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

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

Victor Ângelo

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

Ukaine and Europe versus the Russia-China alliance

President Zelensky talked twice over the weekend with the US President Donald Trump. The Ukrainian leader was also in contact with key European leaders. His message was very clear: Ukraine needs urgently extra support now that Vladimir Putin is intensifying his air attacks against Ukraine.

On the other hand, Putin is receiving more help than ever from President Xi Jinping because he promised him a free hand in Ukraine for Chinese interests once the Russian has consolidated its territorial gains.

For China, it is about business and the opportunity to have a strong foot in Eastern Europe. The Russian-Chinese strategy has become more evident. It is based on a military-industrial alliance and a geopolitical opportunity for China to reinforce its European objectives. It is also about sabotaging the European Union and the European democracies.

Do you trust Donald Trump?

 The international system must be protected and respected

 Victor Ângelo 

There can be no doubt: the international values ​​and standards, built over the last few decades, remain valid and must be fully respected. Political leaders and henchmen who fail to do so engage in illegal, often criminal, behavior and as such need to be confronted. The notion of a Western or less Western world, that doesn't count for anything. What matters are the rules that regulate the universal framework. When voting in the same direction as North Korea, something that should be unthinkable, the important thing is to remember which side of the conventions is right.

There were great moments that allowed these principles to advance and consolidate. It would be cowardice, or at least a mistake, not to remember them and not to insist on their scrupulous fulfillment. I will now mention a particularly clear list regarding the progressive regulation of international relations since the end of the Second World War – the United Nations Charter(1945), the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the dozens of decolonisation and national independence processes in the post-war years and decades, the Vietnam War, the Helsinki Final Act (1975), which defined the rules of cooperation and security in Europe, including in the USA and Canada, the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols of 1949 and 1977 on humanitarian issues and the laws of conflict, the end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Soviet Union (1991), the approval of the Rome Statute of 1998, which established the International Criminal Court (ICC), and also the Paris Agreement on Climate Change of 2015. Symptomatically, during all these years it has not been possible to reach a common platform on the fight against terrorism, a complex and highly politically sensitive issue.

Among political criminals there are unfortunately too many names that can be highlighted. This week, on the third anniversary of the start of Vladimir Putin's aggression against Ukraine, his criminal responsibility deserves special mention. Not forgetting, either, his most recent ally, Kim Jong-un, the villain who crushes the population of North Korea every day and threatens half the world and the other with his missiles. When we talk about these individuals and it is noted that the current US administration voted in the United Nations along these criminals, a terrifying question inevitably arises: what kind of world do they want to push us into?

The answer is anything but simple. But we must continue to insist on the normative dimension. International rules exist, and they must be followed. It is, however, worrying to see the G20 or the G7, and some dimensions of the United Nations system, which have functioned as pillars of international democracy and cooperation between peoples, being disrespected by traditional dictatorships together with the ruffians who are now emerging in the public square.

The international political architecture is at risk of collapsing. It is already in ruins in Palestine, for the dramatic reasons that are known. It could soon collapse during negotiations on Ukraine's sovereignty. It is practically impossible to believe in a just peace, when one thinks of the protagonists who have now entered the scene. They are on Putin's side, for incomprehensible reasons, perhaps personal, perhaps linked to past accounts, and with the – chimerical – pretext of obtaining a divorce between Russia and China. A part of the international defense system will also be at risk when the next NATO summit, scheduled for June 24-26, takes place in The Hague. And the most significant outcome will happen on September 22 and 23, when the General Assembly will meet to discuss the future of the United Nations. We will then see what proposals will be put on the table, at a time when the UN is a fragile target, disrespected by people like Netanyahu and little understood by the rich of this world.

I cannot fail to mention Emmanuel Macron's recent trip to Washington. He would have tried to give the Americans the impression that a good deal of the decision-making power is in his hands when it comes to the EU. I'm not sure he managed to convinced them, for three reasons. First, because Washington knows that Macron is struggling in France with a very serious national crisis. Macron is closer to the past than the future. Second, because the United Kingdom and Georgia Meloni, the Italian Prime Minister, have greater support in the White House. The new British ambassador to Washington, Peter Mandelson, a shrewd Labourite like his boss Tony Blair was years ago, will do everything he can to turn Donald Trump around. On the other hand, Trump has a special liking for Meloni. And she doesn't die of love for Macron. And third, and most crucially, because Trump hates the EU, as it became clear days after Macron's visit.

