Clarifying the relationship with Greece´s political establishment

Political uncertainty is not a good option. The role of leadership is to make it as short as possible. Leaders clarify and define the rules. We expect them to sort things out without too much delay. We also expect them to be able to properly and openly communicate about their decisions.

That´s what is happening in the case of Greece, I want to believe.

We are now in the process of clarifying the relationship with the Greek government. We should also be able to clear up the rapport with the rest of the country´s political class. The connection with them has been too ambiguous. They have to tell us how far they are prepared to go. We should then state if we can go along or not. They have the right to decide about their own future. And we have the same right to choose if we are part of that journey or not.

Both sides have to be wise, in addition to being clear. But above all, both sides have to be sincere and be perceived as such. 

On the road

I have been on the road during the last few days. The blog will be back tomorrow. Thank you for your kind attention to my writing. It is important to be read. 

Spying on friends

Friends do not spy on friends. No government, including the US, is authorised to tap the communications of its allied nations’ leaders. This is a very basic principle of healthy alliances.

Keeping this in mind, I fully understand the anger President François Hollande has expressed today when he learned that he, and those before him at the Elysée Palace, have been spied upon by the intelligence services of the US.

Let´s also hope that France is not doing it elsewhere as well. 

Calais is a clear example of political weakness

It was again quite obvious that the French authorities have lost the initiative in Calais. The illegal immigrants are just around, at least 3,000 of them, trying to jump into trains and trucks and cross into the UK. They roam around freely and the police can only react when there is an attempt to board a vehicle.

The point is not about the police. It´s about the political masters losing control of the situation. This is just an example of the lack of political response we see in many parts of the European space. With time the problem will grow much bigger. 

Strategic communications are essential and part of the solution

The EU public opinion matters a lot. People have access to lots of information but the average citizen is still very much influenced by what they watch on TV.

My sense is that the leaders are not communicating well on Greece´s crisis. This is a very sensitive matter that can be easily exploited by any camp that promotes populism, and radicalism, and opposes the EU. It can also weaken further the fragile feeling of common interests.

Every leader has his or her part of responsibility. National leaders should address their national audiences and explain what is at stake and the choices that are being made. Juncker and Tusk, in Brussels, they have likewise to step forward and talk about the issue in a way that goes beyond the sound bites and a patronizing approach. It´s very much their call.  

Tax havens

Hong Kong is included in the just published EU list of tax havens for corporations. It is one of the 30 countries and territories enumerated.

The Hong Kong authorities have reacted with great surprise to their listing. And they are right as the territory has now in place a number of mechanisms to share information. It is true that the territory´s taxes are low. But that´s a political choice. It is part of the competition at the international level.

Many other countries have low corporate taxes and are not listed by the EU. Do you want an example? Look at the Delaware tax system in the US and you will see what competition means. Not to mention Luxembourg, an EU country with a very advantageous tax system for big companies. Luxembourg is not in the list…

Confused leaders are not my cup of tea

I have a problem with leadership. I do not like weak, confused, or misguided leaders. And as I grow older that dislike becomes even more intense. That´s the reason why I am not in party politics. The parties I know are full of them. Unfortunately, because good leadership can make a sea difference. 

Greater risk of confrontation

The seizure by Belgium and France of Russian assets, following a court order of yesterday, is a new dangerous step towards conflict escalation.

I am not saying, let me be clear, that those countries should not implement the court order, which is by the way a response to the illegal confiscation of Youkos´s corporate assets by the Moscow authorities a decade ago. What I am witnessing, with great concern, is an acceleration of the tension between Russia and the West. And experience shows that a greater level of confrontation can lead to a mishap or a miscalculation and become an open clash.

That would be a disaster. But as things keep going these days, one cannot ignore the risks. 

Leadership requires a great amount of patience

Be patient: that´s one of the most important qualities of good leadership. It does not prevent you from fighting for your views but you do it with resolve, a strong sense of opportunity and in an elevated manner. Or, determination, timing and posture are critical for any successful venture.

