Neither Meloni nor Macron can stand up to the ECHR (Photo by LUDOVIC MARIN/AFP via Getty Images)
Toute personne d’un certain âge ayant suivi l’éducation secondaire britannique aura passé quelques mois à étudier la Société des Nations, qui, à ma connaissance, n’est pas un sujet d’étude académique dans aucun autre pays. Créée par le Traité de Versailles en 1919, la Société était un quasi-gouvernement mondial avec un vaste mandat pour abolir la guerre et la pauvreté dans le monde. Lire son histoire, c’est la suivre d’un échec cuisant à l’autre alors qu’elle cherchait, inter alia, à interdire les armes de guerre offensive, à établir des normes internationales de sécurité sur le lieu de travail, et à contraindre Mussolini sur la scène mondiale.
Voici le problème essentiel : même avec la meilleure volonté du monde, la Société n’avait aucun pouvoir pour faire appliquer ses édits. Pour cela, elle devait compter sur la Grande-Bretagne et la France, qui étaient connues pour leur instabilité. Les États-Unis n’ont même jamais adhéré. Et ainsi cela continua. Le Secrétariat général se prononçait, la Cour permanente de justice internationale rendait des décisions, les leviers étaient tirés, rien ne se passait. Aucun de leurs idéaux élevés n’a pu survivre au premier contact avec la réalité — c’est-à-dire, l’intérêt étatique et l’égoïsme national. Chaque fois que cela comptait, les puissances se tournaient vers leurs propres alliances, leur propre sécurité. Mussolini a pu annexer l’Abyssinie en 1936 malgré les protestations de la Société, car la Grande-Bretagne et la France essayaient de le courtiser comme allié ; le Japon a été autorisé à envahir la Mandchourie pour des raisons similaires. Tout cela semblait porter une leçon brutale : quels que soient les mérites de l’internationalisme et du droit international, les faits de la vie réelle allaient à leur encontre.
Pourquoi l’éducation anglaise se fixe-t-elle tant sur la Société, ce spectacle d’arrière-plan étrange ? Peut-être en correctif à l’idéalisme adolescent. Ces événements, tels qu’ils sont racontés, semblaient être une mini-fable sur la façon dont les grandes idées ne peuvent pas rivaliser avec l’égoïsme ordinaire. Cela avait certainement son attrait pour le moi adolescent : un rieur, un troll en ligne.
Mais en tant qu’histoire, c’était trop enthousiaste et trop cynique. Trop cynique, car cela sous-estimait toujours le pouvoir de ces idées. « Pourquoi ne pouvons-nous pas tous nous entendre », ou, plus récemment, « les problèmes mondiaux nécessitent des solutions mondiales » — ce sont des notions puissantes, du moins parmi les très puissants. Les armées qui ont conquis l’Europe au milieu des années 40 étaient techniquement celles des Nations Unies, marchant sous sa propre bannière de guerre : le Drapeau d’Honneur — cela juste 10 ans après que la Société des Nations ait été déclarée lettre morte. Si F.D.R. avait vécu un peu plus longtemps, quelque chose approchant un État mondial sous l’égide de l’ONU aurait résulté, avec la planète gouvernée comme une sorte de condominium américano-soviétique — même Wendall Wilkie, son rival républicain, a appelé à une telle idée. Une idée folle, mais pas une que le réalisme international de l’école des coups durs puisse vraiment assimiler.
Trop cynique alors, et trop cynique maintenant. Au cours des 10 dernières années, presque tout le monde a encore annoncé le déclin des normes internationales libérales et le retour de l’État-nation. Le terrorisme, les hommes forts en politique, le populisme, la migration et les maladies mondiales forceraient une certaine collision avec la réalité, les anciennes délicatesses seraient oubliées, et nous reviendrions alors à une forme de règle plus dure et plus simple sous des nations souveraines. Qu’est-ce que cela impliquerait ? Presque chaque hebdomadaire littéraire ou politique a, à un moment donné, repris la couverture de l’œuvre de Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan. Même la tendance pour le terme ‘géopolitique’ parlait de la nouvelle humeur : une politique fondée sur l’opportunisme et les faits de la vie, pas sur des idées libérales.