The Great Leader and his inconsistencies

Dear friend, peace is a very serious matter!

Victor Angelo

Anyone who reads or pays attention to what I say knows that I have an indescribable admiration for President Donald Trump. Once again this week the President did not disappoint me. Between two golf swings, at his extravagant estate in Florida, where Louis XIV would equally feel like the Sun King, and after a few hours in front of a giant television screen, he reminded us that according to his calculations, Volodymyr Zelensky's popularity among Ukrainian public opinion would be no more than 4%. This percentage dwarfs the 57% that the prestigious Kyiv International Institute of Sociology published on the same day. Trump did not mention the source of his data, nor does he need to.

Vladimir Putin would certainly agree with the percentage, as the source of such a lie. He, who has already stolen several elections, over more than two decades in power, in addition to his almost 16 years of training in the KGB, needs an affirmation like Trump's, which makes him forget his misdeeds. And if his lies are amplified by the US President, they will have a unique weight among the Russian public opinion.

At the same press conference, President Trump took as his own the conditions and the red lines that Putin has been repeating for the past three years. No to Ukraine's accession to NATO. Yes to the usurpation of Ukrainian territory by Russia. Replacing President Zelensky with a leader subordinate to the Kremlin, thus transforming the country into a vassal state of Moscow, in the style of Belarus. Reform of the defense architecture of democratic Europe in order to transform NATO into a disoriented, fearful mongrel incapable of opposing the imperialist ambitions of the Russian bear. Recognize that Eastern and Central Europe are part of the geopolitical zone of influence of the Russian Federation. End of the sanctions, to put Russia back in the economic position of a major supplier of raw materials, a sort of luxury Congo that enriches those who control the extractive sectors and allows them to subsidize vodka for the rest of the population and corrupt the armed forces. And to put the cherry on the cake, Trump just repeated what the fugitive Putin has been saying repeatedly: that Zelensky is a dictator, a president without an electoral mandate.

If it weren't for my foolish admiration for the indescribable, I would say that Trump's words are an earthquake followed by a tsunami. How can one hope to hold free and fair elections in Ukraine, the victim of a terrible war of aggression, when the troublemaker next door is sending hundreds of bombs and troops day and night with the aim of destroying the neighboring country?

The great leader is very good at echoing Putin. Likewise, when the intention is to confuse or intervene in the home of allies. He calls the acceptance of the main conditions imposed by the enemy a peace plan. This is what happened in the deal with the Taliban terrorists in 2020, when everything was negotiated by Trump's team without the participation of the Kabul government and the allies who fought for years in Afghanistan alongside the Americans.

We are in a period of great confusion. So, don't be surprised when I write that I also have a  great admiration for Volodymyr Zelensky. Three years after the start of the criminal Russian aggression, and despite the limited means at his disposal, he continues to enjoy the support of his fellow citizens and a rare international prestige. He has shown exemplary determination, foresight and courage. He reminds us that Ukraine is resisting with patriotism and cunning against the violence of a much stronger neighbor, which has been violating for years the basic rules of international law: respect for Ukraine's sovereignty, territorial integrity and the prohibition of the use of force.

My admiration for the Ucranian leader also comes from the truth that President Zelensky imprints on each of his words. He emphasizes that there will be no peace without the agreement of the Ukrainians. That he can say no to Trump who wants an absurd compensation: 500 billion dollars in rare minerals to compensate for the military and other budgetary aid that, so far, does not exceed a small part of that value, only about 20%: what a great deal! And to have the courage to affirm that his country relies on Europe, whose aid already amounts to 132 billion euros, much of it spent on purchasing American military equipment. A much higher volume of cooperation coming from Europe, but with the US corporations benefiting from it, in the arms and ammunition trade.

Next week, Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron will travel to Washington. I believe it will be a well-intentioned, diplomatically understandable, but useless move. It can even be humiliating for both of them. The future of Europe belongs to the Europeans. In the current context, we must play on this side of the ocean and without delay. And those who don't have a dog, hunt with a cat.

