Mr Trump speaks to the United Nations

This is the text I published today in Diário de Notícias (Lisbon newspaper). It is a machine (AI) translation. The original is written in Portuguese.

 

President Trump and the United Nations

Victor Angelo

 

The name of this year's Nobel Peace Prize laureate will be announced on October 9. The list of candidates includes 318 names, an impressive number. It seems that Donald Trump's name would be included in the list of nominees, which is not impossible because any member of his government, Congress or any other personality has the faculty to nominate. The fact is that the president would very much welcome the Nobel award, less than a month before the presidential election.

This is how the words spoken this week by the American ambassador to the United Nations, Kelly Craft, when she was called upon to introduce her boss's intervention before the UN General Assembly, should be understood. Craft's brief introduction sought to convey only one message. She said that Donald Trump is a leader who gives special consideration to the search for peace. She then mentioned initiatives related to Israel, the Arab Emirates and Bahrain, the economic agreement signed at the White House between Serbia and Kosovo, North Korea, a country that has disappeared from the news and can therefore be presented as well behaved for the time being. The ambassador also brought in the launching of the talks between Afghans, with American sponsorship.

Then, spoke the president. His speech blurred the image of a leader concerned with peace. If today's times were to be governed by the usual diplomatic norms, President Trump's words should be seen as a harbinger of a declaration of war on China. This country was presented as the cause of the covid-19 pandemic and the associated global economic crisis. It has also been singled out as the biggest polluter of land, sea, and air.

It was a catalogue of accusations to others and praise for himself and the successes his administration would have achieved in various fields, from conflict resolution to carbon emission reduction. All with the eyes on the November elections. 

But we should be clear that the diatribe against China has deep and prolonged consequences on American political life and psyche. It is something that will mark the international relations of the United States, whether Trump is at the head of the country or not. The political class, the military circles and various sectors of American academia, intellectuals and society see China's foreign ambition as a vital threat to the United States' role in the world. For some it is a question of political hegemony or economic interests, for others there will be an ethical dimension and democratic values when they think of a China that becomes a superpower. The decade ahead of us will be marked by obstinate rivalry between these two colossi. Those who think that the European Union can serve as a counterweight and a balance in the face of this competition should put their strategic imagination to work right now. I make no secret of my concern, however, about the growing conflict between the United States and China, or my scepticism about the strategic effectiveness of European foreign policy.

Let us return to the General Assembly and to President Trump's communication. In addition to the harangue against China and the election propaganda, the speech set out what appears to be an agenda for the United Nations, in Washington version. To the issues of peace - the area of "blue helmets" is a priority not only for Americans but for many more; the only issue is that the main recommendations of the Ramos-Horta Commission (2015) and subsequent political lessons remain unimplemented, with a disconnect between military operations and the political work of the missions - the president added the fight against terrorism, the oppression of women, human and drug trafficking, ethnic and religious persecution. He also made special reference to human rights.

It is clear that he did not speak of the deadlocks that hinder the proper functioning of the Security Council, the marginalization of the UN and the multilateral system, which has been a hallmark of his mandate, or the lack of support for the Secretary-General. But what he said on the positive side should be used to give new visibility to the United Nations and relaunch international cooperation. As for the rest, we will see after November.

 

 

EU sanctions on Belarus

The European Union has prepared a list of about 40 Belarusian personalities close to Alexander Lukashenko – his name is not in the list – that would be subject to sanctions. The list should be approved this coming week. I will comment further on it as soon as I have seen it and the kind of sanctions that it includes. However, an initial reflection can be made right now. Sanctions are a straightforward way out. The experience has shown that the type of measures adopted ends up by having little impact on the situation. They do not lead to real change. And, in all truth, they hide the lack of political will to undertake a more proactive approach. In this case, I have not yet seen a single proposal that I can say “that’s a concrete way of helping the Belarusian people to solve the impasse”. The EU is not showing enough creative thinking.

