The International Political Thought of Carl Schmitt: Terror, Liberal ...

156 D. Zolo
view, three usages of the notion of ‘empire’ – corresponding to an abated ‘informal’
Roman archetype – apart from the Marxist notion of ‘imperialism’ that is
still marginally present in certain neo-Marxist theories of international relations
that took hold in the 1960s and 1970s (see Baran and Sweezy 1966; Frank 1969;
Wallerstein 1974, 1979).
An imperial Europe?
During the twentieth century, in the context of the crisis of the nation-state,
authors such as Julius Evola (1978) and Arthur Möller van Den Bruck (1935)
revived the imperial idea as a sort of correction of the ‘mechanical’ and ‘rationalist’
power of the modern European state. The notion of imperial auctoritas,
laden with ethical values and personal contingencies, was contrasted with the
formal and impersonal notion of potestas. These views were indirectly influenced
by the idea of ‘empire’ (Reich) which Carl Schmitt had developed and to
which he had given an anti-universalist national meaning (volkhaft). Schmitt’s
notion of ‘broader space’ (Großraum), that is, a macro-organisation of the political
domain shaped in accordance with the Monroe Doctrine, suggested an international
order relying not on the formal legal equality of states but on the
balance between continental or sub-continental areas aggregated by one or more
powers capable of a hegemonic function. 2
Today the French so-called ‘New Right’, and in particular Alain de Benoist,
are again proposing an imperial idea which largely echoes Schmitt’s formulation.
As is well known, the label ‘New Right’ is highly controversial both in
France and in Italy, where Marco Tarchi, its most authoritative advocate, now
definitely rejects it. After all, the very inclusion of de Benoist within the Nouvelle
droite has become troublesome, as is his inclusion within the European
political right wing. Both de Benoist and the movement GRECE (Groupement
de Recherches et d’Études pour la Civilisation Européenne), inspired by his
thought, reject nationalism and liberalism out of hand in the name of both a cultural
Europeanism and a ‘localist pluralism’.
This is the root of the idea of an ‘imperial Europe’ admitting of a wide inner
political plurality, not nationalist but ethnic and regional. De Benoist rejects de
Gaulle’s idea of the ‘Europe of fatherlands’: he denounces liberalism and statecentred
nationalism as economic and ideological devices producing social
uprootedness and cultural uniformity. De Benoist contrasts the Americanisation
of France and Europe with a ‘heathen’ culture which he traces back to the Indo-
European origins of the European tradition. And he complements his proposed
imperial Europeanism with a harsh polemic against the ‘imperialism’ of the
United States, seen as the ultimate expression of dehumanisation, vulgarity and
stupidity. Imperial Europe, he claims, will be created against the United States
or will not be created (de Benoist 1996; Taguieff 1994).
According to de Benoist there are two models for building Europe: the
empire and the nation. The nation is nowadays too big to regulate local problems
and too small to deal with global, especially economic, issues. ‘Empire in the