Leadership is about courage and clear priorities

Navalny and Zelensky: two examples of extraordinary courage

Victor Angelo

I want to start this week's text with a posthumous tribute to Alexei Navalny, who was executed exactly a week ago by Vladimir Putin's regime. Navalny was a fearless opponent in a country where power terrorises its citizens and coldly executes its main opponents and dissidents. This is also what happened these days to Russian helicopter pilot Maxim Kuzminov, who at the age of 28 was shot dead at point-blank range in a town in the province of Alicante, in other words on Spanish territory, without Russia's special operations forces showing any respect for either the law or Spain's sovereignty. In August 2023, in an operation planned with the Ukrainian secret services, Kuzminov diverted a Mi-8 military transport helicopter loaded with sensitive parts destined for Russian fighter jets to Ukraine. Putin was unforgiving and the young pilot, who had taken refuge in Spain in the meantime, was tracked down by a specially-created group, discovered and murdered. The Spanish secret services only realised what was at stake when the body was found, a few days after the murder, in the garage of the building where the former pilot lived. The same thing happened in Berlin in 2019 to a dissident of Chechen origin and to others in the UK and elsewhere. 

Political assassination is a practice from another era, except for people like Putin. Yevgeny Prigozhin, the leader of the Wagner terrorist group, has forgotten this fact and fallen for the bait. Navalny, on the other hand, was aware of the risk. He had already experienced a first attempt in 2020, which didn't work thanks to the reaction of the captain of the commercial flight he was travelling on and then medical care in Germany. Once treated, he dared to return to his home country, fully aware of the dangers he would face. In this way, he sent Putin and his fellow citizens three messages: firstly, a leader doesn't abandon the battlefield; secondly, such a leader keeps his eyes on the target he considers fundamental - in this case, ousting the corrupt clique from power; and thirdly, a true leader believes that, sooner or later, the dictator will eventually be defeated. 

Portugal has no such problems. But it does have major political flaws, which place it in a mediocre position in various EU rankings. We lack leaders who are capable of fighting for vital priorities, who have an unwavering concern for the common good and who believe that it is possible to transform Portugal into a more efficient country capable of harnessing its existing potential. Recent debates have shown that we need leaders with clear ideas and the ability to unite citizens around projects that will allow us to consolidate citizen ethics, put our house in order and modernise the country. When I heard about Navalny's assassination, I was exceptionally shocked and, on the other hand, thinking that a man like that makes our politicians poor puppets of the television channels. Or, at best, half-wits, some more naive and others more opportunistic, with a lot of talk, a lot of parrying and little operational capacity.

Volodymyr Zelensky does not play the game and has equally exemplary courage. At this point, two years after the devastating invasion ordered by Putin, I couldn't fail to mention Ukraine, the bravery of its people and the unusual qualities of its leadership. Ukraine surprised the Kremlin, which thought it could take over Kyiv in three days, and won the admiration of all those who value freedom and resistance against the imperialism of the great powers. 

Now the country urgently needs another extraordinary amount of foreign aid. Joe Biden has been endeavouring to get the House of Representatives to approve a supplementary budget to contain the current Russian offensive and finally repel the invader. But the leader of the House, under orders from the notorious Donald Trump, won't even put the matter to a vote. It would certainly be approved, as it has already been by a very large majority in the Senate. Without these funds, Biden could appear in the election campaign as the loser in Ukraine and unable to resolve the migratory pressure on the Mexican border. That's what Trump wants to win votes. Trump is, in his own way, just as dangerous as Putin. 

We cannot let Putin emerge victorious from his war against Ukraine. The Eastern European countries, Denmark, the United Kingdom and others understand this. Germany is a key player on our side. There has been some evolution in the right direction at the level of its leaders. But Olaf Scholz is still hesitant, particularly when it comes to supplying full-power long-range missiles without reducing their capabilities. We must advise him to take inspiration from the courage of Navalny and Zelensky. It is also critical to make him understand that there can be no hesitation when it comes to people like Putin and issues of self-defence. Putin will never negotiate in good faith, contrary to what Scholz and other naive people imagine is possible.

A.I. translation of my opinion piece published on Diário de Notícias (Lisbon) in the Portuguese language on 23 FEB 2024

My reading of Davos 2024

 Davos in times of great uncertainty

Victor Angelo

Davos 2024 took place this week. As usual, the meeting brought thousands of participants to the Swiss ski resort, including politicians, businesspeople, academics, journalists, directors of multilateral institutions, civil society activists, and lobbyists. The president of Ukraine was present for the first time, as well as China's new prime minister, Li Qiang, Xi Jinping's political godson. Ursula von der Leyen and António Guterres were also present again. For obvious reasons, Russian leaders were not invited this time.