I recognise it is not easy to be patient. Therefore, you have to keep repeating it to yourself all the time. And in particular, when you are under pressure.

TTIP should be the object of an honest debate

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) – a potential free trade between the EU and the US – is the new rallying flag of all those in Europe who seriously dislike the Americans. As such, it is difficult to find objective assessments on the possible impact – positive and negative – of such an accord.

People attack the likely agreement from a blind position, and in many cases because that´s what they think their intellectual bedfellows expect from a leftist approach.

That´s a pity, as the TTIP is a matter that is too serious to be treated just based on anti-Americanism and on deceitful assumptions about what it means to be on the political Left.  

Greece: calling a spade a spade

Today´s prevailing position on Greece´s fate, in the European political and financial circles that have power, was rather clear: it´s time to call a spade a spade.

This basically means, as I see it, that those leading circles have come to the conclusion that the Greek situation has reached a decisive point. And the decision is to let Greece go its own way. It makes no sense to advocate for a solution that the other side does not accept.

I tend to agree. Default is painful but it is not the end of the road. Argentina and other countries have gone through that experience. Even California did. Default can actually be the beginning of a new cycle.

On the markets side, it looks as if the default possibility is now perceived as inevitable but with a manageable impact.

In the end, those who will be seriously affected are the poor people in the streets and villages of Greece. Unfortunately it´s always like that.

Bashir´s travels

Omar al-Bashir is an old desert snake. He is pretty strategic and astute. And he has also been a key player against the interests of the UN and its image, including in the peacekeeping area.

Once more he has managed to strike another blow against the prestige of the UN. In this case, the loser is the International Criminal Court.

But it is also the South African government. The authorities were caught in a dreadful dilemma: either to arrest Bashir and risk a serious row with Sudan and many other African governments; or let him leave South Africa, notwithstanding the court order, and risk further criticism at home.

They opted for the let-go option. I think in the end that was the only reasonable decision they could take. Politics is about deciding and the lesser evil is quite often the better decision. Now they should have the courage to explain the decision. Politics is also about telling the story in a way that makes sense and considers public opinion as a very serious issue. 

On mass migrations once again

Mass migrations are a new feature in the international relations list of collective challenges. They will remain in the list for a long time. As such, they require a comprehensive response and the engagement of all the key players, including the EU States and Africa.

 We, in Europe, cannot see the matter as an Italian or Greek problem, we cannot keep a country-based perspective. This must be a shared problem. We should also avoid a simplification of the matter and say this will be solved when the Libyan crisis is over or the day Niger and other countries in the Sahel have a better control of their borders.

We should also realise that the responses can only be partial, as the pressure to move North will continue for a very long time.

But that does not prevent us from taking action now. People crossing into Europe have to be properly screened. Those who have genuine reasons to apply for asylum should be processed fast and given a chance to start a new life in one of the EU countries. Everybody else should be treated with greater scrutiny, including their work skills. In the end, most of them would have to be repatriated. 

On Africa´s future

I have worked in Africa and on African affairs since 1978. I have seen many positive changes and also many crises. 

Based on my experience and taking into account key trends such as the very high rate of population growth and the explosive urbanization that defines many country situations, I can see major challenges ahead. 

For Africa to be a land of opportunities it has first to address the basic needs of the Africans, from education to health, from jobs to energy. And therefore create the opportunities for its peoples. This would require much better governance, more democracy and greater respect for human rights as well as a new type of international cooperation with Africa, including a large number of economic investments to be made by the private sector. 

Africa´s security: a collective and national effort

The issues of national and people´s security remain a core problem for several African States. 

Boko Haram is the most visible example of a country´s weak security systems. Nigeria has large military and police forces and services. It has been one the most assiduous participant in UN peacekeeping operations. But when challenged by a domestic group of extremists and fanatics it became obvious that big numbers do not mean effectiveness. 

Nigeria and many other countries will have to reform the armed forces and ensure a better coordination between the military and the police services. The reform includes a greater emphasis on professionalism, discipline, good management of the resources and better links with the citizens.

