Looking for a stronger European leadership

A more vibrant European spring

Victor Angelo

 

The next six to eight weeks, including the Easter period, could be a period of great tension in the European Union (EU). We are entering spring. This is the time when life sprouts again. People, like plant shoots, want to go outside and catch the new sun. They become impatient and find it hard to accept that their movements are controlled by a policeman on every street corner.

European leaders, including the Commission, continue to project an image of inconsistency in the face of the calamity we have been facing for a year now. The disaffection is general, although, as last week's meeting showed, members of the European Council try to disguise their disappointment and keep the discussion within the bounds of good manners. There is no direct criticism, but several national leaders are looking for alternatives, outside the common framework. Viktor Orbán, as usual, was the first out of the picture. This week he made himself publicly vaccinated with Chinese Sinopharm and approved the purchase of Russian Sputnik V. All this in defiance of what was decided in Brussels. The path he opened is being followed by the Czech Republic, Croatia, Slovakia, and Poland, which also want the Russian vaccine or those produced in China.

The conclusion is simple. The lack of speed of the vaccination campaign is currently the most important political problem in Europe. Without widespread immunity, the rest –  family life, the economy, culture, sport, travel, social activities – will remain moribund. In statements she made this week, Von der Leyen seems to have finally understood the importance of a fast, effective and well-explained campaign. But it is not enough. Confusion, bureaucracy, shuffling with pharmaceuticals and geopolitical biases continue to hold everything up. And there is no one to provide the leadership that is needed. The current Presidency of the European Council has been distracted by other things, as if we were in normal times and there was no absolute priority. Portugal needs to correct its shot.

At Member State level, in addition to the prevailing disorientation, we can see that the policies adopted are the traditional ones - confining, closing everything and creating barriers at the borders. And now the fracture is accentuated by the bilateral pacts that are in the pipeline between Austria and Denmark with Israel, a country that will try to exploit to the maximum the political dividends of these agreements.

These are case-by-case responses that call the joint effort into question.

In France, Emmanuel Macron no longer has time for European issues. He is caught up in a complex political situation, made worse by the proximity of the 2022 presidential elections. The polls, with Marine Le Pen on the rise, do not leave him in peace. Not to mention that Michel Barnier could enter the fray, thus emerging as a further obstacle to the re-election of the current president. 

In Germany, where the economy and public opinion are more resilient to the crisis, there is no great enthusiasm for European affairs. The central issue is the succession of Angela Merkel in a few months' time. And then there is the decision to put the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party under police surveillance. 

In Italy, Mario Draghi's arrival in power is good for Europe. He is a convinced and courageous European. But he must focus above all on the delicate economic and social situation his country finds itself in. And on keeping his fragile coalition together.

The rest of the EU carries little weight in defining the future line. So, it is essential to have strong EU leadership in Brussels. That is one of the lessons to be learned from the present mess - we need solid leaders in the core countries of the Union and top politicians in the European institutions. The practice of sending second-rate personalities to Brussels will not do. In the current crisis and given the scale of the challenges of the coming years, we need to think about a thorough overhaul of the present Commission and a strengthening of its powers. Something difficult, but which must be tackled without delay and with the necessary sensitivity.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published today in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper)

  

 

On Putin and us, the Europeans in the West

Putin has become agitated

Victor Angelo

  

Vladimir Putin is a real puzzle in the literal and figurative sense. In the face of recent and multiple popular demonstrations, he has responded with renewed violence and has again shown that in his political vision there is no room for the slightest objection. He opposed democratic aspirations with police batons and the arrest of thousands of citizens.

Experts in Russian domestic politics tell me that, for the first time, Putin does not feel at ease. He sees what is happening in Belarus and fears contagion. In addition, his opponent Alexei Navalny appears today more than ever as a real threat. The courage that Navalny showed on his return to Moscow, despite knowing that he was going to put himself in the wolf's jaws, impressed many of his compatriots. He showed determination, which is one of the main qualities required of a political leader. On the other hand, Navalny has released this week a long video showing the luxurious palace that Putin has built for his own pleasure. The report on this immense extravagance, a delirious version of Versailles in the Black Sea, is being seen by millions of citizens. Those who know these things consider the political impact of the video on Putin's image to be extraordinarily strong. If this is the case, it confirms what I have always said: to bring down the autocrat it is necessary to shake and challenge his alleged moral authority. Putin's name must be directly associated with the large-scale corruption that exists in the meanderings of the elite in which he moves. It is essential to show that the abuse of power and the lack of ethics are aimed at the satisfaction of the president's ego and personal greed.  

