Sweden, Finland, Turkey, Russia and Ukraine: the NATO Russian salad

Notes in the margins of the NATO summit

Victor Ângelo

 

Sweden and Finland seem to have accepted, without much discussion, the demands imposed by Recep Tayyip Erdogan. The absolute priority for both was to quickly move forward with the NATO accession process.

Shortly before the announcement of the agreement between the two candidate countries and the president of Turkey, the prevailing prognosis was that the impasse would drag on for some time, perhaps even until the Turkish presidential elections, scheduled for June next year. Erdogan would stand to gain from the continuation of the blockade, on the domestic political front. His refusal would be continually propagandised as a nationalist stance, a demonstration of power, at a time when the Turkish people feel marginalised by westerners, in particular the European Union.

By raising the veto threat, moments before the official opening of the NATO summit in Madrid, Erdogan surprised us. We were told afterwards that this showed the cohesion that exists within the Atlantic Alliance. I am one of those who do not buy that narrative. And once the terms of the agreement were known, it was clear that Erdoğan had won the arm wrestling.

The Swedish and Finnish concessions raise several types of concerns. I will mention two in a moment, not to mention the unease that comes from submitting to a despot. And let me not forget that the blackmail will continue until the Turkish parliament ratifies the accessions.

Firstly, because they show that there is an enormous fear of possible aggression from Moscow. In other words, the Nordics are actually convinced that Vladimir Putin's Russia represents a serious threat to peace in that part of the European continent.

Second, because the agreement provides for the possibility of extraditions of Kurdish militants and other refugees that the autocrat in Ankara has in his sights. We know that Erdoğan places no value on human rights or the independence of the justice system in his country. It is an aberration to have such a regime at the head of the second largest member country of the Atlantic Alliance. But it is also true that regimes - and dictators - are passing, they are not eternal. It may be that next year Erdoğan will lose the elections and Turkey will return to democratic practices. Then, sooner or later, one of the reforms to be made will be to include in the organisation's treaty the possibility of suspending one of the members while a situation similar to the one currently experienced in Turkey lasts. Today, this possibility does not exist, and it is sorely lacking.

Beyond the approval of the new strategic concept, it is the outcome of what is happening in Ukraine that will be truly transformative. The Madrid summit recognised that Russia cannot be allowed to win the conflict it has provoked. In today's times, the violation of international law and order should not bring advantages to the offender. Already the G7 meeting, a somewhat confused summit on the eve of the Madrid meeting, had reached the same conclusion. But such a declaration only has value if it is translated into concrete actions that prevent Moscow's victory.

Unfortunately, I would say that we are not on the right track. There is even a risk, if nothing more and urgently is done, that we will witness the progressive destruction of Ukraine. The current dynamic of war of attrition plays in Russia's favour, for several reasons. Russia's trump cards are a markedly stronger economy, greater military resources and a philosophy of war based on the destruction of infrastructure and urban areas, destroying ways of life and creating terror among the civilian populations who are the victims of aggression.

The European democracies cannot win this vital battle without a deeper, accelerated commitment that is well explained to the citizens. At the current rate, aid in terms of arms will not arrive in time, nor will it be sufficient. What is more, Ukraine alone will not have the strength to restore its sovereignty. We will see, in the near future, whether the Madrid summit took this evidence into account by promising Ukraine the firm and continued support of the members of the Atlantic Alliance.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 1 July 2022)

 

Emmanuel Macron and the new political game

Emmanuel Macron: his and our challenges

Victor Ângelo

 

This Sunday and next Sunday the legislative elections are taking place in France. Emmanuel Macron needs a presidential majority in the next National Assembly. In other words, a victory for Ensemble, the coalition of centrist parties that supports him. Bearing in mind the fractures in France, the country's weight in European politics and economics, and the complexity of the international situation, I hope he can achieve this. But above all, because the alternative would be a coalition dominated by Jean-Luc Mélenchon, a narcissistic lunatic and demagogue who proposes an unrealistic programme. Nouvelle Union populaire écologique et sociale, Nupes, is the name of the amalgam that Mélenchon has managed to build, and which has more than three hundred candidates from his party in the elections. The other partners are there like sidekicks: a hundred ecologist candidates, sixty from the old Socialist Party, and fifty from the communists.

