Sweden, Finland, Turkey, Russia and Ukraine: the NATO Russian salad

Notes in the margins of the NATO summit

Victor Ângelo

 

Sweden and Finland seem to have accepted, without much discussion, the demands imposed by Recep Tayyip Erdogan. The absolute priority for both was to quickly move forward with the NATO accession process.

Shortly before the announcement of the agreement between the two candidate countries and the president of Turkey, the prevailing prognosis was that the impasse would drag on for some time, perhaps even until the Turkish presidential elections, scheduled for June next year. Erdogan would stand to gain from the continuation of the blockade, on the domestic political front. His refusal would be continually propagandised as a nationalist stance, a demonstration of power, at a time when the Turkish people feel marginalised by westerners, in particular the European Union.

By raising the veto threat, moments before the official opening of the NATO summit in Madrid, Erdogan surprised us. We were told afterwards that this showed the cohesion that exists within the Atlantic Alliance. I am one of those who do not buy that narrative. And once the terms of the agreement were known, it was clear that Erdoğan had won the arm wrestling.

The Swedish and Finnish concessions raise several types of concerns. I will mention two in a moment, not to mention the unease that comes from submitting to a despot. And let me not forget that the blackmail will continue until the Turkish parliament ratifies the accessions.

Firstly, because they show that there is an enormous fear of possible aggression from Moscow. In other words, the Nordics are actually convinced that Vladimir Putin's Russia represents a serious threat to peace in that part of the European continent.

Second, because the agreement provides for the possibility of extraditions of Kurdish militants and other refugees that the autocrat in Ankara has in his sights. We know that Erdoğan places no value on human rights or the independence of the justice system in his country. It is an aberration to have such a regime at the head of the second largest member country of the Atlantic Alliance. But it is also true that regimes - and dictators - are passing, they are not eternal. It may be that next year Erdoğan will lose the elections and Turkey will return to democratic practices. Then, sooner or later, one of the reforms to be made will be to include in the organisation's treaty the possibility of suspending one of the members while a situation similar to the one currently experienced in Turkey lasts. Today, this possibility does not exist, and it is sorely lacking.

Beyond the approval of the new strategic concept, it is the outcome of what is happening in Ukraine that will be truly transformative. The Madrid summit recognised that Russia cannot be allowed to win the conflict it has provoked. In today's times, the violation of international law and order should not bring advantages to the offender. Already the G7 meeting, a somewhat confused summit on the eve of the Madrid meeting, had reached the same conclusion. But such a declaration only has value if it is translated into concrete actions that prevent Moscow's victory.

Unfortunately, I would say that we are not on the right track. There is even a risk, if nothing more and urgently is done, that we will witness the progressive destruction of Ukraine. The current dynamic of war of attrition plays in Russia's favour, for several reasons. Russia's trump cards are a markedly stronger economy, greater military resources and a philosophy of war based on the destruction of infrastructure and urban areas, destroying ways of life and creating terror among the civilian populations who are the victims of aggression.

The European democracies cannot win this vital battle without a deeper, accelerated commitment that is well explained to the citizens. At the current rate, aid in terms of arms will not arrive in time, nor will it be sufficient. What is more, Ukraine alone will not have the strength to restore its sovereignty. We will see, in the near future, whether the Madrid summit took this evidence into account by promising Ukraine the firm and continued support of the members of the Atlantic Alliance.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 1 July 2022)

 

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)

 

 

Time to look again at the global order

A new chapter in international relations

Victor Ângelo

Days go by and the world continues to see the dramatic images captured on the perimeter outside Kabul airport, now aggravated by the bomb attack. This is the most visible part of the shock and dread of Afghans who do not believe the promises made by the Taliban. But Afghanistan is larger than Kabul. In the country, especially in the major cities, there is the same panic and despair. Only there, the suffering is far away from the eyes of the world. Those who live in these regions and have the chance, seek refuge in Pakistan or other neighbouring countries.

There are those who think that these images will remain in the memory of humanity for many years to come. And that they will be recalled every time it is convenient to attack Western countries. This will indeed happen. These are scenes that leave a terrible representation of the West, of abandonment, incoherence, and improvisation. The memory issue, on the other hand, is more unlikely. The last two decades have unfortunately abounded in human tragedies. But each new misfortune tends to hide the previous ones. The memory of what happened in Syria, or more recently, of the dramatic situations that the populations of Lebanon, Myanmar and others experience daily, is increasingly faint. At the moment, the Afghan debacle takes up all the screen. 

