Iran and its allies at sea

What a present, just before the end of the year! Irony apart, the joint naval exercise that has just taken place in the Gulf of Oman and brought together Iran, Russia and China aimed at sending a very powerful message to the US and its allies. And it did.

The Oman sea lane is especially important for China’s strategic interests. It is, in my opinion, a top priority among China’s lines of communication with the world. That’s why they decided to participate. They wanted to demonstrate their navy’s modernity and outreach. For Russia, it was an opportunity to show they are back as an international maritime power. Both countries wanted also to send a message about stability in the region, meaning, their political commitment to discourage any strike against Iran, because it could have extraordinary consequences for a large part of the Middle East.

And in the case of Iran, the message was clear: to show they have powerful allies. Therefore, they should be left alone.

We must also note this exercise was a new one. It had not happened in the past.

Investing in Chinese private security firms

The Chinese leaders are very much aware that the protection of the infrastructure built in foreign lands as part of the gigantic Belt and Road Initiative will be a major issue. Such infrastructure will face a variety of menaces. They also know they can’t exclusively count on each participating country’s security apparatus. It’s a fact they will increase the security cooperation with the States concerned. We will see in the next few years a serious push in the area of bilateral security cooperation. State to State cooperation, the official side of the matter, will be competing with the security assistance coming from Western countries. It will become a new front of tension as well.

However, the Beijing leaders do not consider that form of cooperation as enough. Consequently, and without any fanfare, they have opened a new door in their domestic economic edifice. We are now witnessing a rapid expansion of the private security firms in China. This is a fast-growing sector of the economy.

My sources tell me that there are already more than 4,000 Chinese companies ready to operate overseas and protect their country’s investments. In addition, the industry related to the production of security gadgets for the use by private companies is also expanding fast. It is a high-tech sector of the economy. We should have no illusions about that. Two weeks ago, in Kunming, the capital of the Yunnan Province, an area that borders Myanmar, Laos and Vietnam, a beautiful region for that matter, there was a major exhibition of Chinese-produced security items. Without going into the details, the show was a major eye-opener. One could see the Chinese are far more advanced in that industry than what we can guess.

Russia, China and the EU: what's next?

In the medium term, sometime towards the middle of the forthcoming decade, Russia could opt for China, in terms of economic and trade relations. Basically, that would mean China would replace the EU as a market for the natural resources Russia produces and would become a supplier of finished goods that are today imported from the West. That could be an alternative for Russia, particularly if the political tensions with the EU and the sanctions that go along those tensions have not been resolved.

In that case, the leaders in the Kremlin could adopt a more adversarial approach towards the EU. I think we cannot exclude such a scenario as we look ahead.

But, for now, the Russian population are more prepared for a love-hate relationship with the rest of Europe. Russians do not feel particularly connected to the Chinese culture and way of life. There are old mental barriers that are not easy to overcome. Russians see themselves as fundamentally Europeans – the Christian background dimension has gained a lot of ground in Putin’s Russia. History has told us that it is easier to entertain a conflict with those who are our cultural and geographical neighbours. The real fights are between those who are very much alike to us. The others, especially if they are far away in terms of geography and culture, we tend to ignore them. At least until they come knocking at our gates.

The delicate EU approach towards Russia

We quite often forget that politics is about the control of power. Consequently, we also lose sight of a very fundamental question: what is, in each given situation, the key source of power?

Political leaders know they must pay special attention to this question.  And that the answer is found in the domestic arena, not in the field of international affairs. Power is based on the way domestic politics are played. The domestic voter must be persuaded. The effective political narrative takes that into account.

Vladimir Putin knows it. And we should keep it in mind when dealing with him. That is my message to President Macron, to the politicians in Italy and all those in the EU who are now advocating a new type of dialogue with President Putin.

Russia’s relations with the EU will always be a mix of tension and commerce. The Russian leaders want to keep a certain level of friction. They will picture the EU as a devilish power, a rival that wants to create chaos in Russia. They must create an external menace, the EU, as a way of justifying their strong hold on power. Therefore, they bet on old feelings about Germany – and more recently, on a new wave of negative feelings about Poland. All this helps them to fuel Russian nationalism, as well as gain voters’ support. It gives them an excuse for a strong hand against their internal opponents, presented as foreign agents, and a justification to spend an extraordinary amount of resources on the Russian Armed Forces and on the internal security structures. In exchange, the Armed Forces and the different Police organisations become key pillars of Putin’s power edifice.

But President Putin cannot ignore the economy. It must turn and generate enough resources, including those resources required to sustain a certain standard of living for the population. That means he needs to maintain open the access to the EU markets. Particularly, for Russia’s gas and oil exports, on one side, and, on the other, to import food and other goods and services from Europe. The Russian dependency on European markets, as suppliers and buyers, cannot be ignored.

The EU relationship with Russia must take such equation present. It’s a combination of power and economic factors. Interests, yes, but not about shared values, or common political objectives. As such, it would be naïve to think we can have a healthy cooperation with Russia, now and in the medium term. It will continue to be a question of balance between conflict and opportunity.

The holy season

The last time I visited India I spent a lot of time watching holy men as they went around performing their very unique role in society. And as I kept following them, I could only come to a very harsh conclusion: faith and human credulity cost a lot of money. Particularly, to the poor and the uneducated.

I remember that fact now, as we get into our own holiday season.

Poor democracy

For many opportunistic politicians, the truth is a MIA – missing in action. Values have been kicked aside, in today’s partisan disputes. The politicians do not want to recognise the facts if those facts play against them and their political friends. It is more than just lying. It is deep bad faith, and no shame. It is to negate the evidence and logical dimension of the facts. In the end, that creates deep divisions, extreme rancour and an immense discredit of everything political. With time, it might lead to violent action as well.

It is very worrying as a new trend.

We have now daily examples of that, in our democracies. And as I wrote yesterday, our democratic systems are therefore continuously undermined. And our societies are becoming more extreme instead of more harmonious.

The crisis the democracy is in

This a time of great political polarisation, in many of the Western democracies. Matters are decided based on party positions, not on truth or on their merits. The exercise of democracy has become like a war. There are only winners and losers, when that’s the approach. There is no room for dialogue and compromise. That is a serious setback for democratic values. And a very fertile ground for the emergence of dictators and their twins, the populist fools. They just must be able to talk to the prejudices shared by many people, as they struggle to carry on with their daily lives.

