Paz na Europa

 https://www.dn.pt/opiniao/o-futuro-da-paz-na-europa-passa-por-um-reequilbrio-de-foras

No Diário de Notícias de 28/11/2025

Mr Biden is in Europe

Joe Biden’s urgent travel to Europe

Victor Ângelo

 

The American President is in Europe on an exceptional and urgent basis, which shows the gravity of the current crisis caused by the backward, criminal and imperialistic politics of Vladimir Putin. Regardless of the results of the meetings in which Joe Biden took part, at NATO, at the G7 and at the European Council, I see three central objectives in his trip, which seek to respond to the continuous worsening of the situation in Europe.

First, to send a crystal-clear message about the US commitment to the defence of its European allies. This warning is particularly relevant at a time when hostile rhetoric against Poland is beginning to be heard in Moscow. Dmitry Medvedev this week published a frontal attack against the political leadership of that country - and these things do not happen by chance. They are usually part of a plan of confrontation, which at an early stage seeks to create unrest within the targeted population, undermine the authority of its political class, and simultaneously format Russian public opinion itself. Thus, Biden's trip to Warsaw, after Brussels, is part of the American message. To think that Putin excludes the possibility of entering into an armed conflict against an EU or even NATO country would be a mixture of naivety and thoughtlessness. We are, unfortunately, in a spiral where anything can happen. The American umbrella needs to be recalled in an obvious way. Biden's visit serves that purpose.

A second purpose is surely related to deepening sanctions against Russia, while at the same time trying to avoid dissension among European leaders. The subject, namely regarding gas and oil, is very sensitive. Several European countries have expressed strong reservations, not to say opposition, to a possible suspension of energy imports. A few days ago, the German Chancellor again stated that such a measure would cause a deep recession throughout Europe. But now, with Putin deciding that these imports will have to be paid for in roubles, at whatever exchange rate he wants to set, the embargo becomes a pressing issue. There can only be one acceleration in that direction.

Thirty days after the start of military aggression and escalating acts of war, the approval of a new far-reaching sanctions package cannot be brushed aside. Europeans must accept that the risk coming from the Kremlin is very high and does not only concern Ukraine. It is essential to weaken as much as possible the economy that feeds the Russian war machine. This will naturally entail costs for us. But the biggest cost, growing and permanent, is keeping Putin in power. At the point where things have reached, it is becoming increasingly difficult to imagine a peaceful future in Europe with the current Russian regime. Our peaceful coexistence depends on the democratization of Russia, something that is up to its citizens to resolve.

A third objective relates to the need to speed up material aid to the Ukrainian defence effort. The US has just approved $1 billion in defensive equipment and weaponry. This assistance needs facilitation from the Europeans so that it can reach its destination as quickly as possible. Moreover, it must be accompanied by additional means from European countries. On the eve of the Brussels meetings, the EU announced an additional military contribution of 500 billion euros. The provision of all this is extremely urgent. Resistance to invaders, which is an act of legitimate defence, is done with courage and sophisticated means. 

It pains me to have to write a text like this. But let's be clear: there is, I repeat, a risk of armed confrontation in our part of Europe. To avoid it, we must provide unreserved support for Ukraine, be strategic, and firm in our economic, financial, and political responses against Putin, and be ready to accept sacrifices. In short, the moment demands vision, realism, determination, subtlety, truth, and the availability of means.   

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 25 March 2022)

 

 

Reflecting about democracy

 Democracy cannot be make-believe

Victor Ângelo

 

In the most developed societies, we are witnessing an acceleration in the digitalisation of all dimensions of citizens' lives. The pandemic has contributed enormously to this digital revolution. But more is coming.  The ability to process millions of pieces of information through new methods of artificial intelligence and advances in automation will allow the control - and, in many cases, manipulation - of people in a way never seen before.

The new digital age brings numerous challenges, and even threats, for democracy. Think, for example, of the role of robots in the multiplication of propaganda, fake news, and the creation of echo chambers, which give the impression of massive political support for some, and build around them all sorts of illusions, alongside the harassment of others, the opponents, with thousands of hostile messages from fake profiles. But the most immediate aspect concerns participation in the electoral act. If a citizen can pay his taxes or renew his identity card while sitting at the kitchen table, why is he not allowed to vote by computer link-up, also from home? Going to a polling station, going through crowds of people, queuing up and wasting time seem like procedures from another time, even if people like Donald Trump try to discredit electronic voting.