The United Nations at 75: to be more political again

My opinion piece on the United Nations, as published today, in Portuguese language, in the Diário de Notícias (Lisbon)

 

Maintaining the relevance of the United Nations

Victor Angelo

 

The United Nations celebrates 75 years of existence at the beginning of the coming week. This is also the week of the General Debate, which allows world leaders to address the General Assembly and those who are prepared to hear them. This year, despite the symbolic importance of the anniversary, everything will have a low profile, digital-only, because of the pandemic. The heads of state and government will not travel to New York. They will send videos, in most cases with the usual nonsense intended for their domestic audiences. The absence of the leaders will cause the most relevant part of the annual meeting to be missed, which is to allow a whole series of face-to-face meetings among the great ones of this world. All this makes this year's session relatively invisible, precisely when the United Nations needs to regain international attention. 

It may be that the US President will be the only one to make the trip and speak in person. It would be advantageous for him to do so to as it would allow him to spend some time with Secretary General António Guterres. Donald Trump is known to slow down his impulses when there is personal contact, something that has not happened between the two for quite some time. But more important than whether he goes to UN headquarters is what the President will say. There has been a lot of speculation and nervousness around it. There are even those who say it might include the threat of his country leaving the United Nations. I don't think he will say that. That it is going to be a speech aimed at the American electorate, it is going to be. It will mention Israel and the recent diplomatic victories President Trump managed to pull out of his hat. We can also expect strong references to his pet enemies, starting with Iran. In relation to this, one can anticipate direct criticism of the Russian and Chinese positions, a criticism that will also touch the Europeans, because they have not supported recent American decisions on Iran. But above all, I fear that the President will develop a narrative that will allow him to justify a hypothetical intervention in Iran in the coming weeks, something that cannot be ruled out as a possible electoral asset. 

President Trump does not seem to have much regard for the UN. He and his team have already realized that they cannot use it meekly as an instrument to give them international legitimacy after the event. This was the case at the end of August, when the Security Council rejected the US claim to impose new sanctions on Iran. In these situations, the American response has been one of two: either to leave the specialized organizations of the UN, as seen with UNESCO, the Commission on Human Rights or the WHO; or to marginalize and ignore the institution, as has happened with the United Nations Secretariat. Moreover, the current American leadership has already shown that it does not believe in multilateral solutions. The prevailing foreign policy option is to make pressure and demands, based on the principle that might is right.

Faced with the erosion of multilateralism and marginalization, the response must be powerful. It must be based on the constant repetition of the fundamental role of the UN in promoting peace and security, as these concepts are understood today. This means the recognition that the organization exists to facilitate political solutions, in case of risk, threat or conflict. The dimensions of development and humanitarian action are important pillars of the UNAIDS system, but the primacy must be given to political work. This is the message that New York must make heard with a firm voice. And explain that for there to be peace and security, there must be respect for people's dignity, their rights and aspirations for freedom, good governance, and equal opportunities. In other words, the ideas of human development and individual security must be given a more intense political sense. These concepts were formulated in the 1990s and recognized as major advances in the way international relations are viewed.  They remain, however, orphans in terms of the political oratory. They need to be translated into a political language. This one remains timid and traditional, very much based on the sovereignty of states and non-interference in the internal affairs of each country. The narrative must now, at the age of 75, stress the need for a balance between sovereignty and the rights of each of us. "We, the peoples of the United Nations," as it says at the beginning of the Charter.

 

Contingency planning for a covid response

Some European states are battling a growing number of coronavirus-infected cases. This is again a major challenge and people are getting a bit fatalistic about it. They have little appetite for new lockdowns. For them, lockdown is synonymous of economic collapse, in addition to the constraints it means for their life routines. Governments themselves are not too keen on lockdowns either. But the perspectives for the next few months are most worrying. We are getting into the colder days and one can expect a serious increase in infections. This and the economic difficulties many will face do represent a completely new threat to social stability. It is necessary to draw contingency plans. Unfortunately, I do not see any government, or the European Commission for that matter, busy with such planning. They seem just as fatalistic as people are. That is certainly not the best way of discharging their policy responsibilities. Some of us must keep asking the leaders about the contingency measures they are preparing for. We know the answer so far – none! – but we should insist on the question.

