Are we getting closer to a big war?

The world smells dangerously like gunpowder 

Victor Angelo

The Munich Security Conference, an annual event now celebrating its 60th edition, begins today and runs until Sunday. As has become customary, it is a high-level meeting. This time, it will feature the participation of around 50 Heads of State and Government, another hundred ministers and a good number of leaders of international organizations, academics, thinkers and journalists of international importance.

The report that serves as the basis for this year's conference makes a diagnosis of the main ongoing conflicts and, in summary, suggests two conclusions. First, geopolitical competition continues to worsen, now reaching a level of intensity and complexity unprecedented since the creation of the United Nations. Second, the reestablishment of international cooperation must be seen as an absolute priority. Only in this way will it be possible to resolve the most dangerous challenges, which in reality know no borders and have an impact that cannot be ignored. It is a positive recommendation, in a report that is, in essence, pessimistic.

When reflecting on 2024, the rapporteurs particularly draw attention to the growing risks in four regions of the globe. We are told that the international scene has more fires than firefighters, that there is an accumulation of serious crises to be resolved and an international system that is no longer respected. It's a clear question: instead of all of us winning, would we all rather lose?

One of these regions is Eastern Europe. The geopolitical vision that prevails in the Kremlin is a threat that must be taken seriously. It consists of increasing arrogance and aggressiveness, based on ancient practices of first inventing conflicts with neighbors seen as rivals, and then trying to resolve them with swordplay. My reading of this region is familiar: either Russia withdraws and recognizes the sovereignty of Ukraine, or what is now happening in that country will end up spreading to others in the region. A crisis of this kind would bring immense problems to the unity of NATO and the major countries of the Western world. In democratic contexts, these alliances are more fragile than they might seem.

In the Middle East, that's a powder keg. It is a region of great fractures, where xenophobia and the absurdity of decisions taken in the 20th century are added to cultural and religious hatred, and a multiplicity of borders that do not respect historical identities and give way to nations without homogeneity and without resources, to in addition to oil and gas.

What is conventionally called the Indo-Pacific is another problematic area. It demands increasing attention, as it could be the theater of a major conflict surrounding the issue of Taiwan and beyond. Xi Jinping has just been reappointed for the third time as leader of the single party and as President of China, for new five-year terms. At the end of these terms, he will be 74 years old and no one knows if the conditions will exist for him to be re-elected again. Now, in my opinion, Xi wants to go down in history as the leader who managed to subdue the Taiwanese rebellion. If that is indeed his ultimate ambition, it is very likely that military action against Taiwan will take place before 2027. And if Trump is in the White House, distracted by pursuing his internal adversaries, starting with the Biden family, Xi could conclude that The time has come to step forward and inscribe your name at the top of the list of heroes of communist China.

The Sahel forms the fourth region of deep insecurity. At the moment, the list of absolutely unsafe countries includes Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger. It must also include Sudan, which is plunged into a merciless civil war and a humanitarian crisis of unimaginable proportions. But Sudan has been excluded from media headlines in an unacceptable way. The crises in the Sahel have all the conditions to spread, as is already happening on a large scale in Nigeria and now in Senegal, due to the political confusion created by the president. In the same Senegal that had always been considered an example of stability and democracy.

Three other major themes are also discussed in this year's report: the growing disparities and economic rivalries between different blocs around the world, including with regard to what could happen with the development of the BRICS; the consequences of climate change on international relations, including migration; and the impact of the technological and digital revolution.

The report describes a world evolving in a worrying direction. And it would be even worse if the spectre that roams the corridors of Munich, silently, were re-elected in November, as no one likes to talk about evil spirits. But November is still a long way away and until then anything can happen.

A.I: translation of my opinion text published on 16 February 2024 in the Lisbon daily newspaper Diário de Notícias. 

Asking a few questions

A very unusual year: where are we heading to?

Victor Angelo

 

The Russian Armed Forces are currently firing thousands of shells a day at Ukraine. My friend Zulmiro, who is, and always has been, a primary communist militant, is not bothered by this volume of daily destruction. For him, every Ukrainian is a Nazi. Although he cannot explain the concept of Nazism in the year 2022, the accusation, imprecise as it is, justifies everything and tidies up the matter. It is impossible to argue with him, despite many decades of friendship. In view of this, and moving to a more general level, I ask how it will be possible to launch a process of negotiations between the Ukrainian leadership and Zulmiro's idols in the Holy of Holies, the Kremlin? That is one of the big questions of the moment. There is talk of diplomacy, but that, what does it mean?

