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)

 

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)

 

 

 

Lukashenko flies low and will crash

Lukashenko in choppy flight

Victor Angelo

 

For some states, the repression of dissidents knows neither limits nor borders. Anything goes when someone is considered an enemy of the regime. Even when he or she lives abroad, convinced that it is safer. One may not be, however, if one is considered a target for the criminals who control power in the home country. Some dictatorships have an awfully long repressive arm. They have no qualms about operating on foreign soil and conducting murders, kidnappings, or making frivolous or unsubstantiated accusations in order to force Interpol to issue international arrest and repatriation notices. In other cases, they brutally intimidate family members who have remained in the country, with the aim of silencing the opponent in other latitudes.

The atrocious execution in Istanbul of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi in 2018 was the most visible case in recent times. But it is not only Saudi Arabia that violates international law in this way. In a recently published report, the reputable NGO Freedom House took inventory of individual cases of transnational repression and the regimes that practice it, with total disregard for the sovereignty of other states and the norms of political asylum and refugee protection. In addition to the Saudis, the list includes China, Iran, Rwanda, Russia and Turkey. It would be easy, unfortunately, to add a few others. North Korea, for example, which organized the assassination of Kim Jong-un's half-brother at Kuala Lumpur airport in 2017. And as of this week, we have to include Lukashenko's Belarus.

The Belarusian dictator, who is not cleared of the well-founded suspicion of having rigged the August 2020 presidential elections in his favor, is afraid of his population and of those who lead the opposition against his regime. Therefore, it follows the old methods of dictatorships, that is, it represses the street demonstrations with all brutality, creates a generalized situation of fear, and decapitates the organizational summit, the leadership that is capable of making the popular masses move. Lukashenko, who has been in power since 1994, did not go to KGB school like his protector Vladimir Putin, but that does not stop him from acting in "special operations" mode.

That is what he did, by forcibly and cunningly diverting the Ryanair commercial flight from Athens to the Lithuanian capital. The interception violated all international standards related to civil aviation safety. It was also a serious affront to the European Union because it was an air link between two Schengen capitals, and a total disregard for political asylum rules. But it allowed him to kidnap and put out of action an important activist in the fight for democracy in Belarus, the young journalist Roman Protasevich.

The political costs of this criminal act are high. The European Council was expeditious and unanimous in its condemnation and response. The airspace Lukashenko controls is no longer on the route for European flights - and not only that, as several Asian airlines have followed suit - and the national airline of Belarus will have to suspend its connections with destinations within the EU. Moreover, the economic sanctions will be extended.

Some will say that these kinds of penalties have little effect on a country that depends primarily on its relations with Russia. They also add that such measures will increase Lukashenko's political subordination to the Kremlin. It is hard not to recognize the merit of these remarks. Experience shows that sanctions against third countries do not lead to major political transformations, except when they directly hit the ruling clique and the sectors vital for the country's economic survival. It is not yet known which will be the new personalities and which activities will be added to the existing sanctions list. But in these matters, the symbolic dimension is equally important. The political and diplomatic isolation of Alexander Lukashenko, and his people, must be made very clear. It serves as a lever. It is up to the Belarusian democratic opposition to do the rest. 

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

Europe and its disagreements on migrations

Europe adrift in the sea of migrations

Victor Ângelo

 

A meeting of the European Union's ministers of foreign affairs and internal administration on migration was held this week at the initiative of the Portuguese presidency. The previous one had taken place in 2015, when more than a million people arrived in Europe from Syria and other parts of the Middle East, Afghanistan, and the countries of the Indian subcontinent, as well as Africa. The long gap between the two meetings happened because migration is an extraordinarily complex and fractious issue among EU member states. Leaders have systematically swept the imbroglio under the rug.

Now the meeting was a new attempt to define a common policy. There were some generic statements about the need for a comprehensive and coherent response that combines development and security partnerships with the migrants' countries of origin and transit, that opens avenues for controlled migration, that prioritizes political relations with North Africa and West Africa. All very vague and at the level of mere lapalissades. The result was, once again, below expectations.

The Mediterranean Agenda proposed in February by the European Commission, which was one of the reference documents, is equally imprecise. It lumps together completely different national realities, as if the Mediterranean geopolitical space were homogeneous. And it does not make a critical balance of the past. It suggests continuing and deepening a cooperation model that, in reality, has failed to help transform any state in the region into either a prosperous or democratic nation.

