Are you talking about the UN reform?

 The future demands political courage, strategic vision, and a UN that is respected

Victor Ângelo

Eighty years ago, on October 24, 1945, the UN Charter came into force, having been approved four months earlier in San Francisco. That is why this date in October is celebrated annually as United Nations Day.

I am referring to the political part of the organization. The specialized agencies, such as FAO, UNESCO, WHO, ILO, and all the others, emerged at different times. Each has its own history, as well as its own specific governance structures, independent of the authority of the Secretary-General (SG). Over time, special programs and funds also emerged, such as WFP, UNDP, UNICEF, UNFPA, and several others—a long list of acronyms. These programs and funds are headed by individuals chosen by the SG, mostly in response to pressure from some of the more powerful states. They do not belong to the same division that includes the specialized agencies.

The system is in crisis. But if the UN did not exist, it would be necessary, even in today’s confusing times, to invent it. This is a frequently repeated idea.

The United Nations exists; there is no need for any creative exercise. But President Xi Jinping, who also contributes to the marginalization of the UN and seeks to take advantage of it, now proposes an alternative system, inspired by his vision of China’s central role in the world. He had already proposed a Global Development Initiative, another on international security, and yet another called the Global Civilization Initiative. At the recent Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit, which took place less than two months ago, Xi completed the picture and proposed the missing initiative, on global governance. That is, on the principles that should regulate relations between states. When I say he completed the picture, I am referring to four fundamental pillars of the UN: development, peace, human dignity, and now, the political one.

Xi’s proposal on international governance is little more than a restatement of the content of the United Nations Charter in other words. The five basic principles he proposes for global governance are contained in the Charter. Xi refers to respect for the sovereignty of each state, including retrograde and dictatorial regimes; subordination to the rules of international law; defense of multilateralism and the role of the United Nations—something that China itself does not practice when it is inconvenient; the value of people, who should be the main concern in political matters; and the need to achieve concrete results in solving global problems. There is certainly no significant disagreement with these ideas. The Chinese initiative is basically a political maneuver.

The problem is that these principles are often ignored by several member states, starting with the great powers such as China, Russia, and the United States of America, and by states outside international law, such as North Korea or Israel.

Thus, the United Nations ceases to be the central forum for international relations, discussion, and resolution of major conflicts. The blame lies with certain member states, and in particular, with the malfunctioning and lack of representativeness of the Security Council (SC). The UN has been completely marginalized in the cases of Ukraine, Gaza, Sudan, Myanmar, the end of the embargo against Cuba, and so on. However, the real problem lies with the SC: without a Council that represents the realities of the 21st century, the political UN will continue to live in the past and be doomed to decline.

The plan that President Donald Trump had adopted regarding the dramatic crisis in Gaza—a vague plan that is practically impossible to carry out in its key points—does not mention the UN or assign it any kind of responsibility. Even if it is discussed in the Security Council, which is not yet confirmed, the various points imposed by President Trump do not take into account the experience accumulated in similar situations. It is a plan that was not negotiated by the interested parties—Israel and Palestine—that is, it did not follow a fundamental procedure in peacebuilding. I fear that it will achieve little beyond the release of the remaining living hostages, the freedom of a group of prisoners held in Israel, and a temporary and insufficient humanitarian opening in the face of the absolutely basic needs of the civilians still surviving in Gaza.

The SG is trying to implement a process of organizational reform, which he called UN80. In reality, the effort is little more than a bureaucratic response to the organization’s financial crisis. Instead of insisting, day and night, that delinquent states pay their dues and mandatory contributions on time, and clearly defining what justifies the existence of the UN, the SG chose the option that goes over better with certain leaders and their finance ministries: eliminate jobs, reduce the scope and functioning of field missions, transfer services to cities where the cost of living is lower than in New York or Geneva. The refrain is “do less with fewer resources.” In fact, it should be another: “making peace and promoting human dignity require everyone’s contribution and respect for the UN’s courageous voice.” That assertion is the only one consistent with the defense of international cooperation and multilateralism. That is what I learned and applied over decades.

United Nations: I spent decades working inside the system

 

I’ve Worked Inside the UN. Here’s Why I Still Believe in It.

By Victor Ângelo

Every September, I find myself watching the United Nations General Assembly with a mix of hope and frustration. It’s a ritual I know well — not just from the outside, but from within. I spent years working under the UN flag, in places where diplomacy wasn’t just a word, but a lifeline.

And yet, each year, the same question resurfaces: Is the UN still relevant?

It’s tempting to say no. The speeches can feel repetitive. The Security Council often seems paralyzed. And the world, frankly, looks more chaotic than ever.

But I’ve come to believe that pessimism about the UN is not only misguided — it’s dangerous.

---

🛠️ The UN Needs Help — But Not Abandonment

I won’t pretend the UN is working as it should. The Security Council, in particular, is stuck in a post-World War II time warp. Power is unevenly distributed. Vetoes are wielded like weapons. Reform is overdue.

But here’s the thing: we don’t fix global problems by walking away from global institutions.

When I was in the field — in conflict zones, post-crisis regions, places where the UN was often the only international presence — I saw what it meant to have a neutral actor, a voice for peace, a mechanism for dialogue. It wasn’t perfect. But it mattered.

---

🔄 What We Can Do

If we want the UN to work better, we need to:

• Reform the Security Council to reflect today’s geopolitical realities.
• Give the UN teeth — the ability to act, not just talk.
• Support multilateralism, even when it’s slow and messy.
• Hold leaders accountable for how they use the UN stage.

---

🌱 Why I Still Believe

I’ve seen the UN at its worst — bureaucratic, slow, sometimes painfully ineffective.

But I’ve also seen it at its best — bringing food to starving communities, mediating fragile peace talks, offering hope where there was none.

