The Taliban deal

I see the deal signed today in Doha, Qatar, between the U.S. Administration and the medieval armed group that is known as the Taliban of Afghanistan, a terrorist organization, as follows:

1.  It gives the Taliban a good amount of legitimacy and political standing. Both within their country and in the international arena. It is therefore a victorious move for them. It puts the Taliban in a much stronger position than the national government.

2. It is an electoral manoeuvre played by the U.S. President. Donald Trump wants to be able to claim, during the coming months leading to the November Presidential election, that he brought the war in Afghanistan to an end.  Or, at least, that he brought the American soldiers back home from a protracted foreign conflict.

3.  It will not lead to inter-Afghan peace negotiations. The deal was not discussed with the legitimate government in Kabul and it is not seen by its leaders as a commitment they own. The official government will keep fighting the Taliban.

4.  It does not include a justice and reconciliation approach. The atrocities the Taliban are responsible for are just ignored.

5.  It encourages other Islamist groups in other parts of the world to keep fighting.

6.  It took the American allies also deployed in Afghanistan, under the NATO-banner called Resolute Support Mission, for granted. They were not part of the process. They are just supposed to follow suit. Those NATO allies have about 16,000 troops on the ground.

Assad and Erdogan meet in Idlib

Bashar al-Assad of Syria and his Russian friends have been planning the Idlib campaign since December. He does not know about negotiations and compromises. Assad only understands the language of force, the crushing of his opponents. Therefore, he can only trust what comes from a military victory. His Russian supporters follow the same political philosophy. Politics is about absolute power. That’s why all of them are so committed to the Idlib war campaign.

The Russians control the air space. That gives a major advantage to Assad’s troops. They follow the bombings and complete the groundwork. The civilian population is caught in between the bombs – they fall all over, including on hospitals and school buildings – and the foot soldiers. People are also trapped by the rebel groups that have sought a final refuge in the province. The result is widespread human agony, disruption, and death.

The Turkish army has deployed to the province as well. They have about twelve positions in this corner of Syria. That was President Erdogan’s decision. He thought the Syrian army and the Russians would refrain from attacking Idlib because of the Turkish presence. And that would help the rebel groups that are allied to the Turks. In addition, it would keep the internal displacements to a minimum. Mistake. The military offensive keeps moving forward, the populations are displaced and trying to beat death daily. And now, the Turkish soldiers are being targeted as well. They will remain in Assad’s crosshairs. Assad knows he can count on Vladimir Putin’s backing. He also knows that Erdogan has very few powerful friends in the international circles. Erdogan’s ambition and arrogance ended up by isolating him.

Erdogan has only one option. To withdraw from Idlib and let the local refugees cross into his country. The rebels will come along with them to escape the Assad troops. And soon or later the confrontation will resume.

The coronavirus and the presidential election

Yesterday, Vice-President Mike Pence was put in charge. Today, we understand what President Trump had in mind. His main concern is to control the narrative. The President does not want to hear anything negative about his future handling of the crisis. He knows that sooner or later the epidemic will hit the country and is determined to ensure the official statements coming from his Administration do not challenge his handling of the response. Public health and treatment affordability are key electoral issues.

Just about Idlib in Syria

We cannot forget the human crisis that is taking place in the Idlib Province of Syria. The international headlines have been focused on the coronavirus epidemic. When that happens, the media becomes too obsessed with one theme, that is treated from every angle and with plenty of unnecessary details and erases other major issues from the screen. Idlib should remain within our radar. There is tremendous suffering going on over there.

Don't panic and be prepared

The coronavirus is impacting the world economy in an extraordinary manner. Yesterday and today, the financial markets lost trillions of dollars. That’s about real people’s money as well as pension funds and other institutional investors. That’s wealth that simply evaporates. Every time a new person is found sick, here and there, specially in the most developed economies, that sends a shockwave across the markets. There is a massive reaction because the world has become a village and people are constantly on the move. Besides that, what is produced here needs components from afar and a supply chain that crosses half of the planet.

The key point at this stage is to be able to show to the public opinion that the epidemic can be contained. In addition, it is important to underline that most of the cases can be easily treated in the right hospital environment. Panic would bring a major global crisis.

