What did the Chinese Ambassador to France really mean?

Watch a video of this article here: https://youtu.be/B5RJzGLtPO0

If I can paraphrase Anthony Blinken here: Whatever Ambassador Lu Shaye said in France does not change the status quo on China’s position vis-à-vis the Balkan states.

What’s really interesting is that Lu Shaye, did not say he thinks Ukraine is not a sovereign state, he specifically said it is a European country but he also said some issues depend on perspective and, here’s an interesting perspective. Russia does not agree, at least Putin does not. It’s all explained in a link attached here but it’s a question of both linguistics and anthropology.

Those of us who are of a certain age, will remember when we all used to call Ukraine, The Ukraine? Well, the simple reason for that was that The region of Ukraine was part of a greater region we knew as the Soviet Union and, as far as many Russians are concerned, it’s still referred to as such

Putting it linguistically, there are two ways to refer to a place in Russian. One is Na and the is V, So, when Putin mentions Ukraine, listen carefully, if he recognises the sovereign borders of Ukraine as a country, he will say V Ukraine (в Украине) but he doesn’t. What he says is Na Ukraine (на Украине) meaning he recognises it as a territory.

It’s a little like we, in English might use the definite article “the”. We don’t use an article for a specific place unless it’s part of the name, I can go to the UK but I can’t go to the England. I might go to England and while there, visit the English countryside, referring to a region within a bordered country. So, for a Ukrainian, this is very important.

China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has made a statement on the matter, it has said, and this is why I paraphrased the US statements on Taiwan, that it respects the sovereign status of all the former Soviet Republics. So, clearly nothing has changed since last week, that’s the status quo. China isn’t changing its stance, nor is the Chinese ambassador to France, he is just making it clear that not everyone adopts the same view. When Putin’s translators and Western media relay Putin’s speeches, they translate his words as Ukraine, while what he actually says if it’s translated correctly is “the Ukraine”.

It’s been an interesting discussion and it’s clear that the comment has been taken out of context

One aspect I find interesting was quoted in French newspaper, Le Monde, from a Ukrainian Presidential Aide Mykhaylo Podolyak, was that “the status of ex-Soviet countries was “enshrined in international law”. Which, after exhaustive searches, I can find no reference to any international law enshrining Ukraine, other than the law of precedent; meaning it is this way because it’s always been recognised as so.

Let’s put that into Context when South Sudan became a country, there was a referendum, a vote and a formal acceptance into the UN as the 193rd Country. Palestine the 194th is not formally recognised.

For further context, let’s consider the fact that, according to Wikipedia, when the UN was founded, Ukraine, and the other Soviet republics did not exist as countries. The Ukraine, as it was then, and Belarus both joined the UN as founder members, but did not gain independence until 1991 when they became countries, Ukraine was still known as The Ukraine until 1993 when it formally asked for a change to reflect its sovereignty as opposed to a territorial status.

In order to further demonstrate the nature of the comment being taken out of context, the entire 49 minute interview needs to be viewed, but in the 11th minute Lu says quite clearly, and even my schoolboy French is good enough to pick this up, Ukraine is a European country. He never, at any stage of the interview, questioned Ukraine’s sovereignty he merely pointed out what is historically correct, none of these countries, which used to be part of the Soviet Union have received formal recognition even though they are all recognised as sovereign countries.

That’s a really telling point. The issue with what Ambassador Lu said was also in reference to The Crimea, where we still use “the”. It never been recognised as a country by the UN but was clearly (historically) a Russian territory it was, historically fought over in the mid-19th century in what we Brits know as the Crimean War.

He also went on to say, it’s not necessary to quibble about this, it’s important to stop the war, which almost everyone in the world should agree with, unless they have financial or political reasons not to.

Let’s remember, this comment was made by a Chinese person using French to discuss a legal and technical situation and it’s clear, if we watch from the 15th minute, that he was struggling to relay correctly what he meant. If any of his critics try to accurately describe this process in Chinese, they might understand his difficulty.

The difference is the process. Ukraine and Belarus were not countries when they joined in 1945 but became countries in 1991. Sudan had a referendum and a UN acceptance process, the process for Ukraine and Belarus was one of precedent. At no stage did Ambassador Lu suggest they weren’t countries, he merely suggested that some people might view it differently. Clearly, Putin does.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Global Times and every other Chinese media, states the same thing. The former Soviet countries are all recognised by China as sovereign states and nothing has changed. The Chinese Ambassador to France merely reiterates that and concedes that some people (presumably he means Russians) view the pathway to peace differently.

And, if we’re honest, the pathway to peace is always viewed differently by opposing sides.