European leadership and their incoherence

Artificial Intelligence translation of my opinion column dated 2 Feb. 2024 and published in Lisbon in Diário de Notícias

From Ukraine to Gaza: where is European coherence?

Victor Angelo

With exceptions, politics is a world inhabited by opportunists. Five hundred years ago, Niccolò Machiavelli entered the history of modern political science when he wrote on the subject, placing emphasis on the word cynicism. But the practice came from antiquity and continues today, in governments, parties and the ability to manipulate citizens' opinions. Ethics, that is, respect for principles, for the common interest, for contemporaries and for future generations, is a word that makes many people in politics laugh, covertly. For these, the only thing that counts is their personal benefit, guaranteed by maintaining power thanks to a political clientele.

In the case of the EU, Viktor Orbán repeatedly reminds us of this truth. It is the worst example of a European leader. Orbán plays with a double-edged stick: on the one hand, to show that he belongs to the club of democracies, as a member of the EU, and, on the other, to make the most of the available funds. The staff he leans on is called Vladimir Putin. This allows him to spend the money coming from Brussels without serious controls and to govern without respect for democratic rules and in a corrupt manner. The counterpart that gives him strength is to complicate European politics in a way that pleases his friend of convenience, the master of Russia. This explains why Hungary continues to not approve Sweden's accession to NATO. There is no other reason than to do Putin a favour. And that is also why, until yesterday, it prevented financial aid to Ukraine — 50 billion euros. This amount is essential to keep Ukraine afloat over the next four years. Hungary has also opposed the creation of another European fund for military cooperation.

All this serves the interests of Russian imperialism. It contributes to the weakening of Ukraine and aims, in the long term, at the disintegration of the EU. Now, Russia is currently the main threat to peace in Europe. It is a hostile country, an enemy in the style of the past. As long as it maintains this behaviour, Russia must be treated as such, without hesitation. Orbán, when he behaves like a de facto ally of Putin, is betraying European interests.

It's time to call things by their names. Years ago, at a European summit, Jean-Claude Juncker patted Orbán on the back and joked, calling him a dictator. Today, he could perhaps add the word traitor.

However, at the "H" time when it is essential to guarantee Ukraine's future, we see the US handcuffed for months on end. The country is deeply fractured, internally, from a political and social point of view, and faces a number of foreign policy problems that disperse its intervention capabilities and confuse the order of priorities. It's the southern border. The problematic alignment with Israel. The obsession with Iran. The suicidal competition with China. The fear of North Korean madness. Putin's unpredictability. And now, the specter of Trump. All of this gives rise to two major conclusions. Europe, that is, NATO on this side of the Atlantic, cannot rely on US assistance in the event of a conflict in Europe. And Ukraine must seek to establish bilateral alliances with European and other countries as it continues its response to the Russian invasion. These alliances must above all be established with nations neighbouring or close to Russia. These are states that sooner or later could come into the Russians' sights, if Ukraine were unable to resist the Kremlin's aggression.

Europeans must step up support for Ukraine. Approving financial assistance for the next four years is an excellent step. Regarding the Ukrainian crisis, Europe has adopted the most appropriate positions. The same cannot be said with regard to Israel. There has been, on the part of the major European nations, an incoherent attitude towards the drama in Gaza. They swallow everything that Benjamin Netanyahu serves them on a plate. When the Prime Minister of Israel wanted to forget, last week, the preliminary orders of the International Court of Justice, which were clearly addressed to the Israeli government, he spoke of the 12 UNRWA agents who would have participated in the attacks of October 7, in a universe of 13,000 Agency employees in Gaza. He did not present any kind of evidence, nor did he talk about the colossal disproportion between the numbers, nor about the extraordinary work that UNRWA has been doing for 74 years, but his diversion was a masterstroke. And he managed to create an uproar against an organization that has helped millions of Palestinian lives. Several European countries opportunistically took advantage of the wave created by Netanyahu.

Many will think that on the European side, meekness, armchair politics and inconsistency prevail. Or, simply put, the cynicism of those who pretend not to understand what the word ethics means dominates.

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.

Writing about security and democracy

 

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

Questioning the obsession with security

Victor Angelo

The European Commission has got into the habit of producing strategies. It is a good practice, as it allows to move forward the reflection on priority themes and to draw the attention of the different governments to the need for coordination and joint actions, when appropriate. However, it is a pity that these documents are only to be known in the European District of Brussels and in certain specialised circles, and are not debated in national parliaments and by the public opinion in the various Member States.

