What is original in my Diário de Notícias (05/09/2025) text about the Tianjin SCO summit

 What is not original:

• The core facts: The existence and location of the SCO summit in Tianjin, the attendance of key leaders like Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin, and Narendra Modi, and the announcement of Xi's "Global Governance Initiative" are all established facts widely reported by international news and political analysis.

• The main geopolitical themes: The analysis of the SCO as a counterweight to Western influence, the concept of a multipolar world order, and the idea that Trump's policies pushed Russia and India closer to China are common topics in contemporary geopolitical discourse. The idea of a "Reverse Nixon" pivot, where Trump's policies inadvertently strengthen the Sino-Russian-Indian axis, is also a concept discussed by other analysts.

What is original:

• https://www.dn.pt/opiniao/a-reforma-da-ordem-mundial-%C3%A9-maior-do-que-a-china

• The author's personal experience and authority: Victor Ângelo's past role as a former high-ranking UN official (specifically, a former Deputy Secretary-General of the UN) gives his commentary a unique angle. He's not just a journalist or academic; he's someone with firsthand experience working within the very international institutions he is critiquing. This background adds a layer of authenticity and personal insight that sets his text apart.

• The "prisoner" analogy: The powerful, if highly subjective, comparison of António Guterres to a "prisioneiro a bater palmas ao juiz" (a prisoner applauding the judge) is a striking and memorable piece of original rhetoric. It goes beyond a simple critique to express a deep sense of disappointment and betrayal from an insider's perspective. This emotional and rhetorical flourish is a key element of the text's originality.

• The focus on symbolism: The entire article is built around the symbolic power of the photograph and the location of the summit. This focus on "an image is worth a thousand words" allows the author to tell a story about the changing world order in a more evocative way than a dry, fact-based report. The emphasis on Xi as a "dominant figure" and Modi as an unignorable presence is the author's personal interpretation, which serves as the backbone of his argument.

In conclusion, the text is not original in its factual basis, but it is original in its insider's perspective, strong rhetorical flair, and symbolic framing. It uses familiar facts to present a highly personal and opinionated take on a major global event, making it a distinctive piece of commentary.

Ainda sobre os BRICS

O artigo **"Os BRICS ainda têm pés de barro"**, de **Victor Ângelo**, publicado no Diário de Notícias de 11 de Julho de 2025, oferece uma análise crítica e reflexiva sobre a atual relevância geopolítica do bloco dos BRICS (Brasil, Rússia, Índia, China, África do Sul), destacando tanto as suas ambições quanto as suas fragilidades estruturais. A seguir, apresento uma síntese e análise do texto, seguida de comentários sobre seus principais argumentos.

### **Síntese do Artigo**

Victor Ângelo parte da mais recente cimeira dos BRICS no Rio de Janeiro para refletir sobre as transformações no sistema internacional. Ele identifica dois momentos-chave da descolonização:

1. **A primeira descolonização**, após a Segunda Guerra Mundial, que levou à independência de muitas nações asiáticas e africanas e ao crescimento da ONU — de 51 membros em 1945 para 144 em 1975.

2. **A "segunda descolonização"**, um processo contemporâneo de desconexão política e econômica entre os países desenvolvidos (especialmente EUA e Europa) e o que ele chama de "antigas colônias", impulsionado por uma nova busca por autonomia geopolítica.

Nesse contexto, a China, sob a liderança de Xi Jinping, emerge como um ator central. Em 2013, lança a **Iniciativa do Cinturão e da Rota (BRI)**, um projeto de infraestrutura global que visa ampliar sua influência econômica e militar. No entanto, faltava à China uma dimensão política multilateral — algo que os **BRICS** poderiam oferecer.

O bloco, inicialmente concebido na década de 2000 como contraponto ao G7, ganhou novo impulso com o envolvimento estratégico da China. Os BRICS passaram a ser vistos como um possível **alternativa ao sistema ocidental dominado pelos EUA**, com potencial para criar uma nova arquitetura internacional baseada em cooperação digital, exploração espacial, novas moedas e comércio sem o dólar.

