Joe Biden and his Middle East mistake

Joe Biden, the Middle East and consistency in politics

Victor Angelo

 

After two days spent in Israel and Palestine, the American President is today in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.  Even having read what Joe Biden wrote in the Washington Post on July 9, to try to justify his voyage, I am one of those who do not agree with the political opportunity of this trip. I see it as a move of mere opportunism.

In the present context of confrontation with Russia, the trip weakens those who use the arguments of respect for international law, democracy and human rights. The Middle East is a maze of problems with no solution in sight. A geopolitical labyrinth where, among others, the United States is also lost. In the region, in addition to the suffering in the countries visited and in occupied Palestine, we still have the inhuman violence of the Syrian regime, with a fratricidal war that has dragged on since 2011, the barbarity of the conflict in Yemen, the chaos in Lebanon, the Iranian threat, the oppression of the Kurdish populations, fundamentalist extremism and the deadly rivalries between Sunnis and Shiites. It is a question of dealing with a powder keg that explodes according to the interests of the different local or international players.

A visit that does not bring any kind of response to the Palestinian question, to the obscurantism and cruelty of the Saudi regime, or to the containment of the Iranian threat, can only be noted in the negative. Biden was in Israel with the November mid-term elections in his country in mind and to please a part of his domestic voter base. And he is in Saudi Arabia to seek to increase oil production in order to contain the price of a barrel. This is also an electoral concern: the cost of petrol, when it comes time to fill up the tank, is a strong political argument in the USA. But it will not be easy to convince the Saudis, who are already adding 400,000 barrels a day more compared to what they were doing in February. Note, moreover, that Saudi daily production is now equivalent to Russian, both occupying (almost ex aequo) second place in the world.

Israel is not comparable to Saudi Arabia. But the systematic violation of the rights of Palestinians is one of the strongest arguments used by those who accuse the US of using a double-edged sword in international relations. The Palestinian cause has for decades been one of the most important thorns in the throat of those who speak of the need to respect the international order and the rights of oppressed peoples. You can't fight for that in the case of Ukraine and turn a blind eye when it comes to the same in Palestine.

Saudi Arabia is a country of contradictions. Modern in technology, medieval in the rights of women, of poor immigrant workers or in the treatment of political opposition. The Crown Prince, Mohammed bin Salman, personifies well these contradictions and the brutality of the regime. He will go down in history for having had opposition journalist Jamal Khashoggi murdered and hacked to pieces in 2018. Joe Biden had said during his election campaign that this crime had turned Saudi Arabia into a pariah state. Today, he will shake hands with the ringleader of the killers and discuss cooperation and oil. The prince will look good in the photo, even more arrogant than usual. The American president, on the other hand, will be more vulnerable.

It is time to repeat that in international politics not everything counts. And to underline once again that believing in principles has a cost. The narrative has to become clearer. Political leadership will only be credible if it is coherent. Spending time thinking about the next elections, political manoeuvring and expedients that vary according to the interests at stake may lead to the re-election of presidents, prime ministers and secretaries-general, but it does not contribute to solving the major problems. The current crises, in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, Sri Lanka, Pakistan or Myanmar, in parts of Africa or Central America, as well as in the field of climate change, nature conservation or food insecurity and the fight against poverty, should teach us to be truthful, responsible and courageous. In these times of great problems, this way of doing politics is the greatest challenge.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 15 July 2022)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

G20: is it a better forum?

The G20 as a model for tomorrow's Security Council

Victor Ângelo

 

Today I am not writing about Ukraine, although I recognise that it is fundamental to keep the subject at the top of the public communication agenda. That is, by the way, one of the great risks of this crisis: the Putinists, their neo-Stalinist and neo-fascist relatives, not to mention the useful idiots who spout off in the media and cackle from their perches, would like to see the Russian invasion disappear from the headlines. In this day and age, what comes off the front page is easily ignored. These people think it is convenient to forget the aggression decided by Vladimir Putin, which, moreover, has nothing geopolitical about it - if it did, the autocrat would have a different position on the candidacies of Finland and Sweden for NATO membership, not to mention the Baltics. It is now clear that Putin is dreaming up the old wives' tale of the historical destiny of Mother Russia.