Coronavirus at the heart of Europe

It has been a crazy day in the financial markets. All of them were deeply in the red. The coronavirus outbreak in Italy is a little bit the straw that broke the camel’s back. Northern Italy is a wealthy region. It is very well connected to the heart of Europe. And that has generated some serious panic. Now, the response must be the opposite. To keep everyone, calm. To show that we have the means to circumscribe the outbreak. It is not an easy task. But that’s the role we expect the political authorities to play. So far, the Italians and their neighbours are playing the appropriate cards. Let’s hope they will keep doing it. If any of them decides to restrict the border crossings that will send a very negative signal to the public opinion.

Italy's immediate challenge

As we start the last week of February, the key issue in our part of the world is the outbreak of coronavirus in Northern Italy. In the last forty-eight hours the number of infected cases has grown fast. About ten towns in the Lombardy and Veneto regions have been placed under quarantine measures. Major events, such as the Venice Carnival, have been cancelled. And, above all, there is no objective information about the way the disease has spread in that part of Italy. That must be investigated as a matter of priority. Besides that, the test for the next twenty-four hours is about the progression of the infections, particularly to see if there are new cases outside the areas that have now been placed under control. Let’s hope that will not be the case.

The Dalai Lama

Today marks the 80^th anniversary of the Dalai Lama’s enthronement as the spiritual leader of the Tibetans. He has been a leading person in terms of a wise approach to life and peace among the nations. He won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1989.

He has also been a living reminder of Tibet’s fate under the Communist Chinese rule. During the last ten years or so, Beijing has been actively lobbying European and other countries not to receive the Dalai Lama as an official guest. That policy has shown some results. But it is also true that the Dalai Lama is now an elderly man – 84 years old – and he himself has decided to seriously reduce his travel schedule.

There are hundreds of Dalai Lama’s quotes available online. One I would like to remember today says: “The planet does not need more successful people. The planet desperately needs more peacemakers, healers, restorers, storytellers, and lovers of all kinds.”

About the intelligence work

During my professional life I had to interact with intelligence personnel. Most of them were very bright people, others were just good at collecting information but not particularly skilled at transforming that information into intelligence, meaning, into proper assessments and sets of assumptions. But the most important thing I have learned is that intelligence is a line of work that requires independence. The staff must feel they are not pressurised in any direction. They must come to the best conclusion they can produce. If the analysis and assumptions are influenced by partisan considerations, they no longer are fully credible. They lose value and can only be used to justify political mistakes and biased decisions. Unfortunately, that happens quite often, thanks to the interference of the political leaders.

Bloomberg's poor beginning

Michael Bloomberg might have learned a key lesson last night, when assessing his performance during the Nevada Democratic Debate: a presidential race in the United States is a complex matter. It is not enough to have money, plenty of it. One also needs to convince the voters and, above all, to be perceived as presidential material. To be an extremely successful businessperson is not enough. The race is about representativeness and political banners. It is also about emotions and the capacity to create a few great ideals.

Bloomberg came out of the debate weaker. He must find a flame within himself to be able to recover the ground he lost. Unfortunately, money cannot buy that inner fire he seems to lack.

Idlib and the divided Security Council

The UN Security Council today met on Syria. One more meeting for nothing. The humanitarian situation in the Idlib Province is desperate for around 900,000 people, many of them children. That was one of the reasons for the meeting. The other is that a growing military offensive is under way. The leadership in Damascus is convinced that they can win and retake the province. For Assad, there is only one solution to the rebellion, a military one. His allies, the Russians, share the same view. And that is what is being implemented.

The Council could have adopted a resolution calling for a ceasefire. It did not happen. The Russians have opposed it. The only thing the Council did was to recall the peace process it had approved four years ago, in December 2015, and insist on its implementation. That’s a ridiculous approach. Today’s situation is very different from the one in 2015. For instance, now there is a heavy involvement of Turkey in this corner of Syria. There is a serious risk of clashes, even confrontation, between the two sides. That means, there is an enormous potential for escalation. That and the humanitarian crisis are the two dimensions that require immediate attention.