Putin is also a puzzle for EU leaders. After six years of European sanctions against the Russian regime, nothing has been achieved. On the contrary, the sanctions offer him a pretext to strengthen his nationalist narrative, to proclaim that the West is against Russia and that his historical role is to defend the Russian homeland and soul.

The EU's measures against autocracy and the hostility of the Kremlin are not very incisive. On Russia, Angela Merkel and other Europeans to the west of Germany have a very ambiguous approach. They do not reach the centre of power and do not touch, if only slightly, one of the main sources of revenue for their public finances, gas. The most striking example is the Nord Stream 2 project, which is almost complete. The move to the operational phase of this pipeline must be used an opportunity for political dialogue including, for example, the release of Navalny and other political prisoners, the end cyber-attacks on strategic European targets and of Kremlin’s support for German, French, Italian and other neo-fascist movements. In other words, the entry into operation of Nord Stream 2 must be linked to the re-establishment of a platform of political trust between the parties. 

Meanwhile, Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin had a first conversation. In addition to allowing for the continuation of the nuclear arms control treaty, the New Start, which had been signed in 2010 and would expire in eight days' time, the US president clearly set out his position on matters relating to Ukraine's sovereignty, espionage and cyber-attacks by the Russian services, and defence, including the protection of Washington's allies. He also stressed that Navalny should be released. This way of dealing with Putin points to the line that must be followed by Europeans. An open, clear and firm line based on continued contact with Moscow and constant reference to the values of democracy. The same values that mobilise thousands of Russian citizens, despite the cold and the repression. 

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published today in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper)

 

 

Merkel's succession

Some good news from Germany. Armin Laschet is a balanced choice to succeed Angela Merkel as CDU party leader. He is the respected Chief Minister of the North Rhine-Westphalia Region and has demonstrated his pro-European Union credentials. He advocates for a fair relationship between its member states.

The point now is to see if he can win the September federal elections to the Bundestag and be his coalition candidate for the chancellorship.   

The EU-US partnership

A Bolder Europe

Victor Angelo

 

When it comes to real European politics, it is always good to start by knowing what Angela Merkel thinks. Even bearing in mind that she is due to leave the scene next year, she remains a leading voice. This week the Chancellor unambiguously welcomed Joe Biden's victory. She added that the partnership between the European Union and the United States should be the fundamental alliance of the 21st century. I will agree with this statement if the collaboration is based on a balance of power between the two sides. As I also agree with Merkel when she says in her message to the President-elect that for the cooperation to work effectively, additional efforts will have to be asked from the EU side.

The next day Ursula von der Leyen spoke to the heads of mission representing Europe in the world. She mentioned the future of relations with the USA. Her words were inspired by what Merkel had said. She stressed that it was up to the EU to take the initiative for a new kind of synergy with the incoming administration, that it was not a question of going back to the past, as if nothing had happened during the last four years. Yesterday and tomorrow belong to different historical eras. After such a challenging, radical, and absurd mandate as that of Donald Trump, a large part of American society looks to Europe and the world with suspicion. We must respond to this state of mind, combat isolationist tendencies and re-emphasise the importance of international cooperation for the prosperity of all and for the resolution of problems which know no borders.

The philosophy behind these European declarations, to which Emmanuel Macron's words were added, is encouraging.

The pandemic has turned the world upside down and shown that international solidarity and complementarities are now more necessary than ever. Europe can make a positive contribution to the structural transformation that the new future requires. To do so, it needs to become stronger, more ambitious, in the good sense of the word, and to look to the other major powers on an equal footing. The old attitude of subordination to the United States does not serve European interests. Nor does it allow the EU to gain the autonomy it needs to play a stabilising role between the other major powers on the planet.

