Peace is about trust: Europe, USA and Russia, a question of balance

 The Future of Peace in Europe Depends on a Rebalancing of Power

Victor Ângelo

Despite the intense diplomatic activity in recent days, we remain far from peace in Ukraine. The plan devised by the Russians and signed by Donald Trump, giving the impression it was an initiative from the White House, collapsed after two or three days. The positions of Zelensky and the European allies rendered it void. They stated in unison, without ambiguity, that it was an unacceptable diktat, a kind of ultimatum from Moscow. It became clear that Trump’s envoy, property developer Steve Witkoff, knows as much about geopolitics as Cristiano Ronaldo or is a contender for the Guinness record as the most brazen Russian agent in recent US history.
Rarely, European firmness proved exemplary. Zelensky’s response was as expected, although the initial announcement of the Russo-American proposal was a heavy blow to the Ukrainian leader. Those who saw images of Zelensky at that moment could see he was deeply shocked. But he did not lose his composure, which was what the Kremlin intended. He responded diplomatically, and three days later there was already another plan, drawn up in Geneva, together with European delegations and Marco Rubio’s team. The latter scored points within Trump’s circle. Will he be able to maintain that influence? It will not be easy, but it is not impossible. For many in the MAGA movement, Rubio is a silent rival to Trump and, especially in the long term, to Vice President J.D. Vance.
It is evident that the American leadership group is becoming fractured. And not only because of differences in handling relations with Russia, but also for internal reasons: the Epstein case, the cost of living, the persecution of immigrants, favours granted to the most eccentric billionaires, etc. In the case of Russia, it is worth remembering that US military doctrine has, for decades, categorised that country as a grave threat to the United States. Thus, many senior US military officers look with great surprise at the relationship Trump has established with Putin. There is something fishy here. Many will think that this relationship has more to do with “ad hominem” blackmail from Moscow than with a new type of diplomacy.
Meanwhile, diplomacy related to the brutal aggression against Ukraine continued in Abu Dhabi. For now, we have a new project, more appropriate. It is fundamentally inspired by Ukrainian realism and has European support. It will certainly not be accepted by Vladimir Putin, but it puts him on the defensive against his American counterpart. Trump wants the war to end at any cost – in reality, it is not a war, but a barbaric aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine – as long as it adds an argument to his candidacy for the Nobel Peace Prize. That is the ambition, his ego above all else.
We are, however, in a risky phase for Ukraine’s sovereignty and for Europe’s security. Putin believes in two fundamental illusions: that he will shatter Ukraine and that he will manage to create a rift and distance the US from the defence of Europe. In other words, that US support for NATO is numbered. NATO will be, at best, in Putin’s view, a merely symbolic coalition, which will last only as long as Europeans have the financial means to buy American arms and other goods and services.
Peace is built on mutual trust. Without trust, at best, we will have a temporary pause in hostilities. The foundations of that trust regarding the Trump administration were seriously shaken by Washington’s endorsement of the incredible Russian plan. It is essential to rebuild trust between Europeans and Americans.
As for Putin’s Russia, there is no room for any kind of trust. Putin dreams of a vassal Europe, trapped within his sphere of geopolitical influence. He needs that influence out of czarist-inspired narcissism, for economic reasons, and for strategic motives: so he can claim membership in the club of great powers, alongside China and the US. For this reason, he wants to dismantle the Atlantic Alliance and implode the European Union.
Trust is based on shared values. In my view, the most important are those contained in the Charter of the United Nations.
The great powers do not currently respect the basic principles of the Charter: human dignity, human rights, tolerance, independence and sovereignty of each State, large or small, and solidarity among peoples. Democratic Europe, for its part, seeks to remain within this framework of values. Only a minority of movements and political parties here show contempt for these red lines. The majority recognise the importance of democracy and respect for international law. They therefore see Putin as a very serious threat. That is why they focus on defending our part of the continent, starting with the defence of Ukraine and the symmetry of forces, which is something different from peace, but serves peace. And they now understand that the relationship with Trump’s America is dangerously unstable. It must be urgently rebalanced.

Comparing Victor Ângelo's views with others regarding the relations between Europe and ASEAN

 

Let’s zoom out and see how Victor Ângelo’s views on EU–ASEAN relations stack up against other diplomatic perspectives:

🌐 Shared Themes Across Diplomats and Analysts

• Strategic Importance of ASEAN: Like Ângelo, many experts highlight ASEAN’s role as a key partner for Europe. The EU sees ASEAN as vital for supply-chain resilience and geopolitical balance.
• Multipolarity and Nonalignment: Analysts from the European Union Institute for Security Studies note that ASEAN countries are actively diversifying alliances, avoiding overdependence on any single power — a theme Ângelo echoes in his call for deeper EU engagement.
• Cultural Sensitivity and Pragmatism: While Ângelo stresses empathy and cultural understanding, other voices emphasize practical, results-driven diplomacy over ideological alignment.

🧭 Diverging Priorities and Challenges

• Security vs. Trade Focus: Carnegie Europe points out that despite rising tensions in the Indo-Pacific, security hasn’t featured heavily on the EU–ASEAN agenda — a gap Ângelo seems keen to address.
• Democracy and Human Rights: The EU often struggles with how to engage ASEAN on normative issues like democracy and human rights, given ASEAN’s diverse political systems. Ângelo’s writing suggests a more constructive and reform-oriented approach, rather than confrontation.

