Europe, China, India and Vladimir Putin

From Brussels to Beijing and New Delhi, in a time of atrocities

Victor Ângelo

In our part of the world, this was a week of turning for the worse. We are today in a much more delicate and dangerous situation. The atrocities committed in Bucha, on the outskirts of Kyiv, and in other places, shocked those who heard about them and seriously damaged the possibility of a dialogue between the Western countries and the regime of Vladimir Putin. Now, and without uttering the word that everyone fears, we may be in for a decisive confrontation between the two sides.

One of the two will have to give in. It would be a mistake not to think so. And, of course, backing down cannot be on our side. But it would be an even bigger mistake not to act consistently. This means that sanctions need to move to a new level, one that is aimed at decisively undermining the Kremlin's economic and financial capacity. It is essential to move beyond coal and stop importing all kinds of petroleum products. The statistics are clear: in 2021, the EU imported 74 billion euros worth of oil and oil products from Russia, while natural gas imports totalled 16.3 billion. There are those in the EU who oppose such sanctions, saying it would cause an inflationary wave and unbearable hardship for many of our businesses. Credible studies show that all this is manageable, given the sophistication of our economies and the resources that can be mobilized. But even more, it must be understood that achieving peace and safeguarding Europe's future cannot be achieved without some sacrifices in the short term.

It is also essential to isolate Russia further. That was the central issue of European concern at the summit with China last Friday. During the meeting, the message seemed to fall on deaf ears. The Chinese leaders insisted on the excellent cooperation that exists between them and Putin. But in the following days, the public discourse in Beijing evolved. It became more positive toward Europe. If you have money, you have friends, and the Chinese know that the EU has become their biggest trading partner. They cannot afford to lose the European market. Trade between them grew by 27.5% in 2021, despite the difficulties linked to the pandemic, rising shipping costs, disruptions in component circulation chains, and an unfavourable geopolitical climate. Nor can they miss out on investment from Europe. Ursula von der Leyen and Charles Michel have been able to play the investment card. The agreement on this matter, approved in Brussels in late 2020, has been frozen since then, which irritates the Chinese side. A greater distance between China and Russia could advance the thaw.

Besides the trade aspect, China wants a strong EU in the hope that it will be able to untie Europe politically and militarily from the US. This explains why it is constructive in the way it refers to the EU while at the same time following and amplifying Russia's rhetoric with regard to NATO. Regardless of that narrative, the important thing is to make Beijing see that excessive proximity to Putin plays against China's long-term interests. And it is not just economic interests, however important the raw materials extracted from Russia's vast territory may be. The deterioration of the Russian dictator's international image cannot be ignored by a country that aspires to be seen as one of the poles of the new global order and a beacon of peace.

In the midst of all this, it would be a serious oversight to forget India. Narendra Modi is investing in a close relationship with Russia, to prevent it from falling just to the Chinese side. Rivalry with China and enmity against Pakistan are the two main axes of Indian foreign policy. It therefore does not want to give China any opportunity to benefit from a comparatively more privileged relationship with Russia. In this regard, the EU must not neglect the dialogue with India, which must be frank and in parallel with the dialogue it must maintain with China.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 8 April 2022)

China and Europe: an agenda that differs from the American one

China and us

Victor Angelo

 

China's Foreign Minister Wang Yi spoke this week to the cream of US business leaders based in his country. The focus of his speech was the resumption of political dialogue between China and the United States under Joe Biden. He felt there was an urgent need to restore communication and mutual trust. He hinted that it was time to overcome the lack of objectivity and rationality that had marked Donald Trump's governance.  Apart from the reference to the red line of non-interference in Chinese domestic affairs - that is, Beijing does not want to be talked about human rights - his communication reflected a positive and reassuring official line.

On the same day that Wang spoke, Washington added 14 Chinese personalities to the list of those sanctioned for repression in Hong Kong. In Singapore, US Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross argued to an audience of leaders coming from the region that China would be the main military and economic threat to Asian countries. This is consistent with the Trump team's intention to create a fait accompli that would condition Biden's policy towards China. And I would say that it is managing to reduce, at least for some time, the room for manoeuvre of the new administration. A large part of public opinion and of the US political class share an ideological position of hostility towards China. 