But the UN Security Council is too divided. The bet must be placed in another forum.

France and radical Islam

Radical Islam is being taught in several mosques of France. The preachers are paid by countries such as Turkey or Algeria. In most of the cases, they do not speak French, or just a few words, do not know the laws of the country and have an approach to civic life that is not compatible with the accepted practices. The Ministry of Education has no authority over such schools.

All this divides the French society. The children that go through such system are not prepared to integrate the wider society. They feel they do not belong, which is one of the most damaging feelings one can have vis-à-vis his or her own country. And many citizens end up by developing a strong bias against such system and Islam in general. They end up by voting for extreme right parties.

President Macron today addressed the issue. He said it is time to bring the State into such system and make sure that the preachers understand that France is a lay republic, where the laws do not discriminate people because of their religious beliefs or lack of them. His words have shown that one the most difficult communities to deal with is the one linked to Turkey. The Turkish government keeps sending imams to France without any consultation with the French government. And those imams are more interested in keeping their students linked to Turkey than anything else. That creates a serious division in society.

The mass immigration is a fact of life in France and in many other European countries. However, it cannot be a cause for significant cultural fractures in the host countries. Our countries have a set of values that were built along the path of history. They are the mainstream cultural cement that keeps our societies together. It would be a serious negligence not to protect those values. It would certainly open the door to dramatic conflicts within our own borders.

Let’s see what Emmanuel Macron will be able to change. This is important for France and for others within the EU.

Idlib and its humanitarian tragedy

Today, I must write about the situation in the Idlib Province of Syria. Following the military operations ordered by President Bashar al-Assad and supported by the Russian air force, there is a major humanitarian crisis in Idlib. Hundreds of thousands of people – the more accurate figure must be close to a million – are just caught in between the advancing regime forces and the border with Turkey, that remains closed. These people require urgent assistance. The UN and the key NGOs could provide much of needed help but can’t operate when there are bombardments going on. We must advocate for a temporary halt. And let the civilians move on.

This tragedy should be brought to the attention of the UN Security Council. I have no illusion about the Council. But I think the European countries that sit in the Council should urgently table the situation. That’s a moral move. A necessary one. It might also get us to a short humanitarian window of opportunity.

The US presidential election

On this side of the Atlantic Ocean, we can’t say much about the US presidential campaign that has started to roll on. But we watch with studious interest some of the key candidates on the Democratic side. On the Republican side there is nothing to see. Donald Trump is the candidate and he will fight with his usual bravado, and contempt, to keep the presidency. Concerning the Democrats, there is a lot to keep us interested during the coming weeks. Including, of course, Michael Bloomberg. The question he raises is very simple: how much support can a billionaire buy? At this stage, there is no real answer. But he will attract a good deal of attention and lots of fire, from all sides.  

The Munich Conference and the European views

The US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, addressed the Munich Security Conference today. His line was very clear: the US has not moved away from supporting the European Defence, they remain even more engaged than before. In addition, he expressed the conviction that West is winning in the international arena.

His speech did not generate a lot of enthusiasm. Actually, the participants ‘reaction was very subdued. Polite, but not convinced. The audience’s quietness has shown that the Europeans have serious disagreements about the current Administration’s international politics, including the way it relates to Europe. Among other things, they judge that President Trump is not sincerely committed to collective defence. The NATO exercises, including the large one that is about to start, called DEFENDER-Europe 20, are perceived more as training opportunities for the American troops and less as a demonstration of unity among the allies. Also, those listening to Mr Pompeo have some problems to understand some of President Trump’s approaches to international affairs, in particularly, when it comes to Russia.

Furthermore, the “winning” view expressed by the Secretary of State is not shared by the European leaders. President Macron said it soon after the Pompeo speech. But it is not just the French President that espouses that stance. The German President had stated the same view yesterday, at the opening of the conference.

