Reflections prior to the US election

Election day, with confusion at the door

Victor Angelo

 

Writing about the American elections, while voting is going on, is risky. Despite the opinion polls, you never know what will come out of the ballot boxes. Especially this time, when everything is different, namely the high turnout by post and in person, which has reached unprecedented levels, the uncertainty as to what will happen in eight or nine states which may fall to one side or the other, and the extreme radicalisation of important segments of the electorate. With Donald Trump in the field, the rules and analysis schemes of the past are completely muddled.

But it may be less risky to write now than tomorrow when only part of the results is known and postal vote counts have not yet been completed. Except for miracles, and they sometimes happen, tomorrow begins the confusion. In fact, I fear that in the aftermath of the 3rd of November a period of great pandemonium will arise in the USA. If my prediction is right, we will get into a mess in which it will be difficult to have a clear idea about the future. Writing about this situation of political and social chaos will require a clear-sightedness that far exceeds my ability to navigate in tormenting waters. Those who know American society well think that the storm that is coming is simply terrifying. 

The plot has been in preparation for weeks. There is a plan, nothing happens by chance. The head of the production and prima donna is Donald Trump. As usual, everything revolves around his megalomania, narcissism, and personal interests.

The tragedy may unfold more or less in the following way. Once the results of the day have been calculated, of those who voted in person today, and if these provisional figures are in his favour, President Trump will come on television to proclaim himself the winner. He will say that the votes by post, which have not yet been counted, are not valid. He will thus be trying to ignore the will of millions of Americans who have chosen the safer postal route in these times of pandemic to express their choice. Such a statement about the invalidity of votes not yet counted, if it happens, would be a colossal abuse of power, an illegality and contrary to democratic practices. But the proclamation of Trump will immediately bring his supporters to the streets of the cities of the United States to celebrate the false victory. More than extemporaneous and unjustified celebrations, these demonstrations of radicalised and armed people - this has been a record year in terms of the private acquisition of weapons of all calibres - will serve to intimidate the rest of the citizens. I do not know what the response of the democrats or the police forces will be. But I have no doubt that we will see numerous confrontations. A former colleague of mine, a New Yorker who, like me, oversaw several complicated elections in various parts of the world, told me yesterday that she is more afraid of this post-election period in the US than of anything she has seen in the dictatorships she has been through.

Let us continue the plot. In the days that follow, Donald Trump will continue to speak out against the electoral process and not to accept a verdict from the ballot box that would be unfavourable to him. The political and social confusion will then be joined by a whole series of legal challenges, which the President's lawyers will set in motion everywhere. We will then enter a phase of general upheaval. In such a situation and with the character we have, it will be Donald Trump who will end up imposing himself. It is true that the institutions of counterweight and balance of power are a guarantor of democracy and they exist in the USA. But it is also true that the president has managed to have 220 federal judges and three for the Supreme Court confirmed during his term. These judges will be able to play a key role in the legal game ahead.

The scenario I describe here is obviously pessimistic. To plan the appropriate response, one must be pessimistic at times of major crisis. It would be great if it did not happen or if it happened only in a mitigated way. I would very much like to be wrong. But seeing the shop windows in downtown Washington or New York being protected with timber panes makes me more convinced that there is reason to fear and be prepared for the worst.

That brings me back to our side of the planet. If there is institutional upheaval in the US, the shock waves will have a destabilising global impact. The coronavirus pandemic has already turned much of the world upside down. An additional shock will further complicate the international scene. Are we, here in Europe, prepared to respond to a possible serious US political crisis?

If the above scenario occurs, we will see intense diplomatic pressure from Donald Trump's representatives in European capitals. They will do everything they can to ensure that this so-called victory is recognised. They will need to show the American people that European leaders recognise their boss's victory. This is a way of adding legitimacy to their claim. On these occasions, when elections are free and acceptable, heads of state have a protocol obligation to send their congratulations to the winning candidate. We shall see who does so, within the European Union. At the moment, out of a total of twenty-seven member states, I count between seven and nine leaders who, if they could, would vote for Trump. What position will they take in the event of an election mess? And what will Charles Michel's position be? What kind of relations can be expected between the two sides of the Atlantic in a second term that would be tainted by a markedly dubious legitimacy? These questions provide a backdrop to long discussions. Let us hope that it will not be necessary to return to them in a while.

In the meantime, beyond the European position, I am also concerned about the impact of such a crisis on the future of the United Nations and the multilateral system. Like the European leaders, António Guterres will also be under pressure. What message of congratulations can you send to a president if he emerges from confusion, abuse of institutional power and legal games?

In these unique times, there is no doubt that the best solution is a clear victory by Joe Biden. 

(AI translation of today’s text I publish in the Portuguese magazine Visão)

 

 

 

We need an action framework of a new type

On this Independence Day in the US, it is obvious the country and the world have a big problem to confront and resolve. The Covid-19 pandemic. This is still the first wave of contagion and the virus remains out of control, in many parts of America and elsewhere. To deny it is to deny reality. It can only be explained as sheer ignorance or a political farce.

If we look at the problem with objectivity, we can only conclude that it might take another 12 to 18 months before we see an effective response. The timeframe can be shorter, the optimists say, but it can also be much longer, as many scientists keep telling us. In any case, a global crisis as the current one, if it goes on up to mid-to-end of 2021, will have global negative consequences. In simple words, I would say that we will become poorer and more self-centred. That will impact the world economy, trade, international cooperation, the multilateral systems, and, in summary, will change the game of global politics. Looking at it from the stability and security angles, I see us moving towards increased extremism, short-minded nationalism, and new dangerous confrontations. We will certainly reach new levels of instability and insecurity as well as the contraction of the democratic space.

