Biden and Putin: they have the keys

Biden and Putin: an indispensable dialogue

Victor Angelo

 

When leaders like Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin spend two hours in a frontal discussion, we, simple mortals, can look at it positively, even when the results seem uncertain. I have always argued that major crises should be directly discussed between those who actually hold power. Leaving such crises to be dealt with at the level of foreign ministers, however experienced, is not enough. So often it only serves to aggravate misunderstandings and pander to extreme positions. We often see ministers who are more papist than the Pope. Even when they foresee solutions, they do not dare mention them, for fear of the leader's reaction. It is up to the leader to send appeasement signals, to show the way and mark the bounds, which are now known as "red lines".

That is what Biden and Putin sought to do. And this is the way they should continue, preferably in personal meetings. Diplomacy is done with handshakes. Even in times of pandemic. Leaders know this. That is why Emmanuel Macron was in the Emirates and Saudi Arabia a few days ago, with much success, regarding the French war industries - and much criticism from human rights activists. And Pope Francis, who does not stop despite apparent physical frailty, went to Cyprus and Greece. Vladimir Putin himself made a lightning trip to India on Monday to spend a few hours strengthening relations with Narendra Modi, encouraging trade and, above all, deepening political-military cooperation.

A positive outlook does not prevent us from seeing the gravity of the current situation. The massive deployment of troops and exceptional logistical means in Russian regions close to the eastern border of Ukraine makes one think, whether one likes it or not, of the preparation of a military offensive. That is the interpretation that prevails in the main European capitals and in Washington. Some academics and others with an open window to the media street say it is a way for Moscow to apply pressure, to get certain political guarantees coming from the opposite side. That may be so. But the truth is that this reading is not accepted by Western leaders, who see in Russia's military moves all the signs of a short-term warlike action against Ukraine. The pretext for such action would be to counter a hypothetical campaign by Kiev against the pro-Russian separatists who control the Donetsk and Lugansk regions of Ukraine. The Kremlin swears it has no intention of intervening militarily, but this message does not get through, because of the extraordinary degree of mobilisation on the ground. Putin needs more than solemn declarations on the right to homeland defence, a statement that makes no sense since nobody intends to invade this or any other part of the Russian Federation. 

Indeed, Russians and Westerners need to get out of the trap they have let themselves fall into, especially since 2013, as if there should be a permanent hostility between the two. Unfortunately, it seems that only demonstrations of force make eyes open. So, on the Western side, there is now a threat that has been clearly explained to Putin. But it is not a military threat. It would be a package of measures that would have a huge impact on the Russian economy, which is no longer in good health. Russia would be cut off from a large part of the international financial and payment systems, which are in fact controlled by the Americans, it would have immense difficulties in changing its roubles into euros and dollars, not to mention other restrictions in terms of investment, trade, and travel to Europe. Biden was very shrewd in his approach. Before and after his conversation with Putin, he involved Germany, France, Italy, and the United Kingdom in the consultation. We have a cohesion of five. For prudence's sake, I believe, it does not include Poland or any other Eastern European country. It is clearly an agreement that tells us that we are at a dangerous crossroads and that the continuation of the conversation between the leaders is the indispensable way forward. 

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 10 December 2021)

 

 

Boris and his crazy world

I would summarise today’s Cabinet reshuffle in the UK along three lines. It was a public opinion disaster, because the only thing people will remember is that Boris Johnson got into a fight with one of his closest allies so far, Sajid Javid. In addition, it demonstrated that the Prime Minister wants to concentrate the key levers of power in his office and leave very little room for policy decisions in the hands of the Cabinet ministers. And, third point, it confirmed that the real power behind the throne Boris occupies is his crazy political advisor, Dominic Cummings. Cummings is a puppet master.  

Post-Brexit optimism

I think it is too early to be worried about the future of the European Union’s relationship with the United Kingdom. We are now at the beginning of the transition period. Its duration is not long, I agree, but I also see that both sides will try to reach some sort of agreement before the end of it, before end of December. The posturing we are witnessing today is part of the negotiating tactics. But both sides will be under serious pressure from the respective business communities. They do not want to rock the boat. The economic and trade ties are strong. They should remain strong. Besides that, we share the same geopolitical space and that should be an encouragement for cooperation. Even a fool can understand that.  

British general elections

It is still to early to know the outcome of the British elections. It will be inappropriate to try to guess the results, a couple of hours before the closing of the polling stations. Better wait for the headlines and the details tomorrow morning. Whatever comes out of the voting, it will have a major impact on the UK and, in some ways, in the rest of Europe. These are no ordinary elections. And many, particularly the younger people, got to understand it.

