Debating the new European Commission

The European Parliamentarians – MEPs, as they are known – will be discussing soon the names and portfolios of the next European Commission, as proposed by Ursula von der Leyen.

We can expect a deep controversy about one of the proposed portfolios, the one about "protecting our European way of life".

The title is misleading and gives room to diverse interpretations. Under it, von der Leyen is including immigration, security and the new emerging threats, as well as employment and education. That’s quite a mixed bag. But Ursula von der Leyen’s main intent is, as stated in her letter of mission to the Commissioner appointed to head such area of work, to ensure there is a common approach to these issues, especially to the one related to immigration and the integration. 

It will not be an easy job. We will see how it will be approached. The first indications should be visible during her debate with the MEPs.

European Defence and Security

Brief answers to questions about the EU defence and security:

First, it is obvious that NATO remains the strongest defence option for the Europeans. It is a powerful structure, it has invested a lot on training and change, it is well known in the European military circles, and several EU member States see it as the key umbrella. They think that without the might of the Americans, the EU defence is not strong enough.

Second, several EU leaders think that Europe should have its own common defence capacity and that such capacity should be in place in 10 to 15 years’ time. For that to happen, its building must start now, which means more joint EU military activities, more coordination, joint defence industries, shared means, and so on. This option will keep growing but the pace might be slow.

Third, the EU geopolitical interests and views are becoming divergent of those pursued by the US. That is true in Middle East, that is also the case regarding our relations with China, and India, and so on. Diverging interests mean that sooner or later we must be able to put together an independent capability.

Fourth, the EU are afraid of being dragged into conflicts that are only in the interest of the US. They are afraid of a deeper confrontation between the US and China. The EU does not want to automatically take sides on such dispute, if it occurs.

European defence: the way forward

On defence, my position is that in the long-term Europe must have its own capabilities and the ability to defend itself. It is always better to count on one’s force. Moreover, that’s the way to keep an independent international policy and decide about the involvement in other people’s conflicts and other strategic moves.  

It is also the best approach to a balanced relationship with Europe’s key allies, with the US. Indeed, the defence relationship with the US will continue to be a crucial dimension of the European security strategy. However, it cannot remain a lopsided relationship. Europe must be much stronger, closer to the capacity of the US. That would bring balance to the alliance, something that does not exist today and compromises tremendously the interests of both parties. And that puts Europe in a weaker standing.

The road to the long-term objective starts today. For that reason, I agree with those who place the question on today’s EU agenda. I also acknowledge that such discussion and the subsequent plans must not undermine the strength of NATO. They call however for a clear understanding of the roles, in the future, that NATO and the EU Defence should play. That basically means that NATO and Europe will have to coordinate the way they will evolve in the coming years. Transformation for both is inevitable.

Brexit, NATO and security cooperation

To assert that the deal proposed by Prime Minister Theresa May will put at risk the UK’s place in NATO and the country’s intelligence system is not more than fallacious propaganda. The UK will keep playing a crucial role within the Atlantic Alliance, after the Brexit, as it did in the past. There is no change here. And concerning the security arrangements, the type of cooperation that will be in place if the deal with the EU is approved will be the same as we have now between the UK and the rest of Europe. Even with the UK out of Europol. Security is a critical area for both sides. That has been said several times in the last two years or so. And there is no doubt about the future relation in this field.

A couple of days ago, two gentlemen came to the front door of the British public opinion to affirm and give credibility to such fraudulent assessment: Sir Richard Dearlove and Lord Guthrie. They also said that the UK dues are “ransom money”. Or, the PM has clearly explained that the money the UK must transfer to the EU at the end of the union relates to commitments taken in the recent past and other costs related to the pensions of former EU staff of British nationality. There is no punishment to explain such payment, no liberation money is required to exit the EU.