It is a coalition in which the extremists dictate the rules of the game and define the programme. The moderate left is limited to an opportunistic collage to try to avoid shipwreck and save a few seats in the National Assembly. Nupes is exactly the opposite of what has happened in Portugal in recent years. Here, the socialists handled the agenda, and the radicals were invited to clap, when necessary and without the exercise of executive power. If Mélenchon and his people got the parliamentary majority, France would enter a phase of populism that would lead to the explosion of public debt and end in bankruptcy. Note that at the moment, still far from the fanciful policies that Nupes proposes, the country already spends more than 60% of its GDP on public spending. With Mélenchon, the financial crisis would be followed by a political crisis, with serious repercussions in Europe, given the central role France plays in the EU.

I repeat: for the good of France and the peace of mind of those who believe in the European project, it is essential that the movement supporting Macron obtains an absolute majority. But as I have already said here, Macron has to be seen as a reformist close to popular concerns. That is a dimension that any leader has to project, in the complicated context in which we live.

On the external front, Macron's ambition is a mix that is not always easy to understand. It combines good intentions, a broad vision with nationalism and a lot of personal presumption.  On the one hand, he wants a more sovereign EU. On the other, he acts as if France and himself should take the lead in achieving that goal. It is obvious that he sees in António Costa an important ally. But it is also well known that he has recently created some resistance in Eastern Europe. The insistence on talks with Vladimir Putin and the ambiguity of his recent statements run counter to his dream of European leadership. Moreover, they must be seen in the context of a competition between Macron and Erdogan, for whom he harbours deep personal antipathy and total political mistrust.

The French election comes at a time when Europe needs to remain cohesive. And not just in relation to Vladimir Putin's Russia, although that is the most immediate challenge. Indeed, the EU has managed to preserve a good level of coherence in responding to Putin. I say this, but I also recognise that in the future it may be more complicated to maintain European unity. The sanctions packages approved so far are by and large the most appropriate. They combine immediate impacts with fundamental long-term consequences. They have some costs for us, but that is the price to pay for creating a new European order.

The big question, beyond sanctions, is to define what political role Europe can play in finding, as promptly as possible, a solution that guarantees the legitimate defence of Ukraine and recognises its sovereignty, its right to live in peace and to make its own political choices. This is where Macron and others must focus their foreign policy efforts. For now, nobody knows how this war will evolve and how it will be possible to find, urgently, before the situation slips even further, a just peace. And that is very worrying.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 10 June 2022)

 

 

Three men and the future of the European Union

The European Union on the road to collapse

Victor Ângelo

 

Hungary's Viktor Orbán, Poland's Jarosław Kaczyński and Turkey's Recep Erdoğan were once again recalled this week as three of the major threats to the continuity of the EU. The report now published by the European Commission about the rule of law in member countries highlights the first two. The crisis in Libya brings the third back into the picture. All of them are part of the daily concerns of those who want to build a cohesive Europe based on the values of democracy, tolerance, and cooperation.

The report confirms what was already known about the Hungarian Prime Minister. Orbán manipulates public opinion in his country, abuses power to reduce his opponents' scope for action as much as possible, and attacks the freedom of the press, the activities of civil society and academic autonomy. The suspicions of corruption in the awarding of public contracts to companies linked to his and the ruling party are based on very strong evidence. To further spice up an undemocratic and very opaque mess, accusations have now been made public of the secret services' use of the Pegasus computer application to spy on journalists and others who oppose their misrule. It's all that and not just the new law on homosexuality. But the man is cunning. He is reducing the conflict with Brussels to a dimension that is not even at stake - the protection of children and adolescents. And then he announces that there will be a national referendum on that issue, certainly skewed in his own way.

