France and Turkey

The hostility between France and Turkey reached a new level today. For now, it is just a war of words. But words matter a lot, in diplomacy and conflict. I would be very prudent. If I were in a position of international visibility I would advise both sides to moderate their statements and I would offer my good offices for a mediation effort. I would not shy away from my responsibilities. I would be very clear in expressing my deepest concerns.  

The Eastern Mediterranean as a conflict zone

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

29 Aug. 2020

Troubled waters in the Eastern Mediterranean

Victor Angelo

 

The week was on the verge of exploding, in the eastern Mediterranean. Turkey continued its maritime prospecting for gas deposits, with economic and political intentions, and increased its military presence in waters that Greece considers belonging to its continental shelf. The latter, in retaliation, declared that it would conduct naval and aerial exercises in those same waters. And she did so for three days, August 26-28, in collaboration with the armed forces of Cyprus, France and Italy. These manoeuvres followed another maritime exercise, a Greek-American one, which was more symbolic than anything else, but which did not go unnoticed in Ankara. Certain Turkish commentators said, then, in a subtle way because criticizing the regime puts many journalists in prison, that one of the government's objectives should be to avoid the diplomatic isolation of Turkey. A bit of very revealing advice.

The possibility of a military incident between the two neighbouring countries has left some European capitals restless. The big question became how to avoid an open confrontation, which would end up dragging several European countries and even Egypt, among others.

An effort of appeasement in the NATO framework was put aside. The organization is unable to respond to this rivalry between two member states. In fact, the Alliance's paralysis is becoming increasingly apparent in matters related to President Erdogan's political games. Following the ill-told coup attempt in July 2016, Turkey has become a millstone tied around NATO's neck.

The European channel remained. Germany, which holds the presidency of the EU and carries weight in both countries, sent its foreign minister, the social democrat Heiko Maas, to Athens and Ankara. His proposal was clear: to establish a moratorium on the exploitation of the contested waters and to seek a negotiated solution. In Greece, little was achieved. The Greeks had obtained the convocation of a European meeting on the subject and continued to bet on the decisions that could be taken there, as well as on Emmanuel Macron's support. In Turkey, Maas obtained from his counterpart a promise to participate in a process of dialogue. It was a clever way of responding, on the part of the Turkish minister, who thus sought to sap the will of the Europeans to adopt sanctions against his government.

The Greek-Turkish neighbourhood is very complicated. There is only one solution, and that is dialogue and cooperation between the two neighbours. This should be the line recommended by the European partners. It will not be easy to get it accepted, but alternatively, any confrontation would be a catastrophe. We must also send clear messages to President Erdogan, both about the future of the relationship between his country and Europe - which will not involve accession, since Turkey is part of another geopolitical reality and belongs to a cultural sphere that differs from the one prevailing in Europe - and about other issues where the parties' strategic interests may be at odds.

It must be recognized that Turkey is a country that counts in its geographical area. At the same time, we must not forget the choices that President Erdogan has made in recent years, which shock, contradict our idea of democracy and leave many European leaders frankly apprehensive. Erdogan's Turkey has unrealistic ambitions that go far beyond its economic strength - the national GDP is half of Spain's, although the Turkish population is twice that of Spain - and its capacity for regional influence. In fact, Turkey is a country still developing and with serious problems of social inclusion of its ethnic minorities, not to mention the ever-present issue of respect for human rights.  It would do better to spend less on military expenditures - they represent 2.7% of GDP, a figure well above the average and the recommendation that prevails within NATO - and more on promoting the well-being and opportunities of its citizens. If so, it is certain to aspire to a closer association with the EU.

This is for the future, perhaps even only possible in a post-Erdogan era. For now, it is essential to halt the military escalation and calm the waters.

 

 

 

 

 

How to deal with Erdogan?

The situation in the Eastern Mediterranean is becoming very tense. Turkey is doing oil mapping at sea, in waters that are contested by a fellow NATO Member State – Greece. The oil vessel is escorted by several Turkish warships. And now France has responded to a Greek appeal and is sending navy assets to the region. This situation can easily escalate and become an open conflict. It must be dealt with by the NATO and European authorities immediately.

The truth of the matter is that Europe does not have a clear line of approach towards Turkey. Delaying the accession negotiations or approving a light package of sanctions against the regime in Ankara is not an effective policy line. A firmer position is required. The European leaders must understand that President Erdogan is a major threat to the stability of Europe. In addition, they must realise that someone of his calibre does not understand a soft approach. He knows about force and can get the message if the message is forceful.