Participating in the Davos meeting means recognizing that you have power. It is not, contrary to what many think, a mere gathering of billionaires. Several will be, including leaders of corrupt countries. But many billionaires think it's not worth flying to the small Alpine town in the middle of winter. They already have an indisputable level of global influence, they do not need the validation of Davos or listening to lectures, which are often boring, from guest speakers, nor the networks of contacts that are the main reason for this annual initiative. In fact, Davos is above all an opportunity to make or reinforce contacts between powerful people, in addition to confirming that you belong to the club. Open sessions are often a repetition of what has already been said at other events or advertised in influential media. The most delicate issues are discussed in informal meetings, bilaterally, or in very exclusive groups.

This year the atmosphere was gray. On the one hand, there was the brightness of the international economic and financial situation, reflecting a positive end to 2023. On the other, the dark clouds of an uncertain and increasingly dangerous geopolitical situation. In reality, the geopolitical issue weighed heavily on the analyses and prognoses of many of the participants. Zelensky sought to provide a ray of hope, but participants know that much depends on the assistance that Ukraine receives, or not, to ensure its legitimate defense, from the USA, European countries, and other allies. The Middle East, China, and Taiwan, important parts of Africa and Latin America, all these regions contain unstable and explosive scenarios. The expansion of populism in Europe is another major concern. However, for a good number of participants, the greatest concern lies in the possibility of Donald Trump returning to power. The man is a brute who lives in a world of imbalances and personal revenge. It is a danger whose contours are unpredictable.

The other central theme concerned the development of Artificial Intelligence (AI). The large technology companies, all of them North American, were well represented. They managed to bring this topic to the list of major concerns. It is a fact that the most advanced countries will invest seriously in this area. The Chinese Prime Minister himself was clear on the matter: cooperation in matters of AI and international trade constituted the core of his intervention. China needs chips produced in the most advanced countries, at least for now, and international economic relations without obstacles or disputes. China's demographic size is simultaneously an advantage and a challenge to its social stability. This is what I would call the complexity of gigantism. A complexity that, on the part of Chinese leaders, requires a very prudent policy, both internally and externally.

The problem is that many politicians around the world have a certain dose of insanity. This is especially true in the case of authoritarian regimes. Rational behavior cannot be expected when the future of dictators may be at stake. At the beginning of 2024, it is essential to be prepared for bad surprises. This is one of the lessons I take away from observing the week in Davos.

Guterres also made a short intervention. He spoke fundamentally about climate change, and the need to regain people's trust in governments and multilateral institutions. And he inevitably mentioned humanitarian issues. He also made reference to the UN's work on regulating AI. All very correct and revealing of the vast agenda that the United Nations has on the table. But, in a context dominated by geopolitical tensions, some clear and striking phrases were missing. It seemed naive and repetitive. He missed an excellent opportunity to make the UN's proposals on international peace and security heard loud and clear.

Published in the Portuguese language on 19 Jan 2024 in the Lisbon daily DIÁRIO DE NOTÍCIAS.

AI translation to English

Ukraine: what's next, after 100 days of agression?

Ukraine: looking beyond 100 days of aggression

Victor Angelo

President Zelensky has stressed that the war will only end with recourse to diplomacy. He is right. He needs to build a peace agreement with the aggressor. This will not be easy. The agreement cannot reward what has been a clear violation of international law, a succession of war crimes, destruction, and acts of pillage. This is the great dilemma, which makes any mediation process a puzzle. In this scenario, an agreement will only be possible between a position of strength and one of weakness. This is a dramatic conclusion. It leads to the search for the crushing or humiliation of the adversary. 

At the outset, one would say that prolonging hostilities is to the advantage of the stronger side. The courage and determination of the Ukrainians would not be enough to respond effectively to a prolonged offensive conducted with unbridled brutality.

It is in this context that external aid is essential. Neither the US nor the EU countries can let Vladimir Putin's Russia defeat Ukraine. If that were to happen, peace, security and democracy in Europe would be seriously undermined. Now it would be Ukraine, tomorrow it could be Poland, Lithuania, or any other country in our geopolitical space. Or we would simply continue to live side by side with a neighbour always ready to do us harm.

Thus, each bloc must assist Ukraine with the means available. On the American side, it has now been decided to provide an arsenal of advanced technology and long-range weapons. The admonitions coming from Moscow following this decision by Joe Biden found an answer in the text that the President signed this Tuesday in the New York Times: it is not about seeking a war between NATO and Russia. The aim is to enable the Ukrainians to have the means to exercise their right to self-defence.

