Emmanuel Macron and Mario Draghi: two Europeans

Italy, France, the neighbours, and all of us

Victor Angelo

 

Mario Draghi and Emmanuel Macron represent two different generations of Europeans. The former belongs to the one that became adult and free around the time of May 68 and whose parents had suffered the horrors of the Second Great War. For an Italian of that time, the values of peace, freedom, prosperity, and cooperation between nations are the foundations of a common Europe. Macron is one of the younger leaders, those who lived through their formative years after the fall of the Berlin Wall and at a time when globalisation was in full swing. His generation sees the deepening of the Union as indispensable if it is to face up to competition between the major powers and maintain a relative degree of strategic independence.

Today they are signing a new treaty of friendship between their countries - a treaty of enhanced cooperation, as they call it. The aim, they tell us, is to promote better coordination on policy, security and defence, migration, and other areas. Beyond the bilateral dimension, the intention is to support each other in the European arena. They come from different generations, but they both believe in the future of the European project. For them, homeland and Europe are mutually enforcing concepts.

I believe it is essential that both countries play a central role in strengthening European unity. And let them be joined by Germany, now under the leadership of the new chancellor, Olaf Sholz. This will give us a balanced core, supported by pragmatic moderates and social democratic forces, to which other leaders can be added. The future of European politics must be based on a vision that combines the economic transformation demanded by the climate challenges and the digital age with humanism and respect for the values enshrined in the Lisbon Treaty.

And what about defence, could Josep Borrell ask, the high representative who recently presented the first version of a European defence and security plan? Baptised as Strategic Compass, and now under consideration in the European capitals, could this plan benefit from the treaty signed today in Rome?

In principle, yes. But these common defence things are complicated. Let's take a current example. On the same day that Draghi and Macron embrace, Italian government ministers continue to oppose the sale to a Franco-German consortium of an Italian company that produces cannons for ships, tank parts and torpedoes. The amount the consortium is willing to pay is generously high. But Italian nationalism on defence industries and jobs speaks with a loud voice. And the deal is on hold.

This is just one example of the difficulties that the Strategic Compass will encounter. And which it needs to take into account, explicitly.

Nationalisms aside, the truth is that the people of Europe do not have an integrated vision of the external threats that may jeopardise Europe's peace, well-being, and unity. And Borrell's plan does not help.

Firstly, because it assumes that the danger comes only from outside, when in fact some of the major threats to the stability and security of the EU are internal. They stem from existing social fractures in some of the countries of the Union and their accelerated worsening. They also stem from autocratic tendencies in some Member States, ultra-nationalist populism and the poor functioning of the institutions that should underpin democracy at national level.

Secondly, because Borrell starts from the ambiguous concept that Europe is in "strategic contraction", something that would result from the progressive decrease in our economic and demographic weight compared to the rest of the world. If this argument were valid, Russia, which has a third of the population and a tenth of Europe's GDP, would not have any strategic influence. International projection is not necessarily based on economic or demographic gigantism. Take the example of Norway.

We will return to the Strategic Compass on another occasion. For now, and because of what is happening today in Rome, the important thing is to stress that strengthened cooperation between neighbours is one of the most direct ways to consolidate the EU.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 26 November 2021)

 

 

 

 

 

The EU and its neighbours, starting with Belarus

A Europe beyond barbed wire

Victor Angelo

 

The confrontation taking place on the border between Belarus and Poland is worrying, but it cannot be analysed in black and white. It is a complex crisis that raises a whole series of questions. We are facing humanitarian, migratory, security, geopolitical and ethical problems, in other words, a constellation of challenges that need to be debated calmly, frankly, and thoroughly.

In the background, we have two major problems. The first is about democracy. The second focuses on extreme poverty in a world that is profoundly unequal, and that conflicts, pandemics and climate change are making even more uneven and fractured.

But first, you have to think about the people who are now trapped in the no-man's-land between the Polish barbed wire and the truncheons of the Belarusian special units. It is not known how many thousands there are - estimates are not reliable. It is known, however, that they include fragile people, many of them children, who are hungry and cold and suffer constant humiliation and violence. They are also permanent targets for false news that Belarusian agents constantly circulate in order to keep the migrants' illusions alive.