That’s why I believe in it. Not blindly. Not naively. But because I’ve seen what happens when it’s not there.

Pessimism is easy. It lets us disengage. But optimism — especially the kind rooted in experience — is a choice. And it’s one we need to make if we want a better world.

Traduction IA de ma chronique d'aujourd'hui publiée dans le Diário de Notícias, Lisboa

 2024 est une année cruciale, qui exige du courage et des réponses à la hauteur

Victor Angelo

J’ai passé des décennies à diriger des missions politiques, de paix et de développement des Nations Unies. C'est à l'ONU que j'ai grandi professionnellement et appris à résoudre des conflits, certains assez graves, dans lesquels la mort et la douleur se cachaient derrière chaque dune, arbre ou rocher. J'ai ainsi acquis une vision plus large du système international et de la manière dont les relations avec le Conseil de sécurité devraient être menées. Puis, pendant des années, j'ai travaillé comme mentor civil à l'OTAN, préparant les futurs chefs d'opérations militaires, soulignant à plusieurs reprises la nécessité d'obtenir le soutien des populations et des organisations humanitaires dans ces opérations.

L'expérience m'a appris l'importance primordiale qu'il faut accorder à la sauvegarde de la vie des personnes. Lorsque je m’adressais aux généraux, aux commandants des forces de police et aux agents de sécurité de l’ONU, la priorité était de souligner la valeur de la vie. Celle des nôtres, qui faisaient partie de la mission, ainsi que celle de protéger la vie des autres, de simples citoyens, soupçonnés ou non de collaboration avec les insurgés, et même la vie des ennemis.

Rien ne peut être résolu de manière durable s'il n'y a pas un profond respect pour les populations civiles vivant de part et d'autre des barricades, si les autres sont traités comme des personnes sans valeur, à qui l'accès à des biens vitaux, comme de simples animaux, peut être coupé. ... à abattre sans pitié ni pitié. Tuer ne résout aucun conflit. Pour chaque mort aujourd’hui, de nouveaux combattants émergent demain, avec un sentiment de vengeance encore plus fort. L’essentiel est de créer les conditions de la paix, d’ouvrir les portes aux négociations et à l’entente. Une guerre de représailles est une erreur. Il s’agit d’une réponse de représailles, œil pour œil, dent pour dent, inspirée d’un ordre juridique ancien. Ou, dans une hypothèse plus actuelle, il s’agit d’une guerre dirigée par des dirigeants politiques manquant de bon sens et de clairvoyance.

J'avais aussi en tête, dans mes lignes directrices, la sagesse du génial Charlie Chaplin, dans le personnage émouvant du clown Calvero. Dans son film Highlights (1952), Chaplin fait dire à un moment donné au clown Calvero que « la vie est une chose belle et magnifique, même pour une méduse ». Oui, même pour une méduse, un invertébré gélatineux pour lequel peu de gens auront de la sympathie. J'ai toujours pensé que cette phrase, si simple, devait occuper une place primordiale dans notre manière d'affronter les conflits. La politique n’a de sens que lorsqu’elle permet à chacun de vivre en liberté et en sécurité.

L’un des grands défis de 2024 est de pouvoir expliquer à la méduse cette compréhension de la vie et de l’œuvre des Nations Unies dans un langage que certains dirigeants sont capables ou forcés de comprendre. Comment peut-on dire cela dans le patois pervers et sophistique qu’on dit au Kremlin ? Comment exprimer cette sagesse en hébreu progressif ou en arabe avec des accents de paix ? Comment faire entendre le discours de réconciliation auprès des responsables de conflits dans d’autres régions du monde, sachant que 2023 a été une année d’accélération des multiples expressions de haine et de radicalisme ?

Nous sommes ici confrontés à deux questions qui devront être clarifiées et résolues le plus rapidement possible.

Premièrement, quiconque ne comprend pas Charlie Chaplin et la valeur de la vie ne devrait pas être à la tête d’une nation. La place des criminels de guerre est à La Haye ou devant un tribunal spécial créé à cet effet, comme cela s'est produit en Yougoslavie ou au Rwanda. Je dis cela, et je le souligne, pour qu'il n'y ait aucun doute, en ma qualité de personne qui a été à l'avant-garde de la fondation du tribunal d'Arusha, en Tanzanie, créé pour juger les principaux responsables du génocide survenu en Rwanda en 1994. Les précédents existent et les responsables des massacres en Ukraine et au Moyen-Orient les connaissent. Comme les criminels fantasment toujours, ils peuvent même penser qu’ils échapperont à ces procès. À la vitesse à laquelle les choses évoluent, ils ne devraient pas rester calmes.

Deuxièmement, le Secrétaire général des Nations Unies doit aller bien au-delà des questions humanitaires. L’aide humanitaire est sans aucun doute essentielle et ne peut être oubliée. Mais il s’agit d’une situation à court terme et précaire, car les situations de besoin sont nombreuses, les tragédies sont énormes dans diverses régions du monde et les ressources sont toujours rares. La Charte des Nations Unies concerne avant tout des solutions politiques. Le Secrétaire général doit entretenir un dialogue inlassable avec les parties et présenter sans plus tarder un plan de paix pour l'Ukraine et un autre pour la Palestine. Des plans qui s’attaquent aux racines des problèmes, qui sont fondés sur le droit international et qui soulignent courageusement les mesures politiques que le Conseil de sécurité doit envisager.

Nous devons relever les très graves défis qui nous attendent, au cours de ce qui s’annonce comme une année cruciale dans l’histoire contemporaine.

G20: is it a better forum?

