Peace is about trust: Europe, USA and Russia, a question of balance

 The Future of Peace in Europe Depends on a Rebalancing of Power

Victor Ângelo

Despite the intense diplomatic activity in recent days, we remain far from peace in Ukraine. The plan devised by the Russians and signed by Donald Trump, giving the impression it was an initiative from the White House, collapsed after two or three days. The positions of Zelensky and the European allies rendered it void. They stated in unison, without ambiguity, that it was an unacceptable diktat, a kind of ultimatum from Moscow. It became clear that Trump’s envoy, property developer Steve Witkoff, knows as much about geopolitics as Cristiano Ronaldo or is a contender for the Guinness record as the most brazen Russian agent in recent US history.
Rarely, European firmness proved exemplary. Zelensky’s response was as expected, although the initial announcement of the Russo-American proposal was a heavy blow to the Ukrainian leader. Those who saw images of Zelensky at that moment could see he was deeply shocked. But he did not lose his composure, which was what the Kremlin intended. He responded diplomatically, and three days later there was already another plan, drawn up in Geneva, together with European delegations and Marco Rubio’s team. The latter scored points within Trump’s circle. Will he be able to maintain that influence? It will not be easy, but it is not impossible. For many in the MAGA movement, Rubio is a silent rival to Trump and, especially in the long term, to Vice President J.D. Vance.
It is evident that the American leadership group is becoming fractured. And not only because of differences in handling relations with Russia, but also for internal reasons: the Epstein case, the cost of living, the persecution of immigrants, favours granted to the most eccentric billionaires, etc. In the case of Russia, it is worth remembering that US military doctrine has, for decades, categorised that country as a grave threat to the United States. Thus, many senior US military officers look with great surprise at the relationship Trump has established with Putin. There is something fishy here. Many will think that this relationship has more to do with “ad hominem” blackmail from Moscow than with a new type of diplomacy.
Meanwhile, diplomacy related to the brutal aggression against Ukraine continued in Abu Dhabi. For now, we have a new project, more appropriate. It is fundamentally inspired by Ukrainian realism and has European support. It will certainly not be accepted by Vladimir Putin, but it puts him on the defensive against his American counterpart. Trump wants the war to end at any cost – in reality, it is not a war, but a barbaric aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine – as long as it adds an argument to his candidacy for the Nobel Peace Prize. That is the ambition, his ego above all else.
We are, however, in a risky phase for Ukraine’s sovereignty and for Europe’s security. Putin believes in two fundamental illusions: that he will shatter Ukraine and that he will manage to create a rift and distance the US from the defence of Europe. In other words, that US support for NATO is numbered. NATO will be, at best, in Putin’s view, a merely symbolic coalition, which will last only as long as Europeans have the financial means to buy American arms and other goods and services.
Peace is built on mutual trust. Without trust, at best, we will have a temporary pause in hostilities. The foundations of that trust regarding the Trump administration were seriously shaken by Washington’s endorsement of the incredible Russian plan. It is essential to rebuild trust between Europeans and Americans.
As for Putin’s Russia, there is no room for any kind of trust. Putin dreams of a vassal Europe, trapped within his sphere of geopolitical influence. He needs that influence out of czarist-inspired narcissism, for economic reasons, and for strategic motives: so he can claim membership in the club of great powers, alongside China and the US. For this reason, he wants to dismantle the Atlantic Alliance and implode the European Union.
Trust is based on shared values. In my view, the most important are those contained in the Charter of the United Nations.
The great powers do not currently respect the basic principles of the Charter: human dignity, human rights, tolerance, independence and sovereignty of each State, large or small, and solidarity among peoples. Democratic Europe, for its part, seeks to remain within this framework of values. Only a minority of movements and political parties here show contempt for these red lines. The majority recognise the importance of democracy and respect for international law. They therefore see Putin as a very serious threat. That is why they focus on defending our part of the continent, starting with the defence of Ukraine and the symmetry of forces, which is something different from peace, but serves peace. And they now understand that the relationship with Trump’s America is dangerously unstable. It must be urgently rebalanced.

Is it possible to reform the United Nations and bring back its key peace role?