Mass immigration as a negotiating tool

Earlier in the day, I was explaining to a local group of futurists that I see Morocco playing little Turkey, on their side of the Mediterranean Sea. They have learned from the Turkish how masses of migrants can be manipulated to put pressure on the European countries. It is happening on the Greek borders, it will be repeated in Libya, now that Erdogan’s troops and armed men are getting stronger in Tripoli and its surroundings. These are the two main migratory routes, and both are now under Turkish control. Is there a better way to be in a robust position when negotiating with the European Union?

The Moroccan are beginning to do the same with Spain and even with Portugal, I guess. In the last couple of months, groups of young men coming from Morocco have arrived by sea at the Southern Portuguese region of Algarve. It is a long sea crossing for their small boats. It is an impossible journey with such fragile vessels. My suspicion is that they get some help from powerful syndicates on the Moroccan shores and that is done under the blind eye of the authorities. Their sponsors might bring them closer to the Portuguese coastline and then let them complete the trip and be perceived as desperate migrants.

This flow has the potential to get bigger. To become route number three for the migrants from Sub-Saharan Africa and even from elsewhere.

On the European side, it is about time to start looking at it with greater attention. And, at the same time, to initiate a serious talk with the government in Rabat.

Ursula's friend

In her speech of yesterday, at the border between Greece and Turkey, the President of the European Commission said that the Turkish Head of State, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, is a friend of Europe. Ursula von der Leyen might have read George Orwell on the flight from Brussels to the border. At least, she got the inspiration and doublespeak he talked about in his book

Immigrants at the EU gates

Political pundits keep repeating, since the massive arrival of immigrants and refugees in 2015, that the European Union has no unified policy on the matter. And it is true, in so many ways. Mass immigration and refugee flows are issues that have a serious impact on the stability and moderation of the EU. But there is no overall agreement among the member States on how to deal with the issues. The approach has been to sweep it under the carpet and let the frontline countries manage the challenge. That’s what has happened with Italy and Greece, among others. They were left alone with the problems and no real EU support.

What’s happening now at the Greek-Turkish border adds another element to such approach. Close the border crossings, respond by deploying large numbers of police and soldiers, keep the immigrants on the other side of the barbed wire. That is the policy, a policy that is closer to a common one. A no-entry policy.

But is it sustainable? That’s one of the key questions. The other one is about the humanity of such policy. Is it coherent with the values we say we defend? Third point: can we rely of dictators and other strong men, when we ask them to keep the refugees in their countries and add to that a few billions to pay for the camps?

I recognise this is a complex matter. And I see, once again, that when the issue is complicated, we tend to use a hammer to sort it out.

Closing the gates on immigrants

The Balkans route, as it is known, is now closed to the immigrants stuck in Greece. The Macedonian government got the message well before the European media and public opinion. That´s why they decided to prevent people from crossing. And if we look carefully at what they have been doing during the last week, we can say that they have also been informed that Iraqi people as well as Syrians from Damascus will not be accepted any longer as refugees. This means the EU approach is becoming much narrower. Fine. But the big question is about what to do with the tens of thousands of people from those areas and from elsewhere, Afghanistan, North Africa, Iran, etc, etc, that are already in Greek soil? Repatriation? How fast can that go before it has a dissuasive impact on those getting ready to cross the sea from Turkey?  

The EU crisis and Chicken Little

The EU sky is not falling

This is a difficult time to be an optimist in Brussels. It is even more challenging to advocate for a positive look at European affairs. And it becomes almost impossible to talk about collective hopes for a more united Europe in the future. Many will say such optimism belongs to another epoch. Now, the dominant discourse is one that announces a new catastrophe every week. Like Chicken Little, these so-called realists shout, “The sky is falling! The sky is falling!”

As a contrarian, I want to maintain faith in the European project. And be inspired by a forward-looking approach. The best way to build a prosperous and safe future for all of us in Europe is through a united endeavour.  I say it whilst realising the EU is at present facing two major crises. They crowd everything else off the agenda, giving strong arguments to pessimists and those who are against continuing the Union. I mean a possible Brexit and the realities of mass migrations.

With the UK spinning further away from common approaches and policies, arguments for integration and joint responses have indeed become more fragile. In effect, such arguments are practically inaudible because many leaders prefer to focus their attention on their own national agendas. The silence of most of them on EU affairs is deafening.