I take four main points from all of this. First, it is important to continue to assert the European commitment to the alliance with the US. Second, the Europeans should state their views with clarity, particularly when they do not coincide with the decisions and comments coming from Washington. Third, the EU must keep investing on joint military and defence projects. This investment should bring together as many EU countries as possible, knowing that it will not be possible to get all of them to step in, and should be presented as the European pillar of the NATO effort. Fourth, Europe must reach a modus vivendi with Russia and China, that considers the European interests but is not naïve. Russia is our immediate neighbour, which means we must agree on keeping the bordering space between them and us safe and prosperous. China, on the other hand, is a major power in the making. Europe cannot have an indifferent position towards it.  

The 2020 Munich Security Conference is not just about the West

Today started the 2020 edition of the Munich Security Conference (MSC). This is an important annual event, that brings together a good number of decision-makers in the fields of diplomacy and international security. It is necessary to pay attention to what is said at the conference, even if the topics that are discussed reflect a lot the German views and concerns on international instability.

This year the key topic is about a strange word that only a German mind could have invented: "Westlessness". For the organisers, this new concept captures two major fears. One is related to the perceived growing uncertainty about the future of the Western world. The other is about a retreating West, in the sense that our democracies are less and less present when it comes to addressing the key issues of the world.

I must confess I do not like the concept. I have written about the absurdity of still believing that we, the Europeans from the EU and the US, should be considered the centre of the world. It is the idea that our values are higher than those prevailing elsewhere. That’s old fashion thinking. Our values are only good if they strength our democratic institutions and keep people like the US President or the Hungarian Prime Minister within the bounds defined by the rule of law and the respect for minority opinions.

We live in a different world. There are now several centres of power, in different parts of the world. Diversity is the new feature. Regional interests are now very different from those the Europeans were used to. We recognise the new set of regional interests. But we expect every government, big or small, to follow without any ambiguity the human rights principles, as adopted by the UN, and to resolve any conflict through peaceful means. Basically, what this means is a return to the UN system, the reinforcement of its authority and the acceptance of the mechanisms that have been put in place during a good number of decades.

Boris and his crazy world

I would summarise today’s Cabinet reshuffle in the UK along three lines. It was a public opinion disaster, because the only thing people will remember is that Boris Johnson got into a fight with one of his closest allies so far, Sajid Javid. In addition, it demonstrated that the Prime Minister wants to concentrate the key levers of power in his office and leave very little room for policy decisions in the hands of the Cabinet ministers. And, third point, it confirmed that the real power behind the throne Boris occupies is his crazy political advisor, Dominic Cummings. Cummings is a puppet master.  

The right question

I have always admired those who are good at asking the pertinent questions. For me, that proves they are intelligent people. A well-formulated question is powerful. The other side can feel deeply challenged. And that's what we want politicians to feel. 

Leadership in Germany

Chancellor Angela Merkel and her party are losing ground. They are going through a party leadership crisis as well. On the other hand, Alternative for Germany (AfD), the extreme-right party that is host to a good number of Neo-Nazis, is getting stronger. Both facts are bad for Germany and for Europe. And to add to the crisis, we have a very weak Social-Democrat Party, a disappearing SPD.

It is a major paradox to have a political impasse and so much extremism in a wealthy and well-functioning democracy. President Clinton used to say, it’s the economy, stupid! That’s not true in the case of Germany. It’s the national identity issue that is at play. Germany has become an ethnically diverse society. That was further accentuated after the mass migratory flows of 2015. And all this has not been properly addressed. Inclusion is more than learning the language and finding a job. The German situation should make us reflect about the way rich European nations deal with large segments of the population that have different roots and look different from the traditional picture each nation has drawn of herself.

In the meantime, the country must find a credible political leader that can take votes away from AfD, not by copying some of the banners the extremists agitate, but because he or she is a balanced politician and knows how to respond to the people’s views. Angela Merkel did that for many years. But her time is now running out.

Who could be next?

Europe cannot afford to have in Berlin either a weak government or a Chancellor that is not an enthusiastic European. Confusion about the role and the future of Germany in Europe could lead to a catastrophic situation within the EU. This is a crucial issue.

Coronavirus and daily routines

The coronavirus outbreak keeps making the headlines. It is on all the major news channels and papers. There is uncertainty and that causes some level of preoccupation.