Mais rien de tel ne s’est produit. Quels que soient les facteurs qui pourraient faire le cas pour l’État-nation à nouveau, l’histoire réelle de la dernière décennie a été une énorme croissance de la portée et de la profondeur du droit international et de l’obligation. Ceux-ci avancent dans le monde développé beaucoup plus vite qu’ils ne reculent ailleurs.
Pour toutes les vagues soulevées ces 10 dernières années, il est difficile de penser à une période de l’histoire diplomatique qui ait été moins définie par l’opportunisme, l’égoïsme national ou le froid calcul des intérêts. Un exemple classique est la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme (CEDH), qui, contrairement à l’ancienne Société des Nations, ne nécessite pas de puissance sponsor. En 2015, le départ britannique de la CEDH était un acte Cameronien. Maintenant, cela est considéré comme radical et excentrique. Giorgia Meloni dirige un parti qui peut revendiquer une descendance linéaire des fascistes nationaux italiens. Emmanuel Macron a été présenté comme un homme d’État de stature jupitérienne, une réponse libérale à l’ère de l’homme fort. Mais ni l’un ni l’autre ne peuvent se résoudre à affronter la cour de Strasbourg, ni même la Convention de Dublin. La France a maintenant été réduite à payer à la CEDH un frais de poche pour chaque déportation.
Il en va de même pour le climat. Il y a 10 ans, des accords climatiques comme le Protocole de Kyoto étaient un synonyme de lettre morte bien intentionnée. Ceux-ci ont depuis pris de l’ampleur. La Suisse, grand doyen du système international, a été en avril condamnée par la cour de Strasbourg pour manque de zèle sur le Net Zéro. Le gouvernement suisse est maintenant en train d’élaborer une liste de mesures climatiques avec laquelle il espère apaiser la cour.
Il en va de même pour la technologie. Toutes les puissances mondiales ont maintenant accepté la régulation mondiale de l’IA, même si le premier à se dérober à ces règles récolterait sûrement d’énormes avantages commerciaux pour lui-même. Voilà pour le nouvel égoïsme.
En ce sens, beaucoup ont sauté trop tôt. Dans les années 2010, un certain nombre de dirigeants politiques et de factions ont parié sur le renouveau du système westphalien et ont plongé dans le national, pour finir déçus. Bien que la Chine ait menacé le Japon dans les îles Spratley depuis plus d’une décennie, cela n’a pas été suffisant pour forcer une révision de l’article 9 de la Constitution — qui interdit au Japon de mener une guerre agressive. Certains des pro-Brexit les plus désinvoltes prenaient pour acquis que, lors des négociations avec l’UE27, l’intérêt national ou même les besoins des exportateurs européens prévaudraient, et que des choses comme l’intégrité de l’EEE étaient en fait des positions de négociation sous-entendues. Faux. Le processus s’est finalement concentré presque entièrement sur le jargon juridique tel que l’Accord du Vendredi Saint — jamais sur le commerce ou même la grande stratégie. Ils avaient compté sur un nouveau Bismarckisme positif qui ne s’est jamais réalisé.
Les événements ultérieurs renforcent ce fait. Deux ans après ce parcours de négociations éprouvant, le Royaume-Uni a décidé de s’engager à défendre l’aile est de l’UE27. Le Royaume-Uni soutient également l’adhésion de l’Ukraine à l’UE : maintenant un marché fermé aux biens britanniques. Même pour un pays comme le Royaume-Uni sous Brexit, le principe international reste inattaquable. Dans des circonstances similaires, n’importe quel cabinet britannique du XVIIIe siècle conclurait probablement un traité avec la Russie.
L’internationalisme libéral a été mis au défi pour en sortir plus fort. Cela ne veut pas dire qu’il en est sorti inchangé. Dans les années 2020, les institutions mondiales ne se justifient plus par des choses aussi sensées que, disons, des importations bon marché et des chaînes d’approvisionnement juste à temps — tout cela a été brûlé au nom de ‘l’action mondiale’ contre le coronavirus il y a quatre ans. Le seul argument maintenant vraiment avancé pour ces choses est que toute alternative à celles-ci est moralement inacceptable. La Grande-Bretagne ne peut pas sortir de la CEDH pour exercer des contrôles frontaliers ordinaires, car cela la mettrait dans la même catégorie que la Biélorussie et elle serait alors une aide et un réconfort pour les mauvais hommes partout.
