Conflito territorial entre Venezuela e Guiana: novidades à luz da convocação ao referendo - Lucas Carlos Lima (Conjur)

 

OPINIÃO

Conflito territorial entre Venezuela e Guiana: novidades à luz da convocação ao referendo

• Lucas Carlos Lima

17 de novembro de 2023, 17h14

Editorias:  

• Internacional
• Política

A recente convocação de um referendo pelo governo da Venezuela em relação ao reivindicado território de Essequibo — disputado com a Guiana — adiciona uma nova camada de juridicidade à controvérsia territorial entre os dois estados latino-americanos. Trata-se de antiga disputa que surgiu como resultado da alegação venezuelana de nulidade do Laudo Arbitral de 3 de outubro de 1899, que determina a fronteira atual entre as duas partes em virtude de “uma transação política realizada às escondidas da Venezuela e sacrificando seus direitos legítimos”.

À época, a arbitragem ocorreu entre a colônia da Guiana Britânica e a Venezuela,que disputavam uma larga porção de terra (rica em recursos naturais) entre os rios Oniroco e Essequibo. Um tribunal arbitral composto por cinco juristas (dois americanos, dois ingleses e um russo) foi composto para delimitar pacificamente a fronteira em questão. Na atualidade, uma modificação de tal fronteira poderia também ter impacto nos recursos marítimos e energéticos de ambos os países. O presente ensaio analisa o conflito territorial à luz dos procedimentos judiciais perante a Corte Internacional de Justiça, em particular diante do requerimento de medidas provisórias solicitado pela Guiana no fim de outubro diante da  convocação do referendo.

Conflitos territoriais perante a Corte da Haia
Conflitos resolvendo controvérsias territoriais e marítimas não são raros perante a Corte Internacional de Justiça [1]. Em verdade, existe uma longa e constante jurisprudência que assenta este tribunal como o órgão por excelência para resolver conflitos desta natureza que são, como se sabe, extremamente complexos, e não raramente envolvem profundos sentimentos nacionais de relação com o território. Apesar de pode se afirmar que nos últimos tempos a jurisprudência da Corte ter variado substancialmente, incorporando temáticas como direito ambiental internacional ou direitos humanos, é também possível notar que a Corte não deixou de ser o órgão judicial ao qual Estados recorrem para solucionar conflitos em relação à soberania sobre territórios disputados, também relativos a zonas marítimas.

Reprodução

Exemplos recentes nesse sentido são os casos da Delimitação da Plataforma Continental entre Nicarágua e Colômbia (2023), a Delimitação Marítima entre Somália e Quênia (2021), entre Peru e Chile (2014) ou entre Burkina Faso e Niger (2013). Desde que a Corte sedimentou a doutrina jurídica do uti possidetis iuris [2] em 1983 no célebre caso entre a Burkina Faso e a República do Mali há um profundo interesse dos Estados em utilizar meios judiciais para verificar quem possui as melhores teses jurídicas para comprovar a soberania sobre um determinado território.

A tensão de fundo em todas essas controvérsias territoriais reside no fato de que as regras estabelecidas no direito internacional para resolvê-las são essencialmente frutos de pretensões contestadas e decisões arbitrais ou judiciais avaliando tais pretensões. Não existem, obviamente, tratados internacionais que determinam regras para delimitações territoriais. Estas se dão exatamente pelo fruto da troca e de negociações de Estados por suas fronteiras — muitas vezes definidas, no passad,o como resultado de conflitos armados. Se por um lado, o princípio da integridade territorial, decorrente da soberania dos Estados, parece ser um valor jurídico de grande força normativa que tende ao status quo e à inamovibilidade e à estabilidade das fronteiras, há também novas situações jurídicas que permitem, raramente, a contestação de fronteiras internacionais.

A controvérsia entre Venezuela e Guiana não parece ser excepcional na abordagem caso a caso que o direito internacional adota para resolver essas questões. Suas origens são antigas e por mais que possam eventualmente ser aquecidas à luz de ações políticas, constitui um caso que merece entendimento exatamente porquanto possui implicações também na política interna e externa dos Estados — e seus vizinhos.

As decisões da Corte Internacional de Justiça no caso Guiana e Venezuela
Se o laudo arbitral emitido em 1899 pacificou temporariamente as relações entre a colônia da Guiana Britânica e a Venezuela, é possível verificar a existência de uma controvérsia entre os Estados durante o período de descolonização da Guiana. Em 1962, a Venezuela informou o então Secretário-Geral da ONU sobre a existência de uma controvérsia entre Reino Unido e Venezuela “referente à demarcação da fronteira entre a Venezuela e a Guiana Britânica”, alegando que o Laudo de 1899 havia sido fruto de um conluio,  e que, portanto, não poderia reconhecer o Laudo. Peritos de ambas as partes examinaram o laudo e chegaram a conclusões diferentes. Em 1966, após a independência da Guiana, a questão continuava pendente entre as partes e um tratado foi assinado reconhecendo a controvérsia — o Acordo de Genebra, que outorgava autoridade ao Secretário-Geral da ONU para auxiliar na solução da questão. Uma das perguntas do referendo convocado pela Venezuela diz respeito, justamente à legitimidade do Tratado de Genebra como fonte da resolução da controvérsia.

As conversas entre os Estados sobre o tema continuaram sob os bons ofícios do Secretário-Geral da ONU até 2014. Em 2017, Antônio Guterres decidiu que, após ter “cuidadosamente analisado” os processos de bons ofícios em 2017, e não tendo as partes chegado a uma solução, ele optaria por conduzir a disputa “à Corte Internacional de Justiça como o meio a ser utilizado agora para utilizado para sua solução” com base no Acordo de Genebra de 1966. Em 29 de março de 2018 a República da Guiana iniciou um procedimento perante a Corte Internacional de Justiça buscando reconhecer a validade do Laudo Arbitral, e, portanto, a intangibilidade de sua fronteira e território.

