The European Union in a rapidly changing era

 The European Union’s raft needs to reinforce its sails and recalibrate its compass

This week, the flames surrounding Federica Mogherini have provided further arguments to those seeking to destroy the forest of the European Union (EU). However, we must not forget that the EU is fundamental for the stability, security, and progress of Europe. Nor can we ignore five existential risks facing the project, which must be prioritised for resolution: political paralysis; lack of strategic autonomy; economic stagnation; the rise of demagogic movements in various European societies; and the erosion of its credibility in much of the Global South.

To address these challenges, the EU must understand two realities.

First, contrary to what certain intellectuals claim, the alliance with the United States has become extremely fragile—not just now, but for the foreseeable future. The international outlook shaped by Donald Trump, with or without him, is here to stay. Beyond “America First”, the geopolitical priorities of the new elites in power are clear and follow this order: their own hemisphere, the Indian and Pacific regions, the Middle East, the Arctic, and, last on the list, Europe.

Second, immediate and structural reforms are needed. We live in a different world—post-neocolonial, diverse, and multipolar. The United Nations, in its most political aspect, and the old Security Council, are stuck in the past. Relations with former colonies have shifted from subordination to equality and the emergence of new networks of interests. Europe must learn to operate within new frameworks of international cooperation, without illusions of neocolonial superiority.

Mario Draghi, in his September 2024 report on European competitiveness, which reads as an urgent appeal, highlights the risk of the EU’s “slow agony” if it does not invest massively in deepening the single market, banking union, digital technologies, and a cohesive and robust foreign policy, especially regarding the United States, Russia, and China. We must move away from a Europe that thinks like petty bourgeois, like would-be nouveau riche who prioritise consumption and appearance over effort and the common good. From a Europe too often led by opportunistic politicians—in Brussels and in the capitals of member states.

Draghi criticises the decline in productivity, the fragmentation of the single market that drives high-growth potential companies across the Atlantic, excessive regulatory burdens that stifle SMEs—we are a space governed by law firms and lobbyists for major private interests—and the lack of focus on clear priorities, such as innovation in advanced technologies and the link between decarbonisation and economic growth.

He also considers it essential to end the unanimity rule in several sensitive areas, such as foreign policy, defence, budgetary issues, and the accession of new members. These are some of the areas where the qualified majority principle should apply: the dual condition requiring both 65% of the population and 55% of the states. The unanimity rule is an obstacle to innovation and prevents rapid responses to geopolitical crises. The world is changing rapidly. We cannot build the future with the rules of the past.

This is also the moment to put forward an ambitious proposal for a common budget of at least 5% of European GDP, instead of the current 1%. This budget would be funded by its own taxes, not currently covered by the member states. Its purpose would be to finance research in high technology, digital, energy, convergence between member states, youth mobility within Europe, and support for initiatives that expand Europe’s geopolitical reach. These new funds could also be used to finance the ongoing mobilisation of a sufficiently broad and robust European rapid reaction military force. This would be an important step towards strategic autonomy. Without energy and military sovereignty, the EU will be nothing more than a mighty but powerless Titan, like the legendary Atlas.

The Global South, in its various forms, already defines much of today’s geopolitical map. Europe must once again become the champion of international solidarity and cooperation. Among other things, it should contribute with donations, not just loans, to help less developed countries combat climate change, organised crime and poverty. Likewise, EU states have a duty to participate in coalitions seeking to modernise the political side of the UN, especially the issue of Security Council representation. The Global South values the UN. Europe would benefit from being seen as committed to this process of renewal.

Just as the Western Roman Empire in the fifth century, the EU believes in the illusion of a certain external grandeur. Rome did not fall because of a single battle, but through slow erosion: loss of citizens’ confidence, collapse of central authority—corrupt and utterly distracted from what mattered—futile quarrels in the Senate, and growing threats from outside. We must not follow the same path.

Europe and ASEAN

 Europe must prioritize strengthening ties with ASEAN, recognizing its political and economic significance and the region's rapid development and future-oriented investments. This strategic focus is essential in the evolving global geopolitical landscape.