Already this week, the French have thrown another challenge into the debate. The abstention rate in the regional elections reached a record high. Two-thirds did not vote. Worse still, around 9 out of 10 of 18–24-year-olds were not ready for the hassle. They just ignored the election calls. Analysts were baffled. In discoursing on the reasons for such indifference, they fell into the same simplism that Marine Le Pen, Jean-Luc Mélenchon and other political personalities had already shown on election night - it would be the fault of the citizens, who found the inconvenience not worth it. And they launched cries to the heavens to lament that such a trend could lead to the death of democracy.

All that is television talk. People - especially young people - do not vote because most of the political class doesn't mean anything to them, doesn't inspire them, has no new ideas, is just more of the same, with too much hubris and too few ethics. This is what is happening in France and other European countries. The main threat to democracy does not come from apathy among citizens. That is the consequence. The cause lies upstream, in the political parties - there are always exceptions - which are generally nothing more than a club of opportunists or fanatics, enlightened by short-sightedness.

The question of democracy is also on the agenda of the European Council meeting that has been held since yesterday, marking the end of the Portuguese presidency. The big question, which has been a long time coming and so far, unanswered, is what to do about the authoritarian governance currently practised in Hungary and Poland. The leaders in these two countries have long systematically violated Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union, which defines the fundamental values on which the EU is based - freedom, democracy, separation of powers and human rights. The lack of an adequate response to these violations is another fuel to the fire that is consuming away the citizens' confidence in democracy and politicians.

Less talked about, but equally important for the vitality of democracy, is having a capable system of administration of justice that is independent of politicians. Citizens need to have confidence in the speedy and efficient functioning of the courts, as a means of defending their rights and correcting injustices. In the age of "digital totalitarianism" this is even more essential. In member states where justice is slow, ill-equipped, and inefficient, we have a problem almost as serious as the authoritarianism that exists elsewhere. Those states have a lame democracy. They should also be the subject of criticism in the European Council. Without effective justice, democracy is an illusion. And the citizens, as the French have now shown, are no longer so easily deceived.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published today 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.   

Still on the European summit

The EU summit is still on, at the end of the second day. It is too early to comment on it, as I do not know what the outcome will be. But I said to a friend, a former ambassador, that I see it as positive that leaders spend a good amount of time trying to get to an agreement. They have in front of them big issues, with many possible consequences, and extremely high costs. These are no simple matters, and we are living in extraordinarily exceptional times. I would be worried if they decided to run through the issues, superficially and with no real commitment. It is true that some of them do have that kind of attitude. They are the lightweights. But the key players take these matters seriously. I can only appreciate that. To call names and badmouth them is a childish approach I do not accept.   

There is growing hope in Poland

The first projections seem to show that Andrzej Duda has been re-elected as President of Poland. It is a very thin victory, something just over 50% of the votes. Duda has been the country’s President since 2015. His re-election, after a brutal campaign he led against his main opponent and tonnes of support by the official media – and from President Trump –, is not good news for the rest of the European Union. He represents a retrograde policy option and a government that has not respected the basic European values, including the independence of the judiciary. Domestically, his extremely narrow victory, if it is confirmed, reveals that half of the Poles do not believe in the basic demagoguery he propagates. That is a remarkable proportion of the population – people that were not convinced by extreme populism and nationalism of his Law and Justice party (PiS). Those voters tell us, in other parts of Europe, that hope is not lost as far as Poland is concerned. But Europe must have a much firmer policy towards the backward politicians that are still in power in the country.  

Hoping we will be sage and visionary

I can only hope that May will be a good transition month. I believe it can be if everyone in leadership positions understands that consultations and coordination between nations that have a similar destiny are crucial. Within the European Union, we need a renewed momentum, a stronger role coming from Brussels, and more discussions between key national leaders. There is no recovery if it is not done jointly.

EU must work together

It would be a serious mistake to continue the ongoing noise about the future of the European Union. The priority now is to combat the virus, safe lives and accelerate the vaccine research. The member states should be discussing and agreeing on what must be done together and in a coordination matter in these areas. There are already some positive moves of collaboration. They must be expanded immediately.  

The discussion about the economic recovery is also an urgent matter. But it would be much easier if the priorities I mention above could be effectively addressed. The shorter the period of the crisis the easier it will be to deal with the economic dimensions.

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.

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.