📚 Intellectual and Institutional Voices

• The European Union and ASEAN official partnership documents emphasize multilateralism, sustainable development, and connectivity — aligning with Ângelo’s call for long-term strategic cooperation.
• Think tanks like Clingendael and Carnegie Endowment advocate for co-authored policy frameworks that reflect both European and Asian perspectives — a method that resonates with Ângelo’s emphasis on mutual respect and shared interests.

In essence, Victor Ângelo’s voice is part of a broader chorus calling for smarter, more empathetic diplomacy — but he adds a personal touch rooted in decades of field experience. 

Europe must behave as a geopolitical block

 Europe has to believe in itself

Victor Angelo

I have had to repeat a thousand times, over the decades, that the legitimacy and authority obtained as a result of an electoral victory have limits. Democracy, no matter how clean the elections are and no matter how high the percentage of votes obtained by the winners, must be exercised within a framework of ethical values ​​and an institutional system clearly defined by the country's Constitution. Winning means assuming responsibility for protecting the dignity of all citizens, promoting equity and progress, respecting the rule of law and the fundamental law, and credibly representing the country in the field of external cooperation. The leader who does not see his or her role from this perspective, who tries to sell the idea that victory allows him to do anything and everything, placing himself/herself  above the law, immediately behaves like a dictator. If such leader is the president of a great power, he/she is also a frankly worrying threat to stability and peace between nations.

Democracy cannot serve as a gateway to an autocratic regime. There are those who say, however, that the world has changed in recent weeks. This is an ambiguous statement, if one keeps in mind the question of values. The rules and principles that have been consolidated over the last eight decades, or even in the shorter period that began with the end of the Cold War, remain valid. And they must be defended. What is new is the emergence of leaders who do not give a cent for these values ​​and who look at international relations in an imperial way, as being a question of strength, of domination and also of conflict and competition.

We are now faced, however, with two determining realities.

On the one hand, the American leadership controls the most powerful economy on our planet and shows a willingness to make use of this economic power. It is a mistake to think that allies are not needed and that international law does not carry much weight.

On the other hand, the media that counts in our part of the world revolves around the White House agenda, leaving limited space for the Middle East or Ukraine. And even when it mentions them, it does so almost exclusively from the Washington perspective. There are few references to the human suffering and the political crimes that occur daily in Sudan, in the Sahel, on the border of the Democratic Republic of Congo with Rwanda, a country friendly to Western democracies. And, at the same time, a mortal enemy of the poor Congolese citizens, who have the misfortune of living on lands that are theirs and are extremely rich in rare and precious minerals. Paul Kagame, who has led Rwanda since 1994 and transformed the country into a showcase for development, is organizing the looting and mass destruction of Congolese border areas, and is received in Europe, the United States, China and the rest of Africa as an exemplary leader.

I could mention other misfortunes, all of them ignored by the news and the screens that feed us daily, always with the same themes. There now seems to be no world beyond Trump. When was the last time you, the reader, had any information regarding the torment of the Rohingya people, the repression of the Uighurs in China, the violation of the rights of women and girls in Afghanistan, the violence against Afghan refugees in Pakistan, the crimes against the indigenous people of the Amazon, and so on?

The great ones of this world make the headlines. None of this is particularly new, except with regard to international organizations and European geopolitics.

The multilateral system is undergoing profound changes. We are moving towards the proliferation of sub-regional organizations, with a very limited capacity for intervention, apart from the advantage of allowing some rapprochement between neighboring countries. This trend, if not coordinated with the UN regional commissions, will contribute to the weakening and perhaps even the death of the UN political system. Not to mention the Security Council, which has become a diplomatic illusion. Or NATO, where the American presence will visibly diminish, as was clear from this week's statements. Those in charge in Washington today view NATO from afar, as an essentially European institution, which should therefore be funded by Europeans.

European geopolitics doesn't seem to count, especially in Trump and Putin's plans. Their long conversation on Wednesday about Ukraine's future ignored European fears and Ukrainian interests. Europe would be left with the role of the rich aunt who, supported by a cane, her only weapon, would serve only to lament the damage from the stands, and then pay for the repairs. It's time to say no, to resist, to take care of our own defense. And to respond to every autocrat firmly.

https://www.dn.pt/opiniao/a-europa-tem-de-acreditar-em-si-pr%C3%B3pria
Portuguese language version. 

Vladimir Putin' s rhetoric about the Third World War

My opinion column of this week, published on 9 Feb in Diário de Notícias, Lisbon, in Portuguese language. This is an Artificial Intelligence translation on my text, thanks to Google Translate. 

Fight against foolishness or open the doors to populist danger?

Victor Angelo

The bellicose rhetoric of Vladimir Putin and his acolytes against NATO and the European Union has worsened as we approach the Russian presidential election, scheduled for March 15th to 17th. Experience teaches us that there are no reasons for surprises. It is a common tactic of dictatorships. The political narrative of these regimes seeks to convince voters of two deceptions: that the danger coming from the “external enemy”, so designated even though it is not in fact an enemy nor is it actually preparing for armed intervention, is now more serious and imminent; and that only the re-election of the absolute leader, with an overwhelming percentage of votes, will be able to prevent the enemy from launching the alleged aggression, invented by the dictator's lying propaganda. That's why we now hear talk in Moscow about the possibility of a third world war, a topic that is part of the frequent interventions of Putin's most famous court jester, the vice-president of the Russian Security Council, Dmitry Medvedev.

