New Year: Get Russia out of Ukraine without further delay

Diário de Notícias, Lisboa, 12 Jan 2024

My opinion piece of 12 Jan 2024: translation to English made by AI

New Year: Get Russia out of Ukraine without further delay

Victor Angelo

Vladimir Putin started the year with violence: he launched day and night without stopping a large number of missiles and drones over multiple Ukrainian locations. Contrary to what some analysts claim, he thus implied that he is in a hurry to force Ukraine's surrender. And he reminded us that dictators don't respect red lines. Believing that you can negotiate with despots is an expensive illusion.

Russia presides over the BRICS group this year. You will want to show that you are capable of successfully leading and expanding an organization that you consider to be a possible alternative to the current world order. As part of the Russian presidency, a series of international meetings are planned, which should culminate in a summit in October, in the emblematic city of Kazan. To be able to attract those who are hesitant, Russia must appear as a victorious, powerful, but peaceful country, after having re-established dominance over territories to which it claims rights in the light of an imperialist past. In other words, after robbing Ukraine of sovereignty over the four eastern provinces and keeping Crimea, usurped in 2014. To international law and treaties, Putin contrasts an archaic and absurd historical narrative, to try to justify hostility, aggression and border wars against neighbouring countries.

At the beginning of the year, five new countries joined the BRICS: Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Ethiopia and Iran. The group now has 10 members, most of whom have a dubious democratic reputation. Putin would like to reach the end of his year of presidency with at least twice as many countries as members of the BRICS. He mentioned a few days ago that there are around 30 countries interested in joining. I consider this statement to be little more than mere propaganda. It reveals, however, the intention to fracture the international community and destroy the norms of cooperation that have been built, within the framework of the United Nations and other multilateral organizations, since 1945.

It is not up to democratic Europe or other allied states to intervene in the accession, policies and practices of the BRICS, if all this occurs in accordance with international standards. For example, if Brazil feels that it is better supported in an alliance with Russia or Iran, rather than in a close relationship with the G7, the choice is yours. It cannot, however, at the same time expect preferential treatment from countries in the G7 or EU orbit. Not even from the CPLP, which should not offer sun on the threshing floor and rain on the eaves, if one day it is to be led with the necessary courage.

But the fundamental issue, at the beginning of the year, is different: Russia must leave Ukraine, without further delay, and respect its sovereignty and territorial integrity. This should be the number one concern of the EU and its allies.

The most recent evidence appears to show that both parties in the US are close to an understanding on this matter and ready to renew assistance to Ukraine. The EU is missing. Europe's leaders talk a lot and well, but they don't act as expected. It is a conversational leadership, fuelled by fear of Russia. The Member State that has helped the most and counts the most – Germany – is afraid of taking the necessary decision that would significantly modify the existing scenario: the supply of long-range Taurus missiles to Ukraine. This is equipment that will make it possible to strike the Russian invader with weight and depth, and isolate Crimea from the rest of Russia. When I decided to write this text, I thought I would highlight the indecision shown so far by Olaf Scholz. Meanwhile, the chancellor this week made an exhortation to other European partners and a declaration of agreement with the EU's 50 billion aid plan for Ukraine, which is expected to be approved at the European Summit on February 1.

In a Europe without clear leadership, Scholz's words are encouraging. But they know little and late. There is urgency. It is necessary to advance with the Taurus, with more ammunition, with new anti-aircraft defence systems, with combat drones and an air defence force based on the F16. And accompany all this aid with new political decisions, which once and for all accentuate the financial and diplomatic isolation of the Putin regime. Constantly explaining to European citizens what Ukrainian heroism has been, the advances in the Black Sea, in the ports of Crimea, in the attacks on the Russian naval fleet and in terms of defence in the face of brutality.

I also thought about criticizing the leaders of France, Italy and Spain: they are major economies that have been minor players when compared to Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden and the Baltics, not forgetting the United Kingdom. But we'll see how they behave in the near future, faced with Scholz's challenge. Whether or not they realize that it also depends on them to prevent Putin from continuing to be a threat to stability and peace in Europe.