The European responsibility is to take advantage of the constructive spirit that Biden's administration is expected to bring to international relations to project a clearer image of what it means to live in a democracy of mutual respect and tolerance, fair and capable of responding to the security aspirations of each citizen. The importance of individual security, in the multidimensional sense of this concept, covering life, employment, health, personal tranquillity, is one of the great lessons that the pandemic gives us. This lesson must be translated into political practice.  

To contribute effectively to the transatlantic partnership and to any bridge with other regions of the globe, the EU must be particularly demanding of itself. Retrograde, ultra-liberal, xenophobic, or even racist or corrupt governments cannot fit into the European area. Nor can we accept simply inefficient and bureaucratic administrations.

Europe's strength will lie in the quality and fairness of its governance and the coherence of its values. It will be complemented by efficient security and defence systems. Here, in the areas of European security, the message is that we are not against anyone, nor will we allow ourselves to be drawn into other people's wars, as unfortunately happened in the recent past, but also that we are not naive. This message is valid for everyone, allies, and competitors. It also means that we know that in tomorrow's world, better defence and more security do not come through more cannons and more soldiers, but through more analysis and intelligence, more highly prepared cadres and officers, more special forces, better cybernetic systems, more effective tracking of social platforms, and information that helps citizens to identify the truth and eliminate what is false.

If we move forward in this way, we will be responding positively to the hope that the election of Joe Biden has created and opening the way for progress towards a more balanced, safe, intelligent, and sustainable world.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published today in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper)

 

 

Europe and China: a difficult dialogue

The summit call that took place today between the EU leaders and President Xi revealed a gulf of differences between the two sides when it comes to political values and the interference of the State in the economy. On the European side, reference was made to human rights as a fundamental value, as well as to the Chinese leadership’s policies towards the Uighur minority, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. President Xi did not like what he heard. But he could notice that the Europeans consider these matters fundamental and will continue to be raised in the future. At the same time, the economic relationship between both sides will continue – the trade between them amounts to one billion euros a day. And on this matter, the key issues will remain and must be addressed. The Chinese must open up to European investment and cease all kinds of political meddling in the governance of European firms already operating in China.

In the meantime, and as we wait for progress on these fronts to be achieved it is becoming clear that Chinese investments in critical European infrastructure can only be accepted if they do not put at stake the strategic dimensions of European security and stability.

The two sides must cooperate. They are key players in the international scene. It is therefore important they keep talking and be frank when doing it.

The Eastern Mediterranean as a conflict zone

 Translation of today’s opinion piece as published in Diário de Notícias (Lisbon).

29 Aug. 2020

Troubled waters in the Eastern Mediterranean

Victor Angelo

 

The week was on the verge of exploding, in the eastern Mediterranean. Turkey continued its maritime prospecting for gas deposits, with economic and political intentions, and increased its military presence in waters that Greece considers belonging to its continental shelf. The latter, in retaliation, declared that it would conduct naval and aerial exercises in those same waters. And she did so for three days, August 26-28, in collaboration with the armed forces of Cyprus, France and Italy. These manoeuvres followed another maritime exercise, a Greek-American one, which was more symbolic than anything else, but which did not go unnoticed in Ankara. Certain Turkish commentators said, then, in a subtle way because criticizing the regime puts many journalists in prison, that one of the government's objectives should be to avoid the diplomatic isolation of Turkey. A bit of very revealing advice.

The possibility of a military incident between the two neighbouring countries has left some European capitals restless. The big question became how to avoid an open confrontation, which would end up dragging several European countries and even Egypt, among others.

An effort of appeasement in the NATO framework was put aside. The organization is unable to respond to this rivalry between two member states. In fact, the Alliance's paralysis is becoming increasingly apparent in matters related to President Erdogan's political games. Following the ill-told coup attempt in July 2016, Turkey has become a millstone tied around NATO's neck.

