The Korean Day

Today’s front-page news is about the meeting between President Trump and Chairman Kim Jong-Un. And it can be summarised in two words: bold and positive. The US President takes a good chunk of the credit because the initiative came from his side. But the North Korean Leader – and the President of South Korea, Moon Jae-in – must equally be recognised.

Conflict resolution never follows a straight line. In the Korean case, after decades of confrontation and impasse, one should not be surprised to see the route following some unexpected turns. That was the case today.

Now, both sides have to transform the positive move they took into concrete negotiations and clear benchmarks. The benchmarks must be about confidence-building measures. They concern both Koreas and the Americans, above all. But they should seek to tranquilise the Japanese and the Chinese as well.

It would be a mistake to be over optimistic. But it would also be a serious failure not to accept that today’s event opens the door for serious discussions. The leaders have created hope. Now, they must sustain it.

G20 official picture: the messages

Some people will spend a bit of their time reading the official picture of the 2019 G20 Meeting just held in Osaka. These types of pictures contain many hints. They cannot be taken lightly. The protocol and the political seniors of the host country – in this case, the Japanese who are masters in matters of meaning and symbology – invest a lot of working days deciding the positioning of everyone in the picture. Their final choice has a deep political import.

This year’s photo gives special attention to the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. He stands at the centre, between the host, Prime Minister Shinto Abe, and the US President. We could think that such placing might be related to the fact that Abe is just back from a visit to Iran and he wanted to show that he also pays special attention to the diplomacy towards Saudi Arabia. Maybe he would love it to be interpreted that way. But it is just a happy coincidence for the Japanese. Abe is close to the Crown Prince because Saudi Arabia will be organising the next G20 Meeting, in November next year.

That’s the reason why the President of Argentina, Mauricio Macri, is also on the front row. The last meeting took place in his country (2018). That’s protocol.

Then, the rest of the front row brings together some of usual suspects: the leaders of China, Russia, Germany and France. But also, some special friends of Japan. First, two close neighbours, South Korea and Indonesia. And three other countries representing other regions of the world: Brazil, Turkey and South Africa. Surprising is to see Prime Minister Modi emerging in the second row. That’s not where India should be.

On the last row, a bit lost as he looks in the wrong direction, we can find the UN Secretary-General. This is not new. It has nothing to do with António Guterres. To place the UN boss in the background has been the tradition. I always thought such positioning sends a very inappropriate signal. The UN must be better recognised by the world leaders, particularly in a meeting that deals with global issues. It is important to battle for that.

In the end, my overall assessment of the meeting is positive. Many people might say these summits have no real purpose and are not useful. That’s a respectable way of looking at them. I want to take the opposite view, particularly in respect of this one. We are living in a period of tensions and great complexities. These leaders have the power to make it go in the right direction. They represent most of the world’s population and 85% of the global economy. When they meet and send some positive messages, the world feels a little bit more hopeful.

European Defence and Security

Brief answers to questions about the EU defence and security:

First, it is obvious that NATO remains the strongest defence option for the Europeans. It is a powerful structure, it has invested a lot on training and change, it is well known in the European military circles, and several EU member States see it as the key umbrella. They think that without the might of the Americans, the EU defence is not strong enough.

Second, several EU leaders think that Europe should have its own common defence capacity and that such capacity should be in place in 10 to 15 years’ time. For that to happen, its building must start now, which means more joint EU military activities, more coordination, joint defence industries, shared means, and so on. This option will keep growing but the pace might be slow.

Third, the EU geopolitical interests and views are becoming divergent of those pursued by the US. That is true in Middle East, that is also the case regarding our relations with China, and India, and so on. Diverging interests mean that sooner or later we must be able to put together an independent capability.

Fourth, the EU are afraid of being dragged into conflicts that are only in the interest of the US. They are afraid of a deeper confrontation between the US and China. The EU does not want to automatically take sides on such dispute, if it occurs.

The UN and the current crises

The United Nations is always required to be politically smart. That’s the way I saw it, when performing the responsibilities that had been assigned to me. And that’s what I still believe to be the best approach. Smart means above all to be able to say what must be said but with the words that build trust and show concern. Timidity is not the best road to achieve results and guaranty the necessary credibility.

I mention it because today I had to state that things must get better. If the UN remains basically inspired by risk aversion, it will keep pushing itself to the margins of the key current issues.