In my opinion, Putin and his people do not want to enter into an open and widespread war with NATO. Rather, they intend to maintain control of political power in their country and transform the fierce aggression against Ukraine into what could be seen by the international community as a Russian military victory. In concrete terms, it is about seizing a significant part of Ukrainian territory and imposing an armistice entirely based on the political conditions defined by the Kremlin. In this way, they would reinforce their image as a great power in the international context. This is one of Putin's biggest concerns, showing an unbeatable Russia, in the champions league and capable of dictating its political will on the international stage. They would feel safer not only in relation to the West, but also in relation to China. The alliance with China is seen, by influential ideologues of Putin's ultranationalist regime, as a double-edged sword. Political friendship and cooperation with an extremely vast, populous neighbouring country with thousands of kilometres of common border hides, at the same time, the roots of a rivalry that could degenerate into a major conflict. This is why Russia needs to show military muscle, West and East.

On the European side, as I always insist, it would be a mistake to leave half-hearted aid to Ukraine in the legitimate defence of its sovereignty. The combination of economic, diplomatic, informational and military means is essential to convince the Kremlin to put an end to the invasion that began in 2014. Those who do not understand this fact and the need for an integrated strategy, which combines the four vectors mentioned in the previous sentence , is creating the conditions for, sooner or later, a series of oppressive governments to emerge in Europe, inspired by what is happening in Russia. We would then have a Europe that would be a very dangerous chessboard of replicas of Hungary.

It would also be a mistake not to prepare our geopolitical space for an armed confrontation with Russia. Whoever wants peace prepares for war, as it was said in ancient Rome. And although it can be recognized, as I do in this text, that Putin does not deep down want to start a war with our part of Europe, that possibility exists.

We need to speak frankly. We are, as has not been the case for a long time, in a complex and dangerous situation. We cannot accept either populism or a lack of ethics in international relations.

Populism lies, and only leads to confusion. It fails to understand what should be a priority in order to respond only to vote hunting and polls. Populist leaders, on the left and on the right, promise the impossible, spend resources on unsustainable policies, create debts that future generations will have to resolve and ignore that security and defence are indispensable for safeguarding democracy. They don't have the courage to tell the truth and explain that there are moments in history when sacrifices have to be made. Populists are narcissists and born dictators disguised as friends of the people.

Disregard for values prevents international alliances from functioning. Cooperation is replaced by chaos. Countries lose their credibility and principles are no longer the standards for resolving conflicts. The ethical references that have been built over decades are forgotten. The defenders of opportunism, which they call political realism, regain the stages they had lost.

  In the European case, international law is rightly defended when it comes to Ukraine. At the same time and in an incomprehensible way, ambiguity and laxity are expressed when it comes to the inhumanity that is occurring in Palestine. This foolishness makes us lose allies, which are very necessary, and has, in the long run, a very high cost.

Traduction par IA de ma chronique d'aujourd'hui

 Diário de Notícias (Lisboa, 12 JAN 2024)

Nouvel An : faire sortir la Russie d’Ukraine sans plus attendre

Victor Angelo

Vladimir Poutine a commencé l'année dans la violence : il a lancé jour et nuit sans arrêt un grand nombre de missiles et de drones sur plusieurs sites ukrainiens. Contrairement à ce que prétendent certains analystes, il a laissé entendre qu'il était pressé d'imposer la capitulation de l'Ukraine. Et il nous a rappelé que les dictateurs ne respectent pas les lignes rouges. Croire qu’on peut négocier avec des despotes est une illusion coûteuse.

Cette année, la Russie préside le groupe des BRICS. Vous voudrez montrer que vous êtes capable de diriger et de développer avec succès une organisation que vous considérez comme une alternative possible à l’ordre mondial actuel. Dans le cadre de la présidence russe, une série de rencontres internationales sont prévues, qui devraient aboutir à un sommet en octobre, dans la ville emblématique de Kazan. Pour pouvoir attirer ceux qui hésitent, la Russie doit apparaître comme un pays victorieux, puissant, mais apaisé, après avoir rétabli sa domination sur des territoires sur lesquels elle revendique des droits au vu d'un passé impérialiste. En d’autres termes, après avoir privé l’Ukraine de la souveraineté sur les quatre provinces orientales et conservé la Crimée, usurpée en 2014. Au droit et aux traités internationaux, Poutine oppose un récit historique archaïque et absurde, pour tenter de justifier l’hostilité, l’agression et les guerres frontalières contre les pays voisins. .

Au début de l'année, cinq nouveaux pays ont rejoint les BRICS : l'Arabie saoudite, l'Égypte, les Émirats arabes unis, l'Éthiopie et l'Iran. Le groupe compte désormais 10 membres, dont la plupart ont une réputation démocratique douteuse. Poutine aimerait atteindre la fin de son année de présidence avec au moins deux fois plus de pays que de membres des BRICS. Vous avez mentionné il y a quelques jours qu’une trentaine de pays étaient intéressés à y adhérer. Je considère que cette déclaration n’est guère plus qu’une simple propagande. Cela révèle cependant l’intention de fracturer la communauté internationale et de détruire les normes de coopération qui ont été construites dans le cadre des Nations Unies et d’autres organisations multilatérales depuis 1945.