The G20 as a model for tomorrow's Security Council

Victor Ângelo

 

Today I am not writing about Ukraine, although I recognise that it is fundamental to keep the subject at the top of the public communication agenda. That is, by the way, one of the great risks of this crisis: the Putinists, their neo-Stalinist and neo-fascist relatives, not to mention the useful idiots who spout off in the media and cackle from their perches, would like to see the Russian invasion disappear from the headlines. In this day and age, what comes off the front page is easily ignored. These people think it is convenient to forget the aggression decided by Vladimir Putin, which, moreover, has nothing geopolitical about it - if it did, the autocrat would have a different position on the candidacies of Finland and Sweden for NATO membership, not to mention the Baltics. It is now clear that Putin is dreaming up the old wives' tale of the historical destiny of Mother Russia.

I will not discuss the subject of NATO this time either. That will be the subject of future chronicles. Even knowing what has been written around, including a full-page article in a well-known weekly newspaper - a flood that shows at least two flaws: that the author does not know how the NATO budget is constructed; and that he gives an importance to the Secretary-General of the organisation that he does not have. Jens Stoltenberg is a skilful facilitator, well presented, prudent with his words, a balancer who makes a virtue of his weak oratory skills. But the power does not belong to him. It resides in some member states, starting with the USA, but not only there. Take countries like Poland and Latvia, for example, and not forgetting the example of Turkey. To claim, without hesitation, that Stoltenberg is the boss of Europe, or the West, is the idle talk of someone who says a lot about something he knows little or nothing about.  

Someone suggested I write about the recent BRICS summit in Beijing on 23 June, this being the year of the Chinese presidency. It was clear that China is seeking to transform the BRICS into a political and economic bloc capable of being an alternative to the G7. And for this, it is trying to introduce a new format, which would include, besides Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, other emerging countries, Argentina in Latin America, Egypt, Nigeria and Senegal in Africa, and others, such as Thailand, Indonesia or even Kazakhstan. Here I would make two observations, after recognising the economic dynamism of China and the relative weight of the other members in the world economy. First, the BRICS, like the G7, speak of cooperation and multilateralism, but in reality constitute blocs inspired by rivalry and hegemony. Second, if I had to choose between the democracy and human security practised in the BRICS or in the G7, I would certainly prefer the Japanese model, for example, to that of neighbouring China. The values of freedoms and human rights are fundamental criteria.

Indeed, my purpose is to underline the potential that exists at G20 level. This is the only organisation outside the United Nations system that can bring together the powerful North and South. It should therefore be seen as a good bet for international political and economic collaboration. And today it is essential to talk again about cooperation and complementarity, given the challenges we all face. Leaders must get out of merely antagonistic speeches.

The G20 foreign ministers have been meeting since yesterday in Bali, Indonesia. Despite the tense atmosphere, none have missed the call, not even Antony Blinken and Sergei Lavrov. No bilateral discussions are expected between the two. The hostility between Russia and the US is too great, unfortunately leaving no room for a meeting at that level. But Blinken met with his Chinese counterpart, Wang Yi, and was positive. He showed that the G20 offers opportunities, that it is a platform that should be maintained and strengthened. Its composition prefigures to some extent what would be a modern version of the UN Security Council.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 8 July 2022)

 

 

 

Looking at a possible UN role in Ukraine

UN: a roadmap for peace in Ukraine

Victor Angelo

 

More than a month has passed since an open letter was sent to the UN Secretary-General on the situation in Ukraine, signed by former senior officials. Meanwhile, António Guterres has been in Moscow and Kyiv, and has managed to push forward the UN humanitarian response. The political dimension, however, continues to be determined elsewhere. In general, words coming out of the West have been accentuating the possibility of a Ukrainian victory. Statements of this kind tend to aggravate the confrontation. It is true that there has been a considerable increase in arms support to Ukraine and that this is positive, as it allows for a redoubling of self-defence efforts. But in public, we should only talk about self-defence and, in tandem, the urgency of peace.

In this context, it makes perfect sense for the Secretary-General to stand up for a political process that recognises both the right to self-defence and war reparations, and the imperative of a peace agreement, guaranteed by the United Nations.

A new open letter should now insist on this line of action. A draft was prepared this week. I was one of those who found the text too vague, when the moment demands clarity and a firm assumption of responsibilities. So, for the time being, there will not be a new missive from us. The important thing is to show that the political pillar of the United Nations has the necessary authority to propose a way out of the crisis which will counter the escalation of military aggression and prevent the destruction of Ukraine.

The UN's political agenda could be built around four converging lines of intervention.

First, by seeking to establish temporary pauses in the fighting, in various localities deemed vulnerable, in order to protect civilians and facilitate humanitarian assistance. In this vision, the pauses would be monitored by a contingent of UN observers, with a mandate from the Security Council. The proposal to create a group of international monitors would be appreciated by many, although it is acknowledged that it would encounter immense obstacles to be approved.

Second, by maintaining a constant call, repeated until heard, for an end to hostilities and acceptance of a UN-led mediation process, which could include the preparation of a conference on a new framework for cooperation and security in Europe. 

Third, by continually recalling the Geneva Protocols on the limits of war. The major concern is the defence of civilian populations. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited; acts of military violence to create terror are a war crime; infrastructures essential to the survival of communities must be spared; certain types of munitions are absolutely prohibited, including cluster bombs, chemical and biological weapons. It is also time to underline the rules on the treatment of prisoners of war, now that the defenders of the last stronghold in Mariupol have surrendered to Russian troops. This surrender is a highly political and symbolic event, which calls for a special reference, in defence of the rights of these prisoners. And of all the others, of course. 

Still under this heading, it seems essential to me to reiterate that the UN is already engaged in documenting possible war crimes and will seek, as far as possible, to increase its efforts in this regard.