Contrôle des frontières. Politique des grandes puissances. Réarmement national. Approche libérale de l’IA. Ce ne sont pas des idées en faillite. L’histoire les justifiera probablement. Mais leurs partisans ne peuvent pas compter sur un effondrement global inévitable pour accomplir leur travail à leur place. Jusqu’à présent, les seules réaffirmations réussies de l’État-nation proviennent non de ‘forces plus larges’, mais de petites conspirations organisées comme Vote Leave et Boris-Cummings qui étaient prêtes à agir face aux événements et à forcer la question. Le nationalisme et l’internationalisme sont des prémisses morales. Les événements ne peuvent pas les confirmer ou les réfuter. Plus que tout, ce que les 10 dernières années ont montré, c’est que ces idées sont plus puissantes que le réalisme, l’opportunisme et les soi-disant faits de la vie. Ceux qui s’opposent à ces idées dominantes ne devraient pas compter sur une intrusion de la réalité.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeMearsheimer seems to have replaced Chomsky as the miserable face of the anti-western and (highly selectively) anti-war, ‘anti imperialist’ (haha) left. You can predict without having to listen to a word exactly the pro Russian talking points he’ll make, which would have sounded much the same in 1974 and 2004 as they do now in 2024.
It’s right that we continue to platform and tolerate these traitors, but the unholy alliance many loons on the right have made with them over the last decade is worrying to say the least.
No-one’s suggesting he should be de-platformed, but why anyone would think his views are any more relevant than the many other commentators – or even you and I – is another matter.
It very much looks like he’s just trying to stay in the spotlight by being controversial. That, in itself, means we can safely ignore him, and await to see what happens in the real world.
His views are relevant because he has been right. Ukraine has been led down the primrose path to destruction as he said. Usually one takes note of those whose views have been proven correct.
Of course that doesn’t mean his views of the future will be right, but they are more noteworthy than many others.
He has been neither right nor “realistic”. Look back over his catastrophist predictions about the Ukraine conflict.
He’s really just a rather tiresome old man who keeps repeating the same message again and again, without any modification. Which simply proves he’s a stuck idealogue who’s lost any ability he might once have had to learn.
Once again, you refuse to allow Ukraine any agency (choice) about its own future and assume it is merely a pawn for outside interests. Despite the obvious fact that Ukrainians have chosen to fight for their freedom and independence. Why is it that you don’t wish them to make their own choices ?
I truly want Ukraine to be independent and democratic.
However that ended when an elected President was overthrown in a classic CIA coup.
Translation: “Elected President” = “Russian puppet”. Don’t believe me? Where does he live now?
He was elected…that’s it.
After Putin rigged the election….
He fled, as did James II, you might recall..
What an absurd argument. He wanted to avoid the fate of Timoshenko, Poroshenko and even the poisoned Yushkevich. He and Putin were on very bad terms.
Eh? Yanukovych? Strange if he was on such bad terms with Putin that he decided to flee to Russia! Perhaps I am misunderstanding you.
Yeah, I was wondering that. “Putin hates me, so I’ll hide in Russia. He’ll never think of looking for me there”.
Even if your statement were true, that doesn’t prevent Ukraine being an independent and democratic country now (over 10 years later) or in the future. Having Russian troops occupying the country and/or Russians actively destabilising the country most certainly does.
I think 8 years of shelling the rebel provinces rather does. I suspect Zelensky would be glad to get rid of them. The population declined there by over 2 million , and 14500 civikians were killed.
Yes, but this violence was initiated by pro Russian incursions by the supposedly (but bogus) independent forces in the Donbass.