Il n’appartient pas à l’Europe démocratique ou à d’autres États alliés d’intervenir dans l’adhésion, les politiques et les pratiques des BRICS, si tout cela se déroule conformément aux normes internationales. Par exemple, si le Brésil estime qu’il est mieux soutenu dans une alliance avec la Russie ou l’Iran que dans une relation étroite avec le G7, le choix vous appartient. Il ne peut cependant pas s’attendre en même temps à un traitement préférentiel de la part des pays du G7 ou de l’UE. Pas même de la part de la CPLP, qui ne devrait pas offrir du soleil sur l'aire et de la pluie sur les avant-toits, si l'on veut un jour la mener avec le courage nécessaire.

Mais l’enjeu fondamental, en ce début d’année, est différent : la Russie doit quitter l’Ukraine, sans plus attendre, et respecter sa souveraineté et son intégrité territoriale. Cela devrait être la préoccupation numéro un de l’UE et de ses alliés.

Les éléments de preuve les plus récents semblent montrer que les deux parties aux États-Unis sont proches d’un accord sur cette question et prêtes à renouveler leur aide à l’Ukraine. L’UE est absente. Les dirigeants européens parlent beaucoup et bien, mais ils n'agissent pas comme prévu. Il s’agit d’un leadership conversationnel, alimenté par la peur de la Russie. L’État membre qui a le plus aidé et qui compte le plus – l’Allemagne – craint de prendre la décision nécessaire qui modifierait considérablement le scénario existant : la fourniture de missiles Taurus à longue portée à l’Ukraine. Il s’agit d’équipements qui permettront de frapper avec poids et profondeur l’envahisseur russe et d’isoler la Crimée du reste de la Russie. Lorsque j’ai décidé d’écrire ce texte, j’ai pensé souligner l’indécision manifestée jusqu’à présent par Olaf Scholz. Entre-temps, la chancelière a adressé cette semaine une exhortation aux autres partenaires européens et une déclaration d'accord sur le plan d'aide de l'UE à l'Ukraine de 50 milliards d'euros, qui devrait être approuvé lors du sommet européen du 1er février.

Dans une Europe sans leadership clair, les propos de Scholz sont encourageants. Mais ils en savent trop peu et trop tard. Il y a urgence. Il faut avancer avec le Taurus, avec plus de munitions, avec de nouveaux systèmes de défense anti-aérienne, avec des drones de combat et une force de défense aérienne basée sur le F16. Et accompagner toute cette aide de nouvelles décisions politiques, qui accentuent une fois pour toutes l’isolement financier et diplomatique du régime Poutine. Expliquer constamment aux citoyens européens ce qu'a été l'héroïsme ukrainien, les avancées en mer Noire, dans les ports de Crimée, dans les attaques contre la flotte navale russe et en termes de défense face à la brutalité.

J'ai aussi pensé à critiquer les dirigeants de la France, de l'Italie et de l'Espagne : ce sont des économies majeures qui ont été des acteurs mineurs par rapport au Danemark, aux Pays-Bas, à la Suède et aux pays baltes, sans oublier le Royaume-Uni. Mais nous verrons comment ils se comporteront dans un avenir proche, face au défi de Scholz. Qu’ils réalisent ou non qu’il dépend également d’eux d’empêcher Poutine de continuer à constituer une menace pour la stabilité et la paix en Europe.

China's responsibilities as a permanent member of the UN Security Council

Ukraine: what are China's responsibilities as a P5?

Victor Angelo

 

Earlier this week, Olaf Scholz met by videoconference with Xi Jinping. A day later, it was Emmanuel Macron's turn. I imagine there was a prior settling of positions between the two European leaders, even though the face-to-face meeting between the two only took place a few hours after the German chancellor's virtual meeting with the Chinese president. Xi Jinping is convinced that strengthening European unity will eventually allow Europe to gain greater autonomy in relation to the USA. That is why he must have compared the statements made by Scholz and Macron to see if they are along the same lines.

The big issue, in an extensive agenda of issues to be dealt with between China and Europe, is that of the war in Ukraine. During the calls, Xi repeated phrases he had uttered before - Europe's security must be in the hands of Europeans; it is fundamental to build a new security structure in Europe that takes into account the concerns of all parties; China has acted diplomatically for peace to return to Ukraine, starting by insisting on a ceasefire and respect for the country's territorial integrity; it continues to promote multilateral solutions, because it recognises the central role of the UN; and, finally, China defends the globalisation of markets. At the outset, these declarations are positive. But what do they mean in concrete terms, when it comes to putting an end to Russian aggression against Ukraine and stopping the risks of the conflict spreading?

Scholz, Macron and the entire European leadership must go further and unambiguously confront Xi Jinping: what does China intend to do to contribute with all its political and economic weight to making Vladimir Putin's Russia cease hostilities and respect the sovereignty of its neighbour? The videoconferences need to be more demanding and explore what the grand declarations of principles mean in practice. The gravity of the international situation requires a dialogue that goes beyond make-believe.

China, beyond its status as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, is a global power, however much that pains some Western leaders. Both realities, in New York and around the world, give China rights and responsibilities. And in the case of the violation of Ukraine's sovereignty, China has a duty to actively contribute to the return of peace and international law. It cannot use the argument that this is only a European problem and that it is therefore up to the Europeans to solve it. Nor should we insist on this line of argument.

