Christmas in the Sahel

How about lunch in the Sahel?

Victor Angelo

 

A few years ago, my wife and I were invited to an unusual Christmas lunch. The invitation came from the Chad presidency and the repast site was about a hundred kilometres north of Fada, a town more than two hours' flight from Ndjamena, already in the area of transition from the Sahel to the Sahara. The plan was to fly to Fada and follow by land to one of the oases of the Mourdi Depression - a set of deep valleys with several lagoons, much in demand by the traders of the numerous camel herds in transit to Libya, where each camel ends up by being sold at meat markets.

We went there. The journey between Fada and the oasis took place in the middle of twenty-something jeeps of a company of elite troops with operational experience of the region. The open-backed pickup trucks - the famous "technicals" - advanced at high speed, in parallel, on a unique front of several hundred meters. The aim was to avoid the dust and the ambushes of lawless groups that were already wandering in those parts of the Sahel.

The set menu was sheep, stuffed with chicken and couscous, roasted in a hole dug in the sand. The animal, well-done, cleaned of ashes and sand, was placed in front of us, whole, from head to feet, staring at us, so that we, the guests, could begin the feast. The protocol was clear. No one would touch any piece of food before we had finished ours. My wife and I looked at each other, and we did not know what to do. The head of the GOE (Portuguese Police Special Operations Group), who were in charge of my personal security, pulled out a pocket folding knife, cut two pieces and we started munching. Slowly, to show appreciation for the delicacy. Two hundred eyes followed our chewing closely. When we gave the signal that we had enough, the military threw themselves at the animal and the accompanying food. They cleaned everything in the blink of an eye.

In telling all this, my intention is not to invite the reader to a similar Christmas lunch. It is a question of taking advantage of the moment to talk about the Sahel, the hunger and food insecurity that define the daily lives of its people, and the violence that is taking place in these lands. It is also a tribute to those who have little more than their personal dignity, a quality that has always defined the way of being of the people of the Sahel. But that dignity is now often violated by those who have power, whether on the side of governments, armed robbers, or terrorists. The Sahel and the adjacent Sahara are experiencing a deep security crisis, which has worsened continuously since 2012, despite a strong European military presence in the region. 

The year now ending has been the most violent. Jihadists and other armed groups, including popular militias formed by the governments that the Europeans support, will have caused over 4,250 deaths and thousands of displaced people. The most dangerous area is the three borders region between Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger. About half of the attacks were directed against civilian populations. In most cases, the violence, even that which wears a mantle of religious radicalism, has as its main objective to extort resources. Communities that make a living from artisanal gold mining or pastoralism, as well as those that run the trade corridors connecting the Sahel with the west coast of Africa, in Benin, Togo and Nigeria, are the most frequent targets. It is difficult to determine where looting ends and fanaticism, ethnic hatred or human rights violations begin. Terrorism is a label that defines a complex reality badly. But it is around. In 2020 we saw many confrontations between or perpetrated by two of the most important groups: the Islamic state in the Greater Sahel and the Al-Qaeda factions. And we are still hearing reports of war crimes committed by the armed forces of countries to which Europe gives military training.

The EU is preparing a new strategy for the region. It may be ready during the Portuguese presidency. To be valid, it must begin by questioning the reasons for the failure of the strategy that has been followed so far. My first indications are that it will be more of the same. It might then be a good idea to organise a lunch in a remote corner of the Sahel for some European leaders.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published today in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper)

 

Leadership for the days ahead

If I were put against the wall, what would I say? I mean if I had been requested to underline just one – one is singular, no escape with long lines and a torrent of words – one key positive feature of an exemplary politician what would I refer to?

Before I respond, please note the word positive. In these times of tremendous challenges, we must talk about the future based on a constructive approach. After the Donald Trump experience, I am no longer prepared to accept negative, destructive leaders.

Going back to the question about the key feature, my answer would be about dedication to the common good. Dedication means, in my mind, full commitment to the public leadership job. It means a keen sense of duty and willingness to personal sacrifice. It is a continuous, strenuous search for a better, more respectful, more balanced, and more ecological society.

A leader is a self-sacrificing person.

The human dimension in politics

The pandemic has reminded us that health, politics, ethics, social justice, and human rights are deeply interconnected. It has also sent us a strong message that health is a public good, not just an individual matter or an economic issue. Politicians are made to realise that human life is at the centre of all concerns. The human dimension of politics must be seen as central.

Our Putin policy

Russia in fat letters

Victor Angelo

 

This week, Vladimir Putin and Russia made headlines again. One of the reasons was the message of congratulations that Putin sent to Joe Biden. The Russian leader turned out to be one of the last heads of state to congratulate the winner of the US elections. The pretext for the delay was to wait for the results of the Electoral College. This formalism, which was impeccable from a legal point of view, but undiplomatic and inconsequential in terms of future relations, barely conceals Putin's preference for Donald Trump. In Moscow's view, Trump's incompetent, incoherent and divisive policy was the one that most weakened the international position of the USA and best served the Russian geopolitical renaissance. Not to mention, of course, the deference that the American always showed for the Kremlin's strong man. 

Putin's message speaks of cooperation and puts his country on a par with the USA, in the very exclusive league of the great states "especially responsible for global security and stability". Putin, always attentive, takes this opportunity to reaffirm his country's indispensable role on the world stage.

In the meantime, other headlines have emerged about Russia. Since March she has been accused of infiltrating the computer systems of several major American targets. The list of federal institutions and private companies violated, as well as the level of refinement used, show the gigantic scale of the operation, which can only have been carried out by the highly specialised services that make up the official Russian espionage web. It is true that other countries are constantly trying to do the same. But the fact is that the Russians have succeeded and for a long time. This can only mean that the leadership invests exceptionally in cyber-espionage. It will never be known exactly what information has been extracted. The hope remains that the volume of data will be of such magnitude that it will eventually overwhelm the analysts. In these matters, it is one thing to obtain information, but another to have the capacity to carry out its analysis, in order to transform it into knowledge and courses of action, and this in good time, which becomes short as soon as the infiltration is discovered.

To complete the bunch, it was simultaneously noticed that the Russians had also pirated the European Medicines Agency. And CNN published a detailed report of the persecution and poisoning of the opposition figure, Alexei Navalny, by Putin's agents. Then came the news about doping and the ban on participation in the next Olympic Games. A series of negative headlines about a regime that loves to sell its image as respectable.  

Amid all this, Europeans extended sanctions against Russia until July 2021. These measures, which come from 2014 and relate to Russian armed intrusions into Ukraine and the occupation of the Crimea, have a narrow scope. They do not include, for example, the suspension of the construction of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, which will link Russia and Germany across the Baltic. Another title of the week was to announce that work on the installation of the pipeline had resumed and had even entered the final phase.

The reality is that EU leaders do not have a clear political vision of what the relationship with Russia should be like. There has been much debate on the issue, including the design of scenarios, but no agreement. The trend seems to me, as we look at the decade ahead, a mixture of deadlock, hesitation, opportunism, mistrust, and detachment. A policy of uncertainties, with Putin setting the pace.

The Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), now with Helga Schmid at the helm, should seek to be the bridge for dialogue between us and Moscow. But not only that. The EU's external agenda needs to define a strategic line on Russia, including proposals for joint action, first in areas of least controversy and serving to build understanding and trust. The same should happen at the military level, both in the EU and NATO. Russia is our massive neighbour. Threatening, certainly, with autocratic leadership, but geographically, culturally, and economically close. A policy of locked doors has no way out.

 

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published today in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper)

 

 

China and Europe: an agenda that differs from the American one

China and us

Victor Angelo

 

China's Foreign Minister Wang Yi spoke this week to the cream of US business leaders based in his country. The focus of his speech was the resumption of political dialogue between China and the United States under Joe Biden. He felt there was an urgent need to restore communication and mutual trust. He hinted that it was time to overcome the lack of objectivity and rationality that had marked Donald Trump's governance.  Apart from the reference to the red line of non-interference in Chinese domestic affairs - that is, Beijing does not want to be talked about human rights - his communication reflected a positive and reassuring official line.

On the same day that Wang spoke, Washington added 14 Chinese personalities to the list of those sanctioned for repression in Hong Kong. In Singapore, US Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross argued to an audience of leaders coming from the region that China would be the main military and economic threat to Asian countries. This is consistent with the Trump team's intention to create a fait accompli that would condition Biden's policy towards China. And I would say that it is managing to reduce, at least for some time, the room for manoeuvre of the new administration. A large part of public opinion and of the US political class share an ideological position of hostility towards China. 

Days before, John Ratcliffe, the director of U.S. National Intelligence and, as such, the supreme coordinator of the country's seventeen espionage and counterintelligence agencies, had published an opinion on China in the Wall Street Journal. Given its author, the text attracted much attention. The song was the same and the title of the article summed it up: "China is the No. 1 threat to national security". In the body of the text, it went further, stating that China would also be the greatest danger to the world’s democracy and freedom. The rest of the writing was an amalgamation of scattered ideas about China’s actions without differentiating well what would be within the domain of national security from the anecdotal or just a fight for the interests of American multinationals.

The legacy that Trump seeks to leave in this matter is also intended to condition the Europeans. He is already achieving this in NATO. The group of experts set up by the Secretary General to reflect on NATO 2030 is co-chaired by the American Wess Mitchell, an intellectual so dear to Trump as hostile to Beijing. The document the group has produced, now under discussion by the Alliance's foreign ministers since the beginning of this month, refers to China as an "acute threat".

However, Europe cannot look to China only from the unique perspective provided by the Americans. Our interests and our geopolitical deployment are different. Nor are we in a race for military power, nor do we have the engines of Chinese aircraft carriers snoring through waters close to us. We know, on the other hand, that you cannot put all the risks in the same bag. Every threat, be it military, political destabilisation, scientific, technological, or economic espionage, in the field of intellectual property or unfair competition, requires specific treatment.

In Europe's case, attention must be focused on three types of action. First, the fight against espionage, intrusion and theft linked to scientific and technological advances. European intelligence services must prepare themselves for this task and cooperate more closely with each other. Secondly, a common frame of reference should be defined to give coherence to the way European states relate to China's politics and economy. In other words, this means that opportunistic relations, and outside that framework, between EU member states and China should be considered unacceptable. Third and foremost, the EU must state clearly that cooperation is the only desirable way forward. So, without calling into question our alliance with the US, and without forgetting that Beijing is a dictatorship, political dialogue with China must seek mutual benefit, the promotion of universal rights and values, and cooperation in tackling major global challenges.

 

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published today in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper)

 

 

Writing about Iran

Iran: the next day

Victor Angelo

 

 

In 2018, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh became known when Benjamin Netanyahu accused him of being the scientist at the head of the Iranian nuclear programme. Fakhrizadeh was murdered on the outskirts of Tehran a week ago. There are contradictory accounts of the crime. What is certain is that the ambush was conducted by a reasonable number of agents, at least ten of them, and in a professional way - the wife, who was travelling with him, came out of it unharmed, she was not part of the objective. I have no doubt that the ambush was carried out by special forces, with perfectly trained executioners, who had at their disposal the information, logistics and means necessary for a high-risk mission. It is peaceful to conclude that it was not the work of the internal Iranian opposition. It had all the characteristics of an operation planned, organised, and carried out by a state hostile to Iran. And I cannot help but think of the regime's three main enemies: Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Donald Trump's United States.

Those who know these things point in the direction of Israel. It is true that the secret services of that country, in particular the legendary Mossad, have already demonstrated an incomparably greater ability to penetrate Iranian official circles than any other espionage service. One example of this ability, with the trial of the indicted currently taking place in Antwerp, is the following: it was Mossad that made known to the Belgian authorities the terrorist attack the Iranian government was plotting in 2018 against the National Council of Iranian Resistance in exile. The European intelligence services where the plot was being prepared - the Belgians, the French, and the Austrians - had not noticed anything. 

Israel can never admit the slightest hint of responsibility for murders of this kind. Such an admission would open the door to prosecution in the International Court of Justice in The Hague or in the jurisdiction of a United Nations member country. International law is clear. An extraterritorial, summary, and arbitrary execution, promoted by a State outside a situation of armed conflict is a crime which violates international human rights law, the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the 1977 Additional Protocols. Moreover, the United Nations Charter expressly prohibits the extraterritorial use of force in times of peace.

For all these reasons, the paternity of what has now happened to Fakhrizadeh will remain unknown for the time being. We will have to be contented with the suspicions.

The assassination has shown that the Iranian system of internal espionage and counterespionage, which terrifies the population, has very serious flaws. The powerful Ministry of Intelligence is more concerned with the repression of the growing internal opposition than it is prepared to identify the most sophisticated threats from outside. This is not new. In early July, for example, the security services were unable to prevent an explosion at the Natanz nuclear power plant, nor were they able to avert the sabotage of missile-making programmes. All these actions were handled by a foreign country.  

A fundamental issue is to try to understand the central motive for the assassination. What seems more obvious, which would be to strike a major blow capable of further delaying the regime's nuclear programme, makes no sense. The country already has several teams of scientists capable of enriching uranium. The attack on Natanz and the sabotage have already delayed the plans. The real reason must be different.

If we look upstream, we will see that the Israeli government is on the brink of collapse and that Netanyahu will need convincing campaign arguments again. The presumption of a strong hand against the ayatollahs will certainly bring a good number of votes. Looking further ahead, we see that the new Biden administration is in favour of reopening a negotiating process with Tehran. This would be more difficult if the clerics responded to what happened to Fakhrizadeh in a violent manner. The old leaders of Iran are fanatical and backward. But they are astute in international politics. They must look at the assassination as an attempt at political provocation. And they know that waiting patiently for Joe Biden to take office may be the best response to the challenge they were given days ago.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published today in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper)

 

 

 

The future of politics must be based on values

They do not fit into our future

Victor Angelo

 

I recognise the concerns that many thinkers express about what the world will be like in the aftermath of the coronavirus pandemic. A large proportion say that this crisis pulverizes our societies and disrupts democracy and the alliances that bind us to other peoples, promotes a tendency towards isolation, nationalistic selfishness and the loss of the points of reference that gave meaning to international relations. Thus, the world would emerge fragmented from the crisis, with each country more self-centred, more autocratic, and with the institutions of the multilateral system rather weakened.

