Latest news with #DeGaulle
Malaysia Sun
06-08-2025
- Politics
- Malaysia Sun
Lavrov to the EU: Learn respect or be left behind
On the 50th anniversary of the Helsinki Accords, theres little to celebrate for those who wanted a harmonious coexistence Like him, hate him, Otto von Bismarck - Prussian aristocrat, arch conservative, user of German nationalism, maker of wars, and then keeper of the peace - was no dummy. And his ego was Reich-sized. Yet even Bismarck had a grain of humility left. Smart politics, he once remarked, consists of listening for "God's step" as He walks through "world history," and then to grab the hem of His mantle. In other words, stay attuned to the needs and especially the opportunities of the moment. Tragically, Bismarck's single greatest skill was to seize -and, if need be, help along- opportunities for war. But sometimes peace, too, gets its chance. Fifty years ago, all European countries - minus only Albania, initially - plus the US and Canada, signed theHelsinki Final Act (or Helsinki Accords). A complex document addressing four areas (called 'baskets') of international relations and follow-up implementation, the Helsinki Final Act was a breakthrough for Detente in Europe. Detente was a global attempt, driven by Brezhnev and Gromyko's Moscow and Nixon and Kissinger's Washington to, if not wind down, then at least manage the Cold War better. The Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 was not the only reason for this policy of restraint and reason. Comingextremely close to all-out nuclear warDr.-Strangelove-style helped concentrate minds. Add the US fiasco in Vietnam, and by the late 1960s, the desire to de-escalate was strong enough even in Washington to quickly override the Soviet suppression of the 1968 Prague Spring. In the first half of the 1970s, a flurry of high-level international diplomacy and treaties marked the peak of Detente. By 1975, the Helsinki Accords were the peak of that peak. Stemming from Soviet and Warsaw Pact initiatives and resonating with a Western Europe - and even post-Harmel ReportNATO (those were the days!) - that genuinely wanted to combine due diligence in defense policy with real diplomacy and give-and-take negotiations, the Helsinki Accords also fed on the preceding French, that is, De Gaulle's, "politique à l'Est," as well as Willy Brandt of Germany's "Ostpolitik." The latter is much maligned now in a Germany where disgracefully incompetent elites have gone wild with Russophobia and a new militarism. In reality, both De Gaulle and Brandt - as well as Brandt's key foreign policy adviser, Egon Bahr, made historic contributions to mitigating the worst risks of the Cold War and, in Germany's case, also to preparing the ground for national re-unification. Yet, after 1975, things started to go downhill, and they've never really stopped. That is one of the key points recently made in along article by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. Since Western mainstream media excel at not reporting what Russian politicians are trying to tell us, it is likely that few will notice outside of Russia. That's a shame because Lavrov has more than one message we should pay attention to. Under the understated title "Half a Century of the Helsinki Act: Expectations, Realities, and Perspectives," Lavrov delivers a harsh and - even if you disagree with some of the details - fundamentally valid and just criticism of the disappointing failure following the promising beginnings at Helsinki. That failure has a name - the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). Incidentally, the OSCE is the successor of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE), which actually produced the Helsinki Accords between 1972 and 1975. Before the leaders of the time, both great and small, could meet in Helsinki to sign them, at what Cold War historian Jussi Hanhimäki called a "largely ceremonial affair," there had been years of painstaking, meticulous negotiations. There's a lesson here for the impatient Trumps and Zelenskys of today: serious results take serious preparation, not a day or two of grandstanding. What happened to the OSCE next is not complicated: with 57 member states, making it the largest security organization in the world today, it has massively under performed. At least if we measure it by its aims, as originally set out at Helsinki in the heyday of Detente. The OSCE could have been an indispensable international