What we are facing is a conflict that could dramatically threaten international peace and security, particularly if non-conventional weapons are used. And which already has a widespread impact on food security, supply chains, energy prices and other dimensions that lead to the impoverishment of millions, and even more so in the most economically fragile countries.

In essence, my message is that Europe needs to talk more assertively with China. Xi says it is for peace and international order, for the centrality of the United Nations. So, ask him how he translates those admirable axioms into a peace process for Ukraine.

Meanwhile, the annual summit between the EU and Japan took place yesterday in Tokyo. Charles Michel and Ursula von der Leyen led the European delegation. They began by pointing out that Japan is Europe's most important strategic partner in the Indo-Pacific region, which must have attracted some attention in Beijing. The intensification of sanctions against Russia was one of the central themes of the discussion. There is a convergence of views between Brussels and Tokyo on the issue. But here too it would have been strategic to discuss how to involve China. This is now one of the big questions. It is not enough to write in the final communiqué that the EU and Japan will "deepen exchanges with China", namely in the political and security fields. That is mere lip service.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 13 May 2022)

 

 

Looking at Afghanistan's future with great sadness

Afghanistan: So many sacrifices, for what?

Victor Ângelo

 

Coming in like a lion, and then, exiting like a baboon. Perhaps this popular expression does not fully apply to the withdrawal of the American troops and their NATO allies from Afghanistan. It is, no doubt, an inglorious exit after almost twenty years of enormous human and financial efforts. The way in which they abandoned their main military base in Bagram, about an hour north of Kabul - in the dead of night, leaving behind an indefensible and unmanageable situation, namely a prison with more than five thousand prisoners linked to terrorism - has a dramatic symbolic value. It signifies impasse, retreat, and abandonment of the Afghan government and people to their fate. In a word, defeat. With Taliban fanatics gaining ground across the country, the withdrawal will allow them to reach Kabul before the rigours of winter. This is the ideal time of year for military campaigns in Afghanistan and the way is open for the assault on power.

There are many possible reflections on all this. At this moment it is especially important to understand the reasons for the American pull-out. Afghanistan has lost the strategic interest it held for years, when the fight against Islamist terrorism was considered a priority in Washington. The United States now thinks it is sufficiently protected against such threats. This is where they have a huge difference with their European allies. The Europeans continue to see terrorism as a major danger and view the Taliban offensive with great apprehension. But the Europeans in NATO had no choice but to uncritically align themselves with the American position.

For Washington, Afghanistan has come to be seen as an endless war and as a distraction from the new and now far more important focus: China. And it sees the rivalry between the two superpowers as resolved in the region where Afghanistan is located. This is why it does not want to waste any more time and resources in this geopolitical space where China already has the subordination of the two countries that matter most: Pakistan and Iran. The China-Pakistan economic corridor, which ends at the Pakistani port of Gwadar, on the Arabian Sea, is perhaps the most relevant project of the New Silk Road. In Beijing's eyes, it is guaranteed. On the other hand, Iran signed a long-term economic agreement with China in March 2021. Chinese investments are expected to reach $400 billion in the coming years. It is Iran's passage into China's orbit. In the middle will remain the Afghanistan of chaos and radicalism, but without the capacity to harm Chinese interests in the region. The Taliban are dependent on these two neighbours, especially Pakistan, and should not act against their interests.

But beyond the strategic games, there are the people, victims of a cruel conflict, poor but resilient and dignified. They are deeply concerned, as are many of us here in Europe. First, because a regime based on a primitive vision of life in society has no regard for human rights. It treats all people, starting with women and girls, in an incredibly oppressive and inhuman way. We cannot remain indifferent to the extreme suffering that is looming for millions of Afghan citizens. Second, because potential terrorists in Europe will find in the resurgence of Taliban tyranny a new balloon of oxygen. Third, because radical killers operating in the Sahel and elsewhere in Africa, in countries that are part of our historic alliances, will be able to gain new opportunities for support.

One lesson that will be drawn from all this is that you cannot count on support from Westerners. That support comes and then disappears, in the dark of night, according to convenience, the direction of the political wind and the priorities of those who live far from the problems.

To think that these are some of the outcomes of the long and painful Western intervention in Afghanistan can only leave us desolate. Above all, we are left with a bitter feeling of failure and impotence. Of a Europe that is submissive in foreign and security policy, in a world where it weighs little and counts for less.

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

 

 

The future of Europe requires a thorough debate

Europe and the Coming Turbulence

Victor Ângelo

 

The launch of the Conference on the Future of Europe took place this week in Strasbourg, at the official seat of the European Parliament. The symbolism of Strasbourg is enormous. It represents reconciliation, peace, democracy, and solidarity among Europeans. These four desiderata are still as relevant today as they have been during the last seven decades, a period of continued construction  of the European political edifice. It is therefore important to remind ourselves of that, to recognize where we have come from and to define where we want to go in the next decade.

That is the aim of this initiative, which is due to be completed in March 2022. It would be a mistake to make a cynical assessment of the conference. However subtle it may seem, cynicism is the knife of the bitter and the downbeat. What is called for is a citizen's reflection that combines realism with idealism, that is a critical but constructive view. It is a matter of going beyond the rhetoric or the usual elucubrations.