Indonesia's symbolic military presence: Indonesia's exclusive invitation to the Bastille Day parade in Paris highlights its importance as a major Muslim-majority country and a key ASEAN member, reflecting France's and the EU's recognition of ASEAN's growing influence.
ASEAN as a strategic partner: The EU should view ASEAN as a vital ally, given the region's economic progress and investment in sectors like healthcare and retirement living, which offer opportunities for European engagement.
Competition with China: Europe faces direct competition from China, which is deepening its economic and digital cooperation with ASEAN, despite maritime disputes involving some ASEAN members and China's expanding influence in the region.
EU as a balancing force: The EU can serve as a stabilizing influence between China’s growing dominance and the unpredictability of U.S. policy, emphasizing support for multilateralism and cultural exchange to overcome geopolitical and cultural barriers.

AI summary of my opinion piece in today's Diário de Notícia (Lisboa), 18 July 2025.

The EU and its neighbours, starting with Belarus

A Europe beyond barbed wire

Victor Angelo

 

The confrontation taking place on the border between Belarus and Poland is worrying, but it cannot be analysed in black and white. It is a complex crisis that raises a whole series of questions. We are facing humanitarian, migratory, security, geopolitical and ethical problems, in other words, a constellation of challenges that need to be debated calmly, frankly, and thoroughly.

In the background, we have two major problems. The first is about democracy. The second focuses on extreme poverty in a world that is profoundly unequal, and that conflicts, pandemics and climate change are making even more uneven and fractured.

But first, you have to think about the people who are now trapped in the no-man's-land between the Polish barbed wire and the truncheons of the Belarusian special units. It is not known how many thousands there are - estimates are not reliable. It is known, however, that they include fragile people, many of them children, who are hungry and cold and suffer constant humiliation and violence. They are also permanent targets for false news that Belarusian agents constantly circulate in order to keep the migrants' illusions alive.

Alexander Lukashenko, the master of Belarus, is clearly taking advantage of the misery of certain peoples. But our side cannot remain indifferent to the suffering of those who have allowed themselves to be manipulated, people who live in such complicated contexts that any promise, however unrealistic it may be, always brings a thread of hope. And that throws masses of people into the minefields of illegal migration.

The border with Belarus separates the European area from an autocratic regime, in which anything that can keep the dictator in power is done. Lukashenko is our most immediate concern today, but he is not the only case in the neighbourhood. If we look around and focus on who represents the closest potential or real threat, we have a bouquet that also includes the leaders of Russia and Turkey. I do not want to add some Moroccan politicians to this list, but I would recommend not losing sight of this North African neighbour of ours, who has already shown that he knows how to use mass migration as a political weapon.

It is true that there are also those within the EU who are destabilising European integration. But that is a matter for another reflection.

Let us now talk about democracy. The EU needs to formulate a doctrine that defines how it should relate to non-democratic neighbours, especially when situations of open hostility arise, as is now the case. In the current framework, one gets the feeling that democracies tend to lose out to outlaw states. It is therefore necessary to clearly establish what the appropriate response should be to aggressions of a hybrid nature, carried out at the tangent of the red line of armed conflicts between States, without, however, crossing it. A first step should be a firm and unequivocal response. This includes the adoption of sanctions in a swifter, multi-faceted and more character-focused manner. Another means will be to make greater use of the multilateral system. This will allow actions like the one Lukashenko ordered at the expense of the despair of the Iraqi Kurds, the Syrians and other peoples of the Middle East to be included on the international agenda,

As for the disparities that exist between a rich Europe and a whole series of poor countries, the pull effect is inevitable. Mass migration from South to North will be one of the most striking phenomena of this and the following decades. The EU cannot pretend it does not see the trend. It is unacceptable to leave a matter of such importance to the discretion of individual member states. The issue must be dealt with jointly. And the subject must become one of the main lines of debate at the Conference on the Future of Europe. It is also time to tell the citizens that this conference is taking place and get them involved.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 19 November 2021)

The EU and its Indo-Pacific Strategy

China, the Indo-Pacific and European illusions

Victor Angelo

This week, Josep Borrell, who heads the European Commission's external relations, and his Chinese counterpart, Minister Wang Yi, met by videoconference as part of the strategic dialogue that exists between the two parties. The day before, Frans Timmermans, the Executive Vice President of the Commission, had been in contact with the Chinese Vice-Premier, to discuss the preparation of the COP-26, which will start in Glasgow at the end of this month.

