Brexit means additional fragility for both sides

Competition between nations opens the door to conflict and even war. Cooperation leads the way to progress and peace. That should be the message on this Brexit day.

And we should also keep in mind that our adversaries and even some of Europe’s allies would prefer us to be fragmented and disunited.  

The Chinese Communists do not know how to communicate

I have not talked with President Xi Jinping. But I guess he is immensely worried with what is going on in China. There is a major public health problem. We might not know all the dimensions of the problem, but there is no doubt it is a huge challenge for everyone in the country. But besides the health deep concerns, the coronavirus epidemic is creating major economic, social and, I would dare to say, political problems in China. The streets and the malls have been deserted. People are afraid of the contagion. But above all, they are not getting the message that matters politically: that the government knows what they are doing and will be able to control the spreading of the disease. This message must be formulated soonest. And must be made credible.

I do not see it addressed in the next few days. The government knows how to direct but it is not very good when it comes to communication techniques. The official line, repeated again and again, and expected to be trusted because in comes from the top, is not being accepted by the people. They are just growing more and more concerned.

A plan that has no wings

The “peace plan” President Trump presented yesterday is not acceptable to the Palestinian side, as the initial reactions have shown. There is no surprise here. The document is basically an endorsement of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s views and an instrument to boost his chances during the forthcoming general election. Apparently, it is not adding any support to the Prime Minister’s electoral fortunes, but it is too early to conclude so.

The important point is that one of the two parties to the solution does not recognise President Trump’s initiative as positive. The President, if he really wanted to move the peace process forward, should start by a couple of goodwill gestures. He should authorise the reopening of the Palestine Delegation in Washington, a delegation he ordered to be closed in 2018. He should also resume the US funding contribution to the UN Agency that provides support to the Palestinians (UNRWA). And be much clearer about the future of Jerusalem and the Jordan Valley, two extremely sensitive points. Here, his position should be that both issues must be part of the agreement, without any position of force being stated since day one. Finally, he should establish a link between his vision and the Arab Peace Plan of 2002.

Well, all this is daydreaming, on my side. The truth of the matter is summarised by one single word: partiality.

A one-sided peace plan

I decided long ago not to write about the conflict between Israel and Palestine. The main reason has been that I do not see a solution to it unless the United States plays a balanced role in the peace process. The US is the only country that can help Israel to adopt a reasonable approach and encourage the country’s leaders to engage the Palestinian side in a mutually beneficial way.

With time, the trust has been seriously eroded and peace has become less and less viable. The basis for a resolution has gradually been undermined. In fact, the obstacles have gained additional volume during the past few years.

Today, President Trump launched what he calls “a peace plan” for Israel and Palestine. The plan is very close to Prime Minister Netanyahu’s ambitions. Secondly, it does not consider that peace must come from within, from the involvement of the parties to the conflict. In the case, the Palestinians have not been heard, they have been excluded from the plan’s design. They could still be interested in taking this project and negotiate it. But I doubt. The proposal goes too far in the Israeli direction. And without the Palestinian buy-in there is no true plan.

Let’s in meantime wait for a more detailed reaction from the Palestinian side. Even if one can guess what it might be.

Lots of billions lost to flu

Today, we are challenged again to reflect about resources, availability of wealth and how vast amounts of money can be spent wisely or just evaporate. It is also a call to reflect about priorities, decide on the appropriate ones and how to fund them. More concretely, all this is about uncertainty and its impact on capital markets, on short-term decisions and, in the end, on the minds of people.

Today’s uncertainty is about the coronavirus.

More concretely, almost every stock in the STOXX 600, the largest European share index, are trading since this morning in negative territory, in the red, as the specialists say. This represents around 180 billion euros the investors have lost during the day, just today. This is about 2% of the entire capital invested in those companies. But it is a lot of money that has faded away.

