Leadership is about courage and clear priorities

Navalny and Zelensky: two examples of extraordinary courage

Victor Angelo

I want to start this week's text with a posthumous tribute to Alexei Navalny, who was executed exactly a week ago by Vladimir Putin's regime. Navalny was a fearless opponent in a country where power terrorises its citizens and coldly executes its main opponents and dissidents. This is also what happened these days to Russian helicopter pilot Maxim Kuzminov, who at the age of 28 was shot dead at point-blank range in a town in the province of Alicante, in other words on Spanish territory, without Russia's special operations forces showing any respect for either the law or Spain's sovereignty. In August 2023, in an operation planned with the Ukrainian secret services, Kuzminov diverted a Mi-8 military transport helicopter loaded with sensitive parts destined for Russian fighter jets to Ukraine. Putin was unforgiving and the young pilot, who had taken refuge in Spain in the meantime, was tracked down by a specially-created group, discovered and murdered. The Spanish secret services only realised what was at stake when the body was found, a few days after the murder, in the garage of the building where the former pilot lived. The same thing happened in Berlin in 2019 to a dissident of Chechen origin and to others in the UK and elsewhere. 

Political assassination is a practice from another era, except for people like Putin. Yevgeny Prigozhin, the leader of the Wagner terrorist group, has forgotten this fact and fallen for the bait. Navalny, on the other hand, was aware of the risk. He had already experienced a first attempt in 2020, which didn't work thanks to the reaction of the captain of the commercial flight he was travelling on and then medical care in Germany. Once treated, he dared to return to his home country, fully aware of the dangers he would face. In this way, he sent Putin and his fellow citizens three messages: firstly, a leader doesn't abandon the battlefield; secondly, such a leader keeps his eyes on the target he considers fundamental - in this case, ousting the corrupt clique from power; and thirdly, a true leader believes that, sooner or later, the dictator will eventually be defeated. 

Portugal has no such problems. But it does have major political flaws, which place it in a mediocre position in various EU rankings. We lack leaders who are capable of fighting for vital priorities, who have an unwavering concern for the common good and who believe that it is possible to transform Portugal into a more efficient country capable of harnessing its existing potential. Recent debates have shown that we need leaders with clear ideas and the ability to unite citizens around projects that will allow us to consolidate citizen ethics, put our house in order and modernise the country. When I heard about Navalny's assassination, I was exceptionally shocked and, on the other hand, thinking that a man like that makes our politicians poor puppets of the television channels. Or, at best, half-wits, some more naive and others more opportunistic, with a lot of talk, a lot of parrying and little operational capacity.

Volodymyr Zelensky does not play the game and has equally exemplary courage. At this point, two years after the devastating invasion ordered by Putin, I couldn't fail to mention Ukraine, the bravery of its people and the unusual qualities of its leadership. Ukraine surprised the Kremlin, which thought it could take over Kyiv in three days, and won the admiration of all those who value freedom and resistance against the imperialism of the great powers. 

Now the country urgently needs another extraordinary amount of foreign aid. Joe Biden has been endeavouring to get the House of Representatives to approve a supplementary budget to contain the current Russian offensive and finally repel the invader. But the leader of the House, under orders from the notorious Donald Trump, won't even put the matter to a vote. It would certainly be approved, as it has already been by a very large majority in the Senate. Without these funds, Biden could appear in the election campaign as the loser in Ukraine and unable to resolve the migratory pressure on the Mexican border. That's what Trump wants to win votes. Trump is, in his own way, just as dangerous as Putin. 

We cannot let Putin emerge victorious from his war against Ukraine. The Eastern European countries, Denmark, the United Kingdom and others understand this. Germany is a key player on our side. There has been some evolution in the right direction at the level of its leaders. But Olaf Scholz is still hesitant, particularly when it comes to supplying full-power long-range missiles without reducing their capabilities. We must advise him to take inspiration from the courage of Navalny and Zelensky. It is also critical to make him understand that there can be no hesitation when it comes to people like Putin and issues of self-defence. Putin will never negotiate in good faith, contrary to what Scholz and other naive people imagine is possible.

A.I. translation of my opinion piece published on Diário de Notícias (Lisbon) in the Portuguese language on 23 FEB 2024

Are we getting closer to a big war?

The world smells dangerously like gunpowder 

Victor Angelo

The Munich Security Conference, an annual event now celebrating its 60th edition, begins today and runs until Sunday. As has become customary, it is a high-level meeting. This time, it will feature the participation of around 50 Heads of State and Government, another hundred ministers and a good number of leaders of international organizations, academics, thinkers and journalists of international importance.

The report that serves as the basis for this year's conference makes a diagnosis of the main ongoing conflicts and, in summary, suggests two conclusions. First, geopolitical competition continues to worsen, now reaching a level of intensity and complexity unprecedented since the creation of the United Nations. Second, the reestablishment of international cooperation must be seen as an absolute priority. Only in this way will it be possible to resolve the most dangerous challenges, which in reality know no borders and have an impact that cannot be ignored. It is a positive recommendation, in a report that is, in essence, pessimistic.

When reflecting on 2024, the rapporteurs particularly draw attention to the growing risks in four regions of the globe. We are told that the international scene has more fires than firefighters, that there is an accumulation of serious crises to be resolved and an international system that is no longer respected. It's a clear question: instead of all of us winning, would we all rather lose?

One of these regions is Eastern Europe. The geopolitical vision that prevails in the Kremlin is a threat that must be taken seriously. It consists of increasing arrogance and aggressiveness, based on ancient practices of first inventing conflicts with neighbors seen as rivals, and then trying to resolve them with swordplay. My reading of this region is familiar: either Russia withdraws and recognizes the sovereignty of Ukraine, or what is now happening in that country will end up spreading to others in the region. A crisis of this kind would bring immense problems to the unity of NATO and the major countries of the Western world. In democratic contexts, these alliances are more fragile than they might seem.