The conference is a different test, which will allow us to measure the strength of citizenship movements. In fact, the biggest challenge facing the EU is precisely that which stems from the gap of ignorance or indifference between politics and the European institutions on the one hand, and people's daily lives on the other. Even in Brussels, people who live a few blocks away from the European district seem to be as disconnected from the EU as any family living in a small village in Portugal. A political project that is not understood by ordinary mortals is fragile. It can easily be jeopardized by its enemies.

The nine axes for reflection about the future ignore this disconnection. The topics are important: climate change and the environment; health; the economy, employment, and social justice; the EU's role in the world; rights and security; digital transformation; democracy; migration; and education, culture, sport, and youth. But it is a mistake to take citizens' support for the European project for granted. This is a fundamental issue. After an absolutely exceptional year, we find in European societies a lot of frustration, confusion, impatience, and a more pronounced individualism. We also have a set of internal and external enemies ready to exploit vulnerabilities and bring down the EU. That is why the discussion about the path to 2030 must begin with an analysis of weaknesses and threats.

A forward-looking assessment of the coming years shows us that we will be impacted by three major shock waves. The first comes from the accelerating use of cybernetics, in particular artificial intelligence, which will turn many Europeans into digital illiterates and redundant labour. If not properly addressed, it will further exacerbate social inequalities and job insecurity.

The second will result from new waves of uncontrolled immigration and the exploitation of this phenomenon by certain forces. It will not only be Viktor Orbán or Jarosław Kaczyński, or even Sebastian Kurz, who will divide Europe on this issue. The chances of Marine Le Pen gaining power in 2022 or of Italy being ruled by a coalition of ultranationalists in 2023 - in an alliance of Matteo Salvini with neo-fascist leader Georgia Meloni, whose Fratelli d'Italia party already mobilizes 18% of the national electorate - must be reckoned with. A front that brings together such politicians in several member states would cause a potentially fatal fracture for the continuation of Europe.

The third strategic shock - something to be avoided at all costs - could come from a possible armed conflict between the United States and China. Such a confrontation, which can by no means be excluded from the prospective scenarios, would have a devastating effect. European stability and prosperity would go down the drain.

The message, now that the debate has been opened, is that there can be no taboo subjects and no incomplete scenarios that do not consider the internal and external complexity in which we will move. Already, one fact is certain. There are years of great upheaval ahead of us.

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

 

 

 

 

Our Putin policy

Russia in fat letters

Victor Angelo

 

This week, Vladimir Putin and Russia made headlines again. One of the reasons was the message of congratulations that Putin sent to Joe Biden. The Russian leader turned out to be one of the last heads of state to congratulate the winner of the US elections. The pretext for the delay was to wait for the results of the Electoral College. This formalism, which was impeccable from a legal point of view, but undiplomatic and inconsequential in terms of future relations, barely conceals Putin's preference for Donald Trump. In Moscow's view, Trump's incompetent, incoherent and divisive policy was the one that most weakened the international position of the USA and best served the Russian geopolitical renaissance. Not to mention, of course, the deference that the American always showed for the Kremlin's strong man. 

Putin's message speaks of cooperation and puts his country on a par with the USA, in the very exclusive league of the great states "especially responsible for global security and stability". Putin, always attentive, takes this opportunity to reaffirm his country's indispensable role on the world stage.

In the meantime, other headlines have emerged about Russia. Since March she has been accused of infiltrating the computer systems of several major American targets. The list of federal institutions and private companies violated, as well as the level of refinement used, show the gigantic scale of the operation, which can only have been carried out by the highly specialised services that make up the official Russian espionage web. It is true that other countries are constantly trying to do the same. But the fact is that the Russians have succeeded and for a long time. This can only mean that the leadership invests exceptionally in cyber-espionage. It will never be known exactly what information has been extracted. The hope remains that the volume of data will be of such magnitude that it will eventually overwhelm the analysts. In these matters, it is one thing to obtain information, but another to have the capacity to carry out its analysis, in order to transform it into knowledge and courses of action, and this in good time, which becomes short as soon as the infiltration is discovered.

To complete the bunch, it was simultaneously noticed that the Russians had also pirated the European Medicines Agency. And CNN published a detailed report of the persecution and poisoning of the opposition figure, Alexei Navalny, by Putin's agents. Then came the news about doping and the ban on participation in the next Olympic Games. A series of negative headlines about a regime that loves to sell its image as respectable.  

Amid all this, Europeans extended sanctions against Russia until July 2021. These measures, which come from 2014 and relate to Russian armed intrusions into Ukraine and the occupation of the Crimea, have a narrow scope. They do not include, for example, the suspension of the construction of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, which will link Russia and Germany across the Baltic. Another title of the week was to announce that work on the installation of the pipeline had resumed and had even entered the final phase.

The reality is that EU leaders do not have a clear political vision of what the relationship with Russia should be like. There has been much debate on the issue, including the design of scenarios, but no agreement. The trend seems to me, as we look at the decade ahead, a mixture of deadlock, hesitation, opportunism, mistrust, and detachment. A policy of uncertainties, with Putin setting the pace.

The Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), now with Helga Schmid at the helm, should seek to be the bridge for dialogue between us and Moscow. But not only that. The EU's external agenda needs to define a strategic line on Russia, including proposals for joint action, first in areas of least controversy and serving to build understanding and trust. The same should happen at the military level, both in the EU and NATO. Russia is our massive neighbour. Threatening, certainly, with autocratic leadership, but geographically, culturally, and economically close. A policy of locked doors has no way out.