The Commission has just outlined another, what it called the Security Union Strategy 2020-2025. It has been developed under the baton of the Vice-President for the Promotion of the European Way of Life, Margaritis Schinas, who has the task of ensuring the link between the external and internal dimensions of security. In other words, an almost impossible job, as there is no harmony of interests about foreign policy, not even regarding neighbouring Russia. Nor is there the courage to act against those states that pose a threat to Europe's internal stability, such as Turkey, among others.

The new security strategy is, above all, an exercise in enumeration. It provides an exhaustive overview of ongoing initiatives, including those concerning cybercrime and intoxication and misrepresentation campaigns from outside - without any reference to the internal actors who serve as a sounding board for these lying messages. It is all very technical, based on the intervention of police and criminal investigation bodies. It lacks the link to the Global Strategy, approved in 2016, and the Common Security and Defence Policy. It is as if the Commission is just adding another silo to the European political edifice. That is bad. It also lacks an analysis of the vulnerabilities of certain categories of citizens according to age, gender, place of residence, social and economic fragility, ethnic or cultural belonging. That is even worse. 

Anyone who is patient enough to read the document gets the impression that at the end of the reference period, the year 2025, we will have a Europe in which every step of every citizen will be recorded and can be scrutinised. It is easy to get the impression that we will then arrive at an extensively watched society, with gigantic databases storing every detail of our lives. The strategy shows, moreover, that the process has already begun and that it will be accelerated by the progress of digitisation and Artificial Intelligence. The prevention of terrorism and hybrid attacks, which may jeopardise key infrastructure, and the fight against financial crime will be three of the lines used to justify close surveillance, which seems to be inspired by the Big Brother imagined by George Orwell.

Even when it is said that the ultimate goal is the defence of the rights and freedoms of European citizens, we cannot fall into the trap of omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent security. The reason is simple. A security state is always one step away from slipping into an oppressive and manipulative state. Past examples show that political leaders easily fall into the temptation to divert security functions to ends that have nothing to do with consolidating the democratic regime and the real tranquillity of citizens.

Those who do not share this temptation are so often unable to exercise democratic oversight of security institutions. Most parliamentary oversight committees for intelligence services have reduced mandates, limited access, and unsatisfactory results. The strategy now formulated is silent on the alternatives that should be considered so that independent, non-partisan powers, outside of parliamentary disputes, can effectively curb possible security abuses.  The issue of balanced control of the potential excesses of those who observe our daily lives is, however, essential.  And this is because security obsessions are like witches. There are those who do not believe in them, but they are around, for sure! Even in European democracies!

 

The forthcoming EU summit

On Friday, the EU leaders will meet in Brussels. This will be the first face-to-face meeting since the beginning of the pandemic. The agenda is about money, lots of it. They must decide if they approve the Commission’s recovery proposal, its budget, and the disbursement modalities. It is indeed a delicate agenda

There are two camps. One side wants the new money to flow to each country, with little interference from either the Commission or the Council. In their views, it is up to the national governments to decide on the programmes and projects to be funded, accepting however that those funding decisions must fall within the broad framework proposed by the European Commission. Italy, France, Spain, and Portugal are within this group.

The other side, led by the Prime Minister of the Netherlands, advocates a greater oversight by the European Council. That would mean that country allocations should be endorsed by all, not just by the government concerned. It would give the Council, where the heads of State and government sit or are represented, the authority to say no a country’s allocation plan. They do not see this approach as interference. They think that the volume of money is very substantial, and it should, therefore, be used not only for recovery but also for economic and administrative reform at the national level.

As of today, it is unclear what the outcome of the summit might be. The conflicting positions show that some countries are convinced that others are not doing enough in terms of economic transparency and administrative effectiveness. They see a widening gap between development levels. And they are afraid that the richer part of Europe will be asked to keep contributing to States that are not doing their best in terms of political performance. The opposing side considers such a position as a prejudiced view. In my opinion, both groups of countries have some valid points that must be discussed. Indeed, it is time to discuss the reasons for poor performance and also some of the prevailing national prejudices that are still alive in different parts of the European Union.

