Brussels – “International law and the principles of territorial integrity and state sovereignty enshrined in the UN Charter must be upheld under all circumstances.” These are the words of Kaja Kallas, High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, who highlights the contradictions between the words and actions of the European Commission and the limitations of a Europe that is unable to assert itself on the international stage, ending up playing a subordinate and even contradictory role.
Kallas responds to a parliamentary question on US operations in Venezuela raised by representatives of the radical left (laSinistra), including MEPs from M5S and AVS. Once again, Kallas draws a distinction between theory and practice: she defends international law but does not condemn those who have violated it. Of course, Nicolas Maduro is not a figure to be taken as a model of democracy, nor to be taken as a model at all, but when the High Representative herself states, verbatim, in response to the question, that “The EU has repeatedly stated that Nicolás Maduro lacks the legitimacy of a democratically elected president” and does not condemn the violent US intervention, she ends up conveying the message that rules and principles are not universal, but can be applied only in certain circumstances, for political or personal reasons, even arbitrarily.
The EU thus reveals itself to be not only incapable of acting as a guardian of rights, but also limited to merely talking about “values” without recognising any concrete meaning in the term, in a continuous, sterile balancing act between the orientations of European leaders. This is somewhat dangerous for those who defend the concept of democracy and a way of thinking that leads to submission to the law of the jungle rather than to its promotion.
It doesn’t end there. “The EU continues to support an inclusive, rules-based multilateral system anchored in the principles of the UN Charter. The EU will continue to uphold the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and inviolability of borders as fundamental tenets of international law,” she added.
Applied to the situation in Iran, this passage leaves plenty of questions, and just as many worries. While recognising the undemocratic nature of Khamenei and the bloody face of his regime, isn’t a missile attack a violation of sovereignty and the inviolability of borders? Does a country under attack have the right to respond with fire? If so, why does this apply in the case of Ukraine but not in the case of Iran? Why are people rightly up in arms about the arrest of Alexei Navalny and the failure to bring him to international justice, but no one is asking for news about Maduro and his wife, who are being held in US prisons after unilateral operations conducted without a UN mandate?
This is where European thinking gets stuck, and this is where Europe shows itself for what it is not. The crises in Venezuela and Iran, like Israel’s response to Hamas attacks, share a truth that has been silenced until now: we are not all equal. For some, the rules and principles do not apply. Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani is right: “International law is valid up to a point.” His words, which the European Union has been unable or unwilling to refute. The new Europe is one that endorses the law of the jungle and those who proclaim themselves better than others.
English version by the Translation Service of Withub