Fourth, bearing in mind the divisions within the Security Council, and considering this war to be the greatest threat in 77 years, the Secretary-General could try to set up a Contact Group on the conflict. Such a group would bring together several influential countries that would be in constant liaison with Guterres in the search for solutions. It is a way to multiply the Secretary-General's capacity for intervention and to create a circle of support to protect him from political attacks. It would also show that the crisis has an international and not just a European scope.

None of this would be easy. But the fact remains that the job of UN secretary-general is anything but an easy one.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 20 May 2022)

 

 

 

 

 

China's responsibilities as a permanent member of the UN Security Council

Ukraine: what are China's responsibilities as a P5?

Victor Angelo

 

Earlier this week, Olaf Scholz met by videoconference with Xi Jinping. A day later, it was Emmanuel Macron's turn. I imagine there was a prior settling of positions between the two European leaders, even though the face-to-face meeting between the two only took place a few hours after the German chancellor's virtual meeting with the Chinese president. Xi Jinping is convinced that strengthening European unity will eventually allow Europe to gain greater autonomy in relation to the USA. That is why he must have compared the statements made by Scholz and Macron to see if they are along the same lines.

The big issue, in an extensive agenda of issues to be dealt with between China and Europe, is that of the war in Ukraine. During the calls, Xi repeated phrases he had uttered before - Europe's security must be in the hands of Europeans; it is fundamental to build a new security structure in Europe that takes into account the concerns of all parties; China has acted diplomatically for peace to return to Ukraine, starting by insisting on a ceasefire and respect for the country's territorial integrity; it continues to promote multilateral solutions, because it recognises the central role of the UN; and, finally, China defends the globalisation of markets. At the outset, these declarations are positive. But what do they mean in concrete terms, when it comes to putting an end to Russian aggression against Ukraine and stopping the risks of the conflict spreading?

Scholz, Macron and the entire European leadership must go further and unambiguously confront Xi Jinping: what does China intend to do to contribute with all its political and economic weight to making Vladimir Putin's Russia cease hostilities and respect the sovereignty of its neighbour? The videoconferences need to be more demanding and explore what the grand declarations of principles mean in practice. The gravity of the international situation requires a dialogue that goes beyond make-believe.

China, beyond its status as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, is a global power, however much that pains some Western leaders. Both realities, in New York and around the world, give China rights and responsibilities. And in the case of the violation of Ukraine's sovereignty, China has a duty to actively contribute to the return of peace and international law. It cannot use the argument that this is only a European problem and that it is therefore up to the Europeans to solve it. Nor should we insist on this line of argument.

What we are facing is a conflict that could dramatically threaten international peace and security, particularly if non-conventional weapons are used. And which already has a widespread impact on food security, supply chains, energy prices and other dimensions that lead to the impoverishment of millions, and even more so in the most economically fragile countries.

In essence, my message is that Europe needs to talk more assertively with China. Xi says it is for peace and international order, for the centrality of the United Nations. So, ask him how he translates those admirable axioms into a peace process for Ukraine.

Meanwhile, the annual summit between the EU and Japan took place yesterday in Tokyo. Charles Michel and Ursula von der Leyen led the European delegation. They began by pointing out that Japan is Europe's most important strategic partner in the Indo-Pacific region, which must have attracted some attention in Beijing. The intensification of sanctions against Russia was one of the central themes of the discussion. There is a convergence of views between Brussels and Tokyo on the issue. But here too it would have been strategic to discuss how to involve China. This is now one of the big questions. It is not enough to write in the final communiqué that the EU and Japan will "deepen exchanges with China", namely in the political and security fields. That is mere lip service.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 13 May 2022)

 

 

Antonio Guterres and his visits to Russia and Ukraine

Maintaining contact with the aggressor while supporting Ukraine

Victor Ângelo

 In a situation of conflict between states, every word counts. Experience has also taught me that it is better to start by asking questions and listening attentively to the answers before proposing any kind of solution. It is true that listening is a difficult art. Important people consider that their status is affected if they are sober in their words.

In the specific case of the aggression against Ukraine, the key is in Vladimir Putin's hands. Even if we know that we are facing a sly leader, we must insist that he tells us his proposal for ending the crisis, a proposal that will have to be realistic and respect the sovereignty of neighbouring countries. At the same time and without hesitation, it is essential that the question be accompanied by a crystal-clear reference to the basic principles that define good international relations, and which are perfectly enshrined in the United Nations Charter.

Telling him that one understands his obsessive concerns about his country's external security is not good politics. This phrase seriously weakens the person who utters it. We must respond to these obsessions with a reference to the existing international mechanisms, to which the Russian Federation is a signatory, which allow for the peaceful settlement of disputes between states. This is what António Guterres did when he was in the Kremlin, and he did it well.

On the other hand, when we speak of humanitarian tragedies, in Mariupol or elsewhere, the response must be equally clear: only the end of military aggression will make it possible to put an end to the immense suffering being inflicted on the Ukrainian people. In saying this, one is making the link between humanitarian issues, war crimes and political issues. For the United Nations, the ultimate goal is to promote a political framework that will restore peace and good neighbourliness. 

Careful with words also leads me to say that this is by no means a war between the West and Russia, nor even a proxy war. Statements made this week, notably in the context of the meeting convened by the Americans in Germany, aimed at strengthening logistical support to Ukraine, were ill-advised. They should not have stressed that the aim is to weaken Russia as a military power. What should be said is simple and needs to be expressed unequivocally: Europe, the US and the other allies are helping Ukraine to defend its territorial integrity, in a process of legitimate defence.

The governments participating in that meeting could have added something more: Putin's Russia represents a threat that needs to be contained. If support for Ukraine fails, the possibility that tomorrow they will be the next targets of a similar aggression is a well-founded fear.

