Fortunately, the international architecture put in place after World War II to protect these values and principles is holding up despite the attacks to which it is subjected.
These elements combined form a narrative that seems aimed at hollowing out and ultimately dismantling the rules-based international order as we know it, and requires a counter-strategy, not only from Western countries but from all members of the international community who reject the use of force as a means of resolving international disputes, the denaturalisation of human rights and the instrumentalisation of multilateral institutions. Even starker is President Putin’s recent thinly veiled threat to use nuclear weapons, which contrasts with Russia’s recognition only a few weeks ago, along with the other permanent members of the Security Council, of its responsibility in preventing nuclear war. The contrast between these words and Russia’s aggression against Ukraine and subsequent veto of the Security Council Resolution, as well as China’s abstention, could not be starker. This idea, which has been advanced in particular by China in the framework of the Human Rights Council over the last few years, is diametrically opposed to the progress made in this regard since the Second World War, according to which human rights are a concern of humanity as a whole and from which no state can escape.įinally, as regards the UN, the statement affirms that ‘Russia and China, as world powers and permanent members of the Security Council, intend to firmly adhere to moral principles and accept their responsibility, strongly advocate the international system in which the United Nations plays an essential role…, defend a world order based on international law…’, etc. Human rights too, the statement continues, should be interpreted in the context of each country’s specific situation, and should not be used as an instrument to pressure other states.
Both countries declare themselves opposed to ‘interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states under the pretext of protecting democracy and human rights’, invoking cultural and civilisational diversity to justify the existence of various ‘types of democracy’.
Moreover, the statement reflects the intention of the two powers to redefine the concepts of democracy and human rights according to their own interests. Both countries, in line with Russian interests, oppose ‘colour revolutions’ (ie, pro-democratic movements) and, responding to Chinese anxieties, express serious concern over the Australia-US-UK strategic agreement (AUKUS) on the Indo-Pacific. In it, China opposes for the first time the expansion of NATO and endorses the Russian proposal to establish ‘legal security guarantees’ in Europe (guarantees that, as articulated by Russia, in effect mean the recognition of a Russian zone of influence). The notion of geopolitical competition also permeates the joint statement by China and Russia in Beijing on 4 February 2022, brimming with explicit or implicit criticism of the West. Russia’s current aggression against Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity seems to confirm this trend, proving right those who believe that international law is on its way to being replaced by the will of the strongest. Geopolitical competition is gaining ground as the perceived organising principle of international relations, as opposed to rules-based cooperation between interdependent states.
0 kommentar(er)