The fight against corruption and for justice to work well, especially its independence, are two fundamental aspects of the European project. It was the issue of justice that caused Poland to appear in large letters in the above-mentioned report. The party now in government, improperly called Law and Justice (PiS), led by the ultra-conservative Kaczyński, has done everything it can to subjugate the judiciary to political power and to ignore Brussels whenever it smells criticism. Thus, the chief justice, appointed by the hand of the PiS, does not want to recognise the primacy and authority of the Court of Justice of the European Union. The European Commission has given him until mid-August to apply two decisions of the European court, which reveals the existence of an open conflict between Brussels and Warsaw.

The policies pursued by the governments of these two countries affect the integrity of the Union and open the door for others to adopt similar behaviour. The fact that the presidency in this second semester is held by the Slovenian prime minister - a confused politician who sometimes looks at Orbán with some admiration - does not help matters.

Outside the EU's borders, Erdoğan remains a nightmare. To the conflicts related to Greece and Cyprus, add the growing Turkish presence in Libya. This country has enormous strategic importance as a departure point for illegal immigrants heading for Europe. Erdoğan already commands the gateways in the Eastern Mediterranean. His influence in Libya will allow him to control the flows on the central route. As a reaction, the EU is preparing the deployment of a military mission to Libya. The main motivation is to compete with Turkey on the ground. This is a mistake. Libya is an extremely complicated chess, where several countries are playing, including Russia. There is no clear political process, apart from a vague promise of elections at the end of the year. A military mission like the one being planned has a high probability of failure and endless bogging down in the dry quicksand of a fragmented country. The EU cannot lightly approve such an intervention. Meanwhile, Turkish freighters continue to pass in front of the beards of the European naval and air operation IRINI, which is supposed to serve to control the arms embargo on Libyan belligerents.

Orbán and the others are a real danger. But the title of this chronicle is obviously provocative. Collapse is not on the horizon. However, it serves to underline that in these matters of values and external relations, the EU must take unequivocal positions of principle. It is a matter of getting respect. Respect is an essential condition to build a successful future.

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

 

 

 

Europe's next door threat

The caricature of a megalomaniac politician

Victor Angelo

 

My text of last week on Islamist radicalism provoked several reactions. The Portuguese friends, who have always lived in Portugal, although with many tourist trips in the curriculum, were surprised by my description of the intolerance in certain schools and in some segments of French society. This is a situation that does not occur in Portugal. Here nobody intimidates anyone by mentioning Infante D. Henrique, Mouzinho de Albuquerque or the atheist José Saramago. Friends living in the Europe of immigration - in Belgium, for example - have recognised in my chronicle situations that are familiar to them. The rejection of values that we consider fundamental and life in social silos are commonplace. They added that it takes courage to talk about these things, in a balanced way and without falling into primary and racist recrimination. I have also received messages from former co-workers, who live out their Muslim faith in many parts of the world. For them, the problem lies in the mockery, the caricatures, their interpretation as an instrument of the Europeans' onslaught against Islam.

I remembered then that at the ceremony to honour Professor Samuel Paty, President Emmanuel Macron said that France would not give up the cartoons. I understand that position. What others see as an unforgivable offence is for us a simple expression of freedom. Religion is a subject like any other. In Europe, the collapse of the idea of blasphemy began in 1789 with the French Revolution.

Recep Tayyip Erdogan clung to Macron's statement about the drawings to treat his French counterpart as mentally ill. He said it repeatedly, so that there would be no doubt about the insult. For Erdogan, the drawing of a bottom end in the air is more shocking than the inhumane persecution of millions of Muslims by the Xi Jinping regime. He does not get nervous, he says nothing about it.

We live in unique times, with one head of state harassing another, from an allied country. Erdogan's hostility towards Macron is nothing new. It began right after the French president's term began in 2017. There are several points of friction between them, starting with the French opposition to Turkey's accession to the EU and continuing in Libya, Syria, in support of Greek sovereignty in the Mediterranean Sea and more and more. There is also enormous tension within NATO, where France accuses Turkey of holding back the organisation's strategy when it comes to regions in which Ankara is directly involved.

