The CIA Director goes to Moscow: what for?

 https://victorangelo1.substack.com/p/the-cia-in-moscow-why-spies-not-diplomats

The geostrategic soup: USA, Russia, Europe and the near future

Traduction IA de ma chronique d'aujourd'hui publiée dans le Diário de Notícias, Lisboa

 2024 est une année cruciale, qui exige du courage et des réponses à la hauteur

Victor Angelo

J’ai passé des décennies à diriger des missions politiques, de paix et de développement des Nations Unies. C'est à l'ONU que j'ai grandi professionnellement et appris à résoudre des conflits, certains assez graves, dans lesquels la mort et la douleur se cachaient derrière chaque dune, arbre ou rocher. J'ai ainsi acquis une vision plus large du système international et de la manière dont les relations avec le Conseil de sécurité devraient être menées. Puis, pendant des années, j'ai travaillé comme mentor civil à l'OTAN, préparant les futurs chefs d'opérations militaires, soulignant à plusieurs reprises la nécessité d'obtenir le soutien des populations et des organisations humanitaires dans ces opérations.

L'expérience m'a appris l'importance primordiale qu'il faut accorder à la sauvegarde de la vie des personnes. Lorsque je m’adressais aux généraux, aux commandants des forces de police et aux agents de sécurité de l’ONU, la priorité était de souligner la valeur de la vie. Celle des nôtres, qui faisaient partie de la mission, ainsi que celle de protéger la vie des autres, de simples citoyens, soupçonnés ou non de collaboration avec les insurgés, et même la vie des ennemis.

Rien ne peut être résolu de manière durable s'il n'y a pas un profond respect pour les populations civiles vivant de part et d'autre des barricades, si les autres sont traités comme des personnes sans valeur, à qui l'accès à des biens vitaux, comme de simples animaux, peut être coupé. ... à abattre sans pitié ni pitié. Tuer ne résout aucun conflit. Pour chaque mort aujourd’hui, de nouveaux combattants émergent demain, avec un sentiment de vengeance encore plus fort. L’essentiel est de créer les conditions de la paix, d’ouvrir les portes aux négociations et à l’entente. Une guerre de représailles est une erreur. Il s’agit d’une réponse de représailles, œil pour œil, dent pour dent, inspirée d’un ordre juridique ancien. Ou, dans une hypothèse plus actuelle, il s’agit d’une guerre dirigée par des dirigeants politiques manquant de bon sens et de clairvoyance.

J'avais aussi en tête, dans mes lignes directrices, la sagesse du génial Charlie Chaplin, dans le personnage émouvant du clown Calvero. Dans son film Highlights (1952), Chaplin fait dire à un moment donné au clown Calvero que « la vie est une chose belle et magnifique, même pour une méduse ». Oui, même pour une méduse, un invertébré gélatineux pour lequel peu de gens auront de la sympathie. J'ai toujours pensé que cette phrase, si simple, devait occuper une place primordiale dans notre manière d'affronter les conflits. La politique n’a de sens que lorsqu’elle permet à chacun de vivre en liberté et en sécurité.

L’un des grands défis de 2024 est de pouvoir expliquer à la méduse cette compréhension de la vie et de l’œuvre des Nations Unies dans un langage que certains dirigeants sont capables ou forcés de comprendre. Comment peut-on dire cela dans le patois pervers et sophistique qu’on dit au Kremlin ? Comment exprimer cette sagesse en hébreu progressif ou en arabe avec des accents de paix ? Comment faire entendre le discours de réconciliation auprès des responsables de conflits dans d’autres régions du monde, sachant que 2023 a été une année d’accélération des multiples expressions de haine et de radicalisme ?

Nous sommes ici confrontés à deux questions qui devront être clarifiées et résolues le plus rapidement possible.