Democracy and mass communication are major tools. They can be used to promote progress as they can be the instruments to get the most skilled morons into positions of power.

COP25 and the people

COP25 has ended. Madrid can return to a more normal life. And the delegates can go home. For many of them, this climate summit would have been a major disappointment. For a few others, the meeting was as vague as they wanted it to be. That is the game of big international politics, to promise the world, and then backtrack, and implement as little as possible. 

Actually, there is a major contradiction between climate action and power politics. Climate requires a long-term view and commitment. Government politics is about the short-term, the eyes on the next election. These two perspectives cannot meet. Political leaders cannot lead the way as far as this issue is concerned, unless they feel the pressure coming from the citizens' movements. The strength of these movements is the only hope we have. In some countries, they matter and then the leaders listen. But in many other nations, the power is too concentrated in the official channels and mechanisms that it leaves little space for the citizens to be able to organise themselves.

The climate emergency needs not only the mobilisation of the citizens but also very clear proposals that can be easily accepted and owned by the people. In many ways, it seems necessary to change the narrative. The citizen knows what is taking place, the effects of climate change. The storms, the heat waves, the wildfires, the disappearing ice cover, all that. What they want to know is what are the concrete measures that must be effectively taken and be assured that those actions will not compromise their job security and the key aspects of their standards of living. They also want to know where the money for implementation will be coming from. 

That’s the story that must be told now. It is not enough to apprise people that the new technologies will generate more jobs. They do not believe it, unless we find the words and the examples that are most convincing.

The climate emergency will not be won if we do not get the people mobilised. That is the real front of this combat at this stage.  

Americans love to dictate to others

The US Congress is not happy. The Chamber of Representatives just approved a bill to sanction all companies that are engaged in the building of the gas pipeline known as Nordstream 2. This pipeline will connect the production fields in Russia to the consumers in Germany and beyond. It crosses the Baltic Sea. And it is key for the supply of this part of the EU. But our American friends see it differently. For them, this pipeline creates additional subordination to the Russian energy sector and, in addition, makes the pipeline through Ukraine less lucrative for the Ukrainians.

This is no good news. It is another front of tension between us and them. It widens the gap. And it reminds many of us that it is time to have a different approach to our external relations. Europe needs a stronger and more independent capacity to deal with friends and adversaries.

Unfortunately, events like this emphasise that often it is better to negotiate with adversarial powers than with allies. And when we start looking at things from such a prism it is better to have a clear view and move without any type of hesitation.

The new Boris Johnson

I do not see the world the way Boris Johnson does. But I accept he is a great political campaigner, someone who knows that in today’s complex world people want simple messages to be put across and a clear show of determination. He did both. And he won, a huge victory by all means. He has five years of power in front of him. Let’s see if he is as good at exercising it as he has been at canvassing for it.

He will govern a very divided country. His choices are clear: either he keeps deepening the sharp split or he opts for a moderate route that can make a good part of the opposition feel comfortable with his governance. I think he knows the latter is the only way forward. He cannot contribute to the augmentation of the political divide; he cannot ignore those who want to keep a close relationship with the European Union. That includes the Scottish people.

The United Kingdom must keep a strong link with the EU. Boris Johnson is smart enough to understand that and strong enough, within his party, to impose such a political line. The only question mark is about his balance: will he be wise enough to seek a compromise with the EU? I don’t know. And I am afraid he might not have that kind of wisdom. He might fall into the old trap that makes British people believe they are better than their neighbours. That would be a serious mistake. Let’s hope it will not happen.

British general elections

It is still to early to know the outcome of the British elections. It will be inappropriate to try to guess the results, a couple of hours before the closing of the polling stations. Better wait for the headlines and the details tomorrow morning. Whatever comes out of the voting, it will have a major impact on the UK and, in some ways, in the rest of Europe. These are no ordinary elections. And many, particularly the younger people, got to understand it.

Macron's days of destiny

President Emmanuel Macron is trying to reform the anachronic French pension system. It is a major task in a country that is used to keep the acquired advantages, even when there is no logical reason for that. Moreover, even when they are no longer sustainable and have lost the foundations that could justify them. Such reform requires strong political will and an extremely smart approach. The President seems to have the political will, at least in some degree. But I am not sure he has the ability that is necessary to navigate such a stormy matter. Determination without a good dose of ingenuity leads to defeat.

Europe and Africa: looking for a renewed cooperation

Ursula von der Leyen, the new European Commission President, travelled to Addis Ababa to meet the Chairman of the African Union, Moussa Faki. This is a great political gesture. It shows the priority she wants to give to the cooperation with the African institutions.

I am sure Moussa Faki appreciated the move. He is a very fine politician and knows that it is in the advantage of both sides to deepen the cooperation. It has also to become more strategic. Von der Leyen’s message was basically that it is up to the Africans to propose the agenda.

At the end of the NATO Day

As I look at leaders ‘meeting, and the way they look at their own forces, always over-estimating the capacity of their forces and inter-states cooperation, I want to shout that too much confidence on your abilities defeats you in the end. It has always been like that and I see no reason for it to be different this time.

On the anniversary of NATO

All along, I have listened to a good number of dinner speakers. And I have noticed that, in general, they believe that a successful speech is the one that confirms the views of the attendees. They end up by seeing themselves as “comfort speakers”, as I would call them, invited to reinforce the prevailing ideas that have already gained a seat around the table.

That has been the case, for instance, on matters related to NATO. I mention the Alliance as its leaders get together in London to celebrate its 70^th anniversary. And I recall that I have repeated at a few occasions the Organisation needs an independent view of its relevance and role. They should even listen to some “positive contrarians” – another expression I use –, people that are ready to raise some fundamental questions instead of just re-stating dogmatic or diplomatic views.

I would also like to recall another of my frequent messages to senior officers: we can only succeed if we consult, de-conflict and harmonise our respective strategic and operational interests.  

NATO and the Sahel

As we approach the door of the London NATO Summit, which opens on 3 December, we cannot ignore one of the key questions the Alliance must address: what kind of role should it play in North Africa and the Sahel?