We are in a crisis that will linger, with enormous risks and costs. As those costs accumulate, the tendency on the Russian side will be to resort to more violent and immensely destructive means. That option is already part of Putin's calculations, as he made clear again this week in St Petersburg. The best way to avoid the worst outcome of that scenario will be an exceptional increase in aid to Ukraine and the adoption of a new round of sanctions that would decisively reduce Russia's financial revenues and further isolate it.

In parallel, it is up to the UN Secretary-General to insist on the need for a political solution. His point of departure and arrival will always be the UN Charter. Then, he will have to stress that a crisis like the current one entails very serious risks for international peace and stability, clearly explaining some of these risks and the dramatic consequences that they would entail for all parties. Finally, it will be important to underline that the only reasonable way out is to organise a political process leading to a conference for peace, reconstruction and stability in Eastern Europe. By doing so, one will be strengthening the credibility of the political pillar of the United Nations and working to prevent us sliding into an abyss of unfathomable proportions.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 29 April 2022)

 

António Guterres and the role of the UN Secretary-General

What to expect from the United Nations?

Victor Angelo

 

Charles Michel has just been in Kyiv. The visit followed those of other European leaders, including the presidents of the Parliament, Roberta Metsola, and the Commission, Ursula von der Leyen.

One of the first to make the trip to Kyiv was Peter Maurer, president of the International Committee of the Red Cross, who was in the Ukrainian capital on 16 March at a time when the city was under very close threat. And Pope Francis is said to be preparing a similar trip.

Regardless of the practical results of these trips, their symbolic importance must be recognised. In a conflict situation, the symbolism of certain initiatives is fundamental to reinforce the legitimacy of the cause one of the parties is defending, as well as to underpin its narrative. Legitimacy and narrative are essential in conflicts such as the one in Ukraine, which are taking place under the watchful eye of world public opinion, thanks to the courage of many journalists, Ukrainian and foreign.

Politically, each visit seeks to show solidarity with the country that is the victim of the war of aggression. It is thus underlined that the invasion decided by Vladimir Putin is unacceptable. At the same time, it makes it possible to reaffirm the will to contribute to a political solution to a crisis which can in no way be resolved by force. The time has come to show that the use and abuse of force is no longer accepted as a source of rights on the international stage.

In Maurer's case, it was a question of highlighting the humanitarian dimension. This is the raison d'être of the International Red Cross. Maurer, who has moved on from Kyiv to Moscow, knows that leadership means being tirelessly on the front line and in contact with those in power.

For the United Nations, the humanitarian response should also be a way forward. For two reasons. First, because we are facing a major humanitarian crisis. Second, because it can open the diplomatic bridges needed to mediate the conflict. This has happened so many times without compromising the independence and neutrality of the humanitarian work, whose ultimate goal is to save lives. I have always advocated that there must be a clear separation between humanitarian action and political initiatives. But I have also always advocated that a political process can be built on humanitarian intervention.

It is in this line that the letter sent this week to António Guterres, and signed by a group of about 250 former senior UN officials, fits in. The tragedy unleashed by Putin seriously undermines the political credibility of the United Nations. Based on this concern, the main message of this letter is to call for the maximum personal and visible engagement of the Secretary-General in the search for a solution to the crisis. Given the gravity of the situation, the role gives him the moral authority to do so and requires him to be clear, objective and resolute.

In the view of the signatories, the Secretary-General must repeat loud and clear, and unceasingly, that aggression of this kind violates the international order and dangerously destabilises existing balances.  It is not just a question of condemning the actions of a permanent member of the Security Council. It is essential to express an extraordinary level of concern and, at the same time, to show an insurmountable and tireless back-and-forth dynamic between the capitals that count. Firstly, to insist on a cessation of hostilities - of Russian aggression, as it were - and then to propose a peace plan.  A plan that allows the victims to be compensated, those responsible for the aggression and war crimes to be punished and the process of reforming the Security Council to be initiated. Basically, the challenge is twofold: to promote peace and to adapt the UN to today's world.

In signing the letter, I had three questions in mind. First, about the complexity of the function of Secretary General of the United Nations, which is, above all, an eminently political task. Second, about the need to have an up-to-date global organization that corresponds to today's world and the challenges ahead. Third, about good leadership, which requires a very astute balance between prudence and courage.

PS: After receiving the message and seeing how the Russian side reacted to it, Guterres moved and wrote to Putin and Zelensky.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 22 April 2022)

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)

 

China, European Union, Ukraine and Vladimir Putin

Where is China's leadership?

Victor Angelo

It took 12 days of aggression against Ukraine for Xi Jinping to come down to earth and discuss his reading of the crisis with Emmanuel Macron and Olaf Scholz. The day before, his foreign minister, Wang Yi, had organised a long press conference focused on the same subject.

Analysing these two speeches, I get the impression that Beijing wants to please Greeks and Trojans, i.e., the Europeans of the EU and the regime of Vladimir Putin, and to escalate the rhetoric against the US. Xi sought to encourage dialogue between the Europeans and the Kremlin, as well as to create a fault line between the European and American positions. This is how the Chinese initiative can be summed up.

Above all, Xi's aim is to project an image of composure and serenity, in defence of the multilateral system and of peace. He wants to appear as the great apologist for international principles, while the Americans should be seen as the instigators of conflicts, including the one now being suffered in Ukraine. China would be mainly concerned with the promotion of international cooperation - the word cooperation was mentioned more than 80 times in Wang's speech - development and the prevention of large-scale humanitarian crises.