A few decision-makers and intellectuals think that the political UN -- read "political", I am not talking about the specialised agencies ---  is something of the XX century, that has lost its relevance and must be re-created or re-invented taking into account the world's new realities. Meaning, they think that the UN secretariat and its departments, as well as the UN Security Council, are unreformable and must be reinvented, taking into consideration the Global South, the new and the emerging superpowers, the increasing role of the regional associations of states, the power of those trillionaire individuals controlling the key social platforms, and also the expectations of the peoples in different parts of the world.

For them, global issues outside peace and security, economic inequalities and human rights, should be dealt either by the specialised agencies or by ad-hoc international conferences and their specific processes. 

2025 Nobel Peace Price: Maria Corina Machado, a decision I support

 My former UN/UNDP Senior colleague Amb. Francis M. O'Donnell sent me the folowing text about Maria Corina Machado, the 2025 Nobel Peace.

"I asked AI three questions: "(a) Is the Nobel Peace Prize now drifting from celebrating peace achievements towards rewarding social/political activism? ; (b) How deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize is María Corina Machado? Has she not aligned with fascism, islamophobia, and Trumpism? (c) what is her her human rights record and values explicitly pronounced?"

Here is the response:

QUOTE: 

(a) Nobel Peace Prize Shift Toward Activism: The Nobel Peace Prize has increasingly pivoted from honoring traditional diplomatic achievements to recognizing social and political activism, reflecting a response to global democratic erosion. Historically, awards like those to Willy Brandt (1971) for East-West reconciliation or Desmond Tutu (1984) for anti-apartheid work blended diplomacy and activism. Recent laureates—Malala Yousafzai (2014) for education rights, Nadia Murad (2018) for survivor advocacy, and Maria Ressa (2021) for press freedom—center grassroots resistance against systemic oppression. Critics argue this shift strays from Alfred Nobel’s vision of “fraternity between nations,” pointing to controversial awards like Barack Obama’s (2009) for unfulfilled promises or Abiy Ahmed’s (2019) before Ethiopia’s civil war. Supporters counter that activism confronts modern threats—authoritarianism, disinformation, and inequality—directly tied to peace. The 2025 award to María Corina Machado for her nonviolent fight against Venezuela’s dictatorship exemplifies this, prioritizing civilian-led democratic struggle over elite negotiations. This trend underscores a broader definition of peace, embracing human rights and democratic resilience amid global autocratic surges. 

(b) Deservingness of María Corina Machado: María Corina Machado’s 2025 Nobel Peace Prize is well-earned for her relentless, nonviolent campaign against Venezuela’s authoritarian regime. Winning 92% in the 2024 opposition primaries, she unified a fractured opposition, mobilized millions for free elections, and faced severe repression—expulsion from parliament, campaign bans, and hiding from arrest. Her resilience embodies Alfred Nobel’s ideals of fostering democratic fraternity. Critics cite her virtual appearance at the February 2025 “Patriots for Europe” summit, alongside far-right figures like Marine Le Pen, as fascist alignment. Yet, Machado’s speech focused solely on Venezuela’s democratic crisis, not endorsing the summit’s anti-immigration or “Reconquista” rhetoric, which fueled Islamophobia accusations. Her praise for Trump’s sanctions reflects strategic support for external pressure on Maduro, not ideological Trumpism. These associations, while divisive, are pragmatic outreach in a desperate fight, not evidence of extremist ideologies. Her nonviolent leadership remains a beacon for democratic restoration. 