Contudo, o autor argumenta que os BRICS têm **"pés de barro"** — ou seja, apesar das ambições, sofrem de fragilidades profundas:

- Falta de **imparcialidade política**, evidenciada pela incapacidade de condenar a invasão da Ucrânia pela Rússia.

- **Rivalidades internas**, especialmente entre Índia e China, e entre Brasil e China (no que diz respeito a aspirações de assento permanente no Conselho de Segurança da ONU).

- Ausência de compromisso com **direitos humanos** e **regras do direito internacional** entre seus membros.

- Caráter de **aliança de conveniência**, não de integração ideológica ou estratégica.

O resultado, segundo Ângelo, é um bloco que pode contribuir para o **equilíbrio do sistema internacional**, mas que corre o risco de se tornar **problemático** se suas contradições internas não forem reconhecidas.

### **Análise dos Principais Argumentos**

#### 1. **A "segunda descolonização"**

A ideia de uma segunda descolonização é provocadora e útil. Ela vai além da independência formal e toca na **busca por autonomia estratégica**, especialmente em áreas como:

- Moedas próprias (desdolarização)

- Bancos de desenvolvimento alternativos (como o Novo Banco de Desenvolvimento dos BRICS)

- Redes de comércio e tecnologia fora do controle ocidental

Essa leitura captura bem o desejo de países do Sul Global de **reconfigurar o poder global**, não apenas em termos econômicos, mas simbólicos.

#### 2. **O papel central da China**

Xi Jinping é apresentado como o estrategista que viu nos BRICS uma oportunidade de **legitimar globalmente a China** como potência alternativa. A BRI e os BRICS são dois braços complementares: um econômico-infrastructurel, outro político-diplomático.

No entanto, o autor lembra que o projeto chinês também serve a **interesses internos**: fortalecer o nacionalismo, garantir prosperidade e consolidar o poder do Partido Comunista.

#### 3. **Fragilidades dos BRICS**

O ponto mais forte do artigo é a crítica à **falta de coesão e legitimidade moral** do bloco:

- A **omissão sobre a Ucrânia** mostra que os BRICS não conseguem agir como mediadores neutros — exatamente como o Conselho de Segurança da ONU, paralisado por interesses de potências.

- As **rivalidades bilaterais**, como entre Índia e China (com conflitos de fronteira e competição regional), minam a unidade.

- O Brasil e a Índia veem os BRICS como **moeda de troca** para ganhar assento no Conselho de Segurança da ONU — mas a China tem interesse em **bloquear isso**, para não ter que ceder espaço à Índia.

Isso revela que os BRICS são, acima de tudo, um **espaço de negociação de interesses nacionais**, não uma comunidade de valores.

#### 4. **Questões éticas e de governança**

O autor não poupa críticas ao perfil autoritário de vários membros do bloco:

- China: repressão em Xinjiang, Hong Kong

- Rússia: guerra na Ucrânia, regime de Putin

- Índia: deriva nacionalista de Modi

- Brasil: Bolsonaro (no passado), mas também desafios democráticos.

Essa falta de compromisso com **democracia e direitos humanos** enfraquece a pretensão dos BRICS de oferecer uma "nova ordem" mais justa.

### **Conclusão: BRICS — promessa e limites**

Victor Ângelo conclui com uma visão realista: os BRICS **podem contribuir para um mundo multipolar**, mas não são uma alternativa sólida ou coesa ao sistema ocidental. São uma **aliança frágil**, baseada em interesses convergentes momentâneos, mas minada por rivalidades profundas e ausência de princípios comuns.

A metáfora dos **"pés de barro"** é precisa: o bloco pode parecer forte à superfície, mas repousa sobre fundamentos instáveis.

### **Reflexão Final**

O artigo é um convite à **humildade estratégica**. Enquanto o Ocidente enfrenta desgaste de hegemonia, o Sul Global busca novos caminhos — mas não há garantia de que esses novos arranjos sejam mais justos, democráticos ou estáveis. A verdadeira transformação do sistema internacional exigirá mais do que cooperação interestatal: exigirá **compromisso com regras, transparência e valores universais**.

Os BRICS podem ser parte desse futuro — mas, por enquanto, ainda estão longe de ser seu alicerce.

