Azerbaijani MP Javanshir Feyziyev, PhD. - News.Az
Since the dawn of mankind, the efforts of tribes, clans and other unions, first to struggle for their own survival and, later, to achieve anything at all, have been described as "dialectical development of society" by subsequent generations.
Trying to understand the motives of primordial human unions from the perspective of modern times, one can accept their goals and objectives as well as the means to accomplish them, however inhumane they may have been, simply because both the objectives and the means were fully correspondent with the spirit and substance of the age.
Since the age of homo sapiens, the reasons for the progress of human societies have been undergoing a constant process of embracing humane values. Having been enriched by the moral and ethical virtues of the contemporary age attained the content acceptable by all the members of the International Community. Overall, justifying the means employed to achieve or fail on a certain objective became virtually a common practice in the twentieth century, firstly for politicians and generally for every individual.
Thus the need to justify those means has clearly turned into a public value, with politics becoming a universally understood and accepted behavioural pattern or norm, if you like. The acceptance of and adherence to these norms, just as to any other norm, by the elites of society are now considered a “deed of honour”.
The international community is a society comprising some 200 states, and it seems only natural and common sense to apply the qualities and traits intrinsic to the everyday life of this community to the fundamental principles of relations governing the rapport between the countries. This means that the international relations must not be devoid of moral and ethical principles, and as a matter of fact they are not.
However, similar to cases when these principles are breached in interpersonal relations, some countries ignore those fundamental principles, and as a result behave in contravention to the norms of the society we call the International Community and improperly of the so-called elite circle. During the last 20 years such behaviour has been clearly seen in a number of cases in countries that consider themselves to be at the forefront of global politics in the second half of the 20th century, countries that claim to be leaders for a large part of, and sometimes for the entire world, and the advocates and guardians of democracy and human rights. Paradoxical as it may sound, in my opinion there is some logic in this case.
That is, for the last 20 years we have been witnessing a momentous process of transformation of the world following the end of the half-a-century Cold War between West and East. A brand new political environment is bringing about a new rational thinking, which in its turn brings new modern global politics onto the stage. The emergence of the new global politics in the first century of the third millennium may potentially signify a turning point in the history of world politics.
Politics should not be the arena of various interests in visible or invisible collision, it should not be diplomacy whose exterior contradicts its interior or political technology that does not shun double standards or justifies immoral actions and maneuvers; what it should be is new world politics filled with the new content and concurrent with the aspirations of the world’s nations, based on the principles of humanism, democracy, universality, rationalism, pragmatism and the highest ethics possible.
The existence of this kind of politics in international relations will dilute the leading role of the formerly hegemonic countries by broadening the role and influence of those characterized by the latter as “second-world” or even “third-world” countries. The USA and Western Europe, which have undoubtedly become world-scale “bosses” (powers) following the demise of the Soviet Union, would surely be reluctant to give up this leadership position, hence the political “jealousy” with which they regard the emergence of the new players on the international political scene such as Turkey, Azerbaijan, Argentina, China, India and others. The fear of losing the status of “the boss” or even sharing a portion of it causes them to perform agonizing political maneuvers and cede fundamental principles they have declared and fought for for decades such as peace, democracy, equality, justice and truth. This is now more clearly visible in their rigid and subjective attitude towards the new “developers” and new “bosses” (powers).
The economic crisis reigning since 2008 in the world economy, and mainly in the developed countries, made the politics of certain elite members of the international community more aggressive, such politics are devoid of any morals, ethics and humanism.
The proof is in front of our eyes. France, the country which in 1789 declared to all the members of the international community that the highest moral principles will become a norm of life under the revolutionary motto of “Liberty, Equality and Fraternity” has recently voted for a draft law on the “Armenian genocide”, contradicting ethics, high morals and other features that characterize the essence of global international relations.
France’s permanently biased stance on Turkey, a co-member of its political and military alliance, has not been a secret to the world community for a long time now. To preempt Turkey’s EU membership initiatives France has found the “Armenian genocide” theme instrumental in its politics to pressure and threaten Turkey. In the most difficult moments both from an international political and economic perspective France has always tried to play the “Armenian” card in its portfolio to force Turkey to retreat and make concessions. The unfair competition lasting for decades recently reached its culmination point. Following the French National Assembly, the French Senate, after eight hours of debates with 127 votes for and 86 against, adopted the draft law envisaging criminal punishment for denial of the “Armenian genocide”.