Premièrement, quiconque ne comprend pas Charlie Chaplin et la valeur de la vie ne devrait pas être à la tête d’une nation. La place des criminels de guerre est à La Haye ou devant un tribunal spécial créé à cet effet, comme cela s'est produit en Yougoslavie ou au Rwanda. Je dis cela, et je le souligne, pour qu'il n'y ait aucun doute, en ma qualité de personne qui a été à l'avant-garde de la fondation du tribunal d'Arusha, en Tanzanie, créé pour juger les principaux responsables du génocide survenu en Rwanda en 1994. Les précédents existent et les responsables des massacres en Ukraine et au Moyen-Orient les connaissent. Comme les criminels fantasment toujours, ils peuvent même penser qu’ils échapperont à ces procès. À la vitesse à laquelle les choses évoluent, ils ne devraient pas rester calmes.

Deuxièmement, le Secrétaire général des Nations Unies doit aller bien au-delà des questions humanitaires. L’aide humanitaire est sans aucun doute essentielle et ne peut être oubliée. Mais il s’agit d’une situation à court terme et précaire, car les situations de besoin sont nombreuses, les tragédies sont énormes dans diverses régions du monde et les ressources sont toujours rares. La Charte des Nations Unies concerne avant tout des solutions politiques. Le Secrétaire général doit entretenir un dialogue inlassable avec les parties et présenter sans plus tarder un plan de paix pour l'Ukraine et un autre pour la Palestine. Des plans qui s’attaquent aux racines des problèmes, qui sont fondés sur le droit international et qui soulignent courageusement les mesures politiques que le Conseil de sécurité doit envisager.

Nous devons relever les très graves défis qui nous attendent, au cours de ce qui s’annonce comme une année cruciale dans l’histoire contemporaine.

Davos and the current crisis in Ukraine

From Davos to Geneva: from the future to the urgency of the present

Victor Angelo

 

Davos 2022 ends today. The meeting took place in a virtual way, because of the pandemic. We did not witness, as had become customary, the shuttle of a large number of private planes, with the powerful of this world converging on the famous Swiss Alpine station. And emitting vast amounts of carbon dioxide.

Until 2020, being seen at Davos confirmed you were part of the global elite, whether political, economic, academic, or journalistic. Last year, Covid-19 prevented that great manifestation of power from taking place. Now we have a meeting that has gone virtually unnoticed. But it wasn't just the pandemic that took the spotlight off it. The geopolitical situation in Europe concentrated the biggest concerns during the week. The issues under discussion in Davos - the pandemic and unequal access to vaccines; the energy transition; the technological and numerical revolution, to name just the most important - were completely overshadowed by Vladimir Putin's moves on European security.

But let's talk a little about Davos 2022. The old fox that is the founder and boss of the Davos World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab, invited Xi Jinping to deliver the opening speech. This gesture was duly appreciated by the Chinese power establishment.  Schwab, who is always ready to tie a knot, thus strengthened relations between his organisation and Beijing. And at the same time, he sent a strong message of recognition of China as a major player on the global stage.

In order not to put all his eggs in one basket, he also asked the Indian prime minister to speak on the first day of the forum. The contrast between Xi Jinping and Narendra Modi was striking.

The Chinese leader sought to underline his country's commitment as a major contributor to international stability, against the use of force and for the strengthening of multilateralism, cooperation and world peace. He defended globalisation. He even said that China is a haven for international capitalism. He also took the opportunity to attack the United States, which he accused of being a source of global tension, a country that closes in on itself and creates obstacles to the economic recovery of the poorest countries. 

Modi, on the other hand, spoke above all to his fellow citizens. He praised the successes that India has known in recent times, including in the fight against the pandemic, in the production of vaccines and in technological and digital areas.

China's ambition is to play a prominent role on the international stage. India remains very much focused on its internal problems. Modi wants to transform the country into a modern and technologically advanced economy.

António Guterres closed the list of first speakers. He was a kind of spokesman for the less developed countries. This is the only ground he has left on which to play with a degree of security. In his speech, he underlined the difficulties that these countries have encountered in fighting the pandemic. He advocated urgent reform of the global financial system to make it more accessible to countries with few resources, and emphasised climate issues.