Days before, John Ratcliffe, the director of U.S. National Intelligence and, as such, the supreme coordinator of the country's seventeen espionage and counterintelligence agencies, had published an opinion on China in the Wall Street Journal. Given its author, the text attracted much attention. The song was the same and the title of the article summed it up: "China is the No. 1 threat to national security". In the body of the text, it went further, stating that China would also be the greatest danger to the world’s democracy and freedom. The rest of the writing was an amalgamation of scattered ideas about China’s actions without differentiating well what would be within the domain of national security from the anecdotal or just a fight for the interests of American multinationals.

The legacy that Trump seeks to leave in this matter is also intended to condition the Europeans. He is already achieving this in NATO. The group of experts set up by the Secretary General to reflect on NATO 2030 is co-chaired by the American Wess Mitchell, an intellectual so dear to Trump as hostile to Beijing. The document the group has produced, now under discussion by the Alliance's foreign ministers since the beginning of this month, refers to China as an "acute threat".

However, Europe cannot look to China only from the unique perspective provided by the Americans. Our interests and our geopolitical deployment are different. Nor are we in a race for military power, nor do we have the engines of Chinese aircraft carriers snoring through waters close to us. We know, on the other hand, that you cannot put all the risks in the same bag. Every threat, be it military, political destabilisation, scientific, technological, or economic espionage, in the field of intellectual property or unfair competition, requires specific treatment.

In Europe's case, attention must be focused on three types of action. First, the fight against espionage, intrusion and theft linked to scientific and technological advances. European intelligence services must prepare themselves for this task and cooperate more closely with each other. Secondly, a common frame of reference should be defined to give coherence to the way European states relate to China's politics and economy. In other words, this means that opportunistic relations, and outside that framework, between EU member states and China should be considered unacceptable. Third and foremost, the EU must state clearly that cooperation is the only desirable way forward. So, without calling into question our alliance with the US, and without forgetting that Beijing is a dictatorship, political dialogue with China must seek mutual benefit, the promotion of universal rights and values, and cooperation in tackling major global challenges.

 

(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.

Europe meets on Belarus

The leaders of the European Union met today to discuss the situation in Belarus. They agreed that the presidential elections of 9 August were not credible and therefore the results announced by the country’s electoral authorities cannot be accepted. That is a good statement. But it is not enough. The leaders should have called for new elections to be held as soon as possible. They put a lot of emphasis on dialogue between the dictator and the opposition. That dialogue should be about the electoral process to be followed when organising new elections.

The leaders have also expressed support to the possible role the OSCE (Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe) could play in Belarus. I found it a bit strange as we all know that this Vienna-based entity is in a crisis mode. All its key leadership positions are filled by officers-in-charge. They have no political clout to facilitate any dialogue in Belarus.

In the end, the most important thing the EU can do is to send a clear message to Alexander Lukashenko that his legitimacy is not recognised and personal responsibility for human rights violations will not be forgotten. Dictators love strong messages. Brussels must realise it.

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.   

A dictator called Viktor Orban

The emergency powers approved yesterday by the Hungarian Parliament are outside the democratic framework that guides the European politics and governance. They allow the Prime Minister, Viktor Orban, to rule by decree as he pleases and for as long as he wants to. He will have the authority to imprison any opponent for years, including journalists, bloggers, human rights activists and whoever he sees as a threat to his leadership. This move must be clearly denounced by the European leaders. It cannot just be mentioned in vague terms, as Ursula von der Leyen did today. It must be spelled out with all letters and with the Prime Minister’s name attached to it. The EU has no place for people like Mr. Orban.

Brussels is absent

The European Union can only survive in the hearts and minds of its citizens if it is perceived as political project that promotes freedom and prosperity, protects the people and facilitates solidarity among the different nations. If it fails to do so, it will lose the support and will become a very fragile meeting point of contradictory national interests. With the current crisis, these goals are being challenged. That is certainly not a very good foundation for the future. In addition, the new leadership of the institutions gives the impression of lacking the necessary weight and audacity. They certainly are very honest people. But that is immensely insufficient at a time of profound shock and division. I am certainly worried by the current lack of visibility and initiative coming from the institutions.

