Europe must keep engaged with China

Europe, China, and the US: a turbulent triangle

Victor Ângelo

 

European policy towards China requires a smart balance between respect for democratic values and economic interests. It is a complex issue that touches the daily lives of European citizens. You only have to look at the map of rail connections - 5,000 freight train journeys are expected in 2021 - or at the sea charts showing the routes of cargo ships to understand the interdependence between Europe and China. We need to import what we do not produce - or have stopped producing. The Chinese need our markets to ensure important levels of economic growth, one of the pillars of internal stability and regime continuity.

This interdependence has increased spectacularly since Xi Jinping came to power in 2013. It is part of his strategy. And the trend is for it to accentuate in the coming years. In addition to mutual investments and the increasing purchase by Westerners of Chinese stocks and treasury bonds, note that the economic corridor is more and more diverse. Some lines pass through Russian Siberia, others through Kazakhstan. Later, there will be a land link via Iran and Turkey, not forgetting the sea routes, which rely mainly on the ports of France, Italy and the Netherlands. The smooth functioning of this vast transit area requires a permanent political dialogue between the countries, which will have to be based on an understanding of mutual interests and perceptive pragmatism. To facilitate this dialogue and open a wider door, Europe should take the initiative to propose the creation of a consultative platform for the Eurasian corridor. Any disruption of traffic, for political or security reasons, would have a dramatic impact on the economy and people's lives, particularly in the European area. This tangle of relationships stems from the process of globalisation that began more than two decades ago. Anyone who thinks that the way in which the international economy is now organised can be significantly reversed is dreaming politics without having their feet firmly planted in reality.

The disruptions currently occurring here in Europe in the supply chains for raw materials or finished products produced in China and the escalating cost of transporting a container from a Chinese port to a European one already give us a bitter taste of what could happen if there were a serious disruption due to disagreement between the parties or the imposition of ill-considered sanctions. For example, before the pandemic, transporting a 40-foot container by sea from Shanghai to Europe could cost between $2,000 and $4,000. Now it has reached $17,000 and the waiting time can be up to several months. And this is despite the fact that Chinese container production accounts for more than 85% of the world's total. These problems may be temporary, the result of an acceleration of economic recovery in the more developed parts of the world and the pressure they put on shipping. Any European importer who needs made-in-China goods or components to maintain their manufacturing activities will be well able to explain the importance of a trade relationship without unnecessary hindrance. The more informed will also stress the need to avoid a further escalation of tensions in Taiwan and the South China Sea. This also applies to the Chinese side, which should not continue to pursue an escalation of offensive actions in these sensitive areas.

In a deeply interconnected world, one cannot think geopolitically and make strategic decisions following past models or seeing the world as a black and white scenario. The Americans have chosen a path of confrontation. On this side of the Atlantic, that option appears to be a dangerous choice and contrary to our interests. This is why Europe cannot and must not copy Washington.

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

 

 

Our strategic fragility: a key example

Taiwan so close

Victor Ângelo 

Taiwan is part of our everyday life. This is because the company that produces almost all of the chips used in electronics, mobile phones, robots and cars is Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC). An omnipresent but discreet colossus, worth twice the GDP of Portugal on the stock exchange. And it is pertinent to write about it this week, when there is so much talk about China.

Since TSMC produces over 90% of the latest generation of microprocessors and is located in Taiwan, it is at the centre of the Sino-American rivalry. This is a major critical point. If there were a conflict over Taiwan tomorrow, the worldwide availability of chips would plummet. This would mean the immediate paralysis of motor vehicle factories, computers, mobile phones, highly sophisticated financial operations, and everything related to the use of micro and nano transistors. In other words, it would be economic and social chaos.

Analysts looking at these things say that TSMC is the invisible shield protecting Taiwan. It may be, to some extent. And TSMC is betting on it: it plans to invest, over the next three years, $100 billion in expanding its scientific and technological capacity. More chips, infinitely tiny and of an extraordinarily more powerful artificial intelligence. The figures give an idea of what is at stake. They also show that national defence policy involves the development of an ultra-modern economy that creates strategic dependencies in other parts of the world. 

It is therefore neither in the interest of Beijing nor of others to destabilise Taiwan. At least not for the next seven to ten years. But this absolute dependence on a single company is also the greatest exponent of the fragility of the major global balances. It is the result of decades of ultraliberalism and the relocation of production, all of which is out of step with what should be geostrategic concerns. The prevailing philosophy led us to believe that commercial interdependence would erase the rivalries between the great blocs of nations. We now know that this is an illusion. The biggest wars of the last 100 years were started by self-centred madmen who did not take into account the economic - nor the human - impact of their decisions. I do not think Xi Jinping falls into that category, despite the words and tone he used yesterday about Taiwan at the Chinese Communist Party's centenary celebration. But it is also true that it would only take a highly sophisticated hacker attack against one section of TSMC to bring thousands of production chains that are dependent on the availability of chips to a halt.

Joe Biden understands that the United States cannot, in this vital area, remain totally dependent on Taiwan and on one company alone. The industrial plan he has just proposed envisages an investment of $50 billion to stimulate domestic chip production. To that will be added many billions from the private sector. The truth is that much of the scientific design work in this field is done by world-renowned American companies - for example, Intel Corp, Nvidia Corp, Qualcomm or Cisco Systems Inc. But separating design from production has led to extreme vulnerability. It is a bit like designing highly effective weapons and asking others to manufacture them and then supply us.

The European Union must follow a similar path. One of the starting points should be to build on what ASML Holding NV already represents. This Dutch company is dominant in the production of the machinery needed to manufacture semiconductors. The ambition is to produce in Europe as early as 2030, in addition to the machines, at least 20% of the new generation of semiconductors. This is a modest target, but it will still require huge investments in Europe's digital industries. The amount currently foreseen - around €150 billion - is insufficient when compared to what TSMC and South Korea's Samsung - the second largest chip producer - have in the pipeline. However, European sovereignty, including its defence, requires a decisive presence in the industries linked to digitalisation. 

