Empty Summer

As we get closer to August, which is the annual holiday month, we realise this year everything is different. In our part of Europe, people are not travelling that much. They prefer to stay in the vicinity of their home region. They understand that the health crisis is picking up and they do not want to be caught in a messy situation far away from their residence. I live in an area of my city that attracts a lot of tourists. This time, there are no visitors. I do not have to worry about parking spaces. But I worry a lot when I see the shops, restaurants and so on empty and the hotels closed. That is the reality this summer.  

A major shock

The current pandemic crisis is a major global disruptor. It will have a complex cluster of impacts in many areas, from the political one up to the behavioural. Some of the consequences might end up by being positive transformations. When I say that I have in mind an increase in the work from home, which saves time and keeps fewer people in crowded and long commutes. I also think of greater investments in preventive health and more equal access to basic health services. On the other hand, it will have dramatic consequences on jobs, on poverty and despair, and on the performance of major economic sectors, including the banking one. The longer this crisis lasts the more complicated the recovery will be. And we have a prolonged period in front of us. This should mean that we must do whatever we can to prevent the transmission of disease.  

The future of China's global influence

In the race for dominance, China believes they have time on their side. They know they have the population numbers and that their economy will become as powerful as the American in about twenty years or so. They also count of their centralised and therefore more coherent approach to foreign relations. They think that political changes, party hesitations and the plurality of interests play against the US and its influence in the world. All in all, the Chinese have a more optimistic view of their future influence in the world.

I would agree but for one thing. The Chinese leaders will have to keep an authoritarian control over their population. And that might not be possible in the future. They will insist on Chinese pride and nationalistic views as much as they will try to keep improving the living standards. Is that going to be enough? I am in two minds. I see it as possible, particularly with the generalised use of digital control systems and a strong emphasis on nationalistic propaganda. But I am also convinced that the new generations might be much keener on freedom of opinion and less inclined to accept the authority of the Communist Party than their parents or grandparents.

If one wants to challenge the global influence of the Chinese leaders one must invest in keeping the country’s youth informed about what is going on in those countries where democracy is a central value.

Europe in the middle of a big fight

Translation of today’s opinion piece I publish in Diário de Notícias (Lisbon)

I do not want to start this regular dialogue with the reader without having the pandemic as the first topic. It is true that it is a beaten subject, with many people reflecting on what the world could be like once the virus has been defeated. A good part of these reflections is inspired by the principle of the crystal ball, a technique that has been perfected over time by all sorts of fortune-tellers. Other thinkers see in the unfolding of the pandemic the confirmation of their ideological obsessions. They take the opportunity to attack left and right. For them, the pandemic confirms the death of neoliberalism or globalization, even of capitalism, they warm up by pointing out the climatic causes, they greet in advance the end of American hegemony or the failure of the European project and so on. For many of these intellectuals, futurism seems to rhyme with unrealism.

It is indeed fundamental to know how to look to the future. We are aware that the great transformations came from those who could see beyond the horizon. One hundred years after the misnamed "Spanish flu", the coronavirus pandemic is the biggest shock after World War II. It is like a global tsunami. The world is working in slow motion or even still, in some cases. What was until March a global village has become an archipelago of isolated islands. The drawbridges are all raised, in fear of the contagion that might come from the neighbour. We live in a time of anxieties and fears. However, despite the uncertainties, it is not unreasonable to predict that tomorrow's world order will be vastly different from the one we have been building until the beginning of this year. Without getting into the crystal ball game, I predict that the issues of mass poverty, as it exists in certain parts of the globe, social inequalities, in the most developed societies, the deterioration of the environment and competition among superpowers will dominate the agenda of the future.

Each of these issues brings with it a web of other questions, which show the complexity of what lies ahead. On the other hand, it is necessary to overcome the social indifference that has taken hold of people. Presently, each one is concerned only with dealing with himself. One closes oneself in one's shell to the difficulties of others. Many political leaders then draw the conclusion that what is important is what happens in the domestic space, as if it were possible to stop the problems at the doorstep of the nation, with the lowering of a border barrier. From there to the crisis of the multilateral system is a dwarf's step, made easier the more timid or confused those at the head of the international institutions are.