But before answering it, the member States should recognise that such region is closely linked to some important European countries. Its security will have an impact on those countries, sooner or later. And not just on matters of illegal migrations. An expansion of terrorist groups out there will end up by spilling over to Europe.

One cannot look at North Africa and the Sahel as if they were in a far corner of the world.

The approaches towards the future of European defence

When it comes to European defence, it is not either the US or Turkey that count. It is basically how the issue is seen by the French, the Germans and the Poles. The British, with the Brexit imbroglio, have somehow stepped aside. Each one of these three nations lead a different school of thought on the matter. And, in many ways, the Poles are more influential than what many outside analysts think. On top of that, they tend to voice positions that are not too far from the feelings we find within the US side. In this context, the strategy must follow a gradual approach, step by step, starting with less controversial areas. And it has to consider what should be the future of NATO in the Europe of tomorrow.

Donald Tusk and Jean-Claude Juncker

Donald Tusk and Jean-Claude Juncker completed today their mandates as leaders of the EU. I think it is fair to say that both have committed themselves deeply to their jobs. Donald Tusk as head of the Council had to manage and balance the views of his peers, the Heads of State and Government of the EU Member States. Not an easy job. One of his headaches came from his own country, Poland. Jean-Claude Juncker had to lead the machinery and achieve results, notwithstanding the fact that, at the same time, he was dealing with a major distraction, the Brexit negotiations.

As they move on, I think one should say thank you for the work they have done as well as for the enormous patience they have displayed. And we should know that patience and perseverance are two of the key features a leader should possess. Particularly a leader that deals with 28 national masters.

The new EU Commission

The new European Commission top team, led by Ursula von der Leyen, has been approved by the Members of the European Parliament. They are now ready to start their five-year mandate. I can only hope they will be able to respond to the challenges ahead and remain credible.

The challenges are many. For me, the most important one concerns the unity of Europe. This is an area that is under attack, both from inside and from some of our neighbours, allies or foes. Therefore, it must be protected and strengthened. The Commission must keep reminding all of us of our common destiny as Europeans. It’s about unity within diversity, as a German person is certainly different, in many aspects, from a Portuguese. But both and all share the same fundamental values of human rights, fairness and dignity. All want to see the European streets kept safe, the rural areas protected, the equality between boys and girls promoted, and ensure that the older citizens feel tranquil and enjoy a dignified end of life. It’s also about the beef, of course. By promoting the European unity, the Commission is supporting a balanced economic growth and job security. In a context of sustainability, which means a lot on terms of addressing the urgency of the climate crisis.

I wish the new team well.

So much has changed

We are about to close the second decade of the XXI Century. As we look back, the last 10 years have been a time of major transformation and change. The year 2010 seems to be far back and to belong to another era. Politics have changed, and not for the better. Lies and polarisation are new key features. The economy has also gone through major transformations. Artificial Intelligence, computerisation are the new dimensions. But they are not alone. The economic changes have also brought new levels of precariousness and powerlessness, job insecurity and a frustration. And then, there is a new understanding of the climate crisis. It is unfortunately accompanied by actions that are too small to effectively respond to the issues we face.

In many ways, I think we end the decade with a stronger feeling hopelessness and deep distrust for those who are in charge. We are also more contradictory in our own way of looking at things. We know but we do not want to change what we got used to. We just hope others will do it.

That goes along with a serious leadership crisis. The political and thought leaders are no longer those who are in power. They are among the little people, the ordinary citizens and, in many ways, among the very young. There again, there is a serious gap between political authority and moral authority. That’s one the challenges we have to address we get into the next decade.

The initial comments about the Hong Kong elections

Three points about today’s local elections in Hong Kong. One, it is about the very impressive voter turnout. People participated in the election in very large numbers. The turnout is 71.2 per cent of the registered voters. Much higher than the one in 2015, which reached 47 per cent. Two, it is about the tranquillity of the day. There was no unrest, no confusion either during the vote or in the evening, as the papers were counted, and the first results announced. Three, initial results show that the pro-democracy candidates are gaining most of the seats. That will be a major blow to the Hong Kong Chief Minister. But, above all, to the Communist leaders in Beijing.

Again, the events as they happen in Hong Kong raise major issues about what next in China.

The question of trust

If there is a thing I took away from the political debate the BBC organised last evening, it is the question of trust. Basically, the programme was about placing the leaders of the four main British parties before an assembly of citizens. We were told these people represented a good sample of the diversity of opinions one can find in the British society. I don’t know the criteria the BBC followed to select them. However, I have no special reason to doubt the organisers’ word and good judgement.

Each leader was given 30 minutes to listen and reply to questions coming from the audience. That’s time enough to win an assembly of voters. It can also become an eternity if one is not able to connect with them and be convincing.

In my opinion, and excluding the special case of the leader of the Scottish National Party – Nicola Sturgeon has a very specific political agenda, very focused on getting a new vote on Scotland’s quest for independence from the UK – the other three leaders could realise they are not trusted by large segments of the population. Their pledges do not sound as sincere.  They can count, of course, on their faithful followers. But they can’t widen the pool.

My conclusion was that they should ask themselves why it is they are not perceived by a good number of the voters as credible. If I were in their shoes, that would be the question I would try to answer now, before moving on with the campaign.

A global wave of urban revolt

It cannot escape one’s attention that currently there are several cases of urban revolt taking place in a good number of countries. Each one of these mass movements have their own specific causes. But I think there are a few common features. They are related to the stress of leaving in megacities with poor infrastructure and high cost of living, housing challenges, youth unemployment, job insecurity, and the disparity of living standards one can find in every big city. Inequality and a strong feeling of social injustice combined with scot-free corruption by the elites lead to mass demonstrations, including the destruction of symbols of power.