All this is an exercise in style in the realms of propaganda and ambiguity. China needs to maintain a very close relationship with Russia. They are two big neighbours, with various complementarities, beyond the immense geographical continuity. Beijing imports raw materials extracted in Russia – oil represents about 60% of total imports coming from Russia – and provides an outlet for its neighbour's economy. Most important of all, it sees the US as a common enemy. Geography brings the two countries together and geopolitics unites them. It is, however, a fragile union: it is fundamentally based on the wills of Xi and Putin. It has no solid popular expression, because each people have their own cultural framework, without shared roots or references.

And China knows how to calculate too: in one year, trade with the EU exceeds USD 800 billion, while with Russia it is much lower, at USD 105 billion. This figure roughly equals the annual trade between China and the Netherlands. Politically and economically, Xi Jinping depends on an open and friendly European market. For the Chinese leader, international trade is essential to maintain the pace of growth in living standards for his citizens. This has to do with his continuity in power. It is the key argument to justify his legitimacy and absolute authority.  

The fact is that the Chinese leadership does not support the military assault that Putin has ordered against Ukraine. For what I write above, and for three other reasons. First, because it flouts two of the fundamental principles of Chinese foreign policy, that of the inviolability of national borders and non-interference in the internal affairs of other states. Secondly, it destabilises European economies and puts them at risk of a deep crisis. Third, it reinforces the role of the USA in NATO and its influence in Europe.

However, Xi Jinping does not think it prudent to criticise, or even talk to Putin now. He prefers to go through Macron and Scholz and advise them on a dialogue with the Kremlin, pretending not to see that this path is currently blocked. Putin does not listen to the European leaders.

Faced with the Ukrainian resistance against the invaders, Putin is determined to repeat what other dictators have done throughout history: expand the use of armed force, including the bombing of civilians - a war crime - and the siege of cities, in the old medieval style. Xi Jinping knows the costs of this kind of criminal folly. It is what prompted him to contact Europe's leaders. He should show that his words about the value of multilateralism and diplomatic negotiations make sense and move with clarity in the UN Security Council and with his partner Putin. Only then can he be taken seriously. 

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 11 March 2022)

 

 

Vladimir Putin, Ukraine and all of us

When fascism enters our homes

Victor Ângelo

 

In its essence, the fascism of today coincides with that of the last century: in the existence of an autocrat, in the dictatorial power, in the ultra-nationalism, in the continuous exaltation of the homeland and traditional values, from religion to family, and in an inhuman vision of the use of force, either to maintain the internal order and crush the opposition, or to create problems abroad. The dictator manipulates the narrative of his people's past with glorious words, in an idealised way, as if the nation had a historical and civilisational, as well as divine, mission. He sees himself as the personification of the noble national destiny. He places himself on a pedestal above everyone else. He treats the members of his immediate circle theatrically, with arrogance, cynicism, and an iron hand, in order to obtain subservience and flattery. On the international stage, he only respects the rules that suit him. It seeks to impose fear but ends up being treated with mistrust and aversion. Its only foreign allies are found in the puppet elites of vassal countries, in extreme right-wing movements, in others who advocate totalitarian modes of governance, or even in fools.

Fascist dictators are a danger to democracies as well as to international peace. Indeed, as Vladimir Putin reminds us today, fascism leads to war. 

Putin is at the head of a great nation, which throughout history has made a remarkable contribution to European civilisation and culture. A heroic people, who played a decisive role in the defeat of Nazism. A people that belongs fully to the "European house", the great strategic partnership between the EU and Russia, dreamt of in 2003, with the ambition of building an area of freedom and cooperation from Lisbon to Vladivostok.

We are now a long way from that dream. The nightmare come true of the violation of Ukraine's sovereignty, its invasion, the menacing language used by Putin, the verbal threats against our part of Europe and the unacceptable demands, place all of us Europeans in a very serious confrontation. Conflicts, once started, usually get out of control. We know when they start, but we do not know when they end, nor what the damage, the level of suffering and the consequences will be. Not to mention the internal policy Putin conducts, it must be clear that the external one, towards Ukraine and his country's European neighbourhood, is unacceptable and criminal. It is completely outside established norms.

It is time to return to the international legal framework, which has been built since 1945. In that sense, the statement made by António Guterres, on the events of this week, is highly significant and courageous. It will go down in the record of his tenure as a memorable moment. Guterres said, "The decision of the Russian Federation to recognise the so-called "independence" of certain areas of Donetsk and Lugansk is a violation of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine." He added that the decision contradicts the principles of the United Nations Charter, as well as the General Assembly Declaration on Relations of Friendship and Cooperation between States and the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice. He repeated the same words again, in a deeply concerned manner once the invasion was consummated.

Never in the history of the UN had a Secretary-General dared to be so clear in condemning a large-scale illegality practised by one of the permanent members of the Security Council. U Thant, who was in charge of the organisation between 1961 and 1971, referred several times to the United States and its unjust war in Vietnam, but did not go that far.

Meanwhile, the EU must respond to this immense crisis with all the diplomatic, financial, and economic arsenal at its disposal. And with a strengthening of its defence architecture.  The aim is to isolate, weaken, punish the dictatorship in power in Moscow and force a return to peace. At the time of writing the measures that will be adopted are not yet known. They should, however, make it clear that a fascist, warlike regime in Europe is morally and politically unacceptable. It will not pass, not now, not ever again. 

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 25 February 2022)

 

 

International dialogues at the beginning of the New Year

From nuclear power to Europe's affirmation and credibility

Victor Angelo

 

The joint statement on nuclear war prevention issued this week by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council is a good start to the new year. It is the first time that China, the United States, France, the United Kingdom and Russia have pledged to avoid a nuclear conflict between them, unambiguously acknowledging that such a confrontation has no winners and therefore should not occur. They also affirm that their nuclear weapons are for deterrence only and that they will continue to negotiate to end competition between them with regard to such weapons. And they set nuclear disarmament as a long-term goal.