In the Middle East, that's a powder keg. It is a region of great fractures, where xenophobia and the absurdity of decisions taken in the 20th century are added to cultural and religious hatred, and a multiplicity of borders that do not respect historical identities and give way to nations without homogeneity and without resources, to in addition to oil and gas.

What is conventionally called the Indo-Pacific is another problematic area. It demands increasing attention, as it could be the theater of a major conflict surrounding the issue of Taiwan and beyond. Xi Jinping has just been reappointed for the third time as leader of the single party and as President of China, for new five-year terms. At the end of these terms, he will be 74 years old and no one knows if the conditions will exist for him to be re-elected again. Now, in my opinion, Xi wants to go down in history as the leader who managed to subdue the Taiwanese rebellion. If that is indeed his ultimate ambition, it is very likely that military action against Taiwan will take place before 2027. And if Trump is in the White House, distracted by pursuing his internal adversaries, starting with the Biden family, Xi could conclude that The time has come to step forward and inscribe your name at the top of the list of heroes of communist China.

The Sahel forms the fourth region of deep insecurity. At the moment, the list of absolutely unsafe countries includes Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger. It must also include Sudan, which is plunged into a merciless civil war and a humanitarian crisis of unimaginable proportions. But Sudan has been excluded from media headlines in an unacceptable way. The crises in the Sahel have all the conditions to spread, as is already happening on a large scale in Nigeria and now in Senegal, due to the political confusion created by the president. In the same Senegal that had always been considered an example of stability and democracy.

Three other major themes are also discussed in this year's report: the growing disparities and economic rivalries between different blocs around the world, including with regard to what could happen with the development of the BRICS; the consequences of climate change on international relations, including migration; and the impact of the technological and digital revolution.

The report describes a world evolving in a worrying direction. And it would be even worse if the spectre that roams the corridors of Munich, silently, were re-elected in November, as no one likes to talk about evil spirits. But November is still a long way away and until then anything can happen.

A.I: translation of my opinion text published on 16 February 2024 in the Lisbon daily newspaper Diário de Notícias. 

Traduction par IA de ma chronique d'aujourd'hui

 Diário de Notícias (Lisboa, 12 JAN 2024)

Nouvel An : faire sortir la Russie d’Ukraine sans plus attendre

Victor Angelo

Vladimir Poutine a commencé l'année dans la violence : il a lancé jour et nuit sans arrêt un grand nombre de missiles et de drones sur plusieurs sites ukrainiens. Contrairement à ce que prétendent certains analystes, il a laissé entendre qu'il était pressé d'imposer la capitulation de l'Ukraine. Et il nous a rappelé que les dictateurs ne respectent pas les lignes rouges. Croire qu’on peut négocier avec des despotes est une illusion coûteuse.

Cette année, la Russie préside le groupe des BRICS. Vous voudrez montrer que vous êtes capable de diriger et de développer avec succès une organisation que vous considérez comme une alternative possible à l’ordre mondial actuel. Dans le cadre de la présidence russe, une série de rencontres internationales sont prévues, qui devraient aboutir à un sommet en octobre, dans la ville emblématique de Kazan. Pour pouvoir attirer ceux qui hésitent, la Russie doit apparaître comme un pays victorieux, puissant, mais apaisé, après avoir rétabli sa domination sur des territoires sur lesquels elle revendique des droits au vu d'un passé impérialiste. En d’autres termes, après avoir privé l’Ukraine de la souveraineté sur les quatre provinces orientales et conservé la Crimée, usurpée en 2014. Au droit et aux traités internationaux, Poutine oppose un récit historique archaïque et absurde, pour tenter de justifier l’hostilité, l’agression et les guerres frontalières contre les pays voisins. .

Au début de l'année, cinq nouveaux pays ont rejoint les BRICS : l'Arabie saoudite, l'Égypte, les Émirats arabes unis, l'Éthiopie et l'Iran. Le groupe compte désormais 10 membres, dont la plupart ont une réputation démocratique douteuse. Poutine aimerait atteindre la fin de son année de présidence avec au moins deux fois plus de pays que de membres des BRICS. Vous avez mentionné il y a quelques jours qu’une trentaine de pays étaient intéressés à y adhérer. Je considère que cette déclaration n’est guère plus qu’une simple propagande. Cela révèle cependant l’intention de fracturer la communauté internationale et de détruire les normes de coopération qui ont été construites dans le cadre des Nations Unies et d’autres organisations multilatérales depuis 1945.

Il n’appartient pas à l’Europe démocratique ou à d’autres États alliés d’intervenir dans l’adhésion, les politiques et les pratiques des BRICS, si tout cela se déroule conformément aux normes internationales. Par exemple, si le Brésil estime qu’il est mieux soutenu dans une alliance avec la Russie ou l’Iran que dans une relation étroite avec le G7, le choix vous appartient. Il ne peut cependant pas s’attendre en même temps à un traitement préférentiel de la part des pays du G7 ou de l’UE. Pas même de la part de la CPLP, qui ne devrait pas offrir du soleil sur l'aire et de la pluie sur les avant-toits, si l'on veut un jour la mener avec le courage nécessaire.

Mais l’enjeu fondamental, en ce début d’année, est différent : la Russie doit quitter l’Ukraine, sans plus attendre, et respecter sa souveraineté et son intégrité territoriale. Cela devrait être la préoccupation numéro un de l’UE et de ses alliés.