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

The future of Europe requires a thorough debate

Europe and the Coming Turbulence

Victor Ângelo

 

The launch of the Conference on the Future of Europe took place this week in Strasbourg, at the official seat of the European Parliament. The symbolism of Strasbourg is enormous. It represents reconciliation, peace, democracy, and solidarity among Europeans. These four desiderata are still as relevant today as they have been during the last seven decades, a period of continued construction  of the European political edifice. It is therefore important to remind ourselves of that, to recognize where we have come from and to define where we want to go in the next decade.

That is the aim of this initiative, which is due to be completed in March 2022. It would be a mistake to make a cynical assessment of the conference. However subtle it may seem, cynicism is the knife of the bitter and the downbeat. What is called for is a citizen's reflection that combines realism with idealism, that is a critical but constructive view. It is a matter of going beyond the rhetoric or the usual elucubrations.

The conference is a different test, which will allow us to measure the strength of citizenship movements. In fact, the biggest challenge facing the EU is precisely that which stems from the gap of ignorance or indifference between politics and the European institutions on the one hand, and people's daily lives on the other. Even in Brussels, people who live a few blocks away from the European district seem to be as disconnected from the EU as any family living in a small village in Portugal. A political project that is not understood by ordinary mortals is fragile. It can easily be jeopardized by its enemies.

The nine axes for reflection about the future ignore this disconnection. The topics are important: climate change and the environment; health; the economy, employment, and social justice; the EU's role in the world; rights and security; digital transformation; democracy; migration; and education, culture, sport, and youth. But it is a mistake to take citizens' support for the European project for granted. This is a fundamental issue. After an absolutely exceptional year, we find in European societies a lot of frustration, confusion, impatience, and a more pronounced individualism. We also have a set of internal and external enemies ready to exploit vulnerabilities and bring down the EU. That is why the discussion about the path to 2030 must begin with an analysis of weaknesses and threats.

A forward-looking assessment of the coming years shows us that we will be impacted by three major shock waves. The first comes from the accelerating use of cybernetics, in particular artificial intelligence, which will turn many Europeans into digital illiterates and redundant labour. If not properly addressed, it will further exacerbate social inequalities and job insecurity.

The second will result from new waves of uncontrolled immigration and the exploitation of this phenomenon by certain forces. It will not only be Viktor Orbán or Jarosław Kaczyński, or even Sebastian Kurz, who will divide Europe on this issue. The chances of Marine Le Pen gaining power in 2022 or of Italy being ruled by a coalition of ultranationalists in 2023 - in an alliance of Matteo Salvini with neo-fascist leader Georgia Meloni, whose Fratelli d'Italia party already mobilizes 18% of the national electorate - must be reckoned with. A front that brings together such politicians in several member states would cause a potentially fatal fracture for the continuation of Europe.

The third strategic shock - something to be avoided at all costs - could come from a possible armed conflict between the United States and China. Such a confrontation, which can by no means be excluded from the prospective scenarios, would have a devastating effect. European stability and prosperity would go down the drain.

The message, now that the debate has been opened, is that there can be no taboo subjects and no incomplete scenarios that do not consider the internal and external complexity in which we will move. Already, one fact is certain. There are years of great upheaval ahead of us.

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

 

 

 

 

Comments on this week's G7 meeting

A Very Combative G7

Victor Ângelo

 

The G7 brings together the largest liberal economies, that is, in descending order of size, the United States, Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Italy and Canada. Together they represent about 50% of the world economy. The leadership of the G7 in 2021 falls to the British, who held a meeting of foreign ministers this week in preparation for the summit scheduled for June.

They have gone two years without meeting. The pandemic and the malaise caused by Donald Trump's presidency explain the long hiatus. Now the realities are different. Control of the pandemic seems possible, thanks to vaccination campaigns. And the policies pursued in Washington are no longer unpredictable. Still, it was necessary to decide between a face-to-face meeting or not. After a year of virtual conferences, it was concluded that when it comes to diplomacy, face-to-face contact is by far the most productive. Many of the videoconferences held between politicians during the pandemic turned out to be a mere formal exercise in which each one read the text in front of him  or her, without an exchange of ideas, an analysis of options or a personal commitment. We are now safely back to face-to-face discussions.

Another aspect concerns the list of countries outside the G7 but invited to the meeting. It was limited to South Africa, Australia, South Korea, and India, as well as two supranational organizations, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the European Union. The political reading of this choice is easy to make. There is a clear preference here, and not just from the British. The economic and geopolitical focus is on Asia, on strengthening relations with countries that can stand up to competition from China.  Latin America and the Middle East were simply ignored.

China was in fact a dominant concern. The consultations among the ministers started there. The US is pursuing a very complex policy line in relation to China. They seek, in the main, to combine antagonism with cooperation. Hostility in general and agreement, in certain concrete matters, for example in the area of climate change or on Iran. This line will not work. The message received in Beijing from Washington can be summed up in one word - confrontation. And the Chinese will respond to that perception club in equivalent currency.

The Europeans themselves - and this has been shown in the statements made by Germany and France - think that the American position with regard to China is excessive. They agree with Washington when it comes to human rights, Hong Kong or Xinjiang, or the protection of intellectual property. But they believe that Europe has much to gain if the relationship with China is based on respect for established rules and the pursuit of mutual advantages. Japan prefers to follow a policy similar to Europe's, despite pressure from the Biden administration.

Russia was also high on the agenda. The Kremlin is now seen as a threat to the European and American democracies. In this matter, the harmony between the two sides of the Atlantic is clearer. The issue of defending democratic regimes, including the fight against the spread of false or biased information, was a major theme.