The Member States must be reminded, as often as the opportunity arises and as it is authorised by the UN Charter and by the history of the organisation, that they ought to support the central role the UN is supposed to play in case of international crises and conflicts. They should also be helped to keep in mind – and act accordingly – that any conflict resolution situation and peacebuilding effort require a comprehensive response. The UN System has the know-how to provide comprehensiveness. And the System must say it loud and clear. It should also smartly – diplomatically – challenge those leaders who keep betting on a security solution to complex crises. A security response, even a powerful one, is just a tool. It is not the master key.

Leadership and renewal

I spend a bit of time talking about leadership in the context of strategy formulation and implementation. The quality of the leader determines the excellence of the strategy. Very often we forget that fact. We look at the strategy but do not consider the merit of those in charge of designing it, of talking about it to do the convincing part, and of its operationalisation.

We have also to keep in mind that leaders emerge, and grow but that one day, they must go and leave room for the next generation. The rotation issue is an important one. It keeps the creativity on. Therefore, true leaders must prepare the new crop that will end up by taking over. This is an evidence that is often ignored. By the leaders themselves, first.

Istanbul and Erdogan's nightmare

President Erdogan’s candidate has been plainly defeated today. This was a repeat of the Istanbul municipal elections. The first ones, in May, had been marginally won by the opposition candidate. But Erdogan could not accept such defeat. He managed to get that round of elections annulled. Today, the loss is much bigger. The people of Istanbul wanted to send a very clear message to Erdogan. They spoke loud and clear. We will see how the President will react in the near future. He is not a man to accept a defeat. He sees it as a major threat to his absolute authority. Therefore, we can expect he will make it very difficult for the winner, Ekrem İmamoğlu, as well as for all those he sees as supporting him.

Erdogan is not a democrat when he is not the winner.

Iran, West Africa and the info war game

We are witnessing the emergence of a new campaign against Iran that includes “information” about that country’s growing presence in West Africa, the Sahel and Sudan. It basically says that, following data available to certain security agencies – not named –, Iran is engaged in building a network of terrorist cells in those regions of Africa. Those cells would later be activated against Western interests in the countries concerned.

I have known these corners of Africa for decades. And I have several friends in positions of authority in the area, including in matters of internal security. There is indeed a serious increase of radical activities and armed groups over there. But their link with Iran seems very unlikely. Certainly, very difficult to prove. Those radicals are inspired by Sunni fundamentalism, whilst Iran is a Shiite proponent of Islam.

What I have noticed, and my friends have confirmed, is that the new radicalism in that belt of Africa is mainly supported by groups and mosques based in Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, especially in Qatar, as well as in Pakistan. In addition, there is also some influence coming from Egypt.

The European Council meeting

A couple of senior French journalists, seasoned when it comes to cover events around the EU in Brussels, wrote that the European Council meeting of yesterday and today ended up by being a great victory for President Macron. Such comment is a serious mistake. The summit was not about Macron versus Merkel, as they want us to see it. It was a meeting of leaders, twenty-seven of them. They were presented with three names as possible candidates to Juncker’s succession. The names were based on the spitzenkandidat approach. And none of the candidates got enough traction to be considered for the job of President of the European Council. Not because of Emmanuel Macron’s opposition. Not because the spitzencandidat approach was rejected. It is just that each candidate had several leaders that opposed their nomination. And that’s how Europe should work. The head of the new Commission must be someone that meets the approval and respect of the heads of State and government. That is more necessary than ever. It will take a bit more time to decide. But this is a very important decision. A collective one, not a French chauvinist move.

Malaysia Airlines and Jamal Khashoggi

Yesterday, we got two pieces of news that reminded us that the respect for international norms is currently very low. States act as they please and just ignore the existing enforcement mechanisms that the international system has built during the past decades. Alliances of countries that share the same interests have become stronger than the UN, its principles and its regulatory instruments. The Security Council, established as the ultimate authority in terms of peace and security, is at present simply ineffective. That has a major impact on the UN’s image and work as well as on respect for multilateral answers to shared problems.

All this makes might rule over right. It is a field day for dictators and strong men. Above all, it is a serious regression and a dangerous state of affairs. One must express one’s fear and condemnation of States that do not respect the established international rules. One should not remain silent.

One of the news was about the Malaysia Airlines plane that was shot down in 2014 over Ukraine. Key people have now been accused of murder. More indictments are yet to be announced. We can lament that it took to long to come up with these four names. True. But it is a step in the right direction, a move that shows this type of state-sponsored crimes cannot be carried out without punishment. Blame and shame might not be enough. But it is important to do it, to point in the direction of the powerful, particularly when the chances of bringing the accused to justice are very slim.