The new EU Commission

The new European Commission top team, led by Ursula von der Leyen, has been approved by the Members of the European Parliament. They are now ready to start their five-year mandate. I can only hope they will be able to respond to the challenges ahead and remain credible.

The challenges are many. For me, the most important one concerns the unity of Europe. This is an area that is under attack, both from inside and from some of our neighbours, allies or foes. Therefore, it must be protected and strengthened. The Commission must keep reminding all of us of our common destiny as Europeans. It’s about unity within diversity, as a German person is certainly different, in many aspects, from a Portuguese. But both and all share the same fundamental values of human rights, fairness and dignity. All want to see the European streets kept safe, the rural areas protected, the equality between boys and girls promoted, and ensure that the older citizens feel tranquil and enjoy a dignified end of life. It’s also about the beef, of course. By promoting the European unity, the Commission is supporting a balanced economic growth and job security. In a context of sustainability, which means a lot on terms of addressing the urgency of the climate crisis.

I wish the new team well.

The situation in Northeastern Syria

At the end of the day, there is a lot of confusion regarding what could be next in Northern Syria, at the border with Turkey.

Over the weekend, the US President seems to have told his Turkish counterpart he would not oppose any military action Turkey might take against the Kurds that live on the Syrian side of the border. It was like giving a green light to President Erdogan to move in and attack the Syrian Democratic Forces, the Kurdish-dominated group that was a major ally of the Western powers in the battle against ISIS.

Now, and in view of the outcry his decision has arisen, including within the leadership of his own Republican Party, President Trump appears to be backpedalling. He even tweeted that the Turkish economy would be brought to its knees if something very wrong – what that means is unclear – would happen in Northern Syria.

Well, if there is an invasion of the Syrian territory, many wrong things will happen. One of them is about the message the West will be sending across the globe that they do not protect those who fought along side them. The other one concerns the fate of the ISIS prisoners. Thousands of them are being kept by the Syrian Democratic Forces/YPG. They would run away if the Kurds are under attack. That would bring back a number of terrorist cells to the region. In addition, any new war front in the region would certainly generate more displacements and human suffering. The civilian populations in Northern Syria would pay a high price for the Turkish invasion.

Besides the confusion, EU leaders must be clear and state without hesitation that any Turkish offensive in Northern Syria would be unacceptable. It is time to be firm with Erdogan. And unequivocal as well.  

South of Europe

In the Southern flank of the EU, just next door to all of us, the instability and systematic violations of people’s rights are growing by the day.

The area is a combination of several active political volcanoes. It is the situation in Libya and in most of North Africa plus the Sahel, vast area of absence of government. The Sahel was a semi-desert, now is a full-fledged governance desert. It is the deepening of the conflict between Israel and her neighbours. It is the all-out conflict in Yemen and the war crimes in Syria. Add to that, Iran and its fast deteriorating economic circumstances plus the armed competition with the vicinity and beyond, the violence in Afghanistan, the mess in Pakistan. And, of course, the crazy political line President Erdogan is following in his country.

The different components of this Southern neighbourhood are all extreme violent and with far reaching consequences. Mass movements are one of them. The complexity calls for a much better-defined EU political approach. It also requires more public attention. Leaders in Brussels and the capitals should be speaking about these matters more often and with better words. The words must be explicit, comprehensive and coherent.

Our role is to put pressure on our leaders for lines of action to be defined and the narrative to become strategic. And we should act with a strong sense of urgency.

Travelling and the EU game

I travelled quite a bit during the last four days or so. Travelling is essential to see the reality for ourselves. It’s the other side of reading. They complement each other. But more effectively than reading, travelling feeds the imagination, which is a major tool for transformation.

And talking about transformation, during these days four people were nominated to take over leadership positions at the European Union’s key institutions. There are a few comments that can be made about the choices made. I will share mine soonest.

But I would like to suggest that the decisions have shown the trend that has defined the EU during the last ten years or so. The Heads of State and Government are the real force, for good or for worse, behind the EU machinery. That basically means, among other things, that the decisions are taken mainly to respond to the overriding concern of keeping the balance between the interests of the major States or geopolitical blocks. It is the game of national agendas and petty powers that is played by the key actors, not the ambition to have a common future and build it together. That behaviour is certainly not very promising

I see the EU Council as positive

The European Council could not reach an agreement on nominations to the big positions. The decision is particularly difficult when it comes to agree on Jean-Claude Juncker’s successor.