The UK´s position has brought a lot of uncertainty to the table. At this stage, nobody can predict the outcome of their referendum. It is also difficult to forecast the consequences of a Brexit for the future of the EU.

Nevertheless, the EU would survive a Brexit. Why? Because the UK and the other member states have already learned to go their own separate ways in many areas – the Euro, Schengen, labour laws, justice, and internal security, just to mention a few.  Perhaps the biggest worry is what a Brexit would do to the British themselves, to the status of Scotland, as well as to their tiny neighbour to the west, Ireland.

Brexit or not, the EU shouldn´t be too worried.

The larger question is about immigration. Can the EU survive a continued and expanding mass migration crisis? Many believe it cannot. We keep hearing that without a solution to the current migratory flows, the EU will soon collapse. There is a good degree of exaggeration in the air. The soothsayers of disaster easily capture the headlines. Obviously, the mass arrival of refugees and migrants does pose major challenges and it is essential to recognize this. It is a situation well out of control. Furthermore, this crisis shakes the key foundations of the Union, its values and the role of Europe in the international arena.

More importantly, the migration issue touches the core of a vital dimension of European states—the question of national identity. The people of Europe have shown that they are ready to give away a good number of their sovereign prerogatives, accepting that Brussels can deal with them. This has been the case in a wide range of areas related to economic management, budgets, agriculture, trade, environment, justice, development aid, external relations and other important matters.

Yet, they are not at all prepared to abdicate or dilute their national features, language and everything else that creates a people´s identity. Nor should they. Europe is a complex mosaic of languages, cultures, nationalities and even prejudices. Yes, our views of our neighbours are still shaped by prejudices in significant ways. History and many wars have both divided us and created the diverse assortment we are today. Patriotism is still, and will continue to be for a good while longer, far stronger than pan-Europeanism.

All this must be taken into account. Populists are effective in doing just this, trying to gain the political advantage in the process by exploiting feelings of nationalism. It’s all a little more complicated for an optimist.

This reality notwithstanding, let´s be clear about the present crisis. Let´s imagine we had to face the current migratory instabilities and frictions that the migrations have created in a past context of separate nation states. We can readily assume that some of us would already be at war with our neighbours. We would see coalitions of countries taking military action against others, trying to defend their borders and their own perceived national interests. We would be responding to the threats facing us with weapons drawn upon one another. In the past, this challenge would lead to armed conflict and chaos. We know that the long history of Europe has been written through a succession of wars. 

This all changed when the EU was established. Now, disputes are taken to summits. Summits come and go, often without many concrete outcomes. But, sooner or later, they end up by producing acceptable results of one sort or another. We have learned to take the right decisions at the eleventh hour, that´s true. But we have done so around a conference table and through diplomacy. That´s the kind of lesson we should keep in mind as we get closer to two more summits on the migration crisis: one with Turkey, on the 7th of March and one among the EU leaders on the 17th.

Let´s keep talking and pushing for an agreement. From the cacophony of diverse European voices and the play of varied interests, action will follow. The most relevant contribution of the pessimists, Eurosceptics and  nay-sayers has been to create a greater sense of urgency. Now, the optimists among us have to state that there is only one answer to the big question on the table: Do we allow this challenge to destroy the hard-won political and economic achievements of the EU or do we build on these successes to constructively address this crisis and, in the process, strengthen our union?

I am convinced that realism that will prevail. The European sky isn’t falling.

Time to act on the migratory mass flows

The EU has to adopt a comprehensive response plan to the migratory crisis. The chaotic situations in Greece need to be brought under control. The Greek authorities need a lot of support to be able to address the massive challenges. The other member states must assist.

One of the dimensions of such plan would have to be implemented in the country of arrival. In this case, Greece.

Each person that reaches the Greek soil has to be fully screened. And an initial triage to separate fthose who could qualify as refugees and the rest ought to take place soon after they have arrived. The sorting will be a delicate process but it is indispensable. It will be done by mixed teams, including police officers and civilian specialists. Those failing this preliminary assessment should be taken to holding camps, as their deportation process is completed. Deportation will not be easy but it has to become the norm again for undocumented migrants.

The people accepted as possible refugees will then be taken to waiting facilities and distributed throughout the EU, to those countries ready to accept them. All the others will have to be house in refugee sites, as it is the case in other parts of the world. The EU budget would pay for their keep.