The question of trust

If there is a thing I took away from the political debate the BBC organised last evening, it is the question of trust. Basically, the programme was about placing the leaders of the four main British parties before an assembly of citizens. We were told these people represented a good sample of the diversity of opinions one can find in the British society. I don’t know the criteria the BBC followed to select them. However, I have no special reason to doubt the organisers’ word and good judgement.

Each leader was given 30 minutes to listen and reply to questions coming from the audience. That’s time enough to win an assembly of voters. It can also become an eternity if one is not able to connect with them and be convincing.

In my opinion, and excluding the special case of the leader of the Scottish National Party – Nicola Sturgeon has a very specific political agenda, very focused on getting a new vote on Scotland’s quest for independence from the UK – the other three leaders could realise they are not trusted by large segments of the population. Their pledges do not sound as sincere.  They can count, of course, on their faithful followers. But they can’t widen the pool.

My conclusion was that they should ask themselves why it is they are not perceived by a good number of the voters as credible. If I were in their shoes, that would be the question I would try to answer now, before moving on with the campaign.

If you fail, try blackmail

When political bullying fails, the fellows try blackmail. The French call it “chantage”. That’s what some Brexit hardliners have been suggesting this weekend. They recommend that the Boris Johnson government sabotages the work of the EU institutions, if his deal proposal is not accepted and he is forced to ask for an extension. In their lunacy, they have even advised Boris Johnson to appoint Nigel “Crackpot” Farage as the British Commissioner in Ursula von der Leyen’s Commission. They see Farage as the Chief Disruptor.

All this is childish. And it is also amazing to see some sectors of the British Conservative Party falling so low. Their anti-European fanaticism makes them politically blind. It blocks their minds and impedes them from understanding that cooperation and mutual benefit are the only winning cards. Radical Conservatives just keep moving away from the traditional British common sense.

The rule of law in the UK

Today’s ruling by the UK Supreme Court is about law and the respect by everyone, including the country’s Prime Minister, of the constitutional arrangements that define the exercise of executive power. It was a legal decision. And it must be seen as such. The Supreme Court unanimously decided that the Prime Minister’s prorogation of Parliament was unlawful and therefore void and of no effect.

The initial reaction of some of Boris Johnson’s unconditional supporters, including in the media – The Telegraph is just an example – was to say that the Court’s decision was political. That the eleven Supreme Judges were just taking the side of the Remainers. Later in the day that kind of incendiary opinion disappeared from the front pages and was also deftly abandoned by the extreme Brexiteers that were invited to comment. Someone had realised that to criticise the Supreme Court with political rhetoric would backfire. That was the second victory of the day for the rule of law.

Boris and his master play hard ball

Dominic Cummings, who is Boris Johnson’s high priest for strategy – officially, his title is Senior Advisor to the PM – knows very well that in war it is vital to regain the initiative. To win one must master the plan and the action.

Yesterday, the opposition and all those who are against a No Deal Brexit had reached an accord that could threaten the PM’s political future. They got the ball and the agenda. That was a major menace to Boris’s power. Today, that same group lost it, thanks to Cummings and his pupil. The suspension of parliamentary work decided by Boris Johnson surprised his opponents and destabilised their game plan. That’s how strategy is played by the big people.

But the game is not over. Today’s move has infuriated many Tory MPs that were sitting on the fence. They might find the courage to pay back. That must happen in the next few days and before the end of coming week. If it does, Cummings’ canny advice to Boris might end up by backfiring. The stakes are higher than ever.

We will see.

The Hormuz crisis must be taken very seriously

The outgoing British Cabinet – a new team will take over on Wednesday, once the new Prime Minister is confirmed – responded today to Iran’s capture of the British tanker with a good combination of firmness and balance. It has demanded the release of the ship and, at the same time, made the announcement that a European naval task force will be dispatched to the Strait of Hormuz to ensure the freedom of navigation.

The British vessel will not be released unless there is a reciprocal action regarding the Iranian ship that has been stopped in Gibraltar two weeks ago. London knows it, they know how the Iranians behave in these situations. Moreover , Mohammad Javad Zarif, the Iranian Foreign Minister, stated that condition very clearly. This is a delicate matter because neither country wants to be perceived as giving up. The solution would be to get both ministers to meet and make an announcement at the end of such meeting, as a compromise between both sides. Here, third-party mediation will not work.