forum, bridging the front lines of geopolitics and ideologies (or, as we now say, "values"). After the end of the Cold War in the late 1980s, it could even have become the core of new security architecture, which included everyone from Lisbon to Vladivostok. But for that to happen, it would have had to stick to the Helsinki Accord's core principles and rules: strict respect for sovereignty, equality, and non-interference, all maintained by a heavy emphasis on consensus. Yet, instead, the OSCE turned, first, into a Cold War and, then, a post-Cold War tool of Western influence, bias, and - behind the facade of multilateralism - hardball realpolitik. Like the EU, the OSCE should have been fundamentally different from, and even antagonistic towards NATO. But like the EU, it ended up becoming a mere junior partner in America's imperial vassal system. Much of Lavrov's article is dedicated to detailing this failure in various countries, regions, issues, and conflicts, including Chechnya, Kosovo, Moldova, and Ukraine, to name just a few. That's important because it serves as a corrective to silly and complacentWestern mainstream tales, which put the blame for Helsinki's and the OSCE's failure on - drum roll - Russia and Russia alone. Not to speak of the demented attempts by Ukraine's delusional, corrupt, and increasingly isolated Vladimir Zelensky to use the Helsinki anniversary to once again call for "regime change" in Russia. Yet what is even more important is Lavrov's candid message about the future, as Russia sees it. First, it is polycentric or multipolar and, in this part of the world, Eurasian and emphatically not transatlantic. In that respect, it is almost as if we are back in the mid-1950s. Back then, long before the Helsinki Act became reality, Moscow - then the capital of the Soviet Union - suggested building comprehensive security architecture. The West refused because Moscow was not willing to include the US. By the 1970s, the Soviet leadership had changed its position, affirming that it was possible to include the US, which, in turn, made Helsinki possible. So much for fairy tales of Russian "intransigence." That inclusion was an irony of history, as Washington initially showed only distrust and disdain. As Hanhimäki has shown, Henry Kissinger considered Europe a sideshow, though not the Soviet Union: the US has always respected its opponents much more than its vassals. He suspected that if Moscow and Western Europe got to cozy it could end up threatening Washington's control over the latter. He once told his team with more than a tinge of nasty racism that the Helsinki agreements might as well be written in Swahili. Now, Moscow is back to standing firm against trans-atlanticism. Lavrov writes, "Euro-atlantic" conceptions of security and cooperation have "discredited themselves and are exhausted." Europe, he warns, can have a place in future Eurasian systems, but it "definitely" won't be allowed to "call the tune." If its countries wish to be part of the "process, they will have to learn good manners, renounce [their habit of] diktat and colonial instincts, get used to equal rights, [and] working in a team." You may think that this is very far from the Europe we are seeing now: one that is submissive to the US to the point of self-destruction (as theTurnberry Trade and Tariff Fiasco has just revealed again), blinded by hubris in its "garden-in-the-jungle," and fanatically invested in not even talking to Russia and confronting China. And yet, none of the above can last forever. Indeed, given how self-damaging these policies are, it may not last much longer. The news from Moscow is that, though Russia has not closed the door on Europe entirely, if or when the Europeans recover their sanity, they will find that Russia won't allow them to return to having it both ways: being America's vassals and enjoying a decent relationship with Russia at the same time. (
Irish Independent
31-05-2025
- Politics
- Irish Independent
John Downing: French film that exposed wartime shame has chilling relevance for today's political climate
In 1944, French president Charles de Gaulle rejected the US and British idea that Paris did not have any great importance as a military target because, by then, World War II was well on its way to a decisive Allied victory. But for De Gaulle, a symbolic recapture of the French capital was central to retrieving the nation's traumatised soul after the shock German over-run in 1940.
