Supporting Fatou Bensouda

 The sanctions the US has decided to impose on Ms Fatou Bensouda, the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), are an abuse of power. Totally unacceptable, they cannot be supported by any European country. They show, once more, that the current Administration in Washington has little respect for the United Nations and international norms.

The UN Secretary-General said he took note of the American decision. I do not understand what that means. Note of what? Of their lack of respect for the basic principles that should guide their international relations? This statement is too weak. It does no favour to the standing of the Secretary-General.

The Munich Conference and the European views

The US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, addressed the Munich Security Conference today. His line was very clear: the US has not moved away from supporting the European Defence, they remain even more engaged than before. In addition, he expressed the conviction that West is winning in the international arena.

His speech did not generate a lot of enthusiasm. Actually, the participants ‘reaction was very subdued. Polite, but not convinced. The audience’s quietness has shown that the Europeans have serious disagreements about the current Administration’s international politics, including the way it relates to Europe. Among other things, they judge that President Trump is not sincerely committed to collective defence. The NATO exercises, including the large one that is about to start, called DEFENDER-Europe 20, are perceived more as training opportunities for the American troops and less as a demonstration of unity among the allies. Also, those listening to Mr Pompeo have some problems to understand some of President Trump’s approaches to international affairs, in particularly, when it comes to Russia.

Furthermore, the “winning” view expressed by the Secretary of State is not shared by the European leaders. President Macron said it soon after the Pompeo speech. But it is not just the French President that espouses that stance. The German President had stated the same view yesterday, at the opening of the conference.

I take four main points from all of this. First, it is important to continue to assert the European commitment to the alliance with the US. Second, the Europeans should state their views with clarity, particularly when they do not coincide with the decisions and comments coming from Washington. Third, the EU must keep investing on joint military and defence projects. This investment should bring together as many EU countries as possible, knowing that it will not be possible to get all of them to step in, and should be presented as the European pillar of the NATO effort. Fourth, Europe must reach a modus vivendi with Russia and China, that considers the European interests but is not naïve. Russia is our immediate neighbour, which means we must agree on keeping the bordering space between them and us safe and prosperous. China, on the other hand, is a major power in the making. Europe cannot have an indifferent position towards it.  

The EU's position on Iranian matters

As I express my disagreement and concern regarding the decision to execute General Qassem Soleimani, I must also recognise that the regime he spent his life fighting for is an aberration in today’s world.

I acknowledge the rights of the Iranian people to decide about their government and its politics. The problem is that their leaders do not give the people the freedom to choose. The leaders have imposed on the population a religion-based dictatorship, that has all the features of a medieval type of life. The country has become hell on earth, in the name of God. That is unacceptable, in Iran, as well as in the neighbouring countries or anywhere else in the world. And that must be denounced in all kinds of forums. The condemnation is not about religion, it is about making use of religious beliefs to impose a totalitarian regime on people.  

The European approach to such countries must combine pressure on human rights and democratic values with economic restrictions. In addition, it must include serious security measures to avoid those countries’ hostile actions, including the promotion they could make of all kinds of radicalism and religious fanaticism. Our policy must be a delicate mix of firmness, encouragement, dialogue, distance and prudence. In the end, it is about sticks and carrots, but certainly not about drones and bombs. It should also be about helping other countries that want to move away from the influence of those theocratic dictatorships.

This approach is certainly very different from the one President Trump is pursuing. That’s our right and nobody in Washington can challenge it. Secretary Pompeo’s remarks about the role of EU countries – he basically said that key European States have not been supportive enough of the American action – are not welcome. Here, as in other occasions, it is our duty to be clear about our policies towards a very explosive and complex area of the globe. And our policies are not subordinated to the views in Washington, or elsewhere outside the EU.

Killing Soleimani

The decision to authorise the deadly attack on General Qassem Soleimani raises many questions and opens the door to a few uncertainties. In my opinion, it was taken in the wake of two events that the US Administration considered to be especially striking.

One was the attack by demonstrators close to the militias that Iran is supporting in Iraq against the US Embassy in Baghdad. In Washington's ruling circles, this incident is seen as very serious. It is also a reminder of dramatic memories, of what happened in Tehran forty years ago. For the American leadership, the assault against the embassy is something that cannot go unanswered.