As far as the European task force is concerned, that is a good approach from a political point of view. It keeps the British and the rest of Europe at arm’s length from the US. The Europeans do not agree with the Americans’ stance on Iran and do not want to be subordinated to the US. The real problem, however, is to be able to assemble such a task force fast and effectively. I have some doubts about that possibility.

In the meantime, the matter will remain top of the international agenda. As I wrote yesterday, it calls for a concerted effort to de-escalate. Someone independent enough must take the initiative.

Hormuz: to avert further deterioration

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

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

Official secrets and the media

The British Police is now investigating the leak of Ambassador Kim Darroch’s cables. The task has been given to the Counter Terrorism Command because the leak is considered a criminal breach of the Official Secrets Act.

I agree there has been a serious violation of that Act. Ambassadors and other Envoys work under special rules and conditions. They must be able to write about their assignments in full confidence and without fear.

I authored many cables during my years as head of special political missions and every time I had to be sure the matters I was reporting about – and the opinions I shared – would remain within a very limited circle within the top decision-makers. Basically, the rules on the receiving side were about secrecy and access reserved to those who needed to know.

That is the nature of diplomatic work and international affairs.

There is another dimension that the Metropolitan Police raises, and I see as of exceptional relevance. In short, the Police advises media editors and the social platforms not to publish any additional document that might be made available to them on the matter or related issue and that is covered by the Official Secrets Act.

I agree with the Police’s warning. The advice takes into account the freedom of the press. The Police is not questioning the freedom to print and to inform. It is reminding all of us that some matters are of vital national interest and should be kept secret. 

Boris Johnson and Jeremy Hunt, in their frenzy to please as many Conservative Party members as possible, have indirectly criticised that Police’s statement. They fundamentally said the press could go ahead and disseminate that type of information. It is wrong. Their statements are just opportunistic and foolish. They mislead the public. That is not what leaders are supposed to do.

Boris Johnson, you said?

Something must be dramatically wrong with the Conservative Party. Why do I say it? Because I see that its key members believe that the only way to beat an unsophisticated politician like Jeremy Corbyn is to elect as party leader Boris Johnson.

They know that Boris is an incurious, lazy, dilettante, person. His intellectual arrogance is also obvious. It is based on his shallow approach to politics, to the important issues, and on his narcissism.

To think that he might become the next UK Prime Minister, despite all those shortcomings, is startling. It indeed says a lot about the state of disarray within the Conservatives. And, in many ways, about the lack of realism in some segments of the British public opinion.

Post May's politics

Theresa May has announced her resignation. The extremists within her party did everything they could to get her out. For these hard Brexiteers, the Prime Minister was too close to the EU. They hated her – yes, hate is the right word – for that. They are convinced that the UK is much smarter than the EU altogether and that Queen Victoria will come back, certainly under a new shape, and make Britain imperial again.

There is no rational way of dealing with those hardliners. It is all about emotions, British grandeur, and delusion. When that is the case, the best approach is to let them take care of their own business.

And wish them well. Particularly to the new Prime Minister, whoever that might be. He or she will need the good wishes of all of us. Plenty of them.

For us, the point is to let them know we would prefer a negotiated departure, as proposed in the Withdrawal Agreement. That’s the wise way to move to the next stage, as good neighbours. If that is not possible, because of the British political divisions, they still need to honour the commitments made up to the day of departure. There is no way they can forgo that. It is a legal obligation that must be clear to them and fully respected. The opposite would make the future relationship much more tense.

Iran and the EU approach

Today, unexpectedly, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo came to Brussels. He met the Foreign Ministers of France, Germany and the UK, and briefly, the EU High Representative for Foreign Policy. The matter was Iran.

The US Administration has placed Iran at the top of its international agenda, next to two other critical themes: the trade talks with China and the internal situation in Venezuela. The American leadership is clearly betting on isolating Iran as a way of weakening the regime. Such policy is above all inspired by advice coming from Israel and Saudi Arabia. Both countries want Iran down.

This is certainly a very risky policy.

The alleged sabotage of four oil tankers in the very sensitive area around the Strait of Hormuz, which was big headlines today, is another very serious development in a very explosive environment. It is unclear what really happened to the ships and who was behind the actions, whatever actions they could have been. To draw any conclusion without more information would be extremely foolish. If there was indeed a big issue with those tankers, if an attack took place, an international commission on enquiry should be mandated to assess the facts. I hope the Europeans told something like that to Pompeo. I expressed interest in being part of the investigation.