The American Secretary of State went to London to propose a new strategic approach. Antony Blinken argues that the group cannot just be a coordination mechanism for the big capitalist economies. It must become a platform for political intervention by the most influential democracies. This is an expression of a belief prevalent in the current American administration that the US has a mission - that of saving the democracies. For some of us here in Europe, such a proposition generates three kinds of uneasiness. One, related to the increasing marginalization of the UN's political role. The other, with the worsening polarization of international relations. The third, with the weight that a phantom named Trump may yet exert in American politics.

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Europe: looking ahead

European horizons and balances

Victor Ângelo

 

We live in a time of uncertainty. The pandemic is still at the centre of all worries. The different mutations of the virus and the immensity of the vaccination campaigns show that we are far from the exit of the tunnel. And the economic, social, and psychological impacts are yet to be determined. They will certainly be huge and long term. In Europe, for the time being, we are helping ourselves to the oxygen balloons that the central bank and political expedients are making available. In reality, we are living on reputation and the pledge of the future. Meanwhile, we are lagging when compared to China or the United States. And we will receive a share of the problems of a neighbourhood – to the south and to the east – which was already poor, and which will see its future difficulties increase uncontrollably. None of this is pessimism, just an announced puzzle.

To these challenges are added the geopolitical ones. We find ourselves drawn into disputes that are not necessarily our own. The Anchorage meeting, which brought two high-level delegations – one American and one Chinese – face to face late last week, revealed that the rivalries between these countries have reached an acute stage of antagonism. For the first time, neither one side nor the other sought to disguise the degree of hostility that exists. Journalists were even invited to stay in the room to take note of the mutual accusations that were made from the very beginning. Only then did the delegations move on to the quiet and substance of the bilateral discussions.

Two issues became clear. The Chinese leadership emerged strengthened from the session of the National People's Assembly held earlier this month. It now has a much more assertive mandate, internally and externally. For example, the deputies ratified a motion that opens the possibility of military intervention in Taiwan if the island's authorities take a path that could strengthen the independence thrust. This is an incredibly significant change in language. Even more telling is the new posture toward foreign governments that criticize Beijing. China has decided to advance to the geopolitical duel without a mask and with a tactical marking.

We have entered a risky cycle that could lead to a confrontation between these powers. And the new vision that the United States is proposing for Europe, through the document NATO 2030, puts the Europeans in this conflict. What is on the table, as seen at this week's NATO ministerial meeting, is an expansion of the alliance's theatre of operations in order to legitimize Washington's geopolitical ambitions in the Pacific and the Indian Ocean. These regions are far outside the areas that are of direct concern to us. What is more, an extension to the far reaches will certainly weaken European capabilities in the geographies that really matter to us, which are on Europe's immediate borders.

You may retort that China is an economic and cyber threat. But these things are solved through negotiations, through trade measures and countermeasures, through the strengthening and protection of our economies, and through increasing the capacity of our intelligence services to act. In short, they require a more cohesive Europe.

The redefinition of NATO's role is necessary. The horizon we face is quite different from the past. We should, however, ask ourselves what our priority area of defence should actually be. We also need to discuss what is the balance between a Europe looking towards a Euro-Asian future and the history of our Euro-Atlantic engagement. I see two variables here that need to be addressed. One has to do with our long-term relationship with Russia. Vladimir Putin is not eternal. Russia is part of our strategic neighbourhood, our economic complementarities, and our cultural references. The other concerns the EU's defence and security autonomy. It must be permanently reinforced, without, however, jeopardizing our historic commitments to the Atlantic Alliance. Uncertain times demand that we clearly know which balances to maintain, and which path to choose. It is a question of combining courage with vision.

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

 

Comments on the Quad summit

Change course to avoid a collision

Victor Ângelo

 

The first Quad Summit, a new platform for strategic consultations between the United States, Australia, India and Japan, takes place today. Quad is short for quadrilateral. Since 2007, the foreign ministers of these countries have met sporadically to discuss the security of the Indo-Pacific region. This time, the meeting is at the highest level, albeit virtually, with Joe Biden and the prime ministers of the three other states.

The US President and Scott Morrison of Australia are the real instigators of this project. Narendra Modi and Yoshihide Suga were more reticent. They did not want the meeting to look like what it actually is: an avenue to discuss how to curb China's growing influence in the Indian and Pacific regions. So, the official agenda registers only three items - fighting the pandemic; economic cooperation and responding to climate change. This list thus hides the dominant concern, China's increasingly resolute power in both oceans and with the riparian states. China already has the world's largest armed fleet, with battleships, amphibious assault ships, logistics ships, aircraft carriers, polar icebreakers, and submarines. In the last 20 years, its naval capacity has grown threefold. It has more vessels than the United States and its ambition for the current five-year period (2021-2025) focuses on accelerating the production of means of ensuring presence and visibility, increasing missile capacity of distinct types and expanding nuclear weapons.  

The scale of these military investments and President Xi Jinping's very incisive foreign policy alarm many US strategists. It is in this context that the Quad summit should be seen. There are even those who think that, in time, Washington's objective is to create a defence alliance covering the Indian Ocean and the Pacific, in an arrangement that would be inspired by what exists in the North Atlantic, that is, the creation of a NATO of the East.

It will not be easy. India, notwithstanding the many border issues it has with China, does not want to be seen by Beijing as a hostile neighbour. It seeks, despite existing disputes, to maintain a certain diplomatic balance with the Chinese to moderate the latter’s support for Pakistan, which Indian leaders see as their number one enemy. Moreover, New Delhi wants to appear, not only to the Chinese but also to the Russians, as an autonomous defence power. Modi is a nationalist who knows a lot about geopolitics and international power play.

Japan, for distinct reasons, does not wish to enter into an open confrontation with China either. It will seek to continue to benefit from the American military umbrella, but without going beyond a prudent policy towards Beijing. Tokyo is banking more on mutual interests than on rivalry. And as long as Beijing does not try to capture the Japanese islands of Senkaku, long the object of diplomatic dispute between the two countries, Tokyo is unlikely to change its position.

