Gaza and the International Criminal Court

Articial Intelligence translation of my opinion piece of this week published in Portuguese in daily national newspaper Diário de Notícias (26 JAN 2024)

Gaza: an earthquake in international politics

Victor Angelo

The Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs was in Brussels this week, at the invitation of Josep Borrell. The purpose was to allow the minister to discuss three major issues with his European counterparts: the dramatic situation in which the population of Gaza finds itself, within the framework of the enormous military intervention ordered by Benjamin Netanyahu; the requirements for an immediate ceasefire; and the dimensions and phases of preparing a peace plan.

Borrell was aware of Security Council Resolution 2720 (2023), which approved on December 22 the implementation of humanitarian pauses and the opening of corridors that would allow essential goods for their survival to be delivered to the inhabitants of Gaza. The Security Council had recognized the extreme urgency of humanitarian assistance.

A month later, it is undeniable that the situation continues to worsen. Israel reveals absolute disrespect for the Security Council. Controls became even tighter. The hundreds of humanitarian trucks that should enter Gaza daily are faced with a tragically different reality. Borrell mentioned that the average would be around eighty trucks a day. Calls for “humanitarian pauses” have been met with an intensification of military operations and the continuation of attacks against civilian targets, including UN installations, which prefigure war crimes. Resolution 2720 has been simply ignored, despite its mandatory nature.

Regarding peace, the approach proposed by Europeans would be multidimensional. The first concern would be the creation of a sovereign State of Palestine, capable of peacefully coexisting with the State of Israel. This idea is nothing new. It was approved in 1947 by the United Nations General Assembly (Resolution 181) and reaffirmed in the 1993 Oslo Accords and at the Camp David Summit in the USA in 2000. But it never went beyond paper, with both sides accusing each other for failures.

The international community is firmly committed to this solution – two independent states. This is the only viable, albeit complex, solution that can lead to the construction of a peaceful neighbourhood. It will only happen if there is an unquestionable commitment from interested parties, as well as from countries in the region and the main members of the UN. It needs, above all, Israeli and Palestinian leaders of exceptional vision and calibre.

The current Israeli government does not accept this solution. And contrary to the Palestinian National Authority, there are Palestinian extremists who also do not accept it. This shows that the tragedy that is taking place in Gaza, and to a certain extent in the other occupied Palestinian territories, in the West Bank, can seriously contribute to a radicalization of positions.

The Israeli minister did not understand the message that awaited him in Brussels. He talked nonsense about strange, meaningless things, such as the construction of an artificial island off Gaza and a railway corridor that would connect this territory to the rest of Palestine. In my opinion, it was a way of conveying to Europeans a clear position from the Netanyahu government, for whom the EU is seen as a featherweight.

Borrell responded, at the press conference after the meeting, that Europe has “a moral responsibility”. He spoke of looking for a path to peace. I would respond that the moral responsibility that must weigh on our consciences is not only to fight for peace, but also to ensure that humanitarian laws and the laws of war are respected. And bring individuals suspected of having violated these international rules to the attention of Karim Ahmad Khan, the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC). That's what the ICC is for, to judge political leaders. It is a separate instance from the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which judges conflicts between States, as is now the case of South Africa against Israel and which today issues a first Order on the accusation of genocide. Khan, who is a British citizen, was very active in the case of the accusations against Vladimir Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova. He did what he was expected to do. But he has been as low as a stone in the face of the atrocities committed on October 7th and ever since. The credibility of the ICC is thus called into question.

We live in a time of great dangers and enormous challenges. Anyone who has their eyes open and sees beyond their parish knows that this is the case. Extraordinary times require extraordinary political courage. And serious justice, impartial and expeditious.