Les éléments de preuve les plus récents semblent montrer que les deux parties aux États-Unis sont proches d’un accord sur cette question et prêtes à renouveler leur aide à l’Ukraine. L’UE est absente. Les dirigeants européens parlent beaucoup et bien, mais ils n'agissent pas comme prévu. Il s’agit d’un leadership conversationnel, alimenté par la peur de la Russie. L’État membre qui a le plus aidé et qui compte le plus – l’Allemagne – craint de prendre la décision nécessaire qui modifierait considérablement le scénario existant : la fourniture de missiles Taurus à longue portée à l’Ukraine. Il s’agit d’équipements qui permettront de frapper avec poids et profondeur l’envahisseur russe et d’isoler la Crimée du reste de la Russie. Lorsque j’ai décidé d’écrire ce texte, j’ai pensé souligner l’indécision manifestée jusqu’à présent par Olaf Scholz. Entre-temps, la chancelière a adressé cette semaine une exhortation aux autres partenaires européens et une déclaration d'accord sur le plan d'aide de l'UE à l'Ukraine de 50 milliards d'euros, qui devrait être approuvé lors du sommet européen du 1er février.

Dans une Europe sans leadership clair, les propos de Scholz sont encourageants. Mais ils en savent trop peu et trop tard. Il y a urgence. Il faut avancer avec le Taurus, avec plus de munitions, avec de nouveaux systèmes de défense anti-aérienne, avec des drones de combat et une force de défense aérienne basée sur le F16. Et accompagner toute cette aide de nouvelles décisions politiques, qui accentuent une fois pour toutes l’isolement financier et diplomatique du régime Poutine. Expliquer constamment aux citoyens européens ce qu'a été l'héroïsme ukrainien, les avancées en mer Noire, dans les ports de Crimée, dans les attaques contre la flotte navale russe et en termes de défense face à la brutalité.

J'ai aussi pensé à critiquer les dirigeants de la France, de l'Italie et de l'Espagne : ce sont des économies majeures qui ont été des acteurs mineurs par rapport au Danemark, aux Pays-Bas, à la Suède et aux pays baltes, sans oublier le Royaume-Uni. Mais nous verrons comment ils se comporteront dans un avenir proche, face au défi de Scholz. Qu’ils réalisent ou non qu’il dépend également d’eux d’empêcher Poutine de continuer à constituer une menace pour la stabilité et la paix en Europe.

Joe Biden and his Middle East mistake

Joe Biden, the Middle East and consistency in politics

Victor Angelo

 

After two days spent in Israel and Palestine, the American President is today in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.  Even having read what Joe Biden wrote in the Washington Post on July 9, to try to justify his voyage, I am one of those who do not agree with the political opportunity of this trip. I see it as a move of mere opportunism.

In the present context of confrontation with Russia, the trip weakens those who use the arguments of respect for international law, democracy and human rights. The Middle East is a maze of problems with no solution in sight. A geopolitical labyrinth where, among others, the United States is also lost. In the region, in addition to the suffering in the countries visited and in occupied Palestine, we still have the inhuman violence of the Syrian regime, with a fratricidal war that has dragged on since 2011, the barbarity of the conflict in Yemen, the chaos in Lebanon, the Iranian threat, the oppression of the Kurdish populations, fundamentalist extremism and the deadly rivalries between Sunnis and Shiites. It is a question of dealing with a powder keg that explodes according to the interests of the different local or international players.

A visit that does not bring any kind of response to the Palestinian question, to the obscurantism and cruelty of the Saudi regime, or to the containment of the Iranian threat, can only be noted in the negative. Biden was in Israel with the November mid-term elections in his country in mind and to please a part of his domestic voter base. And he is in Saudi Arabia to seek to increase oil production in order to contain the price of a barrel. This is also an electoral concern: the cost of petrol, when it comes time to fill up the tank, is a strong political argument in the USA. But it will not be easy to convince the Saudis, who are already adding 400,000 barrels a day more compared to what they were doing in February. Note, moreover, that Saudi daily production is now equivalent to Russian, both occupying (almost ex aequo) second place in the world.

Israel is not comparable to Saudi Arabia. But the systematic violation of the rights of Palestinians is one of the strongest arguments used by those who accuse the US of using a double-edged sword in international relations. The Palestinian cause has for decades been one of the most important thorns in the throat of those who speak of the need to respect the international order and the rights of oppressed peoples. You can't fight for that in the case of Ukraine and turn a blind eye when it comes to the same in Palestine.

Saudi Arabia is a country of contradictions. Modern in technology, medieval in the rights of women, of poor immigrant workers or in the treatment of political opposition. The Crown Prince, Mohammed bin Salman, personifies well these contradictions and the brutality of the regime. He will go down in history for having had opposition journalist Jamal Khashoggi murdered and hacked to pieces in 2018. Joe Biden had said during his election campaign that this crime had turned Saudi Arabia into a pariah state. Today, he will shake hands with the ringleader of the killers and discuss cooperation and oil. The prince will look good in the photo, even more arrogant than usual. The American president, on the other hand, will be more vulnerable.

It is time to repeat that in international politics not everything counts. And to underline once again that believing in principles has a cost. The narrative has to become clearer. Political leadership will only be credible if it is coherent. Spending time thinking about the next elections, political manoeuvring and expedients that vary according to the interests at stake may lead to the re-election of presidents, prime ministers and secretaries-general, but it does not contribute to solving the major problems. The current crises, in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, Sri Lanka, Pakistan or Myanmar, in parts of Africa or Central America, as well as in the field of climate change, nature conservation or food insecurity and the fight against poverty, should teach us to be truthful, responsible and courageous. In these times of great problems, this way of doing politics is the greatest challenge.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 15 July 2022)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Asking a few questions

A very unusual year: where are we heading to?

