Speeches

Madam President, Israel is a democracy, Hamas is a terrorist organization. Israel is a democracy, Hamas is a terrorist organization. ‘To name things incorrectly is to add to the misfortune of the world’, wrote Albert Camus. Israel is a democracy, Hamas is a terrorist organization. The fighting in Gaza after the atrocities perpetrated against civilians in Israel on 7 October is not a war between Israelis and Palestinians, but a new chapter in the relentless struggle between freedom, democracy and the dark forces of obscurantism. In a few days we will celebrate the fall of Nazism. The total capitulation of this heinous regime was the only possible way for our continent – in the West immediately, at least – to return to freedom. Fortunately, the horrors of total war for the German people did not stop our American allies. Dealing with obscurantism, even if weakened, means ensuring its rapid rebirth. The capitulation of Hamas is a desirable goal, not only for Israel, but for the preservation of the ideal of freedom embodied in democracy. Israel is a democracy, Hamas is a terrorist organization.

Mr President, the debates chosen by the majority before the Council meeting sing the same nagging tale. If, slowly, in the face of the growing anger of the people, you condescend to talk about immigration, this always remains an opportunity to better justify it and to imagine restrictive and brutal methods of distributing migrants throughout our territory, which nevertheless refuses this submergence. Another obsession: the refusal to recognise the European peoples’ choice of policies they wish to see applied in their countries, as soon as they refuse the disappearance of their nation. Hungary and Poland are constantly in your maniacal thoughts. No, the rule of law is no more at risk in Poland than in Hungary. Sweep in front of our own institutions: corrupt, they are far from exemplary. Finally, your interference in the affairs of the Member States and your desire for increasingly stringent standards, in the name of a dogmatic environmental ideology, jeopardise entire sectors of economic and agricultural activity in the Member States. Fortunately, like what Silvio Berlusconi had begun in Italy, the rejection of your ideologies by the people is preparing for next year the great return of the conservative right wings to Europe.

Mr President, as Auguste Comte said with talent: As a French parliamentarian on Lebanon, I cannot ignore St Louis’ promise to protect Christians in the East. This promise obliges us, even if it is too often ignored. Lebanon, which has long been presented as a model for successful multiculturalism, is dying out today. From multicultural it has become multi-conflictual. It is an example, but it is an example of what must be avoided at all costs. It is politically blocked – it is therefore, as always, the people who suffer. Despite a seemingly calming regional situation, the Lebanese Parliament, after 11 unsuccessful sittings, still fails to elect a Head of State. In the land of the Cedar, it is the military arsenals of the different communities that weigh, and Hezbollah, expert in the matter, has already announced that the vote of tomorrow would be a waste of time. Faced with this constant blackmail of the use of force and violence, we must send an essential message: We will watch relentlessly and without weakness for the protection of Christian communities, all too often persecuted in this part of the world.

Mr President, this House should return to what Pascal called the ‘spirit of finesse’. It has its principles, he wrote, in common use and in front of everyone’s eyes. These principles, we barely see them, we feel them rather than we see them. There are endless pains in making them felt by those who do not feel them on their own. Clearly, here in this assembly, this spirit of finesse, you don't feel it. Arbitrarily and arrogantly erecting pseudo-common values in axioms, you are trying to impose a sovereign state, whose government and president have been democratically elected, reforms and policies that the Hungarian people do not want. In doing so, you are giving more arguments every day to those unsupported by the autocratic and brutal functioning of this European Union. This mandate will have seen the exit of the United Kingdom. These incongruous debates are preparing an even wider secession to resist your unjustified interference. As Hungarian Justice Minister Judit Varga said, this discussion is insane. Your political pressure is illegitimate and inappropriate. By flouting Hungary’s rights, you are unveiling the true face of the EU: that of a drifting institution, moving away from democratic principles, despising peoples, seeking to impose an ideology at all costs.