The Suwalki Gap and Lithuania's mistake

Lithuania and Borrell erred, must make amends

Victor Angelo

The European Union's High Representative for Foreign Policy Josep Borrell considers the Lithuanian decision to ban the transit through its territory of certain goods in circulation between other parts of Russia and the Russian region of Kaliningrad as correct. Borrell further clarifies that the ban only includes goods that are on the EU's sanctions list. That is, steel and other metals, construction materials, technological items and soon coal and later oil. Borrell seeks to protect Lithuania by saying that the decision of that country's government merely complies with what had been approved at European level. The ban covers about 50% of rail and road traffic between Kaliningrad and the rest of Russia. It does not concern the passage of persons, which remains open, albeit with some long-standing restrictions.

While I have great respect for the Lithuanian government's determination, I see the measure as a serious mistake. And I do not agree with Borrell's and others' defence of it. The sanctions adopted by the EU do include a clear reference to the transit of goods. But what is happening in the Suwalki corridor - the 65 km long strip of land linking Kaliningrad with Belarus and then the rest of Russia - is different from the transit of goods for import or export reasons. The sanctions clearly concern Russia's foreign trade. In the case in question, it is a matter of allowing movement between two parts of the same country. The issue should therefore be seen as a matter for the Russian domestic economy and thus outside the restrictions imposed by Brussels.

Moreover, all this has a very delicate political connotation. This opens up a new front for direct confrontation between the EU and Russia. It is particularly dangerous and distracts us from the fundamental, urgent, priority concern, which is to focus all our energies on supporting Ukraine and its legitimate defence efforts. It is dangerous because it gives Russia an easy pretext to exploit for a very strong offensive against Lithuania, a member of NATO. However, Lithuania, like its two neighbours to the north, Latvia and Estonia, is very difficult to defend. Several strategic exercises, simulated at the highest level of NATO command - I had the opportunity to participate in some - have repeatedly shown the extreme fragility of any of these three countries, in the case of a hostile military intervention coming from the neighbourhood. They are small territories, without strategic depth, easy to occupy. We have thus opened a conflict at a weak point in our defence space. This is certainly not an intelligent strategic decision, let alone a wise one. Moreover, there was no need for it.

At this point it remains to be seen what kind of retaliation the Kremlin will adopt. But the partial blockade of Kaliningrad is seen in Moscow as something very serious. And that makes me quite worried. In all likelihood, Vladimir Putin will respond to this challenge on the very eve of the NATO summit, due to take place in Madrid from 28 to 30 June.

Borrell should be advised to review his position on this partial blockade without delay. There must be courage and common sense in the key countries of the European Union to say, loud and clear, that the moment demands prudence and a calm understanding of what is appropriate and a priority. It is clear that Mr Borrell and all the others are expected to unequivocally condemn Russian policy and the war of aggression against Ukraine and to speak clearly on the issues of food safety and respect for the international order. They must demonstrate European firmness, defend our interests and counteract the disinformation campaigns that Russia is carrying out in North Africa, sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East. But always with the concern to be seen as representatives of a Union that wants peace and respect for the rules of good neighbourliness. And which knows how to rectify its mistakes.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 24 June 2022)

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)

 

 

Europe and the world: what must be done

Europe's strategic autonomy

Victor Ângelo

 

Tianjin is a port city, a little more than a hundred kilometres southeast of Beijing. When the European powers established concessions in China, since the middle of the 19th century, this was one of the localities chosen as a gateway, with the advantage of being close to the capital. Today, it is a metropolitan zone that covers an area larger than the district of Beja - imagine the entire Baixo Alentejo urbanized, a landscape of skyscrapers with more than 15 million inhabitants. In 2025, Tianjin should have an economy two and a half times the size of Portugal.

The Tianjin example shows how important it is to see the world with realism. China is an unstoppable giant. It has in its favour the size of its population, authoritarian centralism of power, political will, and massive investment in science, technology, and the acquisition of raw materials. In this context, what future can Portugal, or any of most European countries, have in the global balance of power? Fortunately, there is the European Union. The productive integration and the pooling of political efforts allow the member-states to carry some weight in international economic relations and in the geopolitical chess game. If there were no other reason to justify the deepening of the EU, this alone would be enough.

