Reflections on Bluntness and "Push Back' in International Discourse
On April 14, 2023 the Guardian presented its readers with an Editorial entitled: The Guardian View on China and Europe: Macrons Careless Words Were Costly.
The purpose of this Editorial addressed Président Macron’s bungled
words concerning an independent European economic and foreign policy resulting
in the Président’s perceived undermining of trans-Atlantic solidarity.
After reading this Editorial I came away with the thought
that the argument presented involves a double standard such that the use of
blunt language by some political leaders is acceptable and at the same time not
acceptable (a blunder and breach of solidarity) when used by others especially when these others view the world of
politics and economics differently.
The Editor of the Guardian (henceforth referred to as the
Editor) opined:
“Four years ago, Emmanuel Macron remarked that the era of
European naivety on China was over.”
In making this proclamation the Editor hopes to highlight
the contradiction in Président Macron’s attitude four years ago and the Président’s
more recent pronouncements which according to the Editor contradict the Président’s
signalling of unity with the European Union (EU) Commission’s President Ms. Ursula
von der Leyen.
To demonstrate this the Editor explains by way of the following
observations:
“…it was his [the Président’s] remarks [after
his three-day visit to the PRC] to journalists on the way home that seized
attention. Observing – in the context of Taiwan – that Europe should not be a
“vassal” to the US or get caught up in crises that “are not our own” undermined
support for a democracy and sparked anger across European capitals. The German
parliamentarian Norbert Röttgen attacked “a PR coup for Xi [Jinping] and a
foreign policy disaster for Europe”.
Herr Röttgen seemingly a spokesman for all European
capitals in his referenced twitter thread quoted above also wrote:
“The same 🇫🇷 President, who
some time ago described #NATO as "brain dead", now says word for word
what Xi wants to hear. He emphasizes partnership with China rather than
competition & systemic rivalry.”
In quoting Herr Röttgen to support his case the Editor is endorsing
Herr Röttgen’s view in suggesting that competition and systemic rivalry are
preferable to cooperation.
Our fair-minded Editor however appears to give the Président
a benefit of doubt conceding to Président Macron a limited degree of latitude:
The Editor writes:
“Of course, European and US foreign policy are not, and
should not be, synonymous. “
The Editor laments as follows:
“But spelling these things out so bluntly as he returned
from Beijing, and while China was conducting military drills around Taiwan, was
a blunder.”
It seems the Editor would prefer the Président to spell
these things out less bluntly. However, it is not explained how the Président
is supposed to express himself in this regard. Neither is the context as to why
the People’s Republic of China (PRC) conducted the referenced drills touched
upon.
The Editor references a Reuters April 14 2023 article
entitled “Europe presses tough Taiwan stance after backlash against Macron
comments”.
The aforementioned Reuters article points out:
“Macron cautioned against being drawn into a crisis over
Taiwan driven by an "American rhythm and a Chinese overreaction. While
many of the remarks were not new, the timing of their publication, and their
bluntness, annoyed many Western officials.”
However, it is not clear how Président Macron’s call for
partnership instead of rivalry is a damaging blunder.
From a dispassionate observer’s vantage point, it would
appear that the German Foreign Minister, Annalena Baerbock’s attempts at
damage limitation and push back are also aggravating and causing damage
to the interests of Germany.
So, it seems that the Editor has been inadvertently trapped
in a contradiction. On the one hand the Editor decries Président Macron’s
bluntness being expressed in a time of tension with the PRC over Taiwan. On the
other, the Editor praises Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock’s arguably more
blunt and confrontational push back and damage limitation on the PRC
personally delivered during her separate recent visit to Beijing. It must be
pointed out that this push back also be placed within the context of the
current tensions.
The PRC officials at the receiving end of the Foreign
Minister’s bluntness exhibited patience in the face of taunts delivered by the
Foreign Minister as well as the intervention by the USA in Chinese political
affairs and hence sovereignty. We need to remember that the USA and Germany
both recognise Taiwan as a part of the PRC.
So, which approach is more likely to sooth these tensions
and the possible horrors that could emanate from them? Président Macron’s alleged
bluntness in not wanting to be drawn into a crisis with China over Taiwan and
expressing his long-term goal for the strategic autonomy of Europe? Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock’s warning,
in the interests of European solidarity to the PRC to keep it hands off of
Taiwan and to not get to close to Russia?
The Editor does not countenance the possibility that perhaps
the way to avoid a crisis would be best served by understanding what Président
Macron is really saying concerning the entrapment of Europe in crises that don’t
concern it.