(c) María Corina Machado’s Human Rights Values and Policies:  María Corina Machado’s human rights stance is rooted in democratic restoration and individual liberties, shaped by Venezuela’s crisis under Maduro’s regime. She advocates for free elections, press freedom, and judicial independence, emphasizing nonviolent resistance to authoritarianism. Her Vente Venezuela party promotes a liberal democratic framework, prioritizing free speech, property rights, and economic freedom to counter socialist policies that fuelled Venezuela’s collapse. Machado has consistently condemned state violence, including arbitrary detentions and extrajudicial killings, demanding accountability for regime abuses documented by the UN. She supports humanitarian aid access to address Venezuela’s 80% poverty rate and mass migration crisis. While her economic liberalism and U.S. sanctions support draw criticism for aligning with Western interests, her focus remains on empowering Venezuelans through transparent governance and civic participation. Her policies reject divisive ideologies, focusing on unity and democratic resilience, aligning with universal human rights principles. “UNQUOTE

2025: My views and my contribution to the debate

 10 January 2025

A year that calls for common sense, clarity and a lot of courage

Victor Angelo

 

In this first text of the new year, I seek to share some of my vision on the major global challenges that we will have to face in the next twelve months. Some of these challenges come as a continuation of the immense political difficulties that marked the international scene in 2024. Their trajectory in 2025 appears to continue in the direction of worsening. I see the stakes on moderation and peace as extremely complex and difficult, but absolutely necessary.

Added to these concerns are new problems, among which the following stand out: 1) the inequities and madness that the Donald Trump/Elon Musk Administration will introduce into international relations; 2) the acceleration of the use of Artificial Intelligence to respond to the designs and control of the strategic agenda by various imperialisms; and 3) access to power in several Western democracies, and elsewhere, by ultra-reactionary parties inspired by Nazis, fascists or simply xenophobic influences. Austria was, this week, the most recent example of this trend, that is, of the shift in public opinion towards populism and extremist nationalism. Herbert Kickl, leader of the far-right FPÖ party (symbolically called the National Social Party, an appellation inspired by the party of a certain Adolf Hitler), was invited to form a government.

This kind of perspective requires clear and courageous ambitions. Most of our leaders talk a lot, but their statements are vague, even incomprehensible in some cases. They do not understand the current context, nor can they imagine the future. They use the media to sell us the past and to maintain the illusions on which their power is based. It is up to us to combat these attitudes, but it is not easy. Access to the market for realistic and humanist ideas is increasingly narrow. Just look at who has access to airtime to understand how difficult it is to see on any screen who has the courage to dismantle the illusory contexts that serve as a basis of support for the bosses of the main political parties or for the leaders of some regional or global powers.

Anyone who has influence and authority should have at least five major ambitions.

First, peace. It's 2025, not the past. The great powers, but also each one of us, must abandon the idea that problems can be resolved by force of arms and ultimatums. With technological advances, wars only serve to cause the cruellest human suffering.

Second, the preservation of universal values. International law has made enormous progress since 1945. Its principles must be respected. With balance, equally, whether it is country A or B. Double standards lead to the discredit of universal ethics.

Third, respect for the life and fundamental rights of each person. This is the issue that receives the most emphasis when talking to the inhabitants of the most forgotten areas of the world, in the regions where many of the conflicts occur.

Fourth, reduce the underdevelopment gap. After several years of success, we are now moving in the opposite direction. The increase in economic and social disparities is, on the one hand, a source of tension, instability, hostility towards more developed countries, uncontrolled migration and environmental deterioration. On the other hand, it generates racism, xenophobia, contempt and indifference towards the poverty of many.

Fifth, contribute to the revival of the political role of the UN. I do not want to enter the debate about the Secretary-General's room for manoeuvre. But I cannot help but remember the importance of the United Nations Charter. We must insist, repeatedly, on absolute respect for the principles defined there.

The defence of Europe's democracies will certainly be a central issue in 2025. However, reducing the issue to the expansion of our defence industries is a mistake. It is also unrealistic and destabilizing to demand spending that would represent 5% of each State's GDP out of hand. The real challenge is to be able to build a coherent and shared European defence policy, which recognises the main dangers and considers, in a consensual manner, the possible contribution of each country.

This is essentially a political issue. There will be States whose current leaders will feel closer to the enemy than to our regimes of freedom. This year’s debate cannot ignore this reality. We will have to define a common position towards these individuals. There is another key question: to review and update the relations between the US and other NATO members – a subject that deserves a very detailed reflection at the appropriate time.