Charles Michel

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

The European Council meeting

A couple of senior French journalists, seasoned when it comes to cover events around the EU in Brussels, wrote that the European Council meeting of yesterday and today ended up by being a great victory for President Macron. Such comment is a serious mistake. The summit was not about Macron versus Merkel, as they want us to see it. It was a meeting of leaders, twenty-seven of them. They were presented with three names as possible candidates to Juncker’s succession. The names were based on the spitzenkandidat approach. And none of the candidates got enough traction to be considered for the job of President of the European Council. Not because of Emmanuel Macron’s opposition. Not because the spitzencandidat approach was rejected. It is just that each candidate had several leaders that opposed their nomination. And that’s how Europe should work. The head of the new Commission must be someone that meets the approval and respect of the heads of State and government. That is more necessary than ever. It will take a bit more time to decide. But this is a very important decision. A collective one, not a French chauvinist move.

Sudan, the people and the Western interests

Not too long ago, during my time in the Sahel Region, I met regularly with Sudanese community villagers, men and women, as well as with officials. I had also to deal with the security and humanitarian consequences of the Janjaweed militias, the armed groups doing the dirty work in Darfur at the service of Omar al-Bashir. I gained then a lot of admiration for the people of Sudan and felt deeply their aspiration for security and democracy. I also learned how strategic the Khartoum leadership could be, including the intelligence agencies and the generals.

The fall of al-Bashir, following the continued, widespread popular pressure, came to me as good news. But I also knew that the military and security establishment, including the militias, now operating as Rapid Support Forces (RSF), would not let it go too easily. And that is the situation today. More than a hundred people were killed last week in the capital by the military and the militias, many more were wounded or raped. The establishment cannot lose control. They have a heavy hand on the economy – on what remains of it, as most of the economy is in a state of collapse – and they are also afraid to be brought to justice due to past crimes they have been associated with. Therefore, it is the survival of the al-Bashir regime’s elite that is now at stake. They are ready to make al-Bashir and a few others pay the bill. But they do not want it to go beyond that.

The generals, including General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, the RSF boss, are closely supported by the Saudis, the Egyptian President and the Military, and the United Arab Emirates leadership. The generals have sent Sudanese armed men to fight the Saudi-UAE war in Yemen, among other things. This is a smart alliance. It protects the Khartoum generals from pressure from the European Union and the US. For the West, the friends of our friends deserve some consideration, no doubt. That explains the relative lack of attention the Sudanese situation has generated in Brussels and other capitals. People’s rights are a beautiful thing as long as they do not interfere with Western interests in the region.

The Chinese have also strong stakes in Sudan, particularly related to the oil pipeline that crosses the country.

All this makes the Sudanese transition to democracy extremely challenging for the people of that great country.

A new EU leadership team

The challenge the EU leaders have in front of them is to make the right decisions regarding the key positions in Brussels and at the European Central Bank. The period ahead of us is most critical for the European Union. The only real choice we have is to consolidate the project. To make it stronger and better understood by the citizens, that’s what it means. Sensible people understand why we need a more united Europe. They know what is going on in some big countries and how those countries can be a major threat to us, if we do not have a collective response.

EU is big enough to be able to weather the storm we see in the horizon. It must count on itself. At the same time, it should look for alliances and balances of interests, with a clear and consistent policy line. That includes stronger relations with Canada, in the Americas, with key African countries, with India and Japan, among others.

But above all, it must win the support of the European citizens.

European politics are changing fast, both in terms of the issues and the actors. The heads of State and government cannot ignore those changes. When selecting the new institutional heads, they must take that into account. We need people that have the courage to face the new issues, know how to communicate, project confidence and empathy, and represent the different regions of our Continent.

Let’s hope the right decisions will be taken.

The next boss in Brussels

The results are out, and most of the European voters decided to support the common goal of a stronger Europe. That’s great news. Everybody knows there was a lot of anxiety about a possible shift towards the extreme parties. They have gained votes but not in a significant way.  

Tomorrow the heads of State and Government will meet in Brussels to launch the consultations about the nomination of the next European Commission President. My position on this matter is clear. Jean-Claude Juncker’s successor must come from one of the leading candidates that has competed for the European Parliament. That’s the way we can show respect for the Parliament and for the voters. The heads of national States must not bring forward someone that has not campaigned. Even if that person is somebody of Michel Barnier’s calibre.

The three main contenders are Manfred Weber, the head of European People’s Party grouping, Frans Timmermans, from the Socialist group and Margrethe Vestager, from the Liberal-centre family. They all have the potential to lead the Commission. They must be given priority attention.

My preference would go for Frans Timmermans. He has shown, as Vice-President to Juncker, strong political courage and clear ideas. He has a deep executive experience as well. But that’s not enough, when it comes to horse trading among the heads of Sate and Government.

