Fiber Optic Communications Cables in a very sensitive region

 

Palestina: a entrevista em podcast que dei ao Expresso

O meu podcast publicado no Expresso e reproduzido nos orgãos de comunicação social da Impresa, sobre o reconhecimento da Palestina.

https://expresso.pt/podcasts/o-mundo-a-seus-pes/2025-09-22-reconhecimento-da-palestina-e-fundamental-mostra-claramente-oposicao-a-politica-seguida-por-israel-a49db9fc

Trump, Davos and a changing world

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

Trump, Davos and the Real World

Victor Angelo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To start the New Year: reflections about ongoing conflicts

 

2024 is a crucial year, demanding courage and responses to match
Victor Ângelo

 

I spent decades leading United Nations political, peace and development missions. It was at the UN that I grew professionally and learned how to resolve conflicts, some quite serious, in which death and pain lurked behind every dune, tree or rock. I thus gained a broader view of the international system and the way in which the relationship with the Security Council should be carried out. Then, for years, I worked as a civilian mentor at NATO, preparing future heads of military operations, repeatedly highlighting the need to obtain the support of populations and humanitarian organizations in these operations.

Experience taught me the paramount importance that must be given to safeguarding people's lives. When I addressed generals, police force commanders and UN security agents, the priority was to emphasize the value of life. That of ours, who were part of the mission, as well as protecting the lives of others, simple citizens, whether or not suspected of collaborating with the insurgents, and even the lives of enemies.

Nothing can be resolved in a sustainable way if there is not deep respect for the civilian populations living on either side of the barricades, if others are treated as worthless people, to whom access to vital goods, such as mere animals, can be cut off. to slaughter without mercy or mercy. Killing does not resolve any conflict. For every death today, new fighters emerge tomorrow, with even stronger feelings of revenge. The fundamental thing is to create the conditions for peace, open the doors to negotiations and understanding. A retaliatory war is a mistake. It is a retaliatory response, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, inspired by an ancient legal order. Or, in a more current hypothesis, it is a war directed by political leaders who lack common sense and foresight.

I also had in mind, in my guidelines, the wisdom of the brilliant Charlie Chaplin, in the moving character of the clown Calvero. In his film Highlights (1952), Chaplin at one point makes the clown Calvero say that “life is a beautiful, magnificent thing, even for a jellyfish”. Yes, even for a jellyfish, a gelatinous invertebrate for whom few will have any sympathy. I have always thought that this phrase, so simple, should occupy a top place in our way of facing conflicts. Politics only makes sense when it allows everyone to live in freedom and safety.

One of the great challenges of 2024 is to be able to explain this understanding to the medusa, the life and work of the United Nations in a language that certain leaders are able or forced to understand. How can we say this in the perverse and sophistry patois that is said in the Kremlin? How can we express this wisdom in progressive Hebrew or Arabic with accents of peace? How can we make the speech of reconciliation heard by people responsible for conflicts in other regions of the world, taking into account that 2023 was a year of acceleration in multiple expressions of hatred and radicalism?

We have two issues here that will need to be clarified and resolved as quickly as possible.

First, anyone who doesn't understand Charlie Chaplin and the value of life should not be at the head of a nation. The place of war criminals is in The Hague or before a special court created for that purpose, as happened in Yugoslavia or Rwanda. I say this, and I emphasize it, so that there is no doubt, in my capacity as someone who was at the forefront of the founding of the Arusha Court, in Tanzania, established to judge those mainly responsible for the genocide that took place in Rwanda in 1994. The precedents exist and those responsible for the massacres in Ukraine and the Middle East know them. As criminals always fantasize, they may even think that they will escape these trials. At the speed at which things are changing, they should not be calm.

Second, the Secretary-General of the United Nations must go far beyond humanitarian issues. Humanitarian assistance is essential, without a doubt, and cannot be forgotten. But this is something short-term and precarious, as there are many situations of need, tragedies are enormous in various parts of the world, and resources are always scarce. The UN Charter is above all about political solutions. The Secretary-General must maintain tireless dialogue with the parties and present without further delay a peace plan for Ukraine and another for Palestine. Plans that address the roots of the problems, that are based on international law and that courageously point out the political steps that the Security Council must consider.

We have to rise to the very serious challenges that lie ahead, in what has everything to be a crucial year in contemporary history.

Published in Portuguese in today's edition of Diário de Notícias, Lisbon, 5 January 2024. 