While all this was going on, Europe and the United States were wondering about Mr Putin's intentions regarding Ukraine and NATO. These are particularly urgent, and high-risk issues. Davos has, whether you like it or not, the merit of coldly raising big questions about the future. But right now, the reality in our part of the globe is far hotter and more immediate. Putin continues to move troops into areas close to Ukraine and threaten European stability. The outcome of today's meeting in Geneva between Antony Blinken and Sergey Lavrov is uncertain. I do not think they can open a process of dialogue. The Russian side seems to want to show that it is not closing the diplomatic door, when in fact it is relying on intimidation and duplicity. Here, it is essential to bear in mind the lesson learned in 1938 at the Munich conference: appeasement without mutual concessions only serves to whet the appetites of aggressors of all kinds.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 21 January 2022)

 

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 Munich Conference and the European views

The US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, addressed the Munich Security Conference today. His line was very clear: the US has not moved away from supporting the European Defence, they remain even more engaged than before. In addition, he expressed the conviction that West is winning in the international arena.

His speech did not generate a lot of enthusiasm. Actually, the participants ‘reaction was very subdued. Polite, but not convinced. The audience’s quietness has shown that the Europeans have serious disagreements about the current Administration’s international politics, including the way it relates to Europe. Among other things, they judge that President Trump is not sincerely committed to collective defence. The NATO exercises, including the large one that is about to start, called DEFENDER-Europe 20, are perceived more as training opportunities for the American troops and less as a demonstration of unity among the allies. Also, those listening to Mr Pompeo have some problems to understand some of President Trump’s approaches to international affairs, in particularly, when it comes to Russia.

Furthermore, the “winning” view expressed by the Secretary of State is not shared by the European leaders. President Macron said it soon after the Pompeo speech. But it is not just the French President that espouses that stance. The German President had stated the same view yesterday, at the opening of the conference.

I take four main points from all of this. First, it is important to continue to assert the European commitment to the alliance with the US. Second, the Europeans should state their views with clarity, particularly when they do not coincide with the decisions and comments coming from Washington. Third, the EU must keep investing on joint military and defence projects. This investment should bring together as many EU countries as possible, knowing that it will not be possible to get all of them to step in, and should be presented as the European pillar of the NATO effort. Fourth, Europe must reach a modus vivendi with Russia and China, that considers the European interests but is not naïve. Russia is our immediate neighbour, which means we must agree on keeping the bordering space between them and us safe and prosperous. China, on the other hand, is a major power in the making. Europe cannot have an indifferent position towards it.  

Post-Brexit optimism

I think it is too early to be worried about the future of the European Union’s relationship with the United Kingdom. We are now at the beginning of the transition period. Its duration is not long, I agree, but I also see that both sides will try to reach some sort of agreement before the end of it, before end of December. The posturing we are witnessing today is part of the negotiating tactics. But both sides will be under serious pressure from the respective business communities. They do not want to rock the boat. The economic and trade ties are strong. They should remain strong. Besides that, we share the same geopolitical space and that should be an encouragement for cooperation. Even a fool can understand that.  

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

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

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

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

NATO and the Sahel

As we approach the door of the London NATO Summit, which opens on 3 December, we cannot ignore one of the key questions the Alliance must address: what kind of role should it play in North Africa and the Sahel?

But before answering it, the member States should recognise that such region is closely linked to some important European countries. Its security will have an impact on those countries, sooner or later. And not just on matters of illegal migrations. An expansion of terrorist groups out there will end up by spilling over to Europe.

One cannot look at North Africa and the Sahel as if they were in a far corner of the world.

European energy policy: a priority

Energy remains high in the list of strategic factors. Countries that matter pay a lot of attention to the issue. The U.S., for instance, managed to address it by investing heavily on shale rock exploration. They will become, within the next five years, the key exporter of oil, overtaking Saudi Arabia and Russia. Moreover, they are already a major exporter of liquefied natural gas (LNG). All that is fossil energy. Not what people would call environmentally friendly.

Europe must take a different route. At present, the EU imports 55% of all the energy it consumes, which means around €270 billion per year.  The EU imports 87% of crude oil it consumes. It is time to invest much more money on clean sources of energy, on diversification and on energy efficiency. Including on better performing engines and engines that can run on alternative sources of energy, such as hydrogen.

Europe must pay special attention to its energy policy. That includes the links between energy use and the environment and matters related to our own strategic sovereignty.

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.

We are prepared to deal with terrorists

The sponsors of terrorist acts against European countries should be told two things.

First that we are much better prepared to prevent. The attacks by lone individuals, with very modest means, show that at present it is much more difficult for criminal groups to plan and organise terrorist raids. The intelligence services are now much more efficient than a few years ago. Exchanges between these types of individuals have become better monitored. Surveillance is more sophisticated.

Secondly, the sponsors should understand that these isolated acts do not change the way we see public life and do not split our societies along sectarian lines. We respond by continuing to lead routine lives. We carry on. The terrorists might kill innocent people but they have no lasting impact on our democratic values and institutions. Furthermore, they do not generate c continuous state of social panic and entrenched fear. The effect on society is local, and short lived.

A terrorist is a loser.  

EU and Defence: additional considerations

Taking into account the ongoing discussions on military budgets, I went back to the text approved at the NATO Summit of 2014, in Wales. The paragraph 5 of "The Wales Declaration on the Transatlantic Bond" is quoted below. It´s worth a careful reading of its words.

"We recognise that these steps will take the necessary effort and funding. In light of this, we agree to reverse the trend of declining defence budgets and aim to increase defence expenditure in real terms as GDP grows; we will direct our defence budgets as efficiently and effectively as possible; we will aim to move towards the existing NATO guideline of spending 2% of GDP on defence within a decade, with a view to fulfilling NATO capability priorities. We will display the political will to provide required capabilities and deploy forces when they are needed."

This commitment follows the recognition stated in the last sentence of the previous paragraph. I quote it as well.

"We will continue to invest in modern and deployable armed forces that can operate effectively together and at a high level of readiness to fulfil NATO's tasks, in full accordance with the principles of the UN Charter and the Helsinki Final Act." 

And I would underline the following points:

-             Interoperability and readiness are key dimensions in terms of greater joint effectiveness;

-            Additional defence expenditure is linked to economic growth;

-             Budget allocations should be reviewed to respond to new priorities and up-to-date military approaches and to ensure a more appropriate funding of the new roles of the armed forces as required by a new type of threats;

-            The 2% goal is a guideline and it should be gradually build up to 2014; it cannot happen in the short term;

-           The States must be willing to participate in joint operations and be perceived as able to rapidly respond to needs as they arise, taking into account the capabilities of each nation.

I also find the references to the UN Charter and to the Helsinki Final Act essential. They should be continuously recalled.  

A plan on migration and refugee matters

The European citizens have little trust left in the ability of the EU institutions and national governments when it comes to managing the migratory flows. Many think the matter is out of control and the politicians are just improvising and pretending. Consequently, that generates criticism, fear and additional support to radical views.

The political leaders must focus on convincing the public opinion that they have a proper plan to effectively respond to the mass arrivals of migrants and refugees. I would also underline that it is not just a question of defining the appropriate policy approach. The circumstances have reached a point and a time when people want to see determined action and understand that the measures that are being implemented are part of a coherent plan. 

A sharper EU foreign policy

I am for a much firmer approach to EU foreign policy. And also for a much more focused approach.

European leaders must be clear. Among themselves and with the outside world. That´s what the citizens – today better informed than ever – expect. They do not want to be taken for fools. They do not take contempt easily.  

To be clear means we call a spade a spade or we just remain silent and move way from what we cannot change or should not try. An example is the EU presence in the Middle East Quartet. This is never-ending swamp. We should make it known we do not believe it can achieve any meaningful progress in the medium term. And call our participation off.

The leaders are also required to be more strategic. That means they should put the resources where it matters. We can´t be everywhere. We shouldn´t be everywhere. We might have a global presence but that does imply a global reach. We have interests to fight for and they should be the priority. Also, we have some international moral commitments. We should also respond to them. In a very unambiguous way.

The current EU foreign policy is too fluffy. It needs a sharper approach. 

End of break

Time to resume the daily routines, after a period of rest in Southern Spain. And the first thing I notice is that the key people in the European institutions are still too much focused on security issues. It´s not a good idea. The security mechanisms are in place and they can do the job at hand. The politicians do not need to meddle too much with the security domain. They just need to provide the necessary legal and financial support. And then concentrate their minds on the economic and social challenges that are at the centre of the citizen´s preoccupations as well as on the relations between Europe and some key outside nations. That should be the agenda for the rentrée.

Terrorism: the narrative matters

Tomorrow I should spend some time on the relationship between terrorism and media. Basically, the question is about the way our European media is reporting about the terrorist incidents that have recently caused serious despair in our societies. More specifically, the concern is about the media as amplifiers of the terror atmosphere the criminals want to create among us. How is our serious media telling the stories? The narratives, including the exaggerations, have a major impact on people. And terrorism is about impacting and destabilising as many as possible. We should not be naïve and allow ourselves to serve their objectives.

Furthermore, a crisis psychosis is the ideal ground for the growth of all kinds of opportunistic politicians. They know how to take advantage of our fears. Are we unwillingly helping them?

These are some of the questions on the table. 

Nice

The brutality of the Nice attack is most shocking. There are a few security lessons that can be drawn from this inhumane violence. But that should be done with a cold head. To go for conclusions so soon after the tragedy is not wise. Now it is time to express the horror and share our sympathy with all those who have been impacted by the barbaric act. And also to say that life goes on and we will not change our values and our way of living because some crazy beasts want us to feel terrorised.

EU Global Strategy: an initial comment

The EU High Representative has now presented to the Heads of State and Government the new “Global Strategy”.

I have seen the document but still need to digest the contents. My initial reaction is that the strategy is placing too much emphasis on EU´s role on defence. That might be a huge mistake.

First, because in matters of defence the key goal should be to strengthen the European nations ´capabilities within NATO. That´s the existing commitment, made at the last NATO summit meeting, and also that´s the only way for the Europeans to be able to leverage the US and Turkey´s powerful military machineries. They need to create and combine additional capacity with the extraordinary capacity non-EU NATO members have, particularly the US.

Second, the EU States have to take into account the new situation of the UK. It is unquestionable this country has the best European army. But it will outside the EU in the medium term. They will no longer be part of any EU defence arrangement. To take advantage of their power can only occur elsewhere, not within the EU. Elsewhere means to have to look into NATO´s direction again.

The 2016 Charlemagne Prize

The Charlemagne Prize is an annual award that recognises outstanding efforts in favour of a stronger EU. This year´s winner is a special one for a few reasons. He is not a European citizen. Furthermore, he is not directly involved with European politics and actually he does not want to be seen as too close to just one region of the world. And he is above all a religious leader, known as Pope Francis.

But he is also a moral beacon to many. And a candid speaker about the plight of immigrants. He has strongly advised the EU leaders to be more responsive to the massive arrivals of refugees and immigrants. He himself has been to reception centres in Italy and Greece as a way of calling the politicians attention to the predicament of those who are stuck out there.

All this is highly valuable. However, the issue remains a political one. The Pope´s moral appeals have no real impact on politicians that see the issue has core to their national interests and also for their own survival as government leaders. The immigration and refugee matters are essentially political. They are one of the most definitive challenges to the unity of Europe. They call for political vision, for clarity about the overall goal, what really matters for the future of Europe, the options, and the consequences of each choice, all of this far beyond the remit of a prize, even one as important as the Charlemagne award.