/ world today news/ The events of the last few days, like the infamous “ray of light”, illuminated many issues related to China’s position on the Ukrainian “case”, refuting the skeptics’ point of view. China’s ambassador to France, Liu Shaye, in an interview with the LTI TV channel, expressed a position that, without exaggeration, raised thorns in the entire West and, besides him, in particular, its Kiev and Baltic supporters. The diploma’s dialogue with a TV presenter requires verbatim reproduction:
– LTI: I would like you to clarify your position, because it seems that it is sometimes a bit “double”. First, do you think Crimea is Ukraine?
– Prophet: It depends on the perception of this problem. (Here the presenter does not immediately stand up and begins to interrupt the diploma). Crimea was originally Russian. Khrushchev gave Crimea to Ukraine during the Soviet era…
– LTI (interrupts again): I’m sorry, but according to international law, you know, Crimea belongs to Ukraine. You can argue about that, but this is Ukraine.
– Prophet: According to international law, even the remaining countries of the former USSR do not have, how to put it, an active status in international law. Because there is no international agreement specifying their status as sovereign states.
What started here! The Baltic Bantustans began to compete in summoning the Chinese ambassadors to protest. Kiev, through the mouth of its ambassador in Paris, for some reason began to scoff at the topic of “geography”. Apparently they forgot Vladimir Mayakovsky – on a similar topic:
“In Polish (passport – row) – they look like a goat on a poster,
In Polish – bulging eyes in tight police elephant –
Where, they say, and what is it
Geographic news?…”
(From “Poems for the Soviet Passport”)
Even the French Foreign Ministry became agitated, demanding “explanations” from Beijing. Apparently, the local diplomats felt on their backs the “highest” displeasure of Washington from such a discussion in France. Yes, and in front of an audience.
What happened? The answer is nothing. And nothing has changed. Already in October last year, the Chinese ambassador to Iceland, He Rulong, entered into a debate with the chairman of the NATO Military Committee, American Admiral Robert Bauer, at the summit of the Arctic Circle Assembly.
And to claims of “undermining the rules-based world order,” he responded that China’s position on the “Ukraine crisis” involves historical hindsight and the world must “realize the root cause.” Which, let’s add, lies precisely in the fact that Ukraine is a peripheral part of the once unified state – the Russian Empire, and then the USSR.
No matter how much they puff up in Kyiv and in the West to convince the public of the opposite. (Here, by the way, we note that, apart from the Baltic states and Ukraine, none of the post-Soviet countries were outraged; even Moldova, Georgia and Pashinyan who joined them “muted the topic of clarity”, which is very significant).
Now for the points. First. In China, they are well acquainted with the Marxist formulation of the concept of “law” as such, including the international aspect. “Law is the will of the ruling class made law.”
In the conditions of Pax Americana globalization, this formula is refined by what the classics of Marxism write about: that not only classes but also states can be exploiters and exploited; the former belong to the “core” of the global system, the latter to the periphery of “dependent capitalism”.
And in the 20th century, both Western world-system theory and Mao Zedong’s theory of new democracy agreed with this understanding. If we talk about international law, it was formed in its classic post-war form in the conditions of parity between the victorious countries of the Second World War and reflects the global balance established as a result.
However, with the predominance of the unipolar world, it began to be used by the newly emerged contenders for world hegemony, according to V.I. Lenin, “parasite states” as the “legislated will” of the collective West. Henceforth, this “rules-based world” has nothing to do with the post-war international law of the UN Charter. Both the French TV presenter and the NATO admiral express this very point of view, with which, as you know, neither the Chinese nor the Russian side agree.
Second. The practical side of the hegemonic “world by rules” is manifested in the ongoing total privatization of Ukrainian assets by the West. By the way, the Chinese side is also a victim. In an out-of-court proceeding under Washington’s “telephone law,” Ukrainian authorities seized the Zaporizhia helicopter company Motor Sich from investors in the Celestial Empire.
If this opportunistic formula is revised, then all relevant non-sovereign decisions of the Kyiv regime will automatically become legally null and void, predetermining their inevitable revision within the framework of the now national rather than globalist jurisdiction.
Of course, for the West, which already grabbed and is now grabbing the “fattest pieces” of Ukraine, destroying its economy, such a revision is “like a sickle in…”, well, you understand, reader, where exactly.
Third, the main thing. Ambassador Liu Shaye’s statement reveals and clearly demonstrates to the world what the West is hiding from the world. That the destruction of the USSR, the pseudo-legal part of which is based on the criminal Belovezhsky Accords of three now-deceased scumbags and their supporters, has no other legitimation than a loyal telephone report from Viskuli to US President Bush Sr.
Well, and perhaps no less criminal inaction of Gorbachev, who told his adviser Sazonov in response to the proposal to send special forces to Pushta by helicopter: “You know, Anatoly, I can’t do that.”