The investors are pessimistic about the impact of the virus and the capacity to control its transmission. A friend from the East Asia region told me that, in the current state of world affairs, “when China sneezes, the rest of the world catches the flu virus!” It is not exactly like that. But for sure the Europeans that negotiate in the capital markets got high fever today.

Beijing and the coronavirus messages

The Chinese people are now very well connected through social media. They share information and images freely, as long as they make use of the approved platforms and applications and the subjects are not politically censored. The people’s information is more trusted than the official information provided by the government and its media-subordinated outlets.

This is now the situation with coronavirus epidemic. Most of the information is obtained through social platforms. And they show that the health services are under extraordinary pressure and cannot respond to all the demands. They also show that some districts bordering the affected areas are taking local initiatives that are not necessarily approved by Beijing. These initiatives included roadblocks and interdictions. They have all the trademarks of spontaneous, impulsive actions. That seems to indicate serious panicking and a bit of chaos. 

It is true that this is a major challenge. The messages coming from the centre, from the leadership, show concern but lack the necessary reassurances that an emergency like this one requires. I get the impression that the official communication strategy is still unclear and unfocused.

Coronavirus: a complex emergency

The Chinese leaders are deeply concerned with the risks of propagation of the coronavirus. This is a highly infectious disease. It is disrupting the daily lives of millions in China and becoming a major political challenge for the authorities, besides being an extremely complex public health problem. The exceptional measures taken so far cannot last for too long without creating a vast discontentment among the Chinese people, particularly those who live in the most affected region, the Hubei Province. The gravity of the current situation and the fact that it keeps expanding fast explain the attention President Xi and his party’s top bosses are paying to this health emergency.

Greta, the Davos star

Greta Thunberg came out of this year’s Davos meeting as a giant, a fundamental voice in today’s world. Throughout the conference she behaved with decorum. She was her own person, no pretentiousness and no deviation from her core message, which is the best approach when you are leading a campaign. The clarity and intelligence of her speeches impressed me once more. And all that at the age of 17.

Impeached

I am impressed by the presentations made so far by the House Impeachment Managers. They are building a serious case against President Trump. It is smart to repeatedly quote statements proffered in past occasions by those that today are dead against the impeachment.  

We all know that the case will be dismissed in the end, because the President’s party will decide along partisan lines. Their decision is to protect the President, independently of the merits of the case. And the President, then, will try to ride on that acquittal and move to a higher gear in terms of his re-election campaign. OK, it’s expected, it is part of the political game. He will take a discernible advantage of his malpractices. But the Democrats had no other option but to impeach. Today, more than ever, it is important to act based on principles.

Young people have travelled to Davos 2020

Everybody knows that Professor Klaus Schwab, the creator and the soul of the annual Davos conference, is a very sensible and intelligent person. This year he has given a lot of space to the very young. They participate as speakers in various forums at the Davos World Economic Forum 2020. And they are all over, in the rooms and corridors where key global issues are being discussed. The teenagers and the young people he invited are also very diverse in terms of ethnicity and place of origin. But they have a few common traits. They are seriously committed to their cause, they do not act for the limelight, meaning that they are genuinely interested in creating a mass movement and just be part of it, and they are very good at communicating their messages. In the end, beyond all the problems they raise, they carry a banner of hope. They value values, and that’s the way forward. That is a big change in international affairs. And the Davos meeting shows that political leaders are getting to realise that they better listen to these young activists.

Davos messages

From today’s reports about Davos (WEF 2020), I take home two important observations. One, that we should always keep in mind the two billion people that are the poorest in the world. The bottom 2 billion. They can be lifted out of poverty if there is political will. And they are the ones that will be the most impacted by climate changes and environmental crises. The second one is about the political leaders. They must show a new level of commitment and leadership. They cannot just think about the next elections. They must learn how to speak to the people about the future and positive change. Values must prevail over opportunism.

France has become a political pandemonium

The French political atmosphere is not acceptable. There is too much mass violence on the streets, too many social demands that are far from being realistic, all that combined with excessive fragmentation and radicalisation of the political parties. Parties have become very marginal in the setting of the national agenda.