Meanwhile, the Russian gamble continues to be on force, terror, and violation of the international order. Vladimir Putin and his men want the annihilation of the Ukrainian state and the surrender of its leaders. To achieve this, they will continue to machine gun and wipe out Ukraine. Systematically and intensely, with total inhumanity and a great sense of urgency, to weaken the Ukrainians' capacity for resistance and legitimate defence to the utmost before the promised arms arrive from Western countries.

Many do not want to look seriously at the question of self-defence, preferring, on our side, the comfortable ambiguity proper to nations well established in life. On the one hand, we help the victim and, on the other, we try not to harass the aggressor beyond the limits that could jeopardise our peace of mind. We keep repeating that we are not at war with the Putin regime, a half-truth which certainly makes him laugh with irony. He is at war with us, and he knows that the wars of today can be fought with missiles and cannons, as in the case of Ukraine, or with power cuts, cyber sabotage, disinformation, financing of extremist groups, and much more.

Self-defence raises a strategic question: either we ally ourselves with the aggressed, the weaker, or tomorrow it will be our turn. We may be on the verge of the decisive moment: to support with a new kind of intensity or just with minimal costs?

Looking further ahead, I would say that it has been decades since the international situation reached such a dangerous point as now. On top of a pandemic that has paralysed the world, we now have a combination of very serious conflicts and tensions. In Ukraine, Yemen, around Iran, in and around Burkina Faso, Libya, Myanmar, in addition to the never-ending crises in Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, Congo (DRC) and others.

In the most developed countries, people are coming out of the peak of the health crisis with a very acute consumerist fever. The issue of global warming, and the accelerated destruction of nature, has disappeared from the radar of citizens and the speeches of politicians. Even Greta Thunberg, who had mobilised global attention in the period before the pandemic, can not make herself heard.

Then came war, thanks to the imperialist and dictatorial madness of Vladimir Putin. I am sorry to say to the analysts who talk about these things that this is not a geostrategic issue. Putin wants to be the Tsar Peter the Great of our times, when he may end up being seen as the little Hitler of 2022.

Meanwhile, the tension between the US and China has entered a far more dangerous phase. And the impoverishment of the most vulnerable countries, something that has disappeared from the fat print of newspapers, is accelerating. In Sri Lanka, the Sahel countries, Central America, Haiti, and Pakistan, to name but a few. And the economies of the richest nations are increasingly living off the debt of future generations, amidst inflation that shows the mismatches between production, imports, and consumption patterns. Meanwhile, multilateral organisations continue to lose strength and image.

We are at a crossroads of critical uncertainties and serious risks. Where are we heading to? And where are the visionary leaders capable of proposing common-sense paths?

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 18 June 2022)

 

China and the COP process

More solar panels and fewer nuclear warheads

Victor Angelo

 

It is true that the Chinese president did not come to the COP26 summit. But it is also a fact that Xi Jinping has not travelled out of the country since January 2020, because of an extraordinarily stiff official interpretation of what the fight against the coronavirus pandemic should be.

The American president took advantage of his counterpart's absence to criticise him openly. I think this was a mistake. Joe Biden should seek to build bridges with China rather than new fronts of conflict. There are already enough points of friction between the two countries. It is not wise to add this one.

The global fight against climate change needs everyone's cooperation. Including China, which emits about a quarter of the world's total carbon dioxide, although in per capita terms the impact of each Chinese person is half that of the average American. This reminds us, moreover, that the wealthiest are those who contribute most to global warming and that a large part of the response must be based on this observation.

It should also be added that President Xi did not ignore the summit. He sent a written communication, which I felt was relevant in several respects.

First, because he stressed the need to respect the commitments already made, both in the UN Climate Change Framework Convention and in the 2015 Paris Agreement. His statement was a clear call for the strengthening of multilateral responses through the United Nations system. It was also a call for the deepening of mutual trust between states, which is so sorely needed. This is a key issue that the UN Secretary-General could explore in order to make his role more central and more action oriented. 