I’ve gone through the falsity of that comment many times before. The language is quite absurd. What happened in 2014 is that there was a standoff between the Ukrainian President Yanukovych and Parliament. Exactly the same thing had happened in Russia under Yeltsin, so to be consistent and in the logic of your view Putin should never have become President as Yeltsin’s hand picked successor! Of course the US preferred Ukraine that leaned more into European norms and perhaps became a member of the EU, rather than Russian satellite of autocratic and very undemocratic modern Russia. However they didn’t cause the 2014 events (and didn’t even cause the pro Chilean coup of 1973 – this is “the CIA controls the world” fantasy beloved of people on the far left and right, which apart from anything else deprives other nations and political forces within them of any agency).
They were protests in the Maidan square and many protesters were shot in cold blood by snipers. Eventually Yanukovych fled the country, leaving his enormous palace to be picked over by the protesters. By the way I notice that terms like “corruption” which there certainly is in Ukraine are often only ever used against Zelensky and pro Ukrainian patriots by some pro Russian people on the Right, but certainly not to any pro-Russian elements!
“….but certainly not to any pro-Russian elements!” I’m sure everyone knows that Russians are as honest as the day is long.
Mearsheimer let the mask slip when his “realist” views all of a sudden became whingeing about “human rights” and “genocide” when Israel was doing the attacking. he’s nothing bu an anti-Western stooge. In his mind, might makes right unless it’s the Jews with the might.The only question is he a paid stooge, or just really dumb.
It looks like the answer in both cases is “Yes!”, but “dumb” prevails.
Mearsheimer + Chomsky, as Doug Scott mentioned here + I would add Bernie Sanders.
This is a very common pathology, I very often observe it among educated non-religious Jews. Dafna Yoran, mentioned in the adjacent article, is a classic case that in the good old days could have been demonstrated in the dissection theater to medical students.
Chomsky and Sanders are Jewish, but I’m pretty sure Mearsheimer is not.
Nor are Chomsky and Sanders paid stooges or dumb. But I do agree that their worldviews have something to do with their Jewishness, for better and for worse. However here is not the place to analyze this.
Mearsheimer is just a plain antisemite.
I agree with you, thank you
Absolutely!. Extraordinary how he seems not to have been strongly taken to task for this, as far as I am aware.
I don’t understand why foreign relations has become so childish. It is perfectly reasonable to describe Putin as a war criminal and an authoritarian dictator, while acknowledging that the war needs to end, and that allowing Ukraine to join NATO is a red line for Russia. It seems to me that our political leaders have decided to abandon reality on so many different issues. There are bad people in the world. It is not the job of America to police these war criminals. While it’s righteous to support Ukraine, if it results in thousands upon thousands of Ukrainian casualties and the widespread destruction of its infrastructure, at some point the war becomes self defeating for Ukraine itself. It long ago became a proxy war for America – inflict maximum destruction on Russia on the backs of Ukrainian people. The Trump team IMO seems like a good blend of war hawks and isolationists. By debating each other, they might actually come up with reasonable policies.
‘There are bad people in the world. It is not the job of America to police these war criminals.’
This seems superficially ‘grown-up’, but if not the Americans, then who? Well, nobody, because the international organisations created to give some semblance of international justice are impotent. So if the Americans retreat, then the ‘bad people’ can act with impunity, and we’re back to a pre 19th century situation of constant warfare but this time with nuclear weapons, drones, ai, bio-terror etc. Sounds great? I don’t think so. Rather have the Americans playing whack a mole personally.
It’s utter hubris IMO to think you can impose democracy and human rights on nations that do not respect democracy and human rights. We should have learned this lesson in Afghanistan. The same thing is playing out in Syria today. The U.S. funded the insurgents for years – I don’t think they do now – which is made up of radical Islamists. Now that they have won, they are going to install another authoritarian dictatorship -certainly not democracy. Will they respect human rights? Maybe. I really doubt it though. You end up with the oppression, but someone else imposing it.
There’s an interesting article in the Free Press today suggesting Ukrainians are sick of the war. The initial euphoria and unity created by the success early on has virtually disappeared. There was a time Ukraine could have negotiated from a position of strength, but Britain and the U.S. didn’t want that.
IDK what the answer is. We all want people to live in nations that respect human rights. That’s just not the reality on the ground in many cases.
Nobody is talking about imposing “democracy and human rights” on Russia. Russians are always going to be barbarians and war criminals. However, if we are funding the destruction of the Russian army, and the evisceration of the Russian economy, that is surely good?