What we must not forget is that in the eye of the hurricane of conflicts are people. It is time to think in terms of real people, men, women and children, who suffer all the violence, humiliations, terrors and miseries that these crises provoke. International security and diplomacy should be concerned, above all, with the daily lives of those who are victims of extremisms, abuses of power, and all kinds of tyrannies, whether they are in the name of an enlightened leader, a party that holds the absolute truth, or a religious flag.

Three decades ago, the UNDP - United Nations Development Program - helped us to discover an evidence that nobody before wanted or could see. With the release of the first human development report - and the following ones, year by year - it underlined that economic growth only makes sense when it is centered on individuals, in order to lift each one out of poverty, ignorance and ignominy. It is not the GDP that counts, but the progress that each person makes in terms of a life with more dignity.

The scenes around Kabul airport should have a similar effect. And just as the UNDP reports have served to create new alliances in development cooperation, the distress and uncertainties resulting from the handing over of power to the Taliban should be seen as opportunities to build bridges between the great powers, China and Russia included. This week's G7 meeting could have been used to engage Beijing and Moscow in the debate over the conditions of recognition of the new Afghan reality. Unfortunately, this did not happen. The only concern was the vain attempt to convince Joe Biden to extend the US military presence beyond August 31. The meeting confirmed once again that in the West there is no leadership other than the voice of America.

The G7 should be especially concerned about the kind of governance the Taliban will impose. Russia is aware of the risks to the stability of its allies in Central Asia. China is concerned about defending its interests in Pakistan - the Chinese do not rule out a scenario in which Pakistani terrorists and others might operate in the future from Afghanistan and threaten the economic corridor linking China to the Indian Ocean port of Gwadar. Both China and Russia would certainly have a great interest in participating in such a discussion with the G7 countries. This would turn a crisis into an opportunity for a rapprochement between rival powers. Everyone would gain from such a dialogue, starting with the citizens of Afghanistan.

This proposition may seem unrealistic. But the turn of the page imposed on us by the Taliban requires us to look at international relations with a new and forward-looking imagination. Who will take up this challenge?

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

 

 

Summits and dangerous choices

The turmoil they want us to get into

Victor Ângelo

 

The UN General Assembly is today expected to re-elect António Guterres for a second term. The first one was not easy, for various reasons, including the fact that Donald Trump has been president of the United States four of the last five years. Trump had not the slightest interest in multilateralism. He was, moreover, unpredictable and oddball in matters of international politics. To appear to be going against his theses would be a kind of political suicide. This greatly reduced the Secretary-General's room for manoeuvre. Guterres then focused on four major areas: the parity agenda, particularly within the organisation, where he successfully implemented a policy of promoting women to senior posts; climate change; humanitarian response; and finding solutions to crises in countries where it did not clash with the permanent members of the Security Council. He also carried out some internal reforms, notably of the UN's organisation chart and representation at country level.   

The second mandate will be even more difficult. The summits of the last few days - G7, NATO, US-EU, Biden-Putin - have shown that we have entered a very complex phase in the global power games. Several conclusions can be drawn from what has been said. None of them puts the United Nations where it belongs, as a platform for convergence between opposing interests. At these summits, certain players have adopted a confrontational line, and others have allowed themselves to be dragged along. Even when the tone is calm, as was the case at the meeting between Biden and Putin, we cannot fall into illusions: each maintains his positions and sees the other as the hostile side. It is a new era of distrust and direct conflict between the superpowers, outside the established international order.

More specifically, bringing the rivalry with China into the military field and openly including it in NATO's agenda is a mistake. It is true that the two paragraphs dedicated in the final communiqué to relations with China are softer than the messages disseminated before and during the meeting. But in essence, we are giving Beijing reasons to strengthen defence cooperation with Moscow and to increase its participation in joint military exercises with the Russians, including in regions close to the European Union's borders. If we have criticisms to make, in the areas of human rights and freedom, of unfair commercial competition, or even when China pushes certain countries into excessive debt, with investments in infrastructure that serve, above all, its own interests, let us make them in the appropriate political forums. 

When you gamble, as you have done all week, on confrontation and bloc politics, you are almost irretrievably compromising the functioning of the United Nations Security Council. The veto then becomes the standard practice. The result is the weakening of the UN and the marginalisation of its leaders, starting with the Secretary-General. And all this is in contradiction with the repeated promises to strengthen multilateralism, which appear in the documents approved at the G7 and NATO meetings.