The competition between the superpowers worries me. I see the United States and China taking a dangerous route. The pandemic has accelerated the conflict, particularly on the American side. New tensions and constant accusations against the opponent could lead to a false step, which would have profoundly serious consequences for all of us. Meanwhile, both sides are seeking to increase the number of their supporters in the international arena. Allies is not the exact word. What each of them wants is to create a circle of vassal states, which follow the political line defined in Washington or Beijing and limit the access given to the other side. This is the growing trend in the American relationship with Europe. They are succeeding with Boris Johnson, who has just made a political U-turn regarding Huawei. And they are continuing to press other European governments in the same direction and on several other issues as well. The only strategic response, however, is to maintain a certain distance between the two opposing parties by strengthening European sovereignty. The pandemic has taught us the term social distance'. Europe now needs to learn the practice of political distance. 

The road ahead

This moment in our lives calls for prudence, tolerance, and generosity. These are the values that will take us through the deep crisis we are in. They should be mentioned in every major political statement. Leaders must be brave, truthful and be able to put across such messages. They should also be seen as caring and knowing where we are heading.

The growing conflict between the giants

The US Government’s decision regarding the Chinese Consulate in Houston, Texas, takes the tensions between the two superpowers to a higher level of danger. The US is militantly engaged in a campaign against the Chinese leadership. And the Chinese have now decided to respond in kind. This confrontation is certainly not good. It contributes in no small measure to increase international instability at a time of great uncertainties. I see this course of action with great concern. And my advice to the European leaders is quite simple: keep as far away as possible from this confrontation. Say no to the pressure coming from Washington and keep a strong stance as far as China is concerned. Both sides must understand that Europeans cannot be drawn into this very dangerous competition. Actually, we must state that we see international cooperation and full respect for each nation as the key ingredients to build a more stable and prosperous future for all. If we cooperate, we win. If we show disrespect for international norms, we open the door to defeat and disaster.

One single point about the EU summit

After four-and-half days of negotiations, the European leaders reached an agreement on the next budget for the European Commission, covering the period 2021-27, and on the a recovery plan that should help the countries most affected by the pandemic.

There are several remarks that could be made about both documents and the process that took place. I will certainly come back to them soon. But today I would like to underline that the leaders have shown they want the EU to work and to be kept together. That is a crucial message. Nobody tried to rock the European boat. We know there were very tense moments during the summit. In some cases, some harsh exchanges took place. But all of that was about trying to bridge national interests with the collective interests of the EU. I see that as positive.   

We are being treated as vassal States

This is an exceptional moment in our contemporary history. The pandemic is challenging many of our long-held views and opening the door to a number of discussions about the future. One such discussion is about the role of values and principles in international relations.

I am one of those who thinks that big powers are putting aside the norms that have regulated the relations among nations. I see them as trying to reduce others to the status of vassal states. This is the current trend, for instance, when it comes to the United States. Washington is looking at Europe as subordinated allies, as countries that must unconditionally follow the American policy decisions in matters of foreign affairs.

European sovereignty is being threatened by such an approach.

In the circumstances, the European leaders have decided to pretend that is not the case. They turn a blind eye and just hope that as we get into next year, there will a change of leadership in Washington and, consequently, a more amicable attitude towards Europe. I am not sure. In 2021, the leadership might indeed be played by a set of different actors. But I see the trend as deeper than just a passing option linked to the Trump Administration. I sense it is structural and strategic. It comes from the dangerous competition that is growing a bit out of control between the United States and China. That competition will define the coming years. Both sides will be looking for support in the community of nations. And their natural tendency, like any giant, is to force other countries to take sides. The United States and China will be pressing others into the category of client-states. 

This is a development that the global crisis is accentuating. We cannot feign to ignore it.  