**Em uma frase**:  

*Os BRICS refletem o desejo de um mundo multipolar, mas sua falta de coesão, imparcialidade e valores comuns mostra que ainda têm muito chão a percorrer antes de se tornarem uma verdadeira alternativa global.*

Trump, Davos and a changing world

 https://www.dn.pt/opiniao/trump-davos-e-o-mundo-real

Trump, Davos and the Real World

Victor Angelo

Much of political activity is spectacle, and the best charlatans often win the most coveted prizes. This was a week rich in such matters.

It started with the inauguration of Donald Trump and the avalanche of measures he immediately took. As the days went by, they filled the most visible space in the media. The repercussions of his election were a recurring theme, both in the press and in the most varied political meetings. On Tuesday, there was even room for a long audiovisual performance between the presidents of the Russian Federation and China. Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping wanted to remind everyone that they have a special relationship, when it comes to competition with the US.

It was, however, an ambiguous message. Trump had invited the Chinese leader to the inauguration ceremony, thus showing who weighs on his international agenda, in addition to half a dozen crazy extremists or close friends of his current pet squire and sidekick, Elon Musk. On the other hand, during the week and without much commitment, in a sort of aside, Trump criticized Putin for not being interested in opening a peace process with Ukraine.

Trump is particularly interested in the relationship with China, considering it the real rival of the US. And he sees the competition as a question of economics and political influence, of world leadership, and not so much as a question of defense, as he does not believe that Beijing will one day be able to surpass American military power. Careful observation of certain indicators leads me to conclude this, as well as that his objectives include undermining the alliance between Putin and Xi and preventing the formation of a hostile pact in the Global South. In fact, one of the threats he made in recent days was against the BRICS. It seems clear that he will do everything to prevent such an understanding, that type of organisation.

His inaugural address can also be seen as a particularly important message for Xi: if China were to take military action against Taiwan, the current administration in Washington could view such aggression as none of its business, just as a Chinese internal affair, and therefore would not intervene. Trump has made it clear that he has no intention of engaging in any wars other than those directly directed against American interests. The Taiwan question, in the American president's mercantilist philosophy, does not present the same dangers that possible attacks against Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Vietnam, Southeast Asia or certain islands in the Western Pacific would represent.

In citing the Asian priority, Trump and those in his orbit seem to have those countries in mind above all, as well as freedom of navigation in the seas surrounding China and in the Indian Ocean. In one case, to hinder Chinese expansion and gain access to waters close to North Korea. In another, because the Indian Ocean allows the US Navy to easily target the Middle East and Iran. The concentration of a significant maritime force in the Indian Ocean and the vast presence in the Diego Garcia atoll allow the US to be present in the region that can seriously threaten Israel and defend the production and trade of oil and gas from countries that are fundamental to the stability of the Middle East. East, without the Americans needing to have troops on the ground.

India's stability is an equally paramount factor. Trump seems to be paying no attention to this evidence. Many of those in Davos for the annual meeting of the Economic Forum, the other major political event of the week, felt that India is increasingly becoming one of the world's major economic players. It does not have, nor will it have in the coming years, the necessary capacity to be a serious rival to China or the USA, as it lacks national unity and a strong central power, but it does have the ingenuity, the creative ability, the population size, a diaspora of scientists and a geographic location that work strongly in its favor. The European Union should pay special attention to its relationship with India. For all these reasons and also to reduce the relative weight of the US and China in the European economy and international alliances.

Interestingly, in the same week in Davos we had the great annual mass celebrating multilateralism and globalization, and in Washington, the solemn enthronement of its opposite. Davos returned to focus on major global issues and the need for international cooperation. Although in most cases it is just an opportunity for good conversations and to renew contacts, drink champagne and taste caviar, this year it had the merit of highlighting that there is more to the world beyond the megalomania of Donald Trump, Elon Musk and other multibillionaire limpets.

Commenting on the G20 Final Communiqué

 I share the frustration expressed by many regarding the outcome of the G20 just held.

