The Eastern Mediterranean as a conflict zone

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

29 Aug. 2020

Troubled waters in the Eastern Mediterranean

Victor Angelo

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

On Russia and the unity of the West

The Kremlin has been surprisingly slow in responding to the measures taken by Theresa May against Russia´s hostile actions. It´s difficult to come up with a good interpretation of the reasons for the delay.

But two things are clear.

First, I have no doubt they will retaliate. Heavily. And, most likely, before the Sunday presidential elections. The leadership, and Vladimir Putin above all, must show to the Russian voters that they do hesitate when it comes to defending Russia´s international honour and strength, as perceived by the official narrative.

Second, the Kremlin was clearly taken by surprise when they noted the unity shown in the West, particularly in Washington, Paris and Berlin. They wanted to respond to the UK and keep the West divided. Now, they have two big tasks. To deal with the British and look for ways of breaking the common position taken by key Western players.

The EU and the US

When it comes to the difficult response to the current US Administration, the EU leaders have decided to follow two lines.

First, to keep the political dialogue open. This policy dialogue should be centred on the key issues, particularly on respect for the international institutions, defence, trade and climate change. It should be based on clarity: the EU's positions should be stated without any unnecessary ambiguity.

Second, to emphasise the long term nature of the mutual relationship. Both sides have a long history of cooperation and share a number of fundamental values. That should be the basis to identify the common interests and to work together to achieve them. 

The suggestion made by some in Europe that today´s US leadership should be, as much as possible, ignored was not adopted. The EU political masters believe that a reasonable level of engagement should be cultivated.

German politics

Martin Schulz spent many years in Brussels first as Member of European Parliament and in the end, as its President (Speaker). A few weeks ago, he returned to his native Germany and took the leadership of his party, the SPD (Social Democrat). He is now campaigning throughout the country, with the forthcoming legislative elections in mind. The elections will take place at the end of September. That´s a long way down the line. An eternity, in political terms, particularly now, that everything goes fast and can change even faster. He is competing against Angela Merkel, who will be fighting for a fourth term as leader of Germany. That´s a formidable challenge. But Schulz is doing well. He is seen as potential winner. That´s good, in politics.

In any case, we are fortunate to have Merkel and Schulz as the key competitors in Germany. They are both balanced leaders and people without fear. They are also resolutely pro-Europeans. Their presence in the front lines is good news for the EU.

A non-event in Bratislava

For me, the most striking facet of yesterday´s EU summit in Bratislava is clear: it was non-event in terms of the European public opinion. The EU citizens took no notice of it. And that should be a good reason to be worried. At a time of mediocrity and obscurity, when everyone is looking for answers and strategies that could make sense, the heads of State and govern were once more unable to go beyond banalities and piecemeal promises. And, as usual, they announced that it will at the next big summit, this time in March 2017 in Rome, that everything will become clear. 

TTIP premature death announcement

Sigmar Gabriel is the number two person in the German government. But he is not a member of Chancellor Merkel´s party. He is the leader of the Social Democrats and his party is in a grand coalition with Merkel´s own grouping. As we come closer to the next round of general elections in 2017, the Social Democrats seem to be now more concerned about pleasing the voters than on a serious approach to public affairs. Their eyes are popularity.

That might be the reason why Gabriel yesterday declared the TTIP – the transatlantic trade agreement between the EU and the US – as dead in the water. And in his words the fault should be laid on the American side. Their demands could not be accepted by the health-and-environment conscious Europeans, he implied.

Gabriel knows that the trade agreement with the US, which has been under negotiation for about four years, is not popular among many in Europe. And he was trying to play to their feelings. The wrong approach, I add. As a leader, he should be at the forefront of those explaining on is at stake and how important it is to be patient but firm and get it done.

Today his government and Brussels came out to say that the news of such a death are exaggerated. The negotiations go on and many chapters have already been agreed upon, notwithstanding Gabriel´s words to the contrary.

TTIP should be completed as soon as possible. It is in our own interest to have a closer commercial relation with the US. And it gives us also some additional strength in our economic discussions with the Russians and others.

Actually, as about 90% of the articles are ready for mutual endorsement, it would be possible to sign up for those and let time and further discussions take care of the remainder points. That has been my position. We do not need to have everything ready. We approve what is ready, as stage one, and move on to stage two, to complete the negotiations on what is still pending. It is a pragmatic way of proceeding. And it sends some strategic messages around us.

