“We witnessed one of the strongest speeches from a historical point of view of a President of the French Republic at the General Assembly of the United Nations”affirmed Tuesday September 20 on franceinfo Frédéric Encel, lecturer at Sciences-Po, doctor in geopolitics, while the Head of State accused, at the rostrum of the General Assembly of the United Nations, Russia of have caused a “return of imperialisms” having invaded Ukraine at the end of February.
>> War in Ukraine: follow the live
Emmanuel Macron notably “clarified things” vis-à-vis certain States. But Frédéric Encel “doubt” that is enough to influence their positions.
franceinfo: Was Emmanuel Macron’s speech clear?
Frederic Encel: I think that we have witnessed one of the strongest speeches, not only from a historical point of view, of a President of the French Republic at the General Assembly of the United Nations in front of 192 other States, and of on the other hand, it was the strongest speech since the Russian invasion of Ukraine. And I think that this firmness, in tone and substance, was also linked to a certain number of accusations from States, and in particular from Eastern European States, which until now found the Elysée Palace insufficiently firm vis-à-vis -towards Moscow. So I think things have been clarified.
Which countries were in the sights of the President of the Republic, apart from Russia?
These are the states that have repeatedly abstained in the General Assembly, where one state counts as one vote. And we clearly saw that from February 24 and on several occasions, that Russia was extremely alone. Only four states voted for it, but several dozen others abstained. And I think that an important part of Emmanuel Macron’s speech focused on the necessary choice of these States between what he called in an extremely Manichean way, but just in view of the situation, peace and war.
Does firmness in a speech mean efficiency?
This is the central question. If you mean by effectiveness the shift in certain policies of a certain number of States close to France, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, I have some doubts about it. Because we are dealing with sovereign states and the France of today is no longer the France of the 1960s and 1970s, and that’s good. They are truly sovereign. And above all, they are waiting to see what will happen. Talleyrand said: “Victory has many sponsors, defeat is an orphan”. And there, I think that it is not because Paris says this or that on the Ukrainian crisis that the States of sub-Saharan Africa or the Arab States will necessarily follow Paris.
“On the other hand, it still means that France, the first military power of the European Union and NATO on the European continent, is saying something extremely clear. And it is saying it not only on the diplomatic level, but also militarily.
Frédéric Encel, lecturer at Sciences-PoFrédéric Encel, lecturer at Sciences-Poat franceinfo
It will not have escaped you that at the same time, the French ambassador in Moscow was summoned and that the Russians are completely unhappy with the continuation of French deliveries to Ukraine. Why ? Because we are dealing with extremely efficient arms deliveries. To sum up, I would say to you that this is not going to change, it seems to me for the most part, the policies of these abstentionists. On the other hand, it will say something quite new about the politics of France and particularly in Europe.