Victor Angelo

 

The Russian Armed Forces are currently firing thousands of shells a day at Ukraine. My friend Zulmiro, who is, and always has been, a primary communist militant, is not bothered by this volume of daily destruction. For him, every Ukrainian is a Nazi. Although he cannot explain the concept of Nazism in the year 2022, the accusation, imprecise as it is, justifies everything and tidies up the matter. It is impossible to argue with him, despite many decades of friendship. In view of this, and moving to a more general level, I ask how it will be possible to launch a process of negotiations between the Ukrainian leadership and Zulmiro's idols in the Holy of Holies, the Kremlin? That is one of the big questions of the moment. There is talk of diplomacy, but that, what does it mean?

Meanwhile, the Russian gamble continues to be on force, terror, and violation of the international order. Vladimir Putin and his men want the annihilation of the Ukrainian state and the surrender of its leaders. To achieve this, they will continue to machine gun and wipe out Ukraine. Systematically and intensely, with total inhumanity and a great sense of urgency, to weaken the Ukrainians' capacity for resistance and legitimate defence to the utmost before the promised arms arrive from Western countries.

Many do not want to look seriously at the question of self-defence, preferring, on our side, the comfortable ambiguity proper to nations well established in life. On the one hand, we help the victim and, on the other, we try not to harass the aggressor beyond the limits that could jeopardise our peace of mind. We keep repeating that we are not at war with the Putin regime, a half-truth which certainly makes him laugh with irony. He is at war with us, and he knows that the wars of today can be fought with missiles and cannons, as in the case of Ukraine, or with power cuts, cyber sabotage, disinformation, financing of extremist groups, and much more.

Self-defence raises a strategic question: either we ally ourselves with the aggressed, the weaker, or tomorrow it will be our turn. We may be on the verge of the decisive moment: to support with a new kind of intensity or just with minimal costs?

Looking further ahead, I would say that it has been decades since the international situation reached such a dangerous point as now. On top of a pandemic that has paralysed the world, we now have a combination of very serious conflicts and tensions. In Ukraine, Yemen, around Iran, in and around Burkina Faso, Libya, Myanmar, in addition to the never-ending crises in Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, Congo (DRC) and others.

In the most developed countries, people are coming out of the peak of the health crisis with a very acute consumerist fever. The issue of global warming, and the accelerated destruction of nature, has disappeared from the radar of citizens and the speeches of politicians. Even Greta Thunberg, who had mobilised global attention in the period before the pandemic, can not make herself heard.

Then came war, thanks to the imperialist and dictatorial madness of Vladimir Putin. I am sorry to say to the analysts who talk about these things that this is not a geostrategic issue. Putin wants to be the Tsar Peter the Great of our times, when he may end up being seen as the little Hitler of 2022.

Meanwhile, the tension between the US and China has entered a far more dangerous phase. And the impoverishment of the most vulnerable countries, something that has disappeared from the fat print of newspapers, is accelerating. In Sri Lanka, the Sahel countries, Central America, Haiti, and Pakistan, to name but a few. And the economies of the richest nations are increasingly living off the debt of future generations, amidst inflation that shows the mismatches between production, imports, and consumption patterns. Meanwhile, multilateral organisations continue to lose strength and image.

We are at a crossroads of critical uncertainties and serious risks. Where are we heading to? And where are the visionary leaders capable of proposing common-sense paths?

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 18 June 2022)

 

Ukraine: what's next, after 100 days of agression?

Ukraine: looking beyond 100 days of aggression

Victor Angelo

President Zelensky has stressed that the war will only end with recourse to diplomacy. He is right. He needs to build a peace agreement with the aggressor. This will not be easy. The agreement cannot reward what has been a clear violation of international law, a succession of war crimes, destruction, and acts of pillage. This is the great dilemma, which makes any mediation process a puzzle. In this scenario, an agreement will only be possible between a position of strength and one of weakness. This is a dramatic conclusion. It leads to the search for the crushing or humiliation of the adversary. 

At the outset, one would say that prolonging hostilities is to the advantage of the stronger side. The courage and determination of the Ukrainians would not be enough to respond effectively to a prolonged offensive conducted with unbridled brutality.

It is in this context that external aid is essential. Neither the US nor the EU countries can let Vladimir Putin's Russia defeat Ukraine. If that were to happen, peace, security and democracy in Europe would be seriously undermined. Now it would be Ukraine, tomorrow it could be Poland, Lithuania, or any other country in our geopolitical space. Or we would simply continue to live side by side with a neighbour always ready to do us harm.

Thus, each bloc must assist Ukraine with the means available. On the American side, it has now been decided to provide an arsenal of advanced technology and long-range weapons. The admonitions coming from Moscow following this decision by Joe Biden found an answer in the text that the President signed this Tuesday in the New York Times: it is not about seeking a war between NATO and Russia. The aim is to enable the Ukrainians to have the means to exercise their right to self-defence.

On the European side, the package of sanctions adopted this week at the European Council should be seen in a positive light. It goes as far as the consensus allows. What is essential is that it is finalised without further delay - Hungary continues to put up obstacles - and applied at an accelerated pace.

Even more important is the agreement between the EU and the UK that makes it impossible for ships carrying Russian oil products to insure their cargoes in London and the rest of Europe. Without such insurance contracts, the big shipping lines are no longer able to operate in the service of Russian exports. Experience with Iran shows that such a measure sharply reduces oil exports. This is certainly one of the sanctions so far with the greatest impact.

As I have said several times, sanctions have fundamentally three objectives. To express political condemnation. To reduce the financial capacity that sustains the war machine. And to disconnect the Russian Federation from more developed economies, to emphasise that there is a connection between respect for international law and participation in global markets.