The danger of paralysis

Paralysis is the key hazard the EU faces as we start the political rentrée. The leaders must respond to this threat by showing a renewed commitment to the common European ambition. They should stop putting all the blame on the EU institutions. And they should explain to their respective citizens that the EU matters and should be strengthened.

Angela Merkel is somehow doing it on her own initiative. But she cannot be alone in such an endeavour. 

The 2016 G7 Summit is over

This year´s G7 Summit, just completed in Japan, made no history. It was hardly noticed by the European public opinion, just to mention those close to home. Jean-Claude Juncker, the EU Commission President made some brief references to the steel dispute with China, on top of mentioning that the European economy is now much better than in 2008 and that it is moving in a healthy direction. Well, that´s good to know. Donald Tusk, the EU Council President, said a couple of things as well, but no one remembers a word of it. And that was basically the European side of the story, because Merkel, Hollande and Renzi were too concerned about their own domestic problems to be able to fly higher than their national contexts.

Moreover, there was a small number of heads of State from non-G7 countries at the tail end of the summit. They were certainly very happy to sit with the big people and be part of the group picture. But their contribution to the discussions remains unclear. Most likely, to them as well.

Obama and the four EU leaders: a comment

President Obama, on the last day of his visit to Germany, met with Angela Markel, David Cameron, François Hollande and Matteo Renzi. In my opinion, he should have invited Donald Tusk as well. This would have added strength to his speeches about the EU´s relevance. Words are important and the President said the right ones. But he missed the opportunity to show he means business when supporting Europe´s unity.

The meeting lasted two hours. Most of the time was spent on the situation in Syria, including the positions that should be taken regarding the Geneva negotiating process, which is now out of the rails, and the fight against the Islamic State terrorists. On the latter, it is clear the IS has been losing ground. There is less money available, less volunteer fighters, and greater military pressure on them. The additional deployment of 250 US Special Forces, announced moments before the meeting by Obama, is also a significant development in combatting the terrorists. I hope the Germans in particular will also increase their contribution to the ground operations.

The rest of the meeting focussed on Libya. Italy and the UK are most likely to intensify their support to the recognised Libyan Prime Minister. And in addition, we should see more naval patrols off the Libyan coast soon. There are some differences of opinion about the nature of such maritime task force: should it be a NATO-led force or should it be an expansion of the current EU-sponsored naval presence? In any case, the maritime effort should be a supporting one to the actions on the ground inside Libya. The priority is on land and that means stabilising the situation in that North African country.

The EU crisis and Chicken Little

The EU sky is not falling

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merkel´s words on the Russians

I commend Angela Merkel for her very strong words condemning the current Russian military operations in Syria. That´s the type of statement we would like to hear from other EU and US leaders. 

In addition, let me be clear about the Russians. We need them to resolve the Syrian tragedy. We should recognise their role in the region. But we should also add that their ongoing policy options and actions are wrong. They only contribute to dramatically augment the suffering, to expand and prolong the humanitarian disaster and to make the Damascus regime believe they can win the war. 

Istanbul, Europe and Merkel

Today´s terrorist attack in Istanbul must be unequivocally condemned. The victims and their families as well as the people of the city and of Turkey deserve our deepest sympathies and the strongest expression of our solidarity.

We should also profoundly worry as this act shows a very high level of strategic planning.

First, it targeted the core of the tourism industry in the emblematic city of Istanbul. It aimed at attacking the city´s image, the efficiency of the security services, who were in high alert, and the economy of the country. It is also an act of revenge against the government´s recent crackdown on Islamic State activities.

Second, it was clearly directed against German tourists above all. I do not think this is a coincidence. It was certainly a deliberate choice. The ultimate objective was to contribute to undermine Angela Merkel´s authority. The German Chancellor has been very responsive to the plight of the Syrian refugees. Such an approach is contrary to the message the Islamic State terrorists would like to put across the Muslim world. They wanted to show that the key European leader – and Europe for that matter – had a hostile approach to Muslim people.

They would also want to see Europe in crisis as a result of the mass arrival of refugees. Merkel´s leadership has prevented the potential crisis from materialising. In their view, she has to be seriously destabilised for Europe to lose direction and balance. 

Cologne raises many questions

Referring again to the New Year´s criminal incidents in Cologne, I think it is important to note that the total number of complaints filed with the police has now reached 379. This is an incredible high figure, but possibly lower than the actual number of cases. In these types of crimes some victims do prefer not to file a formal charge. In any case, the total figure registered so far clearly shows the magnitude of the problem. It leaves no room for a light treatment of the matter. This is more than just a law and order issue. As it is also bigger than just police failure to anticipate and later on to respond to the occurrences.