At a time when there are very serious rivalries between some of these countries, what value can be given to such a declaration? It is easy to answer with scepticism, given the current international situation, which includes very serious tensions around, among other cases, Ukraine and Taiwan. And which registers an enormous increase in military spending and innovation by the big three: China, the United States and Russia. Furthermore, on a global level, it is experiencing a period of unprecedented uncertainty for the current generations, with risks and dangers that could profoundly destabilise the fragile world political and economic order.

It is better, however, at this start of the year, to take an optimistic view and underline the positive side of the declaration. The agreement on nuclear danger could mean that there is understanding and realism at the level of the leaders of the great powers that continuing on the path of confrontation will bring enormous costs for all. In reality, an armed conflict between some of these countries would be a catastrophe of unimaginable proportions, given the existing capacity for destruction. There are no small, controlled wars between colossuses. If a first shot were to be fired, it would always be a major war.

In a scenario of complex crises such as the present, 2022 must be a year of dialogue and reinforced international cooperation, in the most promising areas. This is what is required of those who call the shots in this world.

The negotiations that will begin next week in Geneva and Brussels between Russia, the USA and NATO do not offer much hope at the outset. Yet they are important. Several decades of work on the international scene have taught me that most negotiations start with very low expectations. Over time, they can turn into positive exercises. To get results, you have to be patient and persevering. And keep the contact at the highest level and focus on what is essential.

The European institutions complain about not being included in the talks with Russia. Especially since the discussion will be about security and stability in Europe. Also, because many in the EU consider normalising the relationship with Russia as a mutually advantageous priority.

I think it is a mistake that President Biden has not insisted on European participation. He knows that weakening the EU is one of the Russian leader's strategic machinations. Putin wants a Europe that is as fragmented as possible. He has now scored an important point.

It is not enough to say that 21 out of 27 EU members are also members of NATO and that Europe is therefore well represented. There can be no illusions here: it is the USA and a few Eastern European states that define Russian NATO policy. Nor is it an argument that the EU has no common position on Russia. The preparation of such negotiations would be a catalyst moment to advance the definition of the European position.

It is still possible to make amends. NATO's foreign ministers are meeting today by video conference to discuss the dossier. It would be appropriate for several of them to raise the issue of EU involvement. And that they continue to do so in the days to come. The affirmation and credibility of the European project would thus be strengthened.

 

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 7 January 2022)

A very dangerous end of year

An unrelenting holiday season

Victor Ângelo

 

This could be a troubled end of the year, on the international scene. There are three major crises looming - Iran, Russia, and the new variant of the pandemic. These things tend to erupt at the worst of times, when politicians are out celebrating the holidays, skiing, or sunbathing away from their offices. To say that we are entering a period when a lot can happen is not pessimism. It is simply a sign that we are paying attention to a particularly complex reality.

Let us start with Iran. This week's UN Security Council debate on Iran's nuclear programme showed that the conditions are not in place to revive the agreement signed in 2015 between Tehran and the five permanent members of the Security Council, plus Germany and the European Union. The US continues to impose an extremely tight regime of economic sanctions. And although Iran has turned to China, the truth is that American sanctions have a huge impact.

On the other hand, the new Iranian government has been accelerating its uranium enrichment programme, in clear violation of the 2015 Plan of Action. By now, it has accumulated enough fissile material to be able to produce several nuclear weapons. At the same time, it has accelerated the production of ballistic missiles and air assets capable of carrying a nuclear payload. All this is very serious and raises many red flags in the usual places.

At the time of the Council meeting, the permanent representatives of Germany, France and the United Kingdom to the UN issued a joint statement expressing their governments' deep concern. The final sentence of that statement says it all: "Iran's continued nuclear escalation means that we are rapidly reaching the end of the road." Such a statement sends the signal that it will soon be time to opt for solutions other than diplomacy. The probability is now stronger.

As far as Russia is concerned, President Putin met on Wednesday with his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, by video conference. The main objective seems to have been to show a united front against the Westerners. It would be too farfetched to see in this summit a coordination effort to link the tension around Taiwan with a possible offensive by the Russians against Ukraine. The timetables do not coincide, it is not credible to think of simultaneous operations. The American response would be different, in one case fundamentally economic and financial - against Russia - and in the other, with military means.

In any case, the most immediate threat is still the Russian one. Vladimir Putin made the foreboding even more real by speaking of "genocide" that would be in preparation against the ethnically Russian population of Eastern Ukraine. This would be the justification for a military intrusion, an invention easy to propagandise internally and in some international circles.

Meanwhile, this week, Putin again insisted on the urgency of talks with the Americans and NATO. What for? Essentially, for the West to approve Moscow's demands and its vision of geopolitical relations with Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova, among others. Washington and Brussels do not seem willing to accept these impositions. Which means that tension will continue and the possibility of destabilising action in Ukraine is quite high.

Omicron is also complicating the end of the year. Apart from its health dimensions, it has serious economic costs, at a time when the most developed states are experiencing exceptional levels of public debt and budget deficit. In several European countries, it also has a political impact that cannot be ignored. The restrictions it imposes have given segments of the European radical right the opportunity to mobilise. These are minority groups. Even so, they worry the democratic leaderships of the countries where this is happening. The pandemic and the denialists remind us that the fight against radicalism cannot have a truce. Not even during the festive season. 

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 17 December 2021)

 

 

 

 

Reflections on political mediation

More and better mediation in times of conflict

Victor Angelo

The British philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) was one of the most brilliant thinkers of the 20th century. He was also one of the most progressive of his time, one of the first to fight for the institution of a universal minimum income or for the decriminalization of homosexual relations. A profound political analyst, he stressed in 1950, when he received the Nobel Prize for Literature, that "the love of power is, in fact, the strongest motive in the lives of important men. He added that many leaders do not mind impoverishing - and sinking the nation - if they can thereby bring their rivals to ruin. This is still the case in certain parts of the globe.

