HEnri Guaino [ancien conseiller spécial de Nicolas Sarkozy à la présidence de la République], in a column published in Le Figaro May 13underlined how the dynamics of the war in Ukraine risk bringing us to a point of violence and barbarism before which we could only murmur timidly: “We didn’t want that. »
We are in fact faced with an insurmountable contradiction: either increase military aid to Ukraine and enter into a situation of co-belligerence leading to a generalized confrontation, or leave this country a martyr in the decay of a war and an occupation of its territory that can go on forever. In any case, the environmental cost is immeasurable with CO emissions2 released by the military operations and the future consequences of the rebound of the arms industries triggered by this conflict. The budgetary effort of the countries involved in this race will reduce the expected social expenditure by the same amount. Global trade is disrupted at the expense of the most vulnerable people. Finally, the friend/enemy dialectic will crystallize the hatreds opening the way to bruised memories and desires for revenge.
Extend the principle of neutrality
But are we really locked in this dilemma with no way out? No, because it is necessary, at the same time as one seeks victory, to think of a possible future tomorrow with the enemy of today. In this spirit, if we have to accept Ukraine within the European Union – because nothing prevents this people from joining those who have united their destiny in a political Europe –, it is not the same applies to the enlargement of NATO. Accepting that Ukraine, Sweden and Finland join this military alliance is not the way to ensure the security of these countries. To respond to their just concern for security, the principle of neutrality must be extended to the heart of Europe in a kind of arc of neutrality. But neutrality is fragile, so it must be guaranteed by global international bodies.
“The UN no longer fulfills its role as an impartial third party between States, so as to prevent a conflict between them from serving as a spark for a new planetary explosion”
This is where the most difficult comes due to the erasure of the United Nations Organization (UN). This no longer fulfills its role as an impartial third party between States, so as to prevent a conflict between them from serving as a spark for a new planetary explosion. The failure is expressed through the exorbitant privilege granted to five members who can paralyze the system for the defense of their own interests, the resulting impossibility for the Security Council to play its role of justice of the peace, the renunciation of the world committed to disarmament, despite the fact that the Security Council is responsible for it under Article 26 of the Charter, the non-constitution of collective international forces in the event of necessary intervention on behalf of the community, the unforgivable mixture of genres, with the delegation given to NATO to carry out certain interventions in the name of the UN, the infidelity of Western countries to the values defended in theory, and, from there, the growing discredit of the Organization in the eyes of the peoples of the world.
You have 48.51% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.