Writing about the G7 Summit

A very special G7 summit

Victor Ângelo

 

The G7 summit number 47 starts today in the UK. Although the British Prime Minister will be the host, the biggest star will be Joe Biden, who chose the occasion to make his first trip abroad. He will spend a long week in Europe, thus showing that the European continent remains an important stage for diplomacy and the strengthening of American foreign alliances.

This has everything to be an outstanding summit.  The statements made in the last few days confirm the concerns that I have already expressed here in this newspaper a month ago, at the time of the preparatory meeting of the foreign ministers. Biden's intention seems to be to transform the G7 into what the UN Security Council cannot be: a platform for understanding between the great liberal democracies, able to give a coordinated response to universal issues and to face up to China's global ambitions and the threats posed by Russia. In essence, it is about seeking to safeguard American hegemony, not in an isolated way as Donald Trump advocated, but with the USA's most solid allies.

To make this alliance more effective, they associate South Africa, Australia, South Korea, and India to the group. This addition is strange and incomplete. It leaves out many important states. It is true that this is not the time for vast face-to-face meetings.  It is also true that the decision on who comes to sit at the table is up to the host. But the other members would also have a say in the matter. Nobody insisted that Mexico, Brazil, or others be invited. The reading that can be made leaves little doubt: Latin America is in crisis and counts for little more than nothing on the international stage. It is, in any case, in the North American sphere of influence. It would not need to be heard.

Africa was represented at previous summits by three or four countries. This time it was almost left out. The presence of Cyril Ramaphosa, the South African president, can be seen as the British lending a hand to maintaining stability in South Africa in order to reassure certain sections of its population. The rest of the continent is of lesser concern. Incidentally, the UK was the only G7 country that decided to cut its cooperation budget on the pretext of the pandemic. The cut is £4 billion. It will have a considerable negative impact at a time when the least developed countries need exceptional support.

Regarding the Middle East, nobody wants to hear anything about Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, the general in charge in Egypt, let alone about Recep Erdoğan or Mohammed bin Salman. From the perspective of the G7, the Middle East is losing strategic relevance. On the other hand, Iran has moved into China's orbit - on 27 March, a mutual cooperation agreement for the next 25 years was signed, thus opening a way out for the Iranians, who have become freer from American and Western sanctions.

In Asia, the big bet is centred on India. It is, however, a complex and risky gamble. Narendra Modi is a radical Hindu nationalist who is dragging the world's largest democracy into an intense civil crisis. He is also a protectionist, unwilling to open the economy to foreigners. He does, however, offer one illusion: that he could become an important counterweight to China. 

China is, moreover, the main concern that Biden has in his baggage. He wants to turn the G7 into a dam against Chinese expansionism. We will see if he succeeds, apart from the mention in the final communiqué. As for Boris Johnson, the banner that would allow him to present the meeting as a success would be a resounding declaration of support for vaccination campaigns in the poorest countries, so as to have 60% of these populations vaccinated by the end of 2022. If there is a commitment to that, then this G7 will have been useful. Leaders will be able to sing victory, even though December 2022 will mean another year and a half of uncertainties and restrictions. In that perspective, helping others as quickly as possible is in the vital interests of us all, starting with the G7.

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

 

 

The G20 should coordinate the global response

A vaccine against geopolitical rivalries

Victor Angelo

 

Boris Johnson convened an extraordinary virtual G7 summit today. He justified it by saying it was urgent to find an agreement that would allow a global response to covid-19, i.e. access for all to the immunisation possible. He added that it would also be an opportunity to coordinate demand for vaccines to avoid a headlong rush to the few quantities already available. The summit would be the occasion to resolve the competition between states, which, if it continues, could lead to serious political fractures between traditional partners, as seen recently in the increased tension between the EU and the London government.

