Might or right?

My professional travels through the world of multilateral organizations, and through dozens of countries with diverse political cultures, have taught me to look at international relations with caution. This does not mean that I do not believe in respecting the values ​​and principles approved over time, particularly since the signing of the United Nations Charter. This has happened with most states. But, contrary to what many people think, there have been many conflicts since 1945. It must have been a time of peace in Europe, except in the Balkans, but not in other parts of the world. Therefore, common sense recommends caution, as rivalries between countries and between big men persist. 

Prudence means, above all, two things: on the one hand, never underestimating the adversary and, on the other, unambiguously cultivating relations with allies, based on mutual interests and a common political vision.

It is a very serious mistake to consider that the enemy can be easily defeated. This was, in fact, Vladimir Putin's original miscalculation, as he thought it possible to destroy Ukrainian sovereignty in three days, when the gigantic military column he sent against Kiev would reach the Mariinsky Palace, the official residence of President Volodymyr Zelensky. The “Special Operation” was exactly that, in the Russian dictator’s view: a quick incursion, capable of subjugating the neighboring country in a matter of days. It wouldn't even be a war. He underestimated Ukraine, which three years later continues to resist the  aggression.

It is equally a mistake not to invest in a close and interdependent diplomatic relationship with the countries with which we maintain a defense alliance and strategic cooperation. And that consider, like us, that individual freedom and human rights are priority issues. This investment involves, in particular, a balance of forces between allies, in which each one brings something truly essential to the collective effort. And it must be based on a similar understanding of the international context. When there are imbalances or a different reading of the external risks, the alliance will end up transforming into subordination, or will end in rupture. Its continuity will be an illusion.

A pact between unequals ceases to work when a major crisis arises. This is the reality that Europe now faces. In terms of defense and cutting-edge technologies, especially in the areas of Artificial Intelligence and the collection of strategic information, Europe's fragility in relation to the USA is immeasurable.

Despite the political promises of the main European Heads of State and Government and the billions announced by the President of the European Commission, the gap between the two sides of the Atlantic is insurmountable in the coming years. And this will continue during Trump's term, which means that Europe will be at the mercy of the American president's decisions throughout this period.

The Europeans will thus pay for the imprudence of having considered, especially since the end of the Cold War, that Washington was a safe and reliable protective shield, and that its political class continued to maintain an unquestionable cultural and sentimental connection with the countries of the European continent. In today's America, that bond is a thing of the past.

With Trump in power, the context became even clearer. He and his followers see Europe as a consumer market with money and resources that are crucial to reinforcing US global hegemony: rare earths from Ukraine, minerals from Greenland, the Norwegian archipelago of Svalbard, which is essential for controlling navigation in the Arctic, and the link between the North Atlantic and the Sea of ​​Japan.

Europe is seen as a captured continent, held hostage, destined to respond to the demands of the new America, the America that looks at the world with arrogance, except if it is China or Russia.

This is the context in which Europe finds itself. A Europe of Defence, prudent and capable of taking care of its own security, will indeed have to be built, something that will take at least ten to fifteen years to gain strength. It is, for now, a wish., an undefined plan.

I recognize that it is worth having plans of this kind. They provide encouragement, define an objective that can be shared and consolidate convergence. The generation that is now reaching political adulthood will have the challenge of transforming this demand into reality.

Do you trust Donald Trump?

 The international system must be protected and respected

 Victor Ângelo 

There can be no doubt: the international values ​​and standards, built over the last few decades, remain valid and must be fully respected. Political leaders and henchmen who fail to do so engage in illegal, often criminal, behavior and as such need to be confronted. The notion of a Western or less Western world, that doesn't count for anything. What matters are the rules that regulate the universal framework. When voting in the same direction as North Korea, something that should be unthinkable, the important thing is to remember which side of the conventions is right.