These talks have their merit. They must be frequent and without naivety. The EU can have no other political stance vis-à-vis China than dialogue, the affirmation of its critical positions and the search for common interests. In this, as in other areas of vital importance to the security and prosperity of Europe, it is essential to demonstrate that we continue to believe in the value of diplomacy, of clarifying positions and of reaching agreements. Where others focus on confrontation, Europeans must be seen to promote strategic interdependence and common platforms that contribute to international security and the resolution of major global issues. By doing so, we will consolidate the EU's role on the international scene and reduce the risks of being involved in conflicts that are not in our interest. We will also reduce our subordination to the USA. 

Returning to the dialogue between Borrell and Wang, several topics were addressed. Most have long been on the agenda: human rights, Hong Kong, Xinjiang, Taiwan, the mutual investment climate, international cooperation, support for multilateralism, etc. But between this meeting and the previous one, which took place in June 2020, an eternity has passed, and dramatic changes have occurred, notably in Myanmar and Afghanistan. The policy towards these countries had to be part of the discussions. Nor could a reference to the EU Indo-Pacific strategy, approved a couple of weeks ago in Brussels, be missing. Borrell took great pains to explain that this new policy intention is not aimed at antagonizing China. He would not have convinced his interlocutor.

I am among those who think that the approval of this strategy was a mistake. The document appears to be well written, and the abundance of resources in the European External Action Service means that it has to be. But it is vague, too broad, touching on everything, and undefined in the prioritization of the objectives included in each of the intervention areas. To begin with, the geopolitical content of the Indo-Pacific concept is not well understood. A recent study shows that different member states see the contours of the region in a separate way. What's more, the concept is associated with the anti-Chinese obsession started by Donald Trump and which Joe Biden has been materializing. Thus, for Beijing, the EU does nothing more than follow American policy, albeit in a more sophisticated way, introducing in the document a series of buzzwords about development and cooperation.

It is true that this part of the world, even if imprecisely defined, has a growing economic weight. It accounts for a very large share of Europe's foreign trade: Brussels tells us that the region is the EU's second largest trading partner. It is also a fact that a very high percentage of maritime freight transport passes through the Indian Ocean. But the real challenges in the Indo-Pacific are, apart from piracy, an area where cooperation with China is possible, the disputes over maritime borders between China and its neighbours, the future of Taiwan, or the identity tensions in India, the military dictatorship in Myanmar, the struggle for democracy in Thailand, Cambodia or Vietnam, the institutional violence in the Philippines and so on, without forgetting Taliban extremism and terrorist threats. These are concrete issues where the EU needs to define its interests, the role it can play and the alliances that will be needed.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 1 October 2021)

 

 

Europe and its disagreements on migrations

Europe adrift in the sea of migrations

Victor Ângelo

 

A meeting of the European Union's ministers of foreign affairs and internal administration on migration was held this week at the initiative of the Portuguese presidency. The previous one had taken place in 2015, when more than a million people arrived in Europe from Syria and other parts of the Middle East, Afghanistan, and the countries of the Indian subcontinent, as well as Africa. The long gap between the two meetings happened because migration is an extraordinarily complex and fractious issue among EU member states. Leaders have systematically swept the imbroglio under the rug.

Now the meeting was a new attempt to define a common policy. There were some generic statements about the need for a comprehensive and coherent response that combines development and security partnerships with the migrants' countries of origin and transit, that opens avenues for controlled migration, that prioritizes political relations with North Africa and West Africa. All very vague and at the level of mere lapalissades. The result was, once again, below expectations.