Bolsonaro and Trump

Jair Bolsonaro and Donald Trump have been duly elected. The democratic procedures in their respective countries have been followed. At least, at a level that made their elections acceptable by their countries’ institutions. The point is that democracy is fine, but it can result in the election of fools. Bolsonaro and Trump are two daring fools. If you dare, if you know how to insult everybody else, you might get there. They have taught us that lesson. We should say thank you for that and then, make sure they are not re-elected.

They can't drink oil

      The collapse of the oil price has several major implications. It is an economic tsunami. For the oil-producing developing countries, in Africa and elsewhere, it means an extraordinary loss of revenue. That’s the case for Nigeria, Angola, Congo, South Sudan, Algeria, Libya, Indonesia, Mexico, Brazil, Venezuela, Iraq, Iran, and so on. It adds fuel to social instability in those countries. It brings, at least, a new level of poverty and hardship to their populations. For the developed countries, it carries serious capital losses for the pension funds and other sovereign funds that were heavily invested in oil corporations and all the other companies that deal with bits and pieces of the oil industry. For all of us, it discourages new investments in renewable sources of energy. The bottom rock oil price makes any renewable too expensive to contemplate at this stage. 

The oil consumption is at present very low, because of the lockdowns that are implemented all over. But also, because the United States has continued to pump vast amounts of oil. They are now the largest producer, with 12.3 million barrels per day. President Trump could have compelled the industry to reduce daily production. There was a recommendation to cut it by 2 million barrels per day. He decided not to act because he saw this branch of the economy as a key pillar of his political basis. There are 10 million oil and gas sector jobs in the US, plus many billionaires that inject money in the Republican camp.   Now, he is promising them billions of dollars in subsidies. Public money being wasted when the solution was to reduce exploitation. His political choice has a huge impact on the domestic taxpayers’ money and on the world economy. It is inexcusable.

They say that misfortunes never come alone. Indeed.

Not bad, this year's G7 Summit

Several experienced international analysts raised the issue before the meeting: is the G7 still relevant? They had in mind last year’s messy summit in Canada, as well as the fact that there are serious divergences within the group, particularly with President Trump’ views, not to mention that these countries have lost weight in the world economy. They barely represent about 40% of the global output, much less than when the G7 was established, over twenty years ago.

Many concluded that the G7 Summit had outlived its usefulness. That the summit was no longer justified.

My opinion has gone in the opposite direction. I wrote in my Portuguese language blog that such meetings are still advisable. They can help. Summits give an opportunity for eye contact between the leaders. That is important, particularly at a time when so much power is concentrated in so few hands. We live in a period that considers electoral legitimacy almost absolute, even beyond established rules and practises. I am against such an approach, but the fact of the matter is that we see leaders of our democracies claiming levels of authority that come close to personal autocratic rule. In such circumstances, personal contact can make a difference. Leaders must meet frequently.

The G7 is one such opportunity.

This time, the expectations were relatively low.

But the summit in Biarritz, France, went well beyond the expectations. It has been a better meeting than we had anticipated. The final press conference, that brought together the French and the US Presidents, has showed that the dialogue avenues are not closed. Both Presidents did well when responding to the media. We could see the differences of opinion between them, but they were dealt with tact.

One could say that much of the success achieved during the summit must be put to the credit of Emmanuel Macron. That is to a large measure true. He has been able to navigate the very difficult matters that were on the table as well as the unique egos in the room. It would be unfair not to recognise President Macron’s ability and efforts. However, there is more to it. The issues on the agenda are too big and complex – we have undoubtedly a very delicate mix of global problems. And global means global, when it comes to the negatives of such issues. The mood, when discussing them, could only be a serious one. Even in the case of those leaders that tend to see the world from their own very narrow prism. That’s not bad.

The Amazon rainforest and President Bolsonaro's policies

I do not agree at all with his views but I cannot criticise the Brazilian population for their decision to elect Jair Bolsonaro as President. I am a foreigner and I live far away from Brazil. Moreover, I do not want to discuss the electoral propriety of the process that led to his election. I leave that to the Brazilians themselves and to their institutions, media and political class. They are more than prepared to do it.