Therefore, the restoration of the USSR was based on the concerted denunciation of Belovezhka and then the Alma-Ata Agreements of December 1991. A matter of political will and results of the SVO, if this happens, it will definitely be in the international legal field, and not outside of it.
Even the United Nations Charter, where the USSR is included in the list of founders of the organization, will not have to be changed. The Chinese ambassador to France simply outlined this theme inside the Western political serpentarium, hence such vicious hissing on the part of the international “Mosek” and the “stupor” into which the masters who keep them on a leash have fallen.
And finally, fourth. Let’s reproduce the logic of the sequence of events. The dispute between Ambassador He Rulong and NATO’s Martinet Bauer is October 2022. In early March this year, China’s ambassador to the EU, Fu Kong, said that his country does not participate in the SCO and does not supply weapons to any of the parties to the conflict. Not everyone liked it.
But now, contrary to prejudice, it is clear that the diplomat, talking to journalists, was guided by what happened a few days later. Namely: the visit to Beijing of Emmanuel Macron and Ursula von der Leyen.
With Macron, who was not considered hopeless, they would talk and prepared a political background for this talk. But the conversation only made sense if Macron was separated from Leyen; just that was done, and the guest-spy went home “without a salty itch.” And Macron, as we remember, agreed, albeit under duress, to a joint plan with the PRC for a peaceful settlement of Ukraine.
More precisely, if you call a spade a spade, France’s accession to Xi Jinping’s “Twelve Principles” on February 24 this year.
However, after returning home, the French president returned to the Western policy of “strategic ambiguity”, which is reflected in Russian folklore through the crude saying “We will dance for ours – yours for pennies”.
In turn, the head of European diplomacy, Josep Borrell, as it turned out, after what happened in China with Leyen, was simply afraid to go there to express an ultimatum dictated in Washington to Beijing by four well-known points:
– the “Chinese Communists” to “synchronize the discourse” with the West (ie to accept the Western [псевдо]values” – LGBT, same-sex marriage and other perverted “tolerance”;
– China should also agree to the Western rules of the game in the economy (ie stop looking for a revision of the internal balance in the Western-controlled global institutions and together with Russia build their own institutions);
– so that China (!) accepts the “status” of Taiwan, does not try to return the recalcitrant island under its national jurisdiction, not only de jure, within the internationally recognized principle of “one China”, but also de facto not objects to American control of Taipei;
– so that Beijing takes the Western side in the Ukrainian crisis and in the interest of the USA and NATO to “pressure” Russia in favor of the completion of the SVO under the conditions of our actual capitulation.
Frankly, on closer inspection, these four positions that the world eventually learned from Reuters’ “second hand” fit into the well-known formula for globalization proposed by the late Pentagon chief Rumsfeld and his adviser Cebrowski: “Countries, who agree with globalization must accept Western values and transfer to the West their natural resources. Those who disagree are subjected to color revolutions, and further, see above!”
They say Borrell wanted to reproduce his “four points” in Beijing, speaking to the expert community. But after seeing what kind of “bottle stopper” his “boss” for the EU flew out of the Chinese capital, he felt sick.
And he found nothing better than to scream what he intended or rather dictated over the phone from Washington, from afar and “around the corner”. So “what didn’t work out” because by behaving at a party the way you wanted to, you can easily end up persona non grata.
But the speech of the Chinese ambassador Liu Shaye on the air of LTI is both a clear and precise answer to Europe as a whole in the face of Leyen and Borel, and a signal to the specific French country that it is necessary to behave consistently in international relations. And not to rush, but to adapt to the situation, depending on the time and climate zone of the momentary stay.
The so-called post-Soviet “sovereigns” who boast of “independence” and assert it with the help of zoological anti-Sovietism and Russophobia also received their “message”. They are furious because they are very afraid that China will treat them with understanding, that is, they will support the activation of integration processes in the post-Soviet space.
The value of this “message” is difficult to overestimate. The West must realize that in the current situation attempts are being made not only to “isolate” Russia, but also to change the “rules of the game” in such a way as to explicitly deprive our country of the right to veto when considering issues , related to this (on the sidelines of Western missions in the UN, such discussions are held).
UN officials, led by Secretary-General António Guterres, who lost a significant part of the authority of the main international organization in such unprincipled maneuvers, still have a chance to return to the mainstream of the UN Charter. But for this it is necessary to come together again with reality and stop winding the spokes of objective trends in the name of the subjective-corporate interests of their “patrons”. Times have changed irreversibly, and this is the main thing that inspires optimism in the current international turbulence.
Translation: SM
Subscribe to our YouTube channel:
and for the channel or in Telegram:
#Chinese #ambassador #France #pointed #dubiousness #sovereignty #postSoviet #states