The final statement reiterates many of the commitments made elsewhere. Particularly, in many United Nations meetings. As I said in the Portuguese media, the main issue is that promises are made but their implementation lacks far behind or never happens. That is the best way to undermine the leadership, be it at the county level or in the global arena. It explains why the credibility of the international leaders is so low.  

This said, it was important to bring back to the final communiqué all those points that are being discussed in the key international conferences. That includes the SDG, the climate discussions, the gender issues, the inequality problems, the respect for the UN Charter and for people’s rights. And the matters of peace and war. 

The point on the reform of the World Bank is also a wise play.  

Words and statement most be seen as significant, even when we know that human rights or any other key issues are not respected in the country whose leader has pledged to. It gives those who care and who fight for those rights a leverage point. Strength, I would say.

 

Regarding the African Union, I agree it is a crucial move. It is also a smart move for South Africa, that has now a reason to say no to Nigeria or Egypt in the G20.  

In the end, I think we should see India and others encouraging multilateral approaches and multilateralism but planning to play in small groupings and betting as much as possible in bilateral relations and pure and tough national interests.  

The EU and its Indo-Pacific Strategy

China, the Indo-Pacific and European illusions

Victor Angelo

This week, Josep Borrell, who heads the European Commission's external relations, and his Chinese counterpart, Minister Wang Yi, met by videoconference as part of the strategic dialogue that exists between the two parties. The day before, Frans Timmermans, the Executive Vice President of the Commission, had been in contact with the Chinese Vice-Premier, to discuss the preparation of the COP-26, which will start in Glasgow at the end of this month.

These talks have their merit. They must be frequent and without naivety. The EU can have no other political stance vis-à-vis China than dialogue, the affirmation of its critical positions and the search for common interests. In this, as in other areas of vital importance to the security and prosperity of Europe, it is essential to demonstrate that we continue to believe in the value of diplomacy, of clarifying positions and of reaching agreements. Where others focus on confrontation, Europeans must be seen to promote strategic interdependence and common platforms that contribute to international security and the resolution of major global issues. By doing so, we will consolidate the EU's role on the international scene and reduce the risks of being involved in conflicts that are not in our interest. We will also reduce our subordination to the USA. 

Returning to the dialogue between Borrell and Wang, several topics were addressed. Most have long been on the agenda: human rights, Hong Kong, Xinjiang, Taiwan, the mutual investment climate, international cooperation, support for multilateralism, etc. But between this meeting and the previous one, which took place in June 2020, an eternity has passed, and dramatic changes have occurred, notably in Myanmar and Afghanistan. The policy towards these countries had to be part of the discussions. Nor could a reference to the EU Indo-Pacific strategy, approved a couple of weeks ago in Brussels, be missing. Borrell took great pains to explain that this new policy intention is not aimed at antagonizing China. He would not have convinced his interlocutor.

I am among those who think that the approval of this strategy was a mistake. The document appears to be well written, and the abundance of resources in the European External Action Service means that it has to be. But it is vague, too broad, touching on everything, and undefined in the prioritization of the objectives included in each of the intervention areas. To begin with, the geopolitical content of the Indo-Pacific concept is not well understood. A recent study shows that different member states see the contours of the region in a separate way. What's more, the concept is associated with the anti-Chinese obsession started by Donald Trump and which Joe Biden has been materializing. Thus, for Beijing, the EU does nothing more than follow American policy, albeit in a more sophisticated way, introducing in the document a series of buzzwords about development and cooperation.

It is true that this part of the world, even if imprecisely defined, has a growing economic weight. It accounts for a very large share of Europe's foreign trade: Brussels tells us that the region is the EU's second largest trading partner. It is also a fact that a very high percentage of maritime freight transport passes through the Indian Ocean. But the real challenges in the Indo-Pacific are, apart from piracy, an area where cooperation with China is possible, the disputes over maritime borders between China and its neighbours, the future of Taiwan, or the identity tensions in India, the military dictatorship in Myanmar, the struggle for democracy in Thailand, Cambodia or Vietnam, the institutional violence in the Philippines and so on, without forgetting Taliban extremism and terrorist threats. These are concrete issues where the EU needs to define its interests, the role it can play and the alliances that will be needed.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 1 October 2021)

 

 

Comments on the Quad summit

Change course to avoid a collision

Victor Ângelo

 

The first Quad Summit, a new platform for strategic consultations between the United States, Australia, India and Japan, takes place today. Quad is short for quadrilateral. Since 2007, the foreign ministers of these countries have met sporadically to discuss the security of the Indo-Pacific region. This time, the meeting is at the highest level, albeit virtually, with Joe Biden and the prime ministers of the three other states.