The second one was about the cruel assassination of Jamal Khashoggi. The UN Special Rapporteur’s words were very clear about the Saudi Crown Prince’s responsibility. Basically, she said there is enough evidence to warrant a criminal investigation of his role. But Saudi Arabia and its main allies do not want to accept that at all. One should not be surprised by the Saudi position. However, one should state in very direct and unambiguous terms that we cannot accept the whitewash the Western countries are engaged in. Saudi Arabia must follow international law. And our role, the role of the democratic countries, is to advise Saudi Arabia to abide. But we are not doing it. And that is a serious breach of the international order that took decades to be shaped.

Europe and the Iranian situation

Iran announced yesterday it intends surpass the uranium stockpile limit set under the 2005 nuclear agreement. They want to do it by 27 June.

Obviously, this is no good news. It brings the region to a new level of tension. For Europe, it makes the EU’s political position on Iran untenable.

Actually, the European position had already reached a dead end. Now, that is indisputable.  

Today, Federica Mogherini is on her way to Washington. I do not know what she will bring to the discussions with Mike Pompeo and Jared Kushner, the trusted son-in-law of President Trump. But she has no room left. On one side, she is confronted with an Administration that is determined to further tighten the sanctions already in place against Iran. Not to mention, of course, the additional military deployments to the Gulf region. On the other side, she sees a regime and a leadership that are placing themselves against the wall, when the wise move would have been to remain committed to the implementation of the nuclear agreement.

In my opinion, Mogherini, on behalf of the EU, has no choice but to be frank and direct. Direct means diplomacy with clear words. Here, the message should be that all sides must show restraint and accept to return to the negotiating table. EU and China, with the support of Russia, could be the conveners of such a negotiation.

On her return from Washington, Mogherini should also travel to Beijing and Moscow. Before that, she could meet the UN Secretary-General. That would send an appropriate signal. And it is something the UN needs.

Hong Kong and the fire wall

The people of Hong Kong are very brave. In addition, they might be giving some sleepless nights to President Xi and the leadership circle in Beijing. Xi Jinping and his inner group are probably asking themselves if this type of mass movement could one day happen in any of the big cities of Mainland China.

We might think that is a very remote possibility. That mass demonstrations will not occur in the Mainland. That the Communist leaders will keep strengthening the police and security controls, as they have been doing. They will also black out all the information regarding the protests in Hong Kong, as they did today and in the last few days.

But one never knows. There are many giant cities in China and lots of people are now travelling abroad and seeing other realities. Including many young Chinese professionals, who have studied abroad or are still studying in Japan, Thailand, Australia, Europe, Canada and the US.

Beijing might say all this unrest is caused by foreign powers. But they know that is not the case. I trust the leaders do not believe in their own discredited propaganda. They are very much aware that things are changing rapidly all over the world and that no fire wall can keep the human aspiration for freedom on just one side of the barrier. Sooner or later, they are afraid, the opening of the wall will happen.

Sudan, the people and the Western interests

Not too long ago, during my time in the Sahel Region, I met regularly with Sudanese community villagers, men and women, as well as with officials. I had also to deal with the security and humanitarian consequences of the Janjaweed militias, the armed groups doing the dirty work in Darfur at the service of Omar al-Bashir. I gained then a lot of admiration for the people of Sudan and felt deeply their aspiration for security and democracy. I also learned how strategic the Khartoum leadership could be, including the intelligence agencies and the generals.

The fall of al-Bashir, following the continued, widespread popular pressure, came to me as good news. But I also knew that the military and security establishment, including the militias, now operating as Rapid Support Forces (RSF), would not let it go too easily. And that is the situation today. More than a hundred people were killed last week in the capital by the military and the militias, many more were wounded or raped. The establishment cannot lose control. They have a heavy hand on the economy – on what remains of it, as most of the economy is in a state of collapse – and they are also afraid to be brought to justice due to past crimes they have been associated with. Therefore, it is the survival of the al-Bashir regime’s elite that is now at stake. They are ready to make al-Bashir and a few others pay the bill. But they do not want it to go beyond that.