Von der Leyen's State of the Union

In general terms, I found the speech delivered yesterday by the President of the European Union to the European Parliament as positive, optimistic, and forward-looking. It contains a number of indications about the Commission’s future work and one should keep comparing the words with the implementation achievements. On the less positive side, Ursula von der Leyen’s statement does not mention the need for increased coordination between the EU states during the forthcoming months, as the pandemic crisis keeps paralysing the European nations. This is an immediate challenge and must be addressed. We cannot have a repetition of chaos we witnessed during the March-June period, with each government taking decisions without coordinating with the others, not even with the neighbours next door. Secondly, there was no reference to the threats the European project is facing, either from domestic actors or foreign sources. The Union is not as solid as many would think. This must be acknowledged and appropriate lines of action should be proposed.

 

This year's strange General Assembly

The 2020 UN General Assembly has started. Unfortunately, due to the pandemic, the world leaders will not be travelling to New York for the General Debate, scheduled for next week. The debate will be even less participatory than in the past. They will be sending pre-recorded videos with their statements. But the most important dimension of the General Assembly, the side meetings between leaders, will be missing. Personal contact is critical in world affairs. Its absence makes all of us more fragile. It makes cooperation less pressing. At a time when we need augmented cooperation between the nations. These are indeed difficult times.

Europe and China: a difficult dialogue

The summit call that took place today between the EU leaders and President Xi revealed a gulf of differences between the two sides when it comes to political values and the interference of the State in the economy. On the European side, reference was made to human rights as a fundamental value, as well as to the Chinese leadership’s policies towards the Uighur minority, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. President Xi did not like what he heard. But he could notice that the Europeans consider these matters fundamental and will continue to be raised in the future. At the same time, the economic relationship between both sides will continue – the trade between them amounts to one billion euros a day. And on this matter, the key issues will remain and must be addressed. The Chinese must open up to European investment and cease all kinds of political meddling in the governance of European firms already operating in China.

In the meantime, and as we wait for progress on these fronts to be achieved it is becoming clear that Chinese investments in critical European infrastructure can only be accepted if they do not put at stake the strategic dimensions of European security and stability.

The two sides must cooperate. They are key players in the international scene. It is therefore important they keep talking and be frank when doing it.

On Mali and the region

 

In today’s Diário de Notícias (Lisbon)

Notes on Mali

Victor Angelo

 

 

Mali is a fascinating country, diverse in its landscapes and cultures. It is home to great singers and traditional musicians who play the korah, an ancestral instrument made from a large gourd, the Dogon masks and statues, birthplace of the city of Timbuktu, a unique historical reference in Islamic studies. For four centuries, until 1670, Mali was the epicentre of a great empire in West Africa, an empire recognized by Portuguese explorers, who traded extensively with it across the Gambia River. I would also add that I had several Malian colleagues at the UN who proved to be excellent professionals and held important positions in the different multilateral organizations. I write this to fight the summary opinions of those who are in the habit of arranging everything African in a dark corner, in the shadow of the usual prejudices. I am sad, like many others, when I see the country tearing itself apart and becoming insecure, as it continues to do daily.

Mali has made the news again in the last three weeks following the military coup of August 18. It is, for the same reason, the subject of debate, including in European circles. Moreover, some conspiracy theorists have seen Moscow's hand behind the colonels who took power, a hypothesis I consider unlikely. But there are other hands at work in Mali, from France to Saudi Arabia, and with vastly different intentions.

Also, at stake is the role of the United Nations, which has maintained a peace mission in the country since 2013, with more than 15,000 elements. MINUSMA, as the mission is called, has, over time, become a case study because it has not been able to respond to the political and governance issues that are at the heart of Mali's problems. The political direction of the mission resolved, to please the French and out of strategic opportunism, to stick to the president that the coup has now deposed. In New York, at the Security Council, no one had the courage to correct this trajectory. Thus, credibility is lost, and the future is mortgaged. 