Mr President, the Greeks promised the revenge of Nemesis to men who transgressed all boundaries, followed the path of outrage or imperialism. This messenger of justice, Plato and the tragic tell us, sanctioned excessiveness and incompetence with appropriate punishment. We have been moving away from Greek mythology for a long time, but on the subject of energy, as on many others, a certain wisdom should still apply to us. So while it is essential to provide for energy reserves and storage, it is indeed the needy and ideological energy policies of countries such as Germany and France that have led us to the current situation. By shutting down or neglecting the nuclear sector, these countries have endangered electricity supply and contributed to higher energy prices. As for the Commission, which has not anticipated anything and has always pushed for more deregulation, excessive competition and denuclearisation, it has failed along the way. And it is not the inconsistent announcements of a Germany that prides itself on shutting down its last three nuclear reactors, when France, perhaps emerging from a deadly ideology, announces that it will open the nuclear project of the century, that can reassure us. The finding for the Commission is clear: a total failure. And, once again, it is the citizens of the nations of Europe who will pay the consequences.

Mr President, if the reality were not so dramatic, if many people had not drowned in these perilous crossings, we could safely say that we are once again in a debate that denies reality, as the majority of this House is blinded by its dogmatic immigrationist positions. Our countries, and France in particular, suggest to tens, hundreds of thousands of foreigners that by trying to migrate illegally, they will find the housing and employment that awaits them here. The European authorities and some governments of member countries play into the hands of smugglers by not punishing them harshly, by continuing to subsidize NGOs, themselves acting as smugglers. Our European countries are literally overwhelmed by immigration and can no longer welcome additional foreigners without jeopardising the economic and personal security of their fellow citizens and in particular the less fortunate among them. The EU must give Frontex much greater resources and a clear mission to stop these boats passing by and to accompany these candidates for emigration from where they left and thus avoid these terrible human tragedies.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, fifteen years after the 2008 financial crisis, which shook the world economy, the failure of the SVB, the bank for start-ups and the new economy, sounds like a warning against the dogmatic excesses of the banking system. While the rapidity of the wave of withdrawals is linked to the weight of social networks, we do not exempt ourselves from analysing the reasons for the poor financial health of this Californian bank. Admittedly, the excessive investment in treasury bills, the value of which collapsed with the fall in rates decided by the Fed to combat inflation, contributed to this bankruptcy. But more insidiously, as also stated by several major American bosses, in particular Bernie Marcus, founder of the department store chain Home Depot, it is also explained by the choice of the SVB and a few other banks to make investments by prioritising not profitability and safety for shareholders, but subjects of interest. woke as a matter of principle, such as global warming or diversity. Shareholders and employees are now paying the price for this exclusive and dogmatic exposure to a very fragile underlying market, while the bank’s responsible managers have hastily saved their personal interests. I want to believe that, despite a similar dogmatism on the part of some financial institutions in Europe, European banking regulation, which is much more robust, would prohibit such a reckless risk. Let us hope that, in our exchanges, dogmatism on this subject does not prevail.

Mr President, an independent ethics body in response to the corruption scandals in Parliament, elected representatives who are honest, free and at the service of the common good of the peoples who elected them: Who could oppose it? I welcome this initiative. This is a win-win situation for our institution. Ethics, synonymous with integrity and freedom, requires strict compliance with the law, and what applies to parliamentarians also applies to our institutions. Nor can the elected representatives of the Commission ignore the law resulting from the texts that govern its organization. By shamelessly freeing itself from the spirit and the letter of the Treaties to criticise the free and democratic choice of certain nations, by arrogating to itself competences outside the scope of those entrusted to it – health yesterday, defence tomorrow – the Commission is deeply corrupting its legitimacy. It was this deep corruption of our institutions that led to Brexit. If nothing is done, this systemic corruption will lead to the disappearance of the European Union. The Europe of nations that cooperate freely deserves to be engaged in this broad work. I hope – but do not believe for a moment – that this desire for ethics will be sincere and that it will improve our institutions. Unfortunately, I believe in deep corruption.

Mr President, the European Union is not a nation but an international institution. Just because it has a flag and an anthem – oripels of an era you hate, where patriotism was culturally obvious – does not mean that the European Union is delusional. And it is because you have understood it, Mr McAllister, that, disregarding the Treaties, without even pretending to worry about the views of the peoples, you are surreptitiously seeking to carry out a new hold-up on competences that fall exclusively within the competence of nations – foreign policy, defence policy –, wishing to impose the rule of qualified majority. Like many others, these reports will remain only wishes, those of capricious children who imagine themselves legitimate to impose their will without foundation. In the recent conflicts that brutalise our continent, that of Kosovo, that between Russia and Ukraine, not forgetting that between Armenia and Azerbaijan, the European Union has accumulated mistakes, aligning itself with American policy without a vision of our own interests, thus penalising citizens in Europe. Fortunately, the qualified majority rule in these sovereign areas is not for tomorrow.