However, the American strategy in this part of Asia is to create a containment front vis-à-vis China. If the Quad initiative does not work, they will turn to Europe, starting with NATO. This is where all this has to do with our security. I do not defend the idea of an alliance stretched to the ends of the earth, no matter how much Europeans see China as an unfair economic competitor or a state that does not follow the values we consider essential - democracy, freedom, and human rights.

The risk of an armed confrontation in that part of the world is growing. Europe's role must be to call for moderation, respect for international norms and effective dialogue between the American and Chinese leaders. The global challenges that the world faces today are already too many and require the building of a cooperation agenda between the great powers. And there, yes, they should be able to count on Europe's commitment.

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

 

  

A new chapter in the international scene

Biden on the trapeze and the world on the tightrope

Victor Angelo

 

Much of what is decided in the circle of power in Washington has a global impact, whether you like it or not. I apologise for starting this text with this banal observation. But it is a fact that American policy continues to weigh more heavily than any other in international strategic and economic relations. So, with the entry into office of the Biden administration, the international scene has begun a new chapter. It is a profound change of course in a positive and democratic sense. For the time being, it heralds the hope of a calming of the tensions created over the last four years and which have put the dynamics among the world's major players on a potentially explosive level. The dialogue should replace the policy of confrontation and the abuse of force.

But we are living in a time of great questioning. The mobilisation of tens of thousands of paramilitaries to ensure the tranquillity of the ceremony for the new president to take office is a clear indication of the seriousness of the internal contradictions that exist in American society. Joe Biden has a balancing act waiting for him. He knows that the hostility fomented by his predecessor and amplified by several leaders who sit in Congress or by commentators who appear on certain television channels, is fierce. It is even more dangerous because it has generated in the minds of many fanatics a demonisation of their opponents. In the sick logic of some of these crazy people, the next step is violent action, trying to take any opportunity to shoot to kill democracy. This possibility is a risk that the Secret Service will have to consider on a permanent basis. 

In seeking a broader view of what might happen following this turning point, I note that no one can convincingly predict the contours of what lies ahead. It can only be said that the world of tomorrow will be different from what we have known so far. Anyone who thinks that everything will return to where we were in 2019, before the pandemic, or in 2016, before Donald Trump's presidency, can only dream of the past.

The chapter that now opens combines a certain amount of optimism with a long list of uncertainties. On the eve of Biden's inauguration, I took part in an international discussion on the prospects and challenges ahead for the coming years, and there was no clarity of ideas. Anyone who looks to the future with intellectual honesty can identify a number of clues, but in the end, has to confess that everything is uncertain and hazy.

The only points of agreement concern the coronavirus pandemic. First, we all accept that the pandemic is a huge challenge, which conditions everything else. It must therefore be treated as the priority of priorities. This requires an exceptional mobilisation of political attention and all necessary means. The second area of agreement is on the imperative of international cooperation. Countries in the North and South, as we euphemistically put it, must all collaborate to make vaccines accessible to each person. The fight against covid must be a bridge of union and cooperation between peoples, not a line of major fracture. It would be a tragedy of incalculable consequences to emerge from this crisis with a world even more divided between rich and poor, and unfortunately, this possibility exists. Thirdly, there is also agreement on the duration of the crisis. We cannot entertain the illusion that everything will be resolved within months. The logistical issues, the financial difficulties, and the shortcomings in infrastructure, especially in the poorest countries, the changes that the virus is undergoing, not to mention the behaviour of some people, all call for time, diligence, patience, and prudence. These are the messages that must be stressed.

Uncertainty is a source of fear, insecurity, and conflict. It is conducive to the emergence of crazy politicians, who reduce the complexity of facts to two or three sentences, and solutions to a pair of slogans. That is why we must be vigilant and combat all forms of demagogy and political lies, which feed all shades of populism.

 

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

 

China and Europe: an agenda that differs from the American one

China and us

Victor Angelo

 

China's Foreign Minister Wang Yi spoke this week to the cream of US business leaders based in his country. The focus of his speech was the resumption of political dialogue between China and the United States under Joe Biden. He felt there was an urgent need to restore communication and mutual trust. He hinted that it was time to overcome the lack of objectivity and rationality that had marked Donald Trump's governance.  Apart from the reference to the red line of non-interference in Chinese domestic affairs - that is, Beijing does not want to be talked about human rights - his communication reflected a positive and reassuring official line.

On the same day that Wang spoke, Washington added 14 Chinese personalities to the list of those sanctioned for repression in Hong Kong. In Singapore, US Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross argued to an audience of leaders coming from the region that China would be the main military and economic threat to Asian countries. This is consistent with the Trump team's intention to create a fait accompli that would condition Biden's policy towards China. And I would say that it is managing to reduce, at least for some time, the room for manoeuvre of the new administration. A large part of public opinion and of the US political class share an ideological position of hostility towards China. 

Days before, John Ratcliffe, the director of U.S. National Intelligence and, as such, the supreme coordinator of the country's seventeen espionage and counterintelligence agencies, had published an opinion on China in the Wall Street Journal. Given its author, the text attracted much attention. The song was the same and the title of the article summed it up: "China is the No. 1 threat to national security". In the body of the text, it went further, stating that China would also be the greatest danger to the world’s democracy and freedom. The rest of the writing was an amalgamation of scattered ideas about China’s actions without differentiating well what would be within the domain of national security from the anecdotal or just a fight for the interests of American multinationals.

The legacy that Trump seeks to leave in this matter is also intended to condition the Europeans. He is already achieving this in NATO. The group of experts set up by the Secretary General to reflect on NATO 2030 is co-chaired by the American Wess Mitchell, an intellectual so dear to Trump as hostile to Beijing. The document the group has produced, now under discussion by the Alliance's foreign ministers since the beginning of this month, refers to China as an "acute threat".