Returning to the current debate, it should have emphasized that more than two thirds of Mali's population is under 25 years of age. And that education and the economy are unable to meet the challenges that such an age pyramid entails. When I was in Mali for the first time in 1990, its total population was around eight and a half million. Today, thirty years later, it is close to twenty million. The same happens in the other countries of the region. They all have explosive age pyramids. Demographic pressure has grown throughout the Sahel along with the advance of desertification and poverty. Being young in the Sahel means looking to the future and seeing only a multitude of arid politics, a desert of opportunities and a chaotic and inhumane urban habitat. Thus, hope and social peace are hard to achieve. All that remains is migration to Europe, or else adherence to armed banditry and fanatical rebellions. Fanaticism has grown exponentially over the past decade, thanks in particular to the proliferation of mosques, Wahabist koranic schools and radical preachers, all financed by the Saudis and others of the kind. 

Those who neither emigrate nor join the extremist groups, vegetate in the big cities, where they can observe how social inequalities have become blatant, the fruit of the corruption that prevails in political circles, in the security forces and in the administration of justice. They also see that European countries and other international actors turn a blind eye to the manipulations practiced by the powerful. This is what happened in Mali. After months of popular protest against the indifference of the president and the greed of his own circle of friends, a group of senior officials decided to act. They have popular support, at least for now. It is true that one should not support anti-constitutional coups. But it is also true that one can no longer pretend that one does not see corruption, ineptitude and the failure of territorial administration, with vast areas of national space without any state presence. The mitigation of crises begins with the promotion of probity and the restoration of local power, beyond the treatment of youth issues. This is what we must remind the colonels, the leaders of the region, the UN Security Council and the European partners of Mali, Portugal included. 

 

 

Donald Trump and his rabbits

In addition to his domestic claims, President Trump wants to be seen by the American voters as an international statesman. That’s why he is organising all kinds of diplomatic deals. It was the economic deal between Serbia and Kosovo, signed a few days ago. It does not address the delicate political dispute between the two sides, but it was a good photo opportunity. Interestingly, the President of Serbia seemed surprised by some of the terms of the deal, as they were mentioned by Donald Trump. He did not recognise some of the aspects the US President was referring to. But the big game is around the Israeli situation. The President knows that is a big prize, with a significant impact in important American circles. Therefore, he convinced the United Arab Emirates to sign some kind of “peace” commitment with Israel. And today, it was the turn of Bahrain. President Trump will try to get more Arab states to follow suit. That will be big, as he sees it, from the electoral perspective. My understanding is that his people, starting with Jared Kushner, his son-in-law, are now talking to Oman and Qatar to join the bandwagon. That will give Donald Trump and his supporters a lot of ammunition for the rest of the electoral campaign. As I keep saying, it would be a mistake to consider the election won by Joe Biden. Trump will keep pulling new rabbits out of his hat.

France and Turkey

The hostility between France and Turkey reached a new level today. For now, it is just a war of words. But words matter a lot, in diplomacy and conflict. I would be very prudent. If I were in a position of international visibility I would advise both sides to moderate their statements and I would offer my good offices for a mediation effort. I would not shy away from my responsibilities. I would be very clear in expressing my deepest concerns.  

Lukashenko must go

The people of Belarus had never occupied the centre of our European attention. For us, in the European Union, they were just a small nation at the outer periphery of our political space. We knew nothing about them. Now, they are at the centre of our admiration. They have shown, since the fraudulent early August elections, to be a very valiant people. They have been on the streets almost every day, to tell the dictator that enough is enough and that he should go. Men and women, lots of folks, some older people as well, everyone is ready to face the police repression because they want to be heard. This is no revolution pushed from outside the country. This is a genuine popular movement. I think that sooner the dictator will have to yield. The popular dislike is too obvious for him and his small group of supporters to be able to ignore it. And he cannot count of Vladimir Putin’s help. If this one comes to help – I hope he will not – he will get rid of him in any case. Putin knows that Lukashenko is politically finished.