I propose a different reading of the route we are now taking. I believe that the crisis gives us the opportunity to strengthen the humanist dimension that has been lacking, both in domestic politics and on the international stage. We will certainly be poorer economically, but we can become much richer politically. It is a question of good leadership and strong citizenship movements. The pandemic has reminded us that people are the essential end of politics. Not people in a general and abstract sense, but each of us, simultaneously in our individuality and as members of the social space to which we belong. Politics must place a stronger emphasis on protecting and respecting our fundamental rights, starting with the right to dignity, health, security and diversity, as well as creating the conditions for everyone to develop their potential as best they know how. 

I believe that the pandemic drama has prepared a good part of the citizens for a new kind of awareness as regards their relationship with others and nature. I think it has made us more measured in our ambitions. We are faced with the possibility of renewing political practice. That is the main conclusion I draw from the present situation. It is also the line that guides my vision of the future. Politics tomorrow must mean a continuous struggle for human rights, for democratisation, for smoothness in public management and for more solidarity. We must build on the maturity we have acquired during this period of shock. If this happens, the credibility of politics will be enhanced, multilateral cooperation will be cemented and we will be in a better position to tackle what I consider to be the three biggest global challenges of the decade: the fight against poverty, the defence of freedom and the regeneration of the environment, starting with the mitigation of climate change.

Indeed, none of this should be new to us Europeans. Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union clearly defines - and happily worded, which is not always the case when it comes to legal commitments between states - the values that constitute the fundamental foundations of our common project, including the centrality of the human dimension of politics. But politicians, who are generally very skilful in the games of opportunism and in the ambiguity of consensus designed to please Greeks and Trojans, do not always support themselves as they should in that article of the Treaty.

In these circumstances, it is essential that the European Commission's budget for the period 2021-2027 and the exceptional plan for economic recovery, which must respond to the challenges created by the pandemic, recognise the essential need for each Member State to respect the letter and spirit of the aforementioned Article 2. Budgets and democracy are the two sides of the same Europe. Here there can be no tricks or juggling of words and misunderstandings. The Hungarian vetoes of Viktor Orbán and the Polish vetoes of Jaroslaw Kaczynski, now also supported by Janez Janša, the Prime Minister of Slovenia, are unacceptable. Let us speak clearly. Orbán is a despot at the head of a clique that many accuse of kleptocracy. Kaczynski is a backward man who exploits feelings from other times. Janša is a small brain man: he was the only European leader to congratulate Donald Trump on his electoral "victory". They all manipulate public opinion in their countries and will not change as long as they retain control of power. We cannot let these gentlemen think that the EU is just a source of money, unrelated to a policy of democratic values and rights. Any compromise on this issue would mean that we would not have learned anything from the cultural revolution that the pandemic crisis is offering us. 

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published today in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper)

Biden's first steps

I was most impressed by the public presentation of President-Elect Joe Biden’s core team. That was a great moment of hope. The session was wisely organised, and the presentation speeches made by each one of the participants were deeply touching. It was a great start. Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and the nominees sent a strong message of confidence, experience and patriotism to the American people.

The contrast with the outgoing team could not be greater.

Our dear leader Donald "Narcissus" Trump

Narcissus or the fragility of democracies

Victor Angelo

 

To instil realism in a madman who has not his feet on the ground is an almost impossible task. But it is even more difficult to try to explain to a narcissistic politician that he is not the best and most loved of this world and the other. Unfortunately, politics is full of narcissism. It is a personality disorder that makes them politically toxic. They live one step away from becoming autocratic leaders.

Of all the narcissists, Donald Trump is the most visible and, given the power he still has, the most dangerous. The weeks left until the end of his term leave many of us anxious about the kind of decisions he might still take. The order to withdraw a good part of the remaining American troops from Afghanistan and Iraq is only the most recent example. It was decided without prior consultation with the authorities of those countries and in defiance of commitments signed with other NATO partners, who also have military personnel deployed in these theatres of conflict and whose stay goes hand in hand with a minimal presence of American forces. Another example of a very bad decision, also taken this week, concerns the authorisation of gas and oil exploration in the largest natural reserve in the Arctic area of Alaska. The concessions that will be approved in the next few days will leave Biden's administration prisoner to agreements with disastrous environmental consequences.

There is also the possibility of a last-minute madness against Iran. It is true that the advisers who still weigh on the White House and especially the Pentagon are not in favour of such action. It would be like opening a Pandora's box, at a time when Trump's authority is hanging by a thread and the Middle East is very unstable. Apparently, the idea has been put aside. But nothing can be considered definitive as long as he remains in power. We are, in fact, living in a period where each day can bring us a very bad surprise.

In reality, the only significant decision to be expected from Donald Trump will be the recognition of his electoral defeat. I am afraid that his narcissistic disorder will prevent him from doing so. I am convinced that he will continue to plunge into the fantasy he has created, fixated to the end in a fraud that did not exist, but which he needs to believe in, in order to try to heal the great wound that his disproportionate ego has suffered.

I am even more worried when I see prominent members of his party doing crazy things to influence the electoral authorities of several states. To this political pressure, which is simply illegal, are added public statements that call into question the legitimacy of the process and the victory of the elected president. A Reuters/Ipsos poll a few days ago revealed that about 2 out of 3 Republican voters believe that Biden would not have won the presidential election cleanly.

All this does great damage to social peace and the good acceptance of the new administration. Democracy seems to have been the main victim of these four years of atypical, self-centred and incompetent governance. The above-mentioned poll showed a growing distrust with the democratic system in the US. Donald Trump could go down in American history as one of the worst presidents of the last hundred years. He will certainly be remembered as the one who contributed the most to the weakening of democracy in his country and to the degradation of the political class. Party politics, the departments of the federal government, the House of Representatives and above all the Senate, are some of the institutions whose prestige has been deeply shaken by the megalomania, instrumentalization of power, nepotism and incoherence that have characterised Trump's governance.

We have learned that democracy in our part of the world is more fragile than was thought.  It is greatly threatened when power is concentrated in a single national leader, who uses it to polarise political life, to practise a rhetoric that divides society into antagonistic camps. That is what happened in the USA. But it is also happening in some European countries, especially when the parliamentary majority is made up of members of parliament who owe their seats to the loyalty they devote with closed eyes to the leader of their party who is, at the same time, head of the executive power.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published today in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper)

 

 

The EU-US partnership

A Bolder Europe

Victor Angelo

 

When it comes to real European politics, it is always good to start by knowing what Angela Merkel thinks. Even bearing in mind that she is due to leave the scene next year, she remains a leading voice. This week the Chancellor unambiguously welcomed Joe Biden's victory. She added that the partnership between the European Union and the United States should be the fundamental alliance of the 21st century. I will agree with this statement if the collaboration is based on a balance of power between the two sides. As I also agree with Merkel when she says in her message to the President-elect that for the cooperation to work effectively, additional efforts will have to be asked from the EU side.