Sanctions should be part of a future negotiation of normalising relations. But they can only be lifted when the Kremlin is no longer seen by Europe and its allies as an unpredictable and threatening regime.

In addition to arms and sanctions, it will be necessary to continue financial support to Ukraine. This support is a potentially delicate matter at a time of relatively anaemic economic growth in Europe and when the rising cost of living is becoming a major concern. But it is the price we have to pay to maintain our stability and security. It is an effort that will last for some time. Later, when entering the negotiation phase, the mediators will have to include on the agenda the issue of war reparations and the financing of Ukraine's reconstruction.  

On this 100th day of the aggression, we are facing a very complex situation. Future scenarios, especially for the next three weeks, should include several concerns. But for now, the priority challenges are four: immediately strengthening Ukraine's defence capacity; deepening isolation and weakening Russia's public finances; maintaining unity amongst us; and continuing to insist on the diplomacy of peace.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated  3 June 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)

 

 

International dialogues at the beginning of the New Year

From nuclear power to Europe's affirmation and credibility

Victor Angelo

 

The joint statement on nuclear war prevention issued this week by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council is a good start to the new year. It is the first time that China, the United States, France, the United Kingdom and Russia have pledged to avoid a nuclear conflict between them, unambiguously acknowledging that such a confrontation has no winners and therefore should not occur. They also affirm that their nuclear weapons are for deterrence only and that they will continue to negotiate to end competition between them with regard to such weapons. And they set nuclear disarmament as a long-term goal.

At a time when there are very serious rivalries between some of these countries, what value can be given to such a declaration? It is easy to answer with scepticism, given the current international situation, which includes very serious tensions around, among other cases, Ukraine and Taiwan. And which registers an enormous increase in military spending and innovation by the big three: China, the United States and Russia. Furthermore, on a global level, it is experiencing a period of unprecedented uncertainty for the current generations, with risks and dangers that could profoundly destabilise the fragile world political and economic order.

It is better, however, at this start of the year, to take an optimistic view and underline the positive side of the declaration. The agreement on nuclear danger could mean that there is understanding and realism at the level of the leaders of the great powers that continuing on the path of confrontation will bring enormous costs for all. In reality, an armed conflict between some of these countries would be a catastrophe of unimaginable proportions, given the existing capacity for destruction. There are no small, controlled wars between colossuses. If a first shot were to be fired, it would always be a major war.

In a scenario of complex crises such as the present, 2022 must be a year of dialogue and reinforced international cooperation, in the most promising areas. This is what is required of those who call the shots in this world.

The negotiations that will begin next week in Geneva and Brussels between Russia, the USA and NATO do not offer much hope at the outset. Yet they are important. Several decades of work on the international scene have taught me that most negotiations start with very low expectations. Over time, they can turn into positive exercises. To get results, you have to be patient and persevering. And keep the contact at the highest level and focus on what is essential.

The European institutions complain about not being included in the talks with Russia. Especially since the discussion will be about security and stability in Europe. Also, because many in the EU consider normalising the relationship with Russia as a mutually advantageous priority.

I think it is a mistake that President Biden has not insisted on European participation. He knows that weakening the EU is one of the Russian leader's strategic machinations. Putin wants a Europe that is as fragmented as possible. He has now scored an important point.

It is not enough to say that 21 out of 27 EU members are also members of NATO and that Europe is therefore well represented. There can be no illusions here: it is the USA and a few Eastern European states that define Russian NATO policy. Nor is it an argument that the EU has no common position on Russia. The preparation of such negotiations would be a catalyst moment to advance the definition of the European position.

It is still possible to make amends. NATO's foreign ministers are meeting today by video conference to discuss the dossier. It would be appropriate for several of them to raise the issue of EU involvement. And that they continue to do so in the days to come. The affirmation and credibility of the European project would thus be strengthened.

 

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 7 January 2022)

Christmas reflection

Peace. Dignity. Equality. Planet.

Victor Angelo

 

On this Christmas Eve, it seems appropriate to recall the current motto of the United Nations: "Peace, dignity and equality on a healthy planet". It is a call for the implementation of policies that place people and nature at the centre of public interventions. It expresses well the wishes that I would like to leave here.

We live in a complex reality, full of real concerns and dangers. The UN itself appears to many to have been weakened and marginalized. In this context, it is easy to lose hope, to confuse realism with pessimism, and to fall into an attitude of every man for himself, each behind his own walls. There is also the temptation to recover the growth that the pandemic caused to be lost with economic programmes based on unsustainable recipes. In other words, without considering the long-term consequences, the excessive debt that will burden future generations, the environmental commitments, and the need to transform the way we live and how we relate to other societies, especially the less developed ones. Electoralism turns democracy into an exercise of political opportunism.

Russian demands and military manoeuvres are the most immediate threat to peace. I wrote about this last week. Since then, Putin's stated conditions - and the language used - have become even more categorical and unacceptable. And military preparations have intensified. We are two days away - 26 December - from the thirtieth anniversary of the demise of the Soviet Union. A historic moment, seen by Putin as the great tragedy of millenarian Russia.  

What are the reasons behind the present Russian escalation?

That is the big question, far beyond the old tape of the narrative about NATO's eastward expansion. The most plausible answer will be to ask heaven and earth, to get a no, and thus create a pretext to annex part of Ukraine. And, at the same time, reaffirm the determination and strength of the Kremlin.

But what is Putin's strategic objective?

Strengthening his control of domestic politics will not be a sufficient explanation, even if we recognise that there is a marked erosion of his popularity. It has been seen: last September's parliamentary elections were a massive exercise in deceit and coercion to hide the extent of popular discontent.