The country needs some deep social reforms but there is no political actor strong enough to carry them out. President Emmanuel Macron has not been able to put across his view of the country’s future. He speaks to a small minority that is still prepared to listen to him. He lost the leadership of the process. His concern now is to minimise the opposition to his person and his initiatives. It is sad to see him being overtaken by the radicals that populate the trade unions and the political class. He is walking a route called failure. I am not sure he will be able to change the course of such a route.

All this has a serious impact on his capacity to play a leading role in the transformation of the EU. Macron’s domestic difficulties translate into a very weak and distant capacity to shape the European politics.

We are unfortunately very far from the hope he represented when elected.

We are also very surprised by the radicalism France is experiencing. There is no other country like that in the EU political space.

Large-scale corruption

Today’s revelations about Isabel dos Santos, the Angolan entrepreneur and the richest woman in Africa, just confirm a few things I keep repeating. 

First, dictatorship and high-level corruption go hand in hand. 

Second, corruption is the key impediment of development and human security. 

Third, European leaders know that corrupted practices are widespread in non-democratic regimes, but they quite often prefer to turn a blind eye on the issue, if there are political or economic interests at play. 

Fourth, global consultancy firms do not mind offering some cover to illegal transfers, if there is money to be made from that. 

Fifth, an independent media is essential to uncover malpractices. And to keep dictators on guard, under watch. 

The Libyan route out of conflict

The German government will host tomorrow in Berlin a conference that aims at bringing a solution to the civil conflict in Libya. The first step would be to reach an agreement on a ceasefire between the two main warring factions, the one based in Tripoli and the one led by General Haftar, a man from Benghazi. This is an important initiative, sponsored by Chancellor Merkel and supported by both President Putin and President Erdogan. Both Presidents have a deep interest in Libya, Russia on the Haftar side and Turkey on the national government based in Tripoli. Merkel’s role is simple: to provide a venue and encourage every party to accept the UN’s mediation. It is modest as an ambition, but in the extremely complex context of Libya, it is a big try.

Both Libyan factions will attend. But all the indications I am getting from inside the country refer that no side is ready for a compromise. Their participation in the Berlin conference is more a play to the gallery, an opportunity to show to their supporters that they have a recognised international status. OK, I accept that, but it is still positive to have them around to be told they must agree on a ceasefire.

Both sides have their international backers. And those backers are telling their Libyan friends that they can win the war. That’s a lie, in a country that is so deeply divided. In the context of Libya, as it is today, the only route towards peace is the one built on national concord and a proper power balance between the different regions of the country. That route cannot be drawn based on foreign influence. It must come the Libyans themselves.

A new ball game

I find the current realities in international affairs a great opportunity to re-think the way the global political architecture should be organised, the existing alliances and their worth, the responses to conflict and civil wars, and the issues of leadership and responsibility. We are witnessing a new play. Its rules are yet to be decided. But first, we should draw some key lessons from what is taking place in front of our eyes.

Today's reminder

There is only one meaningful struggle: the persistent search for the ideal.

Vladimir, the new type of dictator

President Vladimir Putin is not a democrat. He was educated by the monstrous machinery of the Soviet Communist Party and formatted by its political secret police, the infamous KGB. Therefore, it can’t be a surprise to see, as we have seen yesterday, he is not ready to leave power. He came to the top position twenty years ago and he wants to stay at the apex of the political pyramid for life. His strategic mind tells him he shouldn’t wait up to the end of his mandate to make the changes. He has another four years or so to go as President. But he knows that the future must be prepared well in advance.

That’s what he is doing with the proposed constitutional changes.

And the lesson we, in our side of Europe must draw out of his move, is clear. Vladimir Putin is a dictator and will always relate to us as dictators do. They fear democratic regimes and will do anything to undermine them. They see us as a bad example that could cause some political contagion in Russia.  