The next day Ursula von der Leyen spoke to the heads of mission representing Europe in the world. She mentioned the future of relations with the USA. Her words were inspired by what Merkel had said. She stressed that it was up to the EU to take the initiative for a new kind of synergy with the incoming administration, that it was not a question of going back to the past, as if nothing had happened during the last four years. Yesterday and tomorrow belong to different historical eras. After such a challenging, radical, and absurd mandate as that of Donald Trump, a large part of American society looks to Europe and the world with suspicion. We must respond to this state of mind, combat isolationist tendencies and re-emphasise the importance of international cooperation for the prosperity of all and for the resolution of problems which know no borders.

The philosophy behind these European declarations, to which Emmanuel Macron's words were added, is encouraging.

The pandemic has turned the world upside down and shown that international solidarity and complementarities are now more necessary than ever. Europe can make a positive contribution to the structural transformation that the new future requires. To do so, it needs to become stronger, more ambitious, in the good sense of the word, and to look to the other major powers on an equal footing. The old attitude of subordination to the United States does not serve European interests. Nor does it allow the EU to gain the autonomy it needs to play a stabilising role between the other major powers on the planet.

The European responsibility is to take advantage of the constructive spirit that Biden's administration is expected to bring to international relations to project a clearer image of what it means to live in a democracy of mutual respect and tolerance, fair and capable of responding to the security aspirations of each citizen. The importance of individual security, in the multidimensional sense of this concept, covering life, employment, health, personal tranquillity, is one of the great lessons that the pandemic gives us. This lesson must be translated into political practice.  

To contribute effectively to the transatlantic partnership and to any bridge with other regions of the globe, the EU must be particularly demanding of itself. Retrograde, ultra-liberal, xenophobic, or even racist or corrupt governments cannot fit into the European area. Nor can we accept simply inefficient and bureaucratic administrations.

Europe's strength will lie in the quality and fairness of its governance and the coherence of its values. It will be complemented by efficient security and defence systems. Here, in the areas of European security, the message is that we are not against anyone, nor will we allow ourselves to be drawn into other people's wars, as unfortunately happened in the recent past, but also that we are not naive. This message is valid for everyone, allies, and competitors. It also means that we know that in tomorrow's world, better defence and more security do not come through more cannons and more soldiers, but through more analysis and intelligence, more highly prepared cadres and officers, more special forces, better cybernetic systems, more effective tracking of social platforms, and information that helps citizens to identify the truth and eliminate what is false.

If we move forward in this way, we will be responding positively to the hope that the election of Joe Biden has created and opening the way for progress towards a more balanced, safe, intelligent, and sustainable world.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published today in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper)

 

 

Reflecting on the United States elections

United States: after the confusion

Victor Angelo 

This week's subject has been the US presidential election. I don't want to get into the current discussion now. I just want to address two aspects that I think deserve more attention. 

The first is about the "beef". In 1984, a hamburger company created an advertising phrase that was immediately appropriated by the political class. The phrase was: where is the beef? In other words, beyond the verbiage, tell us what concrete proposals you are making? The question remains in the political arsenal and has a lot of argumentative force.

This year's election beef was a mixture of economic perspectives, pandemic management, and the fight for racial equality. These were the flags that mobilised the voters, beyond the deep love or disgust that each candidate raised. It became clear that citizens participate more in the electoral act when the meat is consistent, made of great causes.

The economy seems to have been the most important motivator of voter turnout. This reminds me of the famous expression used by Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign: "It's the economy, stupid! Donald Trump was, for his supporters, the best bet in terms of economic recovery. They were convinced that the covid would soon be resolved with the discovery of the appropriate vaccine. The important thing was to have an ultraliberal president in the economic area and a light foot, in fiscal matters. Trump managed to sell this image, as well as the representation of an opponent who would be in the hands of the leftist wing of the Democratic Party, i.e. who would be a puppet of what he called “the socialist radicals”.

On Joe Biden's side, the beef was in the pandemic, repeating the accusation of Trump's incompetence and lack of respect for safeguarding the lives of his fellow citizens. To this he added the fight against racial iniquities and violence against black citizens.  This political hamburger was a complete meal. But there was a catch: his opponent exploited the image of common sense and balance that Biden conveyed, and tried to turn it into a weakness. Projecting energy is part of the qualities of those in charge. So now we have a leader who needs to work on his image and show that he can combine humanism with firmness, including on the outside front. 

And we come to the second aspect. The European Union needs to draw two or three conclusions from all this.

The first is that Joe Biden, having confirmed his victory, will necessarily have to focus on US domestic politics, to broaden its support base and resolve a good part of the bipolarisation, resentment and hatred that exists in the country. In terms of foreign policy, in addition to a moderate return to multilateralism, he will have to focus on relations with China and this country’s neighbours.  It will have little time for European affairs.

The second is that a large proportion of Americans have a very different view of politics, economics and social relations when compared to the Europeans. The continuing divergence of values leads to a weakening of the alliance with Europe. The political gap between the two geopolitical areas will widen. We must therefore work harder for a Europe that is as autonomous as possible in the areas of defence and security, the digital economy, energy, and international payment systems. The blackmail that the outgoing administration has put on us, seeking our alignment with its unilateral decisions on economic and financial sanctions, has taught us that we must create our own mechanisms in these areas. 

Third, Europe must strengthen its foreign policy to gain space and independence from decisions taken in Washington. European foreign policy remains weak despite the resources made available to the European External Action Service. We must be frank and decisively address this weakness. It is a danger to be in the tow of other powers.

This election should lead to a more balanced and constructive international relationship. The European side must be able to seize the opportunity and become a stronger, more active, and independent partner. If it does, we can say thank you to Donald Trump for forcing us to open our eyes.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published today in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper)

 

 

 

Reflections prior to the US election

Election day, with confusion at the door

Victor Angelo

 

Writing about the American elections, while voting is going on, is risky. Despite the opinion polls, you never know what will come out of the ballot boxes. Especially this time, when everything is different, namely the high turnout by post and in person, which has reached unprecedented levels, the uncertainty as to what will happen in eight or nine states which may fall to one side or the other, and the extreme radicalisation of important segments of the electorate. With Donald Trump in the field, the rules and analysis schemes of the past are completely muddled.

But it may be less risky to write now than tomorrow when only part of the results is known and postal vote counts have not yet been completed. Except for miracles, and they sometimes happen, tomorrow begins the confusion. In fact, I fear that in the aftermath of the 3rd of November a period of great pandemonium will arise in the USA. If my prediction is right, we will get into a mess in which it will be difficult to have a clear idea about the future. Writing about this situation of political and social chaos will require a clear-sightedness that far exceeds my ability to navigate in tormenting waters. Those who know American society well think that the storm that is coming is simply terrifying. 