There were great moments that allowed these principles to advance and consolidate. It would be cowardice, or at least a mistake, not to remember them and not to insist on their scrupulous fulfillment. I will now mention a particularly clear list regarding the progressive regulation of international relations since the end of the Second World War – the United Nations Charter(1945), the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the dozens of decolonisation and national independence processes in the post-war years and decades, the Vietnam War, the Helsinki Final Act (1975), which defined the rules of cooperation and security in Europe, including in the USA and Canada, the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols of 1949 and 1977 on humanitarian issues and the laws of conflict, the end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Soviet Union (1991), the approval of the Rome Statute of 1998, which established the International Criminal Court (ICC), and also the Paris Agreement on Climate Change of 2015. Symptomatically, during all these years it has not been possible to reach a common platform on the fight against terrorism, a complex and highly politically sensitive issue.

Among political criminals there are unfortunately too many names that can be highlighted. This week, on the third anniversary of the start of Vladimir Putin's aggression against Ukraine, his criminal responsibility deserves special mention. Not forgetting, either, his most recent ally, Kim Jong-un, the villain who crushes the population of North Korea every day and threatens half the world and the other with his missiles. When we talk about these individuals and it is noted that the current US administration voted in the United Nations along these criminals, a terrifying question inevitably arises: what kind of world do they want to push us into?

The answer is anything but simple. But we must continue to insist on the normative dimension. International rules exist, and they must be followed. It is, however, worrying to see the G20 or the G7, and some dimensions of the United Nations system, which have functioned as pillars of international democracy and cooperation between peoples, being disrespected by traditional dictatorships together with the ruffians who are now emerging in the public square.

The international political architecture is at risk of collapsing. It is already in ruins in Palestine, for the dramatic reasons that are known. It could soon collapse during negotiations on Ukraine's sovereignty. It is practically impossible to believe in a just peace, when one thinks of the protagonists who have now entered the scene. They are on Putin's side, for incomprehensible reasons, perhaps personal, perhaps linked to past accounts, and with the – chimerical – pretext of obtaining a divorce between Russia and China. A part of the international defense system will also be at risk when the next NATO summit, scheduled for June 24-26, takes place in The Hague. And the most significant outcome will happen on September 22 and 23, when the General Assembly will meet to discuss the future of the United Nations. We will then see what proposals will be put on the table, at a time when the UN is a fragile target, disrespected by people like Netanyahu and little understood by the rich of this world.

I cannot fail to mention Emmanuel Macron's recent trip to Washington. He would have tried to give the Americans the impression that a good deal of the decision-making power is in his hands when it comes to the EU. I'm not sure he managed to convinced them, for three reasons. First, because Washington knows that Macron is struggling in France with a very serious national crisis. Macron is closer to the past than the future. Second, because the United Kingdom and Georgia Meloni, the Italian Prime Minister, have greater support in the White House. The new British ambassador to Washington, Peter Mandelson, a shrewd Labourite like his boss Tony Blair was years ago, will do everything he can to turn Donald Trump around. On the other hand, Trump has a special liking for Meloni. And she doesn't die of love for Macron. And third, and most crucially, because Trump hates the EU, as it became clear days after Macron's visit.

The Great Leader and his inconsistencies

Dear friend, peace is a very serious matter!

Victor Angelo

Anyone who reads or pays attention to what I say knows that I have an indescribable admiration for President Donald Trump. Once again this week the President did not disappoint me. Between two golf swings, at his extravagant estate in Florida, where Louis XIV would equally feel like the Sun King, and after a few hours in front of a giant television screen, he reminded us that according to his calculations, Volodymyr Zelensky's popularity among Ukrainian public opinion would be no more than 4%. This percentage dwarfs the 57% that the prestigious Kyiv International Institute of Sociology published on the same day. Trump did not mention the source of his data, nor does he need to.

Vladimir Putin would certainly agree with the percentage, as the source of such a lie. He, who has already stolen several elections, over more than two decades in power, in addition to his almost 16 years of training in the KGB, needs an affirmation like Trump's, which makes him forget his misdeeds. And if his lies are amplified by the US President, they will have a unique weight among the Russian public opinion.