 

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

 

 

Writing about a minefield

 One of my friends suggested, after reading my opinion column of this week, that I write the next one on Turkey and her relations with the EU. I answered that it is a great idea, a very topical theme, but also a dangerous one. The key European leaders cannot agree on an approach towards Erdogan’s Turkey. This week they will be discussing some options that the European Commission has drafted. I have not seen such discussion paper yet. Therefore, I am not able to comment on the proposals. But I know that the matter has a paralysing impact on European minds. Erdogan has managed to create that effect. Some leaders do not want to be clear on the approach they would advocate. Others are simply afraid of President Erdogan’s political moves. The consequence, in the end, is to block action, to create impasses in the European institutions that have something to do with today’s Turkey.

It is no surprise if I tell you that when I heard the suggestion about my next text, I also felt my hand shaking a bit.

Lebanon and the international freezer

 Translation of today’s opinion piece I published in Diário de Notícias (Lisbon). 15 Aug. 2020

From Lebanon to the conflict freezer

Victor Angelo

 

The district of Beja in Southern Portugal and Lebanon have the same territorial area. But the comparison ends there. If on one side we have around 153 thousand inhabitants, on the other there are seven million, who live in one of the most unstable regions of the globe. And they are an extremely fragmented social mosaic, full of rivalries, which subsists at the expense of precarious balances, always ready to be broken. Each segment of society pulls the embers to its sardine. The respective bosses corrupt the system and capture the institutions of governance. To the emergence of more honest leaders, the bosses respond with murder or intimidation, to shut up or push into exile anyone who questions them.

This explains why a country of entrepreneurial people with a high cultural level went through a long civil war, from 1975 to 1990, and has been experiencing a deep national crisis for years. The situation entered an acute phase in October 2019, with thousands of citizens protesting regularly in the streets. The economy and the financial system ceased to function. The central government has become a prisoner of the fierce rivalries that exist between the 18 political-confessional groups that make up the country and which serve as chess pieces in the game of tension between the regional powers, especially Iran and Saudi Arabia.

The situation became catastrophic after the explosion in the port of Beirut. Since then, the country has made the front page of the news and the priority list of the usual powers, thanks in particular to the efforts of Emmanuel Macron. Lebanon will remain on this list as long as international attention is focused on its crisis. Sooner or later a new tragedy will appear somewhere and the country, like others that are also experiencing recurrent national conflicts, will move to the shelf of the forgotten, in the world freezer where so many unsolvable crises are stored and kept frozen. 

In the meantime, emergency humanitarian aid has been announced. It is vital that this aid arrives quickly and is delivered to those who are in a very precarious situation. Here the role of the United Nations organisations is to ensure the credibility of the distribution of humanitarian goods, which must be channelled through Lebanese NGOs. We must avoid political exploitation of this aid, either by internal factions or by donors. That is why I do not think it is too much to remember that humanitarian action aims to save lives, with transparency, without corruption. It has nothing to do with possible changes in the political spider web.

It is true that Lebanon needs to change its political labyrinth. In recent days, a series of proposals have emerged that would place this burden on the shoulders of the international community. Some have suggested a new mandate regime. The country was under a French mandate until 1943 and there are many people in Lebanon, at the grassroots level, who would like this to happen again. That, even with adaptations to the realities of modern politics, would be a thing of the past. It does not correspond to the current vision, which puts the responsibility for change in the hands of national political agents.

Nor do I think it is possible to send a United Nations contingent with a political mission approved by the Security Council under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. This part of the Charter allows for the use of military and police force, which would theoretically make the mission more efficient. In reality, it only works if there is a strong enough national political will to change the way the country is run, which seems to be very difficult to achieve in Lebanon. One could use the functions of mediation and facilitation of political dialogue, a role that is increasingly central to the United Nations menu. I just do not believe that Lebanese politicians are ready for such an effort.

So, while some humanitarian aid is being provided and internal political cooling is expected, I fear that Lebanon will join the group of countries that the Security Council's inertia regularly puts in the freezer of conflicts.

 

 

 

 

We are being treated as vassal States

This is an exceptional moment in our contemporary history. The pandemic is challenging many of our long-held views and opening the door to a number of discussions about the future. One such discussion is about the role of values and principles in international relations.

I am one of those who thinks that big powers are putting aside the norms that have regulated the relations among nations. I see them as trying to reduce others to the status of vassal states. This is the current trend, for instance, when it comes to the United States. Washington is looking at Europe as subordinated allies, as countries that must unconditionally follow the American policy decisions in matters of foreign affairs.

European sovereignty is being threatened by such an approach.

In the circumstances, the European leaders have decided to pretend that is not the case. They turn a blind eye and just hope that as we get into next year, there will a change of leadership in Washington and, consequently, a more amicable attitude towards Europe. I am not sure. In 2021, the leadership might indeed be played by a set of different actors. But I see the trend as deeper than just a passing option linked to the Trump Administration. I sense it is structural and strategic. It comes from the dangerous competition that is growing a bit out of control between the United States and China. That competition will define the coming years. Both sides will be looking for support in the community of nations. And their natural tendency, like any giant, is to force other countries to take sides. The United States and China will be pressing others into the category of client-states. 