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)

 

 

 

Looking at a possible UN role in Ukraine

UN: a roadmap for peace in Ukraine

Victor Angelo

 

More than a month has passed since an open letter was sent to the UN Secretary-General on the situation in Ukraine, signed by former senior officials. Meanwhile, António Guterres has been in Moscow and Kyiv, and has managed to push forward the UN humanitarian response. The political dimension, however, continues to be determined elsewhere. In general, words coming out of the West have been accentuating the possibility of a Ukrainian victory. Statements of this kind tend to aggravate the confrontation. It is true that there has been a considerable increase in arms support to Ukraine and that this is positive, as it allows for a redoubling of self-defence efforts. But in public, we should only talk about self-defence and, in tandem, the urgency of peace.

In this context, it makes perfect sense for the Secretary-General to stand up for a political process that recognises both the right to self-defence and war reparations, and the imperative of a peace agreement, guaranteed by the United Nations.

A new open letter should now insist on this line of action. A draft was prepared this week. I was one of those who found the text too vague, when the moment demands clarity and a firm assumption of responsibilities. So, for the time being, there will not be a new missive from us. The important thing is to show that the political pillar of the United Nations has the necessary authority to propose a way out of the crisis which will counter the escalation of military aggression and prevent the destruction of Ukraine.

The UN's political agenda could be built around four converging lines of intervention.

First, by seeking to establish temporary pauses in the fighting, in various localities deemed vulnerable, in order to protect civilians and facilitate humanitarian assistance. In this vision, the pauses would be monitored by a contingent of UN observers, with a mandate from the Security Council. The proposal to create a group of international monitors would be appreciated by many, although it is acknowledged that it would encounter immense obstacles to be approved.

Second, by maintaining a constant call, repeated until heard, for an end to hostilities and acceptance of a UN-led mediation process, which could include the preparation of a conference on a new framework for cooperation and security in Europe. 

Third, by continually recalling the Geneva Protocols on the limits of war. The major concern is the defence of civilian populations. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited; acts of military violence to create terror are a war crime; infrastructures essential to the survival of communities must be spared; certain types of munitions are absolutely prohibited, including cluster bombs, chemical and biological weapons. It is also time to underline the rules on the treatment of prisoners of war, now that the defenders of the last stronghold in Mariupol have surrendered to Russian troops. This surrender is a highly political and symbolic event, which calls for a special reference, in defence of the rights of these prisoners. And of all the others, of course. 

Still under this heading, it seems essential to me to reiterate that the UN is already engaged in documenting possible war crimes and will seek, as far as possible, to increase its efforts in this regard.

Fourth, bearing in mind the divisions within the Security Council, and considering this war to be the greatest threat in 77 years, the Secretary-General could try to set up a Contact Group on the conflict. Such a group would bring together several influential countries that would be in constant liaison with Guterres in the search for solutions. It is a way to multiply the Secretary-General's capacity for intervention and to create a circle of support to protect him from political attacks. It would also show that the crisis has an international and not just a European scope.

None of this would be easy. But the fact remains that the job of UN secretary-general is anything but an easy one.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 20 May 2022)

 

 

 

 

 

China, European Union, Ukraine and Vladimir Putin

Where is China's leadership?

Victor Angelo

It took 12 days of aggression against Ukraine for Xi Jinping to come down to earth and discuss his reading of the crisis with Emmanuel Macron and Olaf Scholz. The day before, his foreign minister, Wang Yi, had organised a long press conference focused on the same subject.

Analysing these two speeches, I get the impression that Beijing wants to please Greeks and Trojans, i.e., the Europeans of the EU and the regime of Vladimir Putin, and to escalate the rhetoric against the US. Xi sought to encourage dialogue between the Europeans and the Kremlin, as well as to create a fault line between the European and American positions. This is how the Chinese initiative can be summed up.

Above all, Xi's aim is to project an image of composure and serenity, in defence of the multilateral system and of peace. He wants to appear as the great apologist for international principles, while the Americans should be seen as the instigators of conflicts, including the one now being suffered in Ukraine. China would be mainly concerned with the promotion of international cooperation - the word cooperation was mentioned more than 80 times in Wang's speech - development and the prevention of large-scale humanitarian crises.