The plot has been in preparation for weeks. There is a plan, nothing happens by chance. The head of the production and prima donna is Donald Trump. As usual, everything revolves around his megalomania, narcissism, and personal interests.

The tragedy may unfold more or less in the following way. Once the results of the day have been calculated, of those who voted in person today, and if these provisional figures are in his favour, President Trump will come on television to proclaim himself the winner. He will say that the votes by post, which have not yet been counted, are not valid. He will thus be trying to ignore the will of millions of Americans who have chosen the safer postal route in these times of pandemic to express their choice. Such a statement about the invalidity of votes not yet counted, if it happens, would be a colossal abuse of power, an illegality and contrary to democratic practices. But the proclamation of Trump will immediately bring his supporters to the streets of the cities of the United States to celebrate the false victory. More than extemporaneous and unjustified celebrations, these demonstrations of radicalised and armed people - this has been a record year in terms of the private acquisition of weapons of all calibres - will serve to intimidate the rest of the citizens. I do not know what the response of the democrats or the police forces will be. But I have no doubt that we will see numerous confrontations. A former colleague of mine, a New Yorker who, like me, oversaw several complicated elections in various parts of the world, told me yesterday that she is more afraid of this post-election period in the US than of anything she has seen in the dictatorships she has been through.

Let us continue the plot. In the days that follow, Donald Trump will continue to speak out against the electoral process and not to accept a verdict from the ballot box that would be unfavourable to him. The political and social confusion will then be joined by a whole series of legal challenges, which the President's lawyers will set in motion everywhere. We will then enter a phase of general upheaval. In such a situation and with the character we have, it will be Donald Trump who will end up imposing himself. It is true that the institutions of counterweight and balance of power are a guarantor of democracy and they exist in the USA. But it is also true that the president has managed to have 220 federal judges and three for the Supreme Court confirmed during his term. These judges will be able to play a key role in the legal game ahead.

The scenario I describe here is obviously pessimistic. To plan the appropriate response, one must be pessimistic at times of major crisis. It would be great if it did not happen or if it happened only in a mitigated way. I would very much like to be wrong. But seeing the shop windows in downtown Washington or New York being protected with timber panes makes me more convinced that there is reason to fear and be prepared for the worst.

That brings me back to our side of the planet. If there is institutional upheaval in the US, the shock waves will have a destabilising global impact. The coronavirus pandemic has already turned much of the world upside down. An additional shock will further complicate the international scene. Are we, here in Europe, prepared to respond to a possible serious US political crisis?

If the above scenario occurs, we will see intense diplomatic pressure from Donald Trump's representatives in European capitals. They will do everything they can to ensure that this so-called victory is recognised. They will need to show the American people that European leaders recognise their boss's victory. This is a way of adding legitimacy to their claim. On these occasions, when elections are free and acceptable, heads of state have a protocol obligation to send their congratulations to the winning candidate. We shall see who does so, within the European Union. At the moment, out of a total of twenty-seven member states, I count between seven and nine leaders who, if they could, would vote for Trump. What position will they take in the event of an election mess? And what will Charles Michel's position be? What kind of relations can be expected between the two sides of the Atlantic in a second term that would be tainted by a markedly dubious legitimacy? These questions provide a backdrop to long discussions. Let us hope that it will not be necessary to return to them in a while.

In the meantime, beyond the European position, I am also concerned about the impact of such a crisis on the future of the United Nations and the multilateral system. Like the European leaders, António Guterres will also be under pressure. What message of congratulations can you send to a president if he emerges from confusion, abuse of institutional power and legal games?

In these unique times, there is no doubt that the best solution is a clear victory by Joe Biden. 

(AI translation of today’s text I publish in the Portuguese magazine Visão)

 

 

 

The flawed electoral system in the US

Two days prior to the US presidential election, I wouldn’t dare to predict the winner. This is a very complex electoral system and also a very imperfect one. For instance, it is now feared that many postal ballots might not arrive on time to be counted. In a normal state, the delay to take them into account would be extended by a few days. That is not the case in the US. Flaws like this one will cause serious tensions among the citizens. And it will open the door to many legal challenges. This means that one of the lessons we can already draw is that the electoral system needs a very well thought-through reform. It cannot continue to have features that are common in less developed democracies.

Europe's next door threat

The caricature of a megalomaniac politician

Victor Angelo

 

My text of last week on Islamist radicalism provoked several reactions. The Portuguese friends, who have always lived in Portugal, although with many tourist trips in the curriculum, were surprised by my description of the intolerance in certain schools and in some segments of French society. This is a situation that does not occur in Portugal. Here nobody intimidates anyone by mentioning Infante D. Henrique, Mouzinho de Albuquerque or the atheist José Saramago. Friends living in the Europe of immigration - in Belgium, for example - have recognised in my chronicle situations that are familiar to them. The rejection of values that we consider fundamental and life in social silos are commonplace. They added that it takes courage to talk about these things, in a balanced way and without falling into primary and racist recrimination. I have also received messages from former co-workers, who live out their Muslim faith in many parts of the world. For them, the problem lies in the mockery, the caricatures, their interpretation as an instrument of the Europeans' onslaught against Islam.

I remembered then that at the ceremony to honour Professor Samuel Paty, President Emmanuel Macron said that France would not give up the cartoons. I understand that position. What others see as an unforgivable offence is for us a simple expression of freedom. Religion is a subject like any other. In Europe, the collapse of the idea of blasphemy began in 1789 with the French Revolution.

Recep Tayyip Erdogan clung to Macron's statement about the drawings to treat his French counterpart as mentally ill. He said it repeatedly, so that there would be no doubt about the insult. For Erdogan, the drawing of a bottom end in the air is more shocking than the inhumane persecution of millions of Muslims by the Xi Jinping regime. He does not get nervous, he says nothing about it.

We live in unique times, with one head of state harassing another, from an allied country. Erdogan's hostility towards Macron is nothing new. It began right after the French president's term began in 2017. There are several points of friction between them, starting with the French opposition to Turkey's accession to the EU and continuing in Libya, Syria, in support of Greek sovereignty in the Mediterranean Sea and more and more. There is also enormous tension within NATO, where France accuses Turkey of holding back the organisation's strategy when it comes to regions in which Ankara is directly involved.

On top of all this, I can guess that Erdogan wants to break the alliance that exists between Paris and Berlin. He is investing against France knowing that Germany, where more than four million people with Turkish roots live, does not have much room for manoeuvre to take a stand in solidarity with France. By attacking this pillar of the EU and maintaining the recurrent threat of opening the gates to a new wave of migration to Europe, similar to that which occurred in 2015, Erdogan's Turkey constitutes the most important risk to the survival of the European project.

At the December European Council it is absolutely necessary that the leaders of the member states take a tough stance against the Turkish president. In international politics, there are only two possible positions before a bully: give in and end up paying a high price, or else confront him with all the necessary diplomatic arsenal.

