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.  

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)

 

 

The Security Council and the pandemic

Yesterday, the UN Secretary-General addressed the Security Council on the Covid-19. It was the right move because the pandemic is not just a global health problem but also a serious threat to international peace and security, as well as a major humanitarian challenge for less developed States. I recommend an attentive reading Mr Guterres’s remarks. They are very thorough. The link is as follows:

https://www.un.org/press/en/2020/sgsm20041.doc.htm

China, Russia and South Africa adopted a very similar line of response to the Secretary-General. They basically stated that Covid-19 is a public health issue and therefore it should not be discussed in the Council.

That’s a very narrow approach. It’s terribly wrong. They know it, but their main concern was to avoid a political discussion that would give the UN some room for a more active and comprehensive role. That has confirmed a trend we know well: to keep away from the Security Council the most strategic issues the world is confronted with. And to marginalise the UN Secretariat when it is in their own interest, as major countries.

Bringing the bullies together

When I scrutinise the foreign policies of permanent members of the UN Security Council I find no real differences, when it comes to the pursuit of their national interests. Each one of the five States is ready and willing to make use of force and go beyond the diplomatic conventions, tread into illegality, when its leaders think that the country´s national interests are at play. That´s particularly true for each country´s area of influence and strategic importance. It´s the case with China in the South China Sea, with Russia in Eastern Ukraine and Crimea, the US in Syria and Iran, the UK in West Africa and the Gulf Cooperation countries in the Persian shores, and with France in the Sahel Region of Africa.

The strategic options of these powerful countries take the primacy over the workings of the UN or other international organisations. It´s a fact, as well, that some of them do it more often than others. But when necessary, they will go for it. Norms and international law are to be respected as long as they do not collide with the views, ambitions and vital interests of the big five.

The primary role of the UN Secretary-General and other international voices, as well as the leaders of some key States such as India or Japan or South Africa, is to constantly recall the international norms and obligations. But it is also to look for points of equilibrium among the interests of the permanent members. Their critical geopolitical interests are known. The challenge is to negotiate taking them into account.

BRICS and the cyber disputes

As the BRICS summit comes to an end, one could see that “internet governance” was a major issue very much present in the informal discussions. 

Russia is particularly concerned by the fact that the Domain Name System (DNS) is entirely managed by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN. This Corporation is a US-based entity and it therefore follows the North-American legal rules. For Vladimir Putin this is seen as a strategic risk. 

He was very much counting on India´s support to gradually create an alternative system, but Prime Minister Modi is not ready for a move that would jeopardise his relations with Washington. India wants to be a key player in the world´s digital economy but in very clear terms: India sees itself as a service centre for customers all over the planet. And they know that the US can become the most important market for the Indian expertise.

The BRICS summit

Today´s BRICS summit has more or less escaped the attention of the mainstream media. It is true that a meeting in Ufa, a far-flung city in the middle of vast Russian steppe, is not easy to cover. But it is also true that Greece and the Chinese stock exchange crisis are taking a lot of headline space. And they are much easier for international reporters to access.

Within the BRICS, the trend is for a deepening of the economic cooperation between the three big ones: China, India and Russia. These countries, contrary to Brazil and South Africa, can take advantage of their geographic proximity. Their political relations are also rather friendly and that adds leverage to their economic exchanges.

Besides that, one should recognise that every one of these five countries have the same concern: they want to get a stronger voice in international affairs. And that´s the cement that brings them together. 

Bashir´s travels

Omar al-Bashir is an old desert snake. He is pretty strategic and astute. And he has also been a key player against the interests of the UN and its image, including in the peacekeeping area.

Once more he has managed to strike another blow against the prestige of the UN. In this case, the loser is the International Criminal Court.

But it is also the South African government. The authorities were caught in a dreadful dilemma: either to arrest Bashir and risk a serious row with Sudan and many other African governments; or let him leave South Africa, notwithstanding the court order, and risk further criticism at home.

They opted for the let-go option. I think in the end that was the only reasonable decision they could take. Politics is about deciding and the lesser evil is quite often the better decision. Now they should have the courage to explain the decision. Politics is also about telling the story in a way that makes sense and considers public opinion as a very serious issue. 

Forgotten Zimbabwe

Zimbabwe is an example of a crisis that has moved out of the public eye. At the beginning of last decade and for many years, the country´s political chaos and economic mismanagement were very much at the centre of the international agenda. Then, gradually, as there was no real progress, the matter became a side issue, like an incurable disease that nobody wants to talk about because there is no hope any more. Moreover, it was an issue that kept poisoning the relations between EU, US and South Africa, as President Zuma – and somehow, prior to him, President Mbeki – did not appreciate the Western world continuous remarks about old “freedom fighter” Robert Mugabe. For these reasons, Zimbabwe rapid, unstoppable descent into hell turned from a hot issue into a matter that was better kept under diplomatic silence. One of those cases you do not talk about, because you know it is a painful and shameful stain in the family history.

Now, taking advantage of the silence and regional support, Mugabe is back in full power and the opposition is in full disarray. MDC, the opposition party, is more divided than ever and many of those divisions have to do with Mugabe´s ability to destroy the image of the MDC´s leadership.

Old Mugabe is a talented political fox. And little Zuma and company are just too afraid to speak up their minds. As we have also become, in our Western world. When we get tired and when it offends some of our powerful friends, we just play a different tune.