All this is an exercise in style in the realms of propaganda and ambiguity. China needs to maintain a very close relationship with Russia. They are two big neighbours, with various complementarities, beyond the immense geographical continuity. Beijing imports raw materials extracted in Russia – oil represents about 60% of total imports coming from Russia – and provides an outlet for its neighbour's economy. Most important of all, it sees the US as a common enemy. Geography brings the two countries together and geopolitics unites them. It is, however, a fragile union: it is fundamentally based on the wills of Xi and Putin. It has no solid popular expression, because each people have their own cultural framework, without shared roots or references.

And China knows how to calculate too: in one year, trade with the EU exceeds USD 800 billion, while with Russia it is much lower, at USD 105 billion. This figure roughly equals the annual trade between China and the Netherlands. Politically and economically, Xi Jinping depends on an open and friendly European market. For the Chinese leader, international trade is essential to maintain the pace of growth in living standards for his citizens. This has to do with his continuity in power. It is the key argument to justify his legitimacy and absolute authority.  

The fact is that the Chinese leadership does not support the military assault that Putin has ordered against Ukraine. For what I write above, and for three other reasons. First, because it flouts two of the fundamental principles of Chinese foreign policy, that of the inviolability of national borders and non-interference in the internal affairs of other states. Secondly, it destabilises European economies and puts them at risk of a deep crisis. Third, it reinforces the role of the USA in NATO and its influence in Europe.

However, Xi Jinping does not think it prudent to criticise, or even talk to Putin now. He prefers to go through Macron and Scholz and advise them on a dialogue with the Kremlin, pretending not to see that this path is currently blocked. Putin does not listen to the European leaders.

Faced with the Ukrainian resistance against the invaders, Putin is determined to repeat what other dictators have done throughout history: expand the use of armed force, including the bombing of civilians - a war crime - and the siege of cities, in the old medieval style. Xi Jinping knows the costs of this kind of criminal folly. It is what prompted him to contact Europe's leaders. He should show that his words about the value of multilateralism and diplomatic negotiations make sense and move with clarity in the UN Security Council and with his partner Putin. Only then can he be taken seriously. 

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 11 March 2022)

 

 

The Chinese hope Europe will remain peaceful

China, Russia, peace in Europe and beyond

Victor Angelo

 

Yesterday I was in contact with a well-informed Chinese source living in Beijing. The main topic of discussion was the crisis in Ukraine, a subject that has not been highlighted in the Chinese press. The media is focused on the Winter Olympics, which are being held in an exemplary manner, and on the success of Chinese athletes who were born in the USA but chose to compete under the Chinese flag. The remaining space is devoted to Taiwan and the meeting of the foreign ministers of the Quad (United States, Australia, India, and Japan), taking place today in Melbourne, and which is seen as yet another attempt by the two Anglo-Saxon countries to create an alliance hostile to China. As for Europe, the only issue that Beijing seems to be concerned about remains Lithuania, because of the opening in that country of a commercial representation with the name of Taiwan inscribed on the façade.

During my videoconference, it became clear that China does not see any advantage in a possible armed conflict in Europe. For several reasons.

Firstly, because such a confrontation would quickly spiral out of control. It would eventually take on an extraordinary dimension, far beyond the Ukrainian borders. Second, because European markets contribute significantly to the prosperity of the Chinese economy. It is crucial that they continue to function without disruption. Xi Jinping's legitimacy rests in large part on continued rapid economic growth. Third, because the conflict would severely disrupt the movement of goods by rail, given that trains from China pass through a significant part of Russian territory before reaching European destinations. Fourth, because Poland would certainly be in the front line and would therefore be deeply destabilised at a time when Chinese decision-makers have decided to consider Poland as one of the most important logistical hubs from which overland deliveries will be routed to the rest of Europe. Fifth, because Ukraine is an important trading and agricultural partner of China - 80% of the corn imported by China comes from Ukrainian fields. Sixth, because the official Beijing narrative is based on the promotion of international peace, with China at the centre of the efforts for the peaceful resolution of conflicts and as one of the new pillars of the multilateral system. 