Soon after his investiture, Biden decided to bring his country back to the United Nations Human Rights Council, as an observer and to make it more relevant. This is a wiser decision than going ahead with the intention of convening a conference of democracies, an issue that was again on the table during summits with allies. Such a conference, which should include the good guys and exclude the bad guys, according to Washington's criteria, would further divide the international community and put the UN in an extremely delicate situation. To help the multilateral system and help defuse the turmoil looming on the horizon, the European Union should not support such an initiative. Nor should it be towed along by any superpower. It is precisely to avoid this that there is a common project and so much talk of deepening European sovereignty. 

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

Writing about the G7 Summit

A very special G7 summit

Victor Ângelo

 

The G7 summit number 47 starts today in the UK. Although the British Prime Minister will be the host, the biggest star will be Joe Biden, who chose the occasion to make his first trip abroad. He will spend a long week in Europe, thus showing that the European continent remains an important stage for diplomacy and the strengthening of American foreign alliances.

This has everything to be an outstanding summit.  The statements made in the last few days confirm the concerns that I have already expressed here in this newspaper a month ago, at the time of the preparatory meeting of the foreign ministers. Biden's intention seems to be to transform the G7 into what the UN Security Council cannot be: a platform for understanding between the great liberal democracies, able to give a coordinated response to universal issues and to face up to China's global ambitions and the threats posed by Russia. In essence, it is about seeking to safeguard American hegemony, not in an isolated way as Donald Trump advocated, but with the USA's most solid allies.

To make this alliance more effective, they associate South Africa, Australia, South Korea, and India to the group. This addition is strange and incomplete. It leaves out many important states. It is true that this is not the time for vast face-to-face meetings.  It is also true that the decision on who comes to sit at the table is up to the host. But the other members would also have a say in the matter. Nobody insisted that Mexico, Brazil, or others be invited. The reading that can be made leaves little doubt: Latin America is in crisis and counts for little more than nothing on the international stage. It is, in any case, in the North American sphere of influence. It would not need to be heard.

Africa was represented at previous summits by three or four countries. This time it was almost left out. The presence of Cyril Ramaphosa, the South African president, can be seen as the British lending a hand to maintaining stability in South Africa in order to reassure certain sections of its population. The rest of the continent is of lesser concern. Incidentally, the UK was the only G7 country that decided to cut its cooperation budget on the pretext of the pandemic. The cut is £4 billion. It will have a considerable negative impact at a time when the least developed countries need exceptional support.

Regarding the Middle East, nobody wants to hear anything about Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, the general in charge in Egypt, let alone about Recep Erdoğan or Mohammed bin Salman. From the perspective of the G7, the Middle East is losing strategic relevance. On the other hand, Iran has moved into China's orbit - on 27 March, a mutual cooperation agreement for the next 25 years was signed, thus opening a way out for the Iranians, who have become freer from American and Western sanctions.

In Asia, the big bet is centred on India. It is, however, a complex and risky gamble. Narendra Modi is a radical Hindu nationalist who is dragging the world's largest democracy into an intense civil crisis. He is also a protectionist, unwilling to open the economy to foreigners. He does, however, offer one illusion: that he could become an important counterweight to China. 

China is, moreover, the main concern that Biden has in his baggage. He wants to turn the G7 into a dam against Chinese expansionism. We will see if he succeeds, apart from the mention in the final communiqué. As for Boris Johnson, the banner that would allow him to present the meeting as a success would be a resounding declaration of support for vaccination campaigns in the poorest countries, so as to have 60% of these populations vaccinated by the end of 2022. If there is a commitment to that, then this G7 will have been useful. Leaders will be able to sing victory, even though December 2022 will mean another year and a half of uncertainties and restrictions. In that perspective, helping others as quickly as possible is in the vital interests of us all, starting with the G7.

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

 

 

Comments on this week's G7 meeting

A Very Combative G7

Victor Ângelo

 

The G7 brings together the largest liberal economies, that is, in descending order of size, the United States, Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Italy and Canada. Together they represent about 50% of the world economy. The leadership of the G7 in 2021 falls to the British, who held a meeting of foreign ministers this week in preparation for the summit scheduled for June.

