Three men and the future of the European Union

The European Union on the road to collapse

Victor Ângelo

 

Hungary's Viktor Orbán, Poland's Jarosław Kaczyński and Turkey's Recep Erdoğan were once again recalled this week as three of the major threats to the continuity of the EU. The report now published by the European Commission about the rule of law in member countries highlights the first two. The crisis in Libya brings the third back into the picture. All of them are part of the daily concerns of those who want to build a cohesive Europe based on the values of democracy, tolerance, and cooperation.

The report confirms what was already known about the Hungarian Prime Minister. Orbán manipulates public opinion in his country, abuses power to reduce his opponents' scope for action as much as possible, and attacks the freedom of the press, the activities of civil society and academic autonomy. The suspicions of corruption in the awarding of public contracts to companies linked to his and the ruling party are based on very strong evidence. To further spice up an undemocratic and very opaque mess, accusations have now been made public of the secret services' use of the Pegasus computer application to spy on journalists and others who oppose their misrule. It's all that and not just the new law on homosexuality. But the man is cunning. He is reducing the conflict with Brussels to a dimension that is not even at stake - the protection of children and adolescents. And then he announces that there will be a national referendum on that issue, certainly skewed in his own way.

The fight against corruption and for justice to work well, especially its independence, are two fundamental aspects of the European project. It was the issue of justice that caused Poland to appear in large letters in the above-mentioned report. The party now in government, improperly called Law and Justice (PiS), led by the ultra-conservative Kaczyński, has done everything it can to subjugate the judiciary to political power and to ignore Brussels whenever it smells criticism. Thus, the chief justice, appointed by the hand of the PiS, does not want to recognise the primacy and authority of the Court of Justice of the European Union. The European Commission has given him until mid-August to apply two decisions of the European court, which reveals the existence of an open conflict between Brussels and Warsaw.

The policies pursued by the governments of these two countries affect the integrity of the Union and open the door for others to adopt similar behaviour. The fact that the presidency in this second semester is held by the Slovenian prime minister - a confused politician who sometimes looks at Orbán with some admiration - does not help matters.

Outside the EU's borders, Erdoğan remains a nightmare. To the conflicts related to Greece and Cyprus, add the growing Turkish presence in Libya. This country has enormous strategic importance as a departure point for illegal immigrants heading for Europe. Erdoğan already commands the gateways in the Eastern Mediterranean. His influence in Libya will allow him to control the flows on the central route. As a reaction, the EU is preparing the deployment of a military mission to Libya. The main motivation is to compete with Turkey on the ground. This is a mistake. Libya is an extremely complicated chess, where several countries are playing, including Russia. There is no clear political process, apart from a vague promise of elections at the end of the year. A military mission like the one being planned has a high probability of failure and endless bogging down in the dry quicksand of a fragmented country. The EU cannot lightly approve such an intervention. Meanwhile, Turkish freighters continue to pass in front of the beards of the European naval and air operation IRINI, which is supposed to serve to control the arms embargo on Libyan belligerents.

Orbán and the others are a real danger. But the title of this chronicle is obviously provocative. Collapse is not on the horizon. However, it serves to underline that in these matters of values and external relations, the EU must take unequivocal positions of principle. It is a matter of getting respect. Respect is an essential condition to build a successful future.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published yesterday in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper)

 

 

 

Europe must keep engaged with China

Europe, China, and the US: a turbulent triangle

Victor Ângelo

 

European policy towards China requires a smart balance between respect for democratic values and economic interests. It is a complex issue that touches the daily lives of European citizens. You only have to look at the map of rail connections - 5,000 freight train journeys are expected in 2021 - or at the sea charts showing the routes of cargo ships to understand the interdependence between Europe and China. We need to import what we do not produce - or have stopped producing. The Chinese need our markets to ensure important levels of economic growth, one of the pillars of internal stability and regime continuity.