However, Europe cannot look to China only from the unique perspective provided by the Americans. Our interests and our geopolitical deployment are different. Nor are we in a race for military power, nor do we have the engines of Chinese aircraft carriers snoring through waters close to us. We know, on the other hand, that you cannot put all the risks in the same bag. Every threat, be it military, political destabilisation, scientific, technological, or economic espionage, in the field of intellectual property or unfair competition, requires specific treatment.

In Europe's case, attention must be focused on three types of action. First, the fight against espionage, intrusion and theft linked to scientific and technological advances. European intelligence services must prepare themselves for this task and cooperate more closely with each other. Secondly, a common frame of reference should be defined to give coherence to the way European states relate to China's politics and economy. In other words, this means that opportunistic relations, and outside that framework, between EU member states and China should be considered unacceptable. Third and foremost, the EU must state clearly that cooperation is the only desirable way forward. So, without calling into question our alliance with the US, and without forgetting that Beijing is a dictatorship, political dialogue with China must seek mutual benefit, the promotion of universal rights and values, and cooperation in tackling major global challenges.

 

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

 

 

Writing about Iran

Iran: the next day

Victor Angelo

 

 

In 2018, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh became known when Benjamin Netanyahu accused him of being the scientist at the head of the Iranian nuclear programme. Fakhrizadeh was murdered on the outskirts of Tehran a week ago. There are contradictory accounts of the crime. What is certain is that the ambush was conducted by a reasonable number of agents, at least ten of them, and in a professional way - the wife, who was travelling with him, came out of it unharmed, she was not part of the objective. I have no doubt that the ambush was carried out by special forces, with perfectly trained executioners, who had at their disposal the information, logistics and means necessary for a high-risk mission. It is peaceful to conclude that it was not the work of the internal Iranian opposition. It had all the characteristics of an operation planned, organised, and carried out by a state hostile to Iran. And I cannot help but think of the regime's three main enemies: Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Donald Trump's United States.

Those who know these things point in the direction of Israel. It is true that the secret services of that country, in particular the legendary Mossad, have already demonstrated an incomparably greater ability to penetrate Iranian official circles than any other espionage service. One example of this ability, with the trial of the indicted currently taking place in Antwerp, is the following: it was Mossad that made known to the Belgian authorities the terrorist attack the Iranian government was plotting in 2018 against the National Council of Iranian Resistance in exile. The European intelligence services where the plot was being prepared - the Belgians, the French, and the Austrians - had not noticed anything. 

Israel can never admit the slightest hint of responsibility for murders of this kind. Such an admission would open the door to prosecution in the International Court of Justice in The Hague or in the jurisdiction of a United Nations member country. International law is clear. An extraterritorial, summary, and arbitrary execution, promoted by a State outside a situation of armed conflict is a crime which violates international human rights law, the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the 1977 Additional Protocols. Moreover, the United Nations Charter expressly prohibits the extraterritorial use of force in times of peace.

For all these reasons, the paternity of what has now happened to Fakhrizadeh will remain unknown for the time being. We will have to be contented with the suspicions.

The assassination has shown that the Iranian system of internal espionage and counterespionage, which terrifies the population, has very serious flaws. The powerful Ministry of Intelligence is more concerned with the repression of the growing internal opposition than it is prepared to identify the most sophisticated threats from outside. This is not new. In early July, for example, the security services were unable to prevent an explosion at the Natanz nuclear power plant, nor were they able to avert the sabotage of missile-making programmes. All these actions were handled by a foreign country.  

A fundamental issue is to try to understand the central motive for the assassination. What seems more obvious, which would be to strike a major blow capable of further delaying the regime's nuclear programme, makes no sense. The country already has several teams of scientists capable of enriching uranium. The attack on Natanz and the sabotage have already delayed the plans. The real reason must be different.

If we look upstream, we will see that the Israeli government is on the brink of collapse and that Netanyahu will need convincing campaign arguments again. The presumption of a strong hand against the ayatollahs will certainly bring a good number of votes. Looking further ahead, we see that the new Biden administration is in favour of reopening a negotiating process with Tehran. This would be more difficult if the clerics responded to what happened to Fakhrizadeh in a violent manner. The old leaders of Iran are fanatical and backward. But they are astute in international politics. They must look at the assassination as an attempt at political provocation. And they know that waiting patiently for Joe Biden to take office may be the best response to the challenge they were given days ago.

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

 

 

 

Biden's first steps

I was most impressed by the public presentation of President-Elect Joe Biden’s core team. That was a great moment of hope. The session was wisely organised, and the presentation speeches made by each one of the participants were deeply touching. It was a great start. Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and the nominees sent a strong message of confidence, experience and patriotism to the American people.

The contrast with the outgoing team could not be greater.

Our dear leader Donald "Narcissus" Trump

Narcissus or the fragility of democracies

Victor Angelo

 

To instil realism in a madman who has not his feet on the ground is an almost impossible task. But it is even more difficult to try to explain to a narcissistic politician that he is not the best and most loved of this world and the other. Unfortunately, politics is full of narcissism. It is a personality disorder that makes them politically toxic. They live one step away from becoming autocratic leaders.

Of all the narcissists, Donald Trump is the most visible and, given the power he still has, the most dangerous. The weeks left until the end of his term leave many of us anxious about the kind of decisions he might still take. The order to withdraw a good part of the remaining American troops from Afghanistan and Iraq is only the most recent example. It was decided without prior consultation with the authorities of those countries and in defiance of commitments signed with other NATO partners, who also have military personnel deployed in these theatres of conflict and whose stay goes hand in hand with a minimal presence of American forces. Another example of a very bad decision, also taken this week, concerns the authorisation of gas and oil exploration in the largest natural reserve in the Arctic area of Alaska. The concessions that will be approved in the next few days will leave Biden's administration prisoner to agreements with disastrous environmental consequences.