Salman Rushdie warns us that "fundamentalism is not about religion, but about power". Erdogan sees himself as the leader of Sunni Muslims and the guardian of the faithful in the face of the so-called European attacks. He combines megalomania with fanaticism. In collusion with the radicals of the Muslim Brotherhood and with the financial support of Qatar, Erdogan has established in several European countries a series of associations which, under the guise of religion, culture and humanitarian action, promote totalitarian interpretations of the Koran and its image as a defender of the faith.

One of the tasks of the European security services is to monitor these associations and their most influential members. It is, however, an almost impossible mission. Monitoring every potentially violent extremist, to be done properly, requires around twenty officers, twenty-four hours a day. The real answer must therefore be political and shared by all European countries. 

(Machine translation of my opinion column of today, published in the Portuguese newspaper Diário de Notícias, Lisbon)

 

 

Dealing with Islamist terrorism

 Terror or democracy

Victor Angelo

 

Almost two hundred and fifty years after his death, Voltaire remains one of the most influential thinkers in the history of France and Europe. He wrote abundantly and was an advisor to the great ones of his time. His political and philosophical thinking opened the path that would lead to the French Revolution and to the national motto that remains today: Freedom, Equality, Fraternity. His writings mocked religious dogmas, at a time when it was very dangerous to do so. They fought against intolerance, advocated freedom of expression and the separation of the church from the state. In 1736, he wrote a play against religious intransigence, which he entitled "Fanaticism or Mohammed the Prophet". In this tragedy, Voltaire criticized directly and with all the letters the founder of Islam. Personally, I read the work as an onslaught against religions, in one case, openly, in another, that of Catholicism, in a more subtle way, so as not to endanger his own skin.

Now it has become impossible to teach Voltaire in some schools in France, especially in the suburbs of Paris. Certain students, coming from radicalized Muslim families, prevent this from happening. For these people, Voltaire is the worst of the infidels, the one who dared to sully the name of the Prophet. In the past, the Holy Catholic Inquisition burned heretics in public. In the present of the Islamist maniacs, Voltaire would be beheaded. Besides Voltaire, it is a danger to talk about the Holocaust or condemn anti-Semitism, to quote the writer Gustave Flaubert and his novel Madame Bovary - a free and passionate woman, a terrible example for a radical who considers that women should be submissive and walk covered from head to toe - or try to discuss Charlie Hebdo and the caricatures of Mohammed. A good part of the French public-school system lives in a climate of turmoil, in which the violent reaction of certain students has replaced the debate of ideas. And the intimidation begins earlier and earlier. There are already stories of boys refusing to sit next to girls in maternal schools.

All this leads us to the criminal and absurd decapitation that took place last week. The victim, Professor Samuel Paty, was a brave man and aware that the mission of the schools is also to form future citizens, free, equal in rights, in solidarity, respectful and responsible. But in France, the secular school has been actively undermined by radical Islamists since 2005. A recent survey revealed that about 40% of teachers of literary, civic and humanities subjects censor themselves and do not mention in their classes anything that might provoke the anger of the most fanatical students. Therefore, my first reaction to the news of the mad act was admiration for Samuel Paty's courage and sense of professional duty. He also reminded me that the response to the terrorist threat is to behave vertically, unequivocally firmly.

But courage and firmness cannot be just individual issues. Terrorism is not the result, as some claim, of the actions of "lone wolves”. The old visionary Friedrich Nietzsche said that "everything that is absolute belongs to pathology," but in the case of terrorism, this is more the social context. We are facing an extreme identity phenomenon, a social ecosystem that makes thousands of families live in a Salafist ideological swamp. They are a minority fringe of European citizens of Muslim faith, but their actions are very destabilizing.

In situations like France - and in other European countries, notably Belgium and the Netherlands, which go in the same direction as France - it is essential to get the right appropriate political response. On another occasion, I will write about the security treatment of the issue. Politically, it is important to begin by recognizing that fanaticism, by placing a manipulated, primary, and ignorant interpretation of religion above the values of the republic, is a threat to democracy and social peace. If the democrats could not deal with terrorist radicalism, the extreme right, whether it be called Le Pen or something else, in some other country, would use that political bankruptcy to gain power. And then it would crush everyone, not just the exalted knife-wielders and their supporting communities.

(Machine translation of my opinion column of today, published in the Portuguese newspaper Diário de Notícias, Lisbon)

 

 

 

China is firing into many directions

Today’s text, translate through AI, published in the Portuguese newspaper Diário de Notícias (printed version)

 

The fragilities of a giant

Victor Angelo

 

The economic corridors that China is building through Myanmar and Pakistan are two pillars of the New Silk Road, the gigantic ambition that President Xi Jinping formulated after coming to power in 2012. Gigantic is, in fact, an inadequate adjectivization, even minuscule, given the enormity and complexity of this ambition. Moreover, the scale of the New Silk Road has caused anxieties in many circles of geopolitical decision making in Europe, America and Asia, and explains a good part of the feeling of disapproval, of even opposition, that now exists in relation to China. In politics, as in life, unreasonable ambition ends up being a source of great conflicts.

The China-Myanmar corridor is above all an investment in pipelines - about 800 kilometres - which have already been completed and which I had the opportunity to visit about a year ago. A complementary project is currently being planned, consisting of the construction of a railroad that will follow the route of the oil and gas pipelines from the Burmese sea coast in the Gulf of Bengal to Kunming, the capital of Chinese province of Yunnan. This infrastructure is intended to facilitate China's oil imports, avoiding the long and dangerous route through the Straits of Malacca and the South China Sea. Oil and gas will come from the Middle East and Africa. The railway will be part of the link, which will continue by sea, between China, Mombasa and Djibouti, two ports of great strategic importance, both as points of entry into Africa and as bases for the transit of goods to Europe. Djibouti also offers an exceptional location for the protection of navigation between the East and Europe.  Chinese, Americans, French, Japanese, Indians, and others all want to have a military presence in Djibouti. China is the only power that combines in this territory defence with economic infrastructures.

Returning to the corridor that crosses Myanmar, I noticed that the large Chinese oil, gas, and public works companies have the green light from the Burmese military and Aung San Suu Kyi's civilian government. They also consider that it is up to the Myanmar authorities to deal with the fate of the communities affected by the projects. The problem is that no one has explained anything to the people or promised any compensation for expropriations and other losses. The result, for now, as I have personally seen, is the growing hostility of different Burmese communities against the Chinese. Later, the very security of the projects may be at risk.

The Pakistani corridor is presented as the flagship in the New Silk Road universe. It begins in the Chinese region of Xinjiang and ends in the Pakistani port of Gwadar in the Indian Ocean, close to the entrance to the strategic Gulf of Oman. I did not visit this Pharaonic undertaking - an investment of US$87 billion to finance roads, railroads, power plants and special economic zones. But I see that the intention is clear. China is helping Pakistan modernize communications, power generation, industrial, and port infrastructure. In return, it has direct access to the Indian Ocean and several free zones, where it can count on Pakistan's abundant and cheap labour. It also reinforces the political and military power of a key ally in its growing rivalry with India. I know that here too, as in Myanmar and other countries where the Chinese have large-scale investment, there is the problem of acquiescence or hostility of the populations. China is seen as an ally of the regime and the regime is seen as extraneous to the interests of the people. We have again the fragility mentioned above.

