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.

Deception and intent

We should always remember the wise aphorism about politics. It goes like this: in politics everything could mean the opposite of what it is said or done. Our job is to try to find out what is behind the words or the deeds. Like asking, what is the point? Sharp minds do that.

Not bad, this year's G7 Summit

Several experienced international analysts raised the issue before the meeting: is the G7 still relevant? They had in mind last year’s messy summit in Canada, as well as the fact that there are serious divergences within the group, particularly with President Trump’ views, not to mention that these countries have lost weight in the world economy. They barely represent about 40% of the global output, much less than when the G7 was established, over twenty years ago.

Many concluded that the G7 Summit had outlived its usefulness. That the summit was no longer justified.

My opinion has gone in the opposite direction. I wrote in my Portuguese language blog that such meetings are still advisable. They can help. Summits give an opportunity for eye contact between the leaders. That is important, particularly at a time when so much power is concentrated in so few hands. We live in a period that considers electoral legitimacy almost absolute, even beyond established rules and practises. I am against such an approach, but the fact of the matter is that we see leaders of our democracies claiming levels of authority that come close to personal autocratic rule. In such circumstances, personal contact can make a difference. Leaders must meet frequently.

The G7 is one such opportunity.

This time, the expectations were relatively low.

But the summit in Biarritz, France, went well beyond the expectations. It has been a better meeting than we had anticipated. The final press conference, that brought together the French and the US Presidents, has showed that the dialogue avenues are not closed. Both Presidents did well when responding to the media. We could see the differences of opinion between them, but they were dealt with tact.

One could say that much of the success achieved during the summit must be put to the credit of Emmanuel Macron. That is to a large measure true. He has been able to navigate the very difficult matters that were on the table as well as the unique egos in the room. It would be unfair not to recognise President Macron’s ability and efforts. However, there is more to it. The issues on the agenda are too big and complex – we have undoubtedly a very delicate mix of global problems. And global means global, when it comes to the negatives of such issues. The mood, when discussing them, could only be a serious one. Even in the case of those leaders that tend to see the world from their own very narrow prism. That’s not bad.

The Amazon rainforest and President Bolsonaro's policies

I do not agree at all with his views but I cannot criticise the Brazilian population for their decision to elect Jair Bolsonaro as President. I am a foreigner and I live far away from Brazil. Moreover, I do not want to discuss the electoral propriety of the process that led to his election. I leave that to the Brazilians themselves and to their institutions, media and political class. They are more than prepared to do it.

However, I should feel free to criticise the political decisions of President Bolsonaro that either violate established common values or have an international impact. In particular, his approach to the Amazon rainforest. The President is not protecting the forest, as he is ignoring the rights of the indigenous populations that call the Amazon home. His policies encourage the destruction of the Amazon by greedy ranchers, latifundia farmers, illegal miners, criminal loggers and many other individuals that have no respect for the law and human life. Some of this people are most likely behind the thousands of fires that are consuming the Amazon. Such fires are a major ecological disaster for the region and the world. One cannot ignore them.

In this circumstances, international pressure on President Bolsonaro must be intensified for him to change his policies, and to protect the indigenous populations and to seek international cooperation in the fight against the destruction of the forest. At the same time, a global fund must be fully supported to finance the preservation of the Amazon, regenerate what can be rebuilt and compensate the Brazilian people for doing so. Here, as in many other issues, President Bolsonaro should not hide behind false nationalism. He must accept the role and the resources of such fund.

The forthcoming G7 Summit

This year’s G7 summit will take place at the end of the week in Biarritz, France. President Macron, the host, has now decided that there will be no final communiqué at the end of the meeting. He said a communiqué takes a lot of the participants’ time to be approved and ends up by distracting them from the substantive discussions. In the end, the final text is bland and means little.

I agree with him. It is better to spend time on the issues and to make the event as informal as possible. It is a serious opportunity for exchanges among the leaders and it should be focused on that. Particularly at a time when we see significant differences of opinion about key matters. It would be unrealistic to try to get a consensus during the summit. But it is not unrealistic to debate them and make one’s points known to the rest of the group.