On the European side, the package of sanctions adopted this week at the European Council should be seen in a positive light. It goes as far as the consensus allows. What is essential is that it is finalised without further delay - Hungary continues to put up obstacles - and applied at an accelerated pace.

Even more important is the agreement between the EU and the UK that makes it impossible for ships carrying Russian oil products to insure their cargoes in London and the rest of Europe. Without such insurance contracts, the big shipping lines are no longer able to operate in the service of Russian exports. Experience with Iran shows that such a measure sharply reduces oil exports. This is certainly one of the sanctions so far with the greatest impact.

As I have said several times, sanctions have fundamentally three objectives. To express political condemnation. To reduce the financial capacity that sustains the war machine. And to disconnect the Russian Federation from more developed economies, to emphasise that there is a connection between respect for international law and participation in global markets.

Sanctions should be part of a future negotiation of normalising relations. But they can only be lifted when the Kremlin is no longer seen by Europe and its allies as an unpredictable and threatening regime.

In addition to arms and sanctions, it will be necessary to continue financial support to Ukraine. This support is a potentially delicate matter at a time of relatively anaemic economic growth in Europe and when the rising cost of living is becoming a major concern. But it is the price we have to pay to maintain our stability and security. It is an effort that will last for some time. Later, when entering the negotiation phase, the mediators will have to include on the agenda the issue of war reparations and the financing of Ukraine's reconstruction.  

On this 100th day of the aggression, we are facing a very complex situation. Future scenarios, especially for the next three weeks, should include several concerns. But for now, the priority challenges are four: immediately strengthening Ukraine's defence capacity; deepening isolation and weakening Russia's public finances; maintaining unity amongst us; and continuing to insist on the diplomacy of peace.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated  3 June 2022)

Freedom in a digital world

Digital activism in a framework of uncertainty

Victor Ângelo

 

I participated this week in a webinar about "Internet and Geopolitics". The question at the centre of the debates was very direct: is a global, universal, and open internet possible?

The question came from civil society associations that militate for digital freedom. And they follow the line of the United Nations: in June 2020, António Guterres proposed a Roadmap for Digital Cooperation, with the aim of achieving that by the end of the decade every person can access the internet at a minimum cost and without obstacles.

The reality is very different. At this moment, there are two parallel digital universes. The international one, essentially North American, built around platforms that are part of our everyday life. And the Chinese, a reproduction of the Western constellation. We can subscribe to the Chinese platforms, but the residents of China do not have access to the international networks, which are blocked by Beijing. So, the answer to the central question can only be negative. Access to the internet is, in autocratic regimes, limited or banned for political reasons. 

Beyond calls for multilateralism, new 'silk routes' and progress in communications and transport, we are moving fast towards a historical phase of fragmentation and open rivalries between blocs of countries. In the digital area, this competition centres on the issues of artificial intelligence, data clouds, cybersecurity, espionage, competing political narratives and surveillance of citizens.

Those in power, whatever they may be, increasingly use social media to influence public opinion, manipulate political discourse and create an interpretation of reality that is favourable to them. Donald Trump has excelled in this art. Today, Narendra Modi is the incumbent leader who is followed by the largest number of people, some 175 million. Modi knows that images attract attention if they are intuitive, dynamic, colourful, and empathetic. In Portugal, António Costa has around 266,000 followers on Twitter. It's not much, but in our country, what continues to weigh is the frequent presence on free-to-air television channels. President Zelensky's official Twitter account has 6.2 million subscribers. The Ukrainian leader has demonstrated a remarkable capacity for communication through digital media.

As a curiosity, note that Cristiano Ronaldo has around 445 million followers on Instagram, Lionel Messi 329 million and Khaby Lame, an Italian influencer of African origin, is followed by 136 million via TikTok. What would happen if one of them launched into political activism?

As for the confrontation with Russia, it seems clear to me that it will contribute to the deepening of geopolitical fractures. Nobody knows how the war of aggression against Ukraine, or the huge crisis triggered between Russia, the United States and the various NATO countries will evolve. However, it is clear that we are still on an escalation course, in a highly complex and exceptionally worrying context. On the one hand, it is not acceptable to systematically violate the international order, as defined in the United Nations Charter, nor to disrespect with impunity the institutions that are the pillars of peace and security, such as the International Court of Justice. Nor is it acceptable that international law, the basis of relations between states, should no longer apply to the major powers, giving primacy instead to their geostrategic interests, in the old concept of force as the main lever of power. On the other hand, there is a very serious risk of a new, large-scale, global confrontation.