A few of your Russian barbarians: Pushkin, Dostoevsky, Chekhov, Tchaikovsky, Mussorgsky, Mendeleev, Pavlov, Tsiolkovsky, Gorky, Nijinsky, Pasternak, Solzhenitsyn, Stravinsky, Chagall, Baryshnikov, Sakharov, Politkovskaya, Navalny, Magnitsky, Bulgakov, Malevich, Lobachevsky, …
And BTW shame on you.
Twenty two people in 500 years of history. Yeah, a civilized people. No doubt about it.
How about we play this one: Great Russian Leader: 1) Gorbachev (for binning the abomination that was Communism). Ummmm….2) Catherine the Great (except that she was German, not Russian)……3) ….at a pinch, Peter the Great (unarguably a tyrant, but probably achieved a bit more than all the other tyrants that ruled Russia).
And Akhmatova, Nadezhda Nandelstam, Brodsky, Lomonosov, A long kist. Many rehabilitated after 1991 too.
List ( my edit function not working)
You forgot Trofim Lysenko, the greatest ever Russian scientist.
Syria – the US funded THE insurgents”(!)
There were (and are) numerous different forces in Syria supported by Iran, Turkey, Qatar, Saudi, later Russia and others. The US were only ever bit players, mainly to oppose ISIS. But, and this is one of my points to the anti western critics, “damned if you do, damned if you don’t”!
Back to a version of the Great Game maybe, but in the case of nuclear weapons, MAD still applies.
Drone technology is worrying, but the reason for that is that it’s almost impossible for state forces to effectively police.
Why is it the role of any nation to police such people? Have you taken stock of how many exist? I am not willing to underwrite your desire to have my tax dollars and countrymen be used to satisfy your moral virtue.
The problem is that Putin has quite a few red lines. Ukraine or Georgia getting close to the EU is clearly another one. Effectively Putin insists on full control of Ukraine, i.e. a situation where Ukraine is defenceless, can be invaded at will, and is governed by a pro-Russian group. The is what ‘demilitarization’; and ‘denazification’ means. The problem of NATO membership is not that it is a threat to Russia, but that it would give Ukraine guarantees agaisnt future invasion – which is exactly what Putin cannot accept. You can still acknowledge that the war needs to end, but you should at least be honest about what you are prepared to pay – or make the Ukrainans pay – to achieve that.
Has Putin actually said that about the EU? You nay be quite right but I hadnt seen it anywhere. It’s always NATO.
No, but look at the coincidences:
Ukraine was making a deal with the EU, in spite heavy pressure from Russian to go with the Russian near abroad instead. All of a sudden the President, who had campaigned for the EU deal, decided to not do it afer all. Then came the Maidan, toppling the President, and shortly afterwards the little green men went into the Crimea adnd the Donbass. Now Georgia is getting eady to do a deal with the EU, and, lo and behold, the President decides not to do it afterall and people come out in the streets. If Putin was willing to acept E membership for the ex-Soviet nations would all this really have happened?
Ok but ending wars is difficult once they have started! Many of the anti-western critics seem to think that it is entirely in the responsibility of the United States and the West to end the war, and presumably on terms that gives Putin what he wants and of course inevitably then “rewards” him for the invasion.
I do tend to think that “we” have neither gone fully in supporting Ukraine or encouraged it to reach a peace deal which might well be the worst of all worlds. But “the West” of course is not a homogeneous entity with one controlling mind, although to read some of the anti-western comments on here you, might think it was!
Most people I read – eg Philipps O’Brien – are fearful that Trump will abandon Ukraine.
You don’t understand Trump’s persona. He can’t be the toughest leader in the world if he lets Ukraine fall. He spent too much time bashing Biden for Afghanistan to allow a repeat on his watch. Especially now that the Russia-Iran axis seems to be crumbling.
However the USA is not “in” Ukraine, as it was in Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc, it is merely supporting it with weapons and expertise.
Also Ukraine will not “fall”. Russia cannot take all of it, even if it wanted to, let alone hold it. Ukraine has lost territory which it will not recover.
Trump can legitimately tell Ukraine to accept that loss or there will be no further support. In that situation he is putting America first, as he said he will.
