What is original in my Diário de Notícias (05/09/2025) text about the Tianjin SCO summit

 What is not original:

• The core facts: The existence and location of the SCO summit in Tianjin, the attendance of key leaders like Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin, and Narendra Modi, and the announcement of Xi's "Global Governance Initiative" are all established facts widely reported by international news and political analysis.

• The main geopolitical themes: The analysis of the SCO as a counterweight to Western influence, the concept of a multipolar world order, and the idea that Trump's policies pushed Russia and India closer to China are common topics in contemporary geopolitical discourse. The idea of a "Reverse Nixon" pivot, where Trump's policies inadvertently strengthen the Sino-Russian-Indian axis, is also a concept discussed by other analysts.

What is original:

• https://www.dn.pt/opiniao/a-reforma-da-ordem-mundial-%C3%A9-maior-do-que-a-china

• The author's personal experience and authority: Victor Ângelo's past role as a former high-ranking UN official (specifically, a former Deputy Secretary-General of the UN) gives his commentary a unique angle. He's not just a journalist or academic; he's someone with firsthand experience working within the very international institutions he is critiquing. This background adds a layer of authenticity and personal insight that sets his text apart.

• The "prisoner" analogy: The powerful, if highly subjective, comparison of António Guterres to a "prisioneiro a bater palmas ao juiz" (a prisoner applauding the judge) is a striking and memorable piece of original rhetoric. It goes beyond a simple critique to express a deep sense of disappointment and betrayal from an insider's perspective. This emotional and rhetorical flourish is a key element of the text's originality.

• The focus on symbolism: The entire article is built around the symbolic power of the photograph and the location of the summit. This focus on "an image is worth a thousand words" allows the author to tell a story about the changing world order in a more evocative way than a dry, fact-based report. The emphasis on Xi as a "dominant figure" and Modi as an unignorable presence is the author's personal interpretation, which serves as the backbone of his argument.

In conclusion, the text is not original in its factual basis, but it is original in its insider's perspective, strong rhetorical flair, and symbolic framing. It uses familiar facts to present a highly personal and opinionated take on a major global event, making it a distinctive piece of commentary.

China wants to become the leading nation in international affairs

 

The Summit of Tianjin and the Shifting Global Order

Victor Ângelo’s article, "The reform of the world order is greater than China," published today 05/09/2025 in Lisbon's Diário de Notícias, analyses the Tianjin Summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), positioning it as a pivotal event in the geopolitical landscape. The author highlights a photograph of Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin with Narendra Modi in the background, seeing it as a powerful symbol of a new international order. In this image, Xi is the dominant figure, while Putin is less prominent and Modi represents India's growing importance. The summit's location in Tianjin, a port city, also underscores the Chinese leadership's focus on international trade.

---

Xi Jinping's Ambitions vs. the Role of the UN

Ângelo argues that Xi Jinping's "Global Governance Initiative," announced at the summit, is an attempt to position China's global policy as an alternative to the Western model. However, the author questions the sincerity of this proposal, suggesting that if China genuinely supported multilateralism, it would have prioritised the reform of the United Nations (UN) under António Guterres. The article expresses concern that Guterres was present at the summit and applauded an initiative that could threaten the UN's relevance.

---

Geopolitical Tensions and India's Strategic Role

The summit is portrayed as a gathering of nations that oppose the established international order, largely in response to Donald Trump's "America First" policy. The author notes that Trump's approach ironically brought China and Russia closer and pushed India into their orbit. The article also points out Modi's clever political strategy: while attending the summit to strengthen ties with China and Russia, he first stopped in Japan to sign cooperation agreements. This, according to Ângelo, shows that Modi "knows how to play on multiple boards" and that the future of the world is being shaped in Asia, by Asia, and for all of Asia.

Commenting on the G20 Final Communiqué

 I share the frustration expressed by many regarding the outcome of the G20 just held.

The final statement reiterates many of the commitments made elsewhere. Particularly, in many United Nations meetings. As I said in the Portuguese media, the main issue is that promises are made but their implementation lacks far behind or never happens. That is the best way to undermine the leadership, be it at the county level or in the global arena. It explains why the credibility of the international leaders is so low.  

This said, it was important to bring back to the final communiqué all those points that are being discussed in the key international conferences. That includes the SDG, the climate discussions, the gender issues, the inequality problems, the respect for the UN Charter and for people’s rights. And the matters of peace and war. 