 Better security is also related to a regional response. The cooperation within the framework of the African Union and the Regional Economic Communities calls for an acceleration of the current efforts and a greater commitment to collective defence. 

Immigration: a political vacuum of collective European irresponsibility

The numbers keep adding every day. They also make it obvious that there is no European strategy to deal with the migrant flows across the Mediterranean Sea. The navy ships do their job, rescue the poor souls at sea and bring them to the shores. And after that, there is an empty policy space – a political vacuum of collective European irresponsibility – with everybody else hoping the Italians will take care of the immense problem. 

Bilderberg meeting: big egos and plenty of smoke

The annual meeting of Bilderberg “club” starts tomorrow. During three days pretty influential people from the global corporate world will sit together with politicians, opinion-makers and some very senior security service masters to review some of the megatrends – as they call the key challenges of today´s world.

The leader of this initiative is the current boss of AXA, the major international insurance company. He is a well-connected Frenchman.

This is a very secretive conference. Journalists are not allowed in as such. A couple of them will be there but as invitees, in their capacity as leading opinion-makers. They will be there because their writings –opinion columns – do influence a good number of decision makers. Secrecy leads to suspicion. Some people have called the Bilderberg crowd –about 120 to 150 of them every year –the real masters of the universe, the key plotters in terms of the next world events.

Such label is an exaggeration. Many of those in attendance have real power, in their own circles, others have prestige but little power left in their guns –they belong to the category one calls the “has been”. Obviously, there are many very powerful people outside this “club”.

Bilderberg is one of several power meetings. It is above all a networking exercise. It is of course of particular importance when compared with other similar networking opportunities – like Davos –because the number of Bilderberg participants is smaller and therefore the interaction and the bonds among them have a chance of being much more intense.

In the end, there is a lot of smoke and mystery, but very little movement beyond the private interests of the companies represented and the group therapy it provides to people with big egos.

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) should move ahead

There was a great deal of confusion today in the European Parliament. The Members (MEPs) were supposed to take a vote on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), the trade agreement between the EU and the US. The move would clear the EU´s negotiating position and give the European negotiators additional discussion authority.

The vote ended up by being postponed because more than 200 amendments were tabled by the MEPs. The main challenges came from the Socialist group and are related to the choice of mechanisms to resolve potential trade disputes between US firms and EU institutions.

This is a complex matter and needs to be carefully carried out.

But we should be clear that the TTIP is important for the Europeans, both in terms of jobs – greater access to the US market will have an impact on our industries and agriculture-related activities – and access to a larger choice of goods. It will certainly have a multiplier effect on the modernisation of our productive and commercial systems as well.

We should also underline that the sooner the agreement is reached the better. Amendments and other tactical moves cannot aim at delaying the process. If they are intended to improve the final accord, that´s very much appreciated. If they are based on genuine concerns, that can also be discussed.

Opposition to TTIP is no problem. That is the normal currency of democracy. But obstruction through parliamentary procedures is just not acceptable. It´s lack of political clarity and courage.

EU is meeting the Latin American States

As I am about to witness another summit meeting in Brussels, this time with Latin American leaders, I also realise that Latin America does not feature high in terms of the EU priorities. As such, I wonder what will come out of such meeting. Is it more than a mere diplomatic move?

In the meantime, I take note that the EU-Latin America consultation will be immediately followed by a summit with Mexico. And again, I am curious about the possible outcome of that conference.

In any case, enhanced relations with Latin America will give leverage to Spain´s position with the EU. Somehow, Portugal will gain a bit as well. That’s not a bad thing as it contributes to a greater balance between the different nations in Europe. 

Japan at the head of the G7

Japan will take over the leadership of the G7. That´s bad news for China, I presume. The tensions at sea in their part of the world will certainly gain a new emphasis during the next 12 months. And China will play the role of the villain. Several other players will appreciate it.

