Diplomacy and manifestations of force

A diplomacy with strength

Victor Angelo

 

When the United Nations was created in 1945, its founders had in mind the establishment of a supranational organization capable of resolving future conflicts in a peaceful manner, in particular those that might occur between the great powers. We were at the end of the Second World War, which had brought incredible levels of suffering and destruction. The main concern was to avoid new military confrontations. So, they established a structure that gave the primacy to diplomatic negotiations and that should prevent situations like the one that now exists around Ukraine from sliding into a new war. More than seven decades later, the founding fathers, if they were still among us, would be deeply shocked to see that the UN is completely marginalised here in this part of Europe in the crisis between Russia and the West. As it is in other geographies, where the superpowers intervene directly in the struggle for what they consider to be their vital interests.

The focus on diplomacy, regarding Ukraine and the broader issue of European security, is now taking place in other forums - in the EU, in NATO, in the OSCE in Vienna. And, above all, in bilateral discussions between the Americans and the Russians, leaving the Europeans in a secondary position, even though they are the ones who will have to pay the most important part of the bill, the cost of the decisions that will be taken. The extent of the bill remains to be defined, in economic, financial, or even military terms.

So, it is not only the UN that is left out, but also the Europeans themselves, however much they deny it. It is enough to see that there is no enthusiasm in the Kremlin to discuss a new defence architecture in Europe with the German, French or other leaders. Whether one wants to see it or not, the truth is that the Russians only believe in possible understandings with the Americans. As far as the EU is concerned, Russia is only interested in the most technologically and economically advanced member states, one by one, and only for business reasons. Only on Wednesday, Putin held a videoconference with the heads of the major Italian multinationals (Enel, UniCredit Bank, and the Generali insurance company, among others), while at the same time ignoring the proposals for détente sent to him by Macron and reinforcing the presence of his armed forces in Belarus, a stone's throw from Kiev.

It has once again become clear that we are still part of an international framework in which armed force, or at least those who have it, make the law. This has a very negative impact on the political role of the UN. It also represents a fundamental challenge for the EU, which does not have the military and foreign policy capabilities that would be required to assert its strategic views and interests. The current crisis must be turned into an opportunity to strengthen those capabilities. It is necessary to reduce Europe's double dependence - military and political - on the US just as it is essential to reduce the energy dependence of certain EU member states on Russia.

Returning to diplomacy, I recall that Louis XIV had the Latin locution "ultima ratio regum" engraved on his cannons, to remind us that heavy weaponry was "the ultimate argument of kings". In other words, for diplomacy to be effective when peace is desired, warlike preparation cannot be neglected. However, today's wars are no longer waged using only cannons: economic and financial measures, political restrictions, cybernetics, information and counterinformation are now also part of the arsenal. This is what is known as an integrated response to external aggression.  Such a response is particularly necessary when on the other side we have an autocratic regime, led by an individual who presents himself as the ultra-nationalist protector of his people and national culture, who calls opponents traitors and who does not hesitate to use armed violence, internally and externally, to achieve his personal power objectives.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 28 January 2022)

 

 

Davos and the current crisis in Ukraine

From Davos to Geneva: from the future to the urgency of the present

Victor Angelo

 

Davos 2022 ends today. The meeting took place in a virtual way, because of the pandemic. We did not witness, as had become customary, the shuttle of a large number of private planes, with the powerful of this world converging on the famous Swiss Alpine station. And emitting vast amounts of carbon dioxide.

Until 2020, being seen at Davos confirmed you were part of the global elite, whether political, economic, academic, or journalistic. Last year, Covid-19 prevented that great manifestation of power from taking place. Now we have a meeting that has gone virtually unnoticed. But it wasn't just the pandemic that took the spotlight off it. The geopolitical situation in Europe concentrated the biggest concerns during the week. The issues under discussion in Davos - the pandemic and unequal access to vaccines; the energy transition; the technological and numerical revolution, to name just the most important - were completely overshadowed by Vladimir Putin's moves on European security.

But let's talk a little about Davos 2022. The old fox that is the founder and boss of the Davos World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab, invited Xi Jinping to deliver the opening speech. This gesture was duly appreciated by the Chinese power establishment.  Schwab, who is always ready to tie a knot, thus strengthened relations between his organisation and Beijing. And at the same time, he sent a strong message of recognition of China as a major player on the global stage.

In order not to put all his eggs in one basket, he also asked the Indian prime minister to speak on the first day of the forum. The contrast between Xi Jinping and Narendra Modi was striking.

The Chinese leader sought to underline his country's commitment as a major contributor to international stability, against the use of force and for the strengthening of multilateralism, cooperation and world peace. He defended globalisation. He even said that China is a haven for international capitalism. He also took the opportunity to attack the United States, which he accused of being a source of global tension, a country that closes in on itself and creates obstacles to the economic recovery of the poorest countries. 

Modi, on the other hand, spoke above all to his fellow citizens. He praised the successes that India has known in recent times, including in the fight against the pandemic, in the production of vaccines and in technological and digital areas.