Até o momento, a Corte Internacional de Justiça emitiu duas decisões.

A primeira delas diz respeito à própria jurisdição da Corte que, segundo as regras essenciais do direito internacional, deve ser baseada sobre o consentimento de ambas as partes para poder decidir uma disputa. Em decisão de dezembro de 2020, procedimento no qual a Venezuela decidiu não participar, a Corte Internacional de Justiça, por 12 votos a 4, entendeu possuir jurisdição sobre o caso em virtude do Acordo de Genebra de 1977 e pela decisão do Secretário-Geral.

A Venezuela então mudou sua atitude em relação ao processo e resolveu apresentar suas defesas — isto é, objeções preliminares à jurisdição da Corte – afirmando ser o pedido da Guiana inadmissível em virtude da ausência de uma terceira parte diretamente interessada na controvérsia: o Reino Unido. Trata-se da assim chamada doutrina do Ouro Monetário pela primeira vez aplicado no caso Monetary Gold Removed from Rome in 1943 (Italy v. France, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and United States of America). A doutrina exige que a Corte se abstenha de decidir uma controvérsia quando os interesses jurídicos de um terceiro estado que não ofereceu seu consentimento e que constituem “o próprio objeto” do caso, ou quando o Tribunal não pode decidir o caso a ele submetido sem antes julgar a responsabilidade internacional (ou os direitos) de um terceiro Estado. No caso, e em síntese, a tese venezuelana seria de que

a declaração de nulidade do laudo de 1899 acabaria por se manifestar sobre um eventual comportamento do Reino Unido, potência colonizadora à época, e, portanto, faltaria um elemento essencial à controvérsia, que deveria ser dispensada.

Embora tenha declarado admissível a objeção da Venezuela, a Corte não deu a ela razão. Em decisão de abril de 2023, a Corte Internacional de Justiça entendeu que “a prática das partes do Acordo de Genebra demonstra sua concordância de que a disputa poderia ser resolvida sem o envolvimento do Reino Unido”. De uma maneira tangencial, a Corte da Haia entendeu que o princípio do ouro monetário não se aplicava ao caso porque os interesses do Reino Unido durante todo o processo da formulação da disputa não estavam em jogo. Embora aqui não seja o espaço, pode-se processualmente, duvidar desse entendimento limitado da aplicação do princípio e se questionar sobre as razões pelas quais a Corte preferiu adotá-lo. Fato é que, como conclusão, a decisão de 2023 fez com que a controvérsia entre Guiana e Venezuela avançasse rumo ao mérito, até que a convocação de um referendo adicionasse uma nova  fase processual à disputa.

A convocação do referendo e as medidas cautelares
A estratégia da Venezuela de convocar um referendo com cinco perguntas em relação à controvérsia da Guiana Essequiba é uma tentativa de inserir um novo elemento na complexa questão que envolve os dois Estados. O elemento da autodeterminação dos povos3, quando aplicável efetivamente, é particularmente relevante em controvérsias territoriais. De maneira sucinta, a consulta ao povo venezuelano tem cinco objetivos: 1. Rechaçar o laudo arbitral de 1899; 2. Contestar o Acordo de Genebra como instrumento-fonte da solução; 3. Não reconhecer a jurisdição da Corte Internacional de Justiça; 4. Opor-se à pretensão da Guiana de explorar a zona marítima; 5. Criar um novo estado federal da Guiana Essequiba como parte da Venezuela.

Diante de tal convocatória, e a fim de proteger os direitos pendentes na lide perante a Corte da Haia, a República da Guiana realizou um pedido de medidas cautelares perante a Corte. O célere pedido da Guiana não busca apenas a não-realização do referendo, mas também uma ordem da Corte que exija que nenhuma atitude seja tomada para exercer controle de fato sobre a região — antecipando os rumores de que a área seria alvo de algum tipo de operação militar de controle. Nos próximos meses, a Corte terá de se debruçar sobre os requisitos essenciais de seu próprio processo em relação à plausibilidade dos direitos a serem violados, o risco de dano ao objeto principal da lide e poderá, efetivamente, decidir que o referendo  afeta o objeto da disputa. Nesse caso, poder-se-ia conjecturar que a Corte da Haia teria poderes para delimitar a ação do referendo. Naturalmente, uma decisão do gênero não seria muito bem recebida em Caracas, sobretudo ao se considerar que, historicamente, a Venezuela mostra alguma reticência em relação ao uso da Corte para a solução da questão.

Qual o futuro da controvérsia?
Controvérsias internacionais que tocam o território dos Estados, recursos naturais e fortes sentimentos nacionais nem sempre encontram seu deslinde último numa decisão judicial. A Corte Internacional de Justiça muitas vezes emitiu decisões significativamente importantes no interior de um processo político-jurídico maior. A decisão sobre medidas cautelares, passível de afetar algum modo o referendo conclamado, pode ter impactos políticos significativos, especialmente num contexto de chamamento de eleições, de renegociação de sanções, e de reestruturação geoenergética da região. Esses elementos extrajudiciais não aparecem com frequência no raciocínio jurídico da Corte Internacional de Justiça, que deverá ponderar, em concreto, os limites de seus poderes e de sua jurisdição sobre a disputa da nulidade do laudo e os novos episódios relativos à querela das partes.

Pode-se questionar se a reabertura e rediscussão de laudos arbitrais emitidos há décadas é uma boa política para a estabilidade das fronteiras da região. No Brasil, a questão do Pirara e o laudo do rei Vittorio Emmanuele 3º é exemplo disso. É doutrina comumente repetida que uma das forças políticas do Brasil no cenário internacional é a ausência de controvérsias territoriais com seus vizinhos. No caso venezuelano, por outro lado, existe uma consistente alegação de corrupção do laudo que é sustentada há mais de sessenta anos.