The reason for the absence of any reference to Ukraine in the joint communiqué that came out of the recent summit between Xi and Putin has also become clearer to me. The communiqué explicitly mentions NATO, which is, after all, the strategic alibi for Putin's manoeuvres, but ignores the Ukrainian crisis. A crisis which, moreover, goes against one of the basic principles of Chinese foreign policy, namely the inviolability of national borders. The Chinese do not look favourably on the annexation of Crimea or on the presence of Russian special troops in the Ukrainian region of Donbass, who are there to support the rebel groups. And they do not want this annexation to be compared to the Taiwan problem, which is presented as an internal Chinese issue.

The alliance between Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin is based on a pragmatic, non-ideological vision, on the part of the Chinese. China imports Russian oil, gas, and other raw materials as it also needs to maintain good neighbourly relations. By way of example, note that Russia is China's second largest supplier of oil and coal, and the first, in terms of electricity. A significant part of the New Silk Road passes through Russian territory. On the other hand, Beijing is fully aware that Moscow will never again become the capital of a superpower, but only of a second-rate power. The real competition is with the United States of America. And to win that competition China needs, among other things, continued economic expansion, which depends to a large extent on the prevalence of a climate of peace in Russia, the rest of Europe and beyond.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 11 February 2022)

 

 

Christmas reflection

Peace. Dignity. Equality. Planet.

Victor Angelo

 

On this Christmas Eve, it seems appropriate to recall the current motto of the United Nations: "Peace, dignity and equality on a healthy planet". It is a call for the implementation of policies that place people and nature at the centre of public interventions. It expresses well the wishes that I would like to leave here.

We live in a complex reality, full of real concerns and dangers. The UN itself appears to many to have been weakened and marginalized. In this context, it is easy to lose hope, to confuse realism with pessimism, and to fall into an attitude of every man for himself, each behind his own walls. There is also the temptation to recover the growth that the pandemic caused to be lost with economic programmes based on unsustainable recipes. In other words, without considering the long-term consequences, the excessive debt that will burden future generations, the environmental commitments, and the need to transform the way we live and how we relate to other societies, especially the less developed ones. Electoralism turns democracy into an exercise of political opportunism.

Russian demands and military manoeuvres are the most immediate threat to peace. I wrote about this last week. Since then, Putin's stated conditions - and the language used - have become even more categorical and unacceptable. And military preparations have intensified. We are two days away - 26 December - from the thirtieth anniversary of the demise of the Soviet Union. A historic moment, seen by Putin as the great tragedy of millenarian Russia.  

What are the reasons behind the present Russian escalation?

That is the big question, far beyond the old tape of the narrative about NATO's eastward expansion. The most plausible answer will be to ask heaven and earth, to get a no, and thus create a pretext to annex part of Ukraine. And, at the same time, reaffirm the determination and strength of the Kremlin.

But what is Putin's strategic objective?

Strengthening his control of domestic politics will not be a sufficient explanation, even if we recognise that there is a marked erosion of his popularity. It has been seen: last September's parliamentary elections were a massive exercise in deceit and coercion to hide the extent of popular discontent.

It could then be an attempt to paralyse NATO by dividing it, showing its weaknesses. At the same time, it will send a signal to the Baltic countries. And still, that one does not make policy in the immediate vicinity of Russia without the green light from the Kremlin. 

Whatever the intention, we must insist on peaceful coexistence in Europe. On mutual concessions. As indeed in other parts of the world. In Syria, at war for more than ten years. In Palestine, in the Sahel, in Central Africa, in Ethiopia, in Myanmar, in Yemen. Today is the day to mention again these and other places that have been so afflicted.

Dignity and equality mean respecting the basic rights of every person, as defined in the 1949 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the additional conventions and protocols. The proclamation that "all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights" and have "the right to life, liberty and security of person" applies to humanity, regardless of the specific contexts of each nation.

I recognize that the vision that inspired the Universal Declaration places the individual at the centre of rights, while in certain cultures the well-being of the community is presented as having primacy. In one case and in the other, it is about people, the protection of their lives and their creativity. There are no cultural differences there.