Angela Merkel will fight for her spitzenkandidat, Manfred Weber. He is not liked by Emmanuel Macron. There will certainly be another clash between Merkel and Macron.

A woman must also get a top position in Brussels. This cannot be ignored by the leaders. It could be Vestager in the Commission or the outgoing Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaitė, who could take Donald Tusk’s position. They are both top-notch candidates.

Responding to Germany and to AKK

AKK, full name, Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, the new leader of the CDU governing party in Germany, is more concerned with the growing influence of the AfD – Alternative for Germany, the extreme-right, ultranationalist party – than with European affairs. That explains, to a very large extent, the way she responded to Emmanuel Macron’s Renaissance proposals. She was above all writing to her constituency within CDU and to many of those voters that have decided to move their support to AfD during the last few years. One of the things she must achieve is to bring that support back to CDU. Her leadership is a lot about that objective.

All that is fine. We know that party politics is primarily a domestic matter. However, AKK’s approach is not a balanced one. Germany is a key player within the EU. As such, it ought to show leadership and ambition on European matters. That is particularly needed now, when the European elections are already taking shape in the near horizon and a new leading team will take over in Brussels and be directing the institutions for the next five years. Moreover, this is a time of major political challenges, both within Europe and in the international scene. Internally, Europe as a project is seriously questioned by a bad mixture of populist sentiments and national fragilities. Externally, the risks to European interests are many, complex, simultaneous and compound. They come from some neighbours – these are always the most dangerous threats. But in the connected world we live in, the concept of neighbourhood needs to be reassessed. And the threats also come from unsettling changes of policy at the level of our traditional allies.

There is thus plenty of room to be leader about. That should be one of the messages to be sent back to Germany and to AKK.

Macron and his European vision

This evening, the French President addressed a message to all Europeans about the future of the European Union. It's a very clear agenda for action. And a strong signal that the EU calls for leadership and renewal. A warning, in many ways, but with militancy and optimism.

The message can be read in English in the following site:


https://www.elysee.fr/emmanuel-macron/2019/03/04/for-european-renewal.en

Criteria to select Juncker´s successor

The discussion about the selection and approval of the next European Commission President has now openly started. Juncker is still on up to the end of next year, that´s true, but it´s also a fact that the issue of his succession will continue to occupy the minds during the next few months.

I am convinced that the tradition of selecting a former head of government or State to chair the Commission should be kept. Such an approach is fundamental to give a solid foundation of authority to the holder of that most critical job. 

In addition to that type of political experience, the candidates most be consensual enough, including in terms of enticing the support of the European Parliament. Nobody can get the job if not supported by the EP. Such requirement does not mean the successful candidate most come from the political family that gets the greater number of seats in the next parliament. It means that such candidate must be able to gain the advantage within the EP. 

Besides these two criteria - former government leadership experience and majority vote in parliament – the new President should come from a region of the EU that has been underrepresented when it comes to this type of responsibilities. That makes me think of the Nordic and the Baltic States. And, last point, the preference should go for a woman. 

Europe´s unity

Donald Tusk has been re-elected as President of the European Council. The Council brings together all the Heads of State and Government of the Union. They have voted today for Tusk. With one exception: the Polish government did not support his own citizen. For reasons of domestic politics, that's the truth. Not for reasons of competence: Tusk´s competence has been recognised by everybody else.

This was an important development. The Polish ultra conservative leaders had actively campaigned against the re-election. Some of us thought that the rest of the EU leaders would be willing to accept the Warsaw position in order to keep the European unity. But this time, reason has been stronger that unity at any cost. And that is certainly good news. 

On EU matters: let´s move on

The EU´s future is at a crossroads. My choice is to move forward. But not every member state will be prepared for a closer integration process. They have their national circumstances and might consider this is no time to enter into new power sharing agreements. I accept that. The union has to result from a shared and voluntary political approach.

Those countries that are ready for a deeper relationship should however be able to move on. The treaties allow it under the principle of “enhanced co-operation”. And there are a number of areas that would benefit from more co-operation and harmonization among a certain number of states. One of them is for sure in the field of defence. To be complemented by new forms of domestic security interoperability. Other areas would be in the financial and economic fields, in scientific research, higher education and student’s exchange, and external affairs.

The point is to decide on a new set of common goals and then invite the member states to pool their resources and political will. Several will join. And history will move on.

It would be a mistake to believe that every European country will share the same level of ambition. It is also a major impediment not to show leadership and wait for a consensus. That will never happen.