Might or right?

My professional travels through the world of multilateral organizations, and through dozens of countries with diverse political cultures, have taught me to look at international relations with caution. This does not mean that I do not believe in respecting the values ​​and principles approved over time, particularly since the signing of the United Nations Charter. This has happened with most states. But, contrary to what many people think, there have been many conflicts since 1945. It must have been a time of peace in Europe, except in the Balkans, but not in other parts of the world. Therefore, common sense recommends caution, as rivalries between countries and between big men persist. 

Prudence means, above all, two things: on the one hand, never underestimating the adversary and, on the other, unambiguously cultivating relations with allies, based on mutual interests and a common political vision.

It is a very serious mistake to consider that the enemy can be easily defeated. This was, in fact, Vladimir Putin's original miscalculation, as he thought it possible to destroy Ukrainian sovereignty in three days, when the gigantic military column he sent against Kiev would reach the Mariinsky Palace, the official residence of President Volodymyr Zelensky. The “Special Operation” was exactly that, in the Russian dictator’s view: a quick incursion, capable of subjugating the neighboring country in a matter of days. It wouldn't even be a war. He underestimated Ukraine, which three years later continues to resist the  aggression.

It is equally a mistake not to invest in a close and interdependent diplomatic relationship with the countries with which we maintain a defense alliance and strategic cooperation. And that consider, like us, that individual freedom and human rights are priority issues. This investment involves, in particular, a balance of forces between allies, in which each one brings something truly essential to the collective effort. And it must be based on a similar understanding of the international context. When there are imbalances or a different reading of the external risks, the alliance will end up transforming into subordination, or will end in rupture. Its continuity will be an illusion.

A pact between unequals ceases to work when a major crisis arises. This is the reality that Europe now faces. In terms of defense and cutting-edge technologies, especially in the areas of Artificial Intelligence and the collection of strategic information, Europe's fragility in relation to the USA is immeasurable.

Despite the political promises of the main European Heads of State and Government and the billions announced by the President of the European Commission, the gap between the two sides of the Atlantic is insurmountable in the coming years. And this will continue during Trump's term, which means that Europe will be at the mercy of the American president's decisions throughout this period.

The Europeans will thus pay for the imprudence of having considered, especially since the end of the Cold War, that Washington was a safe and reliable protective shield, and that its political class continued to maintain an unquestionable cultural and sentimental connection with the countries of the European continent. In today's America, that bond is a thing of the past.

With Trump in power, the context became even clearer. He and his followers see Europe as a consumer market with money and resources that are crucial to reinforcing US global hegemony: rare earths from Ukraine, minerals from Greenland, the Norwegian archipelago of Svalbard, which is essential for controlling navigation in the Arctic, and the link between the North Atlantic and the Sea of ​​Japan.

Europe is seen as a captured continent, held hostage, destined to respond to the demands of the new America, the America that looks at the world with arrogance, except if it is China or Russia.

This is the context in which Europe finds itself. A Europe of Defence, prudent and capable of taking care of its own security, will indeed have to be built, something that will take at least ten to fifteen years to gain strength. It is, for now, a wish., an undefined plan.

I recognize that it is worth having plans of this kind. They provide encouragement, define an objective that can be shared and consolidate convergence. The generation that is now reaching political adulthood will have the challenge of transforming this demand into reality.

Do you trust Donald Trump?

 The international system must be protected and respected

 Victor Ângelo 

There can be no doubt: the international values ​​and standards, built over the last few decades, remain valid and must be fully respected. Political leaders and henchmen who fail to do so engage in illegal, often criminal, behavior and as such need to be confronted. The notion of a Western or less Western world, that doesn't count for anything. What matters are the rules that regulate the universal framework. When voting in the same direction as North Korea, something that should be unthinkable, the important thing is to remember which side of the conventions is right.

There were great moments that allowed these principles to advance and consolidate. It would be cowardice, or at least a mistake, not to remember them and not to insist on their scrupulous fulfillment. I will now mention a particularly clear list regarding the progressive regulation of international relations since the end of the Second World War – the United Nations Charter(1945), the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the dozens of decolonisation and national independence processes in the post-war years and decades, the Vietnam War, the Helsinki Final Act (1975), which defined the rules of cooperation and security in Europe, including in the USA and Canada, the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols of 1949 and 1977 on humanitarian issues and the laws of conflict, the end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Soviet Union (1991), the approval of the Rome Statute of 1998, which established the International Criminal Court (ICC), and also the Paris Agreement on Climate Change of 2015. Symptomatically, during all these years it has not been possible to reach a common platform on the fight against terrorism, a complex and highly politically sensitive issue.

Among political criminals there are unfortunately too many names that can be highlighted. This week, on the third anniversary of the start of Vladimir Putin's aggression against Ukraine, his criminal responsibility deserves special mention. Not forgetting, either, his most recent ally, Kim Jong-un, the villain who crushes the population of North Korea every day and threatens half the world and the other with his missiles. When we talk about these individuals and it is noted that the current US administration voted in the United Nations along these criminals, a terrifying question inevitably arises: what kind of world do they want to push us into?

The answer is anything but simple. But we must continue to insist on the normative dimension. International rules exist, and they must be followed. It is, however, worrying to see the G20 or the G7, and some dimensions of the United Nations system, which have functioned as pillars of international democracy and cooperation between peoples, being disrespected by traditional dictatorships together with the ruffians who are now emerging in the public square.

The international political architecture is at risk of collapsing. It is already in ruins in Palestine, for the dramatic reasons that are known. It could soon collapse during negotiations on Ukraine's sovereignty. It is practically impossible to believe in a just peace, when one thinks of the protagonists who have now entered the scene. They are on Putin's side, for incomprehensible reasons, perhaps personal, perhaps linked to past accounts, and with the – chimerical – pretext of obtaining a divorce between Russia and China. A part of the international defense system will also be at risk when the next NATO summit, scheduled for June 24-26, takes place in The Hague. And the most significant outcome will happen on September 22 and 23, when the General Assembly will meet to discuss the future of the United Nations. We will then see what proposals will be put on the table, at a time when the UN is a fragile target, disrespected by people like Netanyahu and little understood by the rich of this world.

I cannot fail to mention Emmanuel Macron's recent trip to Washington. He would have tried to give the Americans the impression that a good deal of the decision-making power is in his hands when it comes to the EU. I'm not sure he managed to convinced them, for three reasons. First, because Washington knows that Macron is struggling in France with a very serious national crisis. Macron is closer to the past than the future. Second, because the United Kingdom and Georgia Meloni, the Italian Prime Minister, have greater support in the White House. The new British ambassador to Washington, Peter Mandelson, a shrewd Labourite like his boss Tony Blair was years ago, will do everything he can to turn Donald Trump around. On the other hand, Trump has a special liking for Meloni. And she doesn't die of love for Macron. And third, and most crucially, because Trump hates the EU, as it became clear days after Macron's visit.