Talvez a maior lição que, nesse momento, a controvérsia possa oferecer não é apenas a complexidade do direito dos povos ao seu território ou as tensões políticas que emergem com esse tipo de controvérsia. O caso demonstra que existe uma linguagem possível de discussão das questões jurídicas que abdica da força e repudia ações de violência para resolver controvérsias internacionais. Há ainda instituições internacionais que podem oferecer uma contribuição significativa, com base na linguagem do direito internacional, que pode evitar as posições políticas polarizadas. Conhecer as controvérsias, os argumentos que as cingem, e os limites das instituições que podem atuar em sua resolução é um benefício não trivial que ainda é oferecido pelo direito internacional.

---

[1] Sobre o tema, ver JENNINGS, R.Y. The Acquisition of Territory in International Law. Manchester, 2017. KOHEN, Marcelo; HÉBIÉ, Mamadou. (orgs) Research Handbook on Territorial Disputes in International Law. Elgar Publisher, 2018; BONAFÉ, Beatrice I.Territory and Conflicts: Is International Law the Problem? In: Nicolini, Palermo, Milano (orgs). Law, Territory and Conflict Resolution: Law as a Problem and Law as a Solution, 2016; LANDO, Massimo. Maritime Delimitation as a Judicial Process. Cambridge: 2019.

[2] Sobre o tema, o caso e suas implicações, ver LIMA, Lucas Carlos. Uti possidetis juris e o papel do direito colonial na solução de controvérsias territoriais internacionais. Sequência, v. 38, n. 77, 2017, pp. 122- 147.

[3] Sobre o tema, ver o clássico CASSESE, Antonio. Self-Determination of Peoples: a legal reappraisal. Cambridge: 1998. Ver também SUEDI, Yusra. Self-determination in territorial disputes before the International Court of Justice: From rhetoric to reality? Leiden Journal of International Law, Vol. 36, 2022, pp. 161-177 e ainda, no caso Chagos, LIMA, Lucas Carlos. A opinião sobre o arquipélago de Chagos: a jurisdição consultiva da Corte Internacional de Justiça e a noção de controvérsia. Revista da Faculdade de Direito da UFMG, nº 75, 2019, pp. 281-302.

[4] 

Tags: Venezuela

Tesouros culturais da Humanidade, via Unesco

 Unesco came up with the big idea of giving free access to the world digital library on the Internet.

A beautiful gift to all mankind!

Here is the link: https://www.wdl.org/fr for France. It collects maps, texts, photographs, recordings and films of all times and explains the gems and cultural relics of every libraries on the planet, available in seven languages.

Enjoy and make those around you enjoy.

And then several links that will interest museum, opera and cinema lovers

- The FNAC has put a selection of 500 free books to download, I put you the link:

 https://livre.fnac.com/n309183/Tous-les-Ebooks-gratuits

Some cultural places or shows you can visit from home:

- The National Opera in Paris is uploading free of charge its shows on https://lnkd.in/gwdGY8n

- The Metropolitan Opera of New York will broadcast its shows free of charge

 https://bit.ly/2w2QXbP

- La Cinémathèque Française offers its 800 masterclasses, essays & video lectures, 500 articles on its collections & programming

https://lnkd.in/ghCcNKn

- The Forum des Images offers to view its meetings

 https://lnkd.in/gFbzp5q

- Centre Pompidou: You can listen to podcasts dedicated to the works thanks to Centre Pompidou

 https://lnkd.in/gGifD3r

- Museums: 10 online museums to visit from your couch

https://lnkd.in/gV_S_Gq

-1150 movies are available on https://lnkd.in/gspcqCm

Audrey Azoulay, Director General of UNESCO

O governo Lula 3 está precisando de um freio de arrumação? Mas só ele? O Brasil não sente falta de uma grande sacudida? - Paulo Roberto de Almeida

O governo Lula 3 está precisando de um freio de arrumação? Mas só ele? O Brasil não sente falta de uma grande sacudida?

Paulo Roberto de Almeida

Não conhecemos, como já ocorria sob o desgoverno do Bozo, nenhum plano detalhado do ou para o governo de Lula 3: não teve na campanha, nem depois; só promessas genéricas, ao estilo do “Brasil voltou”.

Mas voltou para onde, para quem e para o quê exatamente? 

O próprio dirigente máximo, o “nosso Guia” (como diria um dos seus maiores aspones), ainda não disse o que pretende fazer do seu novo mandato.

Não se sabe bem o que essa “volta” quer dizer, à falta de uma exposição clara e detalhada sobre os planos do governo para cada uma das grandes áreas setoriais: economia, segurança, politica externa, meio ambiente, emprego, etc.

No lugar de uma estratégia clara para cada uma dessas grandes áreas, reina uma grande confusão, na politica interna, na economia, na diplomacia, com uma série de improvisos, de puxadinhos, de volta-atrás e de adaptações aos desafios que surgem daqui e dali, inopinadamente. 

O Centrão parece satisfeito com esse parlamentarismo disfarçado, à meia boca, pois que está engolindo postos (de mulheres especialmente), emendas (que continuam a todo o vapor) e outras mil prebendas, sem precisar se justificar e sem assumir responsabilidades pelos sucessos ou insussessos pela marcha geral dos acontecimentos. É o vai-da-valsa?

Vai continuar assim até 2026? Ainda estamos numa espécie de test-drive retardado?

Quando será a próxima reunião geral do ministério quilométrico? E os postulantes a dois ou três cargos estratégicos? Vão esperar até quando? 

Só sabemos que os fundos Partidário, Eleitoral, dos subsídios setoriais, das exceções tributárias, vão aumentar, num ritmo meio desconhecido, como ocorre, aliás, com nosso parlamentarismo fake. 

Ao que parece, como na Inglaterra da Revolução Gloriosa, Sua Majestade Lula III “reina, mas não governa”. 

