Looking ahead, through the mist

 Translation of yesterday’s opinion piece I published in Diário de Notícias (Lisbon). 22 Aug. 2020

 

Back to the imponderables

Victor Angelo

 

The great challenge in our societies is to find and support the rise of leaders who are realistic, transformative, and convincing. This challenge is pressing today. With the summer vacation approaching its end, and as we look at the four months left to complete the year we cannot find it strange that many of us are apprehensive. We see a high tide of trouble and a low of international leadership. No current leader can go beyond the limits of his parish and propose an encouraging and credible perspective regarding what lies ahead.

The world scene will continue to be marked by the Covid-19 pandemic and, to a large extent, by American domestic politics. Not to mention other complications in our geopolitical neighbourhood, such as the growing tension between Europe and Turkey, now in the eastern part of the Mediterranean Sea, plus the endless conflicts and difficulties in the Middle East and the Sahel, starting with Mali. A list of concerns that is constantly growing and which now includes Belarus, thanks to the dictator Alexander Lukashenko, a reminiscence of Soviet times and of what the single party culture has produced as political monsters. Not forgetting, of course, the fractures within our European area, which is very fragile as a whole and with several national crises already visible or in the pipeline, as will be the case with Bulgaria and, for other reasons, Italy, where there is a very acute social malaise. The pandemic is a global inferno to which a number of local fires are added. The wisdom will be to understand what all this entails as consequences and to know how to propose a different international order. To think like that seems like a mirage. But this is an exceptional moment that challenges us and demands a different vision of the future.

Regarding the presidential elections in the United States, a friend of mine told me this week that we must be patient and wait for November. He added that he had no doubts about the defeat of Donald Trump and that afterwards everything would return to normal, including in international relations. I do not take Trump's defeat for granted. Democrats should not take victory as a bean count. There are, it is true, little more than seventy days to go before the election and the forecasts are not favourable to the President. But this is a time when imponderables can happen. The more objective and attentive analysts remind us that the country is immersed in a multidimensional crisis. It is not only the chaos in the management of the pandemic, its impact on the economy or the President's widespread and flagrant ineptitude. The Trump-Covid mix is causing a deep social shake-up, structural, with racial dimensions, poverty, and despair. It undermines the system and democracy, with the radicalisation of population sectors, especially those who believe that defeating Trump would mean tightening the siege they think exists against their interests.

Donald Trump does not see himself as a loser. He will try anything and everything to reclaim the lost ground, or, in desperation, throw the chessboard down the river. We face unpredictable times. He and his people need to continue the capture of the federal administration for another four years. Some analysts think this could lead to the president playing very dangerous games for the stability of his country and the world. And they are even more concerned when they see the blind alignment of GOP leaders, who dare do nothing to counter the president.

I am one of those who think those fears are exaggerated. The American institutions are strong enough to stop any temptation from the abyss. And the rest of the world is patient enough not to fall for provocation. Including China. But the truth is the year has been a sea of unimaginable surprises. So, for the months ahead, it's best to think of the unthinkable. That would be the challenge I would launch to a couple of European centres of strategic thinking. In the meantime, we should be careful that we continue, here on this side, to work for the best, without neglecting to prepare so that we can respond to further confusion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

We need an action framework of a new type

On this Independence Day in the US, it is obvious the country and the world have a big problem to confront and resolve. The Covid-19 pandemic. This is still the first wave of contagion and the virus remains out of control, in many parts of America and elsewhere. To deny it is to deny reality. It can only be explained as sheer ignorance or a political farce.

If we look at the problem with objectivity, we can only conclude that it might take another 12 to 18 months before we see an effective response. The timeframe can be shorter, the optimists say, but it can also be much longer, as many scientists keep telling us. In any case, a global crisis as the current one, if it goes on up to mid-to-end of 2021, will have global negative consequences. In simple words, I would say that we will become poorer and more self-centred. That will impact the world economy, trade, international cooperation, the multilateral systems, and, in summary, will change the game of global politics. Looking at it from the stability and security angles, I see us moving towards increased extremism, short-minded nationalism, and new dangerous confrontations. We will certainly reach new levels of instability and insecurity as well as the contraction of the democratic space.