The European political scene is divided, and no political group is strong enough to get its candidate through. Alliances and balancing acts are required. And those things take time to achieve.

I do not share the view of those who think the European Council meeting was a disaster. For me, it was an opportunity to clarify the different national interests and the personal dimensions of each possible candidate. They are now much clearer and that should allow Donald Tusk to come up with a combination of names that could meet the calls for fairness, geographical balance, experience, political diversity and gender equality.

The Heads of State and Government that made disparaging remarks after this Council meeting must be reminded that leadership requires maturity, capacity to negotiate in good faith and patience. European construction is not a straight line. And it is not about fulfilling the demands coming from the so-called big countries. It is a consensus project. That is the only source of its strength.

NATO days

NATO is seventy years old. It remains a unique type of organisation. Including because it brings together two very distinct ways of looking at geopolitics and is based on an ambiguous relationship between the political and military spheres of power.

Today, it operates in a very different world. And it is confronted with a complete new set of challenges. In all its organisational complexity, NATO has changed quite a bit during the last ten years or so. It has tried to adapt. 

But, in my opinion, it has not deserved the attention it should from the political leaders. Most of the political statements and positions on NATO are just ready-made, repetitive and half-baked declarations. That is not very strategic.

Liberalism is not a useful banner

In today’s Europe, the banner around “liberal values” does not attract enough support. Everything that is associated with “liberalism” is seen as elitist and globalist. At least, it is perceived as unclear, a concept difficult to grasp and distant from the daily concerns people are confronted with. It cannot be used to win votes during the forthcoming European elections.  

EU Council on Brexit and China

The European Council meeting of yesterday and today was not an easy affair. But it went well. The Heads of State and Government have shown a deep commitment to the discussions. They could agree on a response to Theresa May’s request for a delay in the Brexit date – and this was a very delicate matter, that took many hours to be discussed – and on an approach towards China. In both cases, the twin concerns were to keep the EU united and, at the same time, to leave the door open for a balanced relationship.

The member States might have different views about important issues. However, no one wants to rock the boat. And all understand that by reaching a common understanding about their shared interests they can then have a clear - and stronger - position towards the outside world. Collectively, their interests are leveraged. 

Macron and the European liberalism

In today’s Europe, people do not understand what politicians mean when they say liberalism or a liberal order. The concept has lost its meaning, in the minds of the citizens. It is in many ways associated with elitism and all the bad things that come from globalisation. It cannot mobilise people. It is a mistake to insist on it when speaking about change and a better future for Europe.

And, unfortunately, that is the label that President Macron risks to see attached to his proposals.

EU Parliament and Italy

Yesterday, Giuseppe Conte, the Italian Prime Minister addressed the EU Parliament in Strasbourg.

I do not share some of the views he expressed. However, I would assess his speech as moderate and pro-European.

The Prime Minister talked about immigration – a very central theme for his government but also for the rest of Europe. And about the need to go back to reinforced solidarity among the European States, as well as about defence matters, foreign policy and the EU at the UN. He emphasised that cooperation with North Africa and the Sahel are a priority for his government and invited the EU to be more coherent and proactive towards those two neighbouring regions. But above all, Conte reminded the MEPs that the connection between the EU institutions and the citizens is crucial. Too much emphasis on economic measures without considering the people’s views is wrong, that was basically his opening point and one of the key messages. It’s an opinion that reflects the view that there is a serious gap between the citizens and the elites. We might see that as a populist slogan, but I think it’s important to pay attention to it.

Giuseppe Conte represents a government that is politically distant from the mainstream parties that control most seats in the EU Parliament. Therefore, as many had anticipated, the responses that followed his speech were distinctly negative. The star MEPs focused their critical interventions on some of the recent decisions taken by Conte’s powerful deputies – Matteo Salvini and Luigi di Maio. These are the strong players in Conte’s government. The MEPs gave no truce to Conte on account of those two.

In my opinion, that approach was the wrong one. Conte’s statement was a constructive attempt to build a bridge. His effort should have been recognised. Nevertheless, the MEPs decided to push the Prime Minister into his usual corner, and punch him, instead of offering a helping hand and try to bring him to the centre-ground of the European preoccupations. I judge the MEPs showed little maturity. Once again, they were more concerned with theatrics and sound bites, trying to project a tough public image, than with looking for sensible action.