President Erdogan's visit to Brussels

President Recep Tayyip Erdogan was in Brussels today.

First, he met the Secretary-General of NATO. He got a very simple message. NATO is already doing quite a bit for Turkey, in terms of deployment of radars and other means of defence. But it can’t do much more, particularly in support of Turkey’s campaign inside Syria. That would bring the Organization, sooner or later, into a direct clash with Russia. Nobody within the Alliance wants that to happen. Moreover, many within NATO are yet to understand the special defence relationship President Erdogan has developed with the Russian President. He seems to have one foot in NATO and the other in Moscow. That’s certainly a strange policy.

Second, he spent time with the EU leaders, Charles Michel and Ursula von der Leyen. The meeting came to no real conclusion. There is little love left within the EU for Erdogan’s actions, in particular for his manipulation of the migrant and refugee populations. Erdogan is seen by many as a problem, a big challenge at the gates of Europe.

If there is one conclusion to take from the visit, I would say that in Europe there is no trust on President Erdogan’s ambitions. That should be clearly stated.

The border line

Today, the Presidents of the European Council, the Commission and the European Parliament visited the Greek border with Turkey. The Prime Minister of Greece was their host. The message they put across is very clear. The European borders are now closed to mass movements. Immigrants and refugee candidates are not welcome.

The visiting party basically approved the decision taken by the Greek authorities to use all means available to enforce the message. This is a clear shift from the policy line followed by Angela Merkel and others in 2015. It places security and social homogeneity above any other consideration.

The humanitarian dimension is seen as a funding activity. The Europeans pay and others will take care of the refugees. Outside the EU borders. This is the new policy line on mass immigration.

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.  

What next in the Persian Gulf Region?

Regarding the killing of its star general, Iran might be envisaging an asymmetric response – meaning, through non-conventional means, making use of all kinds of irregular groups and covert operatives. I guess it would be a tit for tat, an eye for an eye move, an assassination attempt comparable to what happen to their man in Baghdad. They would consider that a measured response, a limited act of revenge.

I am afraid they would try to implement such an intent. They must be firmly and promptly advised not to pursue such a line. It would be a very serious mistake, as things stand now. The US would consider such strike as both escalatory and a trigger for a campaign of massive retribution. It would be like opening the gates of hell.

That’s why major international players must move fast in terms of re-opening the dialogue avenues. EU countries could play a major role if they dare to decide to pursue such an endeavour. It ought to be a well-publicised initiative, to help the Iranians to save face, combined with an extremely confidential and prudent set of moves.

It is a realistic possibility. It just requires the appropriate leadership at the EU level, people that could be accepted by both by the US President and the Iranian leaders.  

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.

Ursula and her challenges

I have now read the questions and objections that certain parties in the European Parliament have raised and addressed to Ursula von der Leyen. Most of them are about petty issues. They are far away from the key concerns that the EU has indeed to face in the next few years. Instead of asking her about the relations with the US, China or Russia, for instance, they question the comments she has made on mundane matters during the last years. Some of those questions have more to do with constraints she has faced as Germany’s Minister of Defence than with real political choices.

Von der Leyen might not have been a strong leader up to now. She might not be charismatic politician. But she is a steady person. And once in a position of greater power, as President of the European Commission – if she gets the EU Parliament’s confirmation – she might be able to stand higher than when she was just a German minister. The function can make the lady. And give her the wings that have been missing up to now.

In any case, I hope she will be voted in. I am ready to bet on the balanced approach she might be able to bring to the job. Moreover, she will be working side by side with Charles Michel, the future EU Council President. And I think this tandem can rise to the challenges that are in the horizon. And they are many and complex.

Charles Michel

In his new capacity as President of the European Council, Charles Michel cannot be perceived as Emmanuel Macron’s agent. He must show, early in the game and throughout, that he is as close to the French President as he is to any other key European leader. Michel’s overriding challenge is to be his own man, as Donald Tusk has been all along. I am sure he understands it. I can only hope that Macron is also clear in his mind. He tends to boss around. He cannot do it with Michel.