The European channel remained. Germany, which holds the presidency of the EU and carries weight in both countries, sent its foreign minister, the social democrat Heiko Maas, to Athens and Ankara. His proposal was clear: to establish a moratorium on the exploitation of the contested waters and to seek a negotiated solution. In Greece, little was achieved. The Greeks had obtained the convocation of a European meeting on the subject and continued to bet on the decisions that could be taken there, as well as on Emmanuel Macron's support. In Turkey, Maas obtained from his counterpart a promise to participate in a process of dialogue. It was a clever way of responding, on the part of the Turkish minister, who thus sought to sap the will of the Europeans to adopt sanctions against his government.

The Greek-Turkish neighbourhood is very complicated. There is only one solution, and that is dialogue and cooperation between the two neighbours. This should be the line recommended by the European partners. It will not be easy to get it accepted, but alternatively, any confrontation would be a catastrophe. We must also send clear messages to President Erdogan, both about the future of the relationship between his country and Europe - which will not involve accession, since Turkey is part of another geopolitical reality and belongs to a cultural sphere that differs from the one prevailing in Europe - and about other issues where the parties' strategic interests may be at odds.

It must be recognized that Turkey is a country that counts in its geographical area. At the same time, we must not forget the choices that President Erdogan has made in recent years, which shock, contradict our idea of democracy and leave many European leaders frankly apprehensive. Erdogan's Turkey has unrealistic ambitions that go far beyond its economic strength - the national GDP is half of Spain's, although the Turkish population is twice that of Spain - and its capacity for regional influence. In fact, Turkey is a country still developing and with serious problems of social inclusion of its ethnic minorities, not to mention the ever-present issue of respect for human rights.  It would do better to spend less on military expenditures - they represent 2.7% of GDP, a figure well above the average and the recommendation that prevails within NATO - and more on promoting the well-being and opportunities of its citizens. If so, it is certain to aspire to a closer association with the EU.

This is for the future, perhaps even only possible in a post-Erdogan era. For now, it is essential to halt the military escalation and calm the waters.

 

 

 

 

 

One single point about the EU summit

After four-and-half days of negotiations, the European leaders reached an agreement on the next budget for the European Commission, covering the period 2021-27, and on the a recovery plan that should help the countries most affected by the pandemic.

There are several remarks that could be made about both documents and the process that took place. I will certainly come back to them soon. But today I would like to underline that the leaders have shown they want the EU to work and to be kept together. That is a crucial message. Nobody tried to rock the European boat. We know there were very tense moments during the summit. In some cases, some harsh exchanges took place. But all of that was about trying to bridge national interests with the collective interests of the EU. I see that as positive.   

Still on the European summit

The EU summit is still on, at the end of the second day. It is too early to comment on it, as I do not know what the outcome will be. But I said to a friend, a former ambassador, that I see it as positive that leaders spend a good amount of time trying to get to an agreement. They have in front of them big issues, with many possible consequences, and extremely high costs. These are no simple matters, and we are living in extraordinarily exceptional times. I would be worried if they decided to run through the issues, superficially and with no real commitment. It is true that some of them do have that kind of attitude. They are the lightweights. But the key players take these matters seriously. I can only appreciate that. To call names and badmouth them is a childish approach I do not accept.   

The forthcoming EU summit

On Friday, the EU leaders will meet in Brussels. This will be the first face-to-face meeting since the beginning of the pandemic. The agenda is about money, lots of it. They must decide if they approve the Commission’s recovery proposal, its budget, and the disbursement modalities. It is indeed a delicate agenda

There are two camps. One side wants the new money to flow to each country, with little interference from either the Commission or the Council. In their views, it is up to the national governments to decide on the programmes and projects to be funded, accepting however that those funding decisions must fall within the broad framework proposed by the European Commission. Italy, France, Spain, and Portugal are within this group.

The other side, led by the Prime Minister of the Netherlands, advocates a greater oversight by the European Council. That would mean that country allocations should be endorsed by all, not just by the government concerned. It would give the Council, where the heads of State and government sit or are represented, the authority to say no a country’s allocation plan. They do not see this approach as interference. They think that the volume of money is very substantial, and it should, therefore, be used not only for recovery but also for economic and administrative reform at the national level.