Sir Richard is a former MI6 – British external intelligence service – director-general. He was in charge during the Iraq false declaration by Tony Blair about “weapons of mass destruction” as well as when Dr David Kelly, the scientist whistle-blower that denied such allegation, was found dead, following an apparent suicide. A very mysterious suicide, for that matter. Lord Guthrie is also an old man now. He had been the boss of the British armed forces at the end of the 90s and at the very beginning of the 2000s. He seems to have lost contact with today’s reality.

Both were powerful men in their times. But now, if they are the true authors of the piece on “risks” associated with the proposed Brexit deal, a piece they both signed as being their position, they have become very partisan and taken their distances from the truth. I can only hope they were more impartial when still in office.

A comprehensive view of criminal behaviour.

The assailant that yesterday attacked the police officers on duty at the Champs Elysées had a long past of criminal behaviour. He spent many years in jail. And all those who knew him a bit agree he was a deeply deranged fellow.

 As we take these facts into account, we must raise a number of questions about the workings of the penitentiary system, the failures – or at least, the limitations – of the re-education programmes, the inefficiency of the back-to-society policies and also the way our institutional arrangements miss the target when it comes to deal with extremely violent people. 

All these matters need to be seriously thought through, and challenged, if we are indeed committed to making our environment safer.

It´s not enough just to speak about terrorism.  

EU at Sixty

The EU leaders today met in Rome to celebrate the 60^th anniversary of the common European political dream. And they approved a Declaration to charter the way for the next ten years or so. In my opinion, the most salient point of this initiative is about unity. The leaders have shown they believe in the joint future of the EU Member States. They are particularly keen about strengthening the Euro, as the Union's currency. And they want to focus their attention on four priority areas: security, economic prosperity, social protection and a more strategic presence in international affairs. It´s a good choice even if within each one of these areas there is still a need to be more precise, both in terms of narrowing down the areas to concentrate on what is indeed transformational and timelines.

My very best wishes

In my part of Europe, a region that has Brussels at the centre, about 60% of the citizens see 2017 with some apprehension. This disquiet results from a combination of different factors, including the unresolved issues related to mass migrations, domestic and international security, the uncertainty that comes out of the US presidential elections, and the perceived lack of leadership in some of our key European countries and the impact that might have on the future of the EU. Brexit, interestingly, is not at this stage considered as a major problem.

Nonetheless, the majority of the people are still very much in favour of the EU. It is important to sustain such support. And that responsibility should lie mainly in the hands of the national leaders. They should stop the practice of blaming the Brussels institutions or the European Central Bank for their domestic difficulties. We ought to be firm on this and openly criticise those who keep doing it in 2017. They are not the kind of politicians we need now.

This is a time to be positive. And fight for a stronger, clear-cut political New Year.

EU´s debate on security and defence

The on-going debate about the future of EU security and defence is excessively focused on the military dimensions. It is also incomplete in terms of understanding the meaning of European security and the complementarity links – and the differences as well – between both concepts. Furthermore, many of the responses that are put forward do not match the new nature of the risks and threats our Europe is confronted with. The understanding of the intents that move our adversaries and enemies is good. But the proposed set of actions are too conventional and too narrow. On the opposite side, we see the enemies playing complex hybrid packages against us. Actually, their main lines of intervention go far beyond the hard military means. They also go far beyond the traditional diplomatic adversarial politics. They are multidimensional, subtle and very often take advantage of our own internal divisions. We should not limit ourselves to military options. That would be in deep contradiction with what we have been talking about during the last six or so years in terms of a comprehensive approach to crisis management.

But there are other points that are also missing. First, the strengthening of national police services. Second, the call for greater cooperation between member States in matters of police investigation, information sharing and joint detailed analysis and interpretation of the data collected. Third, the augmenting of national intelligence resources, which are extremely limited in some of our States, including in those that have recently experienced terrorist incidents. Fourth, the sharing of information between the military and the police intelligence services.

To be better at fighting radical views

My understanding is that the anti-radicalisation programmes in France and Belgium, at least, are not achieving the expected results. The information available shows that the extremist proselytism is still taking place and that no real action is taken against the preachers responsible for the propagation of such unacceptable and dangerous views. In many cases, the means available to deal with this complex issue are too modest and dispersed.