The other event was the naval military exercise that Iran carried out a week ago together with China and Russia. The current American Administration did not want any of these three countries to believe that such maritime manoeuvres would have any chance of intimidating it or diminishing its resolve. And this determination and firmness had to be demonstrated without any room for misunderstanding.

In deciding, President Trump must also have thought about the impact that such forceful action would have on his electorate. This is a decisive political year for him. He needs to show that he does not hesitate when it comes to respond to those who are presented as the enemies of the United States.

But we have several problems here.

One of them is that acting to show strength, based on the principle of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, is unacceptable. It opens the door to a spiral of violence and throws away certain basic norms of relations between states. It is an historic step backwards. You cannot build peace on retaliation. The international community has other mechanisms to deal with conflicts and to make governments that do not obey the established rules reflect.

Another problem is that this type of decision cannot be taken without measuring all the consequences that may follow. My analysis of Mike Pompeo's statements is that these consequences have not been considered. The Secretary of State now talks of lowering the tension in the region after an act that inevitably leads to an escalation. It sounds like that neighbour who spends the night with the music screaming and the next morning tells me on the stairs that we all need rest and tranquillity. 

A third aspect has to do with the legality and morality of this kind of action. These two sets of questions cannot be ignored. War itself has its rules. Several academics have been addressing these issues. There are good pieces of reflection written about conducting attacks with drones in foreign lands. And the majority opinion seems to go in the opposite direction to what has now happened.

Nor can one ignore the discussion about the military doctrine behind the so-called "decapitation" of hostile movements. I will not dwell on this subject, but the truth is that the validity of the theory that advocates the elimination of leaders to resolve a conflict has much to be said about. Let me just refer that often the dead leader is replaced either by another leader that is even more radical. In other cases, we witness a fragmentation of the movement, with smaller terror groups acting on their own, and a new level of danger, amorphous and more difficult to combat.

After all, all this is far more complex than many would have us believe. And this complexity increases exponentially when a character like Qassem Soleimani is assassinated by a great western state.

Our reaction to the drone attacks

The drone attacks against the Saudi oil refineries brought a new level of danger and complication to the complex conflict involving, among others, Yemen, Iran and, of course, Saudi Arabia as well as an external actor such as the United States. 

The reactions we have seen in the key markets go beyond the oil supply issue. They indicate there is a deep concern about the crisis in that part of Middle East and its geopolitical consequences. 

I can understand the fears. Anything can happen. However, as long as there is a tiny hope of a summit between the US President and the Iranian one, I think we can expect our side to hesitate and avoid extreme actions. Am I right? I hope so. The opposite would take us into a much deeper conflict of unimaginable proportions.

Iran and the EU approach

Today, unexpectedly, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo came to Brussels. He met the Foreign Ministers of France, Germany and the UK, and briefly, the EU High Representative for Foreign Policy. The matter was Iran.

The US Administration has placed Iran at the top of its international agenda, next to two other critical themes: the trade talks with China and the internal situation in Venezuela. The American leadership is clearly betting on isolating Iran as a way of weakening the regime. Such policy is above all inspired by advice coming from Israel and Saudi Arabia. Both countries want Iran down.

This is certainly a very risky policy.

The alleged sabotage of four oil tankers in the very sensitive area around the Strait of Hormuz, which was big headlines today, is another very serious development in a very explosive environment. It is unclear what really happened to the ships and who was behind the actions, whatever actions they could have been. To draw any conclusion without more information would be extremely foolish. If there was indeed a big issue with those tankers, if an attack took place, an international commission on enquiry should be mandated to assess the facts. I hope the Europeans told something like that to Pompeo. I expressed interest in being part of the investigation.

I understand there was little common ground today between the visiting Secretary and the EU Ministers. That’s is encouraging. The Europeans must show they have their own way of looking at Iran and the Middle East, for that matter. They appreciate the alliance with the US but, at the same time, they must assert their independent views. Particularly when the gravity of the situation does not allow any misguided approach. As it does not tolerate a partisan policy, choosing the Saudi or the Israel side when the region needs a cool and balanced line to be followed by the Europeans.