Hong Kong: the politics of escalation

The Hong Kong political crisis calls for a deep analysis. It raises many questions. What is happening in the city for several months now is unique and a major challenge to President Xi Jinping’s authority. The population in Mainland China is not properly informed about the events. But I am told that the younger professionals in key Chinese cities are particularly interested in what is taking place in Hong Kong. To get a better picture, they are looking for alternative sources of information. And they are able to get to them, notwithstanding the extreme control the authorities try to impose on access to information. A new narrative, different from the official one, is now circulating among the younger segments of society, those with higher levels of education. It is yet too early to assess how significant that can be. But what it is clear is that in Mainland China some people are now getting a strong message coming from the demonstrations in Hong Kong. That is, there are Chinese people that do not want to live under the dictatorship imposed by the Communist leaders. They are ready to fight for their freedom. The only dimension that is tarnishing the message is the violence that is also taking place. And the Communist leaders know that they can take advantage of such violence. But playing with violence is not a good political bet.

Our present-day Don Quixote's

The world is becoming like a huge maze. There are too many paths, too many dramatic events. It is much easier to get lost at present. And many people do. They do not try to understand the logic design of the maze. They just keep moving around, they take their option as the solution. What an easy way to get confused and get mentally prepared to fight the windmills that Don Quixote could not defeat. The only difference is that the real Don Quixote had a pure and generous heart. That’s not longer the case with the politicians that play the same role today.

New forms of democracy

Some theoreticians keep saying, as they love to repeat one another, that “we live in a post-democratic world”. I disagree. Democracy is alive in many parts of our planet. The only real point is that the way it is expressed and exercised is changing fast. We live in a globalised world. National borders have lost their meaning when the issues are of a greater import. Therefore, this is a time when decisions taken within national borders must be harmonised with decisions taken by others. It is not a loss of national sovereignty or a way of undermining the democratic institutions in each country. It is simply because many issues do require a transnational response. And that’s why it is important to safeguard the authority of the multilateral organisations. Part of the democratic practise means then to be able to reach consensus.

9 November is a European date

Besides the German leaders, the Presidents of Slovakia, Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary participated in the ceremony in Berlin, marking the 30^th anniversary of the fall of the Wall. I am very pleased they did. The date is an important one for freedom and democracy in their part of Europe. But it is also a key one for the rest of us, in the EU. It is about freedom, the end of a totalitarian approach to governance, the realisation that the communist utopia, as promoted by the Soviets and their allies, was nothing else but a tragic instrument to keep power in the hands of minority political extremists. It is above all a key date for Europe and its modern history. As such, it is most surprising not to see at today’s ceremony some politicians such as Emmanuel Macron, Charles Michel, the incoming EU Council President, and many others from the Western side of Europe. I think they made a mistake.

A new deal in international affairs

It would be unfair to live in the centre of the European Union and have a pessimistic view about the future of mankind. But it would also be unreasonable not to accept that for many, in many parts of the world, daily life is a gigantic challenge, a crushing trial. The point is to find a balance between our prosperity and the dramas many have to go through. In my opinion, the first step towards such balance is the one that recognises that walls and barriers will not keep their problems away from us. What keeps our safety and way of life is a value-based approach towards international cooperation and mutual respect. That should be the message the leaders should take as their key policy line.

No to Erdogan's resettlement plan

President Erdogan of Turkey wants to repatriate a large number of Syrian refugees. His plan is to create several resettlement camps on the Syrian side of the border, in the “safe zone” his troops control, between the towns of Tel Abyad and Ras al-Ain.

He is putting a lot of pressure on the UN Secretary-General António Guterres. The President wants the Secretary-General to bless the plan and convene a donor meeting to raise money for its implementation. Erdogan met Guterres yesterday and the meeting was vintage Erdogan: either the UN does it, or I will.

Things do not work like that when it comes to repatriation of refugees and the role of the UN. The Secretary-General must make it clear. Repatriation must take place on a voluntary basis, with strong security guarantees, and it cannot disturb the very fragile ethnic balances that define Northern Syria. It is also true that traditional donors are not ready to finance any plan imposed by force. But that is not the key issue. The point is that people must be willing to go back. I am sure that point is not met today.

The Special Operations and the Special One

The recent American operation against the leader of the Islamic State must be recognised as a major success. In addition, I would mention three facts that are also of great import.

First, it was once again clear that the US Intelligence machinery is the best in world. They know how to establish information collection networks and they have the means and the capacity to achieve results in very hostile environments.  

Second, the US Special Operations Units are also top performers. They prepare well, train extensively the scenario they might expect and have the determination and the courage to undertake very risky operations.

Third, the President is a political disaster, whatever the prism you may use to look at him. The way he told the story was most embarrassing. He couldn’t go beyond his own self and was unable to give the moment the seriousness it deserved. He is just a poorly informed amateur. Fortunately, behind him, there is an intelligence community and a military establishment that know what they are supposed to do.

Lebanon is changing

Just a brief reference to the on-going street demonstrations that are taking place in Beirut. I admire the determination of those on the streets. Many of them are younger citizens, that are no longer ready to accept the sectarian policies and the power-sharing arrangements that have blocked Lebanon for decades. They want a different type of political system, that promotes economic growth, gives opportunities to the new generations – far better educated than the previous ones – and is clean of corrupt practices and religious bias. It is a genuine domestic movement, notwithstanding the accusations made by the radicals that foreign powers are behind the events. In fact, the foreign partners of the country have been surprised by these popular rallies. They were so much used to the status quo, so they couldn’t see the change that was taking place.

I really wish well to those who want to create a new Lebanon.

Supporting the Balkans

President Macron decided to veto the launching of enlargement talks between the European Union and two Balkan States, North Macedonia and Albania. I unreservedly disagree with the position he has taken. I see it as a mistake or part of his game to get some concessions from other EU countries. It was not inspired by the promotion of peace and stability in the region. And it is certainly not in the best interests of the EU.

These two countries are certainly far away from meeting the membership criteria. They have however implemented a few fundamental reforms and must be encouraged to pursue that same path.

President Macron’s decision is particularly difficult to accept in the case of North Macedonia. The country is a delicate politico-ethnic puzzle and at every moment requires cautious balancing of its populations’ specific interests. Macedonia’s current leadership has demonstrated seriousness and courage. It calls for demonstrable European support.

The threat inside our common home

President Erdogan is not only on the wrong side of today’s world. He is also a serious threat to stability in some parts of Europe. Not to see it would be a mistake with a very high price. 

Supporting the Kurdish people in Syria

Turkey’s military invasion of North-Eastern Syria is illegal, from the international law perspective. It is also a tremendous political mistake, with many possible consequences. I have not seen a single country, among those who matter in international affairs and in the region, that has supported President Erdogan’s decision.