There are, however, those in China who are aware of these things and know that agreements with regimes of dubious legitimacy have feet of clay. Some think tanks have already begun to debate the impact of megaprojects on affected communities in Asia and Africa, as well as the disconnect that exists between political leaders in host countries, who are in favour of Chinese penetration, and the populations, who consider their politicians to be the main beneficiaries of the investments in question. I have been surprised at the frankness of certain interventions by Chinese academics. A monolithic China, yes, but with some subtlety of tone. 

 

 

Covid and the criminal leadership

Data and acts are truly clear. Covid is a serious threat. To life and to the economy. Only a fool can pretend otherwise. And if such fool occupies a position of power, he is not only a dupe but also and, above all, a criminal.

Nagorno-Karabakh

I feel so disturbed when I watch the images of the war that keeps going on between Azerbaijan and Armenia. One of the sides publishes a lot of videos showing the targeting of the other side’s military vehicles. Often, we can see the young soldiers trying to move out of the vehicle before the strike. They rarely succeed. It is too late to escape. And that is no video game. It is about young lives being wasted. Then, there are the bombings of civilian quarters. TV screens remind us that wars are full of human tragedies.

And in this case, there seems to be no serious attempt to stop the conflict. The Russians managed to have a humanitarian ceasefire declared only to be broken soon after. It would have been important if respected. It could open the door to the beginning of a political process. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

At the beginning I expressed the view that this would be a short duration flare up. Now, I think we are in it for a long while. More lives and livelihoods will be destroyed. The world is too busy with the pandemic, the economic crisis, the competition with China and the American elections to really care about a remote corner of the world that most people have no idea where to place in the world map.

It is sad. 

Europe, Africa and China

Artificial Intelligence translation of my opinion piece published today in the Portuguese newspaper Diário de Notícias.

Europe and Africa: searching for a common future

Victor Angelo

The sixth summit between the European Union and the African Union was due to take place later this month in Brussels. The pandemic has ruined the plan. Cyril Ramaphosa, South Africa's head of state and current president in office of the AU, tried his best to have the meeting held later this year before the end of his mandate. But he did not get enough supporters for a virtual option. In fact, the lack of enthusiasm for digital screens has revealed that there are significant differences between Europeans and Africans regarding the future of mutual relations, i.e., there is still no agreement on a common strategy.

If all goes well, the summit will take place during the Portuguese presidency of the EU in the first half of 2021. I hope there will be no further postponement. In the second half of the year, it will be Slovenia that will be in the chair, a country that does not give Africa the attention that we give. It is not yet known which head of state will be at that time leading the AU - he will be one from Central Africa - but I hope that Ursula von der Leyen's counterpart will still be the Chadian Moussa Faki Mahamat. Elected president of the African Union Commission in 2017, Moussa Faki is a noble, intelligent, and balanced politician.

We should take the extra time to try to resolve the differences. The priorities in the strategy proposal are too broad, they have everything. Moreover, they give the impression of being a European agenda and not a meeting point between the visions of one side and the other. They deal with the environmental and energy transition; digital transformation; sustainable growth and employment; security and governance; and migration. The African side's reading is that Europe continues to think in terms of aid and dependence rather than economic partnerships, investment, and free trade. The European concern seems to be, above all, to put a brake on migration from Africa to Europe.

Defining a strategy that responds to the concerns of the parties, when we have 55 African countries on one side and 27 European countries on the other, is not easy. For example, the realities that exist in the western region of Africa are quite different from the challenges that Southern Africa faces. A strategy for the relationship with such a diverse continent must stay on the broad lines, define only the objectives and general political principles. It must then be completed by more operational agreements, region by region - as defined by the AU. The strategy needs to recognize the complexity of the African continent. The same should happen with Europe. Certain European countries have a closer connection to Africa than others. Speak of Africa in Poland or the Baltics and you will get a distant comment, quite different from what you hear in Lisbon or Paris.

The strategy also needs to be clearer in recognising what the common problems are and how each side should contribute to solving them. At the moment, the draft strategy suggests that the problems are in Africa and that Europe's role is to help solve them. This is an old-fashioned way of looking at it. It does not serve to build partnerships among equals. Portugal would make an innovative contribution by proposing the discussion of shared challenges and the way to respond to them together.

There is also the problem of the great elephant which, although present in the room, Europeans prefer to ignore: China. Now, China is a major actor in Africa. The African leaders, who thought that a virtual summit with Europe would not be advisable, made one with the Chinese leadership, to discuss the impact of covid 19 and the possible areas of future cooperation, in the framework of the post-Pandemic reality. This initiative should open two new avenues for Europeans to reflect on, which need to be considered before the 2021 meeting. First, to recognize that the strategy needs to be revised to take into account the weaknesses that the pandemic has revealed. Second, to analyse the role of China in Africa and define a European political position on this increasingly decisive presence. Closing one's eyes so as not to see China's massive intervention in Africa may be comfortable, but it is a bad strategy.  

 

 

World Food Programme and Peace

The laureate of the Nobel Peace Prize 2020 has been announced today. It is the UN World Food Programme. And I think it is the right decision. The WFP is a huge UN agency providing food assistance to millions of people in many corners of the world, including in the most dangerous places. The dedication of its staff is enormous. It is matched by excellent logistics: the WFP has the best logistics within the UN system.

This well-deserved recognition comes at a time when the UN needs all the support it can get. The Nobel Committee knew it. I am sure they took it into account when deciding this year’s prize.

As a humanitarian agency, WFP has a good degree of autonomy within the UN system. That is the way it should be. It is important to keep a separation line between political work and humanitarian assistance. That notwithstanding, WFP keeps a close relationship with the rest of the system, in particular in those situations where major conflicts are underway.

Congratulations, then, to the WFP, its staff, current and past.

A moral approach to politics

The new encyclical letter of Pope Francis has been issued today. It is called Fratelli Tutti, to remind us that we are all brothers. The Pope says it is a social document and indeed it is very political. It took him a good couple of years to write it down. It is, therefore, a reflection that must be taken into account. It cannot be dismissed, even by those who are not Catholics. In tomorrow’s world, we must spend more time listening to moral voices. They will certainly help us in the fight for ethics in politics. Politics with principles and for the common good should become the main transformation we should aim at, in the post-covid world.

The Europeans and their immigrants

My text in today’s edition of Diário de Notícias newspaper (Lisbon)

 

Europe and migrations

Victor Angelo

The European Commission has just presented the broad outline for a pact on migration and asylum. It has also promised to submit in the coming months a complementary package of proposals dealing with the various facets of the issue. These include the integration of migrants; repatriation operations - in other words, expulsion - for those who are denied asylum and residence; the revision of the rules governing the Schengen area and the strengthening of the Union's borders; the fight against human trafficking; and a new type of cooperation with migrants' countries of origin. It is an ambitious programme. My fear is that all this work will bring a lot of pain and little result. This is one of the most divisive issues for EU countries. Agreements cannot be reached beyond strengthening the Union's external borders and the intention, always difficult to carry out, of the muscular return of immigrants who are not accepted. This has been the case since the migration crisis of 2015, and I fear it may continue to be so. 