However, I should feel free to criticise the political decisions of President Bolsonaro that either violate established common values or have an international impact. In particular, his approach to the Amazon rainforest. The President is not protecting the forest, as he is ignoring the rights of the indigenous populations that call the Amazon home. His policies encourage the destruction of the Amazon by greedy ranchers, latifundia farmers, illegal miners, criminal loggers and many other individuals that have no respect for the law and human life. Some of this people are most likely behind the thousands of fires that are consuming the Amazon. Such fires are a major ecological disaster for the region and the world. One cannot ignore them.

In this circumstances, international pressure on President Bolsonaro must be intensified for him to change his policies, and to protect the indigenous populations and to seek international cooperation in the fight against the destruction of the forest. At the same time, a global fund must be fully supported to finance the preservation of the Amazon, regenerate what can be rebuilt and compensate the Brazilian people for doing so. Here, as in many other issues, President Bolsonaro should not hide behind false nationalism. He must accept the role and the resources of such fund.

The Venezuela plan

All the signs seem to indicate that there is a plan to deal with Maduro and the power struggle in Venezuela. That plan can only come from people that have a lot of experience with scene setting and related strategic moves. Where do we find such people? And, second question, how legitimate is such a plan? And, final key question: can it work in a political environment like the one we presently have in Venezuela?

Let’s see what the next few days bring in our direction. And at what cost.

Brazilian politics

Dilma Rousseff´s impeachment might be seen from different partisan perspectives. Fine. But my point is a different one. It´s about constitutional processes. And her trial by the Senate followed the procedures established in the Brazilian Constitution. The debate was not always serene and had a number of much undignified moments. Yet, in the end, it was democracy in action through institutional mechanisms.

On a different point, let me refer that some of the Senators and other top political actors might not be an example of probity. There is plenty of corruption within the party machineries. That should be the next political challenge for the people of Brazil. If that is tackled with steadiness the poor citizens, that have been the main support of Dilma and her movement, might become more inclined to accept the impeachment decision of today. It is therefore time to speak about launching a laundry political process.  

Thank you, Brazil!

In the end, Brazil should be commended. The support provided to the Olympic Games has been quite valuable. The country might be facing a lot of political and economic problems but still it was able to deliver the environment the Games needed. It is fair to recognise it. 

Brazil´s democracy

The Brazilian politics are again in a mess. And beyond the surface, the key issue is related to widespread corruption among the different layers of the country´s political class. Dynasties of politicians just try to take advantage of public office. For them, politics is about personal gain, more than anything else.

Now, the impeachment process of President Dilma Rousseff adds extra fuel to an ongoing crisis. Dilma has made some important political mistakes and has lost popular support. Part of those faux pas are related to corruption as well. She has tolerated illegal actions carried out by some of those close to her inner circle. But she has above all come to personify another feature of the Brazilian politics: ineptitude.

Incompetence cannot be a reason to impeach a president. If that was the case, many in many parts of the world would be kicked out of office well before the end of their mandates.

It might however happen in today´s Brazil. It seems too late for Dilma to be able to stop the slide.

If it happens, one should regret it. But, at the same time, one could recognise the strength of the constitutional set up as the institutional processes are allowed to follow their course in Brazil. We cannot say the same about other countries in Brazil´s neighbourhood. Brazil might be in the middle of a political carnival. But its democracy is stronger than many around it. 

Brazil´s politics might get closer to the Venezuela´s model

Two days later, the situation I described in the previous post about the Brazilian crisis has reached a new level of political immorality. Lula da Silva has indeed been sworn in as super minister, some kind of premiership equivalent position, just to see his appointment cancelled by a federal court. That judicial decision has further weakened President Dilma Rousseff´s standing as well. Her credibility got a new serious blow.

The crisis is now so deep that it will be very difficult for Dilma to keep the presidency for much longer. But she will not go without a real fight. Dilma wants to bring the issue to the streets and have one side of the population confronting the other side. That will give her some grounds to say that if she goes there will be civil unrest. She will try to grasp that last straw. But the problem is more complex. Brazil is deeply divided, the political actors have no moral authority and we can expect extreme manifestations of discontent. In some sense, Brazil could become a lighter copy of the chaos that is occurring in Venezuela. 

