For those who follow this closely (and they are right...), I have put Vladimir Putin's speech in STFR below, and for the context, the traditional additional information at the bottom of the articles. ; )
On this May 9, 2015, we commemorate the 70e anniversary of the victory over Nazi Germany. This date will go down in the history books as the date when the so-called "West", which is really only the circle of European allies of the United States, committed a major political mistake. In this fault, the responsibility of President François Hollande is important, and could have profound consequences.
Putin isolated?
Under pressure from the United States, a majority of European countries have given up sending a President or a Prime Minister to Moscow for the great parade commemorating the Victory. But, and this is extremely important, China, India and many Latin American countries have made the trip. If we measure the weight of these representatives demographically, then they weigh more than 50% of the earth's population. If we measure their contribution economically, it is high, around 40%. To speak in these conditions of an "isolation" of Vladimir Putin is an absurdity.
But the political symbolism is even more important. The Heads of State or Heads of Government of the "BRICS" countries and of the countries of the CSO, the Organization for Security and Cooperation, made the trip to Moscow. Even more, the presence of the Chinese and the Indians acquires a particular significance. The people of China have paid an extremely heavy human price for a conflict which, for them, began, not in 1939, but in 1937. In fact, they are – behind the USSR – the second country to have the most suffered. The atrocities committed by the Japanese army were abominable. Indian troops fought both against Germany and Italy and against Japan. The participation of contingents from the Chinese and Indian armies in the Moscow parade clearly has a significance that goes beyond mere commemoration.
It was therefore clear that this May 9 was going to be of particular importance. Because of the attitude of the United States, but also because of the cowardice, to use no more hurtful words, of European leaders, this May 9, 2015 ratified the splitting of the world into 2. It symbolized the opposition of an "old world", that of the Atlantic basin, to this new world emerging around Asia, and which is constantly attracting new countries. In this regard, we can only note that the Chinese or Sino-Russian initiatives[1], Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank[2] (BAII/AIIB) to the Eurasian union project continue to gain momentum. These initiatives could have been conceived in a framework open to the “old world”. It is the responsibility of the United States, but also of those who, out of short-sighted followership, or out of fear, have followed in their footsteps, to have caused this symbolic rupture between these two worlds that we have verified with May 9 parade.
The responsibility of François Hollande
Traditionally, it is France which seeks to re-establish dialogue and which fights, because it has a universalist conception of certain principles, to break down prejudices and reduce hostilities between blocs. General de Gaulle gave many speeches against the “policy of blocks”, of which that of Phnom Penh, in 1966, is the most famous. By deciding, at the last minute, to send Laurent Fabius, our Minister of Foreign Affairs, not only did François Hollande make a serious mistake, but he permanently discredited himself on the international scene. The sending of the Minister of Foreign Affairs clearly represents an unworthy “in between”. If we wanted to be present in Moscow, it was up to the President to come, or even to his Prime Minister (Manuel Valls) who, let us remember, in the Constitution, “directs the country's policy”. But, François Hollande preferred to go get warm in the Caribbean, and Manuel Valls indulge in an unworthy controversy against Emmanuel Todd. History will remember this desertion, both physical and moral, of the two most important authorities of our country.
But, the most serious thing is that if, in the future, France is upset – and rightly so – by this resurgence of “block politics”, it will no longer have any legitimacy to speak out against it. François Mitterrand, who had a sense of history, and of the formula, had used the expression "little telegraphist" to denounce the visit of Valéry Giscard d'Estaing to Moscow at the start (1979) of the war in Afghanistan. . But today, at a time when it would have been important to be in Moscow, if only to testify by his presence to the unity of the world and to resume speaking with these leaders of the "new world", the French President preferred to play absent subscribers. His absence is certainly a disgrace, but it is also – politically – a resignation.
The results
This resignation will have, no doubt, profound and lasting consequences, at least as long as this political staff remains in power. We forget, or we pretend to ignore that Vladimir Putin is, within the government and the political class in power in Russia, one of the most pro-Western[3]. In a sense, he took note of the principles of international politics that had been the basis of international relations since the 1980s, when these were increasingly abandoned by the United States and its allies.
The question of principles and rules, which should govern international relations, is at the heart of the issue defended by Vladimir Putin since the speech he gave in Munich in 2007.[4]. He returned to this theme many times, and in particular in 2012[5]. This last statement is particularly important, as it dates from well before the Ukrainian crisis. One of the points on which Putin speaks out is:The recent series of armed conflicts initiated under the pretext of humanitarian objectives are weakening the old principle of state sovereignty, thus creating a legal and moral vacuum in the practice of international relations. It is often said that human rights are superior to state sovereignty. This is unquestionably true – crimes against humanity must be punished by the International Court. But when the sovereignty of states is too easily violated in the name of this principle, when human rights are protected from the outside on a selective basis, and when the very rights of a population are trampled on in the process of n such protection, including the most sacred and primordial right – the right to one's own life – these actions cannot be considered as a noble mission but rather as total demagoguery. »[6] .