In our part of the world, there are only very few cases of people infected. Seen from the perspective of the ordinary person on the street, the disease remains a distant threat. People don’t wear masks. If one went out with a mask that would generate a lot of anxiety around. But everybody knows we live in a globalised world. The contamination can spread fast. People are also aware of the economic importance of China. In many ways, some of us are more concerned with the economic impact than with the public health dimensions.  

In the current context, let’s keep the focus on the public health aspects. The key points are to contain, to reassure and to avoid unnecessary alarm. It is also advisable to combat all types of stereotypes.

Daily routines should go on.

A New Green Deal

Economic growth cannot be achieved at any cost. In today’s world, the impact of production on environment must be part of the calculations. Growth that deteriorates the environment, that increases the CO2 emissions, that is artificially supported to keep quiet some sectors of the electorate – the EU agricultural policy is the best example of distorted and wasteful growth, and we are talking about billions of euros every year  – all that should be considered negative growth and accounted for as such. 

Almost 30 years ago, the UN Development Programme (UNDP) came up with the concept of human development. This model was much more inclusive than the old notion of economic growth. It included more than just the production of additional goods and services. It was an approach designed to add to the response to the basic needs of a population other essential dimensions that would bring social peace, equality of opportunities and people’s creativity and dignity. And gradually, it also incorporated the judicious use of natural resources and the environmental dimensions. We tried to resume it under the designation of sustainable growth, but it was more than that. There was a strong human security aspect in it as well as a resource sustainability dimension.

In many countries, lots of people have been brought out of poverty during the last three decades as well. But the environmental dimension was kept aside, not considered when planning and opening new economic avenues. And if we travel to India or China, we can immediately understand the costs those societies have to pay for not paying attention to the natural context.

The problem is that natural phenomena do not respect national borders. What starts as a national problem ends up by being an international issue. That’s what the Paris Climate Conference of 2015 tried to put on the table. Global matters require concerted international efforts. 

In terms of urgency, it is obvious too many of us that economic expansion cannot bring additional CO2 on a net basis. There is a need to mitigate and to compensate. These two words should guide the way we look at the production, distribution and consumption of goods in the future. The new economy should be about proximity, mitigation, compensation and substitution. These areas offer immense opportunities, both in terms of business and jobs. They allow us to put GDP in the shelf where history keeps the past events and imagine a new Green Deal. That’s the one of the most immediate challenges.   

Absolute power leads to disaster

Four out of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council are now led by men with absolute power. They have been able to place themselves at the apex of the pyramid, undoubtedly above the institutions existing in their countries. They exert their authority in political contexts with no real checks and balances. They decide, they command and everybody else obeys. In two of the countries, there are democratic oppositions, one should recognise it. But the recent happenings show that such opposition parties have very little room to act as balancing powers, as an alternative brake to any excess. Extreme polarisation makes the majority party act as block, as a protective barrier to the leader.

All these situations are very worrisome. Recent history, especially at different moments of the past century, has shown that autocratic leadership can be the fastest route to disaster. Dictators, big and small, need to create conflicts with foreign powers to survive and justify their policies. The process they follow is clear. They start by challenging the validity of international law and the role of multilateral organisations. Then, they try to ride on an existing sub-regional conflict by taking sides. That allows them to make the enemy identifiable. And the tension keeps growing.

It is time to clearly state that diplomacy is better than conflict. And to add that in a world as global as it is ours today, the only way to keep peace and prosperity is through increased cooperation and positive alliances. But above all, we must reaffirm that democracy and full respect for everyone rights are the best lessons we have learned from past crises.

Macron leads on defence

Today President Macron of France delivered a very long, dense speech to the top military personnel. The President shared his deep concern with the new international order, which is basically defined by rapports de force and not by international law and underlined once again the need for an autonomous European defence pillar, as well as his call for a strategic dialogue with Russia. But his main messages were about France as a global power and his country’s nuclear capabilities. He spent a bit of time explaining his approach to nuclear power, as a means of deterrence, a weapon that is there not to be used. France is the only nuclear power within the European Union, now that the British are outside.

But my deep reading of his address makes me conclude President Macron wants to take the lead in European defence matters. That could be part of his legacy. But he is very much aware that Germany is not ready to move too far in such field and that several other EU countries, particularly those in the East, think that the key dimension of our common defence passes through keeping the US fully engaged in Europe. 

