I asked GPT-4 for an analysis of the accuracy and legitimacy of Ambassador Lu Shaye's recent undiplomatic remarks on the status of Crimea and the legitimacy of the former Soviet republics. This is the output of a single prompt. The model also generated the title and excerpt.
I created the cover photo for this post with Midjourney.
China's ambassador to Paris, Lu Shaye, recently questioned the sovereignty of not only Ukraine but all former Soviet republics, including Baltic states such as Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. These remarks, made during a television interview, have raised concerns about China's role as a mediator in the Russia-Ukraine conflict and the trust placed in China by French President Emmanuel Macron. In this analysis, we will evaluate the accuracy and legitimacy of Lu Shaye's statements and discuss their implications for international relations.
The status of former Soviet republics under international law
Lu Shaye claimed that the former Soviet republics do not have "effective status" under international law because there is no international accord to concretize their sovereignty. This assertion is inaccurate. When the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991, its constituent republics declared their independence and gained international recognition. The majority of the international community recognizes these countries as sovereign nations, and they have been admitted as members of the United Nations (UN). In the case of the Baltic states, they regained their independence from the Soviet Union and reestablished their pre-World War II status as sovereign countries.
China's stance on territorial integrity
China has historically advocated for the principle of territorial integrity and non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries, as outlined in the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence. By questioning the sovereignty of these countries, Lu Shaye's remarks appear to contradict China's long-standing position on this issue. This raises concerns about the consistency of China's foreign policy and its commitment to upholding international law and norms.
Implications for China's role as a mediator in the Russia-Ukraine conflict
President Macron has sought China's assistance as a mediator between Russia and Ukraine, hoping to leverage China's economic and political influence to resolve the ongoing conflict. However, Lu Shaye's remarks call into question China's impartiality in this role, as they seemingly support Russia's annexation of Crimea and disregard the sovereignty of Ukraine and other former Soviet republics. This may undermine China's credibility as a mediator and strain its relations with European countries, who have strongly condemned Russia's actions in Ukraine and the annexation of Crimea.
Reactions from the international community
The statements made by Lu Shaye have been met with dismay by France, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, potentially exacerbating tensions between China and European nations. These countries have voiced their concerns about the implications of such remarks on the sovereignty and territorial integrity of former Soviet republics. The international community may perceive China's position as a violation of the UN Charter and the principles of international law, further complicating diplomatic efforts to resolve the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
Lu Shaye's remarks questioning the sovereignty of former Soviet republics are inaccurate and contradictory to international law, as well as China's historical stance on territorial integrity. The statements undermine China's credibility as a mediator in the Russia-Ukraine conflict and may strain its relations with European nations. It is crucial for China to clarify its position on this issue to maintain its role as a responsible global actor and facilitate a peaceful resolution to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.
Blogs of War generated this text in part with GPT-4, OpenAI’s large-scale language-generation model. Upon generating draft language, the author reviewed, edited, and revised the language to their own liking and takes ultimate responsibility for the content of this publication.