As of today, it is unclear what the outcome of the summit might be. The conflicting positions show that some countries are convinced that others are not doing enough in terms of economic transparency and administrative effectiveness. They see a widening gap between development levels. And they are afraid that the richer part of Europe will be asked to keep contributing to States that are not doing their best in terms of political performance. The opposing side considers such a position as a prejudiced view. In my opinion, both groups of countries have some valid points that must be discussed. Indeed, it is time to discuss the reasons for poor performance and also some of the prevailing national prejudices that are still alive in different parts of the European Union.

A stronger European Union

The European Recovery Fund, proposed by the President of the European Commission, was favourably received in the various capitals of the Member States. The Italians and the Spaniards were happy, on one side, and the Scandinavians as well, notwithstanding earlier positions regarding the need for conditionalities.

It is, in fact, a balanced plan, which reserves a good part of the resources for grant-type financing. And it adds an incredible amount of money to other resources already announced, either by the Commission or by the European Central Bank. Ursula von der Leyen demonstrated opportunity and vision. Her standing as head of the Commission comes out strengthened. Of course, behind all this, we can guess there is the support of Angela Merkel and Wolfgang Schäuble, who is now President of the German Federal Parliament and who continues to have a lot of power, on the domestic scene of his country. In the end, these things happen if the Germans are on board. They do not express it too loudly, but their voice is the determinant one in matters of common economic policies, agriculture excepted.

The European recovery

Today, Chancellor Angela Merkel and President Emmanuel Macron stated they will advocate for the establishment of a €500 billion recovery fund. In their view, the money should be raised in the international capital markets by the European Commission, as a common pot aimed at helping the Member States seriously affected by the Covid-19 pandemic. The disbursements would be approved by the Commission, following the criteria that are yet to be established. It would also be the Commission that would have the responsibility to pay the markets back, meaning, the principal and the interests or dividends.

I am not sure this will work. Austria’s leader, Sebastian Kurz, has already voiced strong objections to such an idea. He does not want to see a recovery mechanism that is dispensing grants to the States. He is for loans. Loans make the leaders a bit wiser than just getting free money, he seems to believe. We can expect that other voices will join his own.

In view of this, my position is that most of the money should be channelled to fund joint multinational projects that would reinforce the European system and would have an impact on the EU’s strategic self-sufficiency in matters of public health, bioresearch and other critical emergency response mechanisms. The pandemic has taught us that the health sector is vital, not only for medical reasons but also because of its impact on the functioning of the economy. We cannot no longer talk about strategy without including the strengthening of our common capacity to deal with epidemics, critical hospital equipment needs and essential medicines. Money should also be spent on common logistics and rapid deployment networks.

It is also clear that the recovery fund must be operational soonest. There is urgency. We are not yet at the end of the crisis. The intensity of the pandemic can have a new surge at any moment. We must be better prepared this time. In addition, the economy of the most affected countries needs resources that would encourage new investments, in greener areas, and in matters that address the issues of income and social security. The priority should go for those projects that are fundamental for a stronger Europe and that are not too much dependent on resources and means of transportation we do not control.

This is a time to think differently. The fund, if it is thoughtfully planned and wisely administered, can become a tool for transformation and progress. The alternative is for it to become a reason for further divisions within the European space. Nobody wants that to happen.

The judges and the economic crisis

The judgement issued by Germany’s Constitutional Court regarding the European Central Bank’s bond purchasing programme must be taken very seriously. It challenges the autonomy of the Bank, it gets the judges into monetary and fiscal matters, where the Court is not necessarily in familiar territory, and, above all undermines the authority and the mandate of the European Court of Justice. In the end, the judgement imperils the European Union itself.

But it came as no surprise. Many in Germany and elsewhere are still looking at some other European countries through the lenses of historical prejudice.

In any case, it must be responded to in a manner that is as comprehensive as possible. The ECB will take its part. It should be able to produce the justification the Constitutional Court requires. And key European politicians must state in clear terms the ultimate authority of the European Court of Justice. More concretely, Angela Merkel should come up with a statement that would underline the exceptionality of the current crisis and the need to go beyond the conventional approaches. It should add a word of respect for the Constitutional Court, of course, and, at the same time, remind everyone that the ECB’s plans and decisions are fundamental to overcome the calamity we are in.

