Brexit: time to approve the deal

Brexit, again! At this stage, I see no strong reason for the EU leaders to accept a short time extension of Article 50. The legal exit date is 29 March. An extension can only be granted if it is grounded on a well-defined reason. Seen from Brussels, the best reason would be to give time to the British institutions to approve the additional legislation that would regulate the different aspects of an orderly exit. That would basically mean the exit deal should be passed by the UK Parliament before 29 March. If that is not the case, the Brexit matter should be put to a new popular vote. And then the choice would be between the deal, as signed off by the Prime Minister, or no Brexit. The No Deal option is too catastrophic. It should not be in the ballot paper.

The scheduling of a new referendum – the popular vote mentioned above – would be the only reasonable justification for the EU heads to accept an extension.

However, I do not see much of a chance for a new people’s vote on Brexit. The political conditions are not there. The new approach by the Labour party in favour of a referendum comes too late to be of any value.

Thus, the realistic option is to fight for a yes vote in Westminster. That would approve the existing draft deal. With maybe one or two appended sentences, that would give the tough MPs within Theresa May’s party an excuse to change their opinion and vote for it. However, such approval must happen in the next two weeks. It’s late in the day, but still within a manageable time frame. Beyond that period, if there is no clarification, one can only expect a much higher level of confusion, including within the Conservative party. And a serious impact on the daily lives of many.  

A bad day for President Trump

Michael Cohen’s most amazing testimony before Congress has completely obfuscated the Hanoi Summit. That’s something President Donald Trump will not forget. But there are many other revelations in Cohen’s evidence that will remain for very long in the President’s mind.

The problem is that they have also caught the attention of Robert Mueller and other prosecutors, in addition to the members of Congress. As such, we can expect very turbulent days ahead for the US President.

It’s true that many will try to dismiss the accusations by saying that Cohen is not credible and that all this is about partisanship politics. Fine, it might work. However, these Cohen facts and stories are very serious allegations. They can be politically fought, certainly defeated. And I do not know how the legal people will act on them. But I am certain that the history will not be kind when judging the current President. And for someone like Donald Trump, the image that will remain in the books is a critical issue. Today, I am sure he is a very unhappy man, notwithstanding the symbolic hugs he got from Kim Jong-Un.

EU and Arab Nations: lots to discuss

The European Union (still 28 States at the time of the meeting..) and the Arab League (22 States) first-ever summit has just taken place in Egypt. The joint statement can be read at:

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2019/02/25/sharm-el-sheikh-summit-declaration/

Hanoi or Venezuela: better, Hanoi!

For the US leadership, all the attention must be focused on the Hanoi summit. The meeting between President Trump and Chairman Kim is the week’s highlight. It must be seen and reported as excellent. Venezuela cannot be a distraction. There will be some diplomatic tightening, some additional isolation of Nicolas Maduro, a couple or so of rambunctious statements and sound bites, but nothing else. Nothing that could steal the headlines from Donald Trump in Hanoi.

Unless the Hanoi meeting goes wrong. It’s not expected, it has been prepared with great attention to sound good. But we never know. It could derail. Then, the usual suspects will be looking for a distraction, for other news that could grab the world’s attention. And that kind of news could be some foolish action regarding the situation in Venezuela.

The Venezuela plan

All the signs seem to indicate that there is a plan to deal with Maduro and the power struggle in Venezuela. That plan can only come from people that have a lot of experience with scene setting and related strategic moves. Where do we find such people? And, second question, how legitimate is such a plan? And, final key question: can it work in a political environment like the one we presently have in Venezuela?

Let’s see what the next few days bring in our direction. And at what cost.

Brexit means transformation

The Brexit crisis is creating the conditions for a new partisan alignment in the UK. Brexit is a major political earthquake. Therefore, it can seriously transform the British party landscape, something that has not happened for generations.  

Venezuela today: deeper into crisis

The complex crisis Venezuela is going through today has reached a new level of perilousness. Taking into consideration what I have seen in comparable situations – comparable, true, but I know that every crisis has its unique features – we are now closer to an open clash between the two camps.

It is obvious we do not know what is going on in the planning rooms, and what kind of bridging initiatives might be under way. The impression is that there has been a lot of secret planning and no real effort to bridge the opposing parties. It is also palpable that both sides might still be betting on an escalation. They seem to have reached that stage in a confrontation when leaders think that it is time to defeat the other side. To use force. 

That’s why it is now important to express extreme apprehension and add to that a call for mediation by those who are still able to play such a role. An urgent call.