It was this blind passion for power, a central theme in Russell's work, that served as the starting point for my talk yesterday about conflict mediation. I was participating, by videoconference, in a colloquium of the US Institute of Peace, an independent Washington-based organization dedicated to parallel diplomacy and political negotiations. The challenge was to identify new ways of approaching national crisis resolution, to be shared with the United Nations and other partners active in this area of international politics.

Political intervention, in any society, requires a keen understanding of context and power relations. It is necessary to assess the relative strength of the main leaders, what their power is based on, and what their vulnerabilities are.

In democratic societies, this analysis is easier to do, even taking into account the opacity of certain secret associations, pressure groups and manipulation of social networks. Elections are held regularly, there are visible party structures and an active media. There, credibility is built on electoral legitimacy combined with the projection of a positive public image.

In countries where the abuse of force is the source and instrument of authority, the issue is more complicated. The apparent, institutional system is often deceptive. What counts is the informal web and its hierarchies. The real power is tied to traditional leaders, ethnic affiliations, religious networks, superstitions, or even criminal organizations in the field of drugs or the illegal trade in natural resources.

Throughout my life I have seen many examples of informal power. In Zimbabwe, it was easier to reach Robert Mugabe through the UN representative's driver than through the head of the presidential office. The driver was the first-born son of a tribal chief of the ethnic group to which Mugabe belonged. In Senegambia, a small number of marabouts had more political influence, regionally and nationally, than most ministers in the different governments.

Conflict mediation only works if you negotiate with those in power. The others, ministers and so on, are often mere figureheads or simple stooges of the boss. To get to the decision-maker, you often have to go beyond the formal system of governance.

Another critical aspect concerns the authority of the mediator. Credibility in politics results from the combination of four primary characteristics: a spirit of mission, political realism, balance of opinion, and self-confidence. Several mediators appointed in recent years by the United Nations have been shown to lack this set of qualities. New York tends to pay more attention to regional games, to winning political support in certain quarters, in the Security Council or from influential heads of state in the region concerned, than to the experience and personality of the appointees. The result is a certain marginalization of the UN and a blurring of its image.  During his second term, António Guterres should strive to address this weakness. The strengthening of the mediation capacity should be one of the priority areas in a time that promises to be fertile in conflicts. This is what many millions of people, victims of political violence or on the verge of the ravine, are crying out for every day.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 15 October 2021)

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)

 

 

From Myanmar to the EU: a quick journey

Suu Kyi and our Ursula

Victor Angelo

 

 

I intended to write about the coup d'état in Myanmar. I follow regularly what happens there, especially the role of civil society associations in defending citizens, the Chinese investments, and their political impact, as well as the actions carried out by the different ethnic-based armed groups. China, which is the second largest foreign investor in the country - the first is Singapore - shares a long border with Myanmar and sees its neighbour mainly as an economic corridor with shorter and more direct access to the Gulf of Bengal. This corridor is of huge strategic interest to the Chinese, both for gas and oil imports and for exports to the Middle East and Africa. The messages I would include in my text would be to condemn the military coup and defend the process of democratisation that began in 2015 and the November 2020 legislative elections – which the Carter Center considered acceptable despite the restrictions imposed by the pandemic and the armed rebellions.

I would also seek to discuss the question marks that Aung San Suu Kyi's political activity has raised in Western circles, while recalling that she won the November elections by a large majority. The appreciation of the Burmese is very different from the judgments that we, with our European eyes, make. I would have mentioned in my text the impasse that exists in the UN Security Council when it comes to take decisions about that country. This inability to condemn has been clearly demonstrated since 2017 when close to a million Rohingya people were persecuted and expelled to neighbouring Bangladesh. The objection always comes from the same side, from Beijing, and with Moscow doing the political favour of aligning itself with the Chinese, in a tactical manoeuvre to obtain Chinese political dividends. This time, however, I was surprised by the positive. China and the other members of the Security Council yesterday approved a declaration which I consider strong and which explicitly condemns the military coup and the arbitrary arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi and all the others. It was an encouraging surprise, including a clear call for respect for human rights and freedoms, including those of the press. I would speculate that this agreement on Myanmar is a good sign, which could be seen as a conciliatory gesture by Xi Jinping addressed to Joe Biden. 

However, I have decided to change my mind and focus on the mess that the vaccination campaign in the European Union has become. Each day shows that the issue of vaccines is highly political, and that delays, failures, slowdowns and injustices can have a devastating effect on the image of the European Commission and the moral authority and stability of national governments. It is also clear that the priority in the EU must be to immunise without delay the largest number of citizens.

At the end of December, Ursula von der Leyen said, with a mixture of joy and arrogance, that the campaign was being launched simultaneously across Europe. The Commission rightly decided that orders with pharmacy industry would be placed in a unified way, for the whole EU. This would increase our negotiating strength in the face of a sector which is immensely powerful and experienced in writing commercial contracts. After five weeks, we have about 2.9% of the population vaccinated in the Union, and over 14.5% on Boris Johnson's land. The vaccines ordered are not made available to national health services because there is not enough production capacity, logistics and because the pharmaceuticals already had other contracts signed in advance.

Thus, we enter February with the clear realization that there is no more explosive subject than this. And with the certainty that it is fundamental to transform vaccination into a real campaign, urgent, massive, effective and with fair criteria accepted by the people. Otherwise, we would be heading for political and social chaos. Far and different from Myanmar, of course, but equally destabilising. 

 

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