The Mediterranean Agenda proposed in February by the European Commission, which was one of the reference documents, is equally imprecise. It lumps together completely different national realities, as if the Mediterranean geopolitical space were homogeneous. And it does not make a critical balance of the past. It suggests continuing and deepening a cooperation model that, in reality, has failed to help transform any state in the region into either a prosperous or democratic nation.

The fact is that there is no common position beyond strengthening Frontex as the European Coast Guard and border police. That is the only accepted and shared responsibility, the lowest common denominator. As for the rest, everything else is business as usual. It will be managed by chance events. The countries of entry of illegal immigrants will continue to have to bear the political, humanitarian, and economic costs that result from receiving those who arrive there. Despite the repeated appeal by the Portuguese Minister of Internal Administration, there will be no solidarity among Europeans in this matter.

The great truth is that most member-states do not want to receive new waves of immigrants coming from other geographies and unfamiliar cultures. Even countries that have traditionally been the destination of Maghrebian, African and other immigrants share this position. We, the Portuguese, are a little on the outside. We do not really understand the weight of migratory pressure on the cohesion of the social fabric of big cities in France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, for example. Nor do we have a clear notion of the political impact of the presence of vast foreign communities, when they are not integrated into the societies that received them, thus being an argument easily exploited by right-wing extremists and potential terrorists. 

Europe will continue to speak constructively and act restrictively, even repressively, on this issue. International migration is one of the most complex dilemmas facing us, but one that many Europeans do not want to consider. Despite the progress of tolerance values, we are not fully prepared for the diversity of cultures and faces. Anyone in doubt should visit the new ethnic ghettos that exist in certain European metropolises. And without going any further, you can start with certain outskirts of Lisbon.

We have already seen that the sea is not enough of a barrier for those who are desperate or dream of a better life. But since the intention of those in charge is to stop population movements that seem threatening, Europe will go further. It will pour fortunes into countries that have the potential to send us new waves of migrants - as is already happening with Turkey. It is a carrot and stick gamble. Now, in these countries, the powerful always get the carrot, and the poor and the weak always get the stick. For this reason, many seek to flee to Europe.

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

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.   

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.

The US leadership

These days, for a European, to watch American TV is painful. And deeply troubling. The country is going through a major crisis, a very complex one, that combines serious health challenges with widespread economic hardship. Both challenges are immense. On top of that, there is a leadership tragedy. The President has lost the support of key State governors and of the country’s intelligentsia. The messages coming from the White House and from the key States are full of contradictions. There is no common direction. Many lives are lost every day, in the most developed country in the world, a good deal of them because there aren’t enough medical resources available, others because of poor policy guidance. The President’s press briefings look like boxing matches. He spends hours repeating the same simple sentences, the only ones he can articulate. It’s most unfortunate that the pandemic happens when the leadership in Washington is so incompetent and shallow.

I should not be writing about this, because I am not a US citizen. It is up to the country’s voters to decide whom they want next. But as we live in a period of global crisis, we tend to look in the direction of the US for leadership. That’s the reason why I write about the matter. We need the US to lead. And what we see leaves no room for optimism. One of the few positive things is to see the resolve of politicians like the New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, or the Ohio Governor Mike DeWine, a Republican, as well as the California Governor Gavin Newsom (Democrat) and the Maryland Governor Larry Hogan (Republican). There are many more in action and doing the right things, but I just mention a few of them, in a balanced manner. The problem is the lack of clarity and support coming from the Federal government.

Another positive development concerns the medical research that is taking place in the US with a view to beat the virus. That research is done in collaboration with foreign institutes. That is certainly very encouraging. It brings together the best minds in the universities, philanthropic foundations and the private sector.

In the meantime, billions of dollars have already been spent in support of small businesses and individual workers. That is good but it is a short-term answer. The durable approach is to make the health system stronger, affordable to all, intensify the health education campaigns and re-open the economy as much as it is possible. For us, in addition to all that, we would like to see the US taking the lead in the UN Security Council, at the political level, and being much more engaged with WHO, at the technical level. The US must go back to the multilateral system. Its place is in the global scene, not simply in the Rose Garden.