My take on the US-China trade deal

The trade deal the US and China signed today is above all a pause in their trade dispute. That’s what makes it relevant. At a time when the trend has been to aggravate the commercial competition and the political rivalry between both giants, a lull is important. It is also an opportunity for both sides to implement some corrections and try a more constructive and balanced approach.

Therefore, I see the event with a positive eye. But I am also very much aware, like many observers, that there is deep antagonism and absolute mistrust on both sides of the deal. The Chinese do not think President Trump is constant in his political line. They are very much convinced that he can change his mind a thousand times. But for now, they bet on this deal. On the American side, they still believe the Chinese are very much determined to overtake the US economy and that they will do whatever it takes to achieve it. However, for the US leaders the deal comes at the right time. Actually, they have the advantage of controlling the agenda, a fact that is always good.

We have a little deal, that’s not bad, but we have not moved much when it comes to cooperation and trust building. In any case, a step forward is a step in the right direction. And that’s what matters.

Politics is about people and their feelings

The political fights are about emotions and instincts. The ideas must have a strong and clear human dimension to get enough support.

Power politics

Politics is obviously about controlling the power of governance. And such power must be played with the aim of managing conflicts, finding a balance between different and contradictory interests, as well as to create alliances and to open opportunities for as many people as possible. Then, we can say we have a progressive approach to politics.

Leadership and perceptions

Leadership is about empathy with the ordinary person on the street. The leader must be perceived as a caring and committed individual.

Angela Merkel meets Vladimir Putin: good move

From a European perspective, the resolution of the Libyan civil conflict is a priority. Such crisis has several consequences that are of special importance for the EU Member States. It’s next door, it’s related to a very central migratory flow line, and it has also a serious impact on security in the larger Sahelian region.

But the conflict is far from being resolved. It is getting more complex and deeply dramatic these days. In such context, today’s travel to Moscow to meet President Putin has placed German Chancellor Angela Merkel at the centre of the European efforts. It was the right thing to do. The Europeans must talk to the Russians if they want to see the Libyan drama resolved. The Russians have been very supportive of one of the Libyan sides, the one led by the rebel General Khalifa Haftar. But they have not closed the door on the other side, the one based in Tripoli and recognised by the international community. Moreover, the Russians keep talking to other external actors that are involved in Libya’s domestic situation, to the Turks, the Egyptians and some Arab Gulf States.

Another positive move, out of today’s travel, is the reaffirmation by Angela Merkel that the Libyan peace process must be facilitated by the UN. This is the kind of support that is so much needed.  

   

Where is the UN Security Council?

These are very strange times. The international scene has been deeply challenged since the beginning of the New Year. And we heard no mention of the UN Security Council. The Council is supposed to be the ultimate custodian of international peace and security, I like to remember the people I talk to. Now, the Council seems to have become the ultimate guarantor of a silent approach to major crises. That should not be accepted.

NATO in Iraq: a very well defined role

The NATO training mission in Iraq (NMI) has been temporarily suspended due to the recent developments in the country. In my opinion, it should remain frozen for a few more days or even an additional couple of weeks. That would give time to all participating countries to do a proper assessment of the situation and take a more informed decision about the future of the mission. In an ideal world, it should not resume until the political stalemate within the Iraqi government isn’t resolved. But that can take a long time.

The critical issues regarding this mission are its own protection – it must be clearly assured – and the views of the Iraqi leaders. They must state, without any ambiguity, that they want the mission to continue its work.

In any case, it seems to me out of the question to expand the scope of the mission and combine the training with a more operational approach. This is no combat mission and it should remain as such. Any suggestion or request, from any member state of NATO, to transform the role of the mission into a fighting force should be firmly opposed.

One step in the right direction

The Iranian leadership has shown restraint. The attack against two military camps that accommodate deployed American service men was surgical, in order to avoid an escalation of the situation at this stage. That was a wise move. The American leadership responded to it with wisdom as well.