This question was already pending in 2007, when Vladimir Putin demanded clarification of the rules of international law. As early as 2003, with regard to the American intervention in Iraq, one could see that this tendency, to interpret the rules for their own benefit, was a tendency of the policy of the United States.[7]. We know that this drift of American policy towards an increasingly important “interventionism” has only been reinforced.
Similarly, in 2012, he reflected on the desire of the United States to establish itself as an invulnerable bastion: “ By definition, absolute invulnerability for one country theoretically requires all other countries to be vulnerable. This cannot be accepted. »[8] We clearly see here all the responsibility of American policy in the progressive stiffening of the Russian position. The inability of the United States to admit that the XXIe century will not be the American century is full of conflict.
Multipolarity or unipolarity of the world
The attitude of the United States, and of the countries which follow them or which they force to follow them, is leading to the welding of an alliance of new world against the old one. This was not the initial project of Vladimir Putin, who in his 2007 speech speaks of a multipolar world. The reconstruction of Russia did not imply direct confrontation with the United States[9]. Russia, if it sought to free international institutions from American influence, did not want to monopolize them.[10]. During the Munich conference in 2007, we find this statement by Vladimir Putin: “ I believe that the unipolar model is not only inadmissible for the contemporary world, but that it is even quite impossible. Not only because under the conditions of a single leader the contemporary world (I want to emphasize this: contemporary), will lack military-political and economic resources. But, and this is even more important, this model is ineffective, because it can in no way rest on a moral and ethical basis of contemporary civilization.[11]. We did not pay due attention to what Vladimir Putin was saying. However, he repeated it a little later, still in the 2007 speech: “ We are witnessing a growing disregard for the fundamental principles of international law. Moreover, certain norms and, in fact, almost the entire system of law of a single state, above all of course, of the United States has overflowed its national borders in all areas: in the economy, in politics and in the humanitarian sphere, and is imposed on other states." [12].
He was not the only Russian leader to make this speech.
In an article, published both in the Russian press and in the Financial Times, the Minister of Finance at the time, Alexis Kudrin, declared: It is not difficult to understand that if one of these structures [Kudrin here refers to both the IMF and the World Bank] is perceived by a significant part of the world as ensuring the domination of a country or a group of countries, it will lose its legitimacy. It will cease to be an effective instrument »[13].
This passage shows that the Russian position articulates two distinct but related elements. The first is a doubt as to the capacity of a country (here the United States is clearly targeted) to gather the means to effectively exercise its hegemony. It is an argument of realism. Even the most powerful and richest country alone cannot ensure the stability of the world. The American project exceeds the American forces. This is an observation on which there is little to criticize. But there is a second argument which is no less important, and which is situated at the level of the principles of law. There are no norms that could establish unipolarity.
In his 2002 book, Evguenni Primakov, who was Prime Minister of Russia in 1998 and 1999, and who remains one of the great connoisseurs of international politics, did not say anything different[14]. Not that the different countries cannot define common interests, nor even that there are not common values. Putin's speech is in no way “relativist”. He simply observes that these values (the “moral and ethical basis”) cannot establish unipolarity, because the exercise of power, political or economic, cannot be defined in terms of value but must also be defined in terms of interests. This amounts to rejecting the thesis of a depoliticization of international relations, which should be reduced, in the minds of those who support this depoliticization, to human rights and the “laws” of the economy. If international relations are not “technical” (the simple implementation of common standards), but political (the management of different and potentially conflicting interests), including in economic relations, then any aspiration to hegemony becomes immoral.
For a Gaullist policy
We then understand that it is important to break this dynamic of bloc politics in order to return, and it is clear that this was what the Russian government expected from France, towards a dynamic of a multipolar world. But, we are obliged to note that the French government, its President and its Prime Minister have on this point (and on many others) failed. Beyond the shame and the anger that the attitude of François Hollande and Manuel Valls inspires in us, beyond the disgust that inspires in us the insult made, not only to the Russian people, but also to the Chinese and Indian people , and to all the others who came to Moscow on this May 9, we must make the cold observation that by calculation or cowardice the French leaders, by abdicating their natural role, contribute to precipitate the world towards a future fact of wars and Conflicts. This responsibility, that of having renounced a Gaullist policy at the very moment when it imposed itself, bears witness to their congenital incapacity, and will go down in history. It is a fault, and – we have known this since Talleyrand – faults in politics are worse than crimes.
We must remember the poem, The Scythians, written by Alexandre Blok in 1918. His words still resound today with a strange force. Didn't he write then: Comrades! We will be brothers!/ But if you refuse, — we have nothing to lose./ And we too can be treacherous.