This interdependence has increased spectacularly since Xi Jinping came to power in 2013. It is part of his strategy. And the trend is for it to accentuate in the coming years. In addition to mutual investments and the increasing purchase by Westerners of Chinese stocks and treasury bonds, note that the economic corridor is more and more diverse. Some lines pass through Russian Siberia, others through Kazakhstan. Later, there will be a land link via Iran and Turkey, not forgetting the sea routes, which rely mainly on the ports of France, Italy and the Netherlands. The smooth functioning of this vast transit area requires a permanent political dialogue between the countries, which will have to be based on an understanding of mutual interests and perceptive pragmatism. To facilitate this dialogue and open a wider door, Europe should take the initiative to propose the creation of a consultative platform for the Eurasian corridor. Any disruption of traffic, for political or security reasons, would have a dramatic impact on the economy and people's lives, particularly in the European area. This tangle of relationships stems from the process of globalisation that began more than two decades ago. Anyone who thinks that the way in which the international economy is now organised can be significantly reversed is dreaming politics without having their feet firmly planted in reality.

The disruptions currently occurring here in Europe in the supply chains for raw materials or finished products produced in China and the escalating cost of transporting a container from a Chinese port to a European one already give us a bitter taste of what could happen if there were a serious disruption due to disagreement between the parties or the imposition of ill-considered sanctions. For example, before the pandemic, transporting a 40-foot container by sea from Shanghai to Europe could cost between $2,000 and $4,000. Now it has reached $17,000 and the waiting time can be up to several months. And this is despite the fact that Chinese container production accounts for more than 85% of the world's total. These problems may be temporary, the result of an acceleration of economic recovery in the more developed parts of the world and the pressure they put on shipping. Any European importer who needs made-in-China goods or components to maintain their manufacturing activities will be well able to explain the importance of a trade relationship without unnecessary hindrance. The more informed will also stress the need to avoid a further escalation of tensions in Taiwan and the South China Sea. This also applies to the Chinese side, which should not continue to pursue an escalation of offensive actions in these sensitive areas.

In a deeply interconnected world, one cannot think geopolitically and make strategic decisions following past models or seeing the world as a black and white scenario. The Americans have chosen a path of confrontation. On this side of the Atlantic, that option appears to be a dangerous choice and contrary to our interests. This is why Europe cannot and must not copy Washington.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published yesterday in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper)

 

 

Looking at Afghanistan's future with great sadness

Afghanistan: So many sacrifices, for what?

Victor Ângelo

 

Coming in like a lion, and then, exiting like a baboon. Perhaps this popular expression does not fully apply to the withdrawal of the American troops and their NATO allies from Afghanistan. It is, no doubt, an inglorious exit after almost twenty years of enormous human and financial efforts. The way in which they abandoned their main military base in Bagram, about an hour north of Kabul - in the dead of night, leaving behind an indefensible and unmanageable situation, namely a prison with more than five thousand prisoners linked to terrorism - has a dramatic symbolic value. It signifies impasse, retreat, and abandonment of the Afghan government and people to their fate. In a word, defeat. With Taliban fanatics gaining ground across the country, the withdrawal will allow them to reach Kabul before the rigours of winter. This is the ideal time of year for military campaigns in Afghanistan and the way is open for the assault on power.

There are many possible reflections on all this. At this moment it is especially important to understand the reasons for the American pull-out. Afghanistan has lost the strategic interest it held for years, when the fight against Islamist terrorism was considered a priority in Washington. The United States now thinks it is sufficiently protected against such threats. This is where they have a huge difference with their European allies. The Europeans continue to see terrorism as a major danger and view the Taliban offensive with great apprehension. But the Europeans in NATO had no choice but to uncritically align themselves with the American position.

For Washington, Afghanistan has come to be seen as an endless war and as a distraction from the new and now far more important focus: China. And it sees the rivalry between the two superpowers as resolved in the region where Afghanistan is located. This is why it does not want to waste any more time and resources in this geopolitical space where China already has the subordination of the two countries that matter most: Pakistan and Iran. The China-Pakistan economic corridor, which ends at the Pakistani port of Gwadar, on the Arabian Sea, is perhaps the most relevant project of the New Silk Road. In Beijing's eyes, it is guaranteed. On the other hand, Iran signed a long-term economic agreement with China in March 2021. Chinese investments are expected to reach $400 billion in the coming years. It is Iran's passage into China's orbit. In the middle will remain the Afghanistan of chaos and radicalism, but without the capacity to harm Chinese interests in the region. The Taliban are dependent on these two neighbours, especially Pakistan, and should not act against their interests.