In this kind of dangerous military interventions experience has taught us that we know when the operation starts but nobody can predict when it will end. Erdogan’s people can find themselves caught in a never-ending drama.

Moreover, the Kurds of Syria have been brave allies of the anti-terrorist forces that have fought the Islamic State criminals. They have generated a very important capital of sympathy in Europe and the US. It is not only that we are indebted to their courage and fighting spirit. It is also that we all recognise that they have created a space of tranquillity and some type of normalcy in a country that has been in chaos. It is that order that President Erdogan is now destroying with his heavy artillery and fighter planes.

It is unacceptable.

Fighting corruption

Widespread corruption remains a major issue in some developing countries. It cannot be absent from the policy dialogue with our partner countries. It must be a very central topic and our common responsibility is not to run away from the issue. Diplomacy is no justification to ignore the fate of the populations that see their economy being capture by a few members of the political leadership.

Today, I had a long discussion about the matter and how it affects equitable growth and the fight against poverty. The starting point was the current situation in Zambia. And I was sad to note that I have seen better governance in that country. And unfortunately, it is just an example.

The situation in Northeastern Syria

At the end of the day, there is a lot of confusion regarding what could be next in Northern Syria, at the border with Turkey.

Over the weekend, the US President seems to have told his Turkish counterpart he would not oppose any military action Turkey might take against the Kurds that live on the Syrian side of the border. It was like giving a green light to President Erdogan to move in and attack the Syrian Democratic Forces, the Kurdish-dominated group that was a major ally of the Western powers in the battle against ISIS.

Now, and in view of the outcry his decision has arisen, including within the leadership of his own Republican Party, President Trump appears to be backpedalling. He even tweeted that the Turkish economy would be brought to its knees if something very wrong – what that means is unclear – would happen in Northern Syria.

Well, if there is an invasion of the Syrian territory, many wrong things will happen. One of them is about the message the West will be sending across the globe that they do not protect those who fought along side them. The other one concerns the fate of the ISIS prisoners. Thousands of them are being kept by the Syrian Democratic Forces/YPG. They would run away if the Kurds are under attack. That would bring back a number of terrorist cells to the region. In addition, any new war front in the region would certainly generate more displacements and human suffering. The civilian populations in Northern Syria would pay a high price for the Turkish invasion.

Besides the confusion, EU leaders must be clear and state without hesitation that any Turkish offensive in Northern Syria would be unacceptable. It is time to be firm with Erdogan. And unequivocal as well.  

If you fail, try blackmail

When political bullying fails, the fellows try blackmail. The French call it “chantage”. That’s what some Brexit hardliners have been suggesting this weekend. They recommend that the Boris Johnson government sabotages the work of the EU institutions, if his deal proposal is not accepted and he is forced to ask for an extension. In their lunacy, they have even advised Boris Johnson to appoint Nigel “Crackpot” Farage as the British Commissioner in Ursula von der Leyen’s Commission. They see Farage as the Chief Disruptor.

All this is childish. And it is also amazing to see some sectors of the British Conservative Party falling so low. Their anti-European fanaticism makes them politically blind. It blocks their minds and impedes them from understanding that cooperation and mutual benefit are the only winning cards. Radical Conservatives just keep moving away from the traditional British common sense.

A brief commentary on Hong Kong

Fourteen weeks after the beginning of the ongoing unrest in Hong Kong and notwithstanding the growing chaos, and violence, Beijing still looks at the situation as a local problem. The Communist leaders do not see any risk of contagion, either in Macau or in any Mainland big city. That explains why they have decided to let the Hong Kong authorities – and above all, the Police – deal with the crisis. It is true that the city authorities have not been very artful or politically astute. But for the time being, Beijing is convinced that the Chief Executive and her people should be the crisis managers. That’s a way of sending the message that this is not a wider problem.

Beijing has also been actively promoting its narrative of what is taking place in Hong Kong. They tell the Mainlanders that these are just some youngsters who are encouraged by outside powers to break the law and rebel against the established system of government. They show on the Chinese TV the scenes of violence and destruction, as a way of discrediting the protesters.

Beijing hopes the protest movement will die out, after a few more weeks or so. They are also betting on the impact that mass arrests might have in terms of discouraging the crowds.

I am not sure Beijing is getting the full understanding of what is taking place in Hong Kong. The protests are deeper than what the leaders think. One of the reasons for Police ineffectiveness in dealing with the demonstrations resides in the widespread support the demonstrators get from the general population of Hong Kong. The young people are on the streets but most of the older people are not against the street actions. This makes it a very distinctive case, when I compare it to other riots I have studied.

To talk to a political bully?

In politics, we tend to forget that to be principled is different from being dogmatic.

A principled leader knows the goal posts, keeps in mind the values that must be respected, and, because of that, he or she can engage in a negotiation. The dogmatic one is just a bully, a political ruffian. He can only operate from what he sees as a position of force, even when such position is no more than an illusion. The bully lives in a fantasy world and sees himself at the centre of it. To engage in a dialogue with such a person is a lost of time, unless it is just a tactical move to regain the initiative.

Her Majesty's Opposition: some questions

Where is the UK Opposition? What is their counterplan? Why have they lost the political initiative?

These are my questions this morning.

Boris Johnson's weird proposal

The plan the British Prime Minister sent to Brussels today, regarding a withdrawal agreement with the EU, is a construction in the air. It’s not grounded on realistic operational premises, meaning, it is unclear in terms of its day-to-day implementation. And it plays with words and images, basically to show to the British voters this plan is different from the one Theresa May had agreed upon. It is not about substance and cooperation, it is about personal ambition and party politics in the UK. 

The EU leaders are not convinced. However, they played smart in their reactions to Boris Johnson’s proposal. They said they would look at it with the required attention. That’s a diplomatic way of saying we are not convinced but do not want to kill hope right away. Brussels does not want to give the British PM any chance that would allow him to blame the EU for a No Deal situation. It is true he will blame in any case, but without any definitive proof. 