On top of all this, I can guess that Erdogan wants to break the alliance that exists between Paris and Berlin. He is investing against France knowing that Germany, where more than four million people with Turkish roots live, does not have much room for manoeuvre to take a stand in solidarity with France. By attacking this pillar of the EU and maintaining the recurrent threat of opening the gates to a new wave of migration to Europe, similar to that which occurred in 2015, Erdogan's Turkey constitutes the most important risk to the survival of the European project.

At the December European Council it is absolutely necessary that the leaders of the member states take a tough stance against the Turkish president. In international politics, there are only two possible positions before a bully: give in and end up paying a high price, or else confront him with all the necessary diplomatic arsenal.

Salman Rushdie warns us that "fundamentalism is not about religion, but about power". Erdogan sees himself as the leader of Sunni Muslims and the guardian of the faithful in the face of the so-called European attacks. He combines megalomania with fanaticism. In collusion with the radicals of the Muslim Brotherhood and with the financial support of Qatar, Erdogan has established in several European countries a series of associations which, under the guise of religion, culture and humanitarian action, promote totalitarian interpretations of the Koran and its image as a defender of the faith.

One of the tasks of the European security services is to monitor these associations and their most influential members. It is, however, an almost impossible mission. Monitoring every potentially violent extremist, to be done properly, requires around twenty officers, twenty-four hours a day. The real answer must therefore be political and shared by all European countries. 

(Machine translation of my opinion column of today, published in the Portuguese newspaper Diário de Notícias, Lisbon)

 

 

France and Turkey

The hostility between France and Turkey reached a new level today. For now, it is just a war of words. But words matter a lot, in diplomacy and conflict. I would be very prudent. If I were in a position of international visibility I would advise both sides to moderate their statements and I would offer my good offices for a mediation effort. I would not shy away from my responsibilities. I would be very clear in expressing my deepest concerns.  

Writing about a minefield

 One of my friends suggested, after reading my opinion column of this week, that I write the next one on Turkey and her relations with the EU. I answered that it is a great idea, a very topical theme, but also a dangerous one. The key European leaders cannot agree on an approach towards Erdogan’s Turkey. This week they will be discussing some options that the European Commission has drafted. I have not seen such discussion paper yet. Therefore, I am not able to comment on the proposals. But I know that the matter has a paralysing impact on European minds. Erdogan has managed to create that effect. Some leaders do not want to be clear on the approach they would advocate. Others are simply afraid of President Erdogan’s political moves. The consequence, in the end, is to block action, to create impasses in the European institutions that have something to do with today’s Turkey.

It is no surprise if I tell you that when I heard the suggestion about my next text, I also felt my hand shaking a bit.

How to deal with Erdogan?

The situation in the Eastern Mediterranean is becoming very tense. Turkey is doing oil mapping at sea, in waters that are contested by a fellow NATO Member State – Greece. The oil vessel is escorted by several Turkish warships. And now France has responded to a Greek appeal and is sending navy assets to the region. This situation can easily escalate and become an open conflict. It must be dealt with by the NATO and European authorities immediately.

The truth of the matter is that Europe does not have a clear line of approach towards Turkey. Delaying the accession negotiations or approving a light package of sanctions against the regime in Ankara is not an effective policy line. A firmer position is required. The European leaders must understand that President Erdogan is a major threat to the stability of Europe. In addition, they must realise that someone of his calibre does not understand a soft approach. He knows about force and can get the message if the message is forceful.

Erdogan has become a major problem

I have said many times that the President of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, is a major menace to the European interests. That includes the stability of some European countries, those with a large Turkish immigration, the unity of Europe, and the effectiveness and coherence of our military defence as a common endeavour. Now, I see my warning getting echo in a few media and governance circles. They realise the danger Erdogan represents. They should also be clear that the President megalomaniac ideas are bringing economic chaos to his own country. The man’s ambitions and his political manipulation of Islam have transformed Turkey into a repressive State and an economic mess. The louder we say it, in Brussels and in other capitals, the better for us and for the Turkish population.