Not easy to find a balance between public health and politics, including the economy. And that complexity augments as we move from the domestic scene to the wider arenas, where States act and clash. That is the reason why I think that reflecting on such a necessary balance is one of the key tasks the global institutions and the big-picture thinkers should focus on. We must design an action framework that keeps lives and livelihoods. Such a framework must obtain wide support – the support could even come from the UN Security Council – and give people clarity and hope.

The US leadership

These days, for a European, to watch American TV is painful. And deeply troubling. The country is going through a major crisis, a very complex one, that combines serious health challenges with widespread economic hardship. Both challenges are immense. On top of that, there is a leadership tragedy. The President has lost the support of key State governors and of the country’s intelligentsia. The messages coming from the White House and from the key States are full of contradictions. There is no common direction. Many lives are lost every day, in the most developed country in the world, a good deal of them because there aren’t enough medical resources available, others because of poor policy guidance. The President’s press briefings look like boxing matches. He spends hours repeating the same simple sentences, the only ones he can articulate. It’s most unfortunate that the pandemic happens when the leadership in Washington is so incompetent and shallow.

I should not be writing about this, because I am not a US citizen. It is up to the country’s voters to decide whom they want next. But as we live in a period of global crisis, we tend to look in the direction of the US for leadership. That’s the reason why I write about the matter. We need the US to lead. And what we see leaves no room for optimism. One of the few positive things is to see the resolve of politicians like the New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, or the Ohio Governor Mike DeWine, a Republican, as well as the California Governor Gavin Newsom (Democrat) and the Maryland Governor Larry Hogan (Republican). There are many more in action and doing the right things, but I just mention a few of them, in a balanced manner. The problem is the lack of clarity and support coming from the Federal government.

Another positive development concerns the medical research that is taking place in the US with a view to beat the virus. That research is done in collaboration with foreign institutes. That is certainly very encouraging. It brings together the best minds in the universities, philanthropic foundations and the private sector.

In the meantime, billions of dollars have already been spent in support of small businesses and individual workers. That is good but it is a short-term answer. The durable approach is to make the health system stronger, affordable to all, intensify the health education campaigns and re-open the economy as much as it is possible. For us, in addition to all that, we would like to see the US taking the lead in the UN Security Council, at the political level, and being much more engaged with WHO, at the technical level. The US must go back to the multilateral system. Its place is in the global scene, not simply in the Rose Garden.

Leading the international response

It is massively wrong to criticise the World Health Organisation (WHO) at this stage. We are still in unknown territory and unchartered waters as far as the Covid-19 pandemic is concerned. We don’t know what is going to happen in Africa and in other parts of the world, where the health systems are extremely weak. WHO has a technical presence in those countries and lots of experience in assisting them. As such, the wise thing to do would be to strengthen its operational capacity. That means that its authority must be recognised, and additional resources mobilised. To weaken and destabilise the organisation, as President Trump is doing, is unacceptable. We do not expect the current US President to provide the leadership it should, as head of the strongest State on earth. Donald Trump does not understand the world we live in and the role the US should be playing. But, at least, he should keep quiet as far as WHO is concerned.

The sad thing is that we are confronted with a devastating global calamity at a time there is no real global leadership. The US is getting more and more confused with its internal politics. The turmoil is amazing out there. Elsewhere, in the other regions of the world, there is no visionary leader, nobody of gigantic stature, capable to call the international action. The Prime Minister of New Zealand, Jacinda Arden, is sometimes mentioned. She is indeed an example. But her country is too small and too far out for her to be able to play a global role. All the other potential leaders are too busy with their own national situation – or messing things up, as it is the case with Narendra Modi of India.

I see a role for the UN Secretary-General. But I also recognise that his voice must be amplified by the international media, for that role to be effective. And that is not very easy to achieve at the moment.

The American disorientation

I felt very sad as I watched the American news. The country seems to be drifting. There is no coherent and effective response to the virus crisis. What I perceive is cacophony and partisanship. That’s not the best response to a challenge of this size. And the problem is still at its beginning. It will get much bigger as the days flow. It is incredible to see the most powerful country in the world being unable to organise a proper public health campaign. This is an exceptional threat and the leaders must take extraordinary measures, well beyond the conventional ones. That’s the only way to be equipped to confront the pandemic.

The American confusion is not encouraging. It must be redefined along the recommendations coming from the public health experts. That has to happen as the new week starts.

I am not sure the President can stand to the task.

And I am also very disappointed by Joe Biden’s timid and poorly communicated approach to it.

The Democratic candidate

The coronavirus has erased the Democratic party’s primaries from the news. Who remembers that Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders had a debate just yesterday? Even those who know about it can’t tell what the meat of such debate was. 

As such, it would be advisable to bring the primaries to an end. That would mean Sanders departing the race. Then, the Democrats could focus on promoting Biden as an alternative to the erratic and incompetent President we have today. 

Biden is an experienced politician but not a very good orator. His tone of voice doesn’t help either. It is not pleasant to hear. He must add to his presidential ticket not only a woman, as he promised he would do, but above all a woman that can speak better than he does.

The responsibilities of a leading country

John Kerry has now been endorsed by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to be the next US Secretary of State. Although expected, this is good news. He follows the work of a great woman, Hilary Clinton, in one of the most demanding political jobs on earth.

I retain from his testimony to the Committee that he expressed a comprehensive view of American foreign policy. He went beyond military might and conflict resolution, which are certainly critical for peace, to include food and energy security, humanitarian assistance, the fight against disease, development aid, and climate change as integral parts of the American response to today's global issues. These are matters that would benefit tremendously from a deeper US involvement. What else should we anticipate from a leading country? Where should the example come from?

The point is to translate the intent into a coherent policy. I agree that words are important. But deeds speak louder.

I wish him well.