It does not seem to occur to the Editor that a strategically
autonomous Europe could play a role in dampening down all these tensions. Setting
aside President, Xi Jinping's rolling out the red carpet why would this be alarming
and annoying to western officials? The answer is simple, the Président’s
blunder lies in breaking ranks (solidarity) with the United States of America (US)
and other allied European capitals.
The Editor's suspicion of Président Macron is apparent
when the Editor draws the distinction between those observers who
think “…France is striking off alone” and those who think Macron is
unthinkingly “busking it” and not properly thinking through the effect of what
he is saying.
It seems the Editor suspects Président Macron’s bluntness is
a sign of his striking off alone.
The Editor continues by making a bizarre aside:
“(Intriguingly, a French naval frigate appears to have
sailed through the Strait during China’s drills.)”
Is the Editor intimating that the PRC, by granting the Président’s
frigates free pass through the Strait of Taiwan is rewarding the Président for
his independent views for striking out alone as it were? Is the Editor not so
subtly suggesting that the Président is treacherously striking out alone into
the arms of the PRC?
The Editor also appears to side with the camp viewing Président
Macron’s bluntness as a symptom of one who is busking it and not having thought
through the impact of his words.
According to the Editor Président Macron desires “European
strategic autonomy” for fear of Donald Trump’s return to power along with a
resurgence of “Atlanticism”. Here the Editor is solely attributing Atlanticism
to Donald Trump and fails to acknowledge that Atlanticism has also been
embraced by the current Presidential Administration of the USA.
The Editor also chides Président Macron for his “poorly
judged and poorly timed” remarks in the context of Europe’s increasing
dependence on US security. Europe being under the umbrella of US security interests
is a premise underpinning Atlanticism. This is not openly articulated by the
Editor which appears to indirectly indicate the Editor’s positive views towards
the aforementioned Atlanticism.
So, the upshot is that at this point in history of the world
there is no room for Président Macron’s breaking ranks with the Atlanticist
agenda. The intention of this agenda as intimated above is to ensure that
Europe does not indeed strike off alone to pursue its own independent security
framework.
So, in this context the Editor appears to suggest that the danger of Macron's busking and lack of clear thinking could result in the US to "...consider focusing on containing China and leave Europe to handle the war in Ukraine." Such an eventuality may make it possible for the Europeans capitals to resolve the Ukraine issue with Russia independently themselves. One may wonder whether Président Macron privately thinks this may not be a bad thing.
The final paragraph of this Guardian editorial proclaims
that Président Macron’s loose words have given the “triumphalist” Chinese state
media succour. However, the Editor defiantly asserts that this satisfaction
will not last long. The Editor points out that the PRC has squandered its
relationships with central and Eastern Europe and disparages PRC “wolf warrior”
diplomacy and by more “…critically, tying itself so closely with Moscow”.
The Editor fails to mention the European Union’s (EU)
critical economic relationships with the PRC which are ongoing and how economic
decoupling from the PRC will ruin the living standards of EU citizens.
The Editor also seems to have been missing from the room
when the PRC released its twelve-point position paper concerning a political
solution to the Ukraine crisis.
It appears that the Editor piously points out that the Président
of the French Republic should keep his loose tongue under control and then in
almost the same breath praises the tough language delivered to the PRC by the
German Foreign minister. When you think about it for a moment the German
Foreign Minister is the epitome of a wolf warrior diplomat.
To close off the Editor triumphantly proclaims:
“The underlying economic, democratic and security
imperatives appear clearer than ever. Acting in unity will be essential.”
The Editor is suggesting that European security and economic
interests as well as democracy (I assume in Taiwan) are best served by
continued confrontation with the PRC over Taiwan and China’s determination to
maintain its relationship with Russia. I wonder what the citizenry and business
community of the EU would think about the choice that the governments they
placed into power are presenting them with – the choice the editor bravely
presents them with.
To take a feather out of Herr Röttgen’s cap, according to the
Editor Europe’s interests are best served by the closing of ranks and
conducting “competition and systemic rivalry”. The Editor also underpins this
with an Atlanticist security framework aligned against the PRC in the context
of a deindustrialised EU.
By way of a final observation, the Editor elevates the concept of solidarity to an almost mystical transcendental level. However, the pure form of the concept called solidarity only applies to an elect few. The Editor considers relations amongst the “other”; those who are deemed to be competitors or foes is somehow something debased and sullied and cannot be considered as legitimate.
In this sense China’s expression of political and economic
solidarity with Russia and its diplomatic economic engagement to the rest of
the world is viewed as challenging and a form of autocracy. Président Macron’s yearning for an independent
European entity working in solidarity with its component nations to chart its
own course in a, dare I say it multi-polar world is reduced to mistaken economic and
financial self-interest.
References
Comments
Post a Comment