Chegamos, enfim, a uma “estabilidade” dentro de um parlamentarismo nouveau style, não assumido? Saiu do armário do Centrão, essa ameba política que sempre governou o Brasil (salvo nas ditaduras florianista, do Estado Novo e do regime militar de 1964)?

Diversas oligarquias dividiram o poder desde 1822: latifundiária, industrialista, militar, sindicalista e várias combinações de uma plutocracia estilo metamorfose ambulante. Poucas vezes, talvez nenhuma, tivemos elites modernizantes, encarregadas de comandar de forma eficiente tecnocratas esclarecidos cuidando do policy-making macroeconômico e setorial. 

Quando, por exemplo, tivemos um grande plano de melhoria da produtividade geral do país com base numa genuína revolução educacional capaz de elevar substancialmente a qualidade do capital humano, a principal riqueza de uma nação? Alguém se lembra de algum, a despeito de grandes estadistas propondo, ao longo da história, projetos geralmente frustrados de reformas no e para o país? 

Apresentei duas dezenas de propostas nesse sentido em meu mais recente livro: “Construtores da Nação: projetos para o Brasil, de Cairu a Merquior” (LVM). 

Suas tentativas servem apenas de triste memória de sonhos irrealizados? 

Vamos continuar amargando o título zweiguiano bem conhecido no exterior de “once and future country”? Na verdade, não precisamos de nenhum qualificativo triunfalista ao estilo do “Por Que Me Ufano de Meu País”, ou de uma exposição pessimista na onda do “Retrato do Brasil”.

Estamos apenas aguardando elites um pouco mais razoáveis do que as que tivemos até aqui, capazes de produzir algum estadista em condições de dar uma sacudida na nação, para que ela enfim confronte seus verdadeiros problemas. 

Não precisa fazer tudo de uma só vez. Bastaria, por exemplo, começar por uma revolução educacional que construa uma educação de base, de massa, de qualidade.

Só isso já seria um bom começo de redenção do povão sempre esquecido.

Seria pedir muito?

Paulo Roberto de Almeida 

Brasília, 17/11/2023

O que mudou na diplomacia brasileira? - Paulo Roberto de Almeida (Entrevista TV Cultura de SP)

O que mudou na diplomacia brasileira?

  

Paulo Roberto de Almeida, diplomata, professor.

Notas para entrevista na TV Cultura de SP 

 

1) Desde a ocasião do protagonismo do Barão do Rio Branco, quais foram os papéis mais importantes desempenhados pela diplomacia brasileira até hoje – no sentido de conquistar respeito e uma posição para o Brasil no cenário internacional?

PRA: Barão: percepção das mudanças geopolíticas no mundo, transição da velha hegemonia europeia para a ascensão da nova potência americana; respeito e concórdia com os vizinhos sul-americanos, especialmente Argentina, que era bem mais rica e poderosa do que o Brasil; Pacto ABC; busca de um lugar para o Brasil no mundo, baseada no Direito Internacional e no respeito à soberania de todos os países; Rui Barbosa desenvolveu essas ideias na II conferência da paz da Haia: igualdade soberana dos Estados, que se tornou o eixo central do multilateralismo contemporâneo e da política externa brasileira, um princípio defendido por Rui em 1907; o respeito ao Direito Internacional nas situações de guerra, enunciado por Rui em 1916: não se pode ser neutro entre a Justiça e o crime, como ocorreu com a invasão da Bélgica neutra pelo Império alemão. Essas mesmas causas da Justiça e do respeito ao Direito Internacional foram defendidas por Oswaldo Aranha desde o ataque a Pearl Harbor. Novamente, foi respeitado o acatamento dos mesmos princípios por San Tiago Dantas, em 1962, quando da ação americana na OEA para a expulsão de Cuba.

 

2) Como definir o legado de cada um destes três personagens emblemáticos para a diplomacia brasileira: Barão do Rio Branco, Ruy Barbosa e Oswaldo Aranha?

PRA: Uma política externa centrada estritamente nos interesses nacionais, autônoma em relação ao jogo entre grandes potências e focada no desenvolvimento nacional. A ideologia central da diplomacia é o desenvolvimento econômico e o exercício de uma plena autonomia na política externa.

 

3) Que fatores foram fundamentais para dar início à tradição de o Brasil abrir as sessões da assembleia da ONU? E que influência teve, para o Brasil alcançar este posto, o episódio da criação de Israel e da busca por uma solução passando pela tentativa de se reconhecer também a existência de um Estado Palestino, em 1947?

PRA: Oswaldo Aranha retoma os grandes princípios defendidos por Rio Branco e por Rui Barbosa, se alia às nações defensoras do Direito Internacional e das liberdades democráticas, e por isso sempre foi respeitado em sua postura diplomática. Ele se permitia inclusive discutir com a SERE no RJ instruções que julgava muito grudadas nas posições dos EUA: defendia que o Brasil deveria ter seus próprios critérios para as votações na ONU.

 

4) O que mudou na diplomacia brasileira desde a abertura democrática na década de 1980? Quais os principais objetivos da política externa do Brasil hoje?

PRA: A política externa da redemocratização retoma os grandes eixos da diplomacia do desenvolvimento nacional, sem mais os constrangimentos autoritários do regime militar, e liberta dos tabus ideológicos daquele período. Ela foi inquestionavelmente nacional e por isso desfrutava de um consenso muito raro na política doméstica. Ela deixou de ser consensual e nacional, ao ser apropriada por concepções partidárias durante os vários mandatos do PT, ao se alinhar com algumas das ditaduras menos recomendáveis do continente e alhures; ela se tornou canhestramente ideológica, além de exibir concepções de política econômica herdadas do velho nacionalismo desenvolvimentista da era Vargas, o que nos afastou de uma maior inserção na interdependência econômica global. O exemplo mais claro disso é a oposição do PT às orientações econômicas e aos padrões de políticas econômicas da OCDE, cujas práticas são as das nações mais desenvolvidas e democráticas (com algumas exceções) do planeta.