EU has to be seen as generous but also firm. It cannot give the image that it is a free for all situation. 

We are indeed confronted with a major humanitarian challenge. But we are also facing a profound security test. We have to pass both.

Austria, Hungary and the European Union

Today, I should put on record two events. They are both indicative of the state of mind that prevails in some political quarters in Europe.

The first took place in Vienna. The Austrian government invited nine foreign ministers from the Balkan states to a meeting to discuss the mass arrival of immigrants. Basically, the point was to agree on measures that would contain and reduce the transit of new waves of people through the now commonly called Balkan Corridor. The Austrians did not invite the Greeks and the Germans to the meeting. Greece plays however a critical role in the crisis. And Germany is by far the largest player in the region, including on migration issues. This disregard towards Greece and Germany should be seriously criticised. As we must also censure the fact that the European Commission was not properly involved.

Austria has sent a very simple message: we do not believe in a common European response.

The second event took place not far from Vienna. Next door, in Budapest. The Prime Minister, Viktor Orban, made an official statement, with all the pomp and ceremony, about the immigration and refugee issues. The key message was that a national referendum will be organised in Hungary on the acceptance of refugees. More specifically, to consult the Hungarians about the decision of the European Commission to share the burden through a system of quotas. The referendum will not take place until late in the year, most likely by October. It´s a smart move against the EU and a common approach. During the next few months, Orban will have an argument to remain outside any EU debate on the matter: he is waiting for the results of the popular consultation in his country. And nobody can say he is not right. It will sound as anti-democratic.

But we can say, in the meantime, that the State room where he made today´s statement was very well decorated. In the background there was a beautiful line of Hungary´s national flags. Plenty of them. And there was no EU flag around. It would have certainly spoiled the view.

Economic migrations

The immigration issue remains at the top of the EU agenda. Every day brings new flows of people into Italy, Greece and elsewhere.

 Many of these migrants come from countries in deep national crisis. From a legal point of view, they are bona fide candidates to be accepted as refugees.

Some others are coming for obvious economic reasons, as they try to run away from poverty and find jobs in Europe. This category should be confronted with greater hurdles to get through the legal process. But there is a growing view that poverty might also be a good reason to be recognised as a candidate to obtain a legal status, particularly if you have taken so many risks to get into the EU.

This is of course a matter that needs to be discussed. A common approach needs to be agreed as far as these economic migrants are concerned. It is urgent, it should be shared by all the Sates in the EU, and it should also be clearly explained to the European citizens.

The leaders cannot give the impression that there is no policy, that there is no clear idea about the issue. And that´s is, at present, the image that prevails.

Europe´s face cannot look tired

I have supported since the early days Jean-Claude Juncker as President of the European Commission. I know he has the experience and the courage required for such a tough job. But these days he looks tired and too thin-skinned, irritable. He should pay attention to that. Leaders, particularly at challenging times, should look as being in control, calm and refreshed.

The rentrée, after the summer break, will be particularly demanding for Europe. Greece will continue at the top of the list, side by side with the immigration issues, plus matters related to internal security and instability in North Africa and Middle East. To that already heavy list, one should add the policy matters raised by the very special political options of Viktor Orban in Hungary and Cameron´s exigencies in terms of reform, and also the need to re-open the dialogue with Russia.

This is a full agenda. It calls for leadership that projects strength, confidence and optimism. And those features have to be seen on the TV screens, when people like Juncker are talking to the media or to the EU Parliament.  They are the public faces of the Union. 

The Eurogroup has to take a decision that is clear

The Eurogroup meeting of finance ministers is still on at the very end of this evening. It has been a long meeting. And also a very tense discussion, from what I can understand at this stage. All this shows that the EU is confronted with a very serious crisis that has a major impact on Greece, of course, but also on the rest of euro zone countries.

It is time to be very balanced and to think positively. It is also time to be very clear, in one direction or the other.

Major crisis are complex matters, difficult to decide upon, but at the same time they call for clarity. People want to know the direction things will take.

Politics is about opting. And in the case of a grave situation is also about making sure that whatever is decided is the most reasonable approach, among a choice of options that are all rather painful. 

One very last chance?

Greece was told tonight three things: one, they have to come up with a detailed and implementable financial reform programme; two, the European Commission has already prepared a contingency plan in case Greece leaves the euro zone; and third, their new policy reform proposal has to be ready for a careful analysis by the Euro group by Thursday, in view of the EU extraordinary summit called for Sunday, 12 July.