This is a development that the global crisis is accentuating. We cannot feign to ignore it.  

Srebrenica

Srebrenica. The massacre happened 25 years ago. In Srebrenica, in Europe. About 8,000 victims, just because they were a bit different, a religion-based difference. And today, after so many years, the reconciliation and the cooperation between the Balkan States are still distant dreams. Dreams that the political leaders do not share. The region remains a powder keg within the European Continent.

It is a sad and dangerous situation.  

Erdogan has become a major problem

I have said many times that the President of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, is a major menace to the European interests. That includes the stability of some European countries, those with a large Turkish immigration, the unity of Europe, and the effectiveness and coherence of our military defence as a common endeavour. Now, I see my warning getting echo in a few media and governance circles. They realise the danger Erdogan represents. They should also be clear that the President megalomaniac ideas are bringing economic chaos to his own country. The man’s ambitions and his political manipulation of Islam have transformed Turkey into a repressive State and an economic mess. The louder we say it, in Brussels and in other capitals, the better for us and for the Turkish population.

Difficult to keep countries together

It is time to define the priority sectors that would require reform, innovation, and fresh resources. That is what some European governments are doing. Unfortunately, not all of them have engaged in such a planning exercise. They will remain further behind in terms of access to the new funding facility the European Commission is putting in place. That means more economic divergence in a project that was put together to bring equal prosperity to every member State. Development gaps, as they wide, they create the roots for dissension and destruction.   

For Hong Kong and a bit more

The new Hong Kong National Security Law is a clear violation of the legal process as established by the territory’s Basic Law – there was no consultation with the local population and their representatives – as well as of the agreed principle “One Country, Two Systems”. Furthermore, the key offences it contemplates – subversion, secession, terrorism, and collusion with foreign powers – are defined in overly broad terms. That means the Hong Kong Executive is given extensive flexibility to judge and condemn. They are the ones, not the judiciary, that will apply the law, meaning, they will decide on the offences and the punishments. They will certainly follow a targeted approach to repression.

Another “innovation” of such new law is that it also applies to people outside Hong Kong and Mainland China. If someone in Paris, a French citizen resident in France, says that the territory should be independent and later in life travels to Hong Kong, he or she can be prosecuted for such a statement.

I feel sorry for the people of Hong Kong who cherish freedom and democracy. I have the same feeling for those in the Mainland that share these same values. And I ask myself what kind of political relationship our democracies should have with the leadership in Beijing. It is time to reflect on that before it is too late. The message should be simple. It must tell them that we are not prepared to accept their vision of politics. And we should keep an all-weather distance, as wide as possible, between them and us.

The international arena must be guided by values. It is time to say that again, loud, and clear. Very straightforward values, that take their inspiration from individual rights, the protection of each person against authoritarian States, from our inherent right to freedom and human security. Some might see this aspiration as a utopic one. I hear you. But, please, believe me, the post-covid world opens the door to imagine a more dignified approach to each human being.

Africa Day 2020

Africa Day 2020 was ignored in Europe. The pandemic pushes everything else out of the screen. In past years, today’s celebration would be part of the news in various countries of Western Europe. Now, we are so focused on our surroundings that I get the impression we have forgotten that the world is bigger than our small neighbourhood.

Well, let me congratulate my friends in Africa and wish them a better governed and more united Continent.

Leading the international response

It is massively wrong to criticise the World Health Organisation (WHO) at this stage. We are still in unknown territory and unchartered waters as far as the Covid-19 pandemic is concerned. We don’t know what is going to happen in Africa and in other parts of the world, where the health systems are extremely weak. WHO has a technical presence in those countries and lots of experience in assisting them. As such, the wise thing to do would be to strengthen its operational capacity. That means that its authority must be recognised, and additional resources mobilised. To weaken and destabilise the organisation, as President Trump is doing, is unacceptable. We do not expect the current US President to provide the leadership it should, as head of the strongest State on earth. Donald Trump does not understand the world we live in and the role the US should be playing. But, at least, he should keep quiet as far as WHO is concerned.

The sad thing is that we are confronted with a devastating global calamity at a time there is no real global leadership. The US is getting more and more confused with its internal politics. The turmoil is amazing out there. Elsewhere, in the other regions of the world, there is no visionary leader, nobody of gigantic stature, capable to call the international action. The Prime Minister of New Zealand, Jacinda Arden, is sometimes mentioned. She is indeed an example. But her country is too small and too far out for her to be able to play a global role. All the other potential leaders are too busy with their own national situation – or messing things up, as it is the case with Narendra Modi of India.

I see a role for the UN Secretary-General. But I also recognise that his voice must be amplified by the international media, for that role to be effective. And that is not very easy to achieve at the moment.

Positive stories must be told as well

Reports say that China is 85% back to normal. I have some questions about this figure. I think it is too high. But there is no doubt that the economic activity is resuming. And people are again on the move. There are still some restrictions being imposed, especially on travellers intending to come in from abroad. But all in all, things are now moving in the direction of recovery. 

That’s good news. Our media should be reporting about that. We need that kind of encouraging news. It is not good just to be inundated with our own sad figures and disturbing information about the existing chaos in some of our Western places. 

We must also fight all types of prejudice concerning the Chinese people. That should be part of the new world, the one we would like to live in, after the Covid crisis.

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.