I also appreciate the fact that the UN Secretary-General has been invited to address the meeting and be around for the discussions. His authority must be re-established. President Macron understands this point.

Still on who should be in the room, I am against inviting back President Vladimir Putin. The Russian role in the Ukrainian issue is not resolved. And democracy is deteriorating in Russia, under the direct supervision of the President. Those are two strong arguments to keep Putin out. G7 meetings are not for dictators and autocratic leaders. They have their seat in the G20. Moreover, they can be engaged through other mechanisms, and there are plenty of them.  

Zimbabwe and the regime's savagery

In the afternoon I was on the phone with a Zimbabwean friend based in Harare. We discussed the recent human rights violations and the police brutality. All that is unacceptable and shows that President Mnangagwa is not able to respond to the deep crisis the country is in. Old habits die hard. And the President is going back to what he has known all his life, under the leadership of Old Robert: violent repression of popular discontent. That can only bring more suffering and misery to the country. It is very sad. I add my voice to the condemnation of such acts of tyranny and to the lack of respect for the people of Zimbabwe.

Hong Kong people send strong messages

A huge crowd rallied today in Hong Kong. Its size has sent a strong message to Mainland China. The pro-democracy movement is deeply rooted in the Hong Kong society. It can’t be addressed with militarised police coming from the other side of the border line. And there is a second message, as pressing as the first one: Carrie Lam, the Chief Minister, and her governing team must be replaced. They have no capacity to respond to the complex challenges the territory is facing, from democracy to housing, and beyond. Also, they have lost the confidence of large segments of the population.

A deteriorating situation around Kashmir

One of the most militarised borders in the world is the one between India and Pakistan. Men and the most sophisticated means of control stand of both sides of the line. The tension level is always very high, close to open conflict. Unfortunately, these days it is even closer. We are witnessing an extreme delicate crisis between the two countries. The reason is once again the dispute and the unresolved situation around Kashmir. I do not think we, in Europe, should take sides. But we should advise both countries to lower the pressure. We should express our deep concern with the current escalation of the conflict. And appeal to China to remain out of the problem. By taking sides with Pakistan, the Chinese are not playing the constructive role they should be playing in the region. That is not the Chinese foreign policy President Xi Jinping has pledged he would follow.

President Trump moves to Greenland

Hong Kong on the streets, North Korea firing new missiles, Amazonia being threatened, migrants at sea, Ebola in Congo, and so many other issues. But this is August, it’s summertime in the Northern Hemisphere, and people want something light. President Trump got it. He is indeed a genius. He is fast and very much attuned to the people’s wishes and priorities. Therefore, today he suggested the US could think of purchasing Greenland, a massive piece of land that belongs to a European State, Denmark. That is indeed a fresh idea, cool, very appropriate for a hot mid-August weekend.

Crossing the line in Hong Kong

The key messages the Chinese government wants to put across are very clear: the demonstrators are violent; they have disrupted the operations of a key international airport for two days in a row; and brought chaos to the territory. In the opinion of the leadership in Beijing, such messages are essential to justify an armed intervention of Mainland forces in Hong Kong. Their content is further reinforced by the image of a powerless Hong Kong Administration. It is true that Carrie Lam, the HK Chief Executive, seems to have lost the sense of direction. She now cuts a very sorry figure. But in the case of the HK Police, I see a deliberate Beijing move behind the erratic tactics the Police is following. The aim is to show that the territory’s Police are out of their depth. And that would be another strong justification for Mainland to cross the border line.

The odds of an intervention are now very high. Any further escalation of the crisis, and the Mainland boots will walk around the Victoria Harbour.

Hong Kong and Xi's response

Today, the Hong Kong crisis led to the cancellation of all flights to and from its international airport. That is a major development. It shows clearly that Hong Kong is now a critical challenge for President Xi Jinping in Beijing.