For centuries you will be cursed / By your children and your children's children, all sick! / Everywhere, we will withdraw / Into the depths of our forests.
To seductive Europe/We'll show our Asian face"
The Scythians
You are millions. And we are innumerable like the dark clouds.
Just try to fight with us!
Yes, we are Scythians, Asians!
Slant-eyed and insatiable!
To you, the centuries. To us, the unique hour.
docile servants,
We held the shield between the two enemy races
Mongols and Europe.
For centuries, your ancient blast furnace forged,
Stifling the thunders of the avalanche.
It was a bizarre tale for you that the collapse
From Lisbon and Messina!
For centuries you have looked to the East,
Hoarding and recasting our pearls.
And, taunting us, you were only waiting for the time
To point the muzzles of your cannons at us.
The time has come. misfortune beats the wing,
And every day increases the offense.
And the time will come when not even a trace will remain
Of your Poestums, perhaps!
O old world! Before you die
While you still languish, attached to your suffering,
Stop, wise as Oedipus,
In front of the Sphinx and its ancient enigma!
Russia is a Sphinx. Happy and saddened at the same time,
And covered with his black blood,
She looks, looks at you
With hate and with love!
Yes, to love as our blood can love,
None of you, for a long time, is capable of it.
You forgot that in the universe there is love
Who can burn and destroy!
We love everything - and the ardor of cold mathematics,
And the inspiration of divine visions.
We understand everything - and the subtle Gallic reason,
And the dark German genius.
We keep the memory of everything - from the hell of the Parisian streets
And the freshness of Venice,
From the distant aroma of lemon woods
And smoky masses in Cologne…
We love the flesh, and its taste, and its color,
And of the flesh, the suffocating and deadly smell...
It is in spite of us if it cracks, your skeleton,
In our paws so heavy and so tender!
Come to us! Come out of the horrors of war
To fall into our arms!
While there's still time - sheathe the old sword,
Comrades! We will be brothers!
But if you refuse, — we have nothing to lose.
And we too can be treacherous.
For centuries you will be cursed
By your children and your children's children, all sick!
Anywhere we'll retreat
In the thickness of our forests.
To seductive Europe
We will show our Asian face.
Notes
[1] Garibov K., “Russia officially joined the BRICS currency reserve pool”, text posted on SPUTNIK on April 27, 2015, http://fr.sputniknews.com/opinion/20150427/1015850582.html
[2] http://www.lefigaro.fr/conjoncture/2015/04/17/20002-20150417ARTFIG00363-cette-banque-chinoise-qui-veut-concurrencer-la-banque-mondiale.php
[3] See the discussion between Fyodor Lyukanov and Max Fisher published on http://valdaiclub.com/usa/77200.html
[4] A complete and faithful translation of this speech can be found in the journal The Sentinel Letter, n° 43-44, January-February 2007, pp. 24-29
[5] Vladimir Putin on foreign policy: Russia and the changing world, statement published in http://valdaiclub.com/politics/39300.html
[6] Idem, page 2. “The recent series of armed conflicts started under the pretext of humanitarian aims is undermining the time-honored principle of state sovereignty, creating a moral and legal void in the practice of international relations. It is often said that human rights override state sovereignty. This is undoubtedly true – crimes against humanity must be punished by the International Court. However, when state sovereignty is too easily violated in the name of this provision, when human rights are protected from abroad and on a selective basis, and when the same rights of a population are trampled underfoot in the process of such “protection,” including the most basic and sacred right – the right to one's life – these actions cannot be considered a noble mission but rather outright demagogy. »
[7] J. Sapir, “Stemming American Providentialist Interventionist Isolationism” in The International and Strategic Review, n°51, autumn 2003, pp. 37-44
[8] Vladimir Putin on foreign policy: Russia and the changing world, statement published in http://valdaiclub.com/politics/39300.html, p.2, “By definition, absolute invulnerability for one country would in theory require absolute vulnerability for all others. This is something that cannot be accepted. »
[9] Sapir J., “Russia: a winning return” in The Journal for the intelligence of the world, n°7, March-April 2007, pp. 28-38.
[10] A. Koudrine, “Bretton Woods Redux”, in Moscow Times, October 2, 2007 (tribune also published in The Financial Times).
[11] See the journal The Sentinel Letter, n° 43-44, January-February 2007, pp. 25.
[12] The Sentinel Letter, no. 43-44, p. 25 et seq.
[13] A. Kudrin, op.cit..
[14] E. Primakov, The world after 11/XNUMX and the war in Iraq, Renaissance press, Paris, 2003, Mir Posle 11 sentjabrja, Mysl,., pp. 138-151.
Source (s): Russiaeurope via Olivierdemulenaere Vladimir Putin speech intro video via Agoravox
Further information :
Terms & Conditions
Subscribe
Report
My comments