Brazil: moving fast in the wrong direction

The political crisis in Brazil is deteriorating fast. President Dilma Rousseff´s decision to appoint former head of State Lula da Silva as a senior Cabinet minister has contributed to a new level of malaise. People cannot understand this attempt to extract Lula from a regular judicial scrutiny.

And there are new revelations about corruption within the inner circle of power.

The pursuit of the impeachment process is now more likely. And we can also expect some additional desperate moves from Dilma´s side.

All this will bring additional deep fractures among Brazilians and further economic difficulties. The country will be in a very bad shape at a time it should be at its best to host the Olympic Games. But that´s only a lesser detail. The true challenge will be to repair the great damage that all this corruption will cause to Brazil´s self-respect and its international image. 

BRICS and the cyber disputes

As the BRICS summit comes to an end, one could see that “internet governance” was a major issue very much present in the informal discussions. 

Russia is particularly concerned by the fact that the Domain Name System (DNS) is entirely managed by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN. This Corporation is a US-based entity and it therefore follows the North-American legal rules. For Vladimir Putin this is seen as a strategic risk. 

He was very much counting on India´s support to gradually create an alternative system, but Prime Minister Modi is not ready for a move that would jeopardise his relations with Washington. India wants to be a key player in the world´s digital economy but in very clear terms: India sees itself as a service centre for customers all over the planet. And they know that the US can become the most important market for the Indian expertise.

The BRICS summit

Today´s BRICS summit has more or less escaped the attention of the mainstream media. It is true that a meeting in Ufa, a far-flung city in the middle of vast Russian steppe, is not easy to cover. But it is also true that Greece and the Chinese stock exchange crisis are taking a lot of headline space. And they are much easier for international reporters to access.

Within the BRICS, the trend is for a deepening of the economic cooperation between the three big ones: China, India and Russia. These countries, contrary to Brazil and South Africa, can take advantage of their geographic proximity. Their political relations are also rather friendly and that adds leverage to their economic exchanges.

Besides that, one should recognise that every one of these five countries have the same concern: they want to get a stronger voice in international affairs. And that´s the cement that brings them together. 

On Brazil again

Returning to theme of yesterday – Brazil – I should add that in addition to the corruption issue, that is undermining the credibility of some political circles, there is a serious problem of deep social disparities.

Many Brazilians live a very tough live and their children have few chances of getting out of the social swamp because they are not proper schooled. Education for the very poor is still a major challenge. The ruling Workers ‘Party has helped the poor, but the policy of money grants is not sustainable.

Then, on the other side of the class ladder we find people that enjoy all pleasures of life and can afford a standard of living that is comparable to the best in the world.

It is the middle class that is being squeezed out. The cost of decent housing and other expenditures have increased dramatically during the last few years. Some costs are far higher than in Europe. 

Therefore, it is no surprise to see that the main activism against President Dilma comes from people belonging to the urban middle classes. She is actually losing ground fast within this social group. 

Corruption in Brazil´s leading circles

I had a long conference call with a Brazilian friend who lives in Rio de Janeiro. And I could realise how much the Petrobras corruption scandal is eroding the foundations of President Dilma Rousseff´s power. It is also exposing her natural tendency to micromanage everything that counts, instead of letting the institutions and the procedures do their work. She is in serious need of sound advice. But is she able to listen?

Dilma´s challenges

Dilma Rousseff has been re-elected President of Brazil. It was a tough campaign and many people in the country thought she would not make it. She had created quite a number of die-hard opponents, particularly among the urban middle class and the riches segments of the nation. But the country remains above all a socially divided society, with large numbers of very poor and excluded people. They are the ones that constitute the electoral basis of Dilma. And to be frank, it is better they feel represented. That´s Dilma´s card. But it is also the card of all those who are better off. They cannot afford to have a large number of people below the poverty line and dis-empowered. It is not safe, it is not a solid ground for stability.