But it is worth insisting. The Commission has the merit of reminding us that the issue of migration is one of the main problems we face. It also reminds us that this is a common challenge and not just for the countries that geography and history have brought closer to Africa, the Middle East, the Indian subcontinent, or Latin America. Some, however, do not want to see the problem as being for everyone. They think it can be solved by closing the borders to prevent mass movements. The bet on watertight borders is an unrealistic proposal. It does not consider the demography, the conflicts, the lack of opportunities and the despair that exist on Europe's doorstep.  If I were a young man from Niger or Tunisia, my overriding ambition would be to try to emigrate to Europe at all costs. I would have the same attitude if I came from Pakistan or Bangladesh. Today, it is like that. Tomorrow, the migratory pressure will be incomparably greater.

Faced with such a scenario, it is understandable that the Commission feels it is better to be prepared. It will not be easy, but one must try. Disordered migration and responses at the national level alone will end up calling into question the Schengen agreement and the continuation of the EU. Above all, they will become a flag for populists, and therefore a threat to democracy in several European countries. It is, therefore, a political issue of the utmost importance.

In Portugal, the problem is not so visible. We are more a country of emigrants than immigrants. It's true that in certain European circles people are already beginning to talk about Portugal as a gateway and an antechamber of passage for those coming from Guinea, Cape Verde, Brazil and even India, to mention only the most important. And there are already those who look at the sea between Morocco and the Algarve and see there a new route, which needs to be stopped as soon as possible.

In France, the situation is different. President Macron knows what the political costs of uncontrolled immigration could be. He is also aware of the fractures that certain immigrant communities cause in French society. He calls these fractures "separatism" and considers them to be one of the most pressing problems. The separatism of which he speaks is more than the lack of integration in the Gallic nation. It is a deliberate attitude of groups of people of French nationality, but with foreign roots, who refuse to accept the secular, tolerant and egalitarian values that define the French ethos. These values are similar to those prevailing in the rest of the Union, but they are not recognized in other lands, which have lived different historical experiences from ours. This deliberate rejection of assimilation is a new and worrying phenomenon.

I mention France by way of example. I could speak of other countries which, on the central axis of Europe, have been the destination of migrants from outside the European culture for the last sixty years. In all these countries, migration is a sensitive topic, latent when economies thrive and open when difficulties tighten. With the economy on the verge of a major crisis because of the impact of the covid, not to deal politically with the migration issue would be a mistake of unpredictable consequences for Europe. We cannot allow this error to persist.

 

 

Translated from Portuguese with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

 

 

Mr Trump is positive

I got a couple of emails from the US on President Trump´s covid infection. The messages were similar and expressing deep worries that the President will try to get a lot of mileage from his condition. He will receive the best medical treatment available in the world and will certainly recover. Then, he and his supporters will present his coming back as a confirmation of his strength and determination. The evangelist crowd and they are many and absolutely lunatic, will say that his return shows that God wants him to be around and continue his work as president.

The point they tried to make was that the president’s covid condition could be turned around and used as an electoral card. It could even be a fake ailment, a distraction good to get people to forget the debate disaster

I replied to say that we are all contaminated by conspiracy theories. The man is indeed sick, and we can only wish him a speedy recovery.

Never be silent when democracy is at risk

My friend called it “the debacle”. And a tragedy it was. Like a profoundly serious warning that democracy can always be at stake, even in a very well-developed society. Democracy is a never-ending endeavour. Everything rests on leadership and the ability to respond to power abusers. No one can remain silent in that kind of situations. In the end, democracy, respect for the individual opinions of everyone and the fight against fear are the pillars of modern societies. Those who attack them, particularly those who do it from a position of power, cannot be left alone. They must be permanently challenged.

 

Mr Trump speaks to the United Nations

This is the text I published today in Diário de Notícias (Lisbon newspaper). It is a machine (AI) translation. The original is written in Portuguese.

 

President Trump and the United Nations

Victor Angelo

 

The name of this year's Nobel Peace Prize laureate will be announced on October 9. The list of candidates includes 318 names, an impressive number. It seems that Donald Trump's name would be included in the list of nominees, which is not impossible because any member of his government, Congress or any other personality has the faculty to nominate. The fact is that the president would very much welcome the Nobel award, less than a month before the presidential election.

This is how the words spoken this week by the American ambassador to the United Nations, Kelly Craft, when she was called upon to introduce her boss's intervention before the UN General Assembly, should be understood. Craft's brief introduction sought to convey only one message. She said that Donald Trump is a leader who gives special consideration to the search for peace. She then mentioned initiatives related to Israel, the Arab Emirates and Bahrain, the economic agreement signed at the White House between Serbia and Kosovo, North Korea, a country that has disappeared from the news and can therefore be presented as well behaved for the time being. The ambassador also brought in the launching of the talks between Afghans, with American sponsorship.

Then, spoke the president. His speech blurred the image of a leader concerned with peace. If today's times were to be governed by the usual diplomatic norms, President Trump's words should be seen as a harbinger of a declaration of war on China. This country was presented as the cause of the covid-19 pandemic and the associated global economic crisis. It has also been singled out as the biggest polluter of land, sea, and air.

It was a catalogue of accusations to others and praise for himself and the successes his administration would have achieved in various fields, from conflict resolution to carbon emission reduction. All with the eyes on the November elections. 

But we should be clear that the diatribe against China has deep and prolonged consequences on American political life and psyche. It is something that will mark the international relations of the United States, whether Trump is at the head of the country or not. The political class, the military circles and various sectors of American academia, intellectuals and society see China's foreign ambition as a vital threat to the United States' role in the world. For some it is a question of political hegemony or economic interests, for others there will be an ethical dimension and democratic values when they think of a China that becomes a superpower. The decade ahead of us will be marked by obstinate rivalry between these two colossi. Those who think that the European Union can serve as a counterweight and a balance in the face of this competition should put their strategic imagination to work right now. I make no secret of my concern, however, about the growing conflict between the United States and China, or my scepticism about the strategic effectiveness of European foreign policy.

Let us return to the General Assembly and to President Trump's communication. In addition to the harangue against China and the election propaganda, the speech set out what appears to be an agenda for the United Nations, in Washington version. To the issues of peace - the area of "blue helmets" is a priority not only for Americans but for many more; the only issue is that the main recommendations of the Ramos-Horta Commission (2015) and subsequent political lessons remain unimplemented, with a disconnect between military operations and the political work of the missions - the president added the fight against terrorism, the oppression of women, human and drug trafficking, ethnic and religious persecution. He also made special reference to human rights.

It is clear that he did not speak of the deadlocks that hinder the proper functioning of the Security Council, the marginalization of the UN and the multilateral system, which has been a hallmark of his mandate, or the lack of support for the Secretary-General. But what he said on the positive side should be used to give new visibility to the United Nations and relaunch international cooperation. As for the rest, we will see after November.