Second, because President Xi mentioned the need for an extra effort by all, in particular the most developed countries. Here he referred to the aid that has been promised and should be given to the poorest countries to mitigate the catastrophic effects of climate change and significantly increase their peoples' access to renewable sources of energy.

Third, because he said clearly that the community of nations must accelerate the green transition. In his view, this means increasing investment in science and technology in order to achieve industrial transformation and the types of energy and consumption that are best suited to safeguarding the environment, without jeopardizing economic development. There is a half-truth here, based on the theory that scientific progress is the best response to environmental challenges. This position does not take into account that economic growth policies must change and that the behaviour of people in the richest countries, including China, cannot be based solely on the continued increase in consumption and material well-being.

In the final part of his communication, Xi Jinping referred to a number of measures that his government is already conducting or will adopt in order to reduce the carbon footprint. He did not say this now, but he had already informed the UN General Assembly that the official Chinese ambition is to reach carbon neutrality by 2060. To this, one could reply that China has the means to achieve this neutrality much sooner. And it should do so, taking advantage of the moment to show that China can also play a leading role in this area. The country has the necessary knowledge and means. It would be a matter of investing less in the war industries and more in energy transformation. A nation that plans to have a nuclear arsenal of at least a thousand nuclear warheads in 2030 - five times more than in 2020 - and a whole arsenal of hypersonic weapons, bombers, aircraft carriers and submarines with nuclear capability, has all the conditions to also be an example in terms of managing carbon emissions. It is time to show that the defence of the planet and peace are two interconnected issues. Global leadership should focus on this.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 5 November 2021)

 

COP26 will be shaken by the young people

Youth will challenge COP26

Victor Angelo

 

I admire Greta Thunberg's determination. She has already done more to fight climate change than many political leaders. And she has above all mobilised young people, thus opening a window of hope for the future. In essence, Greta's civic activism demands that we move from words to deeds and that what was agreed at the Paris climate conference in 2015 is actually implemented.

Next week, she will be in Glasgow, in the framework of COP26. She will remind the official delegations of the pacts signed and will underline that it is now even more urgent to reduce carbon emissions, to protect ecosystems, to finance the energy transition in the poorest countries and to mitigate the worrying effects of global warming. The signs are clear: the past decade has been recorded as the warmest ever. 

There is not much optimism about the possible outcomes of this summit. The UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, told us a few days ago that the national commitments already known, coming from around 120 countries and which will be discussed during COP26, fall far short of what is necessary to reverse the current trend, which goes in the wrong direction – a global warming of around 2.7 degrees Celsius by the end of the century. Such an increase would have catastrophic consequences. Some of these effects are already being felt, in different ways depending on the regions of the world: prolonged droughts or devastating storms, followed by floods that destroy everything in their path; gigantic fires, including in tundra areas; the destruction of a large part of the polar ice cap, glaciers and an increase in sea levels and the salinity of rivers and coastal lagoons; the loss of biodiversity; and the large-scale impoverishment of the most fragile populations. In Africa alone, for example, by 2030, climate change will drive a new wave of over 100 million people into poverty.

What is more, Africa is a continent that remains in the dark. The installed capacity to produce electricity is less than that of Spain, while on one side we have 1.4 billion people and on the other, 47 million. The African case highlights two other truths. First, that rich countries had promised the poorest ones, from 2020 onwards, around 100 billion dollars a year to help them in their energy transition. We are a long way from these figures. Secondly, without an extraordinary effort to electrify Africa, there is no way to develop the continent. The potential for renewable energy is enormous. What is lacking, however, are the financial resources, the knowledge, the technological transfer, and, above all, the political will. This week, for example, European foreign ministers met with their African counterparts in Kigali, Rwanda, to prepare the next Europe-Africa summit. They talked about the fight against COVID-19, historic ties and political partnerships, trade, migration, gender equality - the usual hotchpotch of things to please everyone. In the flowery text that the French, German, Portuguese, and Slovenian ministers published on the subject, there is no mention of COP26 and not a single reference to mobilising investments in the field of energy. Yet without accessible and abundant electricity there will be no economic growth or development.