They have gone two years without meeting. The pandemic and the malaise caused by Donald Trump's presidency explain the long hiatus. Now the realities are different. Control of the pandemic seems possible, thanks to vaccination campaigns. And the policies pursued in Washington are no longer unpredictable. Still, it was necessary to decide between a face-to-face meeting or not. After a year of virtual conferences, it was concluded that when it comes to diplomacy, face-to-face contact is by far the most productive. Many of the videoconferences held between politicians during the pandemic turned out to be a mere formal exercise in which each one read the text in front of him  or her, without an exchange of ideas, an analysis of options or a personal commitment. We are now safely back to face-to-face discussions.

Another aspect concerns the list of countries outside the G7 but invited to the meeting. It was limited to South Africa, Australia, South Korea, and India, as well as two supranational organizations, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the European Union. The political reading of this choice is easy to make. There is a clear preference here, and not just from the British. The economic and geopolitical focus is on Asia, on strengthening relations with countries that can stand up to competition from China.  Latin America and the Middle East were simply ignored.

China was in fact a dominant concern. The consultations among the ministers started there. The US is pursuing a very complex policy line in relation to China. They seek, in the main, to combine antagonism with cooperation. Hostility in general and agreement, in certain concrete matters, for example in the area of climate change or on Iran. This line will not work. The message received in Beijing from Washington can be summed up in one word - confrontation. And the Chinese will respond to that perception club in equivalent currency.

The Europeans themselves - and this has been shown in the statements made by Germany and France - think that the American position with regard to China is excessive. They agree with Washington when it comes to human rights, Hong Kong or Xinjiang, or the protection of intellectual property. But they believe that Europe has much to gain if the relationship with China is based on respect for established rules and the pursuit of mutual advantages. Japan prefers to follow a policy similar to Europe's, despite pressure from the Biden administration.

Russia was also high on the agenda. The Kremlin is now seen as a threat to the European and American democracies. In this matter, the harmony between the two sides of the Atlantic is clearer. The issue of defending democratic regimes, including the fight against the spread of false or biased information, was a major theme.

The American Secretary of State went to London to propose a new strategic approach. Antony Blinken argues that the group cannot just be a coordination mechanism for the big capitalist economies. It must become a platform for political intervention by the most influential democracies. This is an expression of a belief prevalent in the current American administration that the US has a mission - that of saving the democracies. For some of us here in Europe, such a proposition generates three kinds of uneasiness. One, related to the increasing marginalization of the UN's political role. The other, with the worsening polarization of international relations. The third, with the weight that a phantom named Trump may yet exert in American politics.

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The G20 should coordinate the global response

A vaccine against geopolitical rivalries

Victor Angelo

 

Boris Johnson convened an extraordinary virtual G7 summit today. He justified it by saying it was urgent to find an agreement that would allow a global response to covid-19, i.e. access for all to the immunisation possible. He added that it would also be an opportunity to coordinate demand for vaccines to avoid a headlong rush to the few quantities already available. The summit would be the occasion to resolve the competition between states, which, if it continues, could lead to serious political fractures between traditional partners, as seen recently in the increased tension between the EU and the London government.

The UK holds the G7 presidency in 2021. Hence the legitimacy of Johnson's initiative. But the prime minister may have other objectives well beyond seeking a global response to the pandemic. The man is a skilled politician with a knack for spectacular actions. He will try to make the most of the opportunity that the leadership of the G7 offers him to show his constituents that he has a global stature capable of setting the agenda of the group of the most developed countries. If this translates into an increase in international cooperation, which badly needs to be stimulated, we can only be grateful.

I fear, however, that it will not achieve that result. The subject of the meeting is clearly a priority, but it cannot be limited to the G7 countries. It is true that Australia, South Korea, and India have also been invited to take part in the summit. India counts in terms of vaccine production. But the invitation reflects, above all, the UK's specific interest in strengthening its relations with these countries and not the contribution they can make to getting vaccines to the poorest and most remote parts of the world. It also reflects another political agenda, one that is shared by others, especially Joe Biden. That of thwarting the geopolitical ambitions of the main rivals of the United States and its Western allies. But making international policy at the cost of a pandemic does not seem to me to be ethically acceptable.

In fact, it would be more appropriate to organise a G20 meeting to deal with the harmonisation of vaccine distribution and define everyone's contribution to achieving this objective. The G20 has the merit of sitting at the same table all the G7 countries plus China and Russia, among others. Coordination with these two States is fundamental for a rapid, effective, and generalised fight against the virus. The intrusion of hegemonic rivalries should not be admitted when it comes to responding to a problem that threatens the health of all, social progress, and the stability of the future. According to World Bank estimates, the pandemic has already pushed a dramatic number of people back into extreme poverty - it could be around 115 million. Moreover, the lack of access to vaccines for people in the poorest countries will cause a global distortion with unimaginable consequences. Among other things, international inequalities would become even more accentuated, even explosive. The worsening of imbalances between regions of the globe is one of the greatest risks facing us.