Moving backwards

This afternoon I called a few people in Africa, to find out how the pandemic is affecting their fellow citizens. And I got the same message from each call. Poverty and desperation are the main consequences of border closures and other domestic restrictions. The pandemic is ruining their fragile economies. There are no commercial flights coming in and out, no significant cross border trade, besides the traditional exchanges related to the informal sectors, little exports, and plenty of job losses. This pandemic takes these countries backwards. For those like me who spent a number of years working in the development field, it is an incredibly sad moment. Many of the gains are just being lost.  

Still on the European summit

The EU summit is still on, at the end of the second day. It is too early to comment on it, as I do not know what the outcome will be. But I said to a friend, a former ambassador, that I see it as positive that leaders spend a good amount of time trying to get to an agreement. They have in front of them big issues, with many possible consequences, and extremely high costs. These are no simple matters, and we are living in extraordinarily exceptional times. I would be worried if they decided to run through the issues, superficially and with no real commitment. It is true that some of them do have that kind of attitude. They are the lightweights. But the key players take these matters seriously. I can only appreciate that. To call names and badmouth them is a childish approach I do not accept.   

The forthcoming EU summit

On Friday, the EU leaders will meet in Brussels. This will be the first face-to-face meeting since the beginning of the pandemic. The agenda is about money, lots of it. They must decide if they approve the Commission’s recovery proposal, its budget, and the disbursement modalities. It is indeed a delicate agenda

There are two camps. One side wants the new money to flow to each country, with little interference from either the Commission or the Council. In their views, it is up to the national governments to decide on the programmes and projects to be funded, accepting however that those funding decisions must fall within the broad framework proposed by the European Commission. Italy, France, Spain, and Portugal are within this group.

The other side, led by the Prime Minister of the Netherlands, advocates a greater oversight by the European Council. That would mean that country allocations should be endorsed by all, not just by the government concerned. It would give the Council, where the heads of State and government sit or are represented, the authority to say no a country’s allocation plan. They do not see this approach as interference. They think that the volume of money is very substantial, and it should, therefore, be used not only for recovery but also for economic and administrative reform at the national level.

As of today, it is unclear what the outcome of the summit might be. The conflicting positions show that some countries are convinced that others are not doing enough in terms of economic transparency and administrative effectiveness. They see a widening gap between development levels. And they are afraid that the richer part of Europe will be asked to keep contributing to States that are not doing their best in terms of political performance. The opposing side considers such a position as a prejudiced view. In my opinion, both groups of countries have some valid points that must be discussed. Indeed, it is time to discuss the reasons for poor performance and also some of the prevailing national prejudices that are still alive in different parts of the European Union.

My understanding of leadership

I have learned that a true leader sees it as his or her mission to create broad alliances, to bring people of different convictions together. Therefore, when I am asked to give an opinion about any political personality, that is always my point of departure. Is he or she a consensus builder? Every society has its own divisions and lines of fracture. The leader knows that but does not try to take advantage of it.

My advice is very straightforward. Look at the person who is in a position of power and assess if such a politician is a divisive or an inclusive leader. Then, you have a clear-cut criterion to judge. 

And you decide based on your own understanding of what it means to live in a nation. If you are a progressive individual, you will see harmony and social cohesion as part of the national wealth.

Plenty of false prophets around us

Philosophers, sociologists, and other social scientists are exchanging lots of views about the political and societal impact of the coronavirus. And many people just repeat those comments without a thoughtful analysis of what is said. Even serious newspapers do it.

My impression is that many of those intellectuals have a preconceived idea, an ideological business line they try to peddle at all costs. As such, they want us to see in the crisis the confirmation of their pet theories. A kind of "I warned you". It is a biased reading of the situation at a time when we need objectivity and serenity.

This is no time for propagandists. There should be no room for any type of false prophets.

Our objective should be to base ourselves on accepted values ​​and to propose paths which would allow reinforcing these values. Therefore, we must be clear about the values ​​that we share, and which are part of the world’s common treasure, at the international level.