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.

Vladimir, the new type of dictator

President Vladimir Putin is not a democrat. He was educated by the monstrous machinery of the Soviet Communist Party and formatted by its political secret police, the infamous KGB. Therefore, it can’t be a surprise to see, as we have seen yesterday, he is not ready to leave power. He came to the top position twenty years ago and he wants to stay at the apex of the political pyramid for life. His strategic mind tells him he shouldn’t wait up to the end of his mandate to make the changes. He has another four years or so to go as President. But he knows that the future must be prepared well in advance.

That’s what he is doing with the proposed constitutional changes.

And the lesson we, in our side of Europe must draw out of his move, is clear. Vladimir Putin is a dictator and will always relate to us as dictators do. They fear democratic regimes and will do anything to undermine them. They see us as a bad example that could cause some political contagion in Russia.  

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.  

Russia, China and the EU: what's next?

In the medium term, sometime towards the middle of the forthcoming decade, Russia could opt for China, in terms of economic and trade relations. Basically, that would mean China would replace the EU as a market for the natural resources Russia produces and would become a supplier of finished goods that are today imported from the West. That could be an alternative for Russia, particularly if the political tensions with the EU and the sanctions that go along those tensions have not been resolved.

In that case, the leaders in the Kremlin could adopt a more adversarial approach towards the EU. I think we cannot exclude such a scenario as we look ahead.

But, for now, the Russian population are more prepared for a love-hate relationship with the rest of Europe. Russians do not feel particularly connected to the Chinese culture and way of life. There are old mental barriers that are not easy to overcome. Russians see themselves as fundamentally Europeans – the Christian background dimension has gained a lot of ground in Putin’s Russia. History has told us that it is easier to entertain a conflict with those who are our cultural and geographical neighbours. The real fights are between those who are very much alike to us. The others, especially if they are far away in terms of geography and culture, we tend to ignore them. At least until they come knocking at our gates.

Donald Tusk and Jean-Claude Juncker

Donald Tusk and Jean-Claude Juncker completed today their mandates as leaders of the EU. I think it is fair to say that both have committed themselves deeply to their jobs. Donald Tusk as head of the Council had to manage and balance the views of his peers, the Heads of State and Government of the EU Member States. Not an easy job. One of his headaches came from his own country, Poland. Jean-Claude Juncker had to lead the machinery and achieve results, notwithstanding the fact that, at the same time, he was dealing with a major distraction, the Brexit negotiations.

As they move on, I think one should say thank you for the work they have done as well as for the enormous patience they have displayed. And we should know that patience and perseverance are two of the key features a leader should possess. Particularly a leader that deals with 28 national masters.

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.

Supporting the Balkans

President Macron decided to veto the launching of enlargement talks between the European Union and two Balkan States, North Macedonia and Albania. I unreservedly disagree with the position he has taken. I see it as a mistake or part of his game to get some concessions from other EU countries. It was not inspired by the promotion of peace and stability in the region. And it is certainly not in the best interests of the EU.

These two countries are certainly far away from meeting the membership criteria. They have however implemented a few fundamental reforms and must be encouraged to pursue that same path.

President Macron’s decision is particularly difficult to accept in the case of North Macedonia. The country is a delicate politico-ethnic puzzle and at every moment requires cautious balancing of its populations’ specific interests. Macedonia’s current leadership has demonstrated seriousness and courage. It calls for demonstrable European support.

Japan and the EU, on the same side

I am not sure that Friday afternoon is a good time for great political moves. At least, from the perspective of public information and support. The weekend is around the corner and the media tend to go slow. If they mention the action, it will be in a lazy line that gets lost fast. On Monday, it is already an old story. And it would have been overtaken by events happening during the weekly break.