Dilma´s job now is to respond to the aspirations of the largest number of people including those that have voted against her and do not like her administration at all. She has to be seen as inclusive, and able to fight corruption. But above all, she has to be seen as a leader that can promote growth and greater equality in a country that is not growing fast enough, notwithstanding its possibilities, and that is deeply unequal. Can she do the job?

   

Dilma´s political future is at stake

Dilma Rousseff, Brazil´s head of State, is fighting for her political future.

The second round of the presidential elections will take place in about eleven days, on October 26. The odds are playing against Dilma. Her party has been in power for the last twelve years. It is strongly embedded in the administrative apparatus and it has also a solid support in the poorer segments of the country. But at a time of economic slowdown, as it is today the case in Brazil, when public resources have become scarcer, it is easy to put the blame on the government and vote against those in power. On top of that, large sectors of the urban and better educated Brazilians are today against Dilma´s party and her control of the administrative machinery. They are basically afraid of Dilma´s interventionist policies, of new taxes, and they want change.

In many ways, the Brazilian society is today much polarised. And less solidary. Class plays a defining role. And individualism, personal success, is also a common trait in a country that prides itself for its self-made men and women. Many do not understand the social policies Dilma´s party has implemented in favour of the poor.

All that runs objectively against a candidate that is identified with a strong option for a more redistributive social policy.

I am afraid Dilma might be the loser at the end of the day, on the 26^th. 

Dilma and Marina

The forthcoming presidential elections in Brazil, scheduled for 5 October with a second round taking place on 26^th, if necessary, should be studied with great attention by those who are particularly interested in leadership issues.

 Dilma Rousseff, the incumbent, is in a tight battle against Marina Silva, an opposition candidate that might bring together the social-democrats and the centre-right. Actually, in the current Brazilian spectrum, it is not easy to talk about left and right politics as the main candidates have founded their campaigns on broad alliances that cover a good number of parties and movements. But that´s not my point at present. The point is about the personalities and the way the two leading ladies conduct their election campaigns. They have two different styles, both very remarkable. There is a lot to be learned from them in terms of political leadership in a huge and very diverse country.

DIlma has against her the fact that her party has been in power for 12 years and that many would like to see a change of direction in the way politics are conducted. The events of the last 14 months, with mass demonstrations and many opposing the way public money has been spent on prestige projects, or embezzled by corrupt individuals in positions of power, run against Dilma´s re-election. She has however many positive trump cards. Would they be enough? Would they be played in the appropriate manner?

Marina, on the other side, represents a bit of fresh air, but with many contradictions in terms of her political positions. She projects however a more caring image and that plays in her favour. It also plays for her the fact that she comes from very humble roots and the simplicity of her discourse. She might be the next president of Brazil. 

Insecurity in the Gulf of Guinea

I have been asked to look at the security challenges in the Gulf of Guinea. There will be an international meeting on the subject in Lisbon on 11 July. States from the region, and partner nations from the EU and elsewhere, including Brazil and the US, are supposed to attend.

The meeting comes out of a growing concern about the security challenges facing Coastal West Africa, as the next expansion area of a crisis that has shaped the Sahel during the recent past. The sea lanes are along West Africa are vital for many interests, including the oil and fishing interests of European countries.

As I get deeper into the subject I come to old conclusions: poor governance in the region, extremely weak states, predatory elites, inadequate cooperation policies on the side of rich countries, widespread disrespect for human rights, all that play a role and seriously contribute to a complex situation that could easily get out of hand in the future. 

The waters of West Africa

The security challenges in the Gulf of Guinea are a new opportunity to promote cooperation between the key African States of the region, including Nigeria and Angola. They are also being used to enhance the political relations between those countries and States from outside the region. Brazil is one of those States. The US, of course, is particularly interested. And within the EU, Portugal has been a front player in terms of advancing the partnership agenda between Europe and West Africa.

My advice is that the partnership has to deal with fisheries protection – which key for the economy of the coastal populations of the region – as much as it deals with piracy and freedom of navigation. This dual approach is the only sustainable way forward. Without fishing the livelihood possibilities in the region will shrink further. And the illegal activities will be seen by many young people as one of the very few doors to remain open.