That could be seen as encouraging. However, it is too early to draw any definitive conclusion. One thing is the direct response from the Iranian military and political establishment, another is the way irregular groups can act as part of the feud.

The fact of the matter is that Iran cannot engage in conventional conflict with the US. Its military budget is a tiny grain of sand when compared with the US. Washington spends in about 9 days what the Iranians budget for a full year. We are therefore talking about two different worlds. For the tiny player, the options are clear: either play
 it down or make use of non-conventional means, which are cheap and can be very impactful. I really hope the Iranians will choose the first option. Much better for them and all of us.

What next in the Persian Gulf Region?

Regarding the killing of its star general, Iran might be envisaging an asymmetric response – meaning, through non-conventional means, making use of all kinds of irregular groups and covert operatives. I guess it would be a tit for tat, an eye for an eye move, an assassination attempt comparable to what happen to their man in Baghdad. They would consider that a measured response, a limited act of revenge.

I am afraid they would try to implement such an intent. They must be firmly and promptly advised not to pursue such a line. It would be a very serious mistake, as things stand now. The US would consider such strike as both escalatory and a trigger for a campaign of massive retribution. It would be like opening the gates of hell.

That’s why major international players must move fast in terms of re-opening the dialogue avenues. EU countries could play a major role if they dare to decide to pursue such an endeavour. It ought to be a well-publicised initiative, to help the Iranians to save face, combined with an extremely confidential and prudent set of moves.

It is a realistic possibility. It just requires the appropriate leadership at the EU level, people that could be accepted by both by the US President and the Iranian leaders.  

First step, to stop the escalation

The UN Secretary-General made a brief statement today about the current situation in the Gulf. I see the statement as important. We have reached a very dangerous crossroads. António Guterres’s message was about restraint, the exercise of maximum restraint. My call, following his appeal, is for countries such as Russia, China, Japan and the EU to seize Guterres’s words and repeat them loud and clear. They should also launch an initiative that would aim at freezing the situation as it is and, from there, try to establish a dialogue platform. I know it is not easy. But these are exceptional times. Those countries have the historical responsibility of making use of their influence. They should try to get both parties to the conflict to put a stop to escalation. That would be a first but important step. A most urgent step, for sure.

A deeply divided Iraq

In the dangerous and complex situation we have now around Iran, one of the key losers is Iraq and its population. The country is deeply divided along sectarian and ethnic lines, has no economy and possesses very little capacity to respond to the multiple security threats it faces. These are all the necessary ingredients for an explosive national crisis. And tonight, the country is a step closer to such crisis. The Shia members of the national parliament voted a resolution recommending that all foreign armies be asked to leave Iraq. The Sunni and Kurd sides of parliament boycotted the vote. In fact, they feel excluded from the current political dispensation. That creates the right ground for new conflicts.

The EU's position on Iranian matters

As I express my disagreement and concern regarding the decision to execute General Qassem Soleimani, I must also recognise that the regime he spent his life fighting for is an aberration in today’s world.

I acknowledge the rights of the Iranian people to decide about their government and its politics. The problem is that their leaders do not give the people the freedom to choose. The leaders have imposed on the population a religion-based dictatorship, that has all the features of a medieval type of life. The country has become hell on earth, in the name of God. That is unacceptable, in Iran, as well as in the neighbouring countries or anywhere else in the world. And that must be denounced in all kinds of forums. The condemnation is not about religion, it is about making use of religious beliefs to impose a totalitarian regime on people.  

The European approach to such countries must combine pressure on human rights and democratic values with economic restrictions. In addition, it must include serious security measures to avoid those countries’ hostile actions, including the promotion they could make of all kinds of radicalism and religious fanaticism. Our policy must be a delicate mix of firmness, encouragement, dialogue, distance and prudence. In the end, it is about sticks and carrots, but certainly not about drones and bombs. It should also be about helping other countries that want to move away from the influence of those theocratic dictatorships.