In some of our societies in the Western part of Europe, the fanaticism touches more families than initially thought. The illegal running of koranic “schools” says a lot about the penetration of religious radicalism within certain communities. This week, for instance, the mayor of Molenbeek, in Brussels, announced that a “school” for children aged between 3 and 8 years had been found operating without any kind of authorization. The place was attended by 38 pupils and the teachings were clearly based on an extreme interpretation of the Koran. That a good number of families had opted to send their children to an establishment of that kind says a lot about the challenges our societies are facing. 

We have to be honest about those challenges. That does not mean we are against the freedom of religion. It simply means we are not blind about the dangers that might come from the radical elements in our communities.  

Being positive on Europe Day

Every 9 May, the EU celebrates Europe Day.

This year we might conclude there isn´t much to be happy about. Martin Schulz, the EU Parliament boss, in an interview to a Portuguese daily newspaper, compared Europe to a bicycle with “flat tyres”. Basically, it would mean it has to keep moving but there is no air in the rubbers, the wheels can´t move properly.

I think we should be a bit more positive nonetheless. At least today.

The EU is still one of the most attractive places to be in the world. For its quality of life and for its standards of living. Also, because it is a space of liberties – yes, plural – and rule of law, as well as a continent of peace and security. It is still pretty predictable in terms of one´s human rights. And, in international relations, it is a major actor in the fields of development and humanitarian assistance.

These are some remarkable dimensions that one should emphasise on this day.

A comprehensive approach to mass migrations

The mass movements across the Mediterranean Sea towards Greece and, in much smaller numbers, to Italy, cannot be seen only from the humanitarian perspective. It is a fact they represent a major humanitarian challenge. That should not be disputed. And people in need have the right to be assisted. But that´s only one dimension. In the short run, it is the most urgent one. However, there are other aspects that require careful attention as well. They cannot be neglected. They have serious implications in matters of security, political stability in different countries of Europe, xenophobic reactions, capacity to integrate such diverse populations in the long term, job availability and so on. All this matters. All this ought to be taken into account when responding to these extraordinary movements of people. Light or single line responses would only lead to very serious new crises in the future. 

Combatting radicalisation

There is an EU Commissioner for Migration and Home Affairs. Among his responsibilities, I would underline the following: “identifying where the EU can make a real difference in fighting terrorism and radicalisation, with an emphasis on addressing the problem of foreign fighters”.

That sounds good.

And there is indeed a lot of work that has been done by different EU players and also in coordination with the member States during the last two years, after the approval on 15 January 2014 of a plan under the title of “Preventing Radicalisation to Terrorism and Violent Extremism: Strengthening the EU's Response”. The problem seems to be that the European public opinion is not aware of all this. The citizens have the impression that there isn´t really an approach to deal with radicalisation.

I think it is time to inform them. That´s another way of combatting the growing fear. 

Getting ready for the EU-Turkey Summit

The next summit between the EU and Turkey will take place this Sunday in Brussels. The key issue, on the European agenda, is about migrations and the role the government of Ankara could play to control the flux from Turkey to Europe.

Turkey will be represented by its Prime Minister, Ahmet Davutoğlu. He is a smart negotiator. He knows he comes to Brussels in a strong position and he will take advantage of that to try to obtain as many concessions from the Europeans as possible. He wants more money to compensate Turkey´s for the refugee presence in the country, visa facilities for the Turks, and a firmer calendar for the negotiations related to his country´s accession to full EU membership.

The EU side should balance the Turkish position with a couple of requests that will put Davutoğlu at his place. The Europeans should remind him that freedom of the press is a critical criteria for European membership. On this, Turkey is going squarely in the wrong direction. They should also recall that human rights and the rights of the minorities are key pillars in any democracy. They have to be enshrined on the Constitution and fully implemented.

These reminders would level off the discussion. They will also show the Turks we see them as important partners but we are not afraid of talking the talk and be frank. That´s how diplomacy needs to be carried out in the days of now.