Photo: VCG

Editor's Note:

The Munich Security Conference (MSC) last week exposed tensions between the US and Europe over NATO and Ukraine. While the divide remains, US and Russian officials met in Saudi Arabia on Tuesday to begin negotiations on ending the war in Ukraine. Global Times (GT) reporters Li Aixin and Xing Xiaojing interviewed Alfred de Zayas (De Zayas), professor of international law at the Geneva School of Diplomacy and former UN independent expert, on the takeaways of the MSC.

GT: What was the most captivating part of the recently concluded MSC? 

De Zayas: At the third and last conference day, the arch-hawk and former NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg succeeded Christoph Heusgen as the new chair of the MSC. This augurs badly for global security given his hawkish views. Global security is a matter for multilateral negotiation, not for hegemonial saber-rattling, provocations and escalation.

A large part of the Western narrative is detached from reality. For MSC to have any value, the participants should study a bit of history. For instance, in December 2021 Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov submitted to NATO and the US two draft treaties, which could have been a solid base for discussions and a compromise that would have averted war. It was the intransigence of NATO and the US that frustrated every opportunity to make peace. As long as Western leaders and MSC participants are unwilling to revisit these facts, it will not be possible to have sustainable peace in Ukraine.

A condition for any meaningful progress on security issues requires to think both inside and outside the box, and to develop a faculty of self-criticism.

The EU and US persevere in their belief that they are "the good guys" by definition and fail to understand the security interests of other nations. I do not see any readiness to agree on a security architecture that serves the entire world, not just the geopolitical interests of the Western states. Thus, the only common denominator remains the UN Charter.

GT: Based on your observations, how would you characterize China's voice at the MSC and its broader role in global security?

De Zayas: China and BRICS should play a greater role in MSC and UN. The 16th BRICS summit and the Kazan Declaration of October 2024 are meaningful expressions of political will to work for world peace through multilateral dialogue and negotiation. But there can be no reduction in tensions for as long as the unipolar and exceptionalist mindset reigns over MSC. 

GT: What signals do you think the interactions in the MSC among major countries are sending? 

De Zayas: I think MSC is going to try to save NATO from the embarrassment of Ukraine's defeat, notwithstanding the hundreds of billions of dollars spent in the proxy war. Now, it is time to build bridges so that NATO can withdraw in relative dignity and turn the page on this disastrous chapter.

However, at present, I do not see any readiness in the US, UK, France and Germany to accept this. I only see and hear intransigence on the part of Western leaders who apparently are caught in their epistemological web. The US, UK, EU and NATO are unwilling to accept their responsibility for the Ukraine war, their faculty of self-criticism is zero. They should listen to professors like John Mearsheimer and Jeffrey Sachs. They should read what Chinese, Indian and Russian experts are writing. The greatest obstacle to peace is arrogance. 

GT: The main topic of this year's MSC was multipolarization. In your view, what would be an appropriate and constructive approach for the West to adapt to this change?  

De Zayas: BRICS and the Belt and Road Initiative are realities, as Western countries are gradually learning. Our world, however, is plagued by fake news, fake history, fake law, fake diplomacy and fake democracy. It is not so easy to step out of the mental jail that we in the West have built for ourselves. Since information is power, that's where we must begin - in getting to the facts and discarding the false narratives. 

The US and Europe have always perceived the rest of the world as potential competitors - or worse, enemies. We know that we are predators, and because we are predators, we assume that everybody else poses a danger to us. We project our own phobias on other countries.