Not easy to find a balance between public health and politics, including the economy. And that complexity augments as we move from the domestic scene to the wider arenas, where States act and clash. That is the reason why I think that reflecting on such a necessary balance is one of the key tasks the global institutions and the big-picture thinkers should focus on. We must design an action framework that keeps lives and livelihoods. Such a framework must obtain wide support – the support could even come from the UN Security Council – and give people clarity and hope.

Leading the international response

It is massively wrong to criticise the World Health Organisation (WHO) at this stage. We are still in unknown territory and unchartered waters as far as the Covid-19 pandemic is concerned. We don’t know what is going to happen in Africa and in other parts of the world, where the health systems are extremely weak. WHO has a technical presence in those countries and lots of experience in assisting them. As such, the wise thing to do would be to strengthen its operational capacity. That means that its authority must be recognised, and additional resources mobilised. To weaken and destabilise the organisation, as President Trump is doing, is unacceptable. We do not expect the current US President to provide the leadership it should, as head of the strongest State on earth. Donald Trump does not understand the world we live in and the role the US should be playing. But, at least, he should keep quiet as far as WHO is concerned.

The sad thing is that we are confronted with a devastating global calamity at a time there is no real global leadership. The US is getting more and more confused with its internal politics. The turmoil is amazing out there. Elsewhere, in the other regions of the world, there is no visionary leader, nobody of gigantic stature, capable to call the international action. The Prime Minister of New Zealand, Jacinda Arden, is sometimes mentioned. She is indeed an example. But her country is too small and too far out for her to be able to play a global role. All the other potential leaders are too busy with their own national situation – or messing things up, as it is the case with Narendra Modi of India.

I see a role for the UN Secretary-General. But I also recognise that his voice must be amplified by the international media, for that role to be effective. And that is not very easy to achieve at the moment.

Impeached

I am impressed by the presentations made so far by the House Impeachment Managers. They are building a serious case against President Trump. It is smart to repeatedly quote statements proffered in past occasions by those that today are dead against the impeachment.  

We all know that the case will be dismissed in the end, because the President’s party will decide along partisan lines. Their decision is to protect the President, independently of the merits of the case. And the President, then, will try to ride on that acquittal and move to a higher gear in terms of his re-election campaign. OK, it’s expected, it is part of the political game. He will take a discernible advantage of his malpractices. But the Democrats had no other option but to impeach. Today, more than ever, it is important to act based on principles.

My take on the US-China trade deal

The trade deal the US and China signed today is above all a pause in their trade dispute. That’s what makes it relevant. At a time when the trend has been to aggravate the commercial competition and the political rivalry between both giants, a lull is important. It is also an opportunity for both sides to implement some corrections and try a more constructive and balanced approach.

Therefore, I see the event with a positive eye. But I am also very much aware, like many observers, that there is deep antagonism and absolute mistrust on both sides of the deal. The Chinese do not think President Trump is constant in his political line. They are very much convinced that he can change his mind a thousand times. But for now, they bet on this deal. On the American side, they still believe the Chinese are very much determined to overtake the US economy and that they will do whatever it takes to achieve it. However, for the US leaders the deal comes at the right time. Actually, they have the advantage of controlling the agenda, a fact that is always good.

We have a little deal, that’s not bad, but we have not moved much when it comes to cooperation and trust building. In any case, a step forward is a step in the right direction. And that’s what matters.

A deeply divided Iraq

In the dangerous and complex situation we have now around Iran, one of the key losers is Iraq and its population. The country is deeply divided along sectarian and ethnic lines, has no economy and possesses very little capacity to respond to the multiple security threats it faces. These are all the necessary ingredients for an explosive national crisis. And tonight, the country is a step closer to such crisis. The Shia members of the national parliament voted a resolution recommending that all foreign armies be asked to leave Iraq. The Sunni and Kurd sides of parliament boycotted the vote. In fact, they feel excluded from the current political dispensation. That creates the right ground for new conflicts.

