combating hunger and poverty and many other areas on which the future of mankind depends.

From our diplomatic contacts, including at the BRICS summit in Kazan, we can draw an unequivocal conclusion. It is obvious to the countries of the world majority that confrontation and hegemony are harmful and do not solve any of the problems. The Global South and East are increasingly asserting their right to participate fully in decision-making processes across the spectrum of international life.

As a result of the increased foreign policy activity of non-Western countries, the role of regional and interregional interstate associations in Africa, Asia, and Latin America is strengthening. In Eurasia, these are, first of all, the SCO, ASEAN, the EAEU, the CIS, the CSTO, the Arab League, and the GCC. In the same row is the Chinese project “One Belt, One Road”.

As for Africa. Members of the African Union are increasingly working to ensure that the continent’s rich resources are exported to world markets not in the form of raw materials, but as goods with high added value. Such a step to stop neocolonial practices will radically change the economic balance with Western countries in favor of Africans. Similar processes are gaining momentum in Latin America and Asia, which has been the engine of the world economy for many years.

An important step towards multipolarity should be the establishment of direct contacts and horizontal ties between all regional integration structures, both among themselves and with BRICS, where the main states that play the role of leaders in their regions are already represented at the global level. BRICS can serve as a harmonizing structure, making it possible to gently coordinate the approaches of integration associations of the countries of the Global South and East.

Another area of action is de-dollarization in the international financial and economic system. Let me remind you that the share of national currencies in Russia’s settlements with the SCO and EAEU countries has exceeded 90%, and with the BRICS countries we are reaching 65%. And this figure is growing.

Russia will continue to play an important role in this process, given our position as the fourth world economy (according to the International Monetary Fund, in terms of purchasing power parity) and the largest resource power. Work on the creation of new payment platforms was started in BRICS under the Russian presidency and will be continued by our Brazilian “replacements” in 2025.

Some experts predict not only the strengthening of the role of national and regional currencies of international trade, but also the formation of several macro-regions with their own standards, regulations and value chains in conditions when, due to the selfish actions of the United States, the once global system is rapidly fragmenting.

Confidence in the dollar is plummeting. In any eventuality, we will continue to strengthen the EAEU and SCO mechanisms, build up ties with members of other integration organisations both on the Eurasian continent and in other parts of the world, opening up new horizons for mutually beneficial and truly equal cooperation. It brings dividends to all participants without exception.

In this context, we will continue to promote the Concept of the Greater Eurasian Partnership. Its formation will make it possible to create a material foundation for the implementation of yet another initiative by President Vladimir Putin to build an architecture of equal and indivisible security in Eurasia, open to all states and associations of our continent without exception, who are ready to work together to find generally acceptable solutions. A very productive International Conference on Eurasian Security, which was held recently in Minsk with the participation of many Eurasian countries, associations and delegations from all parts of the continent, including Western Europe, was specifically devoted to this topic.

We want the countries of the Eurasian continent – the largest, fastest growing and richest in natural resources – to determine their own destiny without outside interference and solve their problems in such a way that Greater Eurasia contributes to the construction of a sustainable multipolar world.

I would like to emphasise that we are not closing ourselves off from dialogue with the West. However, we will draw the necessary conclusions from how our Western neighbours overnight reneged on their promises, obligations and agreements with us, what manners they demonstrated and how they undermined their credibility. If and when they are ready to resume contacts and build relations based on the principles of mutual respect and an honest balance of interests, then we will decide how to treat such proposals based on our national interests, and not on the “wishes” that we periodically hear from Western capitals.

In July of this year, under our presidency of the UN Security Council, an open debate was held on the principles of co-existence of states in a multipolar world. We proposed for discussion a number of concrete steps aimed at restoring trust and stabilising the international situation. We will continue this dialogue at other multilateral venues, including at the G20 summit in Rio de Janeiro this month.

So far, the conversation is difficult at the intergovernmental and official level. The West is still trying to extract unilateral advantages for itself, not shunning any methods, including, I emphasise this with particular regret, the privatisation of the secretariats of international organisations. This is manifested with all clarity in the activities of the OSCE and in the work of the UN Secretariat, where, due to outdated and ineffective criteria for the formation of the Secretariat, there was a dominance of Western representatives in all key departments of this respected structure. To our great regret, the leaders of the OSCE and the UN Secretariat are beginning to play along with the interests of the West in an unsightly way.