At the same press conference, President Trump took as his own the conditions and the red lines that Putin has been repeating for the past three years. No to Ukraine's accession to NATO. Yes to the usurpation of Ukrainian territory by Russia. Replacing President Zelensky with a leader subordinate to the Kremlin, thus transforming the country into a vassal state of Moscow, in the style of Belarus. Reform of the defense architecture of democratic Europe in order to transform NATO into a disoriented, fearful mongrel incapable of opposing the imperialist ambitions of the Russian bear. Recognize that Eastern and Central Europe are part of the geopolitical zone of influence of the Russian Federation. End of the sanctions, to put Russia back in the economic position of a major supplier of raw materials, a sort of luxury Congo that enriches those who control the extractive sectors and allows them to subsidize vodka for the rest of the population and corrupt the armed forces. And to put the cherry on the cake, Trump just repeated what the fugitive Putin has been saying repeatedly: that Zelensky is a dictator, a president without an electoral mandate.

If it weren't for my foolish admiration for the indescribable, I would say that Trump's words are an earthquake followed by a tsunami. How can one hope to hold free and fair elections in Ukraine, the victim of a terrible war of aggression, when the troublemaker next door is sending hundreds of bombs and troops day and night with the aim of destroying the neighboring country?

The great leader is very good at echoing Putin. Likewise, when the intention is to confuse or intervene in the home of allies. He calls the acceptance of the main conditions imposed by the enemy a peace plan. This is what happened in the deal with the Taliban terrorists in 2020, when everything was negotiated by Trump's team without the participation of the Kabul government and the allies who fought for years in Afghanistan alongside the Americans.

We are in a period of great confusion. So, don't be surprised when I write that I also have a  great admiration for Volodymyr Zelensky. Three years after the start of the criminal Russian aggression, and despite the limited means at his disposal, he continues to enjoy the support of his fellow citizens and a rare international prestige. He has shown exemplary determination, foresight and courage. He reminds us that Ukraine is resisting with patriotism and cunning against the violence of a much stronger neighbor, which has been violating for years the basic rules of international law: respect for Ukraine's sovereignty, territorial integrity and the prohibition of the use of force.

My admiration for the Ucranian leader also comes from the truth that President Zelensky imprints on each of his words. He emphasizes that there will be no peace without the agreement of the Ukrainians. That he can say no to Trump who wants an absurd compensation: 500 billion dollars in rare minerals to compensate for the military and other budgetary aid that, so far, does not exceed a small part of that value, only about 20%: what a great deal! And to have the courage to affirm that his country relies on Europe, whose aid already amounts to 132 billion euros, much of it spent on purchasing American military equipment. A much higher volume of cooperation coming from Europe, but with the US corporations benefiting from it, in the arms and ammunition trade.

Next week, Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron will travel to Washington. I believe it will be a well-intentioned, diplomatically understandable, but useless move. It can even be humiliating for both of them. The future of Europe belongs to the Europeans. In the current context, we must play on this side of the ocean and without delay. And those who don't have a dog, hunt with a cat.

Europe must behave as a geopolitical block

 Europe has to believe in itself

Victor Angelo

I have had to repeat a thousand times, over the decades, that the legitimacy and authority obtained as a result of an electoral victory have limits. Democracy, no matter how clean the elections are and no matter how high the percentage of votes obtained by the winners, must be exercised within a framework of ethical values ​​and an institutional system clearly defined by the country's Constitution. Winning means assuming responsibility for protecting the dignity of all citizens, promoting equity and progress, respecting the rule of law and the fundamental law, and credibly representing the country in the field of external cooperation. The leader who does not see his or her role from this perspective, who tries to sell the idea that victory allows him to do anything and everything, placing himself/herself  above the law, immediately behaves like a dictator. If such leader is the president of a great power, he/she is also a frankly worrying threat to stability and peace between nations.

Democracy cannot serve as a gateway to an autocratic regime. There are those who say, however, that the world has changed in recent weeks. This is an ambiguous statement, if one keeps in mind the question of values. The rules and principles that have been consolidated over the last eight decades, or even in the shorter period that began with the end of the Cold War, remain valid. And they must be defended. What is new is the emergence of leaders who do not give a cent for these values ​​and who look at international relations in an imperial way, as being a question of strength, of domination and also of conflict and competition.