Security Council Resolution 2720 on Gaza and its tragedy

 1.        The UN System, under the leadership of the SG, is fast moving to be ready to implement SC res. 2720. This should be acknowledged.

2.        The Israeli government is ignoring the resolution and expanding the military aggression. The SC should draft a new resolution to impose sanctions on key Israeli leaders, in view of their disregard of res. 2720.

3.        This is not just about averting “a greater catastrophe and uphold dignity”. It is also about full respect for international law and the SC’s decisions. The Israeli behaviour violates international law and must be dealt with as such as well.

4.        The peace in the region is about to unravel. This should be mentioned as a major concern.

5.        Hamas leaders must also be prosecuted.

6.       The call for a total and immediate ceasefire must be loud, clear, and express a strong sense of urgency.

7.       Special responsibility lies with the UNSC. We must bring the UNSC back to the centre of key peace processes. Its members, particularly the P5, must show they can force the parties to implement a resolution like the 2720. Enforcement must become a very central priority for the SC.

8.        The humanitarian response should go together with the launching of a political process.

9.        The sovereign rights of the Israeli and Palestinian peoples are unquestionable.

Writing about Iran

Iran: the next day

Victor Angelo

 

 

In 2018, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh became known when Benjamin Netanyahu accused him of being the scientist at the head of the Iranian nuclear programme. Fakhrizadeh was murdered on the outskirts of Tehran a week ago. There are contradictory accounts of the crime. What is certain is that the ambush was conducted by a reasonable number of agents, at least ten of them, and in a professional way - the wife, who was travelling with him, came out of it unharmed, she was not part of the objective. I have no doubt that the ambush was carried out by special forces, with perfectly trained executioners, who had at their disposal the information, logistics and means necessary for a high-risk mission. It is peaceful to conclude that it was not the work of the internal Iranian opposition. It had all the characteristics of an operation planned, organised, and carried out by a state hostile to Iran. And I cannot help but think of the regime's three main enemies: Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Donald Trump's United States.

Those who know these things point in the direction of Israel. It is true that the secret services of that country, in particular the legendary Mossad, have already demonstrated an incomparably greater ability to penetrate Iranian official circles than any other espionage service. One example of this ability, with the trial of the indicted currently taking place in Antwerp, is the following: it was Mossad that made known to the Belgian authorities the terrorist attack the Iranian government was plotting in 2018 against the National Council of Iranian Resistance in exile. The European intelligence services where the plot was being prepared - the Belgians, the French, and the Austrians - had not noticed anything. 

Israel can never admit the slightest hint of responsibility for murders of this kind. Such an admission would open the door to prosecution in the International Court of Justice in The Hague or in the jurisdiction of a United Nations member country. International law is clear. An extraterritorial, summary, and arbitrary execution, promoted by a State outside a situation of armed conflict is a crime which violates international human rights law, the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the 1977 Additional Protocols. Moreover, the United Nations Charter expressly prohibits the extraterritorial use of force in times of peace.

For all these reasons, the paternity of what has now happened to Fakhrizadeh will remain unknown for the time being. We will have to be contented with the suspicions.

The assassination has shown that the Iranian system of internal espionage and counterespionage, which terrifies the population, has very serious flaws. The powerful Ministry of Intelligence is more concerned with the repression of the growing internal opposition than it is prepared to identify the most sophisticated threats from outside. This is not new. In early July, for example, the security services were unable to prevent an explosion at the Natanz nuclear power plant, nor were they able to avert the sabotage of missile-making programmes. All these actions were handled by a foreign country.  

A fundamental issue is to try to understand the central motive for the assassination. What seems more obvious, which would be to strike a major blow capable of further delaying the regime's nuclear programme, makes no sense. The country already has several teams of scientists capable of enriching uranium. The attack on Natanz and the sabotage have already delayed the plans. The real reason must be different.

If we look upstream, we will see that the Israeli government is on the brink of collapse and that Netanyahu will need convincing campaign arguments again. The presumption of a strong hand against the ayatollahs will certainly bring a good number of votes. Looking further ahead, we see that the new Biden administration is in favour of reopening a negotiating process with Tehran. This would be more difficult if the clerics responded to what happened to Fakhrizadeh in a violent manner. The old leaders of Iran are fanatical and backward. But they are astute in international politics. They must look at the assassination as an attempt at political provocation. And they know that waiting patiently for Joe Biden to take office may be the best response to the challenge they were given days ago.