Mr President, while a serious scandal uncovers foreign interference through corruption in the Bureau of the European Parliament, restraint and decency are definitely not what characterises our Assembly. While the Commission is setting itself up as the guardian of an order that would be incriminating, and spends its time reprimanding Member States that refuse to align, its outrageous interference in the internal affairs of the Member States is ignored. In the soap opera on the rule of law in Hungary, she has just confirmed the financial withholding from Hungarian cohesion funds, under the rule of law conditionality. Without a direct elective mandate, without consultation with peoples, it alone defines the good and pushes ever further its federalist and destructive agenda of nations and identities. Philippe Murray, in his essay Empire of the Good, denounced the introduction of a sweet, sweet and kind totalitarianism, of which this assembly is the perfect example. He wrote: “The good grows rapidly, gradually shuts down all the issues and forbids escapes.” The Commission, like an axiom, brandishes its conception of the rule of law to impose its global vision and its economic and societal conceptions. It is these illegitimate interferences, which also endanger the democratic process, that we should be debating today.

Madam President, in this House, where the word protectionism is so banished as to be considered rude, it is surprising that a country, the United States in this case, can protect its industry, its jobs and its people. However, this is the primary mission of a State. As always, the EU idealises the transatlantic relationship, whereas the US approach is above all pragmatic. French President Emmanuel Macron went to the United States to tell Joe Biden how badly he felt about the Inflation Reduction Act. Naivety or acting? A failure, anyway. We are once again treated without consideration. The European Union, an ayatollah isolated from immoderate free trade, thus exposes our businesses to unbalanced competition, weakening our economic fabric, our jobs and the standard of living of our fellow citizens. The European sovereignty fund that Thierry Breton wants to set up is a decoy that will not sufficiently protect our national economies. It is time to put an end to this dogma of uncontrolled free trade. Let's protect our economies. Let’s find the path of protectionism, which we are the only economic space to have abandoned on the planet.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, while the peoples of the European nations are never consulted, the Commission and the majority in this Parliament are pushing for a massive influx of migrants – yes, they are pushing. Ten days ago, Mr Borrell said on French television: Europe’s demographic winter is filled by contributions from the rest of the world. This sheds light on your pseudo-reform of political asylum. Why claim that a demographic decline is inevitable when a proactive natalist policy allows, as Hungary demonstrates, a demographic spring? It is curious to want to finance what you modestly call ‘contributions’ when it comes to a massive movement much more similar in composition – young men, but very few women and children – to a real invasion. Financing one’s own submersion is a first in the history of civilizations. This bias towards immigration reflects a desire to systematically deconstruct our common civilisation and this is what we oppose. In doing so, you shatter any hope of European unity, as the reactions of the peoples are divergent between those who suffer, a majority, and the profiteers of globalisation that you indiscriminately defend.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, there is no doubt about the origin of the war in Ukraine. If we can epilogue the root causes of the conflict, it is Russia, led by Vladimir Putin, who has chosen to invade Ukraine, to start a military conflict in Europe. This important and necessary prerequisite, it is essential for those in this Chamber who want a resolution to this war, to recognize the responsibility of the European nations, France and Germany in particular, for their inability to enforce the Minsk agreements and that of the European Union in its indiscriminate alignment with the excessive positions of the United States. Today, on the proposal of Mrs von der Leyen, member countries of the European Union are adopting packages of sanctions whose effectiveness against Russia is not demonstrated, but which serve to justify agreements with Azerbaijan, with moral freedom unacceptable in view of the heinous crimes perpetrated against Armenia. Enough of this double standard morality. Citizens in Europe are suffering. Our goal is not to take sides in this conflict, but to bring Ukraine and Russia to a ceasefire and peace negotiations. This is the only interest of the citizens of Europe, to whom you will have to be accountable, Madam, for your calamitous management of our energy resources.