The point on the reform of the World Bank is also a wise play.  

Words and statement most be seen as significant, even when we know that human rights or any other key issues are not respected in the country whose leader has pledged to. It gives those who care and who fight for those rights a leverage point. Strength, I would say.

 

Regarding the African Union, I agree it is a crucial move. It is also a smart move for South Africa, that has now a reason to say no to Nigeria or Egypt in the G20.  

In the end, I think we should see India and others encouraging multilateral approaches and multilateralism but planning to play in small groupings and betting as much as possible in bilateral relations and pure and tough national interests.  

Freedom in a digital world

Digital activism in a framework of uncertainty

Victor Ângelo

 

I participated this week in a webinar about "Internet and Geopolitics". The question at the centre of the debates was very direct: is a global, universal, and open internet possible?

The question came from civil society associations that militate for digital freedom. And they follow the line of the United Nations: in June 2020, António Guterres proposed a Roadmap for Digital Cooperation, with the aim of achieving that by the end of the decade every person can access the internet at a minimum cost and without obstacles.

The reality is very different. At this moment, there are two parallel digital universes. The international one, essentially North American, built around platforms that are part of our everyday life. And the Chinese, a reproduction of the Western constellation. We can subscribe to the Chinese platforms, but the residents of China do not have access to the international networks, which are blocked by Beijing. So, the answer to the central question can only be negative. Access to the internet is, in autocratic regimes, limited or banned for political reasons. 

Beyond calls for multilateralism, new 'silk routes' and progress in communications and transport, we are moving fast towards a historical phase of fragmentation and open rivalries between blocs of countries. In the digital area, this competition centres on the issues of artificial intelligence, data clouds, cybersecurity, espionage, competing political narratives and surveillance of citizens.

Those in power, whatever they may be, increasingly use social media to influence public opinion, manipulate political discourse and create an interpretation of reality that is favourable to them. Donald Trump has excelled in this art. Today, Narendra Modi is the incumbent leader who is followed by the largest number of people, some 175 million. Modi knows that images attract attention if they are intuitive, dynamic, colourful, and empathetic. In Portugal, António Costa has around 266,000 followers on Twitter. It's not much, but in our country, what continues to weigh is the frequent presence on free-to-air television channels. President Zelensky's official Twitter account has 6.2 million subscribers. The Ukrainian leader has demonstrated a remarkable capacity for communication through digital media.

As a curiosity, note that Cristiano Ronaldo has around 445 million followers on Instagram, Lionel Messi 329 million and Khaby Lame, an Italian influencer of African origin, is followed by 136 million via TikTok. What would happen if one of them launched into political activism?

As for the confrontation with Russia, it seems clear to me that it will contribute to the deepening of geopolitical fractures. Nobody knows how the war of aggression against Ukraine, or the huge crisis triggered between Russia, the United States and the various NATO countries will evolve. However, it is clear that we are still on an escalation course, in a highly complex and exceptionally worrying context. On the one hand, it is not acceptable to systematically violate the international order, as defined in the United Nations Charter, nor to disrespect with impunity the institutions that are the pillars of peace and security, such as the International Court of Justice. Nor is it acceptable that international law, the basis of relations between states, should no longer apply to the major powers, giving primacy instead to their geostrategic interests, in the old concept of force as the main lever of power. On the other hand, there is a very serious risk of a new, large-scale, global confrontation.

In this context, my suggestion is simple: civil society can use the digital platforms to tip the balance towards the side of law, moderation, and peace. And start by promoting international agreements on cyber non-aggression to critical infrastructures, essential for the daily life of every citizen.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 27 May 2022)

 

 

 

Europe, China, India and Vladimir Putin

From Brussels to Beijing and New Delhi, in a time of atrocities

Victor Ângelo

In our part of the world, this was a week of turning for the worse. We are today in a much more delicate and dangerous situation. The atrocities committed in Bucha, on the outskirts of Kyiv, and in other places, shocked those who heard about them and seriously damaged the possibility of a dialogue between the Western countries and the regime of Vladimir Putin. Now, and without uttering the word that everyone fears, we may be in for a decisive confrontation between the two sides.