But beyond the strategic games, there are the people, victims of a cruel conflict, poor but resilient and dignified. They are deeply concerned, as are many of us here in Europe. First, because a regime based on a primitive vision of life in society has no regard for human rights. It treats all people, starting with women and girls, in an incredibly oppressive and inhuman way. We cannot remain indifferent to the extreme suffering that is looming for millions of Afghan citizens. Second, because potential terrorists in Europe will find in the resurgence of Taliban tyranny a new balloon of oxygen. Third, because radical killers operating in the Sahel and elsewhere in Africa, in countries that are part of our historic alliances, will be able to gain new opportunities for support.

One lesson that will be drawn from all this is that you cannot count on support from Westerners. That support comes and then disappears, in the dark of night, according to convenience, the direction of the political wind and the priorities of those who live far from the problems.

To think that these are some of the outcomes of the long and painful Western intervention in Afghanistan can only leave us desolate. Above all, we are left with a bitter feeling of failure and impotence. Of a Europe that is submissive in foreign and security policy, in a world where it weighs little and counts for less.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published yesterday in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper)

 

 

Our strategic fragility: a key example

Taiwan so close

Victor Ângelo 

Taiwan is part of our everyday life. This is because the company that produces almost all of the chips used in electronics, mobile phones, robots and cars is Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC). An omnipresent but discreet colossus, worth twice the GDP of Portugal on the stock exchange. And it is pertinent to write about it this week, when there is so much talk about China.

Since TSMC produces over 90% of the latest generation of microprocessors and is located in Taiwan, it is at the centre of the Sino-American rivalry. This is a major critical point. If there were a conflict over Taiwan tomorrow, the worldwide availability of chips would plummet. This would mean the immediate paralysis of motor vehicle factories, computers, mobile phones, highly sophisticated financial operations, and everything related to the use of micro and nano transistors. In other words, it would be economic and social chaos.

Analysts looking at these things say that TSMC is the invisible shield protecting Taiwan. It may be, to some extent. And TSMC is betting on it: it plans to invest, over the next three years, $100 billion in expanding its scientific and technological capacity. More chips, infinitely tiny and of an extraordinarily more powerful artificial intelligence. The figures give an idea of what is at stake. They also show that national defence policy involves the development of an ultra-modern economy that creates strategic dependencies in other parts of the world. 

It is therefore neither in the interest of Beijing nor of others to destabilise Taiwan. At least not for the next seven to ten years. But this absolute dependence on a single company is also the greatest exponent of the fragility of the major global balances. It is the result of decades of ultraliberalism and the relocation of production, all of which is out of step with what should be geostrategic concerns. The prevailing philosophy led us to believe that commercial interdependence would erase the rivalries between the great blocs of nations. We now know that this is an illusion. The biggest wars of the last 100 years were started by self-centred madmen who did not take into account the economic - nor the human - impact of their decisions. I do not think Xi Jinping falls into that category, despite the words and tone he used yesterday about Taiwan at the Chinese Communist Party's centenary celebration. But it is also true that it would only take a highly sophisticated hacker attack against one section of TSMC to bring thousands of production chains that are dependent on the availability of chips to a halt.

Joe Biden understands that the United States cannot, in this vital area, remain totally dependent on Taiwan and on one company alone. The industrial plan he has just proposed envisages an investment of $50 billion to stimulate domestic chip production. To that will be added many billions from the private sector. The truth is that much of the scientific design work in this field is done by world-renowned American companies - for example, Intel Corp, Nvidia Corp, Qualcomm or Cisco Systems Inc. But separating design from production has led to extreme vulnerability. It is a bit like designing highly effective weapons and asking others to manufacture them and then supply us.

The European Union must follow a similar path. One of the starting points should be to build on what ASML Holding NV already represents. This Dutch company is dominant in the production of the machinery needed to manufacture semiconductors. The ambition is to produce in Europe as early as 2030, in addition to the machines, at least 20% of the new generation of semiconductors. This is a modest target, but it will still require huge investments in Europe's digital industries. The amount currently foreseen - around €150 billion - is insufficient when compared to what TSMC and South Korea's Samsung - the second largest chip producer - have in the pipeline. However, European sovereignty, including its defence, requires a decisive presence in the industries linked to digitalisation. 

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published yesterday in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper)