Emmanuel Macron and Mario Draghi: two Europeans

Italy, France, the neighbours, and all of us

Victor Angelo

 

Mario Draghi and Emmanuel Macron represent two different generations of Europeans. The former belongs to the one that became adult and free around the time of May 68 and whose parents had suffered the horrors of the Second Great War. For an Italian of that time, the values of peace, freedom, prosperity, and cooperation between nations are the foundations of a common Europe. Macron is one of the younger leaders, those who lived through their formative years after the fall of the Berlin Wall and at a time when globalisation was in full swing. His generation sees the deepening of the Union as indispensable if it is to face up to competition between the major powers and maintain a relative degree of strategic independence.

Today they are signing a new treaty of friendship between their countries - a treaty of enhanced cooperation, as they call it. The aim, they tell us, is to promote better coordination on policy, security and defence, migration, and other areas. Beyond the bilateral dimension, the intention is to support each other in the European arena. They come from different generations, but they both believe in the future of the European project. For them, homeland and Europe are mutually enforcing concepts.

I believe it is essential that both countries play a central role in strengthening European unity. And let them be joined by Germany, now under the leadership of the new chancellor, Olaf Sholz. This will give us a balanced core, supported by pragmatic moderates and social democratic forces, to which other leaders can be added. The future of European politics must be based on a vision that combines the economic transformation demanded by the climate challenges and the digital age with humanism and respect for the values enshrined in the Lisbon Treaty.

And what about defence, could Josep Borrell ask, the high representative who recently presented the first version of a European defence and security plan? Baptised as Strategic Compass, and now under consideration in the European capitals, could this plan benefit from the treaty signed today in Rome?

In principle, yes. But these common defence things are complicated. Let's take a current example. On the same day that Draghi and Macron embrace, Italian government ministers continue to oppose the sale to a Franco-German consortium of an Italian company that produces cannons for ships, tank parts and torpedoes. The amount the consortium is willing to pay is generously high. But Italian nationalism on defence industries and jobs speaks with a loud voice. And the deal is on hold.

This is just one example of the difficulties that the Strategic Compass will encounter. And which it needs to take into account, explicitly.

Nationalisms aside, the truth is that the people of Europe do not have an integrated vision of the external threats that may jeopardise Europe's peace, well-being, and unity. And Borrell's plan does not help.

Firstly, because it assumes that the danger comes only from outside, when in fact some of the major threats to the stability and security of the EU are internal. They stem from existing social fractures in some of the countries of the Union and their accelerated worsening. They also stem from autocratic tendencies in some Member States, ultra-nationalist populism and the poor functioning of the institutions that should underpin democracy at national level.

Secondly, because Borrell starts from the ambiguous concept that Europe is in "strategic contraction", something that would result from the progressive decrease in our economic and demographic weight compared to the rest of the world. If this argument were valid, Russia, which has a third of the population and a tenth of Europe's GDP, would not have any strategic influence. International projection is not necessarily based on economic or demographic gigantism. Take the example of Norway.

We will return to the Strategic Compass on another occasion. For now, and because of what is happening today in Rome, the important thing is to stress that strengthened cooperation between neighbours is one of the most direct ways to consolidate the EU.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 26 November 2021)

 

 

 

 

 

Poland must follow the EU values

A danger disguised as Law and Justice

Victor Ângelo

 

I have known Marzena for more than 15 years. It was shortly after she arrived in Brussels and started a new life, serving in the homes of the Belgian middle class. She came from deep Poland, a stone's throw from Belarus - in fact, she has relatives living in a couple of villages on the other side of the barbed wire, Poles like herself, but caught up in the post-war border-line scramble by Stalin's people. Over time, she saw many thousands of other compatriots arrive in Belgium, who today work in construction, domestic service, factories or in the many Polish stores that have opened everywhere. The money that these immigrants regularly transfer to their homeland has been one of the factors in Poland's economic modernization. The other is linked to the different advantages that came with the country's entry into the European Union in 2004.

Marzena is a modest but thoughtful person. She has learned a lot over the years. She can see the economic progress, how her country has changed since accession. But she also recognizes that today's Poland is on the wrong track when it comes to the opening of mentalities and political culture. A part of the ruling class exploits the nationalism that has kept the country alive throughout history, amid Germanic, Russian and Scandinavian pressures, and deepens it with the help of the Catholic church, which continues to weigh heavily in maintaining an extreme conservatism. There is a holy alliance, it must be said, between the government led by the Law and Justice party (PiS) and the most backward sectors of the ecclesiastical structure.

The government has been in conflict with the European Union for several years, mainly for reasons having to do with the independence of the justice system, which has been strongly limited by the political power. This conflict was recently aggravated by a ruling of the Constitutional Court, which does not recognize the primacy of European law. This Tuesday, the European Parliament (EP) heard Ursula von der Leyen and Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki on the dispute. It was a clash of positions, with it being clear that the EP supports the European Commission (EC) and expects it to take measures that will lead Warsaw to change its policy. For now, the Polish Recovery and Resilience Plan (RRP) - about 24 billion euros in non-repayable funds plus 34 billion in loans - is waiting for better days before being accepted. There is also the possibility that the Commission will activate the mechanism that makes the approval of European funds conditional on respect for EU values. This mechanism is the most expeditious, since it can be approved by a qualified majority, without requiring the unanimity of member states. Poland expects to receive around 121 billion euros in cohesion funds in the coming years, until 2027. In financial terms, what is at stake is immense. Warsaw, however, is still betting on a confrontation with the EC.

All this puts the future of the common project at risk. Poles want to remain in the EU - 90% of citizens are in favour, including 87% of PiS supporters. The government itself says and repeats that there is no question of preparing an exit, a Polexit. They say it is just an assertion that Europe is based on a collection of nations and not on ever deeper integration. This is a fallacious argument, for what is at issue is respect for the basic values that unite the European peoples, and which have been enshrined in Articles 2 and 3 of the EU Treaty. To allow a Member State to violate these values and remain in the Union is to offer the adversary the possibility of destroying us by continuing to sit at our table.

The Commission must win this battle. The European executive and the other institutions cannot emerge weakened from such a debate. Now is the time to hear the voices of the leaders supporting Ursula von der Leyen without ambiguity or further delay.

 

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 22  October 2021)

 

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!

 

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.  

France and radical Islam

Radical Islam is being taught in several mosques of France. The preachers are paid by countries such as Turkey or Algeria. In most of the cases, they do not speak French, or just a few words, do not know the laws of the country and have an approach to civic life that is not compatible with the accepted practices. The Ministry of Education has no authority over such schools.

All this divides the French society. The children that go through such system are not prepared to integrate the wider society. They feel they do not belong, which is one of the most damaging feelings one can have vis-à-vis his or her own country. And many citizens end up by developing a strong bias against such system and Islam in general. They end up by voting for extreme right parties.

President Macron today addressed the issue. He said it is time to bring the State into such system and make sure that the preachers understand that France is a lay republic, where the laws do not discriminate people because of their religious beliefs or lack of them. His words have shown that one the most difficult communities to deal with is the one linked to Turkey. The Turkish government keeps sending imams to France without any consultation with the French government. And those imams are more interested in keeping their students linked to Turkey than anything else. That creates a serious division in society.

The mass immigration is a fact of life in France and in many other European countries. However, it cannot be a cause for significant cultural fractures in the host countries. Our countries have a set of values that were built along the path of history. They are the mainstream cultural cement that keeps our societies together. It would be a serious negligence not to protect those values. It would certainly open the door to dramatic conflicts within our own borders.

Let’s see what Emmanuel Macron will be able to change. This is important for France and for others within the EU.

Debating the new European Commission

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

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

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

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

Easter and our history

Easter is an essential part of our European culture. It is not necessarily about religion. But it is certainly about our roots, history, traditions and the associate narrative. And all that has nothing to do with bunnies and chocolate eggs. Let’s not mix civilisation with cocoa.

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.

Turkey´s path

It´s worrisome to see the Turkish society being pushed towards more political radicalisation and deeper national divisions. It´s also a matter of great concern to watch its leadership moving away from accepted democratic principles. And taking the country in a direction that is contrary to greater proximity with the EU. 

The Turkish dilemmas

One should be very worried by the developing situation in Turkey. From a domestic point of view, it is essential to be guided by democratic values and full respect of the rule of law. From a European point of view, the situation brings a great deal of additional complexity to a relationship that was already very challenging. 

Auschwitz is a powerful symbol

Today´s celebrations at Auschwitz should be emphasised. Europe needs to be confronted with the horrors of the recent past – people who suffered at that death camp are still with us – and be reminded that we can commit atrocities against our next door neighbour if, for a start, we do not respect him or her, if we do not accept that Europe is diverse and that diversity is enriching for all of us.

We mention so often the European values. Good. But then we should take into account that cultural tolerance is one of the defining principles that shape our system of values.