We are now faced, however, with two determining realities.

On the one hand, the American leadership controls the most powerful economy on our planet and shows a willingness to make use of this economic power. It is a mistake to think that allies are not needed and that international law does not carry much weight.

On the other hand, the media that counts in our part of the world revolves around the White House agenda, leaving limited space for the Middle East or Ukraine. And even when it mentions them, it does so almost exclusively from the Washington perspective. There are few references to the human suffering and the political crimes that occur daily in Sudan, in the Sahel, on the border of the Democratic Republic of Congo with Rwanda, a country friendly to Western democracies. And, at the same time, a mortal enemy of the poor Congolese citizens, who have the misfortune of living on lands that are theirs and are extremely rich in rare and precious minerals. Paul Kagame, who has led Rwanda since 1994 and transformed the country into a showcase for development, is organizing the looting and mass destruction of Congolese border areas, and is received in Europe, the United States, China and the rest of Africa as an exemplary leader.

I could mention other misfortunes, all of them ignored by the news and the screens that feed us daily, always with the same themes. There now seems to be no world beyond Trump. When was the last time you, the reader, had any information regarding the torment of the Rohingya people, the repression of the Uighurs in China, the violation of the rights of women and girls in Afghanistan, the violence against Afghan refugees in Pakistan, the crimes against the indigenous people of the Amazon, and so on?

The great ones of this world make the headlines. None of this is particularly new, except with regard to international organizations and European geopolitics.

The multilateral system is undergoing profound changes. We are moving towards the proliferation of sub-regional organizations, with a very limited capacity for intervention, apart from the advantage of allowing some rapprochement between neighboring countries. This trend, if not coordinated with the UN regional commissions, will contribute to the weakening and perhaps even the death of the UN political system. Not to mention the Security Council, which has become a diplomatic illusion. Or NATO, where the American presence will visibly diminish, as was clear from this week's statements. Those in charge in Washington today view NATO from afar, as an essentially European institution, which should therefore be funded by Europeans.

European geopolitics doesn't seem to count, especially in Trump and Putin's plans. Their long conversation on Wednesday about Ukraine's future ignored European fears and Ukrainian interests. Europe would be left with the role of the rich aunt who, supported by a cane, her only weapon, would serve only to lament the damage from the stands, and then pay for the repairs. It's time to say no, to resist, to take care of our own defense. And to respond to every autocrat firmly.

https://www.dn.pt/opiniao/a-europa-tem-de-acreditar-em-si-pr%C3%B3pria
Portuguese language version. 

Gaza and the international law

The future of Gaza is called Palestine

Victor Angelo

I understand all the concerns and questions about the future of Gaza. I also realize that, in recent days, some confusion has arisen about the new format of its government, once the current situation of destruction and massacres has ended. I have been receiving a flood of calls and inquiries on this matter. But the answer is simple, from the point of view of international practice and the right that each people has to decide on their independence and their form of governance, as long as they respect the Charter of the United Nations and all other norms that regulate international relations.

The territory, even in the state of destruction in which it finds itself, after around fifteen months of systematic bombings, war crimes and a condemnable humanitarian siege, is an integral part of Palestine. International law is very clear on the matter. And there cannot be a so-called “two-state” solution, one Israeli and one Palestinian, if the Gaza Strip is not integrated into Palestinian sovereignty. It is not easy to achieve, we are still very far from a peaceful solution, but there is no room for doubt on the issue. The community of nations has stated on several occasions that the future will only be possible if it manages to establish a Palestinian country that can live in peace with Israel and that is viable.

The population of the Strip has its family and historical roots in the territory. They cannot be forced to abandon Gaza and go live on the periphery of the lives of neighboring peoples, be they Egyptians or Jordanians. Or any others. This is what happened to multitudes of Palestinians in 1948 and from then on until today. It did nothing to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Furthermore, it transferred a whole series of challenges, difficulties and situations of misery to neighboring countries. One of the nations that has suffered most from successive waves of expulsions of Palestinians from their ancestral lands has been Lebanon. In the mid-20th century it was referred to as the “Riviera of the Middle East”, to use an expression that was in vogue this week. Now, Lebanon is a country in deep crisis, both internally and in its relations with Israel and many Palestinian refugees.