Mr President, what hypocrisy on the occasion of the debate this evening in our Chamber. While Iran is torn by the protests triggered by the death of Mahsa Amini, arrested and murdered by the morality police for refusing to cover her head with an Islamic veil, the European Commission, supported by the majority here, continues to promote this same veil, daring to affirm, and I quote, freedom is in the hijab. If diversity is beautiful, not ever has the veil been or will be a symbol of freedom. In Iran, women are beaten to death, others risk their lives by protesting and the European institutions are designing communication campaigns that the Islamists in power in Tehran would not deny. Already in 2021, they presented the hijab as a symbol of freedom chosen by women. Posters said: "My scarf is me" or: With the veil, I can be myself without hiding. What is your support for Iranian women risking their lives to be free to walk with their heads uncovered? Mr Borrell, enough of the Commission's duplicity. Enough hypocrisy with the Islamic veil. It has always been and will remain an instrument of oppression of women by men.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, once again, the hypocrisy of our debates is appalling. The report you are presenting could be a bulwark against disinformation, but it shows the double rejection of values that are supposed to be ours: democracy and freedom of expression. First and most serious rejection of democracy. To read you, elections whose results are not in line with the globalist and immigrationist ideology are necessarily won under the influence of foreign interference. Thus, Brexit and the election of Trump, the victories of Fidesz and the Law and Justice party must be understood under this prism. The sovereign will of the British, American, Hungarian and Polish peoples has nothing to do with these electoral results. Next, freedom of expression was denied, flouted in the name of banning hate speech. But no condemnation on your bans of the closures "by mistake" of multiple Twitter accounts, of support for Éric Zemmour and the Rassemblement national, in the middle of the presidential campaign in France. In his reception speech at the Académie française, François Sureau recalled that freedom is to be revolted, hurt or at least surprised by opposing opinions. Your text de facto introduces an official word. You refuse to accept contrary opinions. What disrespect for the sovereignty of peoples! But don’t doubt it, they choose freely. See Hungary, Poland and, tomorrow, France.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in a few years’ time, when history will judge our time, it will surely classify it as a dark period during which the European Union has been the crucible of all treachery, of all renunciations in the face of the deadly danger of the migratory invasion. Yes, mortal danger, because this is indeed a war of civilisation that you are allowing to be imported into our countries by imposing this crazy immigration, by seeking to legalise it by all means, as evidenced by this surrealist report. In this asymmetrical war, migrants are a weapon. I had seen this before the COVID outbreak, at the Greek-Turkish border, where I had been. I saw the crowds of migrants instrumentalised by Erdoğan, taking advantage of the inherent weakness of the European Union to blackmail it. Today, the same images come to us from the Polish border. Despite this threat, the majority here continue to attack this Member State and a few others for their sovereign choices. And this Commission is doing nothing to assist them and protect our external border, quite the contrary. As in all wars, there are also treacheries. Traîtrise, the refusal of Mrs von der Leyen to finance a wall on the Polish border. Trafficking, the funding of globalist NGOs that organise legal or illegal immigration, not hesitating to work with human traffickers. Traîtrise, the statements of Ms. Johansson wishing to create new legal pathways for migrants. Traîtrise, unconditional development aid for countries that send us their flows of nationals and refuse to take back their illegal immigrants. Finally, the report, which creates new channels for immigration, must be considered. But the peoples of the nations of Europe do not want to die. They see through your lies – no, the vast majority of migrants are not researchers. So, optimistic, I know that their will will prevail. The determination of the Poles to resist is the magnificent example. Your suicidal policies are definitely condemned.

Madam President, perhaps the most admirable thing about this chamber is the ability we have to debate without taking into account the views of the people, disregarding their choices and pursuing a relentless process of imposing on member countries, nations, an ideological corpus, a legal straitjacket that aims to deprive them of their sovereignty. It is Raymond Aron who evoked an invisible federalism and it is he who gradually destroys nations, who organises a ‘systemic’ migration subversion – I believe it is a qualifier that you appreciate – and who subjects the member countries to his inflexible yoke. At each meeting of the European Council there are increasingly strong intrusions into areas specific to national policies, unrelated to the Treaties. Tomorrow, it will be health, after tomorrow, defence, and by trying in these areas to impose the primacy of Community law, it is the very identity of nations that is at risk. Your approach to the energy transition process, your method, means more poverty, more poverty and less purchasing power for citizens. When you claim that EU law takes precedence over national law, including constitutional provisions, this does not reflect the Treaties. This is a lie. On the other hand, it is the face of your project that spoliates our identities. We prefer, with Maurice Druon, to repeat that ‘power, without the consent of those over whom it is exercised, is a deception that never lasts for long, an eminently fragile balance between fear and revolt, and which suddenly breaks when enough men become aware together of sharing the same state of mind’. You could have learned the lessons of Brexit: This is not the case. We do not want the process that organises a flood of migration. Some European nations have become fully aware of this and will refuse this crazy immigration pact policy that wants to see a civilisation replace ours on our soil. We do not want this process, which denounces member countries to the vindictiveness of our Assembly. Hungary and Poland, as we heard yesterday, are constantly under fire from threats of suspension of recovery plans, simply because they want to preserve their identity, history and way of life. The citizens of the nations of Europe have had enough. The Europe to which they aspire is that of nations and freedoms, that of voluntary cooperation. Certainly not that of a Brussels centralism that despises nations.