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

 

 

 

Lebanon and the international freezer

 Translation of today’s opinion piece I published in Diário de Notícias (Lisbon). 15 Aug. 2020

From Lebanon to the conflict freezer

Victor Angelo

 

The district of Beja in Southern Portugal and Lebanon have the same territorial area. But the comparison ends there. If on one side we have around 153 thousand inhabitants, on the other there are seven million, who live in one of the most unstable regions of the globe. And they are an extremely fragmented social mosaic, full of rivalries, which subsists at the expense of precarious balances, always ready to be broken. Each segment of society pulls the embers to its sardine. The respective bosses corrupt the system and capture the institutions of governance. To the emergence of more honest leaders, the bosses respond with murder or intimidation, to shut up or push into exile anyone who questions them.

This explains why a country of entrepreneurial people with a high cultural level went through a long civil war, from 1975 to 1990, and has been experiencing a deep national crisis for years. The situation entered an acute phase in October 2019, with thousands of citizens protesting regularly in the streets. The economy and the financial system ceased to function. The central government has become a prisoner of the fierce rivalries that exist between the 18 political-confessional groups that make up the country and which serve as chess pieces in the game of tension between the regional powers, especially Iran and Saudi Arabia.

The situation became catastrophic after the explosion in the port of Beirut. Since then, the country has made the front page of the news and the priority list of the usual powers, thanks in particular to the efforts of Emmanuel Macron. Lebanon will remain on this list as long as international attention is focused on its crisis. Sooner or later a new tragedy will appear somewhere and the country, like others that are also experiencing recurrent national conflicts, will move to the shelf of the forgotten, in the world freezer where so many unsolvable crises are stored and kept frozen. 

In the meantime, emergency humanitarian aid has been announced. It is vital that this aid arrives quickly and is delivered to those who are in a very precarious situation. Here the role of the United Nations organisations is to ensure the credibility of the distribution of humanitarian goods, which must be channelled through Lebanese NGOs. We must avoid political exploitation of this aid, either by internal factions or by donors. That is why I do not think it is too much to remember that humanitarian action aims to save lives, with transparency, without corruption. It has nothing to do with possible changes in the political spider web.

It is true that Lebanon needs to change its political labyrinth. In recent days, a series of proposals have emerged that would place this burden on the shoulders of the international community. Some have suggested a new mandate regime. The country was under a French mandate until 1943 and there are many people in Lebanon, at the grassroots level, who would like this to happen again. That, even with adaptations to the realities of modern politics, would be a thing of the past. It does not correspond to the current vision, which puts the responsibility for change in the hands of national political agents.

Nor do I think it is possible to send a United Nations contingent with a political mission approved by the Security Council under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. This part of the Charter allows for the use of military and police force, which would theoretically make the mission more efficient. In reality, it only works if there is a strong enough national political will to change the way the country is run, which seems to be very difficult to achieve in Lebanon. One could use the functions of mediation and facilitation of political dialogue, a role that is increasingly central to the United Nations menu. I just do not believe that Lebanese politicians are ready for such an effort.

So, while some humanitarian aid is being provided and internal political cooling is expected, I fear that Lebanon will join the group of countries that the Security Council's inertia regularly puts in the freezer of conflicts.

 

 

 

 

Aid to Lebanon

There have been some discussions about the conditions to be attached to the humanitarian aid to Lebanon. I would like to clarify that such aid should only have one provision: it should reach those in need. There is no other political condition when it comes to saving lives. The political dimensions belong to another sphere, not to the humanitarian one.

Iran's growing dependence on China

Iran is counting on China’s investments and political support. China will become the most powerful ally of Iran. Oil is one of the reasons, but not the only one. They are now negotiating a cooperation framework for the next 25 years. All in all, Iran will become seriously dependent on China.

As the Americans invest in their relationship with the Saudis, the Chinese can only get interested on the opposing side. Saudi Arabia and Iran are fierce rivals in the region. A good deal of the future of the Middle East will derive from such rivalry. But behind it, there is the growing and dangerous competition between the US and China.

President Erdogan's visit to Brussels

President Recep Tayyip Erdogan was in Brussels today.

First, he met the Secretary-General of NATO. He got a very simple message. NATO is already doing quite a bit for Turkey, in terms of deployment of radars and other means of defence. But it can’t do much more, particularly in support of Turkey’s campaign inside Syria. That would bring the Organization, sooner or later, into a direct clash with Russia. Nobody within the Alliance wants that to happen. Moreover, many within NATO are yet to understand the special defence relationship President Erdogan has developed with the Russian President. He seems to have one foot in NATO and the other in Moscow. That’s certainly a strange policy.