The UK holds the G7 presidency in 2021. Hence the legitimacy of Johnson's initiative. But the prime minister may have other objectives well beyond seeking a global response to the pandemic. The man is a skilled politician with a knack for spectacular actions. He will try to make the most of the opportunity that the leadership of the G7 offers him to show his constituents that he has a global stature capable of setting the agenda of the group of the most developed countries. If this translates into an increase in international cooperation, which badly needs to be stimulated, we can only be grateful.

I fear, however, that it will not achieve that result. The subject of the meeting is clearly a priority, but it cannot be limited to the G7 countries. It is true that Australia, South Korea, and India have also been invited to take part in the summit. India counts in terms of vaccine production. But the invitation reflects, above all, the UK's specific interest in strengthening its relations with these countries and not the contribution they can make to getting vaccines to the poorest and most remote parts of the world. It also reflects another political agenda, one that is shared by others, especially Joe Biden. That of thwarting the geopolitical ambitions of the main rivals of the United States and its Western allies. But making international policy at the cost of a pandemic does not seem to me to be ethically acceptable.

In fact, it would be more appropriate to organise a G20 meeting to deal with the harmonisation of vaccine distribution and define everyone's contribution to achieving this objective. The G20 has the merit of sitting at the same table all the G7 countries plus China and Russia, among others. Coordination with these two States is fundamental for a rapid, effective, and generalised fight against the virus. The intrusion of hegemonic rivalries should not be admitted when it comes to responding to a problem that threatens the health of all, social progress, and the stability of the future. According to World Bank estimates, the pandemic has already pushed a dramatic number of people back into extreme poverty - it could be around 115 million. Moreover, the lack of access to vaccines for people in the poorest countries will cause a global distortion with unimaginable consequences. Among other things, international inequalities would become even more accentuated, even explosive. The worsening of imbalances between regions of the globe is one of the greatest risks facing us.

The G20 is currently chaired by Italy. The Italian executive, now with Mario Draghi at its head, faces immense internal problems. It is not in a position to play a leading role on the international stage at a time when the latter needs a giant to mobilise it in an undisputed way. Draghi is scheduled to hold a global summit in Rome on 21 May on the pandemic and related issues. May is, however, an eternity away when urgent decisions are needed.

In the meantime, in a positive spirit, I hope that today's G7 meeting will make it possible to strengthen COVAX, the mechanism set up by the WHO, in collaboration with various organisations, to guarantee countries with limited financial and operational resources equitable access to covid vaccines. If this happens, we will have to recognise that the initiative taken by Boris Johnson will have had some merit.

 

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

 

My friend gets special treatment

It is a serious mistake to follow double standards when you are leading a country. You cannot be exacting for some and permissive for others, particularly when it is a political friend that is overstepping the red line. That fundamentally undermines the leader’s credibility. Once lost, it is not easy to recuperate.

Boris Johnson and Covid-19

Wishing a speedy recovery to Prime Minister Boris Johnson of the UK. He has been transferred this evening to intensive care because of the coronavirus. This sad moment sends a very strong message to the population. The coronavirus is a very threatening disease and people must follow all the official protocols the health authorities have adopted. The Prime Minister is a strong person, not old at all, and surrounded by the best medical care one can get. Notwithstanding all that, he is struggling. He has been sick for eleven days or so. If that can happen to the leader of the UK, we must pay a lot of attention to the virus. This is no small matter.

Boris and his crazy world

I would summarise today’s Cabinet reshuffle in the UK along three lines. It was a public opinion disaster, because the only thing people will remember is that Boris Johnson got into a fight with one of his closest allies so far, Sajid Javid. In addition, it demonstrated that the Prime Minister wants to concentrate the key levers of power in his office and leave very little room for policy decisions in the hands of the Cabinet ministers. And, third point, it confirmed that the real power behind the throne Boris occupies is his crazy political advisor, Dominic Cummings. Cummings is a puppet master.  