One of the two will have to give in. It would be a mistake not to think so. And, of course, backing down cannot be on our side. But it would be an even bigger mistake not to act consistently. This means that sanctions need to move to a new level, one that is aimed at decisively undermining the Kremlin's economic and financial capacity. It is essential to move beyond coal and stop importing all kinds of petroleum products. The statistics are clear: in 2021, the EU imported 74 billion euros worth of oil and oil products from Russia, while natural gas imports totalled 16.3 billion. There are those in the EU who oppose such sanctions, saying it would cause an inflationary wave and unbearable hardship for many of our businesses. Credible studies show that all this is manageable, given the sophistication of our economies and the resources that can be mobilized. But even more, it must be understood that achieving peace and safeguarding Europe's future cannot be achieved without some sacrifices in the short term.

It is also essential to isolate Russia further. That was the central issue of European concern at the summit with China last Friday. During the meeting, the message seemed to fall on deaf ears. The Chinese leaders insisted on the excellent cooperation that exists between them and Putin. But in the following days, the public discourse in Beijing evolved. It became more positive toward Europe. If you have money, you have friends, and the Chinese know that the EU has become their biggest trading partner. They cannot afford to lose the European market. Trade between them grew by 27.5% in 2021, despite the difficulties linked to the pandemic, rising shipping costs, disruptions in component circulation chains, and an unfavourable geopolitical climate. Nor can they miss out on investment from Europe. Ursula von der Leyen and Charles Michel have been able to play the investment card. The agreement on this matter, approved in Brussels in late 2020, has been frozen since then, which irritates the Chinese side. A greater distance between China and Russia could advance the thaw.

Besides the trade aspect, China wants a strong EU in the hope that it will be able to untie Europe politically and militarily from the US. This explains why it is constructive in the way it refers to the EU while at the same time following and amplifying Russia's rhetoric with regard to NATO. Regardless of that narrative, the important thing is to make Beijing see that excessive proximity to Putin plays against China's long-term interests. And it is not just economic interests, however important the raw materials extracted from Russia's vast territory may be. The deterioration of the Russian dictator's international image cannot be ignored by a country that aspires to be seen as one of the poles of the new global order and a beacon of peace.

In the midst of all this, it would be a serious oversight to forget India. Narendra Modi is investing in a close relationship with Russia, to prevent it from falling just to the Chinese side. Rivalry with China and enmity against Pakistan are the two main axes of Indian foreign policy. It therefore does not want to give China any opportunity to benefit from a comparatively more privileged relationship with Russia. In this regard, the EU must not neglect the dialogue with India, which must be frank and in parallel with the dialogue it must maintain with China.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 8 April 2022)

Writing about the G7 Summit

A very special G7 summit

Victor Ângelo

 

The G7 summit number 47 starts today in the UK. Although the British Prime Minister will be the host, the biggest star will be Joe Biden, who chose the occasion to make his first trip abroad. He will spend a long week in Europe, thus showing that the European continent remains an important stage for diplomacy and the strengthening of American foreign alliances.

This has everything to be an outstanding summit.  The statements made in the last few days confirm the concerns that I have already expressed here in this newspaper a month ago, at the time of the preparatory meeting of the foreign ministers. Biden's intention seems to be to transform the G7 into what the UN Security Council cannot be: a platform for understanding between the great liberal democracies, able to give a coordinated response to universal issues and to face up to China's global ambitions and the threats posed by Russia. In essence, it is about seeking to safeguard American hegemony, not in an isolated way as Donald Trump advocated, but with the USA's most solid allies.

To make this alliance more effective, they associate South Africa, Australia, South Korea, and India to the group. This addition is strange and incomplete. It leaves out many important states. It is true that this is not the time for vast face-to-face meetings.  It is also true that the decision on who comes to sit at the table is up to the host. But the other members would also have a say in the matter. Nobody insisted that Mexico, Brazil, or others be invited. The reading that can be made leaves little doubt: Latin America is in crisis and counts for little more than nothing on the international stage. It is, in any case, in the North American sphere of influence. It would not need to be heard.

Africa was represented at previous summits by three or four countries. This time it was almost left out. The presence of Cyril Ramaphosa, the South African president, can be seen as the British lending a hand to maintaining stability in South Africa in order to reassure certain sections of its population. The rest of the continent is of lesser concern. Incidentally, the UK was the only G7 country that decided to cut its cooperation budget on the pretext of the pandemic. The cut is £4 billion. It will have a considerable negative impact at a time when the least developed countries need exceptional support.

Regarding the Middle East, nobody wants to hear anything about Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, the general in charge in Egypt, let alone about Recep Erdoğan or Mohammed bin Salman. From the perspective of the G7, the Middle East is losing strategic relevance. On the other hand, Iran has moved into China's orbit - on 27 March, a mutual cooperation agreement for the next 25 years was signed, thus opening a way out for the Iranians, who have become freer from American and Western sanctions.

In Asia, the big bet is centred on India. It is, however, a complex and risky gamble. Narendra Modi is a radical Hindu nationalist who is dragging the world's largest democracy into an intense civil crisis. He is also a protectionist, unwilling to open the economy to foreigners. He does, however, offer one illusion: that he could become an important counterweight to China. 

China is, moreover, the main concern that Biden has in his baggage. He wants to turn the G7 into a dam against Chinese expansionism. We will see if he succeeds, apart from the mention in the final communiqué. As for Boris Johnson, the banner that would allow him to present the meeting as a success would be a resounding declaration of support for vaccination campaigns in the poorest countries, so as to have 60% of these populations vaccinated by the end of 2022. If there is a commitment to that, then this G7 will have been useful. Leaders will be able to sing victory, even though December 2022 will mean another year and a half of uncertainties and restrictions. In that perspective, helping others as quickly as possible is in the vital interests of us all, starting with the G7.

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

 

 

A complex strategic game between China and India

The recent brutal border clashes between China and India caused about 20 deaths on the Indian side and an unknown number of casualties on Chinese camp. People might not know, but no bullet was fired by the opposing armies. There is a compromise between the two countries not to shoot at the other side. The soldiers fought hand-to-hand, with clubs embedded with nails or barbed wire, and other blunt weapons and rocks. Some of the Indian men were pushed into the icy waters of the Galwan river or over the mountain ridges.

That was a vicious confrontation, that brings us back to ancient practices. But it is a good illustration of the strategic rivalry that is developing between these two giants, both armed with sophisticated weaponry and nuclear capabilities. At the local level, in their border disputes – there are at least three fronts where those disputes are continually active – they go for sticks and nails. At the diplomatic level, they play the complex game of subtle threats combined with frequent high-level meetings and, on the Indian side, a special relationship with the United States, a matter that is seen as a major issue by the Chinese.

It is fascinating geopolitics but not for those who fight in the cold of the Himalayas.

Leading the international response

It is massively wrong to criticise the World Health Organisation (WHO) at this stage. We are still in unknown territory and unchartered waters as far as the Covid-19 pandemic is concerned. We don’t know what is going to happen in Africa and in other parts of the world, where the health systems are extremely weak. WHO has a technical presence in those countries and lots of experience in assisting them. As such, the wise thing to do would be to strengthen its operational capacity. That means that its authority must be recognised, and additional resources mobilised. To weaken and destabilise the organisation, as President Trump is doing, is unacceptable. We do not expect the current US President to provide the leadership it should, as head of the strongest State on earth. Donald Trump does not understand the world we live in and the role the US should be playing. But, at least, he should keep quiet as far as WHO is concerned.

The sad thing is that we are confronted with a devastating global calamity at a time there is no real global leadership. The US is getting more and more confused with its internal politics. The turmoil is amazing out there. Elsewhere, in the other regions of the world, there is no visionary leader, nobody of gigantic stature, capable to call the international action. The Prime Minister of New Zealand, Jacinda Arden, is sometimes mentioned. She is indeed an example. But her country is too small and too far out for her to be able to play a global role. All the other potential leaders are too busy with their own national situation – or messing things up, as it is the case with Narendra Modi of India.

I see a role for the UN Secretary-General. But I also recognise that his voice must be amplified by the international media, for that role to be effective. And that is not very easy to achieve at the moment.