There is also the possibility of a last-minute madness against Iran. It is true that the advisers who still weigh on the White House and especially the Pentagon are not in favour of such action. It would be like opening a Pandora's box, at a time when Trump's authority is hanging by a thread and the Middle East is very unstable. Apparently, the idea has been put aside. But nothing can be considered definitive as long as he remains in power. We are, in fact, living in a period where each day can bring us a very bad surprise.

In reality, the only significant decision to be expected from Donald Trump will be the recognition of his electoral defeat. I am afraid that his narcissistic disorder will prevent him from doing so. I am convinced that he will continue to plunge into the fantasy he has created, fixated to the end in a fraud that did not exist, but which he needs to believe in, in order to try to heal the great wound that his disproportionate ego has suffered.

I am even more worried when I see prominent members of his party doing crazy things to influence the electoral authorities of several states. To this political pressure, which is simply illegal, are added public statements that call into question the legitimacy of the process and the victory of the elected president. A Reuters/Ipsos poll a few days ago revealed that about 2 out of 3 Republican voters believe that Biden would not have won the presidential election cleanly.

All this does great damage to social peace and the good acceptance of the new administration. Democracy seems to have been the main victim of these four years of atypical, self-centred and incompetent governance. The above-mentioned poll showed a growing distrust with the democratic system in the US. Donald Trump could go down in American history as one of the worst presidents of the last hundred years. He will certainly be remembered as the one who contributed the most to the weakening of democracy in his country and to the degradation of the political class. Party politics, the departments of the federal government, the House of Representatives and above all the Senate, are some of the institutions whose prestige has been deeply shaken by the megalomania, instrumentalization of power, nepotism and incoherence that have characterised Trump's governance.

We have learned that democracy in our part of the world is more fragile than was thought.  It is greatly threatened when power is concentrated in a single national leader, who uses it to polarise political life, to practise a rhetoric that divides society into antagonistic camps. That is what happened in the USA. But it is also happening in some European countries, especially when the parliamentary majority is made up of members of parliament who owe their seats to the loyalty they devote with closed eyes to the leader of their party who is, at the same time, head of the executive power.

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

 

 

The EU-US partnership

A Bolder Europe

Victor Angelo

 

When it comes to real European politics, it is always good to start by knowing what Angela Merkel thinks. Even bearing in mind that she is due to leave the scene next year, she remains a leading voice. This week the Chancellor unambiguously welcomed Joe Biden's victory. She added that the partnership between the European Union and the United States should be the fundamental alliance of the 21st century. I will agree with this statement if the collaboration is based on a balance of power between the two sides. As I also agree with Merkel when she says in her message to the President-elect that for the cooperation to work effectively, additional efforts will have to be asked from the EU side.

The next day Ursula von der Leyen spoke to the heads of mission representing Europe in the world. She mentioned the future of relations with the USA. Her words were inspired by what Merkel had said. She stressed that it was up to the EU to take the initiative for a new kind of synergy with the incoming administration, that it was not a question of going back to the past, as if nothing had happened during the last four years. Yesterday and tomorrow belong to different historical eras. After such a challenging, radical, and absurd mandate as that of Donald Trump, a large part of American society looks to Europe and the world with suspicion. We must respond to this state of mind, combat isolationist tendencies and re-emphasise the importance of international cooperation for the prosperity of all and for the resolution of problems which know no borders.

The philosophy behind these European declarations, to which Emmanuel Macron's words were added, is encouraging.

The pandemic has turned the world upside down and shown that international solidarity and complementarities are now more necessary than ever. Europe can make a positive contribution to the structural transformation that the new future requires. To do so, it needs to become stronger, more ambitious, in the good sense of the word, and to look to the other major powers on an equal footing. The old attitude of subordination to the United States does not serve European interests. Nor does it allow the EU to gain the autonomy it needs to play a stabilising role between the other major powers on the planet.

The European responsibility is to take advantage of the constructive spirit that Biden's administration is expected to bring to international relations to project a clearer image of what it means to live in a democracy of mutual respect and tolerance, fair and capable of responding to the security aspirations of each citizen. The importance of individual security, in the multidimensional sense of this concept, covering life, employment, health, personal tranquillity, is one of the great lessons that the pandemic gives us. This lesson must be translated into political practice.  

To contribute effectively to the transatlantic partnership and to any bridge with other regions of the globe, the EU must be particularly demanding of itself. Retrograde, ultra-liberal, xenophobic, or even racist or corrupt governments cannot fit into the European area. Nor can we accept simply inefficient and bureaucratic administrations.

Europe's strength will lie in the quality and fairness of its governance and the coherence of its values. It will be complemented by efficient security and defence systems. Here, in the areas of European security, the message is that we are not against anyone, nor will we allow ourselves to be drawn into other people's wars, as unfortunately happened in the recent past, but also that we are not naive. This message is valid for everyone, allies, and competitors. It also means that we know that in tomorrow's world, better defence and more security do not come through more cannons and more soldiers, but through more analysis and intelligence, more highly prepared cadres and officers, more special forces, better cybernetic systems, more effective tracking of social platforms, and information that helps citizens to identify the truth and eliminate what is false.

If we move forward in this way, we will be responding positively to the hope that the election of Joe Biden has created and opening the way for progress towards a more balanced, safe, intelligent, and sustainable world.

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

 

 

Reflections prior to the US election

Election day, with confusion at the door

Victor Angelo

 

Writing about the American elections, while voting is going on, is risky. Despite the opinion polls, you never know what will come out of the ballot boxes. Especially this time, when everything is different, namely the high turnout by post and in person, which has reached unprecedented levels, the uncertainty as to what will happen in eight or nine states which may fall to one side or the other, and the extreme radicalisation of important segments of the electorate. With Donald Trump in the field, the rules and analysis schemes of the past are completely muddled.