The G20 is currently chaired by Italy. The Italian executive, now with Mario Draghi at its head, faces immense internal problems. It is not in a position to play a leading role on the international stage at a time when the latter needs a giant to mobilise it in an undisputed way. Draghi is scheduled to hold a global summit in Rome on 21 May on the pandemic and related issues. May is, however, an eternity away when urgent decisions are needed.

In the meantime, in a positive spirit, I hope that today's G7 meeting will make it possible to strengthen COVAX, the mechanism set up by the WHO, in collaboration with various organisations, to guarantee countries with limited financial and operational resources equitable access to covid vaccines. If this happens, we will have to recognise that the initiative taken by Boris Johnson will have had some merit.

 

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

 

Time for exceptional leadership to step up

This is a time of great anxiety. It’s a global challenge. It would require global political leadership, men and women in decisive positions of authority that would come together and would address the crisis with a single voice. It is not enough to have the G7 or the G20 finance ministers talking about debt relief and access to tremendous amounts of theoretical money. It is also not enough to get statements from the IMF, the WB or the WHO. Even the UN Security Council, if it could agree on a resolution, that would be good but insufficient. We need the key heads of State and government to agree on a joint declaration that would be some guide of roadmap out of the crisis. It would send an exceptionally important message of togetherness, cooperation and hope.

Unfortunately, we are very far from such a common position. The world is leaderless and more fragmented than ever.

If we can’t have a global message, why don’t we try to agree on a common European position at the leadership level? Is it too difficult to formulate a joint way forward, that would be larger than just talking about the post-crisis recovery, something of a shared vision about the kind of European society we would like to build together, after such a unique test?

The moment calls for leadership that can unite people and envision tomorrow’s world.  

Not bad, this year's G7 Summit

Several experienced international analysts raised the issue before the meeting: is the G7 still relevant? They had in mind last year’s messy summit in Canada, as well as the fact that there are serious divergences within the group, particularly with President Trump’ views, not to mention that these countries have lost weight in the world economy. They barely represent about 40% of the global output, much less than when the G7 was established, over twenty years ago.

Many concluded that the G7 Summit had outlived its usefulness. That the summit was no longer justified.

My opinion has gone in the opposite direction. I wrote in my Portuguese language blog that such meetings are still advisable. They can help. Summits give an opportunity for eye contact between the leaders. That is important, particularly at a time when so much power is concentrated in so few hands. We live in a period that considers electoral legitimacy almost absolute, even beyond established rules and practises. I am against such an approach, but the fact of the matter is that we see leaders of our democracies claiming levels of authority that come close to personal autocratic rule. In such circumstances, personal contact can make a difference. Leaders must meet frequently.

The G7 is one such opportunity.

This time, the expectations were relatively low.

But the summit in Biarritz, France, went well beyond the expectations. It has been a better meeting than we had anticipated. The final press conference, that brought together the French and the US Presidents, has showed that the dialogue avenues are not closed. Both Presidents did well when responding to the media. We could see the differences of opinion between them, but they were dealt with tact.

One could say that much of the success achieved during the summit must be put to the credit of Emmanuel Macron. That is to a large measure true. He has been able to navigate the very difficult matters that were on the table as well as the unique egos in the room. It would be unfair not to recognise President Macron’s ability and efforts. However, there is more to it. The issues on the agenda are too big and complex – we have undoubtedly a very delicate mix of global problems. And global means global, when it comes to the negatives of such issues. The mood, when discussing them, could only be a serious one. Even in the case of those leaders that tend to see the world from their own very narrow prism. That’s not bad.

The forthcoming G7 Summit

This year’s G7 summit will take place at the end of the week in Biarritz, France. President Macron, the host, has now decided that there will be no final communiqué at the end of the meeting. He said a communiqué takes a lot of the participants’ time to be approved and ends up by distracting them from the substantive discussions. In the end, the final text is bland and means little.

I agree with him. It is better to spend time on the issues and to make the event as informal as possible. It is a serious opportunity for exchanges among the leaders and it should be focused on that. Particularly at a time when we see significant differences of opinion about key matters. It would be unrealistic to try to get a consensus during the summit. But it is not unrealistic to debate them and make one’s points known to the rest of the group.