Leadership in Germany

Chancellor Angela Merkel and her party are losing ground. They are going through a party leadership crisis as well. On the other hand, Alternative for Germany (AfD), the extreme-right party that is host to a good number of Neo-Nazis, is getting stronger. Both facts are bad for Germany and for Europe. And to add to the crisis, we have a very weak Social-Democrat Party, a disappearing SPD.

It is a major paradox to have a political impasse and so much extremism in a wealthy and well-functioning democracy. President Clinton used to say, it’s the economy, stupid! That’s not true in the case of Germany. It’s the national identity issue that is at play. Germany has become an ethnically diverse society. That was further accentuated after the mass migratory flows of 2015. And all this has not been properly addressed. Inclusion is more than learning the language and finding a job. The German situation should make us reflect about the way rich European nations deal with large segments of the population that have different roots and look different from the traditional picture each nation has drawn of herself.

In the meantime, the country must find a credible political leader that can take votes away from AfD, not by copying some of the banners the extremists agitate, but because he or she is a balanced politician and knows how to respond to the people’s views. Angela Merkel did that for many years. But her time is now running out.

Who could be next?

Europe cannot afford to have in Berlin either a weak government or a Chancellor that is not an enthusiastic European. Confusion about the role and the future of Germany in Europe could lead to a catastrophic situation within the EU. This is a crucial issue.

The Libyan route out of conflict

The German government will host tomorrow in Berlin a conference that aims at bringing a solution to the civil conflict in Libya. The first step would be to reach an agreement on a ceasefire between the two main warring factions, the one based in Tripoli and the one led by General Haftar, a man from Benghazi. This is an important initiative, sponsored by Chancellor Merkel and supported by both President Putin and President Erdogan. Both Presidents have a deep interest in Libya, Russia on the Haftar side and Turkey on the national government based in Tripoli. Merkel’s role is simple: to provide a venue and encourage every party to accept the UN’s mediation. It is modest as an ambition, but in the extremely complex context of Libya, it is a big try.

Both Libyan factions will attend. But all the indications I am getting from inside the country refer that no side is ready for a compromise. Their participation in the Berlin conference is more a play to the gallery, an opportunity to show to their supporters that they have a recognised international status. OK, I accept that, but it is still positive to have them around to be told they must agree on a ceasefire.

Both sides have their international backers. And those backers are telling their Libyan friends that they can win the war. That’s a lie, in a country that is so deeply divided. In the context of Libya, as it is today, the only route towards peace is the one built on national concord and a proper power balance between the different regions of the country. That route cannot be drawn based on foreign influence. It must come the Libyans themselves.

Angela Merkel meets Vladimir Putin: good move

From a European perspective, the resolution of the Libyan civil conflict is a priority. Such crisis has several consequences that are of special importance for the EU Member States. It’s next door, it’s related to a very central migratory flow line, and it has also a serious impact on security in the larger Sahelian region.

But the conflict is far from being resolved. It is getting more complex and deeply dramatic these days. In such context, today’s travel to Moscow to meet President Putin has placed German Chancellor Angela Merkel at the centre of the European efforts. It was the right thing to do. The Europeans must talk to the Russians if they want to see the Libyan drama resolved. The Russians have been very supportive of one of the Libyan sides, the one led by the rebel General Khalifa Haftar. But they have not closed the door on the other side, the one based in Tripoli and recognised by the international community. Moreover, the Russians keep talking to other external actors that are involved in Libya’s domestic situation, to the Turks, the Egyptians and some Arab Gulf States.

Another positive move, out of today’s travel, is the reaffirmation by Angela Merkel that the Libyan peace process must be facilitated by the UN. This is the kind of support that is so much needed.  

   

The approaches towards the future of European defence

When it comes to European defence, it is not either the US or Turkey that count. It is basically how the issue is seen by the French, the Germans and the Poles. The British, with the Brexit imbroglio, have somehow stepped aside. Each one of these three nations lead a different school of thought on the matter. And, in many ways, the Poles are more influential than what many outside analysts think. On top of that, they tend to voice positions that are not too far from the feelings we find within the US side. In this context, the strategy must follow a gradual approach, step by step, starting with less controversial areas. And it has to consider what should be the future of NATO in the Europe of tomorrow.