On the planet, a little more than a month after the COP26, just a few words to share a thought of solidarity with the thousands of victims of the recent natural disasters. The floods in South Sudan, with entire regions submerged and misery transformed into despair. The typhoons in the Philippines. The tornadoes in the USA. Extreme climatic phenomena are becoming more and more overwhelming. Let us remember, in relation to this great challenge and the others, that this must be the time of rebirth.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 24 December 2021)

Reflections on political mediation

More and better mediation in times of conflict

Victor Angelo

The British philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) was one of the most brilliant thinkers of the 20th century. He was also one of the most progressive of his time, one of the first to fight for the institution of a universal minimum income or for the decriminalization of homosexual relations. A profound political analyst, he stressed in 1950, when he received the Nobel Prize for Literature, that "the love of power is, in fact, the strongest motive in the lives of important men. He added that many leaders do not mind impoverishing - and sinking the nation - if they can thereby bring their rivals to ruin. This is still the case in certain parts of the globe.

It was this blind passion for power, a central theme in Russell's work, that served as the starting point for my talk yesterday about conflict mediation. I was participating, by videoconference, in a colloquium of the US Institute of Peace, an independent Washington-based organization dedicated to parallel diplomacy and political negotiations. The challenge was to identify new ways of approaching national crisis resolution, to be shared with the United Nations and other partners active in this area of international politics.

Political intervention, in any society, requires a keen understanding of context and power relations. It is necessary to assess the relative strength of the main leaders, what their power is based on, and what their vulnerabilities are.

In democratic societies, this analysis is easier to do, even taking into account the opacity of certain secret associations, pressure groups and manipulation of social networks. Elections are held regularly, there are visible party structures and an active media. There, credibility is built on electoral legitimacy combined with the projection of a positive public image.

In countries where the abuse of force is the source and instrument of authority, the issue is more complicated. The apparent, institutional system is often deceptive. What counts is the informal web and its hierarchies. The real power is tied to traditional leaders, ethnic affiliations, religious networks, superstitions, or even criminal organizations in the field of drugs or the illegal trade in natural resources.

Throughout my life I have seen many examples of informal power. In Zimbabwe, it was easier to reach Robert Mugabe through the UN representative's driver than through the head of the presidential office. The driver was the first-born son of a tribal chief of the ethnic group to which Mugabe belonged. In Senegambia, a small number of marabouts had more political influence, regionally and nationally, than most ministers in the different governments.

Conflict mediation only works if you negotiate with those in power. The others, ministers and so on, are often mere figureheads or simple stooges of the boss. To get to the decision-maker, you often have to go beyond the formal system of governance.

Another critical aspect concerns the authority of the mediator. Credibility in politics results from the combination of four primary characteristics: a spirit of mission, political realism, balance of opinion, and self-confidence. Several mediators appointed in recent years by the United Nations have been shown to lack this set of qualities. New York tends to pay more attention to regional games, to winning political support in certain quarters, in the Security Council or from influential heads of state in the region concerned, than to the experience and personality of the appointees. The result is a certain marginalization of the UN and a blurring of its image.  During his second term, António Guterres should strive to address this weakness. The strengthening of the mediation capacity should be one of the priority areas in a time that promises to be fertile in conflicts. This is what many millions of people, victims of political violence or on the verge of the ravine, are crying out for every day.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 15 October 2021)

Just about Idlib in Syria

We cannot forget the human crisis that is taking place in the Idlib Province of Syria. The international headlines have been focused on the coronavirus epidemic. When that happens, the media becomes too obsessed with one theme, that is treated from every angle and with plenty of unnecessary details and erases other major issues from the screen. Idlib should remain within our radar. There is tremendous suffering going on over there.

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.

Afghan elections: people's determination

Tomorrow, it’s elections day in Afghanistan. It’s the presidential election, with the incumbent President, Ashraf Ghani, running against the leading politician Abdullah Abdullah, who has been the number two in governing arrangement that now comes to an end. There are another 15 or 16 candidates in the ballot paper. But the real contest is between the Ghani and Abdullah. They hate each other but have been able to sit side by side in many recent occasions. That’s striking. In my opinion, the fact that the country is somehow able to organise an elections day is even more memorable. It is true that in some areas there will be no vote because of the security situation. People are desperate for peace. They want to vote; they want democracy and normalcy to win.