Absolute power leads to disaster

Four out of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council are now led by men with absolute power. They have been able to place themselves at the apex of the pyramid, undoubtedly above the institutions existing in their countries. They exert their authority in political contexts with no real checks and balances. They decide, they command and everybody else obeys. In two of the countries, there are democratic oppositions, one should recognise it. But the recent happenings show that such opposition parties have very little room to act as balancing powers, as an alternative brake to any excess. Extreme polarisation makes the majority party act as block, as a protective barrier to the leader.

All these situations are very worrisome. Recent history, especially at different moments of the past century, has shown that autocratic leadership can be the fastest route to disaster. Dictators, big and small, need to create conflicts with foreign powers to survive and justify their policies. The process they follow is clear. They start by challenging the validity of international law and the role of multilateral organisations. Then, they try to ride on an existing sub-regional conflict by taking sides. That allows them to make the enemy identifiable. And the tension keeps growing.

It is time to clearly state that diplomacy is better than conflict. And to add that in a world as global as it is ours today, the only way to keep peace and prosperity is through increased cooperation and positive alliances. But above all, we must reaffirm that democracy and full respect for everyone rights are the best lessons we have learned from past crises.

Post-Brexit optimism

I think it is too early to be worried about the future of the European Union’s relationship with the United Kingdom. We are now at the beginning of the transition period. Its duration is not long, I agree, but I also see that both sides will try to reach some sort of agreement before the end of it, before end of December. The posturing we are witnessing today is part of the negotiating tactics. But both sides will be under serious pressure from the respective business communities. They do not want to rock the boat. The economic and trade ties are strong. They should remain strong. Besides that, we share the same geopolitical space and that should be an encouragement for cooperation. Even a fool can understand that.  

Brexit means additional fragility for both sides

Competition between nations opens the door to conflict and even war. Cooperation leads the way to progress and peace. That should be the message on this Brexit day.

And we should also keep in mind that our adversaries and even some of Europe’s allies would prefer us to be fragmented and disunited.  

The new Boris Johnson

I do not see the world the way Boris Johnson does. But I accept he is a great political campaigner, someone who knows that in today’s complex world people want simple messages to be put across and a clear show of determination. He did both. And he won, a huge victory by all means. He has five years of power in front of him. Let’s see if he is as good at exercising it as he has been at canvassing for it.

He will govern a very divided country. His choices are clear: either he keeps deepening the sharp split or he opts for a moderate route that can make a good part of the opposition feel comfortable with his governance. I think he knows the latter is the only way forward. He cannot contribute to the augmentation of the political divide; he cannot ignore those who want to keep a close relationship with the European Union. That includes the Scottish people.

The United Kingdom must keep a strong link with the EU. Boris Johnson is smart enough to understand that and strong enough, within his party, to impose such a political line. The only question mark is about his balance: will he be wise enough to seek a compromise with the EU? I don’t know. And I am afraid he might not have that kind of wisdom. He might fall into the old trap that makes British people believe they are better than their neighbours. That would be a serious mistake. Let’s hope it will not happen.

British general elections

It is still to early to know the outcome of the British elections. It will be inappropriate to try to guess the results, a couple of hours before the closing of the polling stations. Better wait for the headlines and the details tomorrow morning. Whatever comes out of the voting, it will have a major impact on the UK and, in some ways, in the rest of Europe. These are no ordinary elections. And many, particularly the younger people, got to understand it.

The question of trust

If there is a thing I took away from the political debate the BBC organised last evening, it is the question of trust. Basically, the programme was about placing the leaders of the four main British parties before an assembly of citizens. We were told these people represented a good sample of the diversity of opinions one can find in the British society. I don’t know the criteria the BBC followed to select them. However, I have no special reason to doubt the organisers’ word and good judgement.

Each leader was given 30 minutes to listen and reply to questions coming from the audience. That’s time enough to win an assembly of voters. It can also become an eternity if one is not able to connect with them and be convincing.

In my opinion, and excluding the special case of the leader of the Scottish National Party – Nicola Sturgeon has a very specific political agenda, very focused on getting a new vote on Scotland’s quest for independence from the UK – the other three leaders could realise they are not trusted by large segments of the population. Their pledges do not sound as sincere.  They can count, of course, on their faithful followers. But they can’t widen the pool.