It could then be an attempt to paralyse NATO by dividing it, showing its weaknesses. At the same time, it will send a signal to the Baltic countries. And still, that one does not make policy in the immediate vicinity of Russia without the green light from the Kremlin. 

Whatever the intention, we must insist on peaceful coexistence in Europe. On mutual concessions. As indeed in other parts of the world. In Syria, at war for more than ten years. In Palestine, in the Sahel, in Central Africa, in Ethiopia, in Myanmar, in Yemen. Today is the day to mention again these and other places that have been so afflicted.

Dignity and equality mean respecting the basic rights of every person, as defined in the 1949 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the additional conventions and protocols. The proclamation that "all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights" and have "the right to life, liberty and security of person" applies to humanity, regardless of the specific contexts of each nation.

I recognize that the vision that inspired the Universal Declaration places the individual at the centre of rights, while in certain cultures the well-being of the community is presented as having primacy. In one case and in the other, it is about people, the protection of their lives and their creativity. There are no cultural differences there.

On the planet, a little more than a month after the COP26, just a few words to share a thought of solidarity with the thousands of victims of the recent natural disasters. The floods in South Sudan, with entire regions submerged and misery transformed into despair. The typhoons in the Philippines. The tornadoes in the USA. Extreme climatic phenomena are becoming more and more overwhelming. Let us remember, in relation to this great challenge and the others, that this must be the time of rebirth.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 24 December 2021)

Biden and Putin: they have the keys

Biden and Putin: an indispensable dialogue

Victor Angelo

 

When leaders like Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin spend two hours in a frontal discussion, we, simple mortals, can look at it positively, even when the results seem uncertain. I have always argued that major crises should be directly discussed between those who actually hold power. Leaving such crises to be dealt with at the level of foreign ministers, however experienced, is not enough. So often it only serves to aggravate misunderstandings and pander to extreme positions. We often see ministers who are more papist than the Pope. Even when they foresee solutions, they do not dare mention them, for fear of the leader's reaction. It is up to the leader to send appeasement signals, to show the way and mark the bounds, which are now known as "red lines".

That is what Biden and Putin sought to do. And this is the way they should continue, preferably in personal meetings. Diplomacy is done with handshakes. Even in times of pandemic. Leaders know this. That is why Emmanuel Macron was in the Emirates and Saudi Arabia a few days ago, with much success, regarding the French war industries - and much criticism from human rights activists. And Pope Francis, who does not stop despite apparent physical frailty, went to Cyprus and Greece. Vladimir Putin himself made a lightning trip to India on Monday to spend a few hours strengthening relations with Narendra Modi, encouraging trade and, above all, deepening political-military cooperation.

A positive outlook does not prevent us from seeing the gravity of the current situation. The massive deployment of troops and exceptional logistical means in Russian regions close to the eastern border of Ukraine makes one think, whether one likes it or not, of the preparation of a military offensive. That is the interpretation that prevails in the main European capitals and in Washington. Some academics and others with an open window to the media street say it is a way for Moscow to apply pressure, to get certain political guarantees coming from the opposite side. That may be so. But the truth is that this reading is not accepted by Western leaders, who see in Russia's military moves all the signs of a short-term warlike action against Ukraine. The pretext for such action would be to counter a hypothetical campaign by Kiev against the pro-Russian separatists who control the Donetsk and Lugansk regions of Ukraine. The Kremlin swears it has no intention of intervening militarily, but this message does not get through, because of the extraordinary degree of mobilisation on the ground. Putin needs more than solemn declarations on the right to homeland defence, a statement that makes no sense since nobody intends to invade this or any other part of the Russian Federation. 

Indeed, Russians and Westerners need to get out of the trap they have let themselves fall into, especially since 2013, as if there should be a permanent hostility between the two. Unfortunately, it seems that only demonstrations of force make eyes open. So, on the Western side, there is now a threat that has been clearly explained to Putin. But it is not a military threat. It would be a package of measures that would have a huge impact on the Russian economy, which is no longer in good health. Russia would be cut off from a large part of the international financial and payment systems, which are in fact controlled by the Americans, it would have immense difficulties in changing its roubles into euros and dollars, not to mention other restrictions in terms of investment, trade, and travel to Europe. Biden was very shrewd in his approach. Before and after his conversation with Putin, he involved Germany, France, Italy, and the United Kingdom in the consultation. We have a cohesion of five. For prudence's sake, I believe, it does not include Poland or any other Eastern European country. It is clearly an agreement that tells us that we are at a dangerous crossroads and that the continuation of the conversation between the leaders is the indispensable way forward. 

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 10 December 2021)

 

 

The Demcracy Summit and its question marks

We are all for democracy

Victor Angelo

 

President Biden is organising a virtual summit on 9th and 10th for democracy. It will be the first of two. The aim of the summit is to get each leader to announce measures to strengthen democracy in their respective countries. The second, in a year's time, will take stock of the promises made next week. The US will also make commitments. We will see which ones, because in recent years the American democracy has shown worrying weaknesses. The US is one of the countries in democratic decline according to this year's report by the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA), an authoritative organisation based in Stockholm.

At first, I thought the initiative was a mistake, a further attempt to create divisions within the community of nations and a further stab at the multilateral system. But given that the international democratic climate has taken serious steps backwards recently, in the end I decided to give Biden the benefit of the doubt. And I, like many others, await the results. Anything that can contribute to the strengthening of fundamental rights and better governance will be welcome. As will a discussion on the impact of the digital revolution on political choices and the liberation of citizens' voices.