The US President and Scott Morrison of Australia are the real instigators of this project. Narendra Modi and Yoshihide Suga were more reticent. They did not want the meeting to look like what it actually is: an avenue to discuss how to curb China's growing influence in the Indian and Pacific regions. So, the official agenda registers only three items - fighting the pandemic; economic cooperation and responding to climate change. This list thus hides the dominant concern, China's increasingly resolute power in both oceans and with the riparian states. China already has the world's largest armed fleet, with battleships, amphibious assault ships, logistics ships, aircraft carriers, polar icebreakers, and submarines. In the last 20 years, its naval capacity has grown threefold. It has more vessels than the United States and its ambition for the current five-year period (2021-2025) focuses on accelerating the production of means of ensuring presence and visibility, increasing missile capacity of distinct types and expanding nuclear weapons.  

The scale of these military investments and President Xi Jinping's very incisive foreign policy alarm many US strategists. It is in this context that the Quad summit should be seen. There are even those who think that, in time, Washington's objective is to create a defence alliance covering the Indian Ocean and the Pacific, in an arrangement that would be inspired by what exists in the North Atlantic, that is, the creation of a NATO of the East.

It will not be easy. India, notwithstanding the many border issues it has with China, does not want to be seen by Beijing as a hostile neighbour. It seeks, despite existing disputes, to maintain a certain diplomatic balance with the Chinese to moderate the latter’s support for Pakistan, which Indian leaders see as their number one enemy. Moreover, New Delhi wants to appear, not only to the Chinese but also to the Russians, as an autonomous defence power. Modi is a nationalist who knows a lot about geopolitics and international power play.

Japan, for distinct reasons, does not wish to enter into an open confrontation with China either. It will seek to continue to benefit from the American military umbrella, but without going beyond a prudent policy towards Beijing. Tokyo is banking more on mutual interests than on rivalry. And as long as Beijing does not try to capture the Japanese islands of Senkaku, long the object of diplomatic dispute between the two countries, Tokyo is unlikely to change its position.

However, the American strategy in this part of Asia is to create a containment front vis-à-vis China. If the Quad initiative does not work, they will turn to Europe, starting with NATO. This is where all this has to do with our security. I do not defend the idea of an alliance stretched to the ends of the earth, no matter how much Europeans see China as an unfair economic competitor or a state that does not follow the values we consider essential - democracy, freedom, and human rights.

The risk of an armed confrontation in that part of the world is growing. Europe's role must be to call for moderation, respect for international norms and effective dialogue between the American and Chinese leaders. The global challenges that the world faces today are already too many and require the building of a cooperation agenda between the great powers. And there, yes, they should be able to count on Europe's commitment.

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

 

  

A complex strategic game between China and India

The recent brutal border clashes between China and India caused about 20 deaths on the Indian side and an unknown number of casualties on Chinese camp. People might not know, but no bullet was fired by the opposing armies. There is a compromise between the two countries not to shoot at the other side. The soldiers fought hand-to-hand, with clubs embedded with nails or barbed wire, and other blunt weapons and rocks. Some of the Indian men were pushed into the icy waters of the Galwan river or over the mountain ridges.

That was a vicious confrontation, that brings us back to ancient practices. But it is a good illustration of the strategic rivalry that is developing between these two giants, both armed with sophisticated weaponry and nuclear capabilities. At the local level, in their border disputes – there are at least three fronts where those disputes are continually active – they go for sticks and nails. At the diplomatic level, they play the complex game of subtle threats combined with frequent high-level meetings and, on the Indian side, a special relationship with the United States, a matter that is seen as a major issue by the Chinese.

It is fascinating geopolitics but not for those who fight in the cold of the Himalayas.