I will not discuss the subject of NATO this time either. That will be the subject of future chronicles. Even knowing what has been written around, including a full-page article in a well-known weekly newspaper - a flood that shows at least two flaws: that the author does not know how the NATO budget is constructed; and that he gives an importance to the Secretary-General of the organisation that he does not have. Jens Stoltenberg is a skilful facilitator, well presented, prudent with his words, a balancer who makes a virtue of his weak oratory skills. But the power does not belong to him. It resides in some member states, starting with the USA, but not only there. Take countries like Poland and Latvia, for example, and not forgetting the example of Turkey. To claim, without hesitation, that Stoltenberg is the boss of Europe, or the West, is the idle talk of someone who says a lot about something he knows little or nothing about.  

Someone suggested I write about the recent BRICS summit in Beijing on 23 June, this being the year of the Chinese presidency. It was clear that China is seeking to transform the BRICS into a political and economic bloc capable of being an alternative to the G7. And for this, it is trying to introduce a new format, which would include, besides Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, other emerging countries, Argentina in Latin America, Egypt, Nigeria and Senegal in Africa, and others, such as Thailand, Indonesia or even Kazakhstan. Here I would make two observations, after recognising the economic dynamism of China and the relative weight of the other members in the world economy. First, the BRICS, like the G7, speak of cooperation and multilateralism, but in reality constitute blocs inspired by rivalry and hegemony. Second, if I had to choose between the democracy and human security practised in the BRICS or in the G7, I would certainly prefer the Japanese model, for example, to that of neighbouring China. The values of freedoms and human rights are fundamental criteria.

Indeed, my purpose is to underline the potential that exists at G20 level. This is the only organisation outside the United Nations system that can bring together the powerful North and South. It should therefore be seen as a good bet for international political and economic collaboration. And today it is essential to talk again about cooperation and complementarity, given the challenges we all face. Leaders must get out of merely antagonistic speeches.

The G20 foreign ministers have been meeting since yesterday in Bali, Indonesia. Despite the tense atmosphere, none have missed the call, not even Antony Blinken and Sergei Lavrov. No bilateral discussions are expected between the two. The hostility between Russia and the US is too great, unfortunately leaving no room for a meeting at that level. But Blinken met with his Chinese counterpart, Wang Yi, and was positive. He showed that the G20 offers opportunities, that it is a platform that should be maintained and strengthened. Its composition prefigures to some extent what would be a modern version of the UN Security Council.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 8 July 2022)

 

 

 

Sweden, Finland, Turkey, Russia and Ukraine: the NATO Russian salad

Notes in the margins of the NATO summit

Victor Ângelo

 

Sweden and Finland seem to have accepted, without much discussion, the demands imposed by Recep Tayyip Erdogan. The absolute priority for both was to quickly move forward with the NATO accession process.

Shortly before the announcement of the agreement between the two candidate countries and the president of Turkey, the prevailing prognosis was that the impasse would drag on for some time, perhaps even until the Turkish presidential elections, scheduled for June next year. Erdogan would stand to gain from the continuation of the blockade, on the domestic political front. His refusal would be continually propagandised as a nationalist stance, a demonstration of power, at a time when the Turkish people feel marginalised by westerners, in particular the European Union.

By raising the veto threat, moments before the official opening of the NATO summit in Madrid, Erdogan surprised us. We were told afterwards that this showed the cohesion that exists within the Atlantic Alliance. I am one of those who do not buy that narrative. And once the terms of the agreement were known, it was clear that Erdoğan had won the arm wrestling.

The Swedish and Finnish concessions raise several types of concerns. I will mention two in a moment, not to mention the unease that comes from submitting to a despot. And let me not forget that the blackmail will continue until the Turkish parliament ratifies the accessions.

Firstly, because they show that there is an enormous fear of possible aggression from Moscow. In other words, the Nordics are actually convinced that Vladimir Putin's Russia represents a serious threat to peace in that part of the European continent.

Second, because the agreement provides for the possibility of extraditions of Kurdish militants and other refugees that the autocrat in Ankara has in his sights. We know that Erdoğan places no value on human rights or the independence of the justice system in his country. It is an aberration to have such a regime at the head of the second largest member country of the Atlantic Alliance. But it is also true that regimes - and dictators - are passing, they are not eternal. It may be that next year Erdoğan will lose the elections and Turkey will return to democratic practices. Then, sooner or later, one of the reforms to be made will be to include in the organisation's treaty the possibility of suspending one of the members while a situation similar to the one currently experienced in Turkey lasts. Today, this possibility does not exist, and it is sorely lacking.