 

Paulo Roberto de Almeida

Brasília, 4516, 16 novembro 2023, 2 p.

 

Xi Jinping retraça a história das relações sino-americanas - discurso em San Francisco

 Galvanizing Our Peoples into a Strong Force  For the Cause of China-U.S. Friendship Speech

by H.E. Xi Jinping.

President of the People’s Republic of China

At Welcome Dinner by Friendly Organizations in the United States

San Francisco, November 15, 2023

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Friends,

It gives me great pleasure to meet with you, friends from across the American society, in San Francisco to renew our friendship and strengthen our bond. My first visit to the United States in 1985 started from San Francisco, which formed my first impression of this country. Today I still keep a photo of me in front of the Golden Gate Bridge.

Before going further, I wish to express my sincere thanks to the National Committee on U.S.-China Relations, the U.S.-China Business Council, the Asia Society, the Council on Foreign Relations, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other friendly organizations for hosting this event. I also want to express my warm greetings to all American friends who have long committed to growing China-U.S. relations and my best wishes to the friendly American people.

San Francisco has borne witness to exchanges between the Chinese and American peoples for over a century. A hundred and fifty-eight years ago, a large number of Chinese workers came all the way to the United States to build the first transcontinental railroad, and established in San Francisco the oldest Chinatown in the Western Hemisphere. From here, China and the United States have made many achievements—USD 760 billion of annual bilateral trade and over USD 260 billion of two-way investment, 284 pairs of sister provinces/states and sister cities, and over 300 scheduled flights every week and over five million travels every year at peak time. These extraordinary accomplishments were made jointly by our peoples accounting for nearly one quarter of the global population.

San Francisco has also borne witness to the efforts by China and the United States in building a better world. Seventy-eight years ago, after jointly defeating fascism and militarism, our two countries initiated together with others the San Francisco Conference, which helped found the United Nations, and China was the first country to sign the U.N. Charter. Starting from San Francisco, the postwar international order was established. Over 100 countries have gained independence one after another. Several billion people have eventually shaken off poverty. The forces for world peace, development and progress have grown stronger. This has been the main fruit jointly achieved by people of all countries and the international community.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Friends,

The foundation of China-U.S. relations was laid by our peoples. During World War II, our two countries fought side by side for peace and justice. Headed by General Claire Lee Chennault, a group of American volunteers, known as the Flying Tigers, went to the battlefield in China. They not only engaged in direct combats fighting Japanese aggressors, but also created “The Hump” airlift to transport much-needed supplies to China. More than 1,000 Chinese and American airmen lost their lives on this air route. After Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, the United States sent 16 B-25 bombers on an air raid to Japan in 1942. Running low on fuel after completing their mission, Lieutenant Colonel James Doolittle and his fellow pilots parachuted in China. They were rescued by Chinese troops and local civilians. But some 250,000 civilian Chinese were killed by Japanese aggressors in retaliation.

The Chinese people never forget the Flying Tigers. We built a Flying Tigers museum in Chongqing, and invited over 1,000 Flying Tigers veterans and their families to visit China. I have kept in touch with some of them through letters. Most recently, 103-year-old Harry Moyer and 98-year-old Mel McMullen, both Flying Tigers veterans, went back to China. They visited the Great Wall, and were warmly received by the Chinese people.

The American people, on their part, always remember the Chinese who risked their lives to save American pilots. Offspring of those American pilots often visit the Doolittle Raid Memorial Hall in Quzhou of Zhejiang Province to pay tribute to the Chinese people for their heroic and valorous efforts. These stories fill me with firm confidence that the friendship between our two peoples, which has stood the test of blood and fire, will be passed on from generation to generation.

The door of China-U.S. relations was opened by our peoples. For 22 years, there were estrangement and antagonism between our two countries. But the trend of the times brought us together, converging interests enabled us to rise above differences, and the people’s longing broke the ice between the two countries. In 1971, the U.S. table tennis team visited Beijing—a small ball moved the globe. Not long after that, Mr. Mike Mansfield led the first U.S. Congressional delegation to China. This was followed by the first governors’ delegation including Iowa Governor Robert Ray and then many business delegations, forming waves of friendly exchanges.

This year, after the world emerged from the COVID-19 pandemic, I have respectively met in Beijing with Dr. Henry Kissinger, Mr. Bill Gates, Senator Chuck Schumer and his Senate colleagues, and Governor Gavin Newsom. I told them that the hope of the China-U.S. relationship lies in the people, its foundation is in our societies, its future depends on the youth, and its vitality comes from exchanges at subnational levels. I welcome more U.S. governors, Congressional members, and people from all walks of life to visit China.

The stories of China-U.S. relations are written by our peoples. During my first visit to the United States, I stayed at the Dvorchaks in Iowa. I still remember their address—2911 Bonnie Drive. That was my first face-to-face contact with the Americans. The days I spent with them are unforgettable. For me, they represent America. I have found that although our two countries are different in history, culture and social system and have embarked on different development paths, our two peoples are both kind, friendly, hardworking and down-to-earth. We both love our countries, our families and our lives, and we both are friendly toward each other and are interested in each other. It is the convergence of many streams of goodwill and friendship that has created a strong current surging across the vast Pacific Ocean; it is the reaching out to each other by our peoples that has time and again brought China-U.S. relations from a low ebb back onto the right track. I am convinced that once opened, the door of China-U.S. relations cannot be shut again. Once started, the cause of China-U.S. friendship cannot be derailed halfway. The tree of our peoples’ friendship has grown tall and strong; and it can surely withstand the assault of any wind or storm.

The future of China-U.S. relations will be created by our peoples. The more difficulties there are, the greater the need for us to forge a closer bond between our peoples and to open our hearts to each other, and more people need to speak up for the relationship. We should build more bridges and pave more roads for people-to-people interactions. We must not erect barriers or create a chilling effect. 