Besides the confusing lines, the plan was presented almost like an ultimatum from the British side to the European one. That is not very smart. Key leaders in Europe will take such approach as an affront. Politically, Boris Johnson's tone calls for a response that might further complicate the Brexit issue. This is no time for “take it or leave it”, as the PM is saying. That is unwise, but not surprising as Boris Johnson is more interested in impressing the British nationalists than in finding a solution to his country’s future relationship with Europe. He is already campaigning. The bizarre Brexit plan he submitted today is part and parcel of his electoral strategy. Not much more than that.

China's Day

The new China is much younger than Communist China. The one celebrating today, with an extraordinary show of military power and a strong emphasis on patriotism and loyalty to everything Chinese, and above all, to the authorities, was the older one. 70 years is a long time in the life of a regime. At that age, the big question is about the future: what kind of country will be there ten or twenty years down the line?

Japan and the EU, on the same side

I am not sure that Friday afternoon is a good time for great political moves. At least, from the perspective of public information and support. The weekend is around the corner and the media tend to go slow. If they mention the action, it will be in a lazy line that gets lost fast. On Monday, it is already an old story. And it would have been overtaken by events happening during the weekly break.

The deal signed on Friday between the President of the European Commission and the Prime Minister of Japan seems to have fallen into this trap. Jean-Claude Juncker and Shinzo Abe put their signature of approval on an ambitious agreement that will see both sides cooperating in different parts of the developing world, including in the Balkans and other countries of Europe outside the EU, to build infrastructure and promoting digital industries. A lot of emphasis will be placed on thorough development projects, sustainability, transparency, national ownership and partnerships with the recipient countries and the appropriate multilateral organisations.

They called it a connectivity partnership between the EU and Japan. It can work, if we consider these are two of the largest economies. Together, they represent over 23 trillion US dollars of GDP, which is larger than the US ($21 trillion). And much bigger than China (USD 9.2 trillion).

The point is about politics. Both sides must make this cooperation a priority when dealing with developing nations. And they will be competing with China’s offer, the fast-moving Belt and Road Initiative. That will not be an easy competition. The Chinese leadership are deeply invested in the Initiative. To compete, the Europeans and the Japanese have no choice but to insist on projects that have the support of the populations – not just of the political leaders in the concerned countries – and are financially sound and proper. These are no technical or money matters. They are about strategic political engagements.

Pakistan, India and Kashmir

In January 1957, the Indian Permanent Representative to the UN, V. K. Krishna Menon, spoke for 8 hours, when addressing the Security Council on the situation in Kashmir. That speech remains the longest ever delivered at the UN. It was cut short, if I can say so, because Menon collapsed of exhaustion.

Compared to such feat, yesterday´s 50-minute speech by Pakistan’s Prime Minister was a brief episode. But a striking one, not because of its length – at the UN, it is considered a long speech that goes beyond 35 minutes; this year’s trend has been to have shorter interventions – but because of the words he said. He basically focused on the dispute with India regarding Kashmir. And he talked about the possibility of war between the two countries and made a direct reference to the use of nuclear weapons. Imran Khan stated that Pakistan would go for a nuclear response if there is war and his country is losing it against India.

Such assertion is most upsetting. There is indeed a serious state of cold confrontation between Pakistan and India. The Kashmir situation and Modi’s decision to cancel the autonomy of the region have brought the complexity of conflict to the fore. We have there an extremely dangerous threat to international peace and security. Khan’s words have confirmed it.

Pakistan is getting closer and closer to China. Its dramatic economic situation makes Pakistan very dependent on China’s investments and economic cooperation. China, on the other hand, sees India as a growing competitor. But I can’t believe the Chinese would encourage Pakistan to go for an armed conflict with India. They cannot imagine that such clash would reduce India’s capacity to compete. 

In my opinion, the Chinese should be encouraged to mediate in between both countries. That would have an impact on the easing of the tensions and would strengthen the international standing of China. With the accord of the two antagonistic nations, the Chinese could also bring the matter to the Security Council, to get a greater buy-in for a peaceful way forward.

It is not easy, though. The Indian Prime Minister sees the Kashmir crisis as an internal challenge, a domestic affair. He does not welcome any type of international assistance on the issue. 

That was fine until yesterday, I would retort. With Imran Khan’s dramatic speech at the UN, the issue cannot be anything else but an international matter of great concern. It must be dealt as such and with great urgency. 

Afghan elections: people's determination

Tomorrow, it’s elections day in Afghanistan. It’s the presidential election, with the incumbent President, Ashraf Ghani, running against the leading politician Abdullah Abdullah, who has been the number two in governing arrangement that now comes to an end. There are another 15 or 16 candidates in the ballot paper. But the real contest is between the Ghani and Abdullah. They hate each other but have been able to sit side by side in many recent occasions. That’s striking. In my opinion, the fact that the country is somehow able to organise an elections day is even more memorable. It is true that in some areas there will be no vote because of the security situation. People are desperate for peace. They want to vote; they want democracy and normalcy to win.

It will be a very tense day, a risky process, with the Taliban and other armed groups trying to disrupt the election. I can only wish them a safe day and express my admiration for their perseverance. The Afghan people deserve all the support the international community can provide them.

The populism is attacking our democracies

Populist leaders will do anything to keep power. They get to power through lies, manipulation of facts, verbal violence, intrigue and appeals to the most primary instincts of people. They keep using the same tactics once at the top of political food chain. They are then particularly dangerous as they have control over the institutional levers of authority and manage to acquire the support of those in the media that love to be obsequious to dictators and are ready to embark on the same disastrous demagogic train. All of them, leaders and their media acolytes, create a special type of enemy, what they call the elites. Everyone that opposes them, or comes up with different ideas, or talks about the respect for rules, institutions and separation of power, is tagged as an elite. The members of the elite are then called enemies of the people. We hear that accusation being thrown at judges, democratic politicians, professional journalists, competent civil servants, and so on.

All this is not really new. What is new and extremely worrisome is to see this type of unacceptable political behaviour taking ground in our traditionally open and democratic societies. The worm is now in our democratic apple. That’s a major development that needs to be combated with clarity of purpose and extremely effective communications. We must not be perceived as hesitating in front of the populists that are in charge or try to get to power. We must show leadership and moral strength.