China's ambition is to play a prominent role on the international stage. India remains very much focused on its internal problems. Modi wants to transform the country into a modern and technologically advanced economy.

António Guterres closed the list of first speakers. He was a kind of spokesman for the less developed countries. This is the only ground he has left on which to play with a degree of security. In his speech, he underlined the difficulties that these countries have encountered in fighting the pandemic. He advocated urgent reform of the global financial system to make it more accessible to countries with few resources, and emphasised climate issues.

While all this was going on, Europe and the United States were wondering about Mr Putin's intentions regarding Ukraine and NATO. These are particularly urgent, and high-risk issues. Davos has, whether you like it or not, the merit of coldly raising big questions about the future. But right now, the reality in our part of the globe is far hotter and more immediate. Putin continues to move troops into areas close to Ukraine and threaten European stability. The outcome of today's meeting in Geneva between Antony Blinken and Sergey Lavrov is uncertain. I do not think they can open a process of dialogue. The Russian side seems to want to show that it is not closing the diplomatic door, when in fact it is relying on intimidation and duplicity. Here, it is essential to bear in mind the lesson learned in 1938 at the Munich conference: appeasement without mutual concessions only serves to whet the appetites of aggressors of all kinds.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 21 January 2022)

 

What kind of democratic government do we need?

Big problems call for big solutions

Victor Angelo

 

Angela Merkel came to power in 2005 because the Social Democratic Party (SPD) refused to enter into an alliance with the extreme left, which had its ideological roots in the defunct German Democratic Republic. If it had done so, the SPD would have taken the leadership of the new government and Merkel's fate would have taken a back seat. The SPD, which belongs to the same political family as António Costa's party, had obtained 34% of the vote in the September legislative elections, one percentage point less than the CDU/CSU grouping, which had Merkel as its candidate. After three weeks of negotiations, the Centre-right and the Socialists reached a governing agreement. The German parliament then approved the coalition of the two. They represented around 70 per cent of the electorate.

Merkel, at the head of the most voted, took over as head of government. She ended up leading Germany for 16 years, always in coalition. During her last mandate, she had the leader of the Socialists, Olaf Scholz, as vice-chancellor. On 8 December, Scholz became the new chancellor following elections last September. He too governs at the head of a coalition, which brings together the Greens, who are on the left of the political spectrum, and the Liberals (FDP), on the right. The common programme was negotiated over two months, measure by measure, always with the aim of reaching a compromise. During the process it became clear that one can negotiate with everyone except the extremists, the xenophobes and the enemies of freedom.

The German political culture is based on the search for platforms of understanding and the stability of the system. It has been this way since 1949, when Konrad Adenauer headed the first post-war democratic government based on an agreement between three parties in what was then the western part of Germany. In short, it is about maintaining a predictable, balanced course that is representative of as many voters as possible. A large part of the economic growth, modernisation and social welfare that defines Germany today is based on the stability and moderation of those in power.

Annalena Baerbock, leader of the Greens and now foreign minister, said that the new government "reflects the diversity" that exists in the country. This might seem an exaggeration. But the truth is that at the leadership level there is a will to include and to seek a balance between the interests of the different segments of society. There is no notion of a "main enemy", as there is in other political horizons. Whoever thinks of party action in terms of an "enemy" lives, perhaps without realising it, in a totalitarian ideological framework, in which political struggle is seen as an antechamber to the crushing of opponents or as a kind of civil war without shots being fired. There are no enemies in a democracy among all those who respect the constitution and understand that the prosperity of each citizen is fundamental to the progress and security of all.

The German example is not unique in the EU. Next door in the Netherlands, multi-faceted government coalitions have also been the norm. As in Belgium, Italy, Ireland, Finland, Luxembourg and so on. Not to mention the curious case of Denmark, which has a government composed exclusively of social democrats (socialists) but enjoys stable parliamentary support from three left-wing parties.

Advanced democracies are based on the search for broad consensus. Half plus one may be enough to have a majority in parliament and set the governing machine in motion. It is, however, a minimalist and only formal conception of democracy. The digital revolution, global competition, the enormous energy, security and social challenges, all this and much more can only be dealt with in the necessary depth if there is a broad common will to reform, modernise, simplify and protect. We have very complex issues ahead of us.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 14 January 2022)

 

 

 

International dialogues at the beginning of the New Year

From nuclear power to Europe's affirmation and credibility

Victor Angelo

 

The joint statement on nuclear war prevention issued this week by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council is a good start to the new year. It is the first time that China, the United States, France, the United Kingdom and Russia have pledged to avoid a nuclear conflict between them, unambiguously acknowledging that such a confrontation has no winners and therefore should not occur. They also affirm that their nuclear weapons are for deterrence only and that they will continue to negotiate to end competition between them with regard to such weapons. And they set nuclear disarmament as a long-term goal.

At a time when there are very serious rivalries between some of these countries, what value can be given to such a declaration? It is easy to answer with scepticism, given the current international situation, which includes very serious tensions around, among other cases, Ukraine and Taiwan. And which registers an enormous increase in military spending and innovation by the big three: China, the United States and Russia. Furthermore, on a global level, it is experiencing a period of unprecedented uncertainty for the current generations, with risks and dangers that could profoundly destabilise the fragile world political and economic order.