The Prime Minister must have gone back to Rome with a strengthened impression that key European politicians, in the EU Parliament, do not understand the political realities his country is going through. They prefer to put Italy in the dock.

That's poor political judgement.

Brexit: time to move on

Brexit is taking too much of EU leaders’ attention and energy. It’s time to sort it out, to have enough clarity about the direction to follow and then move on. There are many other issues that require top attention. Including an assessment of what remains to be achieved as the current leadership ends their mandates and a definition of what should be the goals for the next cycle. Being clear about those goals could allow for a more substantive campaign for the European elections of May this year. It would bring the debate to a higher level. The candidates must be questioned about their responses to the key challenges. Beyond, well beyond, Brexit. 

Immigration and integration

In the EU context, immigration cannot be seen just from the number of people that keep entering the European territory. Very often the debate is about new arrivals and how the numbers compare with past figures. That’s not the most current concern, I would say. Particularly now, that the arrival numbers are down. Immigration is above all about the integration of those already in.

Integration has many facets and the discussion should as much as possible focus on this issue.

In some countries, the immigrants have become very visible. They are now part of our daily public experience, as we walk the streets or enter the shopping malls and other open spaces. Visibility brings attention, also some degree of concern, and the political parties in those countries know that. That’s why the issue has become a central theme in the political arena. And it will be very present during the forthcoming EU parliamentary elections.

My take is that we should try to focus the political discussions on the issue of social integration. And be clear that such an issue calls for efforts from both sides, the one receiving the new populations and the one we call the immigrants.

2019 European elections

The elections for the EU Parliament will take place in May 2019. No need to tell you that no political party has invited me to run. Fine! Actually, I am not a member of any party and have no close friend as a party leader. Those are two very strong reasons.

But, if I were campaigning for such election and had to chose one single message to focus the agenda, I would build it around protection. The EU citizens must be sure that the political leaders are concerned and give priority to people’s security. And I would make sure that security would be understood in a wider sense. It’s not just physical security in a traditional way that I would be talking about. It’s protection against a span of risks, including new forms of poverty and other related social hardships.

The European common project must be perceived to be about a Europe that protects. And about safeguarding values and standards of leaving. Values might be considered as easier to defend. That would be a mistaken view. They are as threatened as the rest. Therefore, the message about protection calls for a comprehensive view. At the same time, it must be simple to explain and easy to catch.

This is true throughout the EU, notwithstanding the economic differences and the cultural specificities of each country.

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. 

Brexit game

The Brexit formal discussions have finally been launched. The first meeting between the EU and the UK negotiators took place today. It was, from the European perspective, a good beginning.

The UK position evolved a great deal as a result of the popular vote in their recent general election. Today´s meeting showed a conciliatory approach. The British policy line seems to be to keep the country out of the EU political decisions and banner, and, at the same time, to maintain it strongly connected to Europe, including when it comes some critical political matters.

This policy is very British. It´s the extraordinary art of playing with ambivalence. To be out and in, depending which mirror you may use to look at the reality.

Renzi´s fall and our worries

Italy has known 63 governments since 1945. That´s a lot of instability during a long period of 70 years. And most likely, the current government, led by Matteo Renzi, will fall after this coming Sunday´s referendum. It´s certainly no good news. Particularly at a time when the Italian banking system and the economy require the support of a strong and stable Cabinet.

In Brussels and in the financial centres of Europe most people believe that there will be no negative impact if Renzi falls and becomes just a caretaker Prime Minister. They have basically in mind the European politics and the markets.

But I think they are a bit short-sighted.

First, there will a very serious impact on the internal politics of Italy. That will give an additional chance to the 5-Star Movement and others, including the racist Lega Nord, to gain additional votes and mess up the domestic politics. Second, the banking system is in a far worst situation than we are prepared to accept. Cabinet needs to have full power to be able to adopt the measures that are required to address the banking crisis. Thirdly, the EU would certainly benefit from a stronger leader in Rome. Renzi has not been able to play an active role in European affairs. If he loses, but stays on, as interim leader, his intervention will be even lighter. If he goes, the new leader will be too busy trying to ground himself in the national politics to have time for Brussels.

For these reasons, one should be worried.