Interview with Juanjo Álvarez, Professor of Law at the UPV/EHU

Euskaraz irakurri: Juanjo Alvarez: “Europeans arazoa da orain ez duela atzera egiteko gaitasunik, ezta argudiorik ere”

Juanjo Allvarez (Zumaia, 1964) is Professor of Private International Law at the University of the Basque Country, as well as secretary of the Democratic Governance Institute at Aiete’s House of Peace and Human Rights in San Sebastián. He welcomes eitb.eus to his tidy and sunny office at the Faculty of Law in San Sebastián, where we ask him questions about Ukraine, the Russian invasion, Europe and the geopolitical panorama resulting from the conflict, from a legality and solution to the conflict.

From the first minute an idea comes out of his mouth – actually from the call to make the appointment – and it is his concern about how European society has been “swallowed up” by a flood of “single truth” That leaves little room for questions. And just as those who don’t move don’t feel the chains, Álvarez has been feeling them for a long time.

It is clear to him that any political act that provokes violence, as in the case of war, “is always avoidable”, and in the case of Ukraine, diplomacy has failed. It could have been prevented and it hasn’t been done. According to Álvarez, there is a concurrence of guilt: “On the one hand, the Putin’s overwhelming ambition and, on the other hand, not inactivity, but wrong action of international diplomacy and especially the European sponsored by the United States. There is a political interest in saying, ‘I’m going to step on Putin’s toes’ in an effort to pull the strings on Russia, and someone in Russia who wants to remain czar. Hunger and the desire to eat come together.

However, he makes it clear that the Russian invasion “has no basis and that Putin must be condemned for it”, acknowledging that the Russian president has a legal argument and a historical precedent of overwhelming logic: the independence of Kosovo of Serbia in 2008, backed by the United States, its main allies and part of the European Union, and the conclusion of the International Court of Justice in The Hague that “took a blunder and concluded that the declaration of independence did not conflict with international legality,” explains Álvarez.

“Russia will make higher demands because it knows that one day it will have to negotiate”

“That’s what Russia is asking for now”, what works for one site works for another, that a referendum in the Ukrainian regions of Donetsk Y Lugansky and the population decides its own future. In fact, in 2014, these regions held referendums on their political status, proving an overwhelming majority (90%) for independence. This consultation was not recognized by Kiev, nor by the United States, nor by the European Union. On February 22, Russia recognized Luhansk and Donetsk as independent republics. It wasn’t an accident.

According to Álvarez, it is not Putin’s will to invade Ukraine, he never intended to change his government. Similarly, he believes that the more the war becomes chronic, “Russia will make higher demands, because it knows that one day it will have to negotiate.”

The Toll of Diplomacy

“The role of diplomacy is to stop wars and prevent them from happening, because since you failed to prevent an invasion, you must remedy it. Today we would still be in time to stop that madness and back.” to come,” he says.

Emphasize that Putin’s thing has no nameyou can’t do that in the 21st century, you can’t say, ‘you’re going to find out'”, but ask the western approach “squeezing him more and more”.

The diplomatic breakthrough would mean, according to him, continue two tolls: “The first, must accept past mistakes and allow a solution like the one in Kosovo”, must deal with the lesson that would teach the world that “only when you invade and commit acts of violence are they heeded”.

Why not conclude an association agreement with the Russian Federation and build mutually beneficial relations?

The second toll would be that of “resuming diplomacy by” commercial and symbolic agreementsmaking it easier for both sides”; that is, an exit “in line with what Macron has long proposed, a policy of ‘let’s get along and we all win'”.

“Why don’t you make association agreement with the Russian Federation and establish relations that benefit both sides? Why is Putin violating rights?” he asks and continues; Why? if we look at human rights, that would mean we don’t have association agreements of markets with others, and we are already doing it with China Even if she’s the world champion of death penalty killing, you do it with… Saudi Arabia, of Turkey, to whom we give because it ends all immigration that does not interest us, and in many contexts where human rights are violated and where there is no democracy, as there is not in Russia, in our sense of democracy. Justifies that everything we propose and that the NATO making that space smaller and smaller? It seems to me that this is a wrong policy that we have uncritically agreed to.”

The role of Europe

criticize the path of sanctions chosen by Europe to solve the crisis, stressing that they have “dubious legal support in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Luxenburg”. clarifies that “deviating from European decisions does not mean you are for Putin” and believes that “Europe’s problem is that it now has neither the capacity nor the arguments to withdraw”.

If Ukraine is neither a member of the EU nor a member of NATO, how can we understand that Europe has become so involved? According to Álvarez, “Ukraine is where it is, it borders four states and it has a symbolic element related to Russian pressure.”

“Europe has no competence in foreign policy, it cannot declare war if there is no invasion from one of the member states, which is not the case”

“Europe has no competence in foreign policy, it cannot declare war if there is no invasion from one of the member states, which is not the case. The 27 pretend to go ‘all in one’ (Let’s see which state dares to oppose it!) so that European society, the grant European, let’s agree that Europe is doing a good job, and that’s what permeates a large part of the population,” he says.

notes that France, that she was the only one to disagree, and “she has maintained a consistent stance of condemnation, but she has said that something more should be given, she has finally been swallowed up by the US demand that there is no room for half measures here,” she emphasizes.

He adds that “the axis of decision-making has shifted from states and governments to other kinds, much more powerful powers. States have less and less say and big business more and more.” At the same time, he points out that “the big decisions” are made in the G7 and G20, “which is not democratic, because they have no representation. But everything is decided there, and everything is everything. From the ECB guidelines, to deficit limits, and this too.

Rest as an option

As the conflict becomes chronic, “the emphasis is on the impact on housing, the impact on the economy, the energy issue. It seems that the war itself is already unsolvable. No one is interested in stopping it at the momenthe laments, wondering, “What are you going to do, wait for those negotiations to come when they’re both exhausted on the canvas? We have already learned a lot from that. To be postpones the solution and exacerbates the suffering, and at the origin, the ultimate way of solving things is the same. Russia will not back down if you don’t give it what it asks for, because it believes it is exactly what it asks for, from the point of view of a diplomatic solution. The agreement will not say ‘the Donbas is mine’, but ‘I request that a referendum be held’“.

“It seems that the war itself is already unsolvable. No one is currently interested in stopping it”

“All this would be solved in a way,” he says, explaining: “Close Ukrainian airspace, order that closure! That means if a Russian plane comes in, you kill it, and the nuclear reaction, but because we’re afraid of that, we don’t fall for it. We participate actively by providing weapons, logistics and training, but we are not participating in the war, which is not a war, it is a unilateral invasion.”

In this scenario, with the risk of the conflict becoming chronic and its consequences, Álvarez bets that it is the European Union that is taking a step forward, “because the UN is not going to do it, it has broken all bridges with Russia, and with NATO doesn’t care if it ends.”

The EU might propose, according to the professor a different geopolitical model anchored in values, democracy and good neighborly relationselements that led us to spend 70 years in Europe, “removing the shame of the Balkans” in peace: “it would be an excellent time to impose a moral and ethical authority, to send message to the world that i am not getting involved in a flag fight but i am for human rights i am about to resolve the end of the war let’s take such an approach it may be bucolic goodness but it has its logic and common sense”.