My conclusion was that they should ask themselves why it is they are not perceived by a good number of the voters as credible. If I were in their shoes, that would be the question I would try to answer now, before moving on with the campaign.

If you fail, try blackmail

When political bullying fails, the fellows try blackmail. The French call it “chantage”. That’s what some Brexit hardliners have been suggesting this weekend. They recommend that the Boris Johnson government sabotages the work of the EU institutions, if his deal proposal is not accepted and he is forced to ask for an extension. In their lunacy, they have even advised Boris Johnson to appoint Nigel “Crackpot” Farage as the British Commissioner in Ursula von der Leyen’s Commission. They see Farage as the Chief Disruptor.

All this is childish. And it is also amazing to see some sectors of the British Conservative Party falling so low. Their anti-European fanaticism makes them politically blind. It blocks their minds and impedes them from understanding that cooperation and mutual benefit are the only winning cards. Radical Conservatives just keep moving away from the traditional British common sense.

Her Majesty's Opposition: some questions

Where is the UK Opposition? What is their counterplan? Why have they lost the political initiative?

These are my questions this morning.

Boris Johnson's weird proposal

The plan the British Prime Minister sent to Brussels today, regarding a withdrawal agreement with the EU, is a construction in the air. It’s not grounded on realistic operational premises, meaning, it is unclear in terms of its day-to-day implementation. And it plays with words and images, basically to show to the British voters this plan is different from the one Theresa May had agreed upon. It is not about substance and cooperation, it is about personal ambition and party politics in the UK. 

The EU leaders are not convinced. However, they played smart in their reactions to Boris Johnson’s proposal. They said they would look at it with the required attention. That’s a diplomatic way of saying we are not convinced but do not want to kill hope right away. Brussels does not want to give the British PM any chance that would allow him to blame the EU for a No Deal situation. It is true he will blame in any case, but without any definitive proof. 

Besides the confusing lines, the plan was presented almost like an ultimatum from the British side to the European one. That is not very smart. Key leaders in Europe will take such approach as an affront. Politically, Boris Johnson's tone calls for a response that might further complicate the Brexit issue. This is no time for “take it or leave it”, as the PM is saying. That is unwise, but not surprising as Boris Johnson is more interested in impressing the British nationalists than in finding a solution to his country’s future relationship with Europe. He is already campaigning. The bizarre Brexit plan he submitted today is part and parcel of his electoral strategy. Not much more than that.

The rule of law in the UK

Today’s ruling by the UK Supreme Court is about law and the respect by everyone, including the country’s Prime Minister, of the constitutional arrangements that define the exercise of executive power. It was a legal decision. And it must be seen as such. The Supreme Court unanimously decided that the Prime Minister’s prorogation of Parliament was unlawful and therefore void and of no effect.

The initial reaction of some of Boris Johnson’s unconditional supporters, including in the media – The Telegraph is just an example – was to say that the Court’s decision was political. That the eleven Supreme Judges were just taking the side of the Remainers. Later in the day that kind of incendiary opinion disappeared from the front pages and was also deftly abandoned by the extreme Brexiteers that were invited to comment. Someone had realised that to criticise the Supreme Court with political rhetoric would backfire. That was the second victory of the day for the rule of law.

Boris Johnson and his disastrous politics

A few brief comments on tonight's vote in the British Parliament.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson suffered a major humiliation. It was not just a defeat. It should be seen as the confirmation that his strategy – the one that is designed by his Special Advisor, Dominic Cummings, and the PM implements – is not keeping his own camp together. Twenty-one members of his Tory Party voted against him, notwithstanding all the promises he made and, above all, the political threats he mouthed against them. Twenty-one is a big number and most of them are very senior people with a long public career.  

The Prime Minister has shown that his understanding of the British system of democracy is not far from the one followed by Vladimir Putin and other birds of the same feather. He sees his fellow party parliamentarians as just yes-men. They are not allowed any freedom of choice. In his opinion, they are at Westminster to vote for the PM, and that’s all.