Certainly, there have been diametrical contradictions between the principles declared in French politics and those implemented in reality. Notably, genocidal deeds which took place during French colonial rule in Algeria and other francophone countries of Africa are well-known to the whole international community. However, I have no doubts that in the first decade of the 21st century when such values as democracy, justice, morals, rationalism and pragmatism are beginning to take a stance, this action by the French Senate, which contravenes any norm of political ethics, will be justified in political science. It is not in vain that I mentioned “the end justifying the means” in the beginning of this article.
Ever since the Senate adopted the draft law I have been pondering a number of theories and postulates in an attempt to comprehend and find an answer to a question – what purpose does the French political instrument called the “Armenian genocide” serve and will the end justify the means? According to a mathematical rule, if you know two unknowns out of three it is not difficult to find the third. International politics should be just, ethical, rational and pragmatic in line with global political science. In this case the means is a known, the goal is an unknown. How does one find the unknown in French politics? Meaning, what is the goal? Is it really true that the ambassadors of the French nation, the members of the Senate, betrayed the principles of democracy and freedom of speech inherited from their ancestors simply for the sake of this chevalier of fortune so that he can grab power for another seven years? Is it really true that instead of defending the fundamental principles of French democracy French senators would prefer to succumb to Sarkozy, who is not ethnic French? What about the values that France claims to advocate and disseminate into the world in its role as a leader of the European Union? Do such values no longer have a place in French society itself?
Will France be unbiased and sincere in its role as co-chairman of the OSCE Minsk Group which is working on a resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict? What is it that France wants to achieve? Is it to finally to put an end to the “moral tortures” of its ethnic Armenian citizens and solve the French “national issue” once and for all by removing the sword of Damocles hovering over every presidential candidate? Or has the France, which declared the revolutionary “Liberty, Equality and Fraternity” slogan in the 18th century invented a new formula in political life and now wants to bring this new political initiative forward? World Philosophy has been finding it difficult to provide straightforward answers to a number of classical questions on Law, Liberty and Responsibility. For instance, “Who is rightfully entitled to tell others what to do and what not to do in society?” or “If in the eyes of an individual the law is unjust, should they always abide by it or should they renounce the law?” or “If an individual believes that the law is unjust, would they grant the same right to others or would they only think about their own freedom and expect others to abide by the law?”
Perhaps, the French politicians have found answers to these questions that have occupied the minds of famous philosophers? If the answer found is “the recognition of the Armenian genocide”, this will create even more questions, and France, known as the cradle of democracy, will have to answer constant questions related to the “Armenian genocide”, now and in the future. This reminds me of an old proverb: “A crazy man threw a rock into a well, a crowd gathered round but could not manage to get the rock out of the well.” I wonder how France itself will get out of the political “well” into which it has thrown the “genocide” rock? The views expressed by the French senators about the transparency, justice and democracy of the elections held in the new generation countries such as Azerbaijan, Russia, Belarus, Georgia, Lithuania, the Czech Republic and many others, wouldn’t those views sound ridiculous? Or wouldn’t the role of France as the “Honourable Judge” in the resolution of the decades-long Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict look absurd and comic? A quote by Baron Munchausen comes to mind: “Gentlemen, you look too serious. Looking clever does not mean you are clever. Ignorance always has a clever face. Smile, gentlemen, smile”. That’s true, all misdeeds are done wearing a smile. Just like this deed by the French Senate.
I have to confess that however hard I try, I cannot find an answer to these questions. Ever since I was a child I have enjoyed solving complex mathematical problems. Unfortunately, this time I have been disappointed by my inability to find a solution to the problem put forward by Sarkozy.
Meanwhile, the things are heading down, towards a dead end, because this draft law is not going to bring any benefits whatsoever, either to the Armenians cooking up all sorts of legends around their filthy intentions, or to the French authors of this type of “patronizingly immoral law”. What to do… France is a land of contrasts. Alongside the two-faced, cunning and chauvinist politics of the French senators, France is home to fine and delicate music, the music of love. But something keeps telling me that this is not the fine, delicate music of love, but mourning music. On hearing this music everyone asks themselves – for whom the bell tolls? And I found the answer to this question immediately. This is mourning for the ideals of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity brought to the French nation by Sarkozy’s predecessors.
All in all, this is the mourning music played in the very heart of France, in Paris. But who is the composer? I have listened to the music made up of the notes of life, love and happiness composed by such greats of French music as Hector Berlioz, Charles-Francois Gounod, Georges Bizet, Claude Debussy, Maurice Ravel and others. On the contrary, this is a different music. Although I have not been able to discover the goal of the modern means of French politics with regard to Turkey (“the Armenian genocide”), I am assured I know who the author of this music is. I decided without much deliberation to make the first phrase that had sprung to my mind the title of this article of mine: Requiem for Western Democracy, Performed by the French Senate.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
