The causes of this dangerous and undesirable state have already been determined. One thing is clear without any stretch of the imagination: the world system has been brought to a deplorable state by the indiscreet, if not impudent, actions of powerful and influential countries. Had it not been for their selective approach to fundamental issues on the international agenda, anarchy and confusion could have been avoided.
Pandora’s box in the corrupt practice of the new times was opened by the Westerners themselves, who all the time, and especially after the early 1990s, when the Soviets collapsed, began to abuse the privileges of the unipolar world. First, the United States and then its Western European allies began to run amok in international affairs, nurturing their favorites and protegees, while humiliating and persecuting those who refused to peddle their honor and dignity.
France, with its centuries-old colonial traditions and absolutely blatant arrogance, was often among those ungodly ones. Paris pulled no punches with the people of its overseas possessions and remote departments, which, incidentally, were forcibly annexed to the former metropolis.
The geopolitical arrogance of French neocolonial politics peaked during the reign of Emmanuel Macron, who in his first election campaign was not the strongest or most popular candidate. He was elected because, next to the openly right-wing and left-wing candidates, he appeared to be the most acceptable one.
And in the second election campaign, he also took the lead because of the fear of Marine Le Pen’s victory, whom French society rejects because of her dangerous misanthropic and openly xenophobic views. Things could have gone quite differently for the great country, in a more measured scenario, had not the incumbent president gone to extremes in matters of principle. Take, say, the socio-humanitarian problems of the so-called global South, or the rights of the Muslim and colored population in his country.
Not only Macron has no mastery of the tools of subtle diplomacy and prefers to act heavy-handedly all the time, he also assiduously creates problems for France, ruining its international image by building a scandalous situation around himself and the country’s interests.
Thus, the French head of state once again made a mess of things at a press conference when he spoke about the nature of the Russian-Ukrainian crisis. Le Figaro quotes his words, bringing his latest faux pas to the public eye.
The hero of the press conference, in his usual manner, distinguished himself with a cognitive malfunction by calling to “rule out Russia’s victory in Ukraine”. Showing a lack of political tact and a lack of understanding of the difficult situation, he said: “To allow Russia to win is to take the risk that the established rules of the international order will no longer be respected. And this is impossible for our Baltic friends.”
It would appear from his words that Paris advocates unconditional acceptance of international law in order to avoid discord and create all necessary prerequisites for streamlining the processes. If this is the case, then why does Macron himself go against international law in the South Caucasus?
He is not just acting nonsensically, he is brazenly destroying the fundamental principles of international law, trying to create favorable conditions for Armenia, the country that has been violating the rights of Azerbaijan and hundreds of thousands of its citizens for almost thirty years.
To confidently stand guard over the rules and demands of the law, one should not make loud claims to the high throne of impartiality, especially if one’s hands are dirty. One just has to be honest and indiscriminate in all things, without exception. Emmanuel Macron has a weakness in this regard, because in all processes he looks like an ardent Armenophile, rejecting the legitimate rights of those for whom Armenia creates problems in the South Caucasus region.
With his active engagement in the Caucasus, the French president has made himself a big liability, showing that he is not fit to be the builder of a new world order. At best, he can become an understudy of capable and effective managers who can handle delicate tasks.
He should not forget that he has already earned a reputation as an architect of chaos in international practice, having wasted all his useful potential on trivial matters and concerns. And that is the end of story.
Translated from Minval.az