The rule of law in the UK

Today’s ruling by the UK Supreme Court is about law and the respect by everyone, including the country’s Prime Minister, of the constitutional arrangements that define the exercise of executive power. It was a legal decision. And it must be seen as such. The Supreme Court unanimously decided that the Prime Minister’s prorogation of Parliament was unlawful and therefore void and of no effect.

The initial reaction of some of Boris Johnson’s unconditional supporters, including in the media – The Telegraph is just an example – was to say that the Court’s decision was political. That the eleven Supreme Judges were just taking the side of the Remainers. Later in the day that kind of incendiary opinion disappeared from the front pages and was also deftly abandoned by the extreme Brexiteers that were invited to comment. Someone had realised that to criticise the Supreme Court with political rhetoric would backfire. That was the second victory of the day for the rule of law.

Greta and her words

I am most impressed by Greta Thunberg’s brief speech at the Climate Summit today. I am convinced her address will join the list of the best speeches ever delivered. Greta came out as thoughtful, sincere, direct and challenging. And let me believe the new generations are ready to change the world. That’s a powerful message.

Iran is choosing the wrong approach

The drone cum missile attacks against Saudi oil facilities remain a major international issue. Analysts have tried to read beyond these strikes. They seek to understand what Iran’s game plan is. That’s certainly a key question, in addition to several others. We need a plausible answer to it.

Iran is clearly coordinating its actions with their clients in Yemen, the Houthi rebels. Today, both Iran and the Houthi leadership have extended a hand of dialogue. Last week, the hand they were showing resulted in the attacks, a clear act of war. Now, they talk about bringing down the tension. At the same time, the Iranians organise military parades and public demonstrations of force.

But, again, the question is what is their plan? Escalation, on one side, and diplomatic talk, on the other, is a tactic but not a strategy. It is actually a very dangerous approach. It can easily get things out of hand. And that risk is still very much in the air. We are not out of the danger zone.

Iranian leaders think they are now in a stronger position. That’s probably the reason for the attacks. They wanted to show they can strike a country as heavily armed as Saudi Arabia is. A country that is a close ally of the Americans. They wanted to be seen as a sophisticated military power. And send a message that it is better to negotiate with them than to confront them. The problem is that they have little support outside the small circle that is constituted by a few client governments and a couple of armed groups. Bigger countries will choose the Saudi side, if they have to. And the extensive sanctions the US has imposed on them will ruin their fragile economy and will create further opposition to the clerics that control Iran’s power machinery.

I can only anticipate disaster for Iran, if they continue to strike the neighbours and to make bellicose announcements. Therefore, I see the attacks against the Saudi refineries and plants as a very serious miscalculation. It is a tactical victory and a strategic error.

To launch drones and other missiles is a serious mistake

I do not know yet who is behind the destructive action taken against the Saudi oil facilities on Saturday. I see many fingers pointing in the direction of Iran. They might be right. We will see. But what I certainly know is that the attacks must be considered acts of war and very serious political mistakes. Whoever took the decision to launch the drones and the missiles must be made to understand that conflict escalation can only bring further destruction and misery to the region. Our condemnation of such decision cannot be ambiguous. It must be as strong as they make them, which does not necessarily mean military retaliation. It means isolation and sanctions.  

Our reaction to the drone attacks

The drone attacks against the Saudi oil refineries brought a new level of danger and complication to the complex conflict involving, among others, Yemen, Iran and, of course, Saudi Arabia as well as an external actor such as the United States. 

The reactions we have seen in the key markets go beyond the oil supply issue. They indicate there is a deep concern about the crisis in that part of Middle East and its geopolitical consequences. 

I can understand the fears. Anything can happen. However, as long as there is a tiny hope of a summit between the US President and the Iranian one, I think we can expect our side to hesitate and avoid extreme actions. Am I right? I hope so. The opposite would take us into a much deeper conflict of unimaginable proportions.

Debating the new European Commission

The European Parliamentarians – MEPs, as they are known – will be discussing soon the names and portfolios of the next European Commission, as proposed by Ursula von der Leyen.

We can expect a deep controversy about one of the proposed portfolios, the one about "protecting our European way of life".

The title is misleading and gives room to diverse interpretations. Under it, von der Leyen is including immigration, security and the new emerging threats, as well as employment and education. That’s quite a mixed bag. But Ursula von der Leyen’s main intent is, as stated in her letter of mission to the Commissioner appointed to head such area of work, to ensure there is a common approach to these issues, especially to the one related to immigration and the integration. 

It will not be an easy job. We will see how it will be approached. The first indications should be visible during her debate with the MEPs.

Good riddance, Ambassador Bolton

John Bolton is a crazy warmonger. I expressed my deep concern when he was appointed US National Security Advisor. I should now show some degree of relief because he has just been sacked by the President. That’s a piece of good news. It also reveals that the President is more balanced than some of the crazies that claim to be part of his inner circle. He might be an erratic leader. But, at least, he seems to understand that military strikes are not exactly a solution to the many issues that complicate today’s international agenda. I hope the next National Security Advisor will come from the profession and not from the area of radical politics. There is still enough radicalism within the current administration.

South of Europe

In the Southern flank of the EU, just next door to all of us, the instability and systematic violations of people’s rights are growing by the day.

The area is a combination of several active political volcanoes. It is the situation in Libya and in most of North Africa plus the Sahel, vast area of absence of government. The Sahel was a semi-desert, now is a full-fledged governance desert. It is the deepening of the conflict between Israel and her neighbours. It is the all-out conflict in Yemen and the war crimes in Syria. Add to that, Iran and its fast deteriorating economic circumstances plus the armed competition with the vicinity and beyond, the violence in Afghanistan, the mess in Pakistan. And, of course, the crazy political line President Erdogan is following in his country.

The different components of this Southern neighbourhood are all extreme violent and with far reaching consequences. Mass movements are one of them. The complexity calls for a much better-defined EU political approach. It also requires more public attention. Leaders in Brussels and the capitals should be speaking about these matters more often and with better words. The words must be explicit, comprehensive and coherent.

Our role is to put pressure on our leaders for lines of action to be defined and the narrative to become strategic. And we should act with a strong sense of urgency.

Robert Mugabe

Robert Mugabe passed away this morning.