Knowing the all-out importance the Chinese leadership give to law and order, as well as to obeisance to the rulings of the Communist Party, one can only expect a crushing reaction to the mass demonstrations and, in particular, to the young leaders that have been at the core of the movement. Xi and his circle cannot be perceived by the citizens of other Chinese cities as being confused, unable to respond and condoning mass protests. Their power is based as much on keeping the grip on people as it is on economic well-being.

In view of this political culture of power, the response they are preparing must be extraordinarily worrisome.

President Trump and the EU

A few of my readers have expressed some degree of surprise after reading what I wrote in my last blog about President Trump’s policy towards the EU. I basically said the President is not in favour of a strong EU. And that is a radical change of approach, because for decades his predecessors have encouraged the European countries to cooperate and strengthen the EU. Even in the case of the UK, the message coming from Washington has always been in the sense of advising London to be closer to Continental Europe.

 With President Trump, we have a new situation. First, he sees the EU as economic competition and a market that is huge but has too many barriers when it comes to some critical American exports, such as cars and farm products. But there is more to it, beyond the economic and trade issues. He thinks that the key EU leaders have an international agenda that contradicts his own and weakens it. That is the case on climate, on Iran, on Russia, on Cuba and Venezuela, on multilateralism, even on China. Not to mention the new idea of a European common defence, an idea that Emmanuel Macron personalises. On defence, President Trump follows a line that has been present in Washington for long now: the Europeans must spend more on their armies but keep them under the overall control and command of the US military. He senses that in this area the European response is becoming more independent and he does not like it at all.

August is not a good time to discuss these matters. People on both sides of the Atlantic are above all concerned with the weather and their holidays. It is however a debate that must be reopened after the rentrée in September.

Salvini will become Trump's man in Europe

The Italian people will decide what next, when called to vote for a new government. That’s how our democracies work. It is however quite clear that one of their potential choices, Matteo Salvini, is an anti-European Union, for reasons he knows better than anybody else. He is also an extremist, fully supported by the most reactionary sectors of the Italian society. Many voters might think that he represents the kind of leadership the country needs. But there are also large sectors of the public opinion that see him as the wrong type of choice, someone that can bring disaster to the country. And that disaster could happen quite soon, it is not just a question of long term.

From a European perspective, if Matteo Salvini becomes Prime Minister that is bad news. He will carry division, xenophobia and ultra-nationalism to the European debate. Consensus building will become even more difficult than it is today. He is the enemy from inside. There is no bigger enemy than the one that lives among us.

He is also the strongest ally of the EU’s outside enemies. Some analysts mention his subordination to Vladimir Putin’s money and interests. That is dangerous enough. Putin’s agenda is to destroy the European unity. But I see an additional peril. He will become President Donald Trump’s agent within the EU, in the Council meetings and every time a key decision that might contradict the American policy is on the table. President Trump is no friend of the EU. If I were asked to prioritise the outside leaders that are hostile to the common project, I would start by referring to his name as number one. And I would add that such antagonism is particularly risky, as it comes from the leader of a country that has very close ties with Europe and a strong presence in some of the EU countries, not to mention that it is the most powerful nation on earth. President Trump and his circle will be making good use of Salvini’s duplicity and radicalism.

These are indeed new challenges. They certainly require a different understanding of the old established practises.

Italy and its political clowns

It would be an exaggeration to say that Italy has become a fragile democracy. The governing coalition might be collapsing tonight or tomorrow, but the State institutions are functioning. The President has the necessary prestige and authority. The judiciary system works. And, in general terms, I think we should recognise that public service is experienced and can be competent, if left alone.

It is the political class that is in deep crisis. It has been like that since Berlusconi´s time, in the 90s. His Forza Italia was a joke, inspired by his own example and megalomania. And it created a lot of additional party clones, as time went on, including the populist 5 Star Movement. It has also opened space to the ultra nationalist movements to flourish. 

In this context, the real challenge is to see the emergence of different type of political leaders. Unfortunately, that seems to be a very remote light, at this stage. 