9 November is a European date

Besides the German leaders, the Presidents of Slovakia, Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary participated in the ceremony in Berlin, marking the 30^th anniversary of the fall of the Wall. I am very pleased they did. The date is an important one for freedom and democracy in their part of Europe. But it is also a key one for the rest of us, in the EU. It is about freedom, the end of a totalitarian approach to governance, the realisation that the communist utopia, as promoted by the Soviets and their allies, was nothing else but a tragic instrument to keep power in the hands of minority political extremists. It is above all a key date for Europe and its modern history. As such, it is most surprising not to see at today’s ceremony some politicians such as Emmanuel Macron, Charles Michel, the incoming EU Council President, and many others from the Western side of Europe. I think they made a mistake.

Salvini will become Trump's man in Europe

The Italian people will decide what next, when called to vote for a new government. That’s how our democracies work. It is however quite clear that one of their potential choices, Matteo Salvini, is an anti-European Union, for reasons he knows better than anybody else. He is also an extremist, fully supported by the most reactionary sectors of the Italian society. Many voters might think that he represents the kind of leadership the country needs. But there are also large sectors of the public opinion that see him as the wrong type of choice, someone that can bring disaster to the country. And that disaster could happen quite soon, it is not just a question of long term.

From a European perspective, if Matteo Salvini becomes Prime Minister that is bad news. He will carry division, xenophobia and ultra-nationalism to the European debate. Consensus building will become even more difficult than it is today. He is the enemy from inside. There is no bigger enemy than the one that lives among us.

He is also the strongest ally of the EU’s outside enemies. Some analysts mention his subordination to Vladimir Putin’s money and interests. That is dangerous enough. Putin’s agenda is to destroy the European unity. But I see an additional peril. He will become President Donald Trump’s agent within the EU, in the Council meetings and every time a key decision that might contradict the American policy is on the table. President Trump is no friend of the EU. If I were asked to prioritise the outside leaders that are hostile to the common project, I would start by referring to his name as number one. And I would add that such antagonism is particularly risky, as it comes from the leader of a country that has very close ties with Europe and a strong presence in some of the EU countries, not to mention that it is the most powerful nation on earth. President Trump and his circle will be making good use of Salvini’s duplicity and radicalism.

These are indeed new challenges. They certainly require a different understanding of the old established practises.

No Deal, soon in a street near you

31 October is not too far away. But it is far enough for us to be able to say what is going to happen to the UK’s Brexit. However, it should be clear, at this stage, that the No Deal is very likely. If, in the end, we get to that point, it is obvious that the relations between the EU and the UK will reach a very low point. It will take a lot of time to recover from such a fall. And that will also have an impact on other forms of cooperation between the two sides. It will certainly be, if it happens, a most defining moment in the history of modern Europe.

On Bastille Day, defence matters

On this Bastille Day 2019, I think we can draw two very clear lines.

First, the European defence must be taken seriously. Our countries share a common set of values. Furthermore, they have pooled several political decisions that show the ambition to create a joint political space. This goes much deeper than any alliance with our non-European friends, including those who have historical ties with Europe. In view of that and because at a certain point our geostrategic interests might diverge from those defined by our non-European allies, it is much wise to build our own independent capacity to fight for our ideas and well-being.

This is a step-by-step endeavour. It might take a bit of time to be completed. But it is now time to initiate its construction.

That message came out clearly from Paris as the Bastille celebrations were taking place.

The second message is about Turkey. President Erdogan has now opted for the Russian S-400 missiles. That is a major challenge to NATO and a very serious breach of Turkey’s commitment to the organisation. He must be told we do not accept his decision. He might not listen to such advice, as he will state his country’s independence of choice. OK, that is fine. But we can no longer take Turkey as a full ally. We ought to make it clear to President Erdogan and limit Turkey’s access to key military and defence information systems available in the West.

It is true we should not mix this matter with Turkey’s ambition to become a EU country. This are two separate matters. However, on the EU issue I think it is also time to be clear.