Our neighbour, Vladimir Putin

Again, on defence, it’s clear to us in the EU that one of the key military objectives of Russia is to look stronger than they really are. That’s why they spend so much human and capital resources on mixing facts and fiction. Part of their strength is indeed a fact. On the other side, a good deal of it is just a story that is being told to scare us. It is the Potemkin Village approach. It has a long history in Russia. But it produces results.

The Russian armed forces are ten years ahead of us, in the EU, in terms of cyber warfare. That’s for sure a reality. The rest, it is yes and no. But the truth is that they keep compelling us to increase our spending in military matters. In this kind of game, we cannot take risks. We better be prepared.

Fake, constructed or true, the fact of the matter is that the threats coming from Vladimir Putin must be taken seriously. And he knows that. Smart fellow, he is. And we, in many ways, look like amateurs. Just kicking the ball when it comes in  our direction.

EU's collective defence

The issue of collective defence is again a major concern for many European countries. It has to take into account a good number of major new developments. A more assertive Russia. A new level of foreign policy coordination between Russia and China, a policy that is clearly in competition with the Western interests and approaches. The fake news, the political interference and the funding of populist and far-right radical movements. The growing political gap and related tensions between Europe and Turkey. The situation in the Middle East and the Northern part of Africa. Terrorism. The US unprecedented new official policy towards defence cooperation with Europe. And the very hesitant, ambiguous views of the citizens regarding military expenditures.

And I would add one more, that is often left aside: the inept political direction provided by the EU leaders, particularly when it comes to articulating defence and security, military forces, intelligence and police services.

Politics equals manipulation

In the end, politics is about the manipulation of impetuous passion for the sake of power and control. It is a tough act and not a very transparent or clean one.

Keep the company of the eagles

From time to time, I remind myself that if I want to keep enjoying the company of the eagles, I must keep feeding them. And be sure I offer them the best pieces I can put together.

Undemocratic leadership

It’s a grave mistake to refer to autocrats as “illiberal leaders”. They are undemocratic political monsters that managed to get to positions of power because they manipulated their country’s public opinion and were able to ride on the most primary sentiments one can find in some nations that are experiencing deep crisis. The media and the academic circles must call those leaders what they are: demagogues, totalitarian, despot, or just dangerous populists.

No to a "post-human rights" society

In the context of this year’s Munich Security Conference, it has been said that we are living in a “post-human rights”.

In my opinion, that’s an unhelpful concept. It sends the wrong message. Human rights should remain the very basic and indispensable foundation of today’s politics. We might see all other conventions being challenged by different types of strongmen in power. That’s most worrisome. It’s as serious move towards the past. But, at least, human rights should remain as the last fortress, the last strong tower of values.

In the end, everything in politics and our daily lives is about respecting the dignity of everyone, man or woman, boy or girl. If we do not firmly stand for that, if we accept a “post-human rights” reality, even just as an intellectual frame of analysis, we can say goodbye to the moral and legal achievements and progress of the last 70 years or so. That’s not acceptable and it should not be taken as a “modern concept”.

Sahel and the Islamist threat

Another link on the Sahel security situation:

https://africacenter.org/spotlight/the-complex-and-growing-threat-of-militant-islamist-groups-in-the-sahel/

The Sahel is important

https://www.securityconference.de/en/media-library/munich-security-conference-2019/video/parallel-panel-discussion-security-in-the-sahel-traffick-jam/

The link will bring us to the panel discussion on the situation in the Sahel that took place today at the Munich Security Conference. 

Mark Rutte on the EU

"And I’ve said many times before that I believe the EU is stronger when a deal is a deal.  In the EU there can be no haggling over democracy and the rule of law. We must always draw the line when fundamental values come under pressure, as they have in countries like Poland and Hungary.But a deal is also a deal when it comes to the euro and the Stability and Growth Pact. Because here too, bending the rules can erode the entire system, and we cannot have that. To me the whole idea of the EU is a group of independent member states working together to bring each other to a higher level of prosperity, security and stability. Unity is the source of our capacity to act in the outside world."

Churchill Lecture by The Netherlands Prime Minister Mark Rutte, Europa Institut at the University of Zurich

Speech | 13-02-2019

Munich and the annual security debate

Once more, the conflict between Israel and Palestine is not on the agenda of this year’s Munich Security Conference. 

This annual conference started today and runs up to Sunday. It’s a key international meeting on security. 