Beyond the approval of the new strategic concept, it is the outcome of what is happening in Ukraine that will be truly transformative. The Madrid summit recognised that Russia cannot be allowed to win the conflict it has provoked. In today's times, the violation of international law and order should not bring advantages to the offender. Already the G7 meeting, a somewhat confused summit on the eve of the Madrid meeting, had reached the same conclusion. But such a declaration only has value if it is translated into concrete actions that prevent Moscow's victory.

Unfortunately, I would say that we are not on the right track. There is even a risk, if nothing more and urgently is done, that we will witness the progressive destruction of Ukraine. The current dynamic of war of attrition plays in Russia's favour, for several reasons. Russia's trump cards are a markedly stronger economy, greater military resources and a philosophy of war based on the destruction of infrastructure and urban areas, destroying ways of life and creating terror among the civilian populations who are the victims of aggression.

The European democracies cannot win this vital battle without a deeper, accelerated commitment that is well explained to the citizens. At the current rate, aid in terms of arms will not arrive in time, nor will it be sufficient. What is more, Ukraine alone will not have the strength to restore its sovereignty. We will see, in the near future, whether the Madrid summit took this evidence into account by promising Ukraine the firm and continued support of the members of the Atlantic Alliance.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 1 July 2022)

 

The Suwalki Gap and Lithuania's mistake

Lithuania and Borrell erred, must make amends

Victor Angelo

The European Union's High Representative for Foreign Policy Josep Borrell considers the Lithuanian decision to ban the transit through its territory of certain goods in circulation between other parts of Russia and the Russian region of Kaliningrad as correct. Borrell further clarifies that the ban only includes goods that are on the EU's sanctions list. That is, steel and other metals, construction materials, technological items and soon coal and later oil. Borrell seeks to protect Lithuania by saying that the decision of that country's government merely complies with what had been approved at European level. The ban covers about 50% of rail and road traffic between Kaliningrad and the rest of Russia. It does not concern the passage of persons, which remains open, albeit with some long-standing restrictions.

While I have great respect for the Lithuanian government's determination, I see the measure as a serious mistake. And I do not agree with Borrell's and others' defence of it. The sanctions adopted by the EU do include a clear reference to the transit of goods. But what is happening in the Suwalki corridor - the 65 km long strip of land linking Kaliningrad with Belarus and then the rest of Russia - is different from the transit of goods for import or export reasons. The sanctions clearly concern Russia's foreign trade. In the case in question, it is a matter of allowing movement between two parts of the same country. The issue should therefore be seen as a matter for the Russian domestic economy and thus outside the restrictions imposed by Brussels.

Moreover, all this has a very delicate political connotation. This opens up a new front for direct confrontation between the EU and Russia. It is particularly dangerous and distracts us from the fundamental, urgent, priority concern, which is to focus all our energies on supporting Ukraine and its legitimate defence efforts. It is dangerous because it gives Russia an easy pretext to exploit for a very strong offensive against Lithuania, a member of NATO. However, Lithuania, like its two neighbours to the north, Latvia and Estonia, is very difficult to defend. Several strategic exercises, simulated at the highest level of NATO command - I had the opportunity to participate in some - have repeatedly shown the extreme fragility of any of these three countries, in the case of a hostile military intervention coming from the neighbourhood. They are small territories, without strategic depth, easy to occupy. We have thus opened a conflict at a weak point in our defence space. This is certainly not an intelligent strategic decision, let alone a wise one. Moreover, there was no need for it.

At this point it remains to be seen what kind of retaliation the Kremlin will adopt. But the partial blockade of Kaliningrad is seen in Moscow as something very serious. And that makes me quite worried. In all likelihood, Vladimir Putin will respond to this challenge on the very eve of the NATO summit, due to take place in Madrid from 28 to 30 June.

Borrell should be advised to review his position on this partial blockade without delay. There must be courage and common sense in the key countries of the European Union to say, loud and clear, that the moment demands prudence and a calm understanding of what is appropriate and a priority. It is clear that Mr Borrell and all the others are expected to unequivocally condemn Russian policy and the war of aggression against Ukraine and to speak clearly on the issues of food safety and respect for the international order. They must demonstrate European firmness, defend our interests and counteract the disinformation campaigns that Russia is carrying out in North Africa, sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East. But always with the concern to be seen as representatives of a Union that wants peace and respect for the rules of good neighbourliness. And which knows how to rectify its mistakes.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 24 June 2022)