Store uddrag af et interview som Isabelle Laserre lavede med ham:
Isabelle Lasserre: Hvad er dit syn på Krims anneksering og destabiliseringen i Østukraine af Rusland?
Valéry Giscard d'Estaing: Hvad angår "tilbagevendelsen" af Krim til Rusland, så bedømmer jeg det helt ærligt som værende i konfomitet med historien. Jeg har genlæst mange bøger som har beskriver Ruslands historie i det 18 århundrede. Krim var erobret under Katharina 2. af Rusland, med den fremherskende føre af fyrst Potemkin, da Rusland gik sydpå mod Tyrkiet med tanken om at generobre Konstantinopel. Erobringenn af Krim var temmelig harsk, men det var ikke til skade for Ukraine, som ikke eksisterede, men til skade for den lokale hersker som var afhængig af Tyrkiet. Siden da, har det ikke været befolket af andre end russere. Da Nikita Khrushchev ønskede at øge vægten af Sovjetunionen i FN, som på det tidspunkt var ved at formes, så opfandt han Ukraine og Hviderusland for at give to stemmer mere til Sovjetunionen, og han gav Ukraine autoritet over Krim, hvilket det aldrig tidligere havde haft. Selv på tidspunkt tænkte jeg at denne afhængighed var kunstig og at det ikke ville holde. De seneste begivenheder var forudsigelige. Endvidere, så har befolkningen i det store hele bakket op om Krims tilbagevenden til Rusland. Det er kun når problemerne strakte sig mod østUkraine at man bliver bekymret.
IL: Adskillige analytikere og ansvarlige politikere beder om en større forståelse hvad angår Vladimir Putin. I lyset af at du altid har støttet afspænding vis-a-vis Moskva, både gennem den Kolde Krig, såvel som idag, akcepterer du så at man kan bryde internationale love og destabilisere et land?
VGE: Konventionelle regler som blev adopteret under den Westfalske Fred i 1648, sætter princippet for respekten af suverænitet og landegrænser; i det lys er der nogle som mener at Ukraine må absolut beholde hele det territorie som var deres ved Ukraines uafhængighed i 1991. Men lad os ikke glemme at opløsningen af Sovjetunionen skete i en bissen og fremprovokerede et fald af landegrænser! Men idag burde spørgsmålet om Krim lægges til side. Sagen om Østukraine derimod er mere kompliceret. Glem ikke at Ukraine i lang tid var russisk. Kiev var hovedstaden i Rusland. Her kan jeg nævne at da jeg som finansminister tog til Sovjetunionen på general De Gaulles anmodning, så modtog Khrushchev mig i Kiev!
For at se sagen noget klarere, er du nød til at spørge, hvad der egentlig skete for et år siden i den Ukrainske hovedstad. Hvad rolle spillede CIA i Maidan revolutionen? Hvad er meningen med den systematiske anti-russiske politik som bliver ført af Barack Obama? Hvorfor ville USA fremme deres allierede i Ukraine? Er der en potent Ukrainsk lobbygruppe i USA? Vil amerikanerne kompensere for deres impotens i Mellemøsten ved at føre en hårdere politik mod Rusland på det europæiske kontinent?
Kommentar: Vi undskylder at resten af denne artikel er på engelsk, men i vores bestræbelser på at få så meget information og viden ud til jer, så må vi fra tid til anden ty til at poste artikler på engelsk. Vi er kun en lille frivillig stab, så hvis nogen har lyst til at hjælpe med at oversætte, så hører vi gerne fra jer, email os på sott_da@sott.net
IL: Do you really think that the US is responsible for the Ukrainian crisis? Wasn't it rather the corruption of the team in power that provoked the Ukrainians?