This year, Syria and Ukraine are again on the menu, as it is the insecurity situation in the Sahel, the nuclear weapons issue and the security dimensions of climate change. The exclusion of the Palestinian crisis from the debates is deliberate, of course. For many, it’s too delicate a subject. For others, and I am among those, it’s a never-ending conflict. Better move on and deal with those that have a chance of being resolved.

Theresa May and Valentine's defeat

Today, Prime Minister Theresa May lost another Brexit vote in Parliament.

It was not a “meaningful vote”, as the British like to say when the motion is only symbolic. But it’s full of political meaning. Basically, it shows that the Prime Minister cannot count with the hardliners within her Conservative party.

Moreover, here in Brussels the vote is seen from two complementary angles: first, Theresa May is not in a very strong position to negotiate any kind of clarification or addition to the existing draft deal; second, she can only avoid a catastrophic no deal scenario if she negotiates with the Labour Party. Therefore, there will be increased pressure on her to do so. She might resist it, she might even find such option as difficult as swallowing the bitter pill, but in the end, she must think in patriotic terms, not just in a partisan manner.

But can she do it? That’s a big and very serious question mark.

EU Parliament and Italy

Yesterday, Giuseppe Conte, the Italian Prime Minister addressed the EU Parliament in Strasbourg.

I do not share some of the views he expressed. However, I would assess his speech as moderate and pro-European.

The Prime Minister talked about immigration – a very central theme for his government but also for the rest of Europe. And about the need to go back to reinforced solidarity among the European States, as well as about defence matters, foreign policy and the EU at the UN. He emphasised that cooperation with North Africa and the Sahel are a priority for his government and invited the EU to be more coherent and proactive towards those two neighbouring regions. But above all, Conte reminded the MEPs that the connection between the EU institutions and the citizens is crucial. Too much emphasis on economic measures without considering the people’s views is wrong, that was basically his opening point and one of the key messages. It’s an opinion that reflects the view that there is a serious gap between the citizens and the elites. We might see that as a populist slogan, but I think it’s important to pay attention to it.

Giuseppe Conte represents a government that is politically distant from the mainstream parties that control most seats in the EU Parliament. Therefore, as many had anticipated, the responses that followed his speech were distinctly negative. The star MEPs focused their critical interventions on some of the recent decisions taken by Conte’s powerful deputies – Matteo Salvini and Luigi di Maio. These are the strong players in Conte’s government. The MEPs gave no truce to Conte on account of those two.

In my opinion, that approach was the wrong one. Conte’s statement was a constructive attempt to build a bridge. His effort should have been recognised. Nevertheless, the MEPs decided to push the Prime Minister into his usual corner, and punch him, instead of offering a helping hand and try to bring him to the centre-ground of the European preoccupations. I judge the MEPs showed little maturity. Once again, they were more concerned with theatrics and sound bites, trying to project a tough public image, than with looking for sensible action.

The Prime Minister must have gone back to Rome with a strengthened impression that key European politicians, in the EU Parliament, do not understand the political realities his country is going through. They prefer to put Italy in the dock.

That's poor political judgement.

Theresa May and her negative delaying tactics

As I listened this afternoon to Theresa May’s statement at Westminster – and to the following parliamentary debate – I could only conclude that the Prime Minister has no concrete alternative plan to the existing draft Brexit Deal.

Moreover, she is not credible when she sustains that “the talks are at a crucial state”. There are no real talks taking place. And there is no plan to that in the days to come.

The Prime Minister is just trying to gain time. Not that she expects a miracle to happen in the next couple of weeks. No. Her hope is that in the end the British Parliament will approve the Deal, with some cosmetics added to it, but basically the same document that she has agreed with the EU last November.

To believe in an approval because the MPs will have their backs against the wall is a very risky bet. Also, it’s distinctly unwise. In the end, it might bring all of us closer to a No Deal Brexit. Such possible outcome would have deeply negative consequences both to the UK and the EU. Only open fools, like David Davis, Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mogg, can believe that a No Deal situation is a good option for the UK.

It’s time to bring the Prime Minister back to earth and stop the delaying tactics.

As a footnote, it’s quite shocking to see that idiotic belief about the positives of a No Deal being militantly supported by some mainstream British media. For instance, by The Telegraph, the well-known right-wing daily newspaper. This media behaviour is clearly the result of a mixture of chauvinist madness with commercial opportunism – trying to sell newsprint paper to the retrograde Conservatives that constitute a good share of the British market. It’s abundantly irresponsible.