I also appreciate the fact that the UN Secretary-General has been invited to address the meeting and be around for the discussions. His authority must be re-established. President Macron understands this point.

Still on who should be in the room, I am against inviting back President Vladimir Putin. The Russian role in the Ukrainian issue is not resolved. And democracy is deteriorating in Russia, under the direct supervision of the President. Those are two strong arguments to keep Putin out. G7 meetings are not for dictators and autocratic leaders. They have their seat in the G20. Moreover, they can be engaged through other mechanisms, and there are plenty of them.  

The 2016 G7 Summit is over

This year´s G7 Summit, just completed in Japan, made no history. It was hardly noticed by the European public opinion, just to mention those close to home. Jean-Claude Juncker, the EU Commission President made some brief references to the steel dispute with China, on top of mentioning that the European economy is now much better than in 2008 and that it is moving in a healthy direction. Well, that´s good to know. Donald Tusk, the EU Council President, said a couple of things as well, but no one remembers a word of it. And that was basically the European side of the story, because Merkel, Hollande and Renzi were too concerned about their own domestic problems to be able to fly higher than their national contexts.

Moreover, there was a small number of heads of State from non-G7 countries at the tail end of the summit. They were certainly very happy to sit with the big people and be part of the group picture. But their contribution to the discussions remains unclear. Most likely, to them as well.

On the G7 Summit

The G7 Summit, which has just started in Japan, has been used by President Obama to send a few darts against Donald Trump. Fine. Everything that can be done to fight Trump´s threatening campaign should be welcome. But the key issues at the meeting were not about Trump´s race towards the White House. There was a mixed vinaigrette salad on the table. Each leader came to the meeting with her or his own concerns. Japan, for instance, is more than ever worried about China. In some ways that apprehension is shared with the US, as far as it concerns the disputed islands in the South China Sea. Europe is anxious about unstoppable migration flows and their tremendous destabilising impact on the traditional way of doing politics, particularly the rise of all types of populist ideas. But the show most go on. That´s why we have these summits: they allow the leaders to pretend they are apprehensive with and responding to global matters when, in fact, they are just trying to address their own individual domestic challenges. Politics, including international affairs, remain focussed on narrow national agendas. 

Japan at the head of the G7

Japan will take over the leadership of the G7. That´s bad news for China, I presume. The tensions at sea in their part of the world will certainly gain a new emphasis during the next 12 months. And China will play the role of the villain. Several other players will appreciate it.

Merkel as the leader of the G7

We might not always agree with Chancellor Merkel´s views. But there is little doubt she is a strong leader and one that is level-headed, a feature I consider of particular importance when looking at leadership qualities. Her taking over the command of the G7 is good news. Particularly at this stage, when the international community is preparing for the discussion in September, at the UN General Assembly, of the new set goals to fight underdevelopment and poverty. Angela Merkel has pledged to pay special attention to getting the G7 fully committed to the Sustainable Development Goals that will be then approved.

She has also expressed her willingness to contribute to the approval of concrete results at the December Paris Conference on Climate Change. That´s a key moment in terms of our common future. We should see the key world leaders aware of its importance and keen enough to get the climate agenda off the ground. It is a good chunk of our future that is at stake. Leaders should not shy away and take refuge in their own national problems, as they so often like to do. Let´s hope Merkel will be able to set the example.

Finally, there is the question of gender equality. The status of women and girls is still a big issue, in many parts of the world. Merkel has expressed a special interest in this matter. Her voice needs to be loud and clear. 

Summits are crucial for crisis resolutions.

Today´s top level meetings at the D-Day commemorations have shown, once again, that summits matter. Leaders that meet regularly and know each other are in a better position to sort out big issues when a threatening crisis occurs. It is not enough to have the Foreign Ministers around the table. They are, at the end of the day, more radical than their masters. The critical step is to get the political bosses to sit together and talk the issues through. 

G7 in Brussels, a messy affair

Tomorrow Brussels will be hosting the G7 Summit. This was actually supposed to be a G8 thing. But the relations with the Russians being what they are now, we will only have seven of them in the room. The Russian ghost will however be there as well. That might be the main phantom. There will some others in the air: the banking and commercial tensions between Europe and the US, the lacklustre commitment of EU to collective defence, Syria, North Africa and, in the American minds, the growing armed instability in the South China Sea. All in all, including from a traffic perspective, Brussels will be messy.