Another ghost that will roam the corridors of COP26 is called national egoism. At the peak of the pandemic, the great leaders and renowned thinkers told us that after the crisis we would build a better, more balanced, ecological, and solidary world. What we are seeing is exactly the opposite: more economic nationalism, greater demand for fossil energies and a return to old consumer habits. The new man we were promised is the same as before, but more self-centred and with a renewed consumerist fury. This is where Greta and young people like her can shake up COP26 and show that an alternative vision is possible. 

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 29 October 2021)

 

 

 

Discussing security and governance in the Sahel

In the Sahel, a lot of military and little politics

Victor Angelo

 

The call came from Bamako. On the other end of the line was a former colleague, now back home after a brilliant career in the United Nations. The essence of his conversation was against the massive presence of foreign troops in his country. There are more and more of them, both in the framework of the UN mission - known by the acronym MINUSMA - and due to calls by France. Contrary to recent statements by Emmanuel Macron, who said that the war against terrorism in the Sahel was being won, my friend told me about the deterioration of the situation in Mali and in neighbouring countries. In other words, there are more military personnel but, paradoxically, less security.

Let us look at the latest statistics from the International Organization for Migration. They count about 1.7 million displaced persons due to instability and armed actions in this part of the Sahel, especially in the tri-border area between Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso - a region known as Liptako. It is estimated, on the other hand, that about seven thousand lives were lost in the last twelve months due to acts of terrorism and counterterrorist prevention and response operations. These are figures well above the average of previous years. What is more, a recent United Nations investigation shows that war crimes and atrocities have been committed in Mali since 2013. The report, which in addition to pointing the finger at terrorists calls into question the armed forces of certain states, has fallen into a deep hole in the Security Council and awaits debate at the Greek calends. 

Liptako is a vast territory, with an area where Portugal could fit three times over. The Fulas, as nomadic herdsmen and itinerant traders in long caravans, have traditionally shared these dry, harsh expanses with other ethnic groups. But ways of life have changed. Accelerated population growth in recent decades, coupled with enormous pressure from cattle rearing - a multiplication of herds -, increasingly irregular and scarce rainfall due to climate change, poverty and the absence of effective state administration have contributed to a widespread environment of social instability, rebellion and conflict. The rush for gold, which began to be exploited intensively on an artisanal basis some twenty years ago, has also attracted new waves of violence. This is the framework in which various armed gangs move and operate under the confused banners of the terrorist network of the Islamic State in the Greater Sahara (ISGS) or, further north, on the way to the border with Algeria, the people affiliated to Al-Qaeda. Religious fanaticism serves as an excuse or muddles along with banditry. For many young people, the Kalashnikov has replaced the shepherd's stick or the farmer's hoe in a context that is becoming progressively more arid, unpredictable, and dangerous. Someone from the region told me that joining an armed group is for many an act of self-protection.

There is a huge problem here that fundamentally requires two types of approach: one will be political and the other will be to combat desertification and poverty. I will mention only the political part, which requires the inclusion of all, without discrimination on ethnic grounds. It also means publicly showing a firm hand against corruption, in military institutions and state administrations. Inclusion and probity are two fundamental issues, which must be resolved by national elites.

 The European partners have closed their eyes and pretended not to see these problems. For example, they have been training officers in the Malian armed forces for years, knowing fully well that these officers have kept a tribal mentality and systematically divert resources intended for the country's stabilisation effort to their own advantage. We need to change the way we act in the Sahel. Dialogue with the countries in the region must be respectful. The future that is at stake is theirs, independently of the external dimensions. We cannot take the direction of the process away from them. Being more papist than the Pope in other people's land is a practice that must be put away once and for all, in a drawer of the past. But it must be a frank dialogue.

 

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

 

 

 

The future of politics must be based on values

They do not fit into our future

Victor Angelo

 

I recognise the concerns that many thinkers express about what the world will be like in the aftermath of the coronavirus pandemic. A large proportion say that this crisis pulverizes our societies and disrupts democracy and the alliances that bind us to other peoples, promotes a tendency towards isolation, nationalistic selfishness and the loss of the points of reference that gave meaning to international relations. Thus, the world would emerge fragmented from the crisis, with each country more self-centred, more autocratic, and with the institutions of the multilateral system rather weakened.