Such a meeting is, however, a big deal. The list of those excluded will give as much to talk about as the topics under debate. The UN has 193 member states. Biden invited about 110. In the EU, Viktor Orbán was left out, thus giving a strong argument to those who see the Hungarian leader for what he really is: an autocrat. But Poland, which is certainly not a better example of the rule of law, is on the list. The reason seems clear: Warsaw is a faithful, and increasingly strong, military ally of American policy in Eastern Europe. Still regarding NATO, Recep Tayyib Erdogan does not appear on the list either. Most probably because the Americans do not appreciate his political-military closeness to Vladimir Putin. Erdoğan has become a stone in NATO's boot and that makes many people uncomfortable. In the case of the CPLP, the Portuguese-speaking community of States, the exclusion of the two Guineas - Bissau and Equatorial Guinea - is understandable. But one wonders why the White House did not invite Mozambique.

Neither China nor Russia will take part in the meeting. Their respective ambassadors in Washington co-signed an article condemning the summit. Then came other criticisms, in Beijing and Moscow. China, which is furious that Taiwan was invited, asserts that it is a socialist democracy, widely supported by the population - today no one talks about the dictatorship of the proletariat anymore. Russia goes further and claims a parliamentary system that is over 100 years old, which includes the entire era of Stalin and company. Both regimes swear blindly that they are democratic, each in its own way. And that the summit is therefore arrogant, divisive, and in essence a provocation against China and Russia.

Democracy is a very elastic concept. No dictator will ever acknowledge that his regime is undemocratic. On the contrary, they all maintain that they were democratically elected. So say Vladimir Putin, Alexander Lukashenko, Nicolás Maduro, Bashar al-Assad and many others. Even Robert Mugabe, in his time, said that the elections, which he stole by stealth, were perfectly legitimate and free. So did others, whom I have come to know during my professional life and after having witnessed various electoral shenanigans. The only one who will have no such worries will be Kim Jong-un, the comic-tragic despot of North Korea.

The issues under discussion - how to curb authoritarianism; the fight against corruption; and the defence of human rights - are fundamental pillars of democracy, let there be no doubt. Where there will certainly be room for doubt is when we learn of the commitments that certain countries will proclaim, thinking that all this is just talk. Even so, it may be worth going ahead with the summit, because progress is also made with idealistic initiatives.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 3 December 2021)

 

 

China and the COP process

More solar panels and fewer nuclear warheads

Victor Angelo

 

It is true that the Chinese president did not come to the COP26 summit. But it is also a fact that Xi Jinping has not travelled out of the country since January 2020, because of an extraordinarily stiff official interpretation of what the fight against the coronavirus pandemic should be.

The American president took advantage of his counterpart's absence to criticise him openly. I think this was a mistake. Joe Biden should seek to build bridges with China rather than new fronts of conflict. There are already enough points of friction between the two countries. It is not wise to add this one.

The global fight against climate change needs everyone's cooperation. Including China, which emits about a quarter of the world's total carbon dioxide, although in per capita terms the impact of each Chinese person is half that of the average American. This reminds us, moreover, that the wealthiest are those who contribute most to global warming and that a large part of the response must be based on this observation.

It should also be added that President Xi did not ignore the summit. He sent a written communication, which I felt was relevant in several respects.

First, because he stressed the need to respect the commitments already made, both in the UN Climate Change Framework Convention and in the 2015 Paris Agreement. His statement was a clear call for the strengthening of multilateral responses through the United Nations system. It was also a call for the deepening of mutual trust between states, which is so sorely needed. This is a key issue that the UN Secretary-General could explore in order to make his role more central and more action oriented. 

Second, because President Xi mentioned the need for an extra effort by all, in particular the most developed countries. Here he referred to the aid that has been promised and should be given to the poorest countries to mitigate the catastrophic effects of climate change and significantly increase their peoples' access to renewable sources of energy.

Third, because he said clearly that the community of nations must accelerate the green transition. In his view, this means increasing investment in science and technology in order to achieve industrial transformation and the types of energy and consumption that are best suited to safeguarding the environment, without jeopardizing economic development. There is a half-truth here, based on the theory that scientific progress is the best response to environmental challenges. This position does not take into account that economic growth policies must change and that the behaviour of people in the richest countries, including China, cannot be based solely on the continued increase in consumption and material well-being.

In the final part of his communication, Xi Jinping referred to a number of measures that his government is already conducting or will adopt in order to reduce the carbon footprint. He did not say this now, but he had already informed the UN General Assembly that the official Chinese ambition is to reach carbon neutrality by 2060. To this, one could reply that China has the means to achieve this neutrality much sooner. And it should do so, taking advantage of the moment to show that China can also play a leading role in this area. The country has the necessary knowledge and means. It would be a matter of investing less in the war industries and more in energy transformation. A nation that plans to have a nuclear arsenal of at least a thousand nuclear warheads in 2030 - five times more than in 2020 - and a whole arsenal of hypersonic weapons, bombers, aircraft carriers and submarines with nuclear capability, has all the conditions to also be an example in terms of managing carbon emissions. It is time to show that the defence of the planet and peace are two interconnected issues. Global leadership should focus on this.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 5 November 2021)

 

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)

 

 

Our strategic fragility: a key example

Taiwan so close

Victor Ângelo 

Taiwan is part of our everyday life. This is because the company that produces almost all of the chips used in electronics, mobile phones, robots and cars is Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC). An omnipresent but discreet colossus, worth twice the GDP of Portugal on the stock exchange. And it is pertinent to write about it this week, when there is so much talk about China.

Since TSMC produces over 90% of the latest generation of microprocessors and is located in Taiwan, it is at the centre of the Sino-American rivalry. This is a major critical point. If there were a conflict over Taiwan tomorrow, the worldwide availability of chips would plummet. This would mean the immediate paralysis of motor vehicle factories, computers, mobile phones, highly sophisticated financial operations, and everything related to the use of micro and nano transistors. In other words, it would be economic and social chaos.