Additional notes on the Yellow Vests

In yesterday’s writing, my main point was we cannot ignore the social dissatisfaction some French citizens experience. I had particularly in mind those who live in the sprawling, huge and hastily urbanised areas that ring the most prosperous cities of France. These citizens are wrongly called “suburban people” – an expression that hardly hides the disdain the professional, city-based elites feel towards those persons. The fact is that most of them live in big agglomerations, but those are little more than sleeping areas. The rest of their lives is spent on commuting, long hours wasted in crowded public transportation systems or on congested roads. Everything is far and stressful to reach: work, schools, medical facilities, public services, even the shopping malls. The only people they know are like them, sharing the same frustrations and the same fatigue.

They also know this is a life condition that will continue forever, at best. There is very little hope in the air. The prevailing sentiment is of being trapped. Vulnerable as well. They also believe that they are just ignored by the more fortunate fellow citizens and the political actors. The elites don’t care, that’s the judgement that is often mentioned.

But there two other questions I must raise. 

First, that violence and destruction are not acceptable. There is no justification. Those who practise such acts must be punished. And we all must say no to violence, no to chaos, no any type of public rebellion. 

Second, that these rallies should cease and dialogue be given a chance. President Emmanuel Macron has launched a consultative process that is rather ambitious. It touches some very key issues. And it’s also an attempt to look at democracy and representativeness from a less formal and distant perspective. It’s important to participate in that initiative. It will also show that there is maturity there where it might seem absent for now.

Day 13 for the Yellow Vests

Today it was the 13^th Saturday with Yellow Vest demonstrators in Paris and other French cities.

It’s obvious the movement is still able to gather a good number of people. We can say so even if the total number of protesters today was smaller than in past weeks. The variety of reasons that bring the activists to the streets explains the numbers.

This is not a rally of dunces, as some would like us to see it. There are extremists in the ranks – militants from the far-right and from the far-left. They are trying to ride the social malaise. And they feel happy when they see cars burning or the State authority being challenged. But the majority of those on the streets is composed of people that face daily hardships and want to benefit from a safer economic environment. They are simple people, and they raise the key question about how to organise the society in developed nations at a time of big digital transformations, combined with international economic competition and the emergence of masses of skilled workers in other parts of the world.

Let's be positive and wise

Today's world in Brussels should be "restrain". This is a time that requires moderation, tact, discretion, prudence, circumspection, you call it whatever you deem more appropriate. I prefer “restrain”.

And I would add to it that this is no time to irritate the side that might seem very confused. It’s actually the moment to be warm about the future, because the future can only be about cooperation and mutual interests.

Italy's rare birds

To recall one’s ambassador accredited to another State is a major move. A decision that is taken at the highest level of authority. It shows that there is a serious political tension between the governments concerned. France did it today. They recalled their Ambassador to Italy. I can’t recall any similar situation in Western Europe in the last seven decades. This is certainly not good either for both countries or the EU. It takes the EU to a new and unknown type of conflict. And, unfortunately, I do not see who could try to undertake the bridging between Emmanuel Macron and the radical populists that are in charge in Rome. It is also true that one cannot accept the kind of political hostility that is coming these days from Salvini and Di Maio. That must be said in very clear terms. They are an aberration that must be denounced.

The UK deep crisis is getting worse

I see the ghost of early elections coming rapidly in the direction of Prime Minister Theresa May.

Venezuela needs a credible mediation process

There are a few crisis situations in the world that must be seen as requiring urgent attention. Venezuela is certainly one of them. And, in terms of response, mediation is the word. It is necessary to find a mediation mechanism that could be accepted by both sides, meaning the Maduro camp and the Guaidó supporters.

Nicolás Maduro has asked the Pope to lead such mediation. It is true that the Catholic Church could play a facilitating role. But the other side has not expressed the same kind of appeal. Basically, they believe that Maduro´s presidency is not legitimate and, therefore, he must go without any concession being made. That position should be helped to evolve as rapidly as possible.

The United Nations could also be approached. Yet, I think Maduro sees the UN as too close to the Western interests. In the circumstances, the UN Secretary-General should take the initiative and be in personal contact with both leaders. The UN has a lot of experienced people in the field of mediation. And it could also work closely with the Vatican and offer a join platform for negotiations. Countries in the EU should send a message about the UN’s potential.