The approaches towards the future of European defence

When it comes to European defence, it is not either the US or Turkey that count. It is basically how the issue is seen by the French, the Germans and the Poles. The British, with the Brexit imbroglio, have somehow stepped aside. Each one of these three nations lead a different school of thought on the matter. And, in many ways, the Poles are more influential than what many outside analysts think. On top of that, they tend to voice positions that are not too far from the feelings we find within the US side. In this context, the strategy must follow a gradual approach, step by step, starting with less controversial areas. And it has to consider what should be the future of NATO in the Europe of tomorrow.

President Trump and the EU

A few of my readers have expressed some degree of surprise after reading what I wrote in my last blog about President Trump’s policy towards the EU. I basically said the President is not in favour of a strong EU. And that is a radical change of approach, because for decades his predecessors have encouraged the European countries to cooperate and strengthen the EU. Even in the case of the UK, the message coming from Washington has always been in the sense of advising London to be closer to Continental Europe.

 With President Trump, we have a new situation. First, he sees the EU as economic competition and a market that is huge but has too many barriers when it comes to some critical American exports, such as cars and farm products. But there is more to it, beyond the economic and trade issues. He thinks that the key EU leaders have an international agenda that contradicts his own and weakens it. That is the case on climate, on Iran, on Russia, on Cuba and Venezuela, on multilateralism, even on China. Not to mention the new idea of a European common defence, an idea that Emmanuel Macron personalises. On defence, President Trump follows a line that has been present in Washington for long now: the Europeans must spend more on their armies but keep them under the overall control and command of the US military. He senses that in this area the European response is becoming more independent and he does not like it at all.

August is not a good time to discuss these matters. People on both sides of the Atlantic are above all concerned with the weather and their holidays. It is however a debate that must be reopened after the rentrée in September.

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.

Responding to President Trump

Some people say that when it comes to the Donald Trump presidency, the right approach for the Europeans is to stay far away. That means to limit the contacts to the formal and the diplomatic exchanges. It is another way of saying, ignore and move on.

I am not sure that is the best response. We are friends and friends should talk in all frankness. If we disagree, we should say it. If we have a different view, who should express it. No need to be either rude or confrontational. But the European leaders should be true to themselves and to their American friends.

Silence will be interpreted as fear. In the end, it will open the gate for more errors and arrogance. Firmness, clarity and elegance are better rejoinders. Both across the Atlantic and for the European citizens as well.

European Defence and Security

Brief answers to questions about the EU defence and security:

First, it is obvious that NATO remains the strongest defence option for the Europeans. It is a powerful structure, it has invested a lot on training and change, it is well known in the European military circles, and several EU member States see it as the key umbrella. They think that without the might of the Americans, the EU defence is not strong enough.

Second, several EU leaders think that Europe should have its own common defence capacity and that such capacity should be in place in 10 to 15 years’ time. For that to happen, its building must start now, which means more joint EU military activities, more coordination, joint defence industries, shared means, and so on. This option will keep growing but the pace might be slow.

Third, the EU geopolitical interests and views are becoming divergent of those pursued by the US. That is true in Middle East, that is also the case regarding our relations with China, and India, and so on. Diverging interests mean that sooner or later we must be able to put together an independent capability.

Fourth, the EU are afraid of being dragged into conflicts that are only in the interest of the US. They are afraid of a deeper confrontation between the US and China. The EU does not want to automatically take sides on such dispute, if it occurs.

European energy policy: a priority

Energy remains high in the list of strategic factors. Countries that matter pay a lot of attention to the issue. The U.S., for instance, managed to address it by investing heavily on shale rock exploration. They will become, within the next five years, the key exporter of oil, overtaking Saudi Arabia and Russia. Moreover, they are already a major exporter of liquefied natural gas (LNG). All that is fossil energy. Not what people would call environmentally friendly.