The deal signed on Friday between the President of the European Commission and the Prime Minister of Japan seems to have fallen into this trap. Jean-Claude Juncker and Shinzo Abe put their signature of approval on an ambitious agreement that will see both sides cooperating in different parts of the developing world, including in the Balkans and other countries of Europe outside the EU, to build infrastructure and promoting digital industries. A lot of emphasis will be placed on thorough development projects, sustainability, transparency, national ownership and partnerships with the recipient countries and the appropriate multilateral organisations.

They called it a connectivity partnership between the EU and Japan. It can work, if we consider these are two of the largest economies. Together, they represent over 23 trillion US dollars of GDP, which is larger than the US ($21 trillion). And much bigger than China (USD 9.2 trillion).

The point is about politics. Both sides must make this cooperation a priority when dealing with developing nations. And they will be competing with China’s offer, the fast-moving Belt and Road Initiative. That will not be an easy competition. The Chinese leadership are deeply invested in the Initiative. To compete, the Europeans and the Japanese have no choice but to insist on projects that have the support of the populations – not just of the political leaders in the concerned countries – and are financially sound and proper. These are no technical or money matters. They are about strategic political engagements.

Our 2019 political rentrée

Here, in our corner of the world, the political rentrée is upon us. The summer break is now over. And this year’s rentrée will see the changing of the guard in the EU institutions. With the new leaders, old unresolved issues could gain a new breath of life.

One of such issues must be the strengthening of the EU external policy.

We must develop a stronger common approach to critical international matters, such as the many crises in the Middle East and the pressing issue of Africa’s development. In addition, we must give shape to a more independent view of Europe’s global interests and dare to seriously move towards joint defence and security efforts. 

We also need to strengthen our alliances with other parts of the world. However, we must recognise that our perception of certain key issues is not necessarily coincidental with that promoted by some of our key allies. Such differences are not just momentary. They are not simply the result of leader X or Y being in charge in one of the countries that matters to us. They are deeper, as we have walked different historical paths and have created our own way of looking at what is going on in some problematic regions of the world.

Italy must reform soon

Giuseppe Conte is back as head of the new Italian government. Not a very easy task that of chairing a coalition between the 5-Star Movement and the PD (Democratic Party, a social-democrat party). They can stay in power for three years, until the end of the current Parliament. They can also fall apart soon. Nobody knows. What we know is that the new government – Conte II – has many divisive issues to deal with. The country is not in a very good shape, to put it diplomatically. It calls for serious reforms. Those reforms require consensus within the coalition, a very wise approach and lots of political courage. In addition, many people think that Matteo Salvini, the League’s leader, is a better option, that he is the one that can transform Italy. He is not, in my opinion, but what matters is the Italian voters’ views. He will be leading the opposition against this new government. In the end, if Italy does not address its problems – and I have serious doubts it will – Salvini might end up back in power again. And bring with him the image of a strong and resolute man. That would be a game changer. Certainly not a good one, in the end, but it would be too late to stop him.

President Trump and the EU

A few of my readers have expressed some degree of surprise after reading what I wrote in my last blog about President Trump’s policy towards the EU. I basically said the President is not in favour of a strong EU. And that is a radical change of approach, because for decades his predecessors have encouraged the European countries to cooperate and strengthen the EU. Even in the case of the UK, the message coming from Washington has always been in the sense of advising London to be closer to Continental Europe.

 With President Trump, we have a new situation. First, he sees the EU as economic competition and a market that is huge but has too many barriers when it comes to some critical American exports, such as cars and farm products. But there is more to it, beyond the economic and trade issues. He thinks that the key EU leaders have an international agenda that contradicts his own and weakens it. That is the case on climate, on Iran, on Russia, on Cuba and Venezuela, on multilateralism, even on China. Not to mention the new idea of a European common defence, an idea that Emmanuel Macron personalises. On defence, President Trump follows a line that has been present in Washington for long now: the Europeans must spend more on their armies but keep them under the overall control and command of the US military. He senses that in this area the European response is becoming more independent and he does not like it at all.

August is not a good time to discuss these matters. People on both sides of the Atlantic are above all concerned with the weather and their holidays. It is however a debate that must be reopened after the rentrée in September.

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.