Today, President Biden and I reached important consensus. Our two countries will roll out more measures to facilitate travels and promote people-to-people exchanges, including increasing direct passenger flights, holding a high-level dialogue on tourism, and streamlining visa application procedures. We hope that our two peoples will make more visits, contacts and exchanges and write new stories of friendship in the new era. I also hope that California and San Francisco will continue to take the lead on the journey of growing China-U.S. friendship!

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Friends,

We are in an era of challenges and changes. It is also an era of hope. The world needs China and the United States to work together for a better future. We, the largest developing country and the largest developed country, must handle our relations well. In a world of changes and chaos, it is ever more important for us to have the mind, assume the vision, shoulder the responsibility, and play the role that come along with our status as major countries.

I have always had one question on my mind: How to steer the giant ship of China-U.S. relations clear of hidden rocks and shoals, navigate it through storms and waves without getting disoriented, losing speed or even having a collision?

In this respect, the number one question for us is: are we adversaries, or partners? This is the fundamental and overarching issue. The logic is quite simple. If one sees the other side as a primary competitor, the most consequential geopolitical challenge and a pacing threat, it will only lead to misinformed policy making, misguided actions, and unwanted results. China is ready to be a partner and friend of the United States. The fundamental principles that we follow in handling China-U.S. relations are mutual respect, peaceful coexistence and win-win cooperation.

Just as mutual respect is a basic code of behavior for individuals, it is fundamental for China-U.S. relations. The United States is unique in its history, culture and geographical position, which have shaped its distinct development path and social system. We fully respect all this. The path of socialism with Chinese characteristics has been found under the guidance of the theory of scientific socialism, and is rooted in the tradition of the Chinese civilization with an uninterrupted history of more than 5,000 years. We are proud of our choice, just as you are proud of yours. Our paths are different, but both are the choice by our peoples, and both lead to the realization of the common values of humanity. They should be both respected.

Peaceful coexistence is a basic norm for international relations, and is even more of a baseline that China and the United States should hold on to as two major countries. It is wrong to view China, which is committed to peaceful development, as a threat and thus play a zero-sum game against it. China never bets against the United States, and never interferes in its internal affairs. China has no intention to challenge the United States or to unseat it. Instead, we will be glad to see a confident, open, ever-growing and prosperous United States. Likewise, the United States should not bet against China, or interfere in China’s internal affairs. It should instead welcome a peaceful, stable and prosperous China.

Win-win cooperation is the trend of the times, and it is also an inherent property of China-U.S. relations. China is pursuing high-quality development, and the United States is revitalizing its economy. There is plenty of room for our cooperation, and we are fully able to help each other succeed and achieve win-win outcomes.

The Belt and Road Initiative as well as the Global Development Initiative (GDI), the Global Security Initiative (GSI) and the Global Civilization Initiative (GCI) proposed by China are open to all countries at all times including the United States. China is also ready to participate in U.S.-proposed multilateral cooperation initiatives. This morning, President Biden and I agreed to promote dialogue and cooperation, in the spirit of mutual respect, in areas including diplomacy, economy and trade, people-to-people exchange, education, science and technology, agriculture, military, law enforcement, and artificial intelligence. We agreed to make the cooperation list longer and the pie of cooperation bigger. I would like to let you know that China sympathizes deeply with the American people, especially the young, for the sufferings that Fentanyl has inflicted upon them. President Biden and I have agreed to set up a working group on counternarcotics to further our cooperation and help the United States tackle drug abuse. I also wish to announce here that to increase exchanges between our peoples, especially between the youth, China is ready to invite 50,000 young Americans to China on exchange and study programs in the next five years.

Recently, the three pandas at Smithsonian’s National Zoo in Washington D.C. have returned to China. I was told that many American people, especially children, were really reluctant to say goodbye to the pandas, and went to the zoo to see them off. I also learned that the San Diego Zoo and the Californians very much look forward to welcoming pandas back. Pandas have long been envoys of friendship between the Chinese and American peoples. We are ready to continue our cooperation with the United States on panda conservation, and do our best to meet the wishes of the Californians so as to deepen the friendly ties between our two peoples.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Friends,

China is the largest developing country in the world. The Chinese people long for better jobs, better lives, and better education for their children. It is what the 1.4 billion Chinese hold dear to their hearts. The Communist Party of China (CPC) is committed to working for the people, and our people’s expectation for a better life is our goal. This means we must work hard to secure their support. Thanks to a century of exploration and struggle, we have found the development path that suits us. We are now advancing the rejuvenation of the Chinese nation on all fronts by pursuing Chinese modernization.

We are committed to striving in unity to achieve modernization for all Chinese. A large population is a fundamental aspect of China’s reality. Our achievements, however great, would be very small when divided by 1.4 billion. But a problem, however small, would be huge when multiplied by 1.4 billion. This is a unique challenge for a country of our size. In the meantime, big also means strength. The leadership of the CPC, the system of socialism with Chinese characteristics, and the endorsement and support of the people are our greatest strengths. China is both a super-large economy and a super-large market. Not long ago the sixth China International Import Expo was held, attracting over 3,400 business exhibitors from 128 countries including the United States. The exhibition area of American companies has been the largest for six consecutive years at the Expo. Modernization for 1.4 billion Chinese is a huge opportunity that China provides to the world.

We are committed to prosperity for all to deliver a better life for each and every Chinese. To eliminate poverty is the millennia-old dream of the Chinese nation, and prosperity for all is the longing of all Chinese. Before I turned 16, I was in a village in northern Shaanxi Province, where I lived and farmed with villagers, and I knew about their worries and needs. Now half a century on, I always feel confident and strong when staying with the people. Serving the people selflessly and living up to their expectations is my lifelong commitment. When I became General Secretary of the CPC Central Committee and President of the People’s Republic of China, 100 million people were still living below the poverty line set by the United Nations. Thanks to eight years of tenacious efforts, we lifted them all out of poverty. We realized the poverty reduction goal of the U.N. 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development 10 years ahead of schedule. In the process, over 1,800 CPC members lost their lives in the line of duty.