Europe must take a different route. At present, the EU imports 55% of all the energy it consumes, which means around €270 billion per year.  The EU imports 87% of crude oil it consumes. It is time to invest much more money on clean sources of energy, on diversification and on energy efficiency. Including on better performing engines and engines that can run on alternative sources of energy, such as hydrogen.

Europe must pay special attention to its energy policy. That includes the links between energy use and the environment and matters related to our own strategic sovereignty.

Iran and the US: the escalating conflict

The military build-up by the US against Iran is a matter of great concern. The Strait of Hormuz is a vital line of communication. As such, it has the potential to be a major reason for a confrontation. The current US Administration will respond with great show of force to any attempt by Iran to disrupt or control navigation through the Strait.

Iran knows that. But they are being pushed against the wall by the American embargo on their oil exports and might make an error of judgement. That makes the situation in the region more delicate and especially dangerous.

The EU should call for restrain.

Brussels must show leadership and initiative.

Unfortunately, I do not see any appetite in Europe to make a statement against the escalation of the tension in that part of the Middle East. It is true that we are now on the eve of EU elections. But it is also a fact that those in charge of the European institutions are very hesitant when the matter touches the US interests. Even now, when they are at the end of their EU mandates, they lack the stature that a stronger Europe would require.

Hanoi or Venezuela: better, Hanoi!

For the US leadership, all the attention must be focused on the Hanoi summit. The meeting between President Trump and Chairman Kim is the week’s highlight. It must be seen and reported as excellent. Venezuela cannot be a distraction. There will be some diplomatic tightening, some additional isolation of Nicolas Maduro, a couple or so of rambunctious statements and sound bites, but nothing else. Nothing that could steal the headlines from Donald Trump in Hanoi.

Unless the Hanoi meeting goes wrong. It’s not expected, it has been prepared with great attention to sound good. But we never know. It could derail. Then, the usual suspects will be looking for a distraction, for other news that could grab the world’s attention. And that kind of news could be some foolish action regarding the situation in Venezuela.

INF and the UN

President Trump’s decision to pull out of the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) is as much about Russia – the other country signatory of the Treaty – as it is about China and its build-up of cruise missiles. Russia has been violating the INF since 2012. And China is investing heavily on new types of missiles capable of carrying nuclear heads. China is actually becoming a major military adversary of the US. And that is done in close coordination with Russia. Both Presidents – Xi and Putin – are consulting and have the same goal: to increase, in their geopolitical areas of influence, their countries’ capacity to confront the US and its allies. This is certainly a very dangerous strategy. The US will respond by augmenting their investment in nuclear capabilities. That means a serious arms race in a field that is particularly destructive and could bring mayhem to Europe and some parts of Asia.

One should be truly worried.

The UN could take the initiative to open a serious process of confidence building in the matters of nuclear armament. There is even a department within the Secretariat in New York that is mandated to deal with this type of matters. But the UN seems unable to move in such a critical area. Or, inaction and silence cannot be the right course of action at this very risky moment.

Maduro's days

The Venezuela standoff goes on. Time plays against Nicolás Maduro. He sees what remains of his authority being eroded with the passing of the days. He knows that, I believe, and is certainly preparing a heavy-handed response. And that’s the main danger at this stage: serious loss of lives.

Maduro also understands that the current context is different and not very favourable to him. The opposition is united. They have a charismatic and widely accepted leader. There is regional and international support to the new leader. Moreover, the regional rapport of forces is no longer what it used to be: now there is Bolsonaro next door, and the countries of the region are against him, except for Mexico, Cuba and Bolivia. And there has been a serious deterioration of the hardships most of the population is confronted with. The circumstances are playing against Maduro.

But he is still in the Miraflores Presidential Palace. And he has the support of his generals and admirals. That is important. The question is about the support of the lower ranking officers within the armed forces. That’s one of the keys to unlock the crisis.