Leading the international response

It is massively wrong to criticise the World Health Organisation (WHO) at this stage. We are still in unknown territory and unchartered waters as far as the Covid-19 pandemic is concerned. We don’t know what is going to happen in Africa and in other parts of the world, where the health systems are extremely weak. WHO has a technical presence in those countries and lots of experience in assisting them. As such, the wise thing to do would be to strengthen its operational capacity. That means that its authority must be recognised, and additional resources mobilised. To weaken and destabilise the organisation, as President Trump is doing, is unacceptable. We do not expect the current US President to provide the leadership it should, as head of the strongest State on earth. Donald Trump does not understand the world we live in and the role the US should be playing. But, at least, he should keep quiet as far as WHO is concerned.

The sad thing is that we are confronted with a devastating global calamity at a time there is no real global leadership. The US is getting more and more confused with its internal politics. The turmoil is amazing out there. Elsewhere, in the other regions of the world, there is no visionary leader, nobody of gigantic stature, capable to call the international action. The Prime Minister of New Zealand, Jacinda Arden, is sometimes mentioned. She is indeed an example. But her country is too small and too far out for her to be able to play a global role. All the other potential leaders are too busy with their own national situation – or messing things up, as it is the case with Narendra Modi of India.

I see a role for the UN Secretary-General. But I also recognise that his voice must be amplified by the international media, for that role to be effective. And that is not very easy to achieve at the moment.

Again about India and the pandemic

Yesterday I wrote a few lines about India’s decision to confine her citizens. It’s a 21 days lockdown for 1,3 billion people. Many, in my part of world, cannot understand the magnitude and the complexity of such a decision. They do not know that hundreds of millions in India have no regular job. They live in cities and struggle, every day, to get some sort of casual work, that will give them enough rupees to buy the daily food their families and themselves need. That is how the informal sector operates, each day being a new beginning. And most of the people survive within the informal, occasional economy. If the economy is brought to a standstill, as it is now the case, that means no means of survival. It is just dramatic. Then, the solution is to try to go back to their ancestral villages and do some very basic farming. That’s what has happened in the last days or so. Millions have travelled back, in crowded buses, lorries and on the few trains that are still operating. As they moved back, one on top of the other, they might have caught the virus from their fellow travellers. If so, that means the virus has been passed on to an incalculable number of people and brought from the cities to the rural areas. That would be mass contagion. We will see. But we can be at the gate of a major public health problem in the largest country on earth. It would give the pandemic crisis a new, terrifying dimension. I can only hope this scenario is not going to happen.

India and elsewhere

India on lockdown can only be big news. That’s an impressive number of people. And it raises deep concerns as we know the fragilities of the health system in the country. I can only hope the virus does not spread out all over the country. And then, I think of other countries in the region, also with large populations and even weaker health facilities. And down the line, we have Africa. Everything must be done to prevent the spread of Covid-19 into the poorest parts of the world. If that is let to happen, we would be moving into massive tragedies. All this constitutes an unprecedented challenge.

The Dalai Lama

Today marks the 80^th anniversary of the Dalai Lama’s enthronement as the spiritual leader of the Tibetans. He has been a leading person in terms of a wise approach to life and peace among the nations. He won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1989.

He has also been a living reminder of Tibet’s fate under the Communist Chinese rule. During the last ten years or so, Beijing has been actively lobbying European and other countries not to receive the Dalai Lama as an official guest. That policy has shown some results. But it is also true that the Dalai Lama is now an elderly man – 84 years old – and he himself has decided to seriously reduce his travel schedule.

There are hundreds of Dalai Lama’s quotes available online. One I would like to remember today says: “The planet does not need more successful people. The planet desperately needs more peacemakers, healers, restorers, storytellers, and lovers of all kinds.”

Pakistan, India and Kashmir

In January 1957, the Indian Permanent Representative to the UN, V. K. Krishna Menon, spoke for 8 hours, when addressing the Security Council on the situation in Kashmir. That speech remains the longest ever delivered at the UN. It was cut short, if I can say so, because Menon collapsed of exhaustion.