We must include, not exclude. We must understand and look for better ways of living together and sustaining life on this planet. Intellectuals that transform every sentence on bump fire should get no visibility at this stage. Or be thoroughly criticised and rationally challenged.

There is growing hope in Poland

The first projections seem to show that Andrzej Duda has been re-elected as President of Poland. It is a very thin victory, something just over 50% of the votes. Duda has been the country’s President since 2015. His re-election, after a brutal campaign he led against his main opponent and tonnes of support by the official media – and from President Trump –, is not good news for the rest of the European Union. He represents a retrograde policy option and a government that has not respected the basic European values, including the independence of the judiciary. Domestically, his extremely narrow victory, if it is confirmed, reveals that half of the Poles do not believe in the basic demagoguery he propagates. That is a remarkable proportion of the population – people that were not convinced by extreme populism and nationalism of his Law and Justice party (PiS). Those voters tell us, in other parts of Europe, that hope is not lost as far as Poland is concerned. But Europe must have a much firmer policy towards the backward politicians that are still in power in the country.  

Srebrenica

Srebrenica. The massacre happened 25 years ago. In Srebrenica, in Europe. About 8,000 victims, just because they were a bit different, a religion-based difference. And today, after so many years, the reconciliation and the cooperation between the Balkan States are still distant dreams. Dreams that the political leaders do not share. The region remains a powder keg within the European Continent.

It is a sad and dangerous situation.  

Erdogan has become a major problem

I have said many times that the President of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, is a major menace to the European interests. That includes the stability of some European countries, those with a large Turkish immigration, the unity of Europe, and the effectiveness and coherence of our military defence as a common endeavour. Now, I see my warning getting echo in a few media and governance circles. They realise the danger Erdogan represents. They should also be clear that the President megalomaniac ideas are bringing economic chaos to his own country. The man’s ambitions and his political manipulation of Islam have transformed Turkey into a repressive State and an economic mess. The louder we say it, in Brussels and in other capitals, the better for us and for the Turkish population.

Difficult to keep countries together

It is time to define the priority sectors that would require reform, innovation, and fresh resources. That is what some European governments are doing. Unfortunately, not all of them have engaged in such a planning exercise. They will remain further behind in terms of access to the new funding facility the European Commission is putting in place. That means more economic divergence in a project that was put together to bring equal prosperity to every member State. Development gaps, as they wide, they create the roots for dissension and destruction.   

President Macron's final leg

France has a new government. President Emmanuel Macron asked Edouard Philippe, who had been Prime Minister for the last three years, to resign and he did. Philippe had no other choice but to go, in view of the presidential system of power that prevails in France. The new PM, Jean Castex, is an experienced senior civil servant and a lightweight politician. He will serve the President as required. And the key point for Macron is to score a few deeds during the next two years, before the end of his current mandate. His concern is to be re-elected. He is playing the middle ground and the moderate right to try to achieve such goal. It is not going to be easy for him. He has created many negative reactions among the voters. At a time of crisis – and I am talking about the period before the pandemic – he was already perceived as too distant from the concerns of the more fragile segments of society. Macron’s image has become associated with privilege and elitism. Those are two bad labels in today’s context. I am afraid he will not be able to change such a perception. At this stage, I cannot bet on his re-election. But I wish his new government a smooth sailing.  

Iran's growing dependence on China

Iran is counting on China’s investments and political support. China will become the most powerful ally of Iran. Oil is one of the reasons, but not the only one. They are now negotiating a cooperation framework for the next 25 years. All in all, Iran will become seriously dependent on China.

As the Americans invest in their relationship with the Saudis, the Chinese can only get interested on the opposing side. Saudi Arabia and Iran are fierce rivals in the region. A good deal of the future of the Middle East will derive from such rivalry. But behind it, there is the growing and dangerous competition between the US and China.