The opposition must ride on tonight’s vote and present Boris Johnson in negative colours: under the spell of mischievous Cummings; following a blind approach to a catastrophic Brexit, for ideological reasons, with no respect for facts and the civil service advice; undemocratic and deeply authoritarian; unprepared for the job of unifying the country; and a frenzied liar. Those should be the lines of attack during the coming days and weeks.

Boris and his master play hard ball

Dominic Cummings, who is Boris Johnson’s high priest for strategy – officially, his title is Senior Advisor to the PM – knows very well that in war it is vital to regain the initiative. To win one must master the plan and the action.

Yesterday, the opposition and all those who are against a No Deal Brexit had reached an accord that could threaten the PM’s political future. They got the ball and the agenda. That was a major menace to Boris’s power. Today, that same group lost it, thanks to Cummings and his pupil. The suspension of parliamentary work decided by Boris Johnson surprised his opponents and destabilised their game plan. That’s how strategy is played by the big people.

But the game is not over. Today’s move has infuriated many Tory MPs that were sitting on the fence. They might find the courage to pay back. That must happen in the next few days and before the end of coming week. If it does, Cummings’ canny advice to Boris might end up by backfiring. The stakes are higher than ever.

We will see.

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.

Boris and the crime agenda

As he stepped into his new job of Prime Minister, Boris Johnson promised to recruit 20,000 additional police officers. That number matches the reduction of the police force in England and Wales since March 2010. Many do not find the police service attractive enough anymore, if one considers pay, working hours, duress and the level of risk. And England and Wales have seen the crime rates explode during the last years. London and many other cities are no longer safe places. This remains a major failure of the recent government.

If the new Prime Minister manages to change the security situation, he would have collected a major political prize. If I were in his shoes, I would spend a good deal of my time trying to address the issue. There, as in any other country, the citizen’s safety should be a priority. The citizens want to see the government committed to such task.

This could be a central theme of the future electoral campaign that very soon Boris Johnson will be compelled to call. He wants to leave the EU by 31 October, to take the steam out of the Farage Brexit Party. And then, as soon as he is out, call for fresh elections. But he might have to dissolve the Parliament before 31 October, if the opposition to a No Deal is larger than his own supporters. In any case, elections are in the horizon. Besides Brexit, it seems that security might be the big theme. The only problem is that a No Deal Brexit – and we are now very close to that option – will disrupt so many aspects of the British life that he might be consumed during the electoral campaign by those issues and unable to deal with the security crisis that is going on.

Boris Johnson has interesting times ahead of him. I am not entirely sure he will be able to cope.

Boris Johnson is in charge

From a diplomatic perspective, the European leaders can only wish every success to Boris Johnson. He won the leadership of his Conservative Party and the British political tradition makes him the next Prime Minister.

This is not a very easy time for the UK, as the country is more divided than ever and must make some very decisive choices. Johnson knows that. His initial steps are particularly important. Above all, the way he approaches the European Union. If he tries the impossible, and a different type of Withdrawal Agreement, based on fantasy, he might end up by stepping into the abyss. I am sure he is aware of that and does not want his premiership to be tainted by economic distress and domestic constitutional crisis. By failure, in a word.

We will see.

In the meantime, the Labour Party is also facing some serious difficulties. Jeremy Corbyn is less and less able to respond to the major challenges the UK is confronted with. Time is defeating him. Now, he must find a sharper way of defining his party’s position. During the next few weeks all the attentions will be focused on the way he responds to the Boris Johnson Cabinet’s initiatives. That’s not a very comfortable position. The one who takes the initiative, if he is smart, is always ahead of the game. To try to catch up – that will be Corbyn’s most likely approach – is not good enough. Corbyn and his party must go beyond responding and be prepared to come up with striking ideas. They must re-capture the people’s attention. That’s not easy when on the other side is standing someone like Johnson.