Our goal is not to have just a few wealthy people, but to realize common prosperity for all. Employment, education, medical services, child care, elderly care, housing, the environment and the like are real issues important to people’s daily life and close to their heart. They are being steadily integrated into our top-level plans for national development, thus ever increasing the sense of fulfillment, happiness and security of our people. We will continue to promote high-quality development and deliver the benefits of modernization to all. This is the CPC’s founding mission and the pledge we have made to the people. It will surely be realized with the support of the people.

We are committed to well-rounded development to achieve both material and cultural-ethical advancement for the people. Our forefathers observed that “When people are well-fed and well-clad, they will have a keen sense of honor and shame.” Material shortage is not socialism, nor is cultural-ethical impoverishment. Chinese modernization is people-centered. An important goal of Chinese modernization is to continue increasing the country’s economic strength and improving the people’s living standards, and at the same time, enriching the people’s cultural lives, enhancing civility throughout society and promoting well-rounded development of the person. The purpose of the Global Civilization Initiative I proposed is to urge the international community to address the imbalance between material and cultural advancement and jointly promote continued progress of human civilization.

We are committed to sustainable development to achieve harmony between man and nature. The belief that humans are an integral part of nature and need to follow nature’s course is a distinctive feature of traditional Chinese culture. We live in the same global village, and we possibly won’t find another inhabitable planet in our lifetime. As an English saying goes, “We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children.” When I was Governor of Fujian Province in 2002, I called for turning Fujian into the first ecological province in China. Later when I worked in Zhejiang Province in 2005, I said that clear waters and green mountains are just as valuable as gold and silver. Today, this view has become a consensus of all the Chinese people. China now has close to half of the world’s installed photovoltaic capacity. Over half of the world’s new energy vehicles run on roads in China, and China contributes one-fourth of increased area of afforestation in the world. We will strive to peak carbon dioxide emissions before 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality before 2060. We have made the pledge, and we will honor it.

We are committed to peaceful development to build a community with a shared future for mankind. Peace, amity and harmony are values embedded in Chinese civilization. Aggression and expansion are not in our genes. The Chinese people have bitter and deep memories of the turmoils and sufferings inflicted upon them in modern times. I often say that what the Chinese people oppose is war, what they want is stability, and what they hope for is enduring world peace. The great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation cannot be achieved without a peaceful and stable international environment. In pursuing modernization, we will never revert to the beaten path of war, colonization, plundering or coercion.

Throughout the 70 years and more since the founding of the People’s Republic, China has not provoked a conflict or war, or occupied a single inch of foreign land. China is the only major country that has written peaceful development into the Constitution of the country and the Constitution of the governing party, thus making peaceful development a commitment of the nation. It benefits from and safeguards the current international order. We remain firm in safeguarding the international system with the U.N. at its core, the international order underpinned by international law, and the basic norms governing international relations based on the purposes and principles of the U.N. Charter. Whatever stage of development it may reach, China will never pursue hegemony or expansion, and will never impose its will on others. China does not seek spheres of influence, and will not fight a cold war or a hot war with anyone. China will remain committed to dialogue and oppose confrontation, and build partnerships instead of alliances. It will continue to pursue a mutually beneficial strategy of opening up. The modernization we are pursuing is not for China alone. We are ready to work with all countries to advance global modernization featuring peaceful development, mutually beneficial cooperation and common prosperity, and to build a community with a shared future for mankind.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Friends,

The passage of time is like a surging river—much is washed away, but the most valuable stays. No matter how the global landscape evolves, the historical trend of peaceful coexistence between China and the United States will not change. The ultimate wish of our two peoples for exchanges and cooperation will not change. The expectations of the whole world for a steadily growing China-U.S. relationship will not change. For any great cause to succeed, it must take root in the people, gain strength from the people, and be accomplished by the people. Growing China-U.S. friendship is such a great cause. Let us galvanize the Chinese and American peoples into a strong force to renew China-U.S. friendship, advance China-U.S. relations, and make even greater contributions to world peace and development!

How the war in Ukraine has transformed the EU - Nathalie Tocci (Social Europe)

How the war in Ukraine has transformed the EU

NATHALIE TOCCI 15th November 2023

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has had a profound effect on the European Union, whose response is defining its trajectory.

Social Europe, Nov 15, 2023 

https://www.socialeurope.eu/how-the-war-in-ukraine-has-transformed-the-eu

During the pandemic, the European Union rediscovered the ‘Jean Monnetian’ art of transforming a crisis into an opportunity for integration. It coupled post-pandemic economic recovery with a repowered European green agenda. But just as Europe and the world were beginning to lift their gaze from the pandemic, Vladimir Putin’s Russia invaded Ukraine.

Since then, the EU has responded politically, economically and in relation to energy. It has not only supplied arms and resources to Ukraine but has also accelerated moves for Ukraine to join the EU. Yet with the conflict now approaching its third year, how is the EU faring?

Political unity

When a crisis hits and European countries are called to address it, the perennial question is whether centripetal or centrifugal forces will prevail. Russia is a particularly polarising issue for the EU. Northern- and eastern-European countries have traditionally pushed for a tougher stance, while western and southern states used to press for co-operation. The tension between these two camps explains why Russia’s annexation of Crimea and military engagement in eastern Ukraine saw the EU take a two-track approach of sanctions and selective engagement.

When the full-scale war began, many feared that divisive forces would eventually gain the upper hand. They may have anticipated a moment of unity at the outset, when the shock of Russia’s invasion and awe at Ukrainian resistance galvanised joint European action, but feared that this would dissipate as the months dragged on and as Europe reeled from the economic, energy and humanitarian costs of war.