We need an action framework of a new type

On this Independence Day in the US, it is obvious the country and the world have a big problem to confront and resolve. The Covid-19 pandemic. This is still the first wave of contagion and the virus remains out of control, in many parts of America and elsewhere. To deny it is to deny reality. It can only be explained as sheer ignorance or a political farce.

If we look at the problem with objectivity, we can only conclude that it might take another 12 to 18 months before we see an effective response. The timeframe can be shorter, the optimists say, but it can also be much longer, as many scientists keep telling us. In any case, a global crisis as the current one, if it goes on up to mid-to-end of 2021, will have global negative consequences. In simple words, I would say that we will become poorer and more self-centred. That will impact the world economy, trade, international cooperation, the multilateral systems, and, in summary, will change the game of global politics. Looking at it from the stability and security angles, I see us moving towards increased extremism, short-minded nationalism, and new dangerous confrontations. We will certainly reach new levels of instability and insecurity as well as the contraction of the democratic space.

Not easy to find a balance between public health and politics, including the economy. And that complexity augments as we move from the domestic scene to the wider arenas, where States act and clash. That is the reason why I think that reflecting on such a necessary balance is one of the key tasks the global institutions and the big-picture thinkers should focus on. We must design an action framework that keeps lives and livelihoods. Such a framework must obtain wide support – the support could even come from the UN Security Council – and give people clarity and hope.

Mass immigration as a negotiating tool

Earlier in the day, I was explaining to a local group of futurists that I see Morocco playing little Turkey, on their side of the Mediterranean Sea. They have learned from the Turkish how masses of migrants can be manipulated to put pressure on the European countries. It is happening on the Greek borders, it will be repeated in Libya, now that Erdogan’s troops and armed men are getting stronger in Tripoli and its surroundings. These are the two main migratory routes, and both are now under Turkish control. Is there a better way to be in a robust position when negotiating with the European Union?

The Moroccan are beginning to do the same with Spain and even with Portugal, I guess. In the last couple of months, groups of young men coming from Morocco have arrived by sea at the Southern Portuguese region of Algarve. It is a long sea crossing for their small boats. It is an impossible journey with such fragile vessels. My suspicion is that they get some help from powerful syndicates on the Moroccan shores and that is done under the blind eye of the authorities. Their sponsors might bring them closer to the Portuguese coastline and then let them complete the trip and be perceived as desperate migrants.

This flow has the potential to get bigger. To become route number three for the migrants from Sub-Saharan Africa and even from elsewhere.

On the European side, it is about time to start looking at it with greater attention. And, at the same time, to initiate a serious talk with the government in Rabat.

For Hong Kong and a bit more

The new Hong Kong National Security Law is a clear violation of the legal process as established by the territory’s Basic Law – there was no consultation with the local population and their representatives – as well as of the agreed principle “One Country, Two Systems”. Furthermore, the key offences it contemplates – subversion, secession, terrorism, and collusion with foreign powers – are defined in overly broad terms. That means the Hong Kong Executive is given extensive flexibility to judge and condemn. They are the ones, not the judiciary, that will apply the law, meaning, they will decide on the offences and the punishments. They will certainly follow a targeted approach to repression.

Another “innovation” of such new law is that it also applies to people outside Hong Kong and Mainland China. If someone in Paris, a French citizen resident in France, says that the territory should be independent and later in life travels to Hong Kong, he or she can be prosecuted for such a statement.

I feel sorry for the people of Hong Kong who cherish freedom and democracy. I have the same feeling for those in the Mainland that share these same values. And I ask myself what kind of political relationship our democracies should have with the leadership in Beijing. It is time to reflect on that before it is too late. The message should be simple. It must tell them that we are not prepared to accept their vision of politics. And we should keep an all-weather distance, as wide as possible, between them and us.

The international arena must be guided by values. It is time to say that again, loud, and clear. Very straightforward values, that take their inspiration from individual rights, the protection of each person against authoritarian States, from our inherent right to freedom and human security. Some might see this aspiration as a utopic one. I hear you. But, please, believe me, the post-covid world opens the door to imagine a more dignified approach to each human being.