US President Biden raised a global issue at the beginning of yesterday's NATO Summit. The battle, he said, is between countries that believe in and promote democracy against countries that are taught by dictators and promote totalitarianism. It is a war that must be won in order for the principles of democracy to prevail on a global scale.
This position in the logic of a policy of principles is correct, but at the same time it is perforated, since the principles of so-called international law do not seem to be universally accepted, even by the countries that invoke them today.
On the basis of which principles of international law were e.g. the wars in Vietnam, Grenada, Yugoslavia, Iraq and Afghanistan? How are these American interventions different from the interventions of the Soviets and the Russians in Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Georgia and Ukraine?
This perforated system now allows the siege of Kiev, which will not be the last, regardless of the means of siege. It is gradually moving west and another siege has already begun. That of Brussels. Ante portas also seems to be the enemy on the sidewalks of 1st Avenue in New York knocking on the door of the UN.
International law is basically anarchic, that is, without principles of application, it is therefore used at will and interest based on the law of the powerful. What is happening in practice today? We see a military organization, NATO, being upgraded and confronted by Russia, which in a show of political power seems willing to open the Pandora's box, talking about the use of chemical and biological weapons, also setting its alarm on fire. arsenal. If there is an escalation on the part of NATO and the West in general, then we return to the spectrum of the threat of a nuclear catastrophe.
Putin, in short, opened the door of the insane asylum. The losses are immediate for Ukraine, but the collateral losses may be much higher in the medium term.
* The United Nations is literally non-existent. Antonio Guterres is proving to be another member of the Security Council without the possibility of undertaking even an attempt at fair mediation. In the context of a more anarchic international system, he is being replaced mainly by the burdened leaders of Israel (Palestinian) and Turkey (Cyprus-Syria), while Putin's interlocutors are also the President of France and the Chancellor of Germany, who they mainly have the course of the economy of their countries.
* The European Union, the largest political and economic peace experiment since B & # 8217; World War II is currently faltering. The debates at the summits have been diverted to a dispute over how each country will secure its energy security, with the Spanish prime minister leaving shouting, presumably to make his voice heard in the ears of Jose, who works as a taxi driver in Madrid. The functioning of the EU is now militarized. Politicians have handed over their weapons to generals whose minds are exhausted on how to level the next field which they baptize a glorious battlefield. Everything has been left to NATO, which has taken the initiative in all Eastern European Union countries as the only reliable security pillar.
The crisis today cannot be easily de-escalated. This is a war for supremacy of the Kremlin or a window into Putin. It has nothing to do with the occupation or not of Kiev and Mariupol. It has to do with whether or not Russia adheres to the architecture of a new world system, to be followed by Brussels, China and others. This is a system that even the United States wants to impose has no idea where it will end up. Is this the first major blow to globalization left in the hands of a global economic oligarchy (not just Russians) that has basically hit the West, marking a return to economic nationalism, with politicians and nation-states taking over? the reins of the economy again? Proponents of “neo-mercantilism” continue to believe in economic nationalism, with the ultimate goal of consolidating a rich and powerful state. It is a policy that encourages exports, reduces imports, controls the movement of capital and concentrates foreign exchange decisions in the hands of a central government. At the same time, it is chasing refugees and immigrants, which this small-minded policy creates, as mixtures.
Did the first reaction of the common people come from the rednecks revolution in the USA for the election of the populist Donald Trump? All these years, but miserable users of globalization have been China and Russia, with their leaders controlling the economy to pursue regime policy. Either by upgrading their influence in Africa, or even by interfering in American elections.
Clearly, as citizens of the world, we make a Western choice today and under the circumstances. Who could tolerate Putin-type dictators ruling with a caste of crooks who rob the Russian people, tolerate no form of opposition, fill prisons with dissidents and at the same time consider their neighboring states consumables? Who can trust China's opaque political system, which has turned millions of “hell on earth” Chinese into cheap labor?
On the other hand, Western countries do not have to oppose a policy that will actually lead the planet to a logic and policy of principles. What policy policy determines the crazy rise of armaments programs to the detriment of the health and education of citizens worldwide? What policy does the authorities block roads to energy sources and skyrocketing fuel prices to the detriment of citizens' well-being? Today the military lobby and hawks are being upgraded in Washington. Every war sustains and strengthens them. Where will this lead us?
Consistency and inconsistency
At every opportunity, the political leaders of Cyprus resort to the invocation of political principles. This is a sign that often & # 8211; has been widely used by the entire spectrum of political leadership since the Turkish invasion of 1974.
What is this policy of principles that the political leadership of Cyprus has embraced and now, lately, dozens of Western leaders are invoking? It is based on the UN Charter which establishes the independence of all states, which guarantees human rights, the 1975 Treaty of Helsinki which speaks of the inviolability of borders and in general international conventions which define the smooth relations between states on the basis of the fair. What we call International Law.
In this context, the Cypriot leadership condemned the Russian invasion of Ukraine and agreed to join the large group of Western countries that imposed measures on Russia. It was a one-way decision. Any invasion of a third country must be condemned on the basis of the principles of international law, at the same time the invasion offers a first-class opportunity to recall the Turkish invasion of our country in 1974 asking for support for the overthrow of the perpetrators.
In Cyprus we have made the policy of principles a yo-yo that in the hands of our political ranks functions as a funny toy in the hands of a clumsy child.
We passionately recall the Turkish invasion of 1974 and condemn Turkey ( putting asterisks in our coexistence with the West) because it does not adopt sanctions against Russia. Of course, we are not saying anything when neither Israel, nor Egypt, nor the Emirates adopt sanctions. Other principles obviously apply to our allies. We should not forget. Four political leaders of Cyprus have been declared persona non grata in Ukraine when in 2014, violating the embargo, they went to the Russian-occupied Crimea to take part in various events and conferences. One could of course say that in the context of anarchic international law we can also be hypocrites. As long as it takes us of course.