But it may be less risky to write now than tomorrow when only part of the results is known and postal vote counts have not yet been completed. Except for miracles, and they sometimes happen, tomorrow begins the confusion. In fact, I fear that in the aftermath of the 3rd of November a period of great pandemonium will arise in the USA. If my prediction is right, we will get into a mess in which it will be difficult to have a clear idea about the future. Writing about this situation of political and social chaos will require a clear-sightedness that far exceeds my ability to navigate in tormenting waters. Those who know American society well think that the storm that is coming is simply terrifying. 

The plot has been in preparation for weeks. There is a plan, nothing happens by chance. The head of the production and prima donna is Donald Trump. As usual, everything revolves around his megalomania, narcissism, and personal interests.

The tragedy may unfold more or less in the following way. Once the results of the day have been calculated, of those who voted in person today, and if these provisional figures are in his favour, President Trump will come on television to proclaim himself the winner. He will say that the votes by post, which have not yet been counted, are not valid. He will thus be trying to ignore the will of millions of Americans who have chosen the safer postal route in these times of pandemic to express their choice. Such a statement about the invalidity of votes not yet counted, if it happens, would be a colossal abuse of power, an illegality and contrary to democratic practices. But the proclamation of Trump will immediately bring his supporters to the streets of the cities of the United States to celebrate the false victory. More than extemporaneous and unjustified celebrations, these demonstrations of radicalised and armed people - this has been a record year in terms of the private acquisition of weapons of all calibres - will serve to intimidate the rest of the citizens. I do not know what the response of the democrats or the police forces will be. But I have no doubt that we will see numerous confrontations. A former colleague of mine, a New Yorker who, like me, oversaw several complicated elections in various parts of the world, told me yesterday that she is more afraid of this post-election period in the US than of anything she has seen in the dictatorships she has been through.

Let us continue the plot. In the days that follow, Donald Trump will continue to speak out against the electoral process and not to accept a verdict from the ballot box that would be unfavourable to him. The political and social confusion will then be joined by a whole series of legal challenges, which the President's lawyers will set in motion everywhere. We will then enter a phase of general upheaval. In such a situation and with the character we have, it will be Donald Trump who will end up imposing himself. It is true that the institutions of counterweight and balance of power are a guarantor of democracy and they exist in the USA. But it is also true that the president has managed to have 220 federal judges and three for the Supreme Court confirmed during his term. These judges will be able to play a key role in the legal game ahead.

The scenario I describe here is obviously pessimistic. To plan the appropriate response, one must be pessimistic at times of major crisis. It would be great if it did not happen or if it happened only in a mitigated way. I would very much like to be wrong. But seeing the shop windows in downtown Washington or New York being protected with timber panes makes me more convinced that there is reason to fear and be prepared for the worst.

That brings me back to our side of the planet. If there is institutional upheaval in the US, the shock waves will have a destabilising global impact. The coronavirus pandemic has already turned much of the world upside down. An additional shock will further complicate the international scene. Are we, here in Europe, prepared to respond to a possible serious US political crisis?

If the above scenario occurs, we will see intense diplomatic pressure from Donald Trump's representatives in European capitals. They will do everything they can to ensure that this so-called victory is recognised. They will need to show the American people that European leaders recognise their boss's victory. This is a way of adding legitimacy to their claim. On these occasions, when elections are free and acceptable, heads of state have a protocol obligation to send their congratulations to the winning candidate. We shall see who does so, within the European Union. At the moment, out of a total of twenty-seven member states, I count between seven and nine leaders who, if they could, would vote for Trump. What position will they take in the event of an election mess? And what will Charles Michel's position be? What kind of relations can be expected between the two sides of the Atlantic in a second term that would be tainted by a markedly dubious legitimacy? These questions provide a backdrop to long discussions. Let us hope that it will not be necessary to return to them in a while.

In the meantime, beyond the European position, I am also concerned about the impact of such a crisis on the future of the United Nations and the multilateral system. Like the European leaders, António Guterres will also be under pressure. What message of congratulations can you send to a president if he emerges from confusion, abuse of institutional power and legal games?

In these unique times, there is no doubt that the best solution is a clear victory by Joe Biden. 

(AI translation of today’s text I publish in the Portuguese magazine Visão)

 

 

 

The flawed electoral system in the US

Two days prior to the US presidential election, I wouldn’t dare to predict the winner. This is a very complex electoral system and also a very imperfect one. For instance, it is now feared that many postal ballots might not arrive on time to be counted. In a normal state, the delay to take them into account would be extended by a few days. That is not the case in the US. Flaws like this one will cause serious tensions among the citizens. And it will open the door to many legal challenges. This means that one of the lessons we can already draw is that the electoral system needs a very well thought-through reform. It cannot continue to have features that are common in less developed democracies.

Mr Trump is positive

I got a couple of emails from the US on President Trump´s covid infection. The messages were similar and expressing deep worries that the President will try to get a lot of mileage from his condition. He will receive the best medical treatment available in the world and will certainly recover. Then, he and his supporters will present his coming back as a confirmation of his strength and determination. The evangelist crowd and they are many and absolutely lunatic, will say that his return shows that God wants him to be around and continue his work as president.

The point they tried to make was that the president’s covid condition could be turned around and used as an electoral card. It could even be a fake ailment, a distraction good to get people to forget the debate disaster

I replied to say that we are all contaminated by conspiracy theories. The man is indeed sick, and we can only wish him a speedy recovery.

Never be silent when democracy is at risk

My friend called it “the debacle”. And a tragedy it was. Like a profoundly serious warning that democracy can always be at stake, even in a very well-developed society. Democracy is a never-ending endeavour. Everything rests on leadership and the ability to respond to power abusers. No one can remain silent in that kind of situations. In the end, democracy, respect for the individual opinions of everyone and the fight against fear are the pillars of modern societies. Those who attack them, particularly those who do it from a position of power, cannot be left alone. They must be permanently challenged.