There are many questions that call for a frank and courageous answer. But also for serenity. The citizens have to be reassured. And the refugees have to see the authorities as strong enough and ready to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Model politician 2015

My question of yesterday about the model politician in 2015 has been responded to by a number of friends. And obviously, Angela Merkel and Pope Francis came out as this year´s top leaders.

I am certainly in agreement. But for different reasons, I found John Kerry the most inspiring politician of the year. He is no longer a young man. At his age, many would be writing their memories or playing golf.

Not John Kerry. He has shown energy, determination, optimism. He has achieved results in an environment, both domestic and international, that was far from favourable. I decided therefore to recognise his untiring efforts in the opinion piece I have just written and that will be published in tomorrow´s edition of the Visão magazine in Portugal. 

A giant called Angela

Time magazine has selected Angela Merkel as “person of the year”.

I fully agree. The Chancellor has shown leadership, particularly when the challenges Europe was confronted with gained a menacing dimension. In many ways, she kept the EU together. Her stature looked even greater when compared with the ones assumed by the other actors.

She is a woman in the midst of a number of political dwarfs. 

Strategic communications are essential and part of the solution

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

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

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

Merkel as the leader of the G7

We might not always agree with Chancellor Merkel´s views. But there is little doubt she is a strong leader and one that is level-headed, a feature I consider of particular importance when looking at leadership qualities. Her taking over the command of the G7 is good news. Particularly at this stage, when the international community is preparing for the discussion in September, at the UN General Assembly, of the new set goals to fight underdevelopment and poverty. Angela Merkel has pledged to pay special attention to getting the G7 fully committed to the Sustainable Development Goals that will be then approved.

She has also expressed her willingness to contribute to the approval of concrete results at the December Paris Conference on Climate Change. That´s a key moment in terms of our common future. We should see the key world leaders aware of its importance and keen enough to get the climate agenda off the ground. It is a good chunk of our future that is at stake. Leaders should not shy away and take refuge in their own national problems, as they so often like to do. Let´s hope Merkel will be able to set the example.

Finally, there is the question of gender equality. The status of women and girls is still a big issue, in many parts of the world. Merkel has expressed a special interest in this matter. Her voice needs to be loud and clear. 

Putin´s litmus test

The new Minsk agreement will be in many ways the litmus test about President Putin´s sincerity. I really hope he will come out of it with high marks, as someone true to his word. The moment is grave and we cannot afford to have deeper crisis with Russia. They actually cannot afford either. So, let´s be hopeful about the ceasefire even we hear quite a number of voices expressing their doubts. We need the Minsk agreement to hold. 

Ukraine: the diplomatic front should be supported

The joint diplomatic initiative taken by François Hollande and Angela Merkel, who decided to fly to Kiev today and then to Moscow, should be supported. It is true that it gives us a measure of the seriousness of the current situation in Eastern Ukraine. But it is the best response to a fast deteriorating conflict. It also comes at a time when Vladimir Putin seems to be ready to talk. The sides might be far apart, no doubt. But negotiations never take place when things are going well. They happen when the costs of further fighting become too high. And also when the possibility of an uncontrolled escalation is around the corner. We have both at present. Therefore, let´s give diplomacy a chance. And the first step has to be an agreement on a ceasefire. Both sides should accept the status quo and freeze the war. Then, negotiations could start and take the time they might require to achieve a durable settlement.

Let´s hope. Let´s also be clear that the continuation of the existing offensive cannot be accepted and must stop. 

Greece: they will decide and we will talk with them afterwards

It is unwise for the EU leaders to freely comment on the forthcoming elections in Greece. It sounds like outright interference in the domestic electoral process. The Greeks will decide, based on their own internal power dynamics. Then, and only after that, the rest of the EU will see what comes next. There will for sure a need for negotiations. And everyone knows that only reasonable people with sensible negotiating standpoints can achieve results. Therefore, I believe that both sides, the Greeks and the external partners, will negotiate with a key concern in mind: these are no times to rock the boat. These are times of great global uncertainty and judicious people in Europe understand the current trends and circumstances. It would be a serious mistake for all of us if moderation was put aside. Leadership, today, at the beginning of this New Year, is about avoiding a race and an acceleration towards more confrontations.