The fact is that there is no common position beyond strengthening Frontex as the European Coast Guard and border police. That is the only accepted and shared responsibility, the lowest common denominator. As for the rest, everything else is business as usual. It will be managed by chance events. The countries of entry of illegal immigrants will continue to have to bear the political, humanitarian, and economic costs that result from receiving those who arrive there. Despite the repeated appeal by the Portuguese Minister of Internal Administration, there will be no solidarity among Europeans in this matter.

The great truth is that most member-states do not want to receive new waves of immigrants coming from other geographies and unfamiliar cultures. Even countries that have traditionally been the destination of Maghrebian, African and other immigrants share this position. We, the Portuguese, are a little on the outside. We do not really understand the weight of migratory pressure on the cohesion of the social fabric of big cities in France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, for example. Nor do we have a clear notion of the political impact of the presence of vast foreign communities, when they are not integrated into the societies that received them, thus being an argument easily exploited by right-wing extremists and potential terrorists. 

Europe will continue to speak constructively and act restrictively, even repressively, on this issue. International migration is one of the most complex dilemmas facing us, but one that many Europeans do not want to consider. Despite the progress of tolerance values, we are not fully prepared for the diversity of cultures and faces. Anyone in doubt should visit the new ethnic ghettos that exist in certain European metropolises. And without going any further, you can start with certain outskirts of Lisbon.

We have already seen that the sea is not enough of a barrier for those who are desperate or dream of a better life. But since the intention of those in charge is to stop population movements that seem threatening, Europe will go further. It will pour fortunes into countries that have the potential to send us new waves of migrants - as is already happening with Turkey. It is a carrot and stick gamble. Now, in these countries, the powerful always get the carrot, and the poor and the weak always get the stick. For this reason, many seek to flee to Europe.

(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.  

The Eastern Mediterranean as a conflict zone

 Translation of today’s opinion piece as published in Diário de Notícias (Lisbon).

29 Aug. 2020

Troubled waters in the Eastern Mediterranean

Victor Angelo

 

The week was on the verge of exploding, in the eastern Mediterranean. Turkey continued its maritime prospecting for gas deposits, with economic and political intentions, and increased its military presence in waters that Greece considers belonging to its continental shelf. The latter, in retaliation, declared that it would conduct naval and aerial exercises in those same waters. And she did so for three days, August 26-28, in collaboration with the armed forces of Cyprus, France and Italy. These manoeuvres followed another maritime exercise, a Greek-American one, which was more symbolic than anything else, but which did not go unnoticed in Ankara. Certain Turkish commentators said, then, in a subtle way because criticizing the regime puts many journalists in prison, that one of the government's objectives should be to avoid the diplomatic isolation of Turkey. A bit of very revealing advice.

The possibility of a military incident between the two neighbouring countries has left some European capitals restless. The big question became how to avoid an open confrontation, which would end up dragging several European countries and even Egypt, among others.

An effort of appeasement in the NATO framework was put aside. The organization is unable to respond to this rivalry between two member states. In fact, the Alliance's paralysis is becoming increasingly apparent in matters related to President Erdogan's political games. Following the ill-told coup attempt in July 2016, Turkey has become a millstone tied around NATO's neck.

The European channel remained. Germany, which holds the presidency of the EU and carries weight in both countries, sent its foreign minister, the social democrat Heiko Maas, to Athens and Ankara. His proposal was clear: to establish a moratorium on the exploitation of the contested waters and to seek a negotiated solution. In Greece, little was achieved. The Greeks had obtained the convocation of a European meeting on the subject and continued to bet on the decisions that could be taken there, as well as on Emmanuel Macron's support. In Turkey, Maas obtained from his counterpart a promise to participate in a process of dialogue. It was a clever way of responding, on the part of the Turkish minister, who thus sought to sap the will of the Europeans to adopt sanctions against his government.

The Greek-Turkish neighbourhood is very complicated. There is only one solution, and that is dialogue and cooperation between the two neighbours. This should be the line recommended by the European partners. It will not be easy to get it accepted, but alternatively, any confrontation would be a catastrophe. We must also send clear messages to President Erdogan, both about the future of the relationship between his country and Europe - which will not involve accession, since Turkey is part of another geopolitical reality and belongs to a cultural sphere that differs from the one prevailing in Europe - and about other issues where the parties' strategic interests may be at odds.