Mr President, Madam President, Prime Minister, ladies and gentlemen, on 9 June 2009, the Court of Karlsruhe reiterated its judgment of 2009, recalling that ‘there is no European people’. I quote: ‘As long as no unified European people can express a majority will by effective political means, the peoples of the Union constituted in the Member States shall remain the exclusive holders of public authority.’ After that judgment, which calls into question the dominant doxa, it is clear that there is no European law. It does not occur to anyone to suspend the German recovery plan. So why are we debating sanctions against Poland this morning? Through its Constitutional Tribunal, Poland dares to defend its sovereignty against a new totalitarianism which hides its name and which would like to establish its dictates as a principle of law, on the basis of an ever closer union. On the pretext of refusing to respond to the injunctions of the CJEU, which unlegitimately demanded the withdrawal of a controversial reform – much more in Brussels and Strasbourg than in Warsaw – from its judicial system, Parliament launched a political trial, a Stalinist trial. On 7 October, the Constitutional Court of Warsaw ruled that these requests were illegitimate because the question of the organisation of the judicial system had never been transferred by the Member States of the European Union. That is the rule of law. In response, the Commission goes so far as to claim that this is a first step towards a Polexit. The maneuver is too big to speak of a judicial coup. EU bodies are trying to put pressure on Poland for ideological reasons. They refuse the choice of the Polish people in terms of immigration, as in terms of societal policy, and try to disguise a political conflict as an institutional issue. Listening to you, Mr Weber, you are even demanding regime change. But don’t worry, Poland’s history reminds us that this free and proud people fought and will continue to fight. On this path, he will be accompanied by all those who wish for a Europe of nations and freedoms.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, when it comes to cybersecurity, the political rules and beliefs that drive us are not shaken by this new field of possibilities. Contrary to what the rapporteur claims, the cross-border nature of new technologies is not an argument to justify either a Community leap forward erasing nations or a new transfer of competences at European level. Whether civilian or military, the developers of successful IT technologies, whether American or Chinese, since they are the most advanced powers in this field, have relied on state structures to become the mastodons we know today. The European Union is not a state, but a plurality of nations, and Europeans are not a people but peoples. The field of cybersecurity is no exception to this reality. By limiting national state structures across Europe, the EU is paralysing possible developments in cooperation. As with many topics, the state of the EU’s cyber defence capabilities is seen by the Commission as an opportunity to move towards more subjugation of nations to a European policy, still under NATO’s tutelage on defence. No, we do not want, as the report wants, to build a European Defence Union in the IT field. We do not want the European Commission to gain ever greater control over these strategic issues. Defence, whether physical or digital, is a national sovereignty, an inviolable prerogative of the Member States. It is up to them to develop their tools, choose their alliances and define their priorities. The choice of cooperation belongs to them: they must not and cannot be imposed by technocrats detached from reality.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, 'learning from the past' is a wise formula filled with common sense. And yet, the European Union, which runs behind endless enlargements, is not inspired by it. You want to give more than €14 billion to the candidate countries for the 2021-2027 period. After the Commission’s appalling failures to address the brutal challenges we face – managing the health crisis, surging migration – if countries are candidates it is for our money. And which countries, since the main beneficiaries of this public money will be the countries of the Western Balkans for a large part, Turkey on the other hand. What a folly it is for the European Union to want to spend these large sums when it is clear today, in the eyes of all, that Turkey will never, ever join the European Union. Both Turkey and Albania are plagued by Islamism and the other largely unstable Balkan countries are crossing points of already insane immigration for Europe. Enough of this messianic vision by which you think you are changing peoples. It systematically leads to unnecessary spending and chaos in our respective nations. A single slogan: Enough with enlargements!