Again about India and the pandemic

Yesterday I wrote a few lines about India’s decision to confine her citizens. It’s a 21 days lockdown for 1,3 billion people. Many, in my part of world, cannot understand the magnitude and the complexity of such a decision. They do not know that hundreds of millions in India have no regular job. They live in cities and struggle, every day, to get some sort of casual work, that will give them enough rupees to buy the daily food their families and themselves need. That is how the informal sector operates, each day being a new beginning. And most of the people survive within the informal, occasional economy. If the economy is brought to a standstill, as it is now the case, that means no means of survival. It is just dramatic. Then, the solution is to try to go back to their ancestral villages and do some very basic farming. That’s what has happened in the last days or so. Millions have travelled back, in crowded buses, lorries and on the few trains that are still operating. As they moved back, one on top of the other, they might have caught the virus from their fellow travellers. If so, that means the virus has been passed on to an incalculable number of people and brought from the cities to the rural areas. That would be mass contagion. We will see. But we can be at the gate of a major public health problem in the largest country on earth. It would give the pandemic crisis a new, terrifying dimension. I can only hope this scenario is not going to happen.

Responding to the strong men

As we consider the year ahead, and keep in mind the way some leaders behave, we should expect some shocks. These are unpredictable times. One must watch the key radar screens all the time. That means to keep a very attentive eye on people with real power, from Donald Trump to Xi Jinping, without forgetting Vladimir Putin and Recep Tayyip Erdogan, or even Narendra Modi, Imran Ahmed Khan, Kim Jong-un, and a handful of players in the Middle East.

Power games, deception and confrontation seem to be the main lines of inspiration in today’s international affairs. They make the world a dangerous place once again. It would be a serious mistake not to recognise the existing threats to peace and stability.

The response ought to be based on moderation, respect for the values that have been accepted in the last decades and speaking truth to power. To remain silent at this stage would be unacceptable. 2020 calls for strong and balanced views.

Pakistan, India and Kashmir

In January 1957, the Indian Permanent Representative to the UN, V. K. Krishna Menon, spoke for 8 hours, when addressing the Security Council on the situation in Kashmir. That speech remains the longest ever delivered at the UN. It was cut short, if I can say so, because Menon collapsed of exhaustion.

Compared to such feat, yesterday´s 50-minute speech by Pakistan’s Prime Minister was a brief episode. But a striking one, not because of its length – at the UN, it is considered a long speech that goes beyond 35 minutes; this year’s trend has been to have shorter interventions – but because of the words he said. He basically focused on the dispute with India regarding Kashmir. And he talked about the possibility of war between the two countries and made a direct reference to the use of nuclear weapons. Imran Khan stated that Pakistan would go for a nuclear response if there is war and his country is losing it against India.

Such assertion is most upsetting. There is indeed a serious state of cold confrontation between Pakistan and India. The Kashmir situation and Modi’s decision to cancel the autonomy of the region have brought the complexity of conflict to the fore. We have there an extremely dangerous threat to international peace and security. Khan’s words have confirmed it.

Pakistan is getting closer and closer to China. Its dramatic economic situation makes Pakistan very dependent on China’s investments and economic cooperation. China, on the other hand, sees India as a growing competitor. But I can’t believe the Chinese would encourage Pakistan to go for an armed conflict with India. They cannot imagine that such clash would reduce India’s capacity to compete. 

In my opinion, the Chinese should be encouraged to mediate in between both countries. That would have an impact on the easing of the tensions and would strengthen the international standing of China. With the accord of the two antagonistic nations, the Chinese could also bring the matter to the Security Council, to get a greater buy-in for a peaceful way forward.

It is not easy, though. The Indian Prime Minister sees the Kashmir crisis as an internal challenge, a domestic affair. He does not welcome any type of international assistance on the issue. 

That was fine until yesterday, I would retort. With Imran Khan’s dramatic speech at the UN, the issue cannot be anything else but an international matter of great concern. It must be dealt as such and with great urgency. 

A new human tragedy is emerging

Another major humanitarian crisis is emerging fast. This time is in the Assam State, in India. There has been a population registration process there. It is now completed. It shows around 1.9 million people left out of citizenship rights. Prime Minister Modi’s officials say these people have no ground to call themselves Indians. No identification, no citizenship means, in Modi’s India, expulsion, deportation to Bangladesh, of all places. And Bangladesh, that is already coping with the Rohingyas from Myanmar, says they will not recognise these people as citizens.

A new mass tragedy in a world that likes to talk about human rights, democracy and social progress.