It is better, however, at this start of the year, to take an optimistic view and underline the positive side of the declaration. The agreement on nuclear danger could mean that there is understanding and realism at the level of the leaders of the great powers that continuing on the path of confrontation will bring enormous costs for all. In reality, an armed conflict between some of these countries would be a catastrophe of unimaginable proportions, given the existing capacity for destruction. There are no small, controlled wars between colossuses. If a first shot were to be fired, it would always be a major war.

In a scenario of complex crises such as the present, 2022 must be a year of dialogue and reinforced international cooperation, in the most promising areas. This is what is required of those who call the shots in this world.

The negotiations that will begin next week in Geneva and Brussels between Russia, the USA and NATO do not offer much hope at the outset. Yet they are important. Several decades of work on the international scene have taught me that most negotiations start with very low expectations. Over time, they can turn into positive exercises. To get results, you have to be patient and persevering. And keep the contact at the highest level and focus on what is essential.

The European institutions complain about not being included in the talks with Russia. Especially since the discussion will be about security and stability in Europe. Also, because many in the EU consider normalising the relationship with Russia as a mutually advantageous priority.

I think it is a mistake that President Biden has not insisted on European participation. He knows that weakening the EU is one of the Russian leader's strategic machinations. Putin wants a Europe that is as fragmented as possible. He has now scored an important point.

It is not enough to say that 21 out of 27 EU members are also members of NATO and that Europe is therefore well represented. There can be no illusions here: it is the USA and a few Eastern European states that define Russian NATO policy. Nor is it an argument that the EU has no common position on Russia. The preparation of such negotiations would be a catalyst moment to advance the definition of the European position.

It is still possible to make amends. NATO's foreign ministers are meeting today by video conference to discuss the dossier. It would be appropriate for several of them to raise the issue of EU involvement. And that they continue to do so in the days to come. The affirmation and credibility of the European project would thus be strengthened.

 

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 7 January 2022)

France matters

Emmanuel Macron's New Year

Victor Angelo

With this first day of the new year, the six-month French presidency of the European Union begins. Is it the time to make vows of renewal or to expect more of the same? For Emmanuel Macron, this should be an exceptional period, in many ways. In the coming months, two of his great ambitions will be at stake: being re-elected president of the French Republic and shaping the future of the European Union. For the moment, neither is guaranteed.

The easiest to achieve will perhaps be his re-election. There may be eight candidates in the presidential race, but what counts is the passage to the second round, and then, the decisive voters’ decision. In recent years, it was taken for granted that the final would be between Macron and Marine Le Pen, a kind of repeat of what happened five years ago. And that the French would once again say no to the far-right candidate. That would make Macron's victory almost certain.

But politics, in a society as socially fragmented as France's, has its surprises. In recent months, Éric Zemmour, a television commentator with xenophobic and radical nationalist views, and who has made the fight against Muslim immigration and influence his main hobbyhorse, has upset the game. His entry into the field has reduced Marine Le Pen's chances. And although the radical right as a whole represents around 30% of the national political opinion, the current prediction is that neither Le Pen nor Zemmour will be able to make it to the second round of the presidential race. They will neutralise each other.

If it happens, that will be good news for France, but sad news for Macron. Even worse for him, however, is the emergence of Valérie Pécresse as a centre-right candidate, by choice of the Les Républicains party, a grouping of conservatives of various shades that has its roots in the Gaullism of old. Pécresse, a former minister under Nicolas Sarkozy and currently president of the region that encompasses Paris, attracts the same kind of electorate as Macron. She is a woman who has a modern, elegant, and calm image that goes over relatively well on television.

As the left does not carry any weight in France today - the socialist candidate, Anne Hidalgo, is credited by the most recent polls with only 2%-3% of voting intentions - the big contest will occur in the centre as well as in winning, in the second round, a share of voters from the ultra-right.

It is in such a context that Macron will start leading the EU. The central theme he proposes for the period of the French presidency is the strengthening of European sovereignty. In his view, this objective should be based, as a priority, on stricter border controls in the Schengen area. By emphasising this issue, he aims to kill two birds with one stone: he addresses the concerns of leaders like Viktor Orbán - with whom he recently held talks in Budapest; and he captures votes on the right, and even the extreme right, as far as the electorate in his country is concerned. These voters are against anything that might appear to be easy on migration issues.

The second dimension, he tells us, would be based on what he calls "a Europe of defence", something pointed out as the other fundamental pillar of European sovereignty. A subject often mentioned by the French president, but which remains a vague issue that divides member states. It is also based on an outdated notion of international power projection, essentially based on military force. In the European case, what may effectively counts is the vitality and modernity of its economy and the quality of its democracy, combined with a diplomacy of peace, cooperation and conflict mediation. In saying this I do not wish to belittle the function of the European armed forces. But above all they must try to refocus their strategic and operational role within NATO. It is above all there that the defence of Europe begins, consolidating, within the organisation, a wider area of decision-making autonomy for European member states.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 31 December 2021)