I spent four years of my professional life (2000-2004) in close contact with him. During that time, I met President Mugabe frequently. In the end, on the eve of my departure, he came back to Harare from the province, for a final meeting and goodbyes.

I was then the UN representative in Zimbabwe.  

We disagreed on many things, but we kept a cordial rapport. I am not sure he has learned anything from me. But I did, from him. Among them, on this day, I will recall a couple of them.

First, leaders should not remain for too long in power. If that happens, time changes the positives into disasters. And what people keep in their minds is the negative tail end. Many will remember Robert Mugabe for that, the tragedy the country has become under his presidency and beyond.

Time limits are essential for democracy to be sustained.

Second, politics is about the control of power. And people in power, if allowed, will do anything to keep such control. Anything, indeed. Mugabe has destroyed Zimbabwe’s economy as a way of undermining his opponents. No price was too high for him to stay in power.

That’s why the building of democracy calls for strong institutions and an energetic private sector economy. Institutions go beyond individuals and bring balance. They counter authoritarian tendencies coming from those on the top of the executive pyramid. And people must be able to find alternative livelihoods outside the State.

Mugabe was also a hero for many, in terms of Africa's liberation. Maybe, that should be the main emphasis of any comment about his life, on this day of his passing.

Italy and its fragile new government

Italy has a new government. Giuseppe Conte has been successful at putting together a coalition of dissimilar personalities. It brings together populists, left wingers, centrists and technocrats. All of them have one thing in common: a profound dislike for Matteo Salvini, the extremist. It is obviously a fragile reason to pull together. But it might work. I am one of those who sees some strength in disparity. This government might want to contradict the naysayers.

Iran, Europe and the distant US

The key European leaders are shocked by the extreme approach the US is following regarding Iran. They think the maximum pressure policy taken by the Trump Administration is outside the accepted rules of international engagement. They also find unacceptable the targeting of European interests by the sanctions unilaterally decided by the US. The issue of Iran is deepening the gap between the two sides of the Atlantic.  

Boris Johnson and his disastrous politics

A few brief comments on tonight's vote in the British Parliament.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson suffered a major humiliation. It was not just a defeat. It should be seen as the confirmation that his strategy – the one that is designed by his Special Advisor, Dominic Cummings, and the PM implements – is not keeping his own camp together. Twenty-one members of his Tory Party voted against him, notwithstanding all the promises he made and, above all, the political threats he mouthed against them. Twenty-one is a big number and most of them are very senior people with a long public career.  

The Prime Minister has shown that his understanding of the British system of democracy is not far from the one followed by Vladimir Putin and other birds of the same feather. He sees his fellow party parliamentarians as just yes-men. They are not allowed any freedom of choice. In his opinion, they are at Westminster to vote for the PM, and that’s all.

The opposition must ride on tonight’s vote and present Boris Johnson in negative colours: under the spell of mischievous Cummings; following a blind approach to a catastrophic Brexit, for ideological reasons, with no respect for facts and the civil service advice; undemocratic and deeply authoritarian; unprepared for the job of unifying the country; and a frenzied liar. Those should be the lines of attack during the coming days and weeks.

Our 2019 political rentrée

Here, in our corner of the world, the political rentrée is upon us. The summer break is now over. And this year’s rentrée will see the changing of the guard in the EU institutions. With the new leaders, old unresolved issues could gain a new breath of life.

One of such issues must be the strengthening of the EU external policy.

We must develop a stronger common approach to critical international matters, such as the many crises in the Middle East and the pressing issue of Africa’s development. In addition, we must give shape to a more independent view of Europe’s global interests and dare to seriously move towards joint defence and security efforts. 

We also need to strengthen our alliances with other parts of the world. However, we must recognise that our perception of certain key issues is not necessarily coincidental with that promoted by some of our key allies. Such differences are not just momentary. They are not simply the result of leader X or Y being in charge in one of the countries that matters to us. They are deeper, as we have walked different historical paths and have created our own way of looking at what is going on in some problematic regions of the world.

A new human tragedy is emerging

Another major humanitarian crisis is emerging fast. This time is in the Assam State, in India. There has been a population registration process there. It is now completed. It shows around 1.9 million people left out of citizenship rights. Prime Minister Modi’s officials say these people have no ground to call themselves Indians. No identification, no citizenship means, in Modi’s India, expulsion, deportation to Bangladesh, of all places. And Bangladesh, that is already coping with the Rohingyas from Myanmar, says they will not recognise these people as citizens.

A new mass tragedy in a world that likes to talk about human rights, democracy and social progress.

Italy must reform soon

Giuseppe Conte is back as head of the new Italian government. Not a very easy task that of chairing a coalition between the 5-Star Movement and the PD (Democratic Party, a social-democrat party). They can stay in power for three years, until the end of the current Parliament. They can also fall apart soon. Nobody knows. What we know is that the new government – Conte II – has many divisive issues to deal with. The country is not in a very good shape, to put it diplomatically. It calls for serious reforms. Those reforms require consensus within the coalition, a very wise approach and lots of political courage. In addition, many people think that Matteo Salvini, the League’s leader, is a better option, that he is the one that can transform Italy. He is not, in my opinion, but what matters is the Italian voters’ views. He will be leading the opposition against this new government. In the end, if Italy does not address its problems – and I have serious doubts it will – Salvini might end up back in power again. And bring with him the image of a strong and resolute man. That would be a game changer. Certainly not a good one, in the end, but it would be too late to stop him.

Boris and his master play hard ball

Dominic Cummings, who is Boris Johnson’s high priest for strategy – officially, his title is Senior Advisor to the PM – knows very well that in war it is vital to regain the initiative. To win one must master the plan and the action.

Yesterday, the opposition and all those who are against a No Deal Brexit had reached an accord that could threaten the PM’s political future. They got the ball and the agenda. That was a major menace to Boris’s power. Today, that same group lost it, thanks to Cummings and his pupil. The suspension of parliamentary work decided by Boris Johnson surprised his opponents and destabilised their game plan. That’s how strategy is played by the big people.

But the game is not over. Today’s move has infuriated many Tory MPs that were sitting on the fence. They might find the courage to pay back. That must happen in the next few days and before the end of coming week. If it does, Cummings’ canny advice to Boris might end up by backfiring. The stakes are higher than ever.

We will see.