A deteriorating situation around Kashmir

One of the most militarised borders in the world is the one between India and Pakistan. Men and the most sophisticated means of control stand of both sides of the line. The tension level is always very high, close to open conflict. Unfortunately, these days it is even closer. We are witnessing an extreme delicate crisis between the two countries. The reason is once again the dispute and the unresolved situation around Kashmir. I do not think we, in Europe, should take sides. But we should advise both countries to lower the pressure. We should express our deep concern with the current escalation of the conflict. And appeal to China to remain out of the problem. By taking sides with Pakistan, the Chinese are not playing the constructive role they should be playing in the region. That is not the Chinese foreign policy President Xi Jinping has pledged he would follow.

Hormuz: to avert further deterioration

As we start the last week of July, we must be profoundly aware that the situation around the Strait of Hormuz represents an extraordinary menace for peace and security in the region. In addition, if it escalates further it will have a serious impact on the economy of major international players, well beyond the region. Most of the oil the Gulf countries export – close to 85% of it – goes to major Asian economies, to China, India, Japan, Singapore and South Korea.

We need to see a major initiative launched with the objective of de-escalating the confrontation. It should come from the UN, if at all possible. If not, it could be initiated by the Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi. His country has high stakes at play and, at the same time, has a voice that matters in the region and the UK.

Indian elections and the need for balance

India is voting for a new Parliament. That’s a gigantic exercise, with over 900 million people on the voters ‘roll. It takes over five weeks to complete. But people trust the electoral authorities and that’s very good news. India’s electoral commission is an example to be followed by many developing nations. Particularly if one considers that the Indian political class is seen as very corrupt. There is a difference between the politicians and the senior civil servants. Functionaries are well prepared and very professional in the performance of their duties. And that’s why the electoral system is trusted. There is no political influence in the system.

The table below shows the main concerns the voters have in their hearts and minds. Jobs remain a major issue. India has nowadays millions of young university graduates. But not enough jobs for them. Many end up by performing low-skilled and low-paid tasks. They feel very frustrated.

However, there is hope in the future. When I visited last time, after twenty years without being back, I found a country that is modernising fast and full of optimism.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi might win the elections this time again. He is seen as resolute, clear-minded. However, I think his approach towards the Muslim Indians is not appropriate. He puts too much emphasis on the Hindu side of the culture, forgetting that India is a multicultural society and that social peace can only be achieved by politics of inclusiveness. Let's hope he goes back to a more balanced approach once the elections are over.

Davos 2019: power and planes

Davos 2019 is now underway.

Davos is the annual high mass on globalization and power. This year’s headline is about the absence of key political leaders. The big names – Trump, Xi, Putin, Modi, Merkel, Macron, May – are not attending. They have more pressing matters to address at their respective home fronts. Even second line political leaders are not many this time. Bad omen for the organisers: Jair Bolsonaro of Brazil is the star at the opening.

Almost 50 years down the line, since the first meeting, the World Economic Forum is at risk of becoming no more than a networking venue for major corporate leaders, friendly NGOs heads, and plenty of star media people. Also, one high-visibility opportunity for the elites that love to be seen attending seminars and participating in panel discussions on global themes. Boring as such talks can be, and abstract, so many times, they pretend to identify the key challenges of the day and come up with new solutions. That sounds great and visionary.

But it is not just the question of the elitist image, of powerful people deeply disconnected from the realities of the ordinary citizen meeting on the rocks of Davos. It’s also that nowadays there are many competing initiatives, dozens of conferences in many places that debate the same issues and come to similar conclusions.

Maybe the only true difference is related to private planes. In Davos this year, they expect around 1,500 of them. That’s the ultimate symbol of power. The private plane.

Modi as a major partner of Europe

It has been a bit of a mere footnote in the European media, but I think we have to pay greater attention to the political change that is taking place in India. Narendra Modi´s overwhelming electoral victory cannot be ignored. It is, in many ways, an expression of a new India that wants more economic development, concrete results in terms of improved living conditions, and less cronyism and paternalism. Congress Party had become too complacent and too distant from the daily concerns of the people. That´s why they have been voted out. Modi brings a powerful argument with him: the changes he has achieved in his own home State of Punjab. His challenge now is to be able to respond to the aspirations of the ordinary citizen. And also to be able to send a strong signal to the Muslim population. The Indian Muslims need to believe the new Prime Minister is there for all.

EU should engage the new government in Delhi soonest. At the highest level possible, from the European side. Europe has to see Modi and his team as essential partners.