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Joe Biden’s debacle-shaped departure from Afghanistan when the Taliban took power is the death knell of a messianic policy initiated by George Bush 20 years ago, putting the entire West in trouble. The first lesson to be learned is the end of the interventionist universalism that has accumulated disasters over the past 20 years, from Syria to Iraq to Libya. Interference in the name of human rights and nation-building has led to chaos without a future. These regions of the Middle East are permanently destabilised. The second observation is the total absence of any European voice in this conflict. The follow-up of the Member States in this war that did not concern them now costs them to be silenced about Afghanistan. Once again, it is Russia and China that will take advantage of this lack of Western coherence to advance their interests in the concert of nations. Finally, and this is undoubtedly the key issue on which we can still act, the Member States of the European Union must now protect themselves and their populations. The suffocated peoples of Europe must not suffer a new migratory surge like the one that followed the conflict in Syria. Like you, I am concerned about the plight of women and civilians in Afghanistan. Like everyone else, I deplore the return of Islamists to power and, because I care first and foremost for the good of Europeans and French people, I refuse once again a wave of migration from Afghanistan. The countries of Europe, and France in the first place, would expose themselves by welcoming new refugees. No people in Europe want more migrants, especially when terrorists slip into them. This is already the case in France, less than a week after the first arrivals. Europe, in the light of the lessons of the past, has a duty to protect itself.

Mr. Speaker, family and societal policies are the sole discretionary domain of nations, and treaties determine that. In trying to condemn Viktor Orbán's Hungary, you want to condemn the sovereign choice of this people who elected and re-elected their representatives widely, with scores that obviously make you pale with jealousy. This condemnation is part of a so-called progressive ideological debate. You say you want to defend human rights, but you want to subject the populations of European nations to an aggressive communitarianism, driven by mercantile lobbies, encouraging the destruction of all the traditional structures, of all the load-bearing walls that have made European civilisation. Your logic, wherever it is imposed, destroys social relations and promotes exclusion because it is based on minority demands in the service of the market, which you have the audacity to call ‘human rights’. Yes, Hungary has the right to promote the traditional family model. Yes, Hungary has the right to protect children from subjects that are not of their age. Do not displease, the rule of law that you are gargling is respect for freedom, for the choice of peoples.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, under the pretext of embodying the dignity of human rights alone, the European Union is once again seeking to seize powers that are not its own, using moralistic rhetoric to strip nations of their prerogatives. The establishment of a comprehensive sanctions regime, based on an exclusively dogmatic interpretation of human rights, is unnecessary, utopian and illegitimate. Needless, the very principle of sanctions is largely so in its effects, as can be seen in particular with Russia, which does not care about our sanctions – see their recent law on the appellation champagne, which severely penalises French winegrowers. Moreover, certain sanctions, in particular embargoes, too often lead to the very direct punishment of entire populations, in line with the so-called principle of the defence of human rights. Utopian, because to base diplomacy exclusively on human rights is to lack pragmatism, it is to harm one’s own interests. Will we break off all relations with Saudi Arabia? Diplomacy is not a religion that allows the excommunication of those whose worldview is not shared, but the ability to talk with everyone to overcome our differences. This text shows childish naivety in a world where the powers of yesteryear are waking up and want to take their full place. Finally, it is illegitimate, because the European Union is once again seeking, by attacking unanimity in the Council, to take from the nations what is at their sole discretion, the essence of their sovereignty, namely foreign policy. We do not have a mandate from the people to lead their destiny. We have no direct authority to dictate to nations their international alliances or enmities. We do not have the power to subject the international relations of the Member States to your rights-of-the-hommist considerations, whose imprecise and utopian definition blocks effective action. You do not have to decide on the place of France and other nation states in the world. This text is that of subjection to private interests, in particular those of Mr Soros’ Open Society and his galaxy of NGOs. These private interests use the pretext of human rights to accumulate exorbitant financial profits. Let us leave it to nations, as the only legitimate framework, to organise their diplomatic relations freely according to their national interests and not according to a moralistic and unrealistic vision.