Mogherini: EU fears ‘rule of jungle’ may win over rule of law
EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini expressed fear that the “rule of the jungle” may prevail over the rule of law in global relations as important international treaties are being challenged.
Mogherini was speaking at the Harvard Kennedy School for Science and International Affairs in Boston, United States. ‘Today, I am afraid we have to admit that such a new world order has never truly materialized and worse, there is a real risk today that the rule of the jungle replaces the rule of law.
The same international treaties — so many in which we are together — that ended the Cold War are today put into question’, Mogherini said at the Harvard Kennedy School for Science and International Affairs. According to Mogherini, instead of constructing a new world order, it is better to invest ‘in preventing the current rules from being dismantled’.
The diplomat has also repeatedly stressed the importance of close cooperation between the European Union and the United States for building a fair world order.
During her speech, Mogherini also mentioned the recent incident with the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) detaining Ukrainian ships in the Sea of Azov for illegal border crossing. We have seen in these very weeks that we share the same interest in addressing Russia’s violation of Ukraine’s territorial integrity: only together can Europe and America face the challenges that Russia poses on European soil, but also elsewhere… And the current events in the Sea of Azov are somehow — I would not say the inevitable consequence, because things like that should always be avoidable but — the direct consequence of a clear violation of the basic rules of peaceful co-existence on European territory’, Mogherini said.
In the European [Union] treaties we clearly state that NATO is the pillar of our collective defense. I don’t think that NATO is recognized in this manner in any other treaty anywhere in the world. So there is no doubt about that. In fact, our cooperation with NATO as I said has never been closer than today and I’m grateful to my friend, Jens Stoltenberg [NATO Secretary General] for the excellent work we’ve done together in these years.
I know that many people here in America, including in Washington D.C., understand this perfectly well: that our security is tied; that our destinies are connected more closely than we often admit.
So, I don’t want to underplay the breadth and the depth of our disagreements with the current U.S. administration: they’re there and they’re self-evident. Sometimes they are so self-evident that they hide all the rest and this is a shame.
But it is true that on Iran or on Jerusalem we believe that this administration has taken decisions that run counter to our collective interest and to our collective security: our European one but also the US’ interest and security. And I know that these are issues for debate inside the United States as is normal.
We continue to believe that a great country like America should not see international rules and multilateral structures as a constraint or even as an obstacle to remove. Multilateralism for us is a guarantee for global peace and security, and as such it is the best tool that we have to advance our national interests, including, I believe, American interests. Yet beyond these disagreements, our cooperation with the United States con- tinues to be very close on most files. No other world powers are as close as we are. Close your eyes for a moment and think of it. Europe is immensely closer to the United States. No one can have any doubt about it. Think of China, Russia, others. We need not even ask the question.
This is only natural. The European Union is America’s largest trading partner, is the largest foreign investor in the American economy, and, beyond that, there is much more that unites us than divides us. But the economy is a good basis to start on.
For 70 years we’ve been proud to be one transatlantic community. We’ve been part of the same history and the same destiny. We have shared the same aspiration to those four freedoms that Franklin Roosevelt described in the darkest moments of World War Two: freedom of speech; freedom of religion; freedom from fear; and freedom from want.