Alexander Lukashenko, the master of Belarus, is clearly taking advantage of the misery of certain peoples. But our side cannot remain indifferent to the suffering of those who have allowed themselves to be manipulated, people who live in such complicated contexts that any promise, however unrealistic it may be, always brings a thread of hope. And that throws masses of people into the minefields of illegal migration.

The border with Belarus separates the European area from an autocratic regime, in which anything that can keep the dictator in power is done. Lukashenko is our most immediate concern today, but he is not the only case in the neighbourhood. If we look around and focus on who represents the closest potential or real threat, we have a bouquet that also includes the leaders of Russia and Turkey. I do not want to add some Moroccan politicians to this list, but I would recommend not losing sight of this North African neighbour of ours, who has already shown that he knows how to use mass migration as a political weapon.

It is true that there are also those within the EU who are destabilising European integration. But that is a matter for another reflection.

Let us now talk about democracy. The EU needs to formulate a doctrine that defines how it should relate to non-democratic neighbours, especially when situations of open hostility arise, as is now the case. In the current framework, one gets the feeling that democracies tend to lose out to outlaw states. It is therefore necessary to clearly establish what the appropriate response should be to aggressions of a hybrid nature, carried out at the tangent of the red line of armed conflicts between States, without, however, crossing it. A first step should be a firm and unequivocal response. This includes the adoption of sanctions in a swifter, multi-faceted and more character-focused manner. Another means will be to make greater use of the multilateral system. This will allow actions like the one Lukashenko ordered at the expense of the despair of the Iraqi Kurds, the Syrians and other peoples of the Middle East to be included on the international agenda,

As for the disparities that exist between a rich Europe and a whole series of poor countries, the pull effect is inevitable. Mass migration from South to North will be one of the most striking phenomena of this and the following decades. The EU cannot pretend it does not see the trend. It is unacceptable to leave a matter of such importance to the discretion of individual member states. The issue must be dealt with jointly. And the subject must become one of the main lines of debate at the Conference on the Future of Europe. It is also time to tell the citizens that this conference is taking place and get them involved.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 19 November 2021)

A brief personal note on peacekeeping

Peacekeeping missions and diamonds

Victor Ângelo

 

This week, for not very noble reasons, the United Nations peace operations were in the Portuguese media spotlight

A peace mission, approved by the Security Council and accepted by the host country, has a complex configuration. Each mission - there are currently 12 - includes several components, although the best known is the military one. The other dimensions cover the areas of police, political process and national reconciliation, human rights, support to local administration, elections, and justice. They are usually huge operations, headed by a Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General (SRSG), appointed with the approval of the Security Council and at the equivalent rank of Under-Secretary-General.  Today, the largest is based in the Democratic Republic of Congo, with more than 17,000 personnel and an annual budget of more than US$1.1 billion.

The military part is one of the most sensitive, both because of the high number of troops deployed on the ground and because the protection of civilian populations is one of the priorities. I have always defended that the re-establishment of internal security should be one of the first objectives to be achieved, in order to show, without delay, tangible results and facilitate the acceptance of the external presence.

The blue helmets come from the most diverse cultures. Unlike civilian cadres, the military remain in the field for short periods - as a rule, the rotations last for six months. This circumstance and the type of duties they perform do not allow them to gain a sufficient insight into the social and cultural conditions of the people who receive them. That is why I have always determined that the interaction between the military and the population should only be made by elements that are expressly designated and prepared to liaise with the local communities. The rest of the contingent was not allowed to establish any type of individual contact with the population. This was intended to avoid situations of misunderstanding, abuse, and exploitation of poverty. On the other hand, civilian elements of the mission, working at the local level, were also responsible for permanently observing our interaction with the residents in every corner of the country. The good image of the mission was a precious asset that had to be protected at all times.

As SRSG, I oversaw two peacekeeping missions in countries rich in diamonds, misery and violence.