These fears have proved to be unfounded as the EU has mustered and maintained a united policy response that is becoming more unified, not less, as the war progresses. EU member states have so far unanimously agreed on 11 packages of sanctions on Russia. And while in the early months of the war, west-European countries—notably France—spoke of the need for negotiations and triggered the ire of north and east Europeans by insisting on the need for Russia not to be humiliated, there are few who now believe this is the right path to take.

Some disagreements have surfaced. Viktor Orbán’s Hungary tried to leverage the country’s veto power to extract both financial concessions and sanction exemptions from the EU. But Orban’s manoeuvrings have broadly failed, with the European Commission using a novel form of economic conditionality linked to the rule of law. Indeed, in December 2022, the commission held back €22 billion in cohesion funds for Hungary until it fulfils conditions related to judicial independence, academic freedom, LGBT+ rights and the asylum system.

Energy and economic resilience

A major reason why Europe has remained united so far is because it has weathered the storm of the energy crisis remarkably well. This averted what could have been a devastating economic recession on the continent.

In late spring 2022, the International Monetary Fund had predicted a contraction of 3-5 per cent in countries such as the Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Italy and Slovakia. When the war began, few would have bet on the fact that with Russian gas closed off to Europe, the EU would have survived energetically, and therefore economically and politically.

Putin expected Europe to bend and eventually break over its need for energy, which is precisely why he turned the taps off at the cost of hurting Russia too. As Robert Falkner explains, Europe was partly aided by exogenous factors such as a warm winter and sluggish Chinese growth, but the EU and its member states also put in place a set of key measures. They diversified their gas supplies, they met their targets for the refilling of gas storages and developed a European Energy Platform to aggregate demand for the refilling of storages for the following winter.

They co-ordinated the reduction of gas and electricity demand and met the targets they set themselves. And they accelerated the development of renewables, with these now representing the primary source of electricity generation in Europe. Notwithstanding the fuel switch from gas to coal and oil, overall carbon-dioxide emissions in Europe fell by 2.5 per cent in 2022. All this has meant that Europe, so far at least, has averted the risk of recession, and, albeit sluggishly, its economy continues to grow.

Enlargement

The challenges do not stop here, however. In two other areas, the EU faces a daunting task. The first is in relation to enlargement. While never formally halted, the EU’s enlargement process gradually ground to a halt after the big-bang eastern enlargement of the early 2000s. With the exception of Croatia in 2013, no country has entered the EU for almost two decades.

The accession process has formally continued with the western Balkans and Turkey, but it has been increasingly characterised by a double farce: candidate countries have largely pretended to reform, while the EU has pretended to integrate them. The EU has been absorbed by its successive existential crises and by and large thought that stability in its neighbourhood would hold. The results were not great, but they were believed to be good enough.

That illusion was shattered by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Suddenly it became obvious that stability, while guaranteed within the EU and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, cannot be taken for granted on the other side of the ‘frontier’. The president of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, applied for EU membership three days into Russia’s large-scale invasion of his country. Now, Ukraine and Moldova are recognised as candidate countries, while Georgia is now a potential candidate.

In the western Balkans, Albania and North Macedonia have opened accession negotiations, while Bosnia and Herzegovina has been recognised as a candidate. Brokered by the EU high representative, Josep Borrell, Serbia and Kosovo are inching towards a normalisation of relations that would accelerate both countries’ European integration, and the recent change of leadership in Podgorica could revamp momentum for enlargement in Montenegro.

All this does not amount yet to a decisive revival of the EU’s accession policy, and plenty of problems remain to be solved in enlargement countries and in the EU as far as the reform of its institutions and decision-making processes are concerned. It is however becoming increasingly obvious—to EU member states and candidate countries alike—that there is potentially an extremely high cost to non-enlargement. Put simply, the status quo is an intolerably high-risk gamble for European security.

Security and defence

The second challenge relates more directly to security and defence. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has created a contradiction. Europeans are finally taking security and defence more seriously, yet paradoxically Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has drastically increased Europe’s dependence on the United States for its defence.

This is true in operational terms: without US military support for Ukraine, Kyiv would have likely fallen, putting at an unprecedented risk the entire European continent. It is also true in terms of defence capacities. As Europeans are depleting their stocks of military supplies, they must spend to replace them with what is available. These supplies are often sourced from the US rather than Europe. While European defence industrial projects are still being implemented, the bulk of European defence spending is being targeted at short-term fixes. This means in relative terms that Europe’s dependence on the US defence industry is increasing.

This is bad news for Europe. Transatlantic relations may currently be strong, but this could change following the 2024 US presidential election. Europe’s greater dependence on the US will also hamper its ability to chart its own way in the world, particularly in relation to China where European interests are distinct from those of the US. While the US views China as an economic competitor and systemic rival, Europe is more concerned by China’s ability to exploit European vulnerabilities to make strategic gains and interfere in European systems.

The challenges ahead

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is transforming Europe profoundly. The EU has risen to the challenge by implementing unprecedented measures across multiple policy areas. Some of these steps, notably the reform of Europe’s energy market, will certainly make the EU stronger than it was before the war.

On other issues, such as enlargement, it however remains to be seen whether the EU will make similar progress. On European defence the challenge is even greater, given that, notwithstanding the significance of the EU’s moves, it appears unable to reverse the trend of greater dependence on the US. And for a union that wants to, and must, play a stronger role on the global stage, this is undoubtedly bad news.

This first appeared on the EUROPP blog of the London School of Economics—see the author’s accompanying paper at LSE Public Policy Review, which will be included in a forthcoming book, Ukraine: Russia’s War and the Future of the Global Order (LSE Press, 2023)

Nathalie Tocci

Nathalie Tocci is director of the Istituto Affari Internazionali. She has been special adviser to the EU high representatives Federica Mogherini and Josep Borrell, writing the European Global Strategy and working on its implementation. Her latest book is A Green and Global Europe (Polity Press).

You are here: Home / Politics / How the war in Ukraine has transformed the EU