It must be recognized that Turkey is a country that counts in its geographical area. At the same time, we must not forget the choices that President Erdogan has made in recent years, which shock, contradict our idea of democracy and leave many European leaders frankly apprehensive. Erdogan's Turkey has unrealistic ambitions that go far beyond its economic strength - the national GDP is half of Spain's, although the Turkish population is twice that of Spain - and its capacity for regional influence. In fact, Turkey is a country still developing and with serious problems of social inclusion of its ethnic minorities, not to mention the ever-present issue of respect for human rights.  It would do better to spend less on military expenditures - they represent 2.7% of GDP, a figure well above the average and the recommendation that prevails within NATO - and more on promoting the well-being and opportunities of its citizens. If so, it is certain to aspire to a closer association with the EU.

This is for the future, perhaps even only possible in a post-Erdogan era. For now, it is essential to halt the military escalation and calm the waters.

 

 

 

 

 

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.

Mass immigration as a negotiating tool

Earlier in the day, I was explaining to a local group of futurists that I see Morocco playing little Turkey, on their side of the Mediterranean Sea. They have learned from the Turkish how masses of migrants can be manipulated to put pressure on the European countries. It is happening on the Greek borders, it will be repeated in Libya, now that Erdogan’s troops and armed men are getting stronger in Tripoli and its surroundings. These are the two main migratory routes, and both are now under Turkish control. Is there a better way to be in a robust position when negotiating with the European Union?

The Moroccan are beginning to do the same with Spain and even with Portugal, I guess. In the last couple of months, groups of young men coming from Morocco have arrived by sea at the Southern Portuguese region of Algarve. It is a long sea crossing for their small boats. It is an impossible journey with such fragile vessels. My suspicion is that they get some help from powerful syndicates on the Moroccan shores and that is done under the blind eye of the authorities. Their sponsors might bring them closer to the Portuguese coastline and then let them complete the trip and be perceived as desperate migrants.

This flow has the potential to get bigger. To become route number three for the migrants from Sub-Saharan Africa and even from elsewhere.

On the European side, it is about time to start looking at it with greater attention. And, at the same time, to initiate a serious talk with the government in Rabat.

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

The border line

Today, the Presidents of the European Council, the Commission and the European Parliament visited the Greek border with Turkey. The Prime Minister of Greece was their host. The message they put across is very clear. The European borders are now closed to mass movements. Immigrants and refugee candidates are not welcome.

The visiting party basically approved the decision taken by the Greek authorities to use all means available to enforce the message. This is a clear shift from the policy line followed by Angela Merkel and others in 2015. It places security and social homogeneity above any other consideration.

The humanitarian dimension is seen as a funding activity. The Europeans pay and others will take care of the refugees. Outside the EU borders. This is the new policy line on mass immigration.

Immigrants at the EU gates

Political pundits keep repeating, since the massive arrival of immigrants and refugees in 2015, that the European Union has no unified policy on the matter. And it is true, in so many ways. Mass immigration and refugee flows are issues that have a serious impact on the stability and moderation of the EU. But there is no overall agreement among the member States on how to deal with the issues. The approach has been to sweep it under the carpet and let the frontline countries manage the challenge. That’s what has happened with Italy and Greece, among others. They were left alone with the problems and no real EU support.

What’s happening now at the Greek-Turkish border adds another element to such approach. Close the border crossings, respond by deploying large numbers of police and soldiers, keep the immigrants on the other side of the barbed wire. That is the policy, a policy that is closer to a common one. A no-entry policy.

But is it sustainable? That’s one of the key questions. The other one is about the humanity of such policy. Is it coherent with the values we say we defend? Third point: can we rely of dictators and other strong men, when we ask them to keep the refugees in their countries and add to that a few billions to pay for the camps?

I recognise this is a complex matter. And I see, once again, that when the issue is complicated, we tend to use a hammer to sort it out.

A challenging March

As we get into March, we can be sure we will have major challenges in front of us. The coronavirus will probably be the most critical. It has all the key ingredients to confuse many of us. People will keep pressing the panic button and the political leaders will be jumping in all directions, just to show to the citizens that they are moving as required. Then, there will be the economic impact. On the economic side, the crisis can be multifaceted. There will be less demand, the supply chains will be disrupted, and many enterprises will face serious cash problems. In addition, the stocks will not be able to recover the immense value that has been lost during the past week and probably the week ahead.

Obviously, the health systems will be under serious stress. They will become distorted as much of the resources will be focused on the Covid-19 pandemic.

Adding to the above, we will see an escalation of the conflict between Turkey and Syria, supported by Russia, a new migratory crisis and a Brexit on the rocks.

This is a time that calls for a new type of leadership.

Assad and Erdogan meet in Idlib

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

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

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

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

Idlib and the divided Security Council

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

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

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

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.