This is where the question of Europe's strategic autonomy arises. It is part of the ritual of the speeches now in vogue. But it needs to be deepened and transformed into an action plan. That is why I will address three aspects of the subject today, leaving the defence and security dimensions for another time.

In this decade, the first major step towards the affirmation of Europe is the strengthening of the euro as an international means of payment as well as a monetary reserve currency. The European currency is already the second most used in global transactions, well above the Japanese yen and the Chinese renminbi, but it is still far behind the US dollar. It is essential, to allow autonomy in other areas of sovereignty, that there be the political will to accelerate the use of the euro in economic and financial relations with the most diverse regions of the globe. This discussion must get on the agenda of European political leaders. This is not a mere technical problem or a question of waiting for the dynamics of the markets. It is a strategic priority.

The second line of intervention concerns foreign policy. At present, except for the climate issue, Europe's position on major issues is defined by two negative features: subordination to the conveniences of the United States and fragmentation, a consequence of the individual interests of the Union's member states. The EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy represents little more than himself. The current holder of the post, Josep Borrell, although more experienced than the two previous holders, does not show the ability to push a proactive and cohesive agenda. This is not the way for the EU to have a greater voice on the global stage. This is another issue that cries out for a new kind of agreement at the level of European political leaderships.

The third course of action became more evident when the pandemic highlighted the importance of self-sufficiency in the production of cutting-edge goods and services. European economies must continually invest in scientific, technological, and digital innovation, and in the training of citizens. The Social Summit held in Porto recognized the need for lifelong learning. This is the new way to look at the competitiveness of our economies. It remains to be determined which sectors should be considered key, in addition to health, the expansion of artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, and energy. 

Strategic autonomy does not exclude interdependence and cooperation between us and others. And it cannot be just talk. It requires clear ideas and appropriate policies. 

 

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

 

 

Our Putin policy

Russia in fat letters

Victor Angelo

 

This week, Vladimir Putin and Russia made headlines again. One of the reasons was the message of congratulations that Putin sent to Joe Biden. The Russian leader turned out to be one of the last heads of state to congratulate the winner of the US elections. The pretext for the delay was to wait for the results of the Electoral College. This formalism, which was impeccable from a legal point of view, but undiplomatic and inconsequential in terms of future relations, barely conceals Putin's preference for Donald Trump. In Moscow's view, Trump's incompetent, incoherent and divisive policy was the one that most weakened the international position of the USA and best served the Russian geopolitical renaissance. Not to mention, of course, the deference that the American always showed for the Kremlin's strong man. 

Putin's message speaks of cooperation and puts his country on a par with the USA, in the very exclusive league of the great states "especially responsible for global security and stability". Putin, always attentive, takes this opportunity to reaffirm his country's indispensable role on the world stage.

In the meantime, other headlines have emerged about Russia. Since March she has been accused of infiltrating the computer systems of several major American targets. The list of federal institutions and private companies violated, as well as the level of refinement used, show the gigantic scale of the operation, which can only have been carried out by the highly specialised services that make up the official Russian espionage web. It is true that other countries are constantly trying to do the same. But the fact is that the Russians have succeeded and for a long time. This can only mean that the leadership invests exceptionally in cyber-espionage. It will never be known exactly what information has been extracted. The hope remains that the volume of data will be of such magnitude that it will eventually overwhelm the analysts. In these matters, it is one thing to obtain information, but another to have the capacity to carry out its analysis, in order to transform it into knowledge and courses of action, and this in good time, which becomes short as soon as the infiltration is discovered.

To complete the bunch, it was simultaneously noticed that the Russians had also pirated the European Medicines Agency. And CNN published a detailed report of the persecution and poisoning of the opposition figure, Alexei Navalny, by Putin's agents. Then came the news about doping and the ban on participation in the next Olympic Games. A series of negative headlines about a regime that loves to sell its image as respectable.  

Amid all this, Europeans extended sanctions against Russia until July 2021. These measures, which come from 2014 and relate to Russian armed intrusions into Ukraine and the occupation of the Crimea, have a narrow scope. They do not include, for example, the suspension of the construction of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, which will link Russia and Germany across the Baltic. Another title of the week was to announce that work on the installation of the pipeline had resumed and had even entered the final phase.