I understand there was little common ground today between the visiting Secretary and the EU Ministers. That’s is encouraging. The Europeans must show they have their own way of looking at Iran and the Middle East, for that matter. They appreciate the alliance with the US but, at the same time, they must assert their independent views. Particularly when the gravity of the situation does not allow any misguided approach. As it does not tolerate a partisan policy, choosing the Saudi or the Israel side when the region needs a cool and balanced line to be followed by the Europeans.

Wishing the British good fortune

The key European leaders and all those who have a balanced approach to opinion-making here in Brussels and other capitals have no intention of humiliating the British politicians. Moreover, as neighbours and because we share the same values and so many aspects of our European history, we also have a great respect for the British people.

Nobody wants to see a weaker, divided UK in the future. Such view would be an absolute foolishness.

I am sure Theresa May understands all that.

#Brexit, what a crazy idea

Brexit. Leave. Leave might be a question of opinion. Fine! But it has become obvious it is a sinister, and above all, stupid opinion.

EU Council on Brexit and China

The European Council meeting of yesterday and today was not an easy affair. But it went well. The Heads of State and Government have shown a deep commitment to the discussions. They could agree on a response to Theresa May’s request for a delay in the Brexit date – and this was a very delicate matter, that took many hours to be discussed – and on an approach towards China. In both cases, the twin concerns were to keep the EU united and, at the same time, to leave the door open for a balanced relationship.

The member States might have different views about important issues. However, no one wants to rock the boat. And all understand that by reaching a common understanding about their shared interests they can then have a clear - and stronger - position towards the outside world. Collectively, their interests are leveraged. 

Are you a right-winger?

Strange times in Europe. For instance, no politician wants to be seen as a right-winger. Today, that was the case of the very retrograde Jacob Rees-Mogg, one of the leaders of the anti-EU sentiments at Westminster. The honourable gentleman said that “the Conservative government is not right-wing”. He even considered such appellation as abusive. An epithet that hurts, it seems.

He might be joking.

So, who accepts these days the right-wing label? Only, the Polish Law and Justice Party? Or, just Viktor Orbán’s Fidesz? Or Matteo Salvini and his crowd?

I am no longer sure they do.

Interesting, isn’t it?

It's all Theresa May's fault!

In the UK, key Conservative opinion makers are now in a campaign to place all the blame on Prime Minister Theresa May.

Uncertainty, even confusion, and growing resentment define the current British political climate. Like the proverbial meteorology of those Isles, the climate around Brexit is foggy and unpleasant.

And they are openly saying, it is May’s fault! They add then: it comes from her lack of true enthusiasm for the exit ideals. Those Conservatives – and they are quite influential in the mainstream right-wing media, not just in the tabloid sheets – want to divert people’s attention from the inescapable issue, meaning, that the UK needs to agree on an exit deal with the EU. And that inevitable deal is the one that has been on the table since November 2018.

They also want to present some crazies – Jacob Rees-Mogg, Boris Johnson, David Davis, Dominic Raab, Ian Duncan Smith, among others – as true patriots, people that can take over from Theresa May and move the UK to the centre of the world.

Really? Well, with their Victorian way of looking at Britain and Europe, they might be able to bring the country back to the XIX Century. And make it imperial again!

Brexit: time to approve the deal

Brexit, again! At this stage, I see no strong reason for the EU leaders to accept a short time extension of Article 50. The legal exit date is 29 March. An extension can only be granted if it is grounded on a well-defined reason. Seen from Brussels, the best reason would be to give time to the British institutions to approve the additional legislation that would regulate the different aspects of an orderly exit. That would basically mean the exit deal should be passed by the UK Parliament before 29 March. If that is not the case, the Brexit matter should be put to a new popular vote. And then the choice would be between the deal, as signed off by the Prime Minister, or no Brexit. The No Deal option is too catastrophic. It should not be in the ballot paper.

The scheduling of a new referendum – the popular vote mentioned above – would be the only reasonable justification for the EU heads to accept an extension.

However, I do not see much of a chance for a new people’s vote on Brexit. The political conditions are not there. The new approach by the Labour party in favour of a referendum comes too late to be of any value.

Thus, the realistic option is to fight for a yes vote in Westminster. That would approve the existing draft deal. With maybe one or two appended sentences, that would give the tough MPs within Theresa May’s party an excuse to change their opinion and vote for it. However, such approval must happen in the next two weeks. It’s late in the day, but still within a manageable time frame. Beyond that period, if there is no clarification, one can only expect a much higher level of confusion, including within the Conservative party. And a serious impact on the daily lives of many.