All in all, this sounds like the final leg of a very confusing process. A deadline.

The major risk, besides the one related to missing the deadline, is related to a possible split within the EU. Some countries might go one way and others adopt a different direction. That has to be avoided at any cost.

As we have to prevent any decision that takes flexibility beyond the reasonable enactment of the rules. The rules are essential for the survival of the union.

On Greece´s next steps

We should congratulate Alexis Tsipras this evening. The Greek voters have shown they unmistakably support him and his approach to country´s debt issue.

Now Tsipras has to come up with a clear negotiating position. It has to be on the Euro group tables by tomorrow. There is urgency. And it is also very urgent to show that there is a way forward.

The proposal has to come from the Greek side. And be ready for a decision to be taken on Tuesday evening, when the Euro group leaders meet in Brussels.

These are indeed extraordinary times. They call for very clear commitments and well defined boundaries. Indecision and vagueness are key risks to avoid. As one has to avoid to be trapped by personal likes and dislikes. We might not like the other side, but we have to sit with him and talk in a very frank and constructive way. 

Greece: Fast running towards the abyss

The Greek crisis is now getting to the breaking point. Businesses are just closing their doors as they have little or no access to financial resources. Payments to external suppliers are becoming almost impossible. Domestic payments are just paper payments, no real cash is moving around.

Four days without an operational banking system has a major impact on the economy in a developed country.

And I do not see the banks being able to re-open on Tuesday, as the government wants us to believe. People have lost most of their confidence in the financial institutions and are desperate to take out of the system whatever little money they still have in their accounts.

We are running fast against the wall.

And we do not seem to be aware of it.

We just take the days as normal days in a country that can no longer afford to run as usual. The government needs to take exceptional measures. And I do not see the current leadership being able to do it. For whatever reason, they seem to believe that everything will be much easier after the referendum. Or, the referendum is three days away in a country that needs decisions now. 

Puerto Rico´s money problems

Today we should look elsewhere. To the US, for instance as we get the news that Puerto Rico is also broke. The public debt is around USD 72 billion and the territory’s government is in no position to honour it. Default is around the corner. But it looks manageable as debt represents only 70% of nominal GDP. In any case, it will end up by causing some losses for those who have placed money in public bonds. That´s what they mean by “manageable”: the State borrows and with time the private citizens get a serious haircut. 

Clarifying the relationship with Greece´s political establishment

Political uncertainty is not a good option. The role of leadership is to make it as short as possible. Leaders clarify and define the rules. We expect them to sort things out without too much delay. We also expect them to be able to properly and openly communicate about their decisions.

That´s what is happening in the case of Greece, I want to believe.

We are now in the process of clarifying the relationship with the Greek government. We should also be able to clear up the rapport with the rest of the country´s political class. The connection with them has been too ambiguous. They have to tell us how far they are prepared to go. We should then state if we can go along or not. They have the right to decide about their own future. And we have the same right to choose if we are part of that journey or not.

Both sides have to be wise, in addition to being clear. But above all, both sides have to be sincere and be perceived as such. 

Strategic communications are essential and part of the solution

The EU public opinion matters a lot. People have access to lots of information but the average citizen is still very much influenced by what they watch on TV.

My sense is that the leaders are not communicating well on Greece´s crisis. This is a very sensitive matter that can be easily exploited by any camp that promotes populism, and radicalism, and opposes the EU. It can also weaken further the fragile feeling of common interests.

Every leader has his or her part of responsibility. National leaders should address their national audiences and explain what is at stake and the choices that are being made. Juncker and Tusk, in Brussels, they have likewise to step forward and talk about the issue in a way that goes beyond the sound bites and a patronizing approach. It´s very much their call.  

Greece: calling a spade a spade

Today´s prevailing position on Greece´s fate, in the European political and financial circles that have power, was rather clear: it´s time to call a spade a spade.

This basically means, as I see it, that those leading circles have come to the conclusion that the Greek situation has reached a decisive point. And the decision is to let Greece go its own way. It makes no sense to advocate for a solution that the other side does not accept.

I tend to agree. Default is painful but it is not the end of the road. Argentina and other countries have gone through that experience. Even California did. Default can actually be the beginning of a new cycle.

On the markets side, it looks as if the default possibility is now perceived as inevitable but with a manageable impact.

In the end, those who will be seriously affected are the poor people in the streets and villages of Greece. Unfortunately it´s always like that.