It will be a very tense day, a risky process, with the Taliban and other armed groups trying to disrupt the election. I can only wish them a safe day and express my admiration for their perseverance. The Afghan people deserve all the support the international community can provide them.

Venezuela: mediation, mediation, mediation

Today’s situation in Venezuela moved a step closer to national tragedy.

Very concerned, the UN Secretary-General called for both Government and opposition forces to exercise “maximum restraint”. That is a necessary call.

But certainly not enough.

It is a passive reaction to a major development in the Venezuelan crisis. Antonio Guterres should also be offering his mediation authority. Mediation between both sides remains the only peaceful opening, the only hope to avoid additional loss of life and humanitarian suffering.

 I know the big bosses in Washington do not want to hear that word, mediation. They are simply betting on Maduro’s total defeat. But the Secretary-General cannot just pay attention to Washington. He is the voice of the world and the standard-bearer of common sense. His duty is to be at the service of peace. For that, he must underline in very clear terms that the UN good offices are the most reasonable way forward as far as Venezuela’s future is concerned.  

On matters of War

War without a concomitant, serious, persistent search for a political solution to the conflict is not morally justified. It´s unacceptable state terror. It´s a crime against the people. 

Dangerous times in the Korean Peninsula

The North Korea´s dangerously aggressive posture remains a major issue in the international political agenda. Consequently, the UN Security Council met yesterday on the matter. This was a meeting at the ministerial level as to demonstrate the seriousness of the most recent developments related to the country.

The US approach to make use of extreme diplomatic pressure on Pyongyang deserves support. Diplomacy passes through Beijing. The key to convince Kim Jong Un to abandon the accelerated missile and nuclear programmes is held by China. Therefore, the efforts on the diplomatic front must focus on very close contacts with the Chinese leadership.

It is also true that China does not appreciate a deeper US presence in the region. In particular, it remains strongly opposed to the THAAD missile deployment that the US has launched in South Korea. But that disagreement should not be an excuse. China must use all its leverage on North Korea.

The US additional show of force can be justified by the recent threats coming from the North. It should also be recognised that it contributes to intensify the atmosphere of crisis. But it is also obvious that the main cause of tension comes from Kim´s options.

The North Korean leader must understand that the American policy has changed. It is in his own interest, besides the interests of his fellow citizens.

In the last few hours there have been some noises regarding direct action against Kim himself. I would not be surprised if it is confirmed that such action is under review. However, that or any preventive strike – and we have been further away from a strike than we are today – would cause hell in the Peninsula, and in the region.

I trust that people who decide about these matters fully understand what is at play.

On robots

Today I only have questions. And they are in a very different field but in the end they might be of tremendous importance for matters of peace and human rights. And these are the two most important dimensions in any human life.

But let's list the questions. They concern robots.

Can we teach robots ethics and international law? Do we need to?

Is there a real threat that robots could go beyond the actions they have been programmed for? What should be the limits when designing and programming an extremely smart robot?

Maybe it is time to start looking at these interrogations.

Our dear unpredictable enemy

There are a number of shockingly bizarre leaders and unacceptable governance regimes in the world. The North Korean one is certainly the strangest system. But, above all, it is a very serious menace to peace in the region, not to mention the human rights violations its citizens suffer on a daily basis.

It is also an extremely militarised country. By far, number one on this category. And on top of it, it is absolutely unpredictable.

The unpredictability is the main cause of deep concern in the region and also for the US, a country that has a strong strategic presence in the Korean Peninsula and in neighbouring Japan.

Today, the most pressing question is how to deal with such unpredictability. That´s what is under very active discussion in the special rooms where strategy is formulated. 

On cyber as a weapon

Cyber attacks, when organised by an adversary State, must be taken very seriously and considered as a new type of armed aggression. Particularly when matters on national sovereignty and critical institutions are the target. To be soft on that will open the door for more daring and more damaging hostility. Better be clear and firm. The challenging State must be undoubtedly made aware of the consequences such attacks might bring on its own national interests and on its leadership.