Merkel as the leader of the G7

We might not always agree with Chancellor Merkel´s views. But there is little doubt she is a strong leader and one that is level-headed, a feature I consider of particular importance when looking at leadership qualities. Her taking over the command of the G7 is good news. Particularly at this stage, when the international community is preparing for the discussion in September, at the UN General Assembly, of the new set goals to fight underdevelopment and poverty. Angela Merkel has pledged to pay special attention to getting the G7 fully committed to the Sustainable Development Goals that will be then approved.

She has also expressed her willingness to contribute to the approval of concrete results at the December Paris Conference on Climate Change. That´s a key moment in terms of our common future. We should see the key world leaders aware of its importance and keen enough to get the climate agenda off the ground. It is a good chunk of our future that is at stake. Leaders should not shy away and take refuge in their own national problems, as they so often like to do. Let´s hope Merkel will be able to set the example.

Finally, there is the question of gender equality. The status of women and girls is still a big issue, in many parts of the world. Merkel has expressed a special interest in this matter. Her voice needs to be loud and clear. 

Greece´s poker game

The Greek government is playing hard ball. They are convinced, I guess, that in the end the EU creditors will do whatever it takes to keep Greece within the Eurozone. And their poker hand is based on that assumption.

It´s a risky position. Athens might know more than we know about the concessions the other Europeans could possibly be ready to accept. But I am not sure they know. They just take the chance and hope to be right, that´s what I believe.

At this stage it is difficult to forecast the events of next week or so. We are certainly close to a clarification. And that moment of truth might be a difficult one for the Greek people. 

Notes on peace operations

GENEVA CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY

Notes for my seminar of 02 June 2015

Victor Angelo

 Reinventing Peace Operations?

(Reflections and question marks)

World is changing rapidly. But are today´s conflicts very different from the ones 15-20 ago? Yes and no.

Examples:

            South Sudan, CAR and Congo: clear failure of the state building processes. The same in Libya.

            Syria: the national dimensions combined with regional dimensions.

            Very different from civil war in Mozambique in late 80´s or the Cambodia conflict of early 90´s or the Sierra Leone crisis of 1999/2000?

o   The big difference might be at the level of the Non-State Actors:

ü In the past, we had insurgencies, national liberation movements, separatists, revolutionaries with a cause, warlord’s armies…

ü Now, the players are more difficult to categorise and to fight/contact, they are more fragmented, we witness continuous changes of alliances, they make greater use of terrorist methods and pose news threats to peacekeepers and civilians, they have closer links with Organised Crime, they do not accept the role of the UN, they do not seek a peace agreement – they want to win.

From forcing an agreement, that was the past line, to today´s approach, which is about winning the argument.

o   Also, the use of different means of waging war, combining kinetic with soft power: propaganda, social networks; there is indeed a greater emphasis on winning the narrative

The story that is told to the population and the world matters

o   Furthermore, the information is now global. Actions are taken to get international attention

v Above all, what is changing is our approach to conflict management and resolution: from a one-dimension approach to an integrated, comprehensive approach; but we are not yet good enough at dealing with:

            Asymmetric threats

            The narrative/image

Each conflict is different, but they all have in the end a number of common features:

Ø Poor leadership:

We should pay more attention to issues of leadership, time-bound mandates, political legitimacy, inclusiveness, power balancing between the executive, the legislative and the judiciary, power-sharing, constitutional issues

Ø Governance performance and state failure:

Many years of unsatisfactory governance, unable to respond to the basic aspirations of the populations, including the human security dimension and human rights, and widespread corruption

Ø The extreme competition for and the control of natural resources:

In the past, diamonds, coltan – short for columbite–tantalite

Now, water in Darfur, and access to rangeland in the Sahel and CAR

Ø A combination of domestic and regional dimensions:

Domestic political crisis are further aggravated by the interference of regional conflicting interests: Syria is a striking example

Ø They are chaotic and their management is about the ability to manage the chaos

Complexity is a key feature of any violent conflict; the response cannot be one-size-fits-all

International order: Are we getting into a more dangerous world?

Depends on one´s perspective. We could spend quite a bit of time discussing the question.

·        However, a more connected world is certainly a more dangerous world. Local problems become easily regional and then international threats to peace, stability and security.

·        The world media channels bring the problems to our homes and we feel threatened

·        There is also a new race for dominance: the West, the Fundamentalist Islam, Russia, China, other emerging powers

·        And a clash of values and cultures, somehow; some type of an anti-West surge

Is the use of force the solution?

Again, yes and no.

We are seeing a new arms race and the witnessing the call for increased investments in defence, after many years when the dominant views were about cooperation, defence budget reductions and disarmament

At the same time, there are calls for greater security cooperation through the Interpol and a better exchange of information: that was the case last week, when the Security Council discussed again the approaches to respond to terrorism.

But we live in culture that tends to give priority attention to the military and the national security issues first, to answer to the issues with a hammer and consider the police as lesser tool

The only long-lasting solution to a conflict is a political agreement that strikes a balance between conflicting interests; this means, politics first and in the end

The UN Security Council is eventually the only source to authorise the legitimate use of force

A few positive comments on the UN SC:

·        Let´s be positive and objective about the Council; a cynical position leads nowhere; we all know about its deficit of representativeness and the need to reform; however, nobody knows when the reform will happen

·        Every State wants to have the Council on its side; the Council´s agreement and support are considered as critical for the international image of any State

·        The UN SC pays special attention to peace operations – in particular to peacekeeping – and has accumulated a lot of experience in the supervision of such operations

·        It is a better position than any other authority to impose an integrated response by the UN agencies, funds and programmes

However, there are a number of short-comings the UN SC should address:

·        Its current divisions; they have been exacerbated in the aftermath of the Libyan crisis of 2011; they are inspired by tensions between the P5, geopolitical interests; they block the decisions on major crisis, such as the one on Syria

·        Strike a better balance between peacekeeping and special political missions; the SC shows greater interest for peacekeeping operations for different reasons (military, police, budgetary, …)

·        Better define the links between peace operations and peace building; peace building approaches are still very much based on phasing out and cost reductions

·        Be able to take into account the interests and grievances of Non-State Actors; the Council´s perspective is still too much based on the State (and the government of the day) as being the key interlocutor and the player; also, there is a need to go beyond the national borders and bring in the regional dimensions – work better with the regional organisations

·        Improve the understanding of the integrated response concept; it cannot be just the approval of a huge and diversified mandate and the expectation that the SRSG will be able to bring together the different parts of the UN

·         Focus more on providing strategic direction when dealing with the UN Secretariat and the peace missions

·        Re-assess the pertinence of the peacekeeping principles – Consent of the parties, Impartiality and Non-use of force except in self-defence and defence of the mandate – and define better the “robustness approach”

On Robustness:

ü 2/3 of the UN peacekeepers are deployed in countries where ther is no peace to keep

ü The accent is on force not on the politics and dialogue process

ü Tactical use of force: it calls for the UN SC approval and the consent of the host country;

ü Makes the UN a party to the conflict

ü Creates divisions among the Troop Contributing Countries (TCCs)  and UN key member states

Looking ahead, we can expect robust operations to be the new norm

The approval should be guided by:

Ø The seriousness and the urgency of the threat; atrocities, Protection of Civilians, extreme humanitarian urgency

Ø A reasonable motive: the military action has to be seen as the best way to stop the threat

Ø Last resort

Ø Proportionate;  just the necessary force

Ø Based on a clear understanding of all its consequences

Ø Clearly explained to the public opinion

But, in my opinion, robust operations should be carried out by either:

Ø Coalition of Forces under a UN SC mandate

Ø Regional organisations  ( AU, AL, NATO, EU, CSTO…)

Ø Making better use of international police systems, shared information and enhanced combination of military/police/civilian responses

It´s indeed time to have a better coordination between the UN and the regional organisations. That´s a key path towards the future.

It´s also time to address the marginalisation of the UN in peace operations; the UN is very busy, the demand is increasing, but it is kept away from the major conflicts. Or it cannot be seen as just a machinery to address the conflicts of the poor countries.