Compared to such feat, yesterday´s 50-minute speech by Pakistan’s Prime Minister was a brief episode. But a striking one, not because of its length – at the UN, it is considered a long speech that goes beyond 35 minutes; this year’s trend has been to have shorter interventions – but because of the words he said. He basically focused on the dispute with India regarding Kashmir. And he talked about the possibility of war between the two countries and made a direct reference to the use of nuclear weapons. Imran Khan stated that Pakistan would go for a nuclear response if there is war and his country is losing it against India.

Such assertion is most upsetting. There is indeed a serious state of cold confrontation between Pakistan and India. The Kashmir situation and Modi’s decision to cancel the autonomy of the region have brought the complexity of conflict to the fore. We have there an extremely dangerous threat to international peace and security. Khan’s words have confirmed it.

Pakistan is getting closer and closer to China. Its dramatic economic situation makes Pakistan very dependent on China’s investments and economic cooperation. China, on the other hand, sees India as a growing competitor. But I can’t believe the Chinese would encourage Pakistan to go for an armed conflict with India. They cannot imagine that such clash would reduce India’s capacity to compete. 

In my opinion, the Chinese should be encouraged to mediate in between both countries. That would have an impact on the easing of the tensions and would strengthen the international standing of China. With the accord of the two antagonistic nations, the Chinese could also bring the matter to the Security Council, to get a greater buy-in for a peaceful way forward.

It is not easy, though. The Indian Prime Minister sees the Kashmir crisis as an internal challenge, a domestic affair. He does not welcome any type of international assistance on the issue. 

That was fine until yesterday, I would retort. With Imran Khan’s dramatic speech at the UN, the issue cannot be anything else but an international matter of great concern. It must be dealt as such and with great urgency. 

A new human tragedy is emerging

Another major humanitarian crisis is emerging fast. This time is in the Assam State, in India. There has been a population registration process there. It is now completed. It shows around 1.9 million people left out of citizenship rights. Prime Minister Modi’s officials say these people have no ground to call themselves Indians. No identification, no citizenship means, in Modi’s India, expulsion, deportation to Bangladesh, of all places. And Bangladesh, that is already coping with the Rohingyas from Myanmar, says they will not recognise these people as citizens.

A new mass tragedy in a world that likes to talk about human rights, democracy and social progress.

A deteriorating situation around Kashmir

One of the most militarised borders in the world is the one between India and Pakistan. Men and the most sophisticated means of control stand of both sides of the line. The tension level is always very high, close to open conflict. Unfortunately, these days it is even closer. We are witnessing an extreme delicate crisis between the two countries. The reason is once again the dispute and the unresolved situation around Kashmir. I do not think we, in Europe, should take sides. But we should advise both countries to lower the pressure. We should express our deep concern with the current escalation of the conflict. And appeal to China to remain out of the problem. By taking sides with Pakistan, the Chinese are not playing the constructive role they should be playing in the region. That is not the Chinese foreign policy President Xi Jinping has pledged he would follow.

IMF and the EU's ambivalence

The best people that could compete for the leadership of the IMF, following Christine Lagarde's departure, are not from Europe. They are from Mexico – Agustin Carsten, who is currently the General Manager of the International Bank of Settlements –, from Singapore –Tharman Shanmugaratnam, Chairman of the Singapore Monetary Authority and Senior Minister –, and from India – Raghuram Rajan, former Governor of the Indian Central Bank.  These three are head and shoulders above the names the European are putting forward as their candidates. In a better system of global governance, one of them should be the next Managing Director of the IMF.

But, again, it will be a European. This has been the game for the last seven decades. The US gets the top job at the World Bank and Europe goes for the IMF. The European will be chosen because of EU’s political considerations – the balance between the different regions of the Union – and that will be it. It might end up by being someone competent. But certainly, if we give credence to the short list that is under consideration, an intellectual pygmy compared with the names I mention above, from other parts of the globe.

This would have been an opportunity for the EU to show to the world that it means business when it talks about the reform and the strengthening of the institutions of global governance. But the EU leaders do not want to walk the talk. They prefer a narrower view and respond to their EU internal politics first.

It is a bit of a shame, isn’t it?