Dealing with Vladimir Putin's regime

This is an AI translation of my opinion column of today, published in Lisbon by Diário de Notícias, a national newspaper

 

Beyond poison

Victor Angelo

 

The European Union's political relationship with the Russian Federation remains very nebulous and tense. It exploded again this week after the German announcement that Alexei Navalny had been poisoned with a chemical composition, banned by international law, but available in the Russian state arsenal.

Apart from Navalny, the impasse in Belarus, the renewed US pressure against the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, the recent statements by Sweden on military threats in the Baltic Sea, the arrest of a senior French officer accused of collaborating with Russian espionage, all reminded us in recent days that defining a European policy towards Vladimir Putin's regime is an urgent and complex matter. It must go beyond the current package of economic sanctions, which was approved following the invasion of Crimea in 2014. These sanctions, now in force until 2021, mainly concern financial transactions and the export of material that can be used in oil production and exploration or in military areas. They are strictly linked to the evolution of Russian intervention in Ukraine, including the Crimea, and not to the broader question of how to face and deal with today's Russia.

I recognize that the issue has been much discussed and remains on the agenda. Josep Borrell, in recently launching a process of reflection on security and defence, which he named "Strategic Compass", had this issue in mind. The problem is that Russia is viewed differently by the distinct EU member countries. In the Baltics or Poland, it is considered as the great external threat. This opinion fades as we move towards the Atlantic and move away from the East and the traumas of Soviet times.

The debate has revived with Vladimir Putin's return to the presidency in 2012. In the previous two years, in NATO and in the European institutions there was still some hope for a constructive and cooperative relationship between the two parties. Russian general officers were even invited at that time to participate in high-level operational command exercises of the Atlantic Alliance. There were also other attempts to define a new neighbourhood policy. I speak from my own experience. In one of them, in which I participated as a facilitator on a Swiss initiative, it became clear that Russian nationalist pride had been irresponsibly mistreated in the years following the end of the Cold War, and that Vladimir Putin's agenda would be to restore the country's international presence and present the bill to the West. A revanchist project.

The crisis in Ukraine and the subsequent annexation of the Crimea were part of the settlement. Since then, relations have entered a zigzagging phase, with a growing tendency for political and diplomatic confrontation. It became clear that Vladimir Putin wanted to undermine the EU from within, through selective diplomacy and actions of disinformation, propaganda and support for far-right political parties, as long as they had the disintegration of the European project as their flag. The illusion of a "restoration" of cooperation was a short-lived sun. But not everyone wants to see reality that way. Bulgaria, Czechia, as well as Greece and Hungary have, within the EU, a relatively favourable attitude towards the positions of the Kremlin. Others will be, to a certain extent, neutral and available for détente, as will be the case in Portugal. 

The definition of a common policy requires a clear and shared understanding of Vladimir Putin's intentions, of his strategic and personal interests. It begins by understanding that Russia is different from China. China is a competitor, in many areas, and needs an adequate competitive response. Russia under Putin is a hostile state and should be treated as such. No one wants to clash with a powerful and bellicose neighbour. But to ignore it would be a mistake. That is why it must be repeatedly reminded what rules and values must be respected, as well as limit interaction to a minimum, and personally sanction the country's main leaders. It is necessary to show the European population, and above all the Russian, that we consider their leaders to behave badly, in light of democratic practices and international law.

 

Supporting Fatou Bensouda

 The sanctions the US has decided to impose on Ms Fatou Bensouda, the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), are an abuse of power. Totally unacceptable, they cannot be supported by any European country. They show, once more, that the current Administration in Washington has little respect for the United Nations and international norms.

The UN Secretary-General said he took note of the American decision. I do not understand what that means. Note of what? Of their lack of respect for the basic principles that should guide their international relations? This statement is too weak. It does no favour to the standing of the Secretary-General.