The generals, including General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, the RSF boss, are closely supported by the Saudis, the Egyptian President and the Military, and the United Arab Emirates leadership. The generals have sent Sudanese armed men to fight the Saudi-UAE war in Yemen, among other things. This is a smart alliance. It protects the Khartoum generals from pressure from the European Union and the US. For the West, the friends of our friends deserve some consideration, no doubt. That explains the relative lack of attention the Sudanese situation has generated in Brussels and other capitals. People’s rights are a beautiful thing as long as they do not interfere with Western interests in the region.

The Chinese have also strong stakes in Sudan, particularly related to the oil pipeline that crosses the country.

All this makes the Sudanese transition to democracy extremely challenging for the people of that great country.

Hormuz tensions

Yesterday’s attacks on two petrochemical tankers sailing in the vicinity of the Strait of Hormuz should ring strident alarm bells. They make obvious there is a strong player that is betting on escalating the tensions in the region. And the fact of the matter is that we do not know who is playing such a destructive card.

We can try to guess based on a careful analysis of some nations’ strategic interests. However, at this stage to point the finger in one direction only contributes to augment the tension. It is certainly not the wisest approach. It should not be accepted.

The UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, should step forward and offer the organisation’s good offices to carry out an independent investigation of the incidents. The International Maritime Organisation could be part of it. In the meantime, he should dispatch a Special Envoy to the region. For instance, the UN Under-Secretary-General for Political and Peacebuilding Affairs. That move would help to lessen the regional political temperature.

The incoming President of the EU Commission

Regarding the choice of Jean-Claude Juncker’s successor, the informal consultations between the leaders have yet to point towards a consensus.

There was a dinner last Friday, here in Brussels, that brought together six Prime Ministers, representing the three main European political families: the centre-right, the liberals and the social-democrats. It did not go very far, except for showing that Manfred Weber, the centre-right candidate, has very little chances of getting the European Commission Presidency. He is perceived as not belonging to the circle of top leaders, Prime Ministers or former Presidents.

Today we learned that President Macron is pushing for Chancellor Angela Merkel as the best choice. But the Chancellor is not ready to move to Brussels. Her party is losing ground in Germany and she wants to remain focused on recovering the support of the German voters.

We never know, of course.

But we know that the European Commission needs a strong and clear-minded leader. One that can be respected by the heads of State and Government and projects an image that inspires trust and hope among the citizens of Europe. Also, that can talk to Presidents Trump, Putin, or Xi, with the necessary standing. He or she must be a heavyweight. Therefore, the choice is a very delicate matter.

Some people might think that in the end what matters is Emmanuel Macron’s or Angela Merkel’s opinion. That’s certainly not the case this time. Every national leader’s opinion matter. The current climate must recognise that fact. The selection must convince everyone.

Mali and its deep national crisis

This weekend there was another massacre in Mali. This time, the victims were ethnic Dogon villagers living in the central region of the country. It was another tit-for-tat action by another ethnic group, linked to the pastoralist way of life.

The country is moving into a deeper crisis. It all started in 2012, with jihadist radicals operating in the North. Now, it is a more complex situation that combines violence inspired on religious extremism with inter-community ferocious clashes and all types of banditry. To see it as mere Islam-inspired extremism is completely erroneous.

Confronted with such a grave situation, the international community, both through bilateral arrangements and the presence of UN and EU forces, has put most of the emphasis on military operations. A good number of military and police forces have been sent to Mali. That is, in my opinion, unbalanced as a response. It is a hammer approach to an extremely complex political situation.

The UN Security Council will be discussing Mali in the next few days. My message to the members of the Council is very simple: adopt a more political view of the conflict, not just a military-based line. Explore ways of promoting dialogue and joint projects between the ethnic groups of Mali. Have a hard look at economic development. Look at the way the national government addresses inclusiveness and good governance and be frank with the leaders. As friends, we must tell them, in diplomatic but clear words, that they ought to change the way they govern the country. It is there, in the governance area,  that we can find the beginning of a solution to a crisis that, otherwise, will continue to get worse.

Boris Johnson, you said?

Something must be dramatically wrong with the Conservative Party. Why do I say it? Because I see that its key members believe that the only way to beat an unsophisticated politician like Jeremy Corbyn is to elect as party leader Boris Johnson.

They know that Boris is an incurious, lazy, dilettante, person. His intellectual arrogance is also obvious. It is based on his shallow approach to politics, to the important issues, and on his narcissism.

To think that he might become the next UK Prime Minister, despite all those shortcomings, is startling. It indeed says a lot about the state of disarray within the Conservatives. And, in many ways, about the lack of realism in some segments of the British public opinion.