This approach is certainly very different from the one President Trump is pursuing. That’s our right and nobody in Washington can challenge it. Secretary Pompeo’s remarks about the role of EU countries – he basically said that key European States have not been supportive enough of the American action – are not welcome. Here, as in other occasions, it is our duty to be clear about our policies towards a very explosive and complex area of the globe. And our policies are not subordinated to the views in Washington, or elsewhere outside the EU.

Killing Soleimani

The decision to authorise the deadly attack on General Qassem Soleimani raises many questions and opens the door to a few uncertainties. In my opinion, it was taken in the wake of two events that the US Administration considered to be especially striking.

One was the attack by demonstrators close to the militias that Iran is supporting in Iraq against the US Embassy in Baghdad. In Washington's ruling circles, this incident is seen as very serious. It is also a reminder of dramatic memories, of what happened in Tehran forty years ago. For the American leadership, the assault against the embassy is something that cannot go unanswered.

The other event was the naval military exercise that Iran carried out a week ago together with China and Russia. The current American Administration did not want any of these three countries to believe that such maritime manoeuvres would have any chance of intimidating it or diminishing its resolve. And this determination and firmness had to be demonstrated without any room for misunderstanding.

In deciding, President Trump must also have thought about the impact that such forceful action would have on his electorate. This is a decisive political year for him. He needs to show that he does not hesitate when it comes to respond to those who are presented as the enemies of the United States.

But we have several problems here.

One of them is that acting to show strength, based on the principle of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, is unacceptable. It opens the door to a spiral of violence and throws away certain basic norms of relations between states. It is an historic step backwards. You cannot build peace on retaliation. The international community has other mechanisms to deal with conflicts and to make governments that do not obey the established rules reflect.

Another problem is that this type of decision cannot be taken without measuring all the consequences that may follow. My analysis of Mike Pompeo's statements is that these consequences have not been considered. The Secretary of State now talks of lowering the tension in the region after an act that inevitably leads to an escalation. It sounds like that neighbour who spends the night with the music screaming and the next morning tells me on the stairs that we all need rest and tranquillity. 

A third aspect has to do with the legality and morality of this kind of action. These two sets of questions cannot be ignored. War itself has its rules. Several academics have been addressing these issues. There are good pieces of reflection written about conducting attacks with drones in foreign lands. And the majority opinion seems to go in the opposite direction to what has now happened.

Nor can one ignore the discussion about the military doctrine behind the so-called "decapitation" of hostile movements. I will not dwell on this subject, but the truth is that the validity of the theory that advocates the elimination of leaders to resolve a conflict has much to be said about. Let me just refer that often the dead leader is replaced either by another leader that is even more radical. In other cases, we witness a fragmentation of the movement, with smaller terror groups acting on their own, and a new level of danger, amorphous and more difficult to combat.

After all, all this is far more complex than many would have us believe. And this complexity increases exponentially when a character like Qassem Soleimani is assassinated by a great western state.

Responding to the strong men

As we consider the year ahead, and keep in mind the way some leaders behave, we should expect some shocks. These are unpredictable times. One must watch the key radar screens all the time. That means to keep a very attentive eye on people with real power, from Donald Trump to Xi Jinping, without forgetting Vladimir Putin and Recep Tayyip Erdogan, or even Narendra Modi, Imran Ahmed Khan, Kim Jong-un, and a handful of players in the Middle East.

Power games, deception and confrontation seem to be the main lines of inspiration in today’s international affairs. They make the world a dangerous place once again. It would be a serious mistake not to recognise the existing threats to peace and stability.

The response ought to be based on moderation, respect for the values that have been accepted in the last decades and speaking truth to power. To remain silent at this stage would be unacceptable. 2020 calls for strong and balanced views.

The first day of 2020

This blog will continue in 2020, I hope. The key inspiration will remain to combat delusion and irrationality in politics. This objective takes into consideration that some of our political leaders seem to have lost contact with reality and the aspirations of common people.