VGE: One has to consider both elements. It is undeniable that the Ukrainian regime was intolerably corrupt. Which explains, at least in part, that president Yanukovich was obliged to leave. But the situation remained confused, and you must recognize that the Ukrainian transition scarcely has any democratic aspect. It's the clans run by the tycoons who are leading the game. As for the US, they probably supported and encouraged the insurrectional movement. And then, following up, they led the policy of sanctions regarding Russia, a policy counter to international law. Who can arrogate to himself the right to, in effect, draw up a list of citizens to whom you apply personal sanctions without even interrogating them, without their having the opportunity to defend themselves, without even having a lawyer? This business amounts to a worrisome precedent. As for the economic sanctions that address not persons, but the Russian state, how to overlook that it harms both protagonists, the West as well as Russia — in altering their trade? This mounting of tensions is going to keep on damaging the Russian economy. And by the way, what is the name of the expert who forecast and announced the fall in the price of oil? No expert anticipated this event! In any case, today the Russian economy is fragile on account of the speculation against the ruble, which is at its lowest rate against the dollar since 1998. Did the Americans have an interest in the fall of the Russian economy? But for Europe, the Russians are partners and neighbors. In the present international disarray, facing the flaring up of violence in the Middle East, in the face of the uncertainties provoked by the US midterm elections, it would be irresponsible to hope for the collapse of the Russian economy.
IL: What solution would you propose to try to resolve the crisis?
VGE: Ukraine as it is is in no shape to function democratically. Therefore, it must reorganize itself. I hope the diplomacy of France will take Europe's leadership in the search for a political solution in Ukraine. This solution seems to be that of a multi-ethnic confederation, on the model of Switzerland and its cantons, with one part russophone, one part Polish, and one part intermediary — a system at once federal and confederal, under the aegis of the Europeans and supported by the UN.
IL: In such a scenario, what's to become of Crimea? Win some, lose some?
VGE: I don't like that expression. But Crimea was conquered, I repeat, when it was ruled under Turkish, not Ukrainian sovereignty, and it's where the Allies came to hold conference at Yalta, intending it to stay Russian.
IL: If you were in power, what would you say to Vladimir Putin to make him listen to reason?
VGE: Vladimir Putin's crisis management has not been judicious. The Russian president is pursuing a dream: to re-establish the influence of the old '"Soviet Union. But this dream cannot be realized, because part of the Soviet Union was built by force. But when the force is not what it was, these methods are not "on". Poland and the Baltic countries are not at risk. Russia is not going to launch any such adventure. But in those spots which are in political disorder, it is less evident. It would be necessary to recommend to Vladimir Putin not to play with fire, and to try to find, with him, reasonable solutions. What is for sure is that Ukraine will not get in to the European system; it's impossible! Ukraine has neither the necessary economic maturity nor the practical politics. Her place is in between two spaces, Russia and the European Union, with which she must maintain normal relationships. As for the admission of Ukraine into NATO, not in question, and France has reason to oppose it! For now, you want my forecast? Here it is: Ukraine is at risk of financial collapse. She will ask for help. Who will give it? No doubt, the IMF, since the EU lacks the machinery to do so.
Comment: Mr. d'Estaing snubler her om emnet om Russisks 'ekspansion'. Hvis Rusland virkeligt ønskede at gen-tage Ukraine, så er der ingen tvivl om at det kunne gøre det, sammen med de Baltiske lande. Putin har udtrykt sin åbenhed mange gange overfor hans 'amerikanske partnere' om at finde fornuftige løsninger til mange af verdens kriseområder. Men disse åbninger er hver gang blevet afvist.
IL: On the Maidan Plaza, several Ukrainians died defending European values and brandishing the EU flag. Is it possible to disappoint the enthusiasm of these people who look to us with such confidence?
VGE: The European aspirations of Kiev were a dream. Since they had no aspirations, they had to dream of something. But lets be realistic: the Hungarians, who are in Europe, don't want it any more, and the Union, after seven years, has not satisfactorily integrated Bulgaria and Rumania. For those who feel abandoned, the EU is a temptation. It's a zone at peace. But that does not justify membership. As a former part of Russia, Ukraine cannot be in the European Union.
Translators Note:
It is easy to see why Le Figaro did not publish this interview, even though the interviewer is foreign affairs editor of Le Fig: though her questions presuppose Le Fig's doctrine, and would hardly be different if Victoria Nuland were asking them, the answers of the former French president, with one exception, are quite contrary to the doctrinaire nature of the questions. Note, for instance, the question re breach of international law, which, like all the western media, ignores the finding of the International Court of Justice on Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence)
Translated from French by Tom Winter
Kommentar: Se også