Arab News
30-05-2025
- Business
- Arab News
Energy is at the heart of any nation's digital expansion
Artificial intelligence and its accompanying infrastructure of data centers have become a defining technology within the global economic competition. This new need will have a direct impact on energy, with an expected surge in electricity demand. The need for high-capacity and stable power is making energy infrastructure a central focus of any nation's digital expansion. Indeed, without ample energy capacity, countries will be left behind. Needless to say, this puts the Gulf region in a great position, yet Europe will still need to figure out its way. There is no doubt that after years of misguided all-green obsession, many are now waking up to harsh realities. The disconnect between policymakers and the real world was symbolized in the energy field. We are finally witnessing a return to sanity. One energy source that had been attacked was perhaps one of the most efficient, even on emissions: nuclear power. It was what put France back on top of the European order and brought Germany to its knees. I have written this often and will never tire of saying it: Merci, Gen. de Gaulle. Indeed, today, if France has a greater chance at leadership in AI and tech, it is thanks to its nuclear power. It is also worth noting that on this point, President Emmanuel Macron was capable of making a U-turn and, after being negative on it, has once again pushed forward on nuclear energy. We are also seeing other European countries follow the same path. Italy's plan focuses on deploying advanced small modular reactors and advanced modular reactors to complement renewable energy sources. The government anticipates finalizing the legislative framework by the end of 2027, with projections indicating that nuclear energy could supply between 11 percent and 22 percent of the country's electricity by 2050. We are finally witnessing a return to sanity Khaled Abou Zahr In Germany, while the previous government completed a nuclear phase-out in 2023, the new administration under Chancellor Friedrich Merz is reconsidering this. Merz has criticized the earlier shutdowns and is exploring the development of small modular reactors, as well as potential collaborations with France on nuclear initiatives. The main issue with renewables is their intermittent nature and the continuous need for subsidies. Moreover, in a time of unstable international trade, most equipment comes from China, which poses a supply chain risk. We saw during the global pandemic how the pharma industry supply chain suffered due to its location in India. When it comes to manufacturing for solar, most production takes place in China. This is also a geopolitical and influential advantage for Beijing. While it is clear there are geopolitical consequences to any country's energy mix, there should never be a political, dogmatic view on economic decisions. This is the mistake Europe fell into for energy, and many other business and societal decisions. The European left, in alliance with Green parties, has imposed policies driven by ideology and not economic realism. Among these decisions were the hasty decommissioning of nuclear power, unrealistic decarbonization goals, and placing renewables on a pedestal. This is a topic that has deepened the divide between left and right. Will Europe be capable of shifting this trend and making the right decisions? It is clear that without nuclear power this will be impossible, and relying solely on renewables is a dangerous policy. Redundancies in power sources and distribution are an absolute necessity. The widespread blackout that hit Spain and Portugal last April is a stark reminder. The crisis was caused by a loss in a substation in Granada, followed by failures in Badajoz and Seville, which subsequently caused Spain's grid to disconnect from the broader European network and collapse within seconds. Political figures and energy executives pointed to Spain's increasing reliance on solar and wind power as a major contributing factor. This is also why, following this incident, other experts have ruled out a short-term rapid transition to net zero and said that the immediate exclusion of fossil and nuclear energy was unrealistic. Renewables are heavily subsidized in Europe Khaled Abou Zahr Another important point is that renewables are heavily subsidized in Europe, which can complicate the region's ability to compete globally. On top of that, layers of subsidies are being added — not just for renewable energy generation, but also for emerging technologies, startups, and scale-ups. While these measures seek to enhance innovation and energy transition, they ultimately place a financial burden on taxpayers and risk undermining Europe's competitiveness. In many cases, the main beneficiaries are external suppliers, such as Chinese manufacturers of solar panels or foreign providers of cloud infrastructure, rather than European industry or innovation. The reality is that following this new technology dominance race, there will be a need to do more than push fast for nuclear energy. For France, nuclear energy accounted for about 40 percent of its total energy supply. Moreover, nuclear power accounts for 65 percent of electricity generation. This is what has enabled France to position itself as the cornerstone of the new AI-led economy while other European countries lag. The announcement of new AI-focused data centers in Arizona close to nuclear plants confirms this trend. It is also worth mentioning that beyond ideological views, Paris maintains one of the lowest-carbon electricity grids globally. As we notice a bigger competition, not to say war, for AI with clear geopolitical alignments, Europe will need to sort out its energy mix and reintroduce nuclear energy as a main provider. There is no time to lose on this path, and the risks are too high to ignore. They should be inspired by the strategic foresight of Gen. de Gaulle, who understood the geopolitical independence nuclear energy would grant France. • Khaled Abou Zahr is the founder of SpaceQuest Ventures, a space-focused investment platform. He is CEO of EurabiaMedia and editor of Al-Watan Al-Arabi.
