Emmanuel Macron's visit to China to France became the origin of a mass run against him in many Polish-speaking media.
Like erstwhile statements by any politicians, not only the alleged old Europe, but besides the 1 more to the east – the fresh 1 (Hungary, Croatia, Bulgaria). What, then, did Macron say so scandalously and later supported by the president of the European Council, Charles Michel?
He mentioned the request for a "strategic autonomy" of Europe/European Union towards the United States. Let us bow to this phrase. It means first the bitter constatation of the present state. Since autonomy is simply a postulate, the French leader fundamentally admitted that the Old Continent does not presently enjoy it. Remember: autonomy does not mean independence. It means nothing more or little than a certain extension of the self-government of a peculiar region of a larger political entity. Even representatives of the Silesian Autonomy Movement, who do not call for the creation of an independent Silesian state, talk about autonomy. Regionalist movements across a number of countries – from Canada (Quebec) to the Philippines (Mindanao) besides mention autonomy.
However, the French president added the adjective "strategic" to his autonomy. He wanted to make certain that, in key issues, Europe enjoyed a certain, possibly narrow, scope of decision-making. At least so that she can express her view on any global issues and security. Can't he do it in the current world? It turns out no; at least that's the conclusion you can draw from Macro's postulate.
Europe is not even autonomous of a abroad empire from overseas. There is no right to talk in debates on strategical issues (such as the Anglo-Russian or Anglo-Chinese conflict). It is an extension of the United States, as evidenced by the continued business of parts of European countries (Germany, Italy) by US troops. NATO is an instrument for depriving Europe of any illusions of "strategic autonomy". The symbol of its weakness, its subservience – humiliating for it the demolition of the co-ownership of 5 European energy companies, i.e. the blowing up of the Nord Stream gas pipeline by Americans.
President Macron, Charles Michel and respective another politicians of the alleged old Europe dream of autonomy, which will not be without a geopolitical break with Anglo-Saxon dominance on the continent. This dominance is of a multidimensional nature: from cultural sphere (the patterns imposed by the ocean-based mass amusement industry), linguistic (the function of English in the EU institutions, even after leaving the EU by Britain), trade (the imposition of economical sanctions policy and the demolition of European companies that break out from it) to geopolitical and military (the failure ended, sabotaged by the Americans, attempts to establish a European defence alliance from a real event).
Autonomy is not enough, therefore, the postulate and wording of Macron is highly conservative and cautious, especially for a country's politician who spoke straight about the request for independency of our continent in the days of Charles de Gaulle or Jacques Chirac. Europe must think, not of autonomy, but of complete independency from a falling, aggressive hegemon from across the ocean. Unless he wants to become a war-torn, disindustrialized peripheral zone, due to the fact that that's what Washington's strategy has to play. possibly Macron's conversation with Xi Jinping during his visit to China allowed the French to realize any irreversible changes in the world. That's why he said the right thing, though very moderate. Meanwhile, the Polish political class speaks directly: we care about the interests of the United States. Not Europe. Not Poland. Therefore, the autonomy of Europe will not be possible without changing the way Warsaw thinks, or excluding it from European integration processes.
Mateusz Piskorski
photo public domain
Think Poland, No. 17-18 (23-30.04.2023)