Second, he spent time with the EU leaders, Charles Michel and Ursula von der Leyen. The meeting came to no real conclusion. There is little love left within the EU for Erdogan’s actions, in particular for his manipulation of the migrant and refugee populations. Erdogan is seen by many as a problem, a big challenge at the gates of Europe.

If there is one conclusion to take from the visit, I would say that in Europe there is no trust on President Erdogan’s ambitions. That should be clearly stated.

Assad and Erdogan meet in Idlib

Bashar al-Assad of Syria and his Russian friends have been planning the Idlib campaign since December. He does not know about negotiations and compromises. Assad only understands the language of force, the crushing of his opponents. Therefore, he can only trust what comes from a military victory. His Russian supporters follow the same political philosophy. Politics is about absolute power. That’s why all of them are so committed to the Idlib war campaign.

The Russians control the air space. That gives a major advantage to Assad’s troops. They follow the bombings and complete the groundwork. The civilian population is caught in between the bombs – they fall all over, including on hospitals and school buildings – and the foot soldiers. People are also trapped by the rebel groups that have sought a final refuge in the province. The result is widespread human agony, disruption, and death.

The Turkish army has deployed to the province as well. They have about twelve positions in this corner of Syria. That was President Erdogan’s decision. He thought the Syrian army and the Russians would refrain from attacking Idlib because of the Turkish presence. And that would help the rebel groups that are allied to the Turks. In addition, it would keep the internal displacements to a minimum. Mistake. The military offensive keeps moving forward, the populations are displaced and trying to beat death daily. And now, the Turkish soldiers are being targeted as well. They will remain in Assad’s crosshairs. Assad knows he can count on Vladimir Putin’s backing. He also knows that Erdogan has very few powerful friends in the international circles. Erdogan’s ambition and arrogance ended up by isolating him.

Erdogan has only one option. To withdraw from Idlib and let the local refugees cross into his country. The rebels will come along with them to escape the Assad troops. And soon or later the confrontation will resume.

Idlib and the divided Security Council

The UN Security Council today met on Syria. One more meeting for nothing. The humanitarian situation in the Idlib Province is desperate for around 900,000 people, many of them children. That was one of the reasons for the meeting. The other is that a growing military offensive is under way. The leadership in Damascus is convinced that they can win and retake the province. For Assad, there is only one solution to the rebellion, a military one. His allies, the Russians, share the same view. And that is what is being implemented.

The Council could have adopted a resolution calling for a ceasefire. It did not happen. The Russians have opposed it. The only thing the Council did was to recall the peace process it had approved four years ago, in December 2015, and insist on its implementation. That’s a ridiculous approach. Today’s situation is very different from the one in 2015. For instance, now there is a heavy involvement of Turkey in this corner of Syria. There is a serious risk of clashes, even confrontation, between the two sides. That means, there is an enormous potential for escalation. That and the humanitarian crisis are the two dimensions that require immediate attention.

But the UN Security Council is too divided. The bet must be placed in another forum.

A plan that has no wings

The “peace plan” President Trump presented yesterday is not acceptable to the Palestinian side, as the initial reactions have shown. There is no surprise here. The document is basically an endorsement of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s views and an instrument to boost his chances during the forthcoming general election. Apparently, it is not adding any support to the Prime Minister’s electoral fortunes, but it is too early to conclude so.

The important point is that one of the two parties to the solution does not recognise President Trump’s initiative as positive. The President, if he really wanted to move the peace process forward, should start by a couple of goodwill gestures. He should authorise the reopening of the Palestine Delegation in Washington, a delegation he ordered to be closed in 2018. He should also resume the US funding contribution to the UN Agency that provides support to the Palestinians (UNRWA). And be much clearer about the future of Jerusalem and the Jordan Valley, two extremely sensitive points. Here, his position should be that both issues must be part of the agreement, without any position of force being stated since day one. Finally, he should establish a link between his vision and the Arab Peace Plan of 2002.

Well, all this is daydreaming, on my side. The truth of the matter is summarised by one single word: partiality.

A one-sided peace plan

I decided long ago not to write about the conflict between Israel and Palestine. The main reason has been that I do not see a solution to it unless the United States plays a balanced role in the peace process. The US is the only country that can help Israel to adopt a reasonable approach and encourage the country’s leaders to engage the Palestinian side in a mutually beneficial way.

With time, the trust has been seriously eroded and peace has become less and less viable. The basis for a resolution has gradually been undermined. In fact, the obstacles have gained additional volume during the past few years.

