Personal News
Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic, Bashar Al-Assad and now Vladimir Putin. Should we discuss with these undesirables of the international community? What is the price for him who addresses these pariahs? And how do they apprehend the ordeal of such a rehabilitation process? It is to these questions, and many more, that the academic Manon-Nour Tannous, surrounded by a dozen researchers, publishes an original work on the concept of infrequentability.
A specialist in the Middle East, this young researcher proposes to revisit one of the most controversial practices of diplomacy through a series of examples from contemporary history that covers the five continents – a way of demonstrating that the issue concerns the whole of the human community.
All the contributions are rigorous, complete and address the different facets of interaction, but the whole has less in common to answer questions than to raise a subject that creates real passions between those who want to remain faithful to the strict sense of diplomacy (talking and/or negotiating) and those who refuse to argue with the devil or in the name of ethics and values incompatible with the infrequentable.
Clash of Principles
It is not for lack of audacity or reluctance that the authors do not decide. This is to clearly explain that the question is of great complexity and that it involves considerations which, put together, give a precise idea of the extent of the subject. A whole range of elements, such as the actors, the processes, the representativeness, the alterity or the temporality, gives the feeling that the debate cannot stop at the clash between the principle of interest and the moral principle.
These two approaches enjoy legitimacy and experience throughout history – the contribution of the academic Pierre Grosser in particular regarding missed or fatal occasions, such as the Munich conference in 1938, is striking for its foresight – , but they are incomplete if we do not take into account the strategy of the person who is or risks being ostracized from the international community.
The book proposes precisely to deal with this possible interaction by also placing oneself on the side of the devil, who has a wide range of behaviors at his disposal. He uses the feeling of real or supposed humiliation, seeks to anchor himself in the diplomacy of protest before switching to the status of criminal. In addition to this process of marginalization, the contributors also wonder about the devil’s ability to turn the balance of power in his favor by relying on certain powerful supporters less supported by the ethics of human rights and international standards. This is the case of Bashar Al-Assad, who, with the support of Russia, China and Iran, was able to maintain his position in Damascus, thus giving the impression that the executioner has the last word. . But until when ?
You have 3.59% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.