  

Nelson Mandela

Nelson Mandela passed away this evening. He was an extraordinary man. A striking example of the often quoted statement: leadership matters and a great leader makes a historical difference.

Sometimes, when I thought and wrote about him, I was afraid that many of us are too small to fully grasp the amazing person Mandela was.

History has a very short and selective memory. But the history of our times will not forget Nelson Mandela. 

Mozambique needs help

In Mozambique, the security and political environment have deteriorated fast during the last four of so weeks.

The political stress between Renamo, the former guerrilla group that became the key opposition party after the peace agreement of the early 90s, and the government led by Frelimo has flared up. There has been some armed violence between the two, albeit very localised and contained. But the tension remains unresolved. It can easily escalate and lead to deep conflict.

In the main urban centres there has been a series of criminal kidnappings for ransom. In one the recent cases, in Beira, the little boy that had been taken was murdered by the bandits. These actions are creating a lot of fear. They add to other types of crimes that are very common in the cities, such as burglaries and armed robberies. The Police seems unable to cope.

On the top of it all, there have been serious accusations of corruption against the close relatives of the President and other political figures. The President himself has a very tarnished image. He has vast business interests. Many believe that his control of business and wealth is related to abuse of power and traffic of influence.

It is sad to see the country moving into crisis. This has been a good example of post-conflict recovery. And also of economic growth. It cannot become now a bad example of bad leadership.

And the external friends of Mozambique need to wake up. Their help can make a difference. 

Post-elections period in Zimbabwe

It would be wise for the EU to accept the assessment made by the African Union regarding the Zimbabwe elections of 31 July. That assessment can also be combined with the findings of the Zimbabwean Electoral Support Network, a consortium of NGOs that deployed 7,000 observers throughout the country. We have then a more balanced opinion. EU can then state that it follows that balance, based on the judgement made by credible Africans, and express its willingness to constructively engage with the new government in Harare. Constructive engagement with anyone that matters is better than negative criticism. 

Mandela, an exemplary leader

Our thoughts today are with Nelson Mandela. We owe him much, as an exemplary leader and a politician that transformed his time, not to feel very sorry as he struggles with illness and old age. 

Dilma in Africa

Dilma Roussef, the President of Brazil, is back in Africa, to attend the AU Summit. This is her third visit to the Continent this year.

Brazil, which is ranked the seventh economy in the world, has understood that a stronger footing in Africa is good for its long term interests. More and more Brazilian corporations are looking for new investment opportunities in Africa, particularly in minerals and other natural resources. In many ways, Brazil sees itself competing with fellow BRICS countries –China and South Africa –, which are also deeply keen to expand their economic ties with many African states.

During her current visit, Dilma announced that Brazil will cancel or restructure almost $900m worth of debt with Africa. This is a wise decision, with a wide political impact, and little financial costs for an economy as big as the Brazilian. It serves her country’s interests well and helps the 12 African countries concerned. 

In politics, you better be your own man (or woman)

During my work with President Francois Bozizé of the Central African Republic (CAR) – from 2008 to 2010 – I always felt that he was too inclined to indiscriminately follow Idriss Déby’s positions.  For me, and I said it several times, it was not good politics to be so much dependent on the Chadian President.

 First, Chad and CAR are too very different socio-political realities. Even Southern Chad, that at the surface could be considered similar to CAR, is distinct and cannot be easily compared with the reality south of the border.

Second, Déby is a man from the Sahel and his views about Central Africa are not necessarily the most appropriate ones.

Third, the support Bozizé was looking for in N’Djamena had a negative impact on CAR’s domestic politics: leveraged by Chad, Bozizé did not see the critical relevance and urgency of moving faster on the issues of national reconciliation and power-sharing.

But Bozizé had a different view.

Now, things have changed. He has been ousted from power. And from his temporary refuge in Cameroon, today Bozizé accused the President of Chad of being behind the rebels that chased him from the presidency and the country.

As they say, quite often in politics the lessons are learned when it is already too late. 

South African casualties in the Central African Republic

In an exchange with a South African analyst, I mentioned that I was very sad and very surprised by the fact that the South African National Defence Force (SANDF) had lost 13 men out of 200 in the recent clashes with the Séléka rebels in the Central African Republic (CAR). That’s an awful lot of casualties. In particular, if one considers that on the other side, on the insurgent side, we had a ragtag bunch of armed men, poorly equipped, chaotically led and badly prepared to fight. I suggested that this SANDF loss needs to be properly reviewed by the authorities in Pretoria and a number of hard lessons extracted. 

Central African Republic

I have been in touch with Bangui throughout the day. The rebels are again on the move and very close to the capital. There have been some very serious exchanges of fire between them and the South African soldiers, who are in the country to provide assistance to regular army of President Bozizé.

The Central African Republic (CAR) is once more in turmoil. The countries of the region have tried to assist, through the deployment of interposition forces, but with no real success. The South African presence is a bit of an oddity. They have been in and out of CAR in the last few years, to support the regime. As such, they cannot act as bridge between the parties in conflict. The French have troops on the ground. However, their mission is limited to protecting their citizens and the embassy premises.

The UN has also a political office in the country. For the time being, I have decided, as a former senior UN staff, not to comment on UN affairs. Not even today, when the situation in CAR seems to turn again towards a new level of civil war.

What’s next?