One of those missions was in Sierra Leone. In certain districts, the main activity was artisanal diamond mining. It was a subsistence economy, with thousands of young men digging holes in the bush or sifting river sands, most of the time without result. Around them circled swarms of middlemen, who bought the stones, if any. They then took care of transporting them to Freetown, where specialised traders, mostly Lebanese, obtained the official documentation that allowed them to be exported legally, in accordance with the Kimberley process.

This process, which was launched by the United Nations in 2003 precisely because of the blood diamonds from Sierra Leone, certifies the origin and the path of each stone. It stops the dubious origins, many of them linked to the violence of armed groups. Almost all diamonds on the market today are Kimberley certified. In the European Union, for example, it is practically impossible to introduce a diamond that does not have this type of guarantee. The same happens in the main world markets.

Later I led a mission in the Central African Republic, which included patrolling the border with Sudan. In that region, there were as many shops purchasing precious stones and gold as there were grocery shops. I deployed special forces from Togo in the region. Their behaviour was exemplary. In preparation for their deployment, it was explained to them that the image of their country was at stake. They understood that. A little pebble can have an enormous political impact.

China and the COP process

More solar panels and fewer nuclear warheads

Victor Angelo

 

It is true that the Chinese president did not come to the COP26 summit. But it is also a fact that Xi Jinping has not travelled out of the country since January 2020, because of an extraordinarily stiff official interpretation of what the fight against the coronavirus pandemic should be.

The American president took advantage of his counterpart's absence to criticise him openly. I think this was a mistake. Joe Biden should seek to build bridges with China rather than new fronts of conflict. There are already enough points of friction between the two countries. It is not wise to add this one.

The global fight against climate change needs everyone's cooperation. Including China, which emits about a quarter of the world's total carbon dioxide, although in per capita terms the impact of each Chinese person is half that of the average American. This reminds us, moreover, that the wealthiest are those who contribute most to global warming and that a large part of the response must be based on this observation.

It should also be added that President Xi did not ignore the summit. He sent a written communication, which I felt was relevant in several respects.

First, because he stressed the need to respect the commitments already made, both in the UN Climate Change Framework Convention and in the 2015 Paris Agreement. His statement was a clear call for the strengthening of multilateral responses through the United Nations system. It was also a call for the deepening of mutual trust between states, which is so sorely needed. This is a key issue that the UN Secretary-General could explore in order to make his role more central and more action oriented. 

Second, because President Xi mentioned the need for an extra effort by all, in particular the most developed countries. Here he referred to the aid that has been promised and should be given to the poorest countries to mitigate the catastrophic effects of climate change and significantly increase their peoples' access to renewable sources of energy.

Third, because he said clearly that the community of nations must accelerate the green transition. In his view, this means increasing investment in science and technology in order to achieve industrial transformation and the types of energy and consumption that are best suited to safeguarding the environment, without jeopardizing economic development. There is a half-truth here, based on the theory that scientific progress is the best response to environmental challenges. This position does not take into account that economic growth policies must change and that the behaviour of people in the richest countries, including China, cannot be based solely on the continued increase in consumption and material well-being.

In the final part of his communication, Xi Jinping referred to a number of measures that his government is already conducting or will adopt in order to reduce the carbon footprint. He did not say this now, but he had already informed the UN General Assembly that the official Chinese ambition is to reach carbon neutrality by 2060. To this, one could reply that China has the means to achieve this neutrality much sooner. And it should do so, taking advantage of the moment to show that China can also play a leading role in this area. The country has the necessary knowledge and means. It would be a matter of investing less in the war industries and more in energy transformation. A nation that plans to have a nuclear arsenal of at least a thousand nuclear warheads in 2030 - five times more than in 2020 - and a whole arsenal of hypersonic weapons, bombers, aircraft carriers and submarines with nuclear capability, has all the conditions to also be an example in terms of managing carbon emissions. It is time to show that the defence of the planet and peace are two interconnected issues. Global leadership should focus on this.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 5 November 2021)