Europe and states that respect international norms must be more assertive when it comes to the Middle East. Starting with the question of Palestine. Anyone who takes these things seriously, without fear and with dignity, knows what it means to be more assertive. Furthermore, we must move away from a logic of hostility and conflict between the peoples of the region. And to enforce the decisions of the UN Security Council, the International Court of Justice and respect the mandates of the International Criminal Court. This is the world we aspire to, and it must first apply to Palestine, including the Gaza Strip. We do not want to return to the Middle Ages or resurrect Hitler or Stalin.

Maintaining and enforcing the current ceasefire is the first step. Unfortunately, I don't think it will last, hearing the comments in Washington from Benjamin Netanyahu. But let's hope so. Therefore, to establish real and lasting peace, it will be necessary to design a plan that allows Gaza to be reconstructed, compensate its population and integrate it into a Palestinian state. The Palestinian Authority must be encouraged to seriously reform and strengthen itself. It has to become an administration capable of managing a State, far beyond an amalgamation of militants. Illegal settlements must be expropriated and transferred to Palestinian ownership. The order and creation of a legitimate central authority recognized by the Palestinians and the United Nations are fundamental and urgent issues. We need a plan that is acceptable to everyone. It is up to the international community, and not just the European Union or one or another State, to encourage, help and work in this direction. And we should draw on the expertise of UNRWA, the UN’s trusted and highly specialized programme.

This has been, for eight decades, the greatest challenge for the United Nations Security Council. The Council must agree on a solution. Otherwise, the political pillar of the UN will not be able to safeguard what little remains of its reputation and will eventually cease to have any reason to exist. In other words, the Council is about to become just a formal body, powerless in an increasingly complicated, divided and chaotic world. A world given over to the excesses of those in charge of two or three superpowers.

Na CNN portugal, o meu comentário

 https://cnnportugal.iol.pt/videos/e-no-proprio-interesse-do-hamas-mostrar-ao-mundo-que-controla-a-faixa-de-gaza-de-forma-ordenada/679bf2810cf20ac1d5f2d452

Deep Seek and Light Trump: the new globalism

 Artificial Intelligence, the competition between the great powers and Trump's disorientation

Victor Angelo

As in previous weeks, the week began with a big surprise, this time coming from China. It was the emergence of a new version in the field of Artificial Intelligence (AI), an efficient and incredibly cheap Chinese program, competing at the highest level with the very expensive solutions coming from the USA. It came up with the name DeepSeek and is ready to give an instant response in a variety of languages. The news, which in just a few hours caused American and European technology companies to lose hundreds of billions of dollars in the capital markets, brought with it two major messages.

The first is about money, showing that it is possible to successfully invest in AI without spending the fabulous sums that large North American multinationals have been spending. The Chinese experience seems to show that the capitalization of Western competitors is more related to stock speculation than to real financing needs. They are true incubators of billionaires. The value of shares listed on the NASDAQ in New York or on certain European stock exchanges has much more to do with capitalist greed than with the scientific and business costs of large technology corporations based in California and one or another European location.

This observation regarding costs brings to mind what comes to us from Ukraine: the country's armed forces are using AI on a large scale, transforming classic equipment into digitally operated weapons. They are thus able, with modest expenditure, to go far and strike hard, almost compensating for their lack of weapons when faced with a much more powerful aggressor, and thus obtain unbelievable results. For the avoidance of doubt, I will immediately add that Ukraine is doing what it can with domestic science, but it continues to urgently need massive assistance in terms of air defense, artillery, ammunition, missiles and aircraft, and much more material available in the Western countries, but delivered with a half-closed hand and a short and timid arm, so as not to irritate excessively the delinquent who lives in the Kremlin.

The second message we get from China is that the country is much more advanced in terms of AI than Americans and Europeans think. American supremacy shook a lot this week. We do not have concrete data on this subject, but we already know two things: on the one hand, that Beijing considers the issue a top priority; and that President Xi Jinping argues that whoever wins the digital race will be the strongest global power in the future. This is one of the reasons why he is betting on the forced annexation of Taiwan, a territory that has a cutting-edge industry in terms of the production of nanochips, which are essential for top AI performance. The other reason for Beijing's high interest in Taiwan stems from a mix of ultranationalism and imperial, geopolitical ambition. Xi is fortunate that President Donald Trump confused, as happened this week in one of his verbal slips, Taiwan as an extension of the People's Republic of China. The same Trump who also seems unaware that Taiwan has around 65 billion dollars invested in the US in the area of ​​cyber technologies.

And so we entered the second week of the Trump administration. In addition to the flood of measures he set in motion, the carriage's progress confirms what was already feared.

Domestically, his first executive orders are potentially disastrous for the country's economy and social stability. They will accentuate internal fractures and could provoke serious political unrest.

On the international scene, it can be predicted that we will see the collapse of the multilateral system. WHO appeared as a first target, for reasons of competition with China, and for no other reason. China could be, and most likely will be, the main beneficiary of the Trump Administration's fury against UN organizations. NATO itself could also be the target of this furor against the international system. It will not be destroyed by Trump's wrath, but it could face moments of great turbulence in the face of the impositions and contradictions invented in Washington.

Still on the subject of foreign policy, Trump will limit himself to dealing with Benjamin Netanyahu, Vladimir Putin, both wanted by international justice, with Xi Jinping and with the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Salman, an expert in the dismemberment of journalists. And perhaps also with the exotic, crazy and murderous Kim Jong-un. Netanyahu will be in Washington next week as the first official guest. As for Europe, Trump will want to see on the map not a European Union or valuable allies, but a scattering of countries that he thinks have already passed into history.

Trump, Davos and a changing world

 https://www.dn.pt/opiniao/trump-davos-e-o-mundo-real

Trump, Davos and the Real World

Victor Angelo

Much of political activity is spectacle, and the best charlatans often win the most coveted prizes. This was a week rich in such matters.

It started with the inauguration of Donald Trump and the avalanche of measures he immediately took. As the days went by, they filled the most visible space in the media. The repercussions of his election were a recurring theme, both in the press and in the most varied political meetings. On Tuesday, there was even room for a long audiovisual performance between the presidents of the Russian Federation and China. Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping wanted to remind everyone that they have a special relationship, when it comes to competition with the US.

It was, however, an ambiguous message. Trump had invited the Chinese leader to the inauguration ceremony, thus showing who weighs on his international agenda, in addition to half a dozen crazy extremists or close friends of his current pet squire and sidekick, Elon Musk. On the other hand, during the week and without much commitment, in a sort of aside, Trump criticized Putin for not being interested in opening a peace process with Ukraine.

Trump is particularly interested in the relationship with China, considering it the real rival of the US. And he sees the competition as a question of economics and political influence, of world leadership, and not so much as a question of defense, as he does not believe that Beijing will one day be able to surpass American military power. Careful observation of certain indicators leads me to conclude this, as well as that his objectives include undermining the alliance between Putin and Xi and preventing the formation of a hostile pact in the Global South. In fact, one of the threats he made in recent days was against the BRICS. It seems clear that he will do everything to prevent such an understanding, that type of organisation.

His inaugural address can also be seen as a particularly important message for Xi: if China were to take military action against Taiwan, the current administration in Washington could view such aggression as none of its business, just as a Chinese internal affair, and therefore would not intervene. Trump has made it clear that he has no intention of engaging in any wars other than those directly directed against American interests. The Taiwan question, in the American president's mercantilist philosophy, does not present the same dangers that possible attacks against Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Vietnam, Southeast Asia or certain islands in the Western Pacific would represent.

In citing the Asian priority, Trump and those in his orbit seem to have those countries in mind above all, as well as freedom of navigation in the seas surrounding China and in the Indian Ocean. In one case, to hinder Chinese expansion and gain access to waters close to North Korea. In another, because the Indian Ocean allows the US Navy to easily target the Middle East and Iran. The concentration of a significant maritime force in the Indian Ocean and the vast presence in the Diego Garcia atoll allow the US to be present in the region that can seriously threaten Israel and defend the production and trade of oil and gas from countries that are fundamental to the stability of the Middle East. East, without the Americans needing to have troops on the ground.

India's stability is an equally paramount factor. Trump seems to be paying no attention to this evidence. Many of those in Davos for the annual meeting of the Economic Forum, the other major political event of the week, felt that India is increasingly becoming one of the world's major economic players. It does not have, nor will it have in the coming years, the necessary capacity to be a serious rival to China or the USA, as it lacks national unity and a strong central power, but it does have the ingenuity, the creative ability, the population size, a diaspora of scientists and a geographic location that work strongly in its favor. The European Union should pay special attention to its relationship with India. For all these reasons and also to reduce the relative weight of the US and China in the European economy and international alliances.

Interestingly, in the same week in Davos we had the great annual mass celebrating multilateralism and globalization, and in Washington, the solemn enthronement of its opposite. Davos returned to focus on major global issues and the need for international cooperation. Although in most cases it is just an opportunity for good conversations and to renew contacts, drink champagne and taste caviar, this year it had the merit of highlighting that there is more to the world beyond the megalomania of Donald Trump, Elon Musk and other multibillionaire limpets.

Trump. Musk and Europe

 Europe faces the challenges of the Trump-Musk duet

Victor Angelo

No one knows for sure what's coming. Even American billionaires, people used to doing whatever they want, feel that the rules of the political game are changing. Many decided not to wait for the inauguration to show their subordination to the ideas and plans that the president-elect has already announced. It is an unusual submission. Is this a question of agreement of views, or mere opportunism? In fact, it seems to result from a combination of these two dimensions, a bet on a limitless nationalist economic liberalism and the hope of exponential growth in the balance of their personal accounts.

The absolute masters of cyber technology, digital platforms and mainstream media began to change their tune from the moment they realized that Trump would return to the White House. The latest example comes from Mark Zuckerberg, the head of Meta, which includes Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp and other global platforms. Yesterday's moralist has in recent days become a follower of the methods that Trump advocates. And that Elon Musk inspires.

Trump and Musk make up a team of unhinged and strangely reactionary narcissists. That's what we have, the choice is made. They pose an immeasurable danger to the stability of the United States, neighboring states and also to democratic Europe. And they don't just influence billionaires. Their tentacles are vast and powerful. Trump has transformed and pocketed the Republican Party, the Supreme Court, and controls all other branches of federal power. And Musk has in his hands key sectors of the economy and two essential instruments to manipulate public opinion – the X platform and his colossal fortune.

Trump and Musk reflect a dictatorship of a new kind, supported by an alienated, ultra-nationalist, arrogant, materialistic and selfish majority. It's populism on the attack, with modern techniques and a dominant economy. They relegate a dictator like Vladimir Putin to the second division of the championship. And although they consider themselves to be in competition with China, they are convinced that this game will end with their opponent's defeat. They forget or do not know that it is a fatal mistake to underestimate the competition between great powers. History shows us that rivalries like this have in the vast majority of cases ended up causing terrible armed conflicts between the antagonists. With fools in power, the likelihood of repeating certain tragedies experienced in the past is a possibility that cannot be ignored.

For the European Union, it is essential to know how to respond to the Trump-Musk Administration. In these situations, and first of all, our best response is active, intense and formal diplomacy. This means frequent contacts, discussions on equal terms, based on recognized values, reciprocity of measures and an essentially protocolary behavior, without effusions, in dealing with the Americans.

As far as possible, the point of contact on the European side should be well defined, be managed at the highest level and be based as much as possible on consensus. We cannot have, for example, Georgia Meloni expressing one position and Emmanuel Macron another. This is where the famous observation wrongly attributed to Henry Kissinger would make perfect sense: when Trump wanted to discuss with Europe he would call the designated contact. They will tell me that with Trump, rules and predictability do not count. I would retort that one must insist.