It’s equally critical that Maduro understands that there is a way forward for him and his family. The other side must leave a gate open for a dignified solution. It’s a mistake to try to push Maduro and his camp against the wall. That would make any bridging effort fail and it could easily bring mass violence instead a negotiated solution.

The mediation agenda would be defined by the parties. That’s how it should be. But I can guess it would certainly include issues such as the shape of the political transition, who would chair it, the organization of credible elections, the role of the armed forces and the police, as well as amnesty matters.

No to public disorder

The French National Assembly is debating a new law drafted to address the issue of violence during public demonstrations. It’s known as the “anti-casseurs law”. “Casseur” is the name given to anyone who breaks or wrecks things. The new piece of legislation aims at preventing the destruction of public and private property by hooligans and other ruffians, people that take advantage of legitimate manifestations to create hell.

In France, a number of politicians and intellectuals see this new law as restricting the freedom to demonstrate. But the fact of the matter is that fringe groups are systematically taking advantage of genuine street protesters to behave destructively. That cannot be accepted. Law and order in public places must be kept. If not, we are creating the conditions for extreme-right movements to ride on chaos and gain political space. The democratic values, in France and elsewhere in our part of the world, require a firm hand when dealing with violence and looting. Anarchy, if untamed, leads to dictatorship.

Yellow vests: the key question

Everything we write and read about the root causes of the Yellow Vests movement is based on political and sociological speculation. We should be clear about it.

We know that the high cost of living, the permanent state of fatigue that comes from suburban life, the ever-increasing tax burden and the many forms of resentment against the professional politicians play an important role in the mobilisation. There is bitterness and anger towards the urban elites and the globalist crusaders. These are the key, most immediate reasons for the demonstrations.

We also know that these areas of misgivings and rebellion combine themselves into a complex social malaise.

But are we witnessing something larger and deeper than what meets the idea? Something transformative? That’s the very question that must be answered to.

On the Yellow Vests

The French Gilets Jaunes (Yellow Vests) have now demonstrated every Saturday since mid-November. Yesterday it was their 12^th Saturday of mass rallies in Paris and other cities and towns of France. We cannot ignore the meaning and the political dimensions of such a movement. It must be better understood, first. Then, we should reflect about the response that should be provided.

I get the impression that both questions – understanding and responding – have not been fully considered.

Many words have been written about the grievances, but they do not explain the persistence of the street protests. Moreover, in winter, which is not the best season to be on the street and public squares. The analysis of the root causes calls for more objectivity and less ideological explanations.

The response the government has adopted is two-pronged: massive police presence during the manifestations, to prevent violence and looting; and the launching of a campaign of national dialogue, to look at issues of taxation, State organisation and political representativeness, as well as climate policies. But both lines of the response are being challenged. They have not convinced a good deal of those complaining, even among those who do not come to the streets on Saturday. 

The matter needs therefore a much more comprehensive assessment. It’s very much on the table.  

Politics as currently played

I rarely write about religion. I am even tempted to say I never write about the matter. But being prudent by nature, let me use the word “rarely”. Or let me say it differently: to me is clear I avoid commenting on religious matters.

As a regular blogger, both in English and Portuguese, and when for many years I wrote as a columnist, politics is my theme.  And now, as I watch the political debate and the fights associated with it, I am getting the impression that for many people partisan politics has become like an act of faith.

Politics today seems to be much closer to religious beliefs, and the traditional intolerance that goes with them, than to social and economic choices. There is plenty of emotion and very little rationality. That has an obvious impact on the discourse of public figures that want to be successful in politics. They go for the soul, not for the mind.

INF and the UN

President Trump’s decision to pull out of the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) is as much about Russia – the other country signatory of the Treaty – as it is about China and its build-up of cruise missiles. Russia has been violating the INF since 2012. And China is investing heavily on new types of missiles capable of carrying nuclear heads. China is actually becoming a major military adversary of the US. And that is done in close coordination with Russia. Both Presidents – Xi and Putin – are consulting and have the same goal: to increase, in their geopolitical areas of influence, their countries’ capacity to confront the US and its allies. This is certainly a very dangerous strategy. The US will respond by augmenting their investment in nuclear capabilities. That means a serious arms race in a field that is particularly destructive and could bring mayhem to Europe and some parts of Asia.

One should be truly worried.

The UN could take the initiative to open a serious process of confidence building in the matters of nuclear armament. There is even a department within the Secretariat in New York that is mandated to deal with this type of matters. But the UN seems unable to move in such a critical area. Or, inaction and silence cannot be the right course of action at this very risky moment.