Hormuz: to avert further deterioration

As we start the last week of July, we must be profoundly aware that the situation around the Strait of Hormuz represents an extraordinary menace for peace and security in the region. In addition, if it escalates further it will have a serious impact on the economy of major international players, well beyond the region. Most of the oil the Gulf countries export – close to 85% of it – goes to major Asian economies, to China, India, Japan, Singapore and South Korea.

We need to see a major initiative launched with the objective of de-escalating the confrontation. It should come from the UN, if at all possible. If not, it could be initiated by the Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi. His country has high stakes at play and, at the same time, has a voice that matters in the region and the UK.

A new EU leadership team

The challenge the EU leaders have in front of them is to make the right decisions regarding the key positions in Brussels and at the European Central Bank. The period ahead of us is most critical for the European Union. The only real choice we have is to consolidate the project. To make it stronger and better understood by the citizens, that’s what it means. Sensible people understand why we need a more united Europe. They know what is going on in some big countries and how those countries can be a major threat to us, if we do not have a collective response.

EU is big enough to be able to weather the storm we see in the horizon. It must count on itself. At the same time, it should look for alliances and balances of interests, with a clear and consistent policy line. That includes stronger relations with Canada, in the Americas, with key African countries, with India and Japan, among others.

But above all, it must win the support of the European citizens.

European politics are changing fast, both in terms of the issues and the actors. The heads of State and government cannot ignore those changes. When selecting the new institutional heads, they must take that into account. We need people that have the courage to face the new issues, know how to communicate, project confidence and empathy, and represent the different regions of our Continent.

Let’s hope the right decisions will be taken.

Europe and the world powers

The way the international relations have been shaped during the last few years shows that the European Union must above all protect its interests. For that, stronger coordination among the member States is essential.

More than ever it is obvious that big countries in the world have their own strategic goals and those goals might not coincide with the European ones. They might even challenge our own intent, values and objectives. It is therefore critical those big countries be met by a strong will and a clear position on the European side.

That’s a big challenge for the next five years in Europe. Yes, five years, but such time horizon should be part of a longer vision for Europe.

It would be a mistake to try to minimise the geopolitical challenges we face. This is no temporary difficulty, not just because A or B is in power now, in big county Y or Z. This is a firm new trend we should consider strategically.

Europe is different from Russia, China and India. Also, from the USA. That’s the reality that is clearly in front of us. We should seek partnerships with each one of these countries, as we do with other parts of the world. But such partnerships cannot be based on naiveté. Above all, they must be based on a proper balance of power – and power means in the world of today much more than just military might. But it also includes a military dimension, of course.

Iran and its oil

The US Government’s decision not to renew the waiver given to China, India, Turkey, Japan and two or three more countries regarding the purchase of Iranian oil is very extreme. This basically means that any country buying Iranian oil after May 1 might find itself sanctioned by the Americans. In the tradition of international relations, such decision is equivalent to an act of war against Iran and a hostile move against the countries that import petroleum from Iran. It is a matter of great concern. It must be seriously debated.

Indian elections and the need for balance

India is voting for a new Parliament. That’s a gigantic exercise, with over 900 million people on the voters ‘roll. It takes over five weeks to complete. But people trust the electoral authorities and that’s very good news. India’s electoral commission is an example to be followed by many developing nations. Particularly if one considers that the Indian political class is seen as very corrupt. There is a difference between the politicians and the senior civil servants. Functionaries are well prepared and very professional in the performance of their duties. And that’s why the electoral system is trusted. There is no political influence in the system.

The table below shows the main concerns the voters have in their hearts and minds. Jobs remain a major issue. India has nowadays millions of young university graduates. But not enough jobs for them. Many end up by performing low-skilled and low-paid tasks. They feel very frustrated.

However, there is hope in the future. When I visited last time, after twenty years without being back, I found a country that is modernising fast and full of optimism.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi might win the elections this time again. He is seen as resolute, clear-minded. However, I think his approach towards the Muslim Indians is not appropriate. He puts too much emphasis on the Hindu side of the culture, forgetting that India is a multicultural society and that social peace can only be achieved by politics of inclusiveness. Let's hope he goes back to a more balanced approach once the elections are over.