The dangerous game between the US and China

The ongoing conflict between the US and China is reaching new levels of danger. It would be a mistake to see it as just a trade dispute. This is about rivalry on all fronts. The US President and his circle have a clear objective: make sure China does not become a menacing strategic challenger. Their strategy is based on two premises. First, if they manage to slow down the economic power of China that will have an impact on the country’s internal stability, making it more difficult for the Chinese to be a major world power. Second, they are convinced that the Beijing leaders will blink first and yield to the American interests. In the famous game of chicken President Trump seems to be playing, the one who gives up first loses.

In my opinion, both American premises have shaky foundations. China is on course to be a be a global power and they will keep that ambition on a steady road. The economic growth is strong enough – over 6% per annum – to ensure it will happen. They will be able to fully challenge any other country, including the US, by 2030, at the latest. Secondly, the game of chicken is always a disaster. It will certainly be a disaster if the other player is China. Its leaders cannot yield to the Americans. They will play with prudence, but the end game, on their side, is to respond to confrontation with their own type of confrontations. That is disaster in the making. That is the reason we should not take the current crisis lightly. And that is why I think we need a third-party mediation as soon as possible. The only problem is that I can’t see any actor or institution being able to play such role.

Japan and South Korea

A couple of friends are not paying attention to the growing tension between Japan and South Korea. I am telling them this is a serious development. And that we must be talking about the matter with a louder voice.

 I know this is August, but there is no holiday taking place in that very sensitive part of the world. Japan does not like the way South Korea is approaching the North. They are also worried about South Korea’s policy towards China. However, above all, there are two major factors that make the mixture particularly complex: hard nose trade competition, as perceived by Tokyo, and old anti-Japanese sentiments that permeate throughout the Korean nation. 

All that are dangerous crisis factors. They would call for wise efforts from both sides. Unfortunately, we are far from that, at the present stage.  

  

TV shows that create the conditions for demagogues to win

People who spend too much time watching soap TV programmes should not be allowed to vote in elections that go beyond the affairs of local administration. This is certainly a shocking statement and of course, I do not mean it. Everyone has and should keep the right to vote. That is what democracy is about. Every vote matter, be it the one coming from a high-level scientist or from a uneducated person.

My initial phrase aims just at opening the debate about the influence of superficial TV shows on people’s views of their country and the world. I am one of those who is convinced that the competition between TV channels is narrowing down people’s capacity to have a full and intelligent view of their surroundings and the world at large. TV shows are contributing to the development of a majority of voters that do not understand what is going on, do not care about the common good and, in the end, become vulnerable to the crude rhetoric of people such as Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Jair Bolsonaro or Rodrigo Duterte, to cite just a few of them.  

These politicians take advantage of such alienation. They are experts at proposing basic answers to complex issues. They know people can identify themselves with a simpler view of things.

The democratic combat is therefore about fighting banality and stupidity on TV. The younger generations are no longer as connected to traditional TV as the older ones. They prefer to make use of their cell phones and get their information through them. It is not always a good option, but in general is better than TV and their ridiculous treatment of the news and minor issues. But older age groups are still very dependent on what they get through the TV channels, in a classical way of accessing information and entertainment. They are the people that need to watch better TV programmes. They also deserve it, as an expression of respect. 

Big corporations should be under pressure to withdraw publicity that is linked to substandard TV shows. That is a way of approaching the matter.

August blues

At this time of the year, a good number of people in the Northern Hemisphere are on leave. This is the peak period of the Summer season. But this year, I see some differences. Many people are worried. They look at the international politics scene and do not like the current trends, the surprise decisions, the conflict approach that seems to guide some of the leaders. There is a good deal of uncertainty. That might end up by having an impact on international peace, in addition to the one on the economic situation. Then, people look at the type of weather we are experiencing, the news about the nature, the whales, the Arctic, and wonder about the future.

I do not want to be pessimistic in August. But there is no doubt that things are taking a shape that does not announce easy days ahead of us. It would be inappropriate not to register the apprehensions that one can discern. As it would not be right not to call for a different kind of leaders.