Around the world conflicts are multiplying and democracies seem increasingly in crisis. Has the world become ungovernable? Sergio Cantone put this question to Hubert Védrine, ex advisor to French President François Mitterrand and former Minister of Foreign Affairs for The Global Conversation.
In the 1980s and 90s when Hubert Védrine served as a foreign policy advisor to France's President François Mitterrand, and later as Foreign Affairs minister from 1997 to 2002, the world was going through tumultuous times. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the apparent end of the Cold War upended the post-WWII geopolitical order and caused a fundamental reset in global relations. As a leading diplomat Védrine was part of international efforts to chart a course through the chaos and gained a profound insight into the challenges entailed in the quest for peace and stability around the world; insight which he agreed to share with Euronews.
An end to world order?
Decades on and the question of global governability persists. Sergio Cantone began by asking Védrine if, in the turmoil of 2024, we are witnessing the end of a global political and economic order.
"Overall, there has never really been world order," Védrine says. "In fact, there has always been world disorder. But there have been times when there have been powers that have managed to dominate the system. After the Second World War, it was the Americans who organised the aftermath, very well indeed. It was one of the rare moments when a dominant power managed to combine national interests, which are the case for all powers, with a kind of more general vision.
"Then there was the Cold War, which was quite stable, by the way, and we understood. There was the East, the West and the South, the famous Third World. And then, when the Soviet Union disappeared, there was a surge of enthusiasm, of triumphalism in the West, with a slightly nationalistic form in the United States: “We've won, we're the masters!” Now we're back to classic geopolitics: the strength of the United States, the strength of China, what's happening to Russia, etc, etc, all that.
"So, I wouldn't say that all regimes are in crisis, that's different. In China or Russia, it's different. On the other hand, all democracies are in crisis, in my opinion, they're under threat. Look at the United States, they're in a frightening situation. It's like two countries fighting each other. So, there's a crisis in democracies and representative democracies. The old ideas of electing people, presidents, members of parliament and so on, and letting them do their work, then judging the results, and taking them back or not, that's dead."
Relations with Russia
On the issue of the West's relations with Moscow, Russia remains a dilemma for both Europeans and Americans. Some European countries take a hard confrontational approach, seeing Russia is an existential threat, while argue for more engagement with the superpower. How does Védrine see it?
"I'm of the same opinion, to be frank with you, as the old American realists: Kissinger, Brzezinski who are for once in agreement and who thought that we completely missed the 90s," he says. "So, I also think that in this period: Yeltsin, Putin the second time, Medvedev, we should have done what Kissinger proposed, i.e., a major security agreement, including Russia. And Brzezinski, himself a Pole, he was with Carter, and even afterwards he had enormous influence, he said: 'Ukraine must be cut off from Russia.'
"So, reinvent Ukraine, cut it off from Russia, so that Russia is no longer an empire. But don't put it [Ukraine] in NATO. We need to create a neutrality status, like the Austria of the Cold War era. That's not what's been done at all. But not at all with a strategic duplicity approach. I use the term of Olympian offhandedness for the United States: “We've won. Our values are going to be imposed everywhere, with sermons, sanctions, bombings and so on. We've won”.
"Realism has not failed. Realpolitik hasn't failed, it hasn't been tried. So, it was a kind of confused realpolitik that dominated. And here, I do share Biden’s approach, and not the one of all the Europeans. Biden, from the start, said: “We've got to stop Putin from winning in Ukraine. We absolutely must. But we're not going to let ourselves be dragged into a war with Russia.” And there's a divide here, because there's a group of Europeans who don't dare to say it outspokenly, but they think we should remove the Russian regime. That's the truth.
Ending the Ukraine war
In concrete terms what does the is mean for ending Russia's war in Ukraine? Where does Védrine see the path to a resolution to the conflict lying?
"I expect some sort of freeze," he says. "Either this is the famous Trump plan we know the beginning of. He tells Zelensky that it's time to stop, so Zelensky anticipates, saying 'I'll get along with Trump, I'll invite the Russians to negotiations,' he's already figured it out, and even if it's the Democrats, they're not going to promise perpetual support.
"So, a sort of freeze. After that, I can't imagine negotiations, at least not direct ones. Ukraine has suffered too much, it's too disgusting the Russian war in Ukraine, it's monstrous in human terms, the targets, etc. It's frightening. It's frightening. So, they can't negotiate with any president, even if it's not Zelensky, even if it's someone else, he can't negotiate with Russia.
"Different countries were proposing plans, plans for coexistence, for neighbourliness, for an organized ceasefire, and so on. The Turks, who pointed out that they had allowed negotiations to take place in the first year. You remember. Eventually the Indians, the Chinese, Lula, everyone, but not the Europeans, who are in one camp now. I think that the Europeans, without giving anything up, continuing to help Ukraine, should position themselves to be able to play a role in the follow-up to this. And that means being able to accept that at some point we'll have to talk to the Russians again."
Whether Ukraine's future lies in the European Union is less clear for Védrine, and he is even more sceptical about further eastward expansion of the bloc:
"Enlargement in general, one day, must stop somewhere. So, the idea that we're going to enlarge all the way to Mongolia... Well, it's a joke now, but we're not there yet. Ukraine, I can understand that at some point, for reasons of human solidarity, given the atrocities suffered by the Ukrainians, we make this gesture, but it's very complicated. They don't meet the conditions. So, there must be a realistic timetable. On the other hand, we can't let down countries like those in the Western Balkans, which have been in the waiting room for years.
"I was in the contact group, including the Russian minister at the time, Igor Ivanov. But I would point out that Spain has not recognized Kosovo. There are several European countries that haven't recognized it because it's too dangerous a precedent. So, I don't see how the European machinery, which is rigid in its thinking, with much, much, much arrogance, perhaps a little less now, I don't understand how it's made a condition [for Serbia's accession to the EU].
To see the interview in full, including Védrine's thoughts on European defence and the rise of the far right in Europe, click on the video above.