Venezuela needs a domestic settlement

Venezuela is again a huge headline in the international agenda. And this time, the situation is extremely delicate. The country is at the hedge of major internal violent conflict.

The positions of the different Sates in Latin America and elsewhere must therefore be very clear.

It’s obvious that the last presidential elections have no credibility. As such, Nicolás Maduro cannot claim any legitimacy. He can claim power, as many dictators usually do, because he controls the armed forces and the police. The armed forces are now in charge of the oil business and that’s the reason why they still support Maduro and his regime. But many in the ranks know that the people to whom they belong, the grassroots men and women, are under enormous stress and just struggling to cope with poverty and the lack of very basic goods. This has nothing to do with imperialist forces in the outside world. It has to do with Maduro’s madness and crazy approach to the national economy.  

The EU has taken a view on the crisis that is very reasonable. It has called for a full respect for the National Assembly´s decisions and for the integrity of its leader, Juan Guaidó. It has called for proper elections to be organised. That’s fine, but how to organise them, in a way that meets internationally accepted criteria, that’s the impossible question. Elections are indeed the way forward, but I do not see them coming soon.

The most immediate step is to see how to stop a very likely escalation of violence. That’s, for me, the most urgent issue.

In the meantime, the US has said they do accept Maduro’s decision about the end of their diplomatic relations. That’s understandable. But Washington should however withdraw its diplomatic staff from Caracas. To keep them there opens a new opportunity to fire up violence, this time against the embassy personnel. And that could be an excuse for an American intervention that nobody wants. An outside military intervention would be a major mistake. It should be clear that it is not under preparation and that no action will be taken to try to justify it.

The people of Venezuela has now suffered enough. They need to find a domestic solution to their crisis.

Kim Jong-un, a dangerous provocateur

Kim Jong-un is above all a provocateur. But a dangerous one, let's be clear. His repeated provocations have created a very delicate situation in his part of the world. And that's a complex region, at it's at the centre of fundamental geopolitical and strategic interests of very powerful countries.

In my opinion, he is not reading the current international situation with smart eyes. Political circumstances have deeply changed. As the intelligence about his most strategic means of power and military capabilities has also changed.

He still believes that China will shield him from any military action coming from outside. In addition, he is convinced that his threats of retaliation against South Korea will discourage others from intervening in the North. He might have a point. However, I am no longer sure that such point is strong enough. 

Oil and diplomacy

Last year, in the US, the number of shale oil wells has doubled. The American production is now 9.29 million barrels a day. That is about 47% of the country's daily consumption. And it takes significant pressure out of the international oil market.

It also brings the value of the barrel down.

It has consequently a major strategic impact on oil revenues in Russia and other key producers. The economic strength of such countries is seriously affected. And that will be the case in the foreseeable future. More so, as many developed economies are steadily moving out of fossil fuels into renewable sources of energy.

One of the lessons we should extract from these developments is that, when it comes to deal with adversarial countries, economic factors are at present much more effective – and acceptable – than the military ones.

A related lesson is that your adversaries will not take this matter lightly. Therefore, you must be prepared to confront them on the political field as well. And that means, among other things, promoting the appropriate public information campaigns, keeping your own citizens aware of the challenges at stake, and responding to hostile propaganda. But it also means to open dialogue lines of communication with those antagonistic countries. That´s the role of diplomacy. It is as important as ever.

Focus on a conflict at a time

The recent US statements on the current status of the Iran Nuclear deal are not wise. They contradict the position of all the other signatories of the agreement, leaving the US alone on such a delicate matter. That´s what I would call to paint oneself into a corner by trying to appear smarter and bolder than the other key members of the international community.

Furthermore, the new war of words coming from Washington towards Iran opens an additional front of conflict at a time no one has a clear understanding of the Trump Administration's strategy on Syria and North Korea. Why should they want to have one more problem on the table at this stage when the two others are already complex and dangerous enough? And confusing, as well.