The reality is that EU leaders do not have a clear political vision of what the relationship with Russia should be like. There has been much debate on the issue, including the design of scenarios, but no agreement. The trend seems to me, as we look at the decade ahead, a mixture of deadlock, hesitation, opportunism, mistrust, and detachment. A policy of uncertainties, with Putin setting the pace.

The Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), now with Helga Schmid at the helm, should seek to be the bridge for dialogue between us and Moscow. But not only that. The EU's external agenda needs to define a strategic line on Russia, including proposals for joint action, first in areas of least controversy and serving to build understanding and trust. The same should happen at the military level, both in the EU and NATO. Russia is our massive neighbour. Threatening, certainly, with autocratic leadership, but geographically, culturally, and economically close. A policy of locked doors has no way out.

 

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

 

 

China and Europe: an agenda that differs from the American one

China and us

Victor Angelo

 

China's Foreign Minister Wang Yi spoke this week to the cream of US business leaders based in his country. The focus of his speech was the resumption of political dialogue between China and the United States under Joe Biden. He felt there was an urgent need to restore communication and mutual trust. He hinted that it was time to overcome the lack of objectivity and rationality that had marked Donald Trump's governance.  Apart from the reference to the red line of non-interference in Chinese domestic affairs - that is, Beijing does not want to be talked about human rights - his communication reflected a positive and reassuring official line.

On the same day that Wang spoke, Washington added 14 Chinese personalities to the list of those sanctioned for repression in Hong Kong. In Singapore, US Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross argued to an audience of leaders coming from the region that China would be the main military and economic threat to Asian countries. This is consistent with the Trump team's intention to create a fait accompli that would condition Biden's policy towards China. And I would say that it is managing to reduce, at least for some time, the room for manoeuvre of the new administration. A large part of public opinion and of the US political class share an ideological position of hostility towards China. 

Days before, John Ratcliffe, the director of U.S. National Intelligence and, as such, the supreme coordinator of the country's seventeen espionage and counterintelligence agencies, had published an opinion on China in the Wall Street Journal. Given its author, the text attracted much attention. The song was the same and the title of the article summed it up: "China is the No. 1 threat to national security". In the body of the text, it went further, stating that China would also be the greatest danger to the world’s democracy and freedom. The rest of the writing was an amalgamation of scattered ideas about China’s actions without differentiating well what would be within the domain of national security from the anecdotal or just a fight for the interests of American multinationals.

The legacy that Trump seeks to leave in this matter is also intended to condition the Europeans. He is already achieving this in NATO. The group of experts set up by the Secretary General to reflect on NATO 2030 is co-chaired by the American Wess Mitchell, an intellectual so dear to Trump as hostile to Beijing. The document the group has produced, now under discussion by the Alliance's foreign ministers since the beginning of this month, refers to China as an "acute threat".

However, Europe cannot look to China only from the unique perspective provided by the Americans. Our interests and our geopolitical deployment are different. Nor are we in a race for military power, nor do we have the engines of Chinese aircraft carriers snoring through waters close to us. We know, on the other hand, that you cannot put all the risks in the same bag. Every threat, be it military, political destabilisation, scientific, technological, or economic espionage, in the field of intellectual property or unfair competition, requires specific treatment.

In Europe's case, attention must be focused on three types of action. First, the fight against espionage, intrusion and theft linked to scientific and technological advances. European intelligence services must prepare themselves for this task and cooperate more closely with each other. Secondly, a common frame of reference should be defined to give coherence to the way European states relate to China's politics and economy. In other words, this means that opportunistic relations, and outside that framework, between EU member states and China should be considered unacceptable. Third and foremost, the EU must state clearly that cooperation is the only desirable way forward. So, without calling into question our alliance with the US, and without forgetting that Beijing is a dictatorship, political dialogue with China must seek mutual benefit, the promotion of universal rights and values, and cooperation in tackling major global challenges.

 

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