On the way here, I read a message from RIA Novosti, which reported on the statement of the official representative of the UN Secretary-General at a press briefing. Asked what the Secretary-General thinks about reports of Russian and DPRK military plans, he said that these reports are of deep concern to the Secretary-General because they lead to the internationalization of the Ukrainian crisis. The Secretary-General therefore stands firmly and resolutely for a settlement of the Ukrainian conflict on the basis of the UN Charter, international law and General Assembly resolutions.

In this regard, two comments. First, the Secretary-General recalled “internationalization” almost three years after the West prepared Ukraine for war and leads it directly “on the ground”.

The facts have long been cited many times. But then the leadership of the UN Secretariat did not worry about internationalization.

Secondly, we all want to be guided by the UN Charter (as called for by the Secretary-General) and UN General Assembly resolutions. Let me remind you that when the West, with the full support of the UN Secretariat, demands that Ukraine be restored to the 1991 borders, it refers to the Charter’s principle of respect for the territorial integrity of all states, as well as to a series of resolutions that were adopted at the General Assembly in support of Ukraine’s “appeals” for the restoration of territorial integrity. Everything seems to coincide. There is such a provision in the Charter and in the UN General Assembly resolution. Part of the truth is worse than a lie. The Charter, before it mentions territorial integrity, recognizes the right of a nation to self-determination, which was the basis for the greatest decolonization process in recent history. It is the right of a nation to self-determination.

Among the resolutions of the UN General Assembly (long before the events in Ukraine) in 1970, a detailed Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations was adopted by consensus, which states that all are obliged to respect the territorial integrity of those states that respect the right of a nation to self-determination and by virtue of this have governments representing the entire population living in a given territory. It was a resolution of the UN General Assembly. Unlike those that were provocatively thrown in after the start of the special military operation and voted on (about a third of the UN members did not support them, and in some cases half of them), the Declaration I quoted was adopted by consensus.

The putschists, who carried out a coup d’état in February 2014 in violation of agreements with the legitimate authorities and forcibly occupied state institutions, declared as their first goal the elimination of the status of the Russian language in Ukraine and announced a campaign against Crimea by militants who were heading there in “friendship trains” to storm the Supreme Soviet building. Did these people represent the population of Crimea, Donbass and Novorossiya? Of course not.

The UN Secretary-General needs to “tune” his official representative to a more intelligible presentation and interpretation of international law by the United Nations Secretariat.

The UN Charter should be read in its entirety, and not just the part that you want to emphasize in this conflict today.

In 2008, Western countries declared Kosovo independent. In the West, no one even polemicized about this. The International Court of Justice said in its opinion (President of Russia Vladimir Putin often says this) that if a part of a state unilaterally decides to declare its independence, the consent of the central authorities is not necessary.

Abstracting even from this. The first article of the UN Charter (it is impossible to ignore it if you read this document seriously) says that everyone is obliged to respect the rights of any person, regardless of race, gender, language and religion. This is also the UN Charter, which Secretary-General Antonio Guterres calls for guidance with regard to the Ukrainian conflict. I have not heard a single comment from its official representative that would concern the legislative extermination of the Russian language in Ukraine in all spheres of life – in the field of education, culture, the media and in everyday life. I have also not heard a single statement regarding the recently adopted law on the liquidation of the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church. All this (both language and religion), according to the UN Charter, must be sacredly respected. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres is the main guardian of the implementation of the Charter.

People often ask: what will be the international legal basis for multipolarity? There is no need to look for any new principles. All of them are in the UN Charter. The trouble is that our Western partners have never fully respected these principles. Let me remind you that the key principle of the Charter states that the UN is based on the sovereign equality of states. “Run” in your mind the history of various conflicts and crises after the creation of the UN. In none of them were the United States or its Western allies guided by the principle of sovereign equality of states, did not respect anyone as an equal partner.

We consider it a great achievement that the Declaration unanimously approved by the leaders at the BRICS summit in Kazan states (and specifically in connection with the Ukrainian crisis) the need to respect the purposes and principles of the UN Charter in their entirety and interconnection, and not selectively, which, unfortunately, we are witnessing now.

