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

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

Victor Ângelo

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

Russia and the rest

Five theses around the crisis with Russia

Victor Angelo

 

1. It is not acceptable to make political gains based on violating international law. Vladimir Putin and the Russian regime have attacked the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine by starting a war, in flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter. Therefore, they have no authority to impose conditions on the country that is the victim of this violence. In today's world, force cannot be a source of rights. Therefore, following the condemnation by the United Nations General Assembly on 2 March, the immediate withdrawal of invading troops from all Ukrainian territory must be demanded. And to insist on this, even when recognising the reality on the ground and the need to negotiate with the invaders. I should add, given the seriousness of the aggression and the possibility of future threats, that the best solution for guaranteeing peace, now and in the future, involves the political defeat of Putin. Here, sanctions count for a lot. They must be as focused on political impact as possible. The EU cannot continue to transfer nearly 700 million euros to Russia every day in payment for gas and oil imports. European leaders must be able to explain to their fellow citizens that tomorrow's peace and tranquillity require sacrifices in the present.  

2. The protection of civilian populations in a situation of armed conflict is an absolute priority. International humanitarian and human rights rules, generally referred to as the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, are clear: all parties have an unconditional duty to safeguard the integrity of civilian populations and property. This includes hospitals, humanitarian convoys, cultural assets, and residential areas. The first guarantor of this duty is the UN Security Council. In the specific case of Ukraine, a draft resolution on this matter, proposed by a member other than Russia, should be put to a vote in the Council. It is obvious that Russia would use its veto. But the draft would also have the merit of putting pressure on China.

3. No-fly zone: the imposition of a no-fly zone contributes effectively to the protection of civilians. Under normal conditions, a decision of this kind should be taken by the Security Council, as part of the motion on the security of populations. If it is decided by a coalition of states alone, outside the Council, it will always be seen as a declaration of war by the country targeted by the ban. Thus, if the decision were to come from NATO, we would immediately enter into a direct conflict between our side and the Russian side. That is why NATO decided to respond with a categorical no to this request, made insistently by President Zelensky and repeated daily by some European political personalities, who seem to ignore the consequences of the issue. It is true that a small group of countries could declare, without going through NATO, the exclusion from Ukrainian airspace. But this is not a viable option. 

4. China must get out of its ambiguity and false neutrality and translate its grand declarations of principles into action. Communication with the Chinese leadership must be maintained. The US National Security Advisor, Jake Sullivan, had a long meeting in Rome with the Chinese top foreign affairs official, Yang Jiechi. There was much disagreement, but both sides recognised the importance of keeping the lines of contact open. Europe's leaders should do likewise and be in continuous liaison with President Xi Jinping. The alliance between Xi and Putin must be weakened. This is possible. It is essential to strike a very sensitive chord in China, that of territorial integrity and respect for the sovereignty of each State. And to insist on the defence of multilateral institutions, an area where China wants to be a champion, at a time when the Kremlin is undermining the credibility of the UN. But, above all, it would be a question of combating the idea that prevails today in Beijing and which believes that the defeat of Putin would weaken Xi's power, in the year in which the 20th congress of the Chinese Communist Party is being prepared. Rather, it must be shown that Putin's continuation damages the international image of his main ally and adversely affects the economic prosperity of all. China holds one of the keys to solving the Russian crisis.

5. The geostrategic paradigm has changed. It is no longer relevant to look at international relations on the basis of the framework of analysis constructed in the last thirty years, in the period following the Cold War. Geostrategy now has a strong human dimension. It is no longer just about defending the state, the regime and securing zones of influence. People, their individual and collective security, their physical and spiritual integrity, have become part of the equation. Alliances between states must be based on ethical principles and values that respect citizens and allow them to be free and to live in peace, without fear or blackmail of war, and without hypocrisy.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 18 March 2022)

 

The UN Charter and its long history

75 years ago, visionary leaders have signed the UN Charter and initiated what they thought would be a world without major wars. Their dream has not been fully realised but the Charter remains a solid pillar of the international order. We cannot discuss international affairs without referring to it. And the UN System is still around and doing important things in some key areas, such as peacekeeping, humanitarian and development assistance, and the promotion of justice and human rights. It could do much more, no doubt. But it is not easy, because of the deep antagonisms that currently exist within the Security Council and the lack of support for multilateral solutions, an approach that is particularly strong in Washington and Moscow. This unfavourable reality might change as we go into 2021, but the shift might not be as deep and wide as some expect. In my view, the best option is to bet on a stronger voice coming from the system itself. Experience has taught me that when the UN leaders opt for an independent and principled approach, they regain the initiative and augment their credibility. For that to happen, they must think about the function they are supposed to perform and less about themselves.

It is true we live an extraordinary complex moment. But the 75 years of presence in the world affairs remind us that history is long and can be better than the difficulties and the pessimism of the times.

Guterres as the new UN boss

António Guterres´s swearing-in ceremony took place today. He is now ready to take over from Ban Ki-moon on 1 January 2017. And he has clearly spelled out, in today´s speech, the key priorities he sees for his mandate: first, to augment the UN´s ability to better contribute to the different stages of crisis management; second, to reorganise the system´s development machinery to make it more coherent and have a stronger field presence; third, to reform the UN, with a clear stress on delivery and improved public communication.

He is aware of the many difficulties ahead. For that reason, he underlined the importance he gives to partnering with other institutions and the member states. It is clear the UN should never work on critical issues alone.

Furthermore, all the work should be inspired by the principles that are enshrined in the UN Charter. A values-based approach gives the UN a stronger sense of mission and enhances its credibility.

One of those key values concerns the basic rights of everyone. They should be respected. That´s the foundation of peace and international cooperation.

Some people would call it respecting the dignity of our fellow humans. I think that concept could be understood differently by different people. I prefer to say human rights. They require no interpretation and have no faith-based connotation. It´s just a question of implementing the existing, universally approved principles. They are clearly written in the UN Convention.