A second element of the response must involve strengthening the cooperation between Europe and certain regions of the globe, especially those that have a more tenuous relationship with the US: Africa and Latin America. To these I would add China and India, but with special precautions. Political and economic relations with these two giants are important for Europe, but they require a lot of balance, wisdom and extreme vigilance. And I wouldn't forget either Canada or Japan.

The third pillar of the response would consist of strengthening European integration, including in matters related to culture, banking union and defense. Culture helps us imagine our common future. The defense calls for coherence and more operational and industrial coordination. Trump's political line does not necessarily include military protection of Europe. With or without NATO, Europeans must be able to guarantee their independence. Relying excessively on distant and unpredictable allies is not a policy that can be recommended.

2025: My views and my contribution to the debate

 10 January 2025

A year that calls for common sense, clarity and a lot of courage

Victor Angelo

 

In this first text of the new year, I seek to share some of my vision on the major global challenges that we will have to face in the next twelve months. Some of these challenges come as a continuation of the immense political difficulties that marked the international scene in 2024. Their trajectory in 2025 appears to continue in the direction of worsening. I see the stakes on moderation and peace as extremely complex and difficult, but absolutely necessary.

Added to these concerns are new problems, among which the following stand out: 1) the inequities and madness that the Donald Trump/Elon Musk Administration will introduce into international relations; 2) the acceleration of the use of Artificial Intelligence to respond to the designs and control of the strategic agenda by various imperialisms; and 3) access to power in several Western democracies, and elsewhere, by ultra-reactionary parties inspired by Nazis, fascists or simply xenophobic influences. Austria was, this week, the most recent example of this trend, that is, of the shift in public opinion towards populism and extremist nationalism. Herbert Kickl, leader of the far-right FPÖ party (symbolically called the National Social Party, an appellation inspired by the party of a certain Adolf Hitler), was invited to form a government.

This kind of perspective requires clear and courageous ambitions. Most of our leaders talk a lot, but their statements are vague, even incomprehensible in some cases. They do not understand the current context, nor can they imagine the future. They use the media to sell us the past and to maintain the illusions on which their power is based. It is up to us to combat these attitudes, but it is not easy. Access to the market for realistic and humanist ideas is increasingly narrow. Just look at who has access to airtime to understand how difficult it is to see on any screen who has the courage to dismantle the illusory contexts that serve as a basis of support for the bosses of the main political parties or for the leaders of some regional or global powers.

Anyone who has influence and authority should have at least five major ambitions.

First, peace. It's 2025, not the past. The great powers, but also each one of us, must abandon the idea that problems can be resolved by force of arms and ultimatums. With technological advances, wars only serve to cause the cruellest human suffering.

Second, the preservation of universal values. International law has made enormous progress since 1945. Its principles must be respected. With balance, equally, whether it is country A or B. Double standards lead to the discredit of universal ethics.

Third, respect for the life and fundamental rights of each person. This is the issue that receives the most emphasis when talking to the inhabitants of the most forgotten areas of the world, in the regions where many of the conflicts occur.

Fourth, reduce the underdevelopment gap. After several years of success, we are now moving in the opposite direction. The increase in economic and social disparities is, on the one hand, a source of tension, instability, hostility towards more developed countries, uncontrolled migration and environmental deterioration. On the other hand, it generates racism, xenophobia, contempt and indifference towards the poverty of many.

Fifth, contribute to the revival of the political role of the UN. I do not want to enter the debate about the Secretary-General's room for manoeuvre. But I cannot help but remember the importance of the United Nations Charter. We must insist, repeatedly, on absolute respect for the principles defined there.

The defence of Europe's democracies will certainly be a central issue in 2025. However, reducing the issue to the expansion of our defence industries is a mistake. It is also unrealistic and destabilizing to demand spending that would represent 5% of each State's GDP out of hand. The real challenge is to be able to build a coherent and shared European defence policy, which recognises the main dangers and considers, in a consensual manner, the possible contribution of each country.

This is essentially a political issue. There will be States whose current leaders will feel closer to the enemy than to our regimes of freedom. This year’s debate cannot ignore this reality. We will have to define a common position towards these individuals. There is another key question: to review and update the relations between the US and other NATO members – a subject that deserves a very detailed reflection at the appropriate time.