 

The US and its political crisis

An American friend was deeply concerned by the current political radicalisation her country is experiencing. She specifically mentioned President Trump’s passing references to a possible postponement of the November elections. And there was also a question about the role the military could play if the President would decide to go ahead with such major decision.

I answered as follows.

I do not think he can change the electoral rules unless there is a major event such as an internal rebellion or an external war. The military will follow the existing rules. I do not see them supporting a wild and lawless Trump. He might try a trick or two, including something about the impossibility of a proper postal vote in a situation of public health calamity, but that would not be enough to mobilize enough support within the military, the security agencies, and his own party.

I recognise that the general atmosphere is not good and that many extremists do support him. They are blind and ferocious in that support. That should certainly be a matter to be worried about. But I do not think they can go far in terms of disturbing the electoral process. That said, I also believe that the country is living a profoundly serious crisis. And it is more divided than ever. Politically and socially. It requires a complete change in the political discourse and a new type of leadership, more inclusive and more responsive to the existing dramatic inequalities.

The future of China's global influence

In the race for dominance, China believes they have time on their side. They know they have the population numbers and that their economy will become as powerful as the American in about twenty years or so. They also count of their centralised and therefore more coherent approach to foreign relations. They think that political changes, party hesitations and the plurality of interests play against the US and its influence in the world. All in all, the Chinese have a more optimistic view of their future influence in the world.

I would agree but for one thing. The Chinese leaders will have to keep an authoritarian control over their population. And that might not be possible in the future. They will insist on Chinese pride and nationalistic views as much as they will try to keep improving the living standards. Is that going to be enough? I am in two minds. I see it as possible, particularly with the generalised use of digital control systems and a strong emphasis on nationalistic propaganda. But I am also convinced that the new generations might be much keener on freedom of opinion and less inclined to accept the authority of the Communist Party than their parents or grandparents.

If one wants to challenge the global influence of the Chinese leaders one must invest in keeping the country’s youth informed about what is going on in those countries where democracy is a central value.

Europe in the middle of a big fight

Translation of today’s opinion piece I publish in Diário de Notícias (Lisbon)

I do not want to start this regular dialogue with the reader without having the pandemic as the first topic. It is true that it is a beaten subject, with many people reflecting on what the world could be like once the virus has been defeated. A good part of these reflections is inspired by the principle of the crystal ball, a technique that has been perfected over time by all sorts of fortune-tellers. Other thinkers see in the unfolding of the pandemic the confirmation of their ideological obsessions. They take the opportunity to attack left and right. For them, the pandemic confirms the death of neoliberalism or globalization, even of capitalism, they warm up by pointing out the climatic causes, they greet in advance the end of American hegemony or the failure of the European project and so on. For many of these intellectuals, futurism seems to rhyme with unrealism.

It is indeed fundamental to know how to look to the future. We are aware that the great transformations came from those who could see beyond the horizon. One hundred years after the misnamed "Spanish flu", the coronavirus pandemic is the biggest shock after World War II. It is like a global tsunami. The world is working in slow motion or even still, in some cases. What was until March a global village has become an archipelago of isolated islands. The drawbridges are all raised, in fear of the contagion that might come from the neighbour. We live in a time of anxieties and fears. However, despite the uncertainties, it is not unreasonable to predict that tomorrow's world order will be vastly different from the one we have been building until the beginning of this year. Without getting into the crystal ball game, I predict that the issues of mass poverty, as it exists in certain parts of the globe, social inequalities, in the most developed societies, the deterioration of the environment and competition among superpowers will dominate the agenda of the future.

Each of these issues brings with it a web of other questions, which show the complexity of what lies ahead. On the other hand, it is necessary to overcome the social indifference that has taken hold of people. Presently, each one is concerned only with dealing with himself. One closes oneself in one's shell to the difficulties of others. Many political leaders then draw the conclusion that what is important is what happens in the domestic space, as if it were possible to stop the problems at the doorstep of the nation, with the lowering of a border barrier. From there to the crisis of the multilateral system is a dwarf's step, made easier the more timid or confused those at the head of the international institutions are.

The competition between the superpowers worries me. I see the United States and China taking a dangerous route. The pandemic has accelerated the conflict, particularly on the American side. New tensions and constant accusations against the opponent could lead to a false step, which would have profoundly serious consequences for all of us. Meanwhile, both sides are seeking to increase the number of their supporters in the international arena. Allies is not the exact word. What each of them wants is to create a circle of vassal states, which follow the political line defined in Washington or Beijing and limit the access given to the other side. This is the growing trend in the American relationship with Europe. They are succeeding with Boris Johnson, who has just made a political U-turn regarding Huawei. And they are continuing to press other European governments in the same direction and on several other issues as well. The only strategic response, however, is to maintain a certain distance between the two opposing parties by strengthening European sovereignty. The pandemic has taught us the term social distance'. Europe now needs to learn the practice of political distance. 

The growing conflict between the giants

The US Government’s decision regarding the Chinese Consulate in Houston, Texas, takes the tensions between the two superpowers to a higher level of danger. The US is militantly engaged in a campaign against the Chinese leadership. And the Chinese have now decided to respond in kind. This confrontation is certainly not good. It contributes in no small measure to increase international instability at a time of great uncertainties. I see this course of action with great concern. And my advice to the European leaders is quite simple: keep as far away as possible from this confrontation. Say no to the pressure coming from Washington and keep a strong stance as far as China is concerned. Both sides must understand that Europeans cannot be drawn into this very dangerous competition. Actually, we must state that we see international cooperation and full respect for each nation as the key ingredients to build a more stable and prosperous future for all. If we cooperate, we win. If we show disrespect for international norms, we open the door to defeat and disaster.