He also considers Israel more important than Ukraine. His focus will be on weakening Iran.
“Russophobic” is it now?
This phobic nonsense is beyond ridiculous; the implication being that any concerns are the result of an irrational fear, a mental condition on the part of the “phobe”.
Make it stop.
Right. We don’t dislike Russia because of an irrational “phobia”. We dislike it because of everything it has said and everything it has done over the last 500 years.
Really only the last 100 years for me. Before that I don’t think they were causing more trouble than anyone else.
Not to foreigners, maybe (Crimean War aside).
Russia was conquered and occpied by the Tartars for 200 years. The Sweden tried to incorporate them into the Swedish Empire. No goodies and baddies here: it’s because northern Eurasia is flat: theee are few natural defenses such as stopped the expansion of France.
Including bailing the Allies out for three years against Herr H.?
Hardly “bailing out”. They fought him for their own reasons.
Four years? Have to exclude Ukraine though, with Bandera in charge under the Nazis for nearly three years.
If you call distrust of an autocratic regime, armed with the world’s biggest arsenal of nuclear weapons, that is trying to conquer a neighboring independent nation while daily committing war crimes, a “phobia”, i.e. an irrational fear – then perhaps your own worldview isn’t as rational as you would like us to believe, Dr. Mearsheimer.
If Mearsheimer’s right, it’ll be a first.
Russophobic hawks are my favourite kind.
Trump talked about a desire to stop the killing too often to want this disaster to continue. The war is going to end. Russia will get at least what it was willing to accept in the spring of 2022 when someone, we presumably, sent Boris Johnson to tell Zelensky to stand down on settling.
You make it sound as if Trump actually cares about other human beings.
Mearsheimer has been the ‘go to’ scholar for Putin apologists for years. He loses all credibility by continuing to blame the West for Putin invasion, conveniently forgetting Putin stated Ukraine not a real country and extolling the imperial reign of Peter the Great just prior to invading. He’s tarnished and desperately tries to retain some credibility by doubling down on his nonsense.
I read somewhere he’s never been to Ukraine. If true remarkable for someone presenting himself as an expert. What one suspects is he knows he’s a non-entity unless he adopts such views. It’s all a bit of a Grift.
As regards Trump likely Ukrainian policy – Mearsheimer also shows a fundamental lack of understanding about how much Trump driven by ego. He’s not going to be ‘rolled’ by Putin. He knows that’d confirm the Putin poodle prejudices and make him look weak. The Republican position has also become more hawkish and better appreciated the interconnectivity between this conflict, China, Iran and N Korea, and as we’ve seen last week, Syria. Trump may have nominated some bozos who won’t have the competency to do the jobs needed whilst embroiled in constant stories about their inadequacies, but that’s about him chucking ‘chum’ to the base and delighting in chaos. He’ll be making the key decisions.
Meersheimer is totally discredited by his completely incoherent positions. He (claims to) take an uber realist approach to the Russian Ukraine conflict. Of course anyone who considers invasion of a neighboring country might be something to be criticised, might find this quite ethically chilling. (There is also the issue about how we ascertain in the real world where power actually lies and who is likely to necessarily win a conflict, which isn’t, as we see from the Syria imbroglio exactly always obvious, and depends on your own decisions and actions). If the West actually had the political will it has far more economic power and Russia. Far from an all out support of Ukraine the “West” has hedged from the start, with heavy restrictions on the amount of aid and weapons provided. Certainly if you might compare this, for example, with the reaction to covid it’s a tiny fraction of the amount of the funding. Niall Ferguson makes a much more coherent critique of Western policy than Meersheimer.
But anyway, we might accept a certain cool detached amoral consistency about such a realpolitik dominated view of the world. But Meersheimer then goes on to adopt an entirely different approach to China and Taiwan where he seems to feel a war against the Chinese would be justified.
But most disgracefully, is attitudes to the Israel Palestine conflict simply parrots the worst denunciations of Islamists and progressives against Israel using such terms as “genocide”, “ethnic cleansing” etc, in a way he never does against Russian aggression. The lack of consistency is very revealing, and completely undermines Meersheimer claim to be some sort of neutral analyst of international geopolitics.