Spectator
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Spectator
Can France's centre-right be revived?
On Sunday, Bruno Retailleau was elected president of Les Republicains – France's mainstream centre-right party. Just a few years ago, his election would have drawn significant attention across Europe, as the rise of a new leader within a major European political force. Today, however, Les Republicains are the shadow of their former selves: a diminished political party on the right fighting for survival. In the 2022 presidential election, the party suffered a catastrophic result, receiving just 4.78 per cent of the vote – an all-time low for the party of De Gaulle, Chirac and Sarkozy. Today, polls show the party barely averaging 10 per cent support ahead of the 2027 presidential election, regardless of the candidate. Squeezed between Marine Le Pen's ascendant National Rally and the fading remnants of Macronism – and challenged on the right by the insurgent Éric Zemmour – Les Républicains struggle to find a viable path back to power. It has now been 13 years since they last held the Élysée. Retailleau faces a seemingly impossible task. A senator from Vendée, he is a seasoned local politician and skilled parliamentarian. He is also a capable orator, at least within the gilded and frescoed walls of the upper house of the French parliament. He
Ya Biladi
22-03-2025
- Politics
- Ya Biladi
France's secret role in Spain's atomic bomb plans for Western Sahara
After Morocco regained Tan-Tan and Tarfaya in 1958, Franco's Spain grew increasingly concerned that this wave of independence could eventually force it to relinquish Western Sahara, a territory it had occupied since 1884. To counter this threat, Franco sought support from another military leader-turned-politician: Charles de Gaulle, who had recently come to power in France. Both leaders shared a common distrust of Morocco's ambitions to restore its Cherifian Empire. This was evident in France's role in facilitating Mauritania's independence on November 28, 1960—a move that Morocco refused to recognize until 1969. According to Francisco Gómez Balcázar in The Secret of the Spanish Atomic Bomb, this Franco-French alliance extended beyond politics. In the early 1960s, De Gaulle and Franco struck a deal allowing Spain to develop nuclear weapons, including setting up a reactor outside the control of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the U.S. nuclear watchdog. This cooperation, which angered the United States, transformed Spain's nuclear ambitions from a fringe scientific initiative—started by a group of Spanish researchers in 1948—into a state-controlled project. Luck also played in Spain's favor. In 1966, an American military plane crashed into the waters off Galicia, carrying two nuclear bombs. Spanish authorities managed to seize one of them, gaining crucial insights into nuclear technology. As Balcázar notes, «This crash was a catalyst for Spain's nuclear energy officials, reigniting their program». The Loss of Sidi Ifni Accelerates Spain's Nuclear Plans By 1969, Franco faced growing pressure from Morocco's southern liberation army and was ultimately forced to cede Sidi Ifni. This loss only reinforced Spain's determination to develop an atomic bomb, which Franco planned to test in Western Sahara in the early 1970s—mirroring De Gaulle's earlier decision to conduct France's first nuclear test in the French-occupied eastern Sahara. However, Spain's nuclear ambitions never materialized. King Hassan II had made reclaiming Western Sahara a cornerstone of his reign, especially after surviving two coup attempts in 1971 and 1972. In the lead-up to the Green March on November 6, 1975, he mounted a strong international diplomatic campaign, even securing an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice to support Morocco's claim over the territory. Franco's death further sealed the fate of Spain's nuclear program. His successor, King Juan Carlos, had no interest in waging war against Morocco to maintain Spain's hold on the Sahara. Instead, he focused on reconciling the Spanish people with the monarchy after decades of division under Franco. Spain's nuclear ambitions officially came to an end when the Socialist Party took power in 1981. In 1987, Prime Minister Felipe González's government ratified the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, closing the chapter on Spain's nuclear aspirations for good.