In such circumstances, the French President wants to convince the Poles to adopt his views. That’s why he was in Poland at the beginning of the week. He also needs to convince the Polish leaders that European defence is a genuine concern, not just a screen to have France and Germany dominating the European military scene. There is a bit of a silent rivalry between Poland and Germany on defence matters.

Poland pays a lot of attention to its armed forces and it has become a key player in European military matters. The problem with Poland is that its leaders follow a political line that is very different from the one Macron promotes. And that does not facilitate a collaborative approach.

A very destructive man

One of the deepest-rooted attributes of an authoritarian politician is to react with great violence when criticised. They get wild if they are attacked. And if they can, they will seek all means of revenge. The focus is on destroying the enemy, not just on beating him or her. And everyone who is not servile to the boss is a foe.

We have seen that today in Washington.

Dangerous radicalism in America

The American people are very divided when it comes to President Trump’s political performance. Such polarisation was especially visible yesterday, during the delivery of the State of the Union. The President’s style is very divisive. His policy is not about including as many segments of the American society as possible. It is about creating his own support base and keeping it loyal and militant. This approach leads to a profound radicalisation of politics. It’s a worrying option, because from radicalism to violence the distance is very short.

Tough times for the Democrats

The Democratic primary in Iowa has not been an auspicious beginning for the party’s presidential campaign. It has given a chance to the opposing camp to say the Democrats are messy and inefficient. President Trump has already started to shoot. He is very good at ridiculing his adversaries. One should not give him any space to do that.

This year’s presidential campaign is going to be particularly tough. All campaigns are very demanding, that’s true. But the current one could be extraordinarily nasty. Donald Trump knows how to fight a street fight. That’s is main strength. The Democratic side must be able to fight him both at that level and at the substantive level. In addition, it will require a constant attention to the mass communication side of things. The Democratic nominee must have an easy and pleasant TV presence. His or her communications team must be first class.

Not easy.

I am afraid we will keep seeing Donald Trump for a good number of years ahead.

Post-Brexit optimism

I think it is too early to be worried about the future of the European Union’s relationship with the United Kingdom. We are now at the beginning of the transition period. Its duration is not long, I agree, but I also see that both sides will try to reach some sort of agreement before the end of it, before end of December. The posturing we are witnessing today is part of the negotiating tactics. But both sides will be under serious pressure from the respective business communities. They do not want to rock the boat. The economic and trade ties are strong. They should remain strong. Besides that, we share the same geopolitical space and that should be an encouragement for cooperation. Even a fool can understand that.  

We are hiding again behind national borders

One of the characteristics of the new international disorder is to ignore the role of international organisations. The conventions, resolutions, principles and values, which the experience gained during the several decades that followed the Second World War has built up, are being set aside. The United Nations System has been relegated to a little corner of the international relations map. It is simply ignored. Whose fault is it? That’s a matter for a longer debate, but what is worth emphasising now is that nobody listens to the voices that emphasise the importance of multilateral responses and international cooperation. We are back to country-specific decisions, to the primacy of national interests seen in isolation, to relations of force. We have moved back in history, hiding behind national borders. It is simply unacceptable. It leads to conflict and instability.

Follow the WHO rules

The measures taken by many countries to prevent the spreading of the coronavirus epidemic do not take into account the procedures established by the World Health Organisation. They make WHO appear as irrelevant, which is another way of attacking the multilateral system, in particularly the UN.

The measures go well beyond the recommended protocols. Many of them have a political justification and not just a public health concern. They are taken to tranquilise the domestic public opinion in those countries. And they have also a strategic dimension, in the sense they want to send a message to the Chinese authorities, a message that says that China can be isolated from the international community. They are an attempt to point out, basically, that the Chinese strength has very fragile clay feet. That China is not as strong as its leaders want the world to believe.

I totally disagree with such an approach. In this case, I say no to geopolitical games. It is true that China has its own fragilities. But this is not time to take advantage of a major health and social challenge to try to teach a lesson to the leaders in Beijing. The moment calls for serenity and international coordination.