Libya, Turkey and us

After Syria, Libya has become the new confrontation ground between Russia and Turkey. In both cases, confrontation means bullets, military deployments, and death. In Libya, Russia supports the Benghazi-based Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar and his forces, whilst Turkey has come into the country to fight side by side with the Tripoli-based Unitary provisional government, led by Fayez al-Sarraj. For the time being, the Turkish side of the conflict has gained more ground than the men Moscow has bet on.

 All this has a strategic impact on Europe and should be seen with great concern. Any decision and any critical move by these two countries might become a serious threat to Europe’s stability and security. Vladimir Putin and Recep Erdogan are no friends of Europe. I say so, and at the same time, I do not forget that the latter is the leader of a country that is a member of the NATO Alliance. Erdogan is the peril within.

First, the confrontation between both can bring Europe into a clash with Russia if Turkey invokes its membership of NATO and calls for assistance. However, I am not particularly worried by such possibility as I expect the key leaders of the Alliance to find a way of saying no to a Turkish request for assistance against Russia. Therefore, this prospect is rather remote.

The real problem is that President Erdogan is now in control of the two main migratory routes that bring illegal immigrants into the European Union. The Eastern one runs through his own country and he knows how to make use of it to put pressure on the European politicians. And now, being heavily present in Tripoli and the surrounded areas, his men and their Libyan allies are in command of the Central Mediterranean migratory lane. That gives President Erdogan enormous leverage when dealing with European countries. Mass migration remains a major issue that can seriously undermine the unity and the continuation of the EU. The Turkish President knows it and will keep playing that destabilising card to his own advantage.

Here, like in other areas, the EU foreign policy is being outsmarted by our adversaries.

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.

Ursula's friend

In her speech of yesterday, at the border between Greece and Turkey, the President of the European Commission said that the Turkish Head of State, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, is a friend of Europe. Ursula von der Leyen might have read George Orwell on the flight from Brussels to the border. At least, she got the inspiration and doublespeak he talked about in his book

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 its humanitarian tragedy

Today, I must write about the situation in the Idlib Province of Syria. Following the military operations ordered by President Bashar al-Assad and supported by the Russian air force, there is a major humanitarian crisis in Idlib. Hundreds of thousands of people – the more accurate figure must be close to a million – are just caught in between the advancing regime forces and the border with Turkey, that remains closed. These people require urgent assistance. The UN and the key NGOs could provide much of needed help but can’t operate when there are bombardments going on. We must advocate for a temporary halt. And let the civilians move on.

This tragedy should be brought to the attention of the UN Security Council. I have no illusion about the Council. But I think the European countries that sit in the Council should urgently table the situation. That’s a moral move. A necessary one. It might also get us to a short humanitarian window of opportunity.

The Libyan route out of conflict

The German government will host tomorrow in Berlin a conference that aims at bringing a solution to the civil conflict in Libya. The first step would be to reach an agreement on a ceasefire between the two main warring factions, the one based in Tripoli and the one led by General Haftar, a man from Benghazi. This is an important initiative, sponsored by Chancellor Merkel and supported by both President Putin and President Erdogan. Both Presidents have a deep interest in Libya, Russia on the Haftar side and Turkey on the national government based in Tripoli. Merkel’s role is simple: to provide a venue and encourage every party to accept the UN’s mediation. It is modest as an ambition, but in the extremely complex context of Libya, it is a big try.

Both Libyan factions will attend. But all the indications I am getting from inside the country refer that no side is ready for a compromise. Their participation in the Berlin conference is more a play to the gallery, an opportunity to show to their supporters that they have a recognised international status. OK, I accept that, but it is still positive to have them around to be told they must agree on a ceasefire.

Both sides have their international backers. And those backers are telling their Libyan friends that they can win the war. That’s a lie, in a country that is so deeply divided. In the context of Libya, as it is today, the only route towards peace is the one built on national concord and a proper power balance between the different regions of the country. That route cannot be drawn based on foreign influence. It must come the Libyans themselves.

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.