Today, President Trump launched what he calls “a peace plan” for Israel and Palestine. The plan is very close to Prime Minister Netanyahu’s ambitions. Secondly, it does not consider that peace must come from within, from the involvement of the parties to the conflict. In the case, the Palestinians have not been heard, they have been excluded from the plan’s design. They could still be interested in taking this project and negotiate it. But I doubt. The proposal goes too far in the Israeli direction. And without the Palestinian buy-in there is no true plan.

Let’s in meantime wait for a more detailed reaction from the Palestinian side. Even if one can guess what it might be.

NATO in Iraq: a very well defined role

The NATO training mission in Iraq (NMI) has been temporarily suspended due to the recent developments in the country. In my opinion, it should remain frozen for a few more days or even an additional couple of weeks. That would give time to all participating countries to do a proper assessment of the situation and take a more informed decision about the future of the mission. In an ideal world, it should not resume until the political stalemate within the Iraqi government isn’t resolved. But that can take a long time.

The critical issues regarding this mission are its own protection – it must be clearly assured – and the views of the Iraqi leaders. They must state, without any ambiguity, that they want the mission to continue its work.

In any case, it seems to me out of the question to expand the scope of the mission and combine the training with a more operational approach. This is no combat mission and it should remain as such. Any suggestion or request, from any member state of NATO, to transform the role of the mission into a fighting force should be firmly opposed.

One step in the right direction

The Iranian leadership has shown restraint. The attack against two military camps that accommodate deployed American service men was surgical, in order to avoid an escalation of the situation at this stage. That was a wise move. The American leadership responded to it with wisdom as well.

That could be seen as encouraging. However, it is too early to draw any definitive conclusion. One thing is the direct response from the Iranian military and political establishment, another is the way irregular groups can act as part of the feud.

The fact of the matter is that Iran cannot engage in conventional conflict with the US. Its military budget is a tiny grain of sand when compared with the US. Washington spends in about 9 days what the Iranians budget for a full year. We are therefore talking about two different worlds. For the tiny player, the options are clear: either play
 it down or make use of non-conventional means, which are cheap and can be very impactful. I really hope the Iranians will choose the first option. Much better for them and all of us.

What next in the Persian Gulf Region?

Regarding the killing of its star general, Iran might be envisaging an asymmetric response – meaning, through non-conventional means, making use of all kinds of irregular groups and covert operatives. I guess it would be a tit for tat, an eye for an eye move, an assassination attempt comparable to what happen to their man in Baghdad. They would consider that a measured response, a limited act of revenge.

I am afraid they would try to implement such an intent. They must be firmly and promptly advised not to pursue such a line. It would be a very serious mistake, as things stand now. The US would consider such strike as both escalatory and a trigger for a campaign of massive retribution. It would be like opening the gates of hell.

That’s why major international players must move fast in terms of re-opening the dialogue avenues. EU countries could play a major role if they dare to decide to pursue such an endeavour. It ought to be a well-publicised initiative, to help the Iranians to save face, combined with an extremely confidential and prudent set of moves.

It is a realistic possibility. It just requires the appropriate leadership at the EU level, people that could be accepted by both by the US President and the Iranian leaders.  

First step, to stop the escalation

The UN Secretary-General made a brief statement today about the current situation in the Gulf. I see the statement as important. We have reached a very dangerous crossroads. António Guterres’s message was about restraint, the exercise of maximum restraint. My call, following his appeal, is for countries such as Russia, China, Japan and the EU to seize Guterres’s words and repeat them loud and clear. They should also launch an initiative that would aim at freezing the situation as it is and, from there, try to establish a dialogue platform. I know it is not easy. But these are exceptional times. Those countries have the historical responsibility of making use of their influence. They should try to get both parties to the conflict to put a stop to escalation. That would be a first but important step. A most urgent step, for sure.

A deeply divided Iraq

In the dangerous and complex situation we have now around Iran, one of the key losers is Iraq and its population. The country is deeply divided along sectarian and ethnic lines, has no economy and possesses very little capacity to respond to the multiple security threats it faces. These are all the necessary ingredients for an explosive national crisis. And tonight, the country is a step closer to such crisis. The Shia members of the national parliament voted a resolution recommending that all foreign armies be asked to leave Iraq. The Sunni and Kurd sides of parliament boycotted the vote. In fact, they feel excluded from the current political dispensation. That creates the right ground for new conflicts.

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.