G20: is it a better forum?

The G20 as a model for tomorrow's Security Council

Victor Ângelo

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

The EU and its Indo-Pacific Strategy

China, the Indo-Pacific and European illusions

Victor Angelo

This week, Josep Borrell, who heads the European Commission's external relations, and his Chinese counterpart, Minister Wang Yi, met by videoconference as part of the strategic dialogue that exists between the two parties. The day before, Frans Timmermans, the Executive Vice President of the Commission, had been in contact with the Chinese Vice-Premier, to discuss the preparation of the COP-26, which will start in Glasgow at the end of this month.

These talks have their merit. They must be frequent and without naivety. The EU can have no other political stance vis-à-vis China than dialogue, the affirmation of its critical positions and the search for common interests. In this, as in other areas of vital importance to the security and prosperity of Europe, it is essential to demonstrate that we continue to believe in the value of diplomacy, of clarifying positions and of reaching agreements. Where others focus on confrontation, Europeans must be seen to promote strategic interdependence and common platforms that contribute to international security and the resolution of major global issues. By doing so, we will consolidate the EU's role on the international scene and reduce the risks of being involved in conflicts that are not in our interest. We will also reduce our subordination to the USA. 

Returning to the dialogue between Borrell and Wang, several topics were addressed. Most have long been on the agenda: human rights, Hong Kong, Xinjiang, Taiwan, the mutual investment climate, international cooperation, support for multilateralism, etc. But between this meeting and the previous one, which took place in June 2020, an eternity has passed, and dramatic changes have occurred, notably in Myanmar and Afghanistan. The policy towards these countries had to be part of the discussions. Nor could a reference to the EU Indo-Pacific strategy, approved a couple of weeks ago in Brussels, be missing. Borrell took great pains to explain that this new policy intention is not aimed at antagonizing China. He would not have convinced his interlocutor.

I am among those who think that the approval of this strategy was a mistake. The document appears to be well written, and the abundance of resources in the European External Action Service means that it has to be. But it is vague, too broad, touching on everything, and undefined in the prioritization of the objectives included in each of the intervention areas. To begin with, the geopolitical content of the Indo-Pacific concept is not well understood. A recent study shows that different member states see the contours of the region in a separate way. What's more, the concept is associated with the anti-Chinese obsession started by Donald Trump and which Joe Biden has been materializing. Thus, for Beijing, the EU does nothing more than follow American policy, albeit in a more sophisticated way, introducing in the document a series of buzzwords about development and cooperation.

It is true that this part of the world, even if imprecisely defined, has a growing economic weight. It accounts for a very large share of Europe's foreign trade: Brussels tells us that the region is the EU's second largest trading partner. It is also a fact that a very high percentage of maritime freight transport passes through the Indian Ocean. But the real challenges in the Indo-Pacific are, apart from piracy, an area where cooperation with China is possible, the disputes over maritime borders between China and its neighbours, the future of Taiwan, or the identity tensions in India, the military dictatorship in Myanmar, the struggle for democracy in Thailand, Cambodia or Vietnam, the institutional violence in the Philippines and so on, without forgetting Taliban extremism and terrorist threats. These are concrete issues where the EU needs to define its interests, the role it can play and the alliances that will be needed.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 1 October 2021)

 

 

China, Europe and the others

This is the wrong time to behave like a bully in the international arena. The Chinese Foreign Minister, Wang Yi, seems to know it. He appealed for a better relationship between his country and the US, now that we are at the door of a new Cold War, to paraphrase what he said. The words that call for cooperation instead of competition are the right words. He for sure is aware of that. And I am sure he is also mindful that for the time being the relationship with the US will not improve. Actually, it is possible to forecast deterioration. That is certainly not good. But he and his fellow leaders in Beijing have a chance to show that they mean business. They can establish a better relationship with the European Union. The Europeans are ready for that if it is a more balanced and equal one. Let us see if the Chinese are also willing. That could have an incredibly positive influence on the trade, global affairs, and the image of China in the world. There are negotiations going on between Brussels and Beijing. They should be concluded by September and send the right signal.