In this context, my suggestion is simple: civil society can use the digital platforms to tip the balance towards the side of law, moderation, and peace. And start by promoting international agreements on cyber non-aggression to critical infrastructures, essential for the daily life of every citizen.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 27 May 2022)

 

 

 

Looking at a possible UN role in Ukraine

UN: a roadmap for peace in Ukraine

Victor Angelo

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

Antonio Guterres and his visits to Russia and Ukraine

Maintaining contact with the aggressor while supporting Ukraine

Victor Ângelo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

António Guterres and the role of the UN Secretary-General

What to expect from the United Nations?

Victor Angelo

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Russia and Ukraine: a fast worsening tragedy

Putin and us: from bad to worse, danger!

Victor Angelo

 

We are now in a new, much more dangerous stage of the crisis started by Vladimir Putin about a week ago. The sanctions adopted by the EU countries and their allies, the placing on alert of the Russian nuclear deterrent forces, the entry of Belarus into the confrontation by abolishing its nuclear neutrality, and above all the large-scale expansion of military aggression against Ukraine, including the attack on civilian targets, all lead to a worsening of the tension between Putin and our part of the world.

The moment demands maximum prudence. Military aid to Ukraine, for example, should be provided without grandiloquent declarations. We must help, but without adding fuel to the fire of rhetoric, without giving the enemy the opportunity to use our words to justify themselves to their public opinion and to escalate further. This is my message to Ursula von der Leyen and the other European leaders.  

The time also demands absolute firmness in applying the economic and financial sanctions that were decided this weekend. 

The SWIFT issue is particularly important. Even without including Russian gas and oil. The lessons I draw from recent past cases - North Korea, Venezuela, and Iran - reveal that a large part of the sanctioned country's foreign trade is suspended. The impact on GDP and the day-to-day running of the economy is enormous. The international payment system ceases to function, and alternatives are few and far between. Trade, which today sustains the standard of living of citizens, is drastically reduced.  

This is how it will happen now. Russia recently set up a system independent from SWIFT, but the number of banks involved is no more than a couple of dozen. And those banks, when faced with the exclusionary measures now decided upon, will certainly hesitate about transactions with Russia, for fear of the associated penalties and restrictions. The safest thing, in business terms, is to stop having banking relations with the Russian system.

Even more important is the decision to block many of the operations of the Central Bank of Russia. Putin was counting on the $630 billion that this bank has as reserves in foreign currency and gold bullion. The problem is that a good part of these reserves - at least 50% of the total - is deposited in other central banks, in countries that have now adopted the sanctions regime. In Japan, Germany, France, the US, the UK, Austria. Access to these deposits is frozen. 

In addition to these reserves, the Central Bank of Russia holds gold bars in its vaults to the tune of 3300 tonnes. It may try to sell a good part of them. But with the sanctions in place, the buyers, even if they are Chinese, will face a great risk when they later try to market this gold. So they will only buy the bars if Russia offers a discount from the current market value, a discount that could be around 30% or more. Thus, what would be worth around 190 billion US dollars under present conditions could, at most, raise 130 billion US dollars. 

These sanctions will lead to a continued devaluation of the national currency, the rouble, which has already lost about 30% against the dollar. They will also destabilise the operation of the country's commercial banks. We are entering into what I would call the "Venezuelisation" of the Russian financial system. Now, this has huge political costs. The European narrative must be able to explain to the Russian population what is behind all this: Vladimir Putin's irresponsible and criminal policy. 

The sanctions are already contributing to the country's international isolation. Dictators don't like to be pushed to the wall and don't like dead ends. This explains the new level of brutality in the offensive against Ukraine. Putin needs a military victory without further delay, even at the cost of war crimes. He thinks that from then on, he will be able to negotiate more forcefully with the Europeans and the Americans. We must tell him that he is utterly mistaken. 

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 2 March 2022)

Volodymyr Zelensky: the people's choice

Volodymyr Zelensky, a comedian and a man of the people, has won the presidential elections in Ukraine. This is no small victory. It is a landslide, with about 73% of the votes in his support. It is above all the expression of a very deep frustration regarding the political elites and their inability to address corruption, poverty and conflict with Russia.

The people has spoken, and their choice is clear. Let’s hope for the best. One should see this result with some optimism.