Analysts looking at these things say that TSMC is the invisible shield protecting Taiwan. It may be, to some extent. And TSMC is betting on it: it plans to invest, over the next three years, $100 billion in expanding its scientific and technological capacity. More chips, infinitely tiny and of an extraordinarily more powerful artificial intelligence. The figures give an idea of what is at stake. They also show that national defence policy involves the development of an ultra-modern economy that creates strategic dependencies in other parts of the world. 

It is therefore neither in the interest of Beijing nor of others to destabilise Taiwan. At least not for the next seven to ten years. But this absolute dependence on a single company is also the greatest exponent of the fragility of the major global balances. It is the result of decades of ultraliberalism and the relocation of production, all of which is out of step with what should be geostrategic concerns. The prevailing philosophy led us to believe that commercial interdependence would erase the rivalries between the great blocs of nations. We now know that this is an illusion. The biggest wars of the last 100 years were started by self-centred madmen who did not take into account the economic - nor the human - impact of their decisions. I do not think Xi Jinping falls into that category, despite the words and tone he used yesterday about Taiwan at the Chinese Communist Party's centenary celebration. But it is also true that it would only take a highly sophisticated hacker attack against one section of TSMC to bring thousands of production chains that are dependent on the availability of chips to a halt.

Joe Biden understands that the United States cannot, in this vital area, remain totally dependent on Taiwan and on one company alone. The industrial plan he has just proposed envisages an investment of $50 billion to stimulate domestic chip production. To that will be added many billions from the private sector. The truth is that much of the scientific design work in this field is done by world-renowned American companies - for example, Intel Corp, Nvidia Corp, Qualcomm or Cisco Systems Inc. But separating design from production has led to extreme vulnerability. It is a bit like designing highly effective weapons and asking others to manufacture them and then supply us.

The European Union must follow a similar path. One of the starting points should be to build on what ASML Holding NV already represents. This Dutch company is dominant in the production of the machinery needed to manufacture semiconductors. The ambition is to produce in Europe as early as 2030, in addition to the machines, at least 20% of the new generation of semiconductors. This is a modest target, but it will still require huge investments in Europe's digital industries. The amount currently foreseen - around €150 billion - is insufficient when compared to what TSMC and South Korea's Samsung - the second largest chip producer - have in the pipeline. However, European sovereignty, including its defence, requires a decisive presence in the industries linked to digitalisation. 

(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)

 

 

Lowering the tension between Russia and the West

Russia and us: maximum prudence and lots of diplomacy

Victor Angelo

 

There are some intellectuals out there with a broken compass. They have shown again this loss of reference points in the way they have reacted to the criticism made to Alexander Lukashenko, the post-Soviet relic who controls the destiny of Belarus since 1994. A character who meets all the requirements that characterize a dictator. He will not have the stature of Vladimir Putin or Xi Jinping, nor the madness of Kim Jong-un, or a strategic vision that goes beyond the simple obsession with perpetuating himself in power. He is a tiny tyrant who, at his manner, ruins the freedoms and the lives of his fellow citizens. This evidence escapes some. With their gaze fixed on the past, they play at being progressive and see in him a heroic survivor of the communist era, a would-be resistor to the imperialist designs of the West. And they swallow all the falsehoods that this variant of Salazar, a version with a moustache and a brute, invents to justify his actions. In particular, the criminal action against the Ryanair commercial flight, and the lies built around Roman Protasevich. They ignore, at the same time, everything that the European leaders have said on the subject. 

The same has been true of the propaganda coming from the Kremlin. For some of our bewildered people, Putin is always right, when he attacks our part of the world. The explanation is the same, although in a strengthened dose, that the Kremlin has a more symbolic meaning and touches the soul of those nostalgic for the Soviet Union more than Minsk.

The truth is different, however. Putin is a threat. Like other despots, his power strategy is to create an external enemy, so as to allow him to appear, in the eyes of his own, as the defender of the homeland, its traditional values, and its nationalist projection as a great power. In this plan, everything that emerges as internal opposition, and that could jeopardize Putin's future, is accused of being at the service of foreign powers and pursued with all ferocity.

The external target par excellence is NATO. And the rhetoric from Moscow, which some here faithfully echo, attributes to the Atlantic Alliance the design of wanting to camp along the Russian borders. It is the alleged eastward expansion of NATO. There are four member states that share border lines with Russia: Poland and Lithuania, which are neighbours of Kaliningrad, a highly militarized Russian enclave, plus Latvia and Estonia. These countries joined NATO by their own will and because they meet the conditions required by the organization: a democratic political system, based on a market economy and respect for people's rights; and the existence of an effective defence structure duly framed by a legitimate political power. It is essentially about democracy and sovereignty. It is this sovereignty - the ability of each country to decide freely on its foreign alliances - that Putin does not want to accept being practiced by Georgia and, above all, Ukraine. Since he has no such right, he uses intimidation, trickery and, when necessary, force as an alternative. 

Those who live in an outdated ideological labyrinth do not understand these things. They pay no attention to the voices coming from the European camp, even though our leaders have the democratic legitimacy that dictators lack. Nor do they care that our side has unsuccessfully sought to revive the NATO-Russia Council, an essential consultative body for détente. The last meeting of that Council took place in July 2019. Further, Russia was invited to send military observers to the allied exercise SteadFast Defender 2021, which is taking place across Europe and with a special focus on the Black Sea. It did not respond to the invitation.

The current conjuncture is worrisome. Tension between the two sides of Europe is as it has never been in the last 30 years. In such a context, the summit planned for June 16 in Geneva between the American and Russian presidents is going to be very difficult. It is urgent to defuse the existing dangerous situation, so this meeting will require maximum diplomacy and prudence.

(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)