Today, in an era of rapid change, we are interested in scientists, thinkers, futurologists and (as they say) visionaries with imagination and the ability to think outside the box to look beyond the horizon and contribute to understanding current processes, forecasting and modeling new forms of international life that will meet the changed realities and, in my opinion, should be based on the enduring principles of the Charter of the United Nations. If they are not implemented, it is not because they are bad or unfair. They are just fair. That is why the West does not want to fulfill them.

Justice is not a characteristic of the world system the West created and which it would like to preserve in spite of the objective historical trends of strengthening multipolarity.

We believe that in such work it is important to start from facts and sober analysis, but at the same time to be farsighted and bold in formulating ideas that would then form the basis of the desired image of the future. This is what you are invited to talk about here.

Russia is ready to participate in the group of countries that will show intellectual leadership. The entire thousand-year experience of statehood and the achievements of our state, which will be vividly presented at the National Center “Russia”, should serve as a powerful incentive for the creative activity of our civil society. If there is such activity (it always manifests itself in fateful times), then I assure you that diplomats will be the most reliable allies for you.

In conclusion, I want to say the following. Your symposium has been called science fiction. I have no doubt that its scientific quality is guaranteed by the high quality and reputation of the experts from many countries gathered here. As for the fantastic dimension of your agenda, the discussions here will certainly provide food for thought for practicing politicians.

Wishing to contribute to the search for fantastic plots, I would venture to suggest that you speculate about “when and if the West comes to its senses” and “when its conscience wakes up”. Such a plot, in my opinion, would be interesting. When the West (there are still many smart people there) will understand that neocolonial habits are harmful, including for the West itself, that arrogance destroys its reputation. Let us recall EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell: Europe is a “blooming garden” and there is a “jungle” all around. Or US Secretary of State Antony Blinken: “Everyone who will not be at the table of democracy will be on the menu.” This is a quote. I was horrified when I read this.

I also urge you to fantasize about what the countries of the world majority should do to speed up the process of bringing our Western colleagues to their senses, who, including for the sake of the future of their peoples, must realise that they need to behave decently. [My Emphasis]

The 1997 agreement between Russian and China is the template for all its future agreements and is much shorter than those produced in the future. Here are the opening two points:

1. The parties, in a spirit of partnership, will make efforts to promote development of a multipolar world and the establishment of a new international order.

The parties believe that at the end of the 20th century, profound changes have taken place in international relations. The Cold War is over. The bipolar system is gone. The positive trend of forming a multipolar world is rapidly developing, and relations between major states, including those between former Cold War adversaries, are changing. Regional economic cooperation organizations show considerable viability. The diversity of political, economic and cultural development of all countries is being established, and the role of forces advocating peace and broad international cooperation is growing. A growing number of countries are coming to a common understanding that mutual respect, equality and mutual benefit are needed, not hegemony and power politics, dialogue and cooperation, not confrontation and conflict. Building a peaceful, stable, just and rational new international political and economic order is becoming an urgent requirement of the era and an imperative of historical development.

2. The Parties advocate that mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial
integrity, mutual non-aggression, mutual non-interference in internal affairs, equality and mutual benefit, peaceful coexistence and other universally recognized principles of international law should become the fundamental norm for conducting interstate relations and the basis for creating a new international order.

Each State has the right, based on its specific conditions, to 
independently choose the path of development without interference from other States. Differences in the social system, ideologies, and value systems should not become an obstacle to the development of normal interstate relations.

All countries, whether large or small, strong or weak, rich or poor, are equal members of the international community. No country should seek hegemony, pursue politics from a position of strength, or monopolize international affairs.

It must be recalled that Yeltsin signed this agreement at a time when the Outlaw US Empire had enormous influence on all of the Russian government’s actions. Perhaps the Clintonites were too busy planning 911 to be bothered with something they thought would be very easily swept aside as they obtained total control over West Asia.

To be sure, there’s lots of road to be traveled before the future envisioned by Primakov and many others will become reality. One big question is how will the Outlaw US Empire’s decline affect future events? Others are related to the implosion of the EU and NATO. Will the future international system make hegemony impossible and how will it police nations that become outlaws? Are there any Asimovs for the 21st Century? What new isms might arise? And will Humanity finally become humane in its relations and cease formulating Others?

Source

************

Published to The Liberty Beacon from EuropeReloaded.com