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)

 

 

 

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)

 

Comments on this week's G7 meeting

A Very Combative G7

Victor Ângelo

 

The G7 brings together the largest liberal economies, that is, in descending order of size, the United States, Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Italy and Canada. Together they represent about 50% of the world economy. The leadership of the G7 in 2021 falls to the British, who held a meeting of foreign ministers this week in preparation for the summit scheduled for June.

They have gone two years without meeting. The pandemic and the malaise caused by Donald Trump's presidency explain the long hiatus. Now the realities are different. Control of the pandemic seems possible, thanks to vaccination campaigns. And the policies pursued in Washington are no longer unpredictable. Still, it was necessary to decide between a face-to-face meeting or not. After a year of virtual conferences, it was concluded that when it comes to diplomacy, face-to-face contact is by far the most productive. Many of the videoconferences held between politicians during the pandemic turned out to be a mere formal exercise in which each one read the text in front of him  or her, without an exchange of ideas, an analysis of options or a personal commitment. We are now safely back to face-to-face discussions.

Another aspect concerns the list of countries outside the G7 but invited to the meeting. It was limited to South Africa, Australia, South Korea, and India, as well as two supranational organizations, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the European Union. The political reading of this choice is easy to make. There is a clear preference here, and not just from the British. The economic and geopolitical focus is on Asia, on strengthening relations with countries that can stand up to competition from China.  Latin America and the Middle East were simply ignored.

China was in fact a dominant concern. The consultations among the ministers started there. The US is pursuing a very complex policy line in relation to China. They seek, in the main, to combine antagonism with cooperation. Hostility in general and agreement, in certain concrete matters, for example in the area of climate change or on Iran. This line will not work. The message received in Beijing from Washington can be summed up in one word - confrontation. And the Chinese will respond to that perception club in equivalent currency.

The Europeans themselves - and this has been shown in the statements made by Germany and France - think that the American position with regard to China is excessive. They agree with Washington when it comes to human rights, Hong Kong or Xinjiang, or the protection of intellectual property. But they believe that Europe has much to gain if the relationship with China is based on respect for established rules and the pursuit of mutual advantages. Japan prefers to follow a policy similar to Europe's, despite pressure from the Biden administration.

Russia was also high on the agenda. The Kremlin is now seen as a threat to the European and American democracies. In this matter, the harmony between the two sides of the Atlantic is clearer. The issue of defending democratic regimes, including the fight against the spread of false or biased information, was a major theme.

The American Secretary of State went to London to propose a new strategic approach. Antony Blinken argues that the group cannot just be a coordination mechanism for the big capitalist economies. It must become a platform for political intervention by the most influential democracies. This is an expression of a belief prevalent in the current American administration that the US has a mission - that of saving the democracies. For some of us here in Europe, such a proposition generates three kinds of uneasiness. One, related to the increasing marginalization of the UN's political role. The other, with the worsening polarization of international relations. The third, with the weight that a phantom named Trump may yet exert in American politics.

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