I propose a different reading of the route we are now taking. I believe that the crisis gives us the opportunity to strengthen the humanist dimension that has been lacking, both in domestic politics and on the international stage. We will certainly be poorer economically, but we can become much richer politically. It is a question of good leadership and strong citizenship movements. The pandemic has reminded us that people are the essential end of politics. Not people in a general and abstract sense, but each of us, simultaneously in our individuality and as members of the social space to which we belong. Politics must place a stronger emphasis on protecting and respecting our fundamental rights, starting with the right to dignity, health, security and diversity, as well as creating the conditions for everyone to develop their potential as best they know how. 

I believe that the pandemic drama has prepared a good part of the citizens for a new kind of awareness as regards their relationship with others and nature. I think it has made us more measured in our ambitions. We are faced with the possibility of renewing political practice. That is the main conclusion I draw from the present situation. It is also the line that guides my vision of the future. Politics tomorrow must mean a continuous struggle for human rights, for democratisation, for smoothness in public management and for more solidarity. We must build on the maturity we have acquired during this period of shock. If this happens, the credibility of politics will be enhanced, multilateral cooperation will be cemented and we will be in a better position to tackle what I consider to be the three biggest global challenges of the decade: the fight against poverty, the defence of freedom and the regeneration of the environment, starting with the mitigation of climate change.

Indeed, none of this should be new to us Europeans. Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union clearly defines - and happily worded, which is not always the case when it comes to legal commitments between states - the values that constitute the fundamental foundations of our common project, including the centrality of the human dimension of politics. But politicians, who are generally very skilful in the games of opportunism and in the ambiguity of consensus designed to please Greeks and Trojans, do not always support themselves as they should in that article of the Treaty.

In these circumstances, it is essential that the European Commission's budget for the period 2021-2027 and the exceptional plan for economic recovery, which must respond to the challenges created by the pandemic, recognise the essential need for each Member State to respect the letter and spirit of the aforementioned Article 2. Budgets and democracy are the two sides of the same Europe. Here there can be no tricks or juggling of words and misunderstandings. The Hungarian vetoes of Viktor Orbán and the Polish vetoes of Jaroslaw Kaczynski, now also supported by Janez Janša, the Prime Minister of Slovenia, are unacceptable. Let us speak clearly. Orbán is a despot at the head of a clique that many accuse of kleptocracy. Kaczynski is a backward man who exploits feelings from other times. Janša is a small brain man: he was the only European leader to congratulate Donald Trump on his electoral "victory". They all manipulate public opinion in their countries and will not change as long as they retain control of power. We cannot let these gentlemen think that the EU is just a source of money, unrelated to a policy of democratic values and rights. Any compromise on this issue would mean that we would not have learned anything from the cultural revolution that the pandemic crisis is offering us. 

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

We must be able to convince

The cooperation between nations has been seriously impacted by the current crisis. Each country decided the best way to battle the pandemic was to close the borders and focus on the its domestic issues. Such an approach can somehow work if the country is wealthy with a modern, extensive, and diversified economy. Australia is a good example. Even Norway, at a much smaller case, can also be mention as an example. But every country, rich or poor, depends on international trade, investments, or development aid. These three areas have lost speed. They will take quite a bit of time to recover. But above all, we must insist that today’s and tomorrow’s world can only address the issues of recovery, peace and security, climate change, and poverty, if countries cooperate and see themselves as part of a community of nations with a common destiny. The United Nations System and all the regional arrangements must regain their credibility. The challenge in this case is to be able to lead the narrative about a better world. It must be a convincing one, based on a constructive and balanced approach. Most of the visions that are being shared are not seen as balanced. They create a lot of fear in the minds and hearts of those who control economic power and the information networks. That is the reason why they do not get to the front pages. It is time to be a bit smarter when talking about the world we all need to put in place.

A New Green Deal

Economic growth cannot be achieved at any cost. In today’s world, the impact of production on environment must be part of the calculations. Growth that deteriorates the environment, that increases the CO2 emissions, that is artificially supported to keep quiet some sectors of the electorate – the EU agricultural policy is the best example of distorted and wasteful growth, and we are talking about billions of euros every year  – all that should be considered negative growth and accounted for as such. 

Almost 30 years ago, the UN Development Programme (UNDP) came up with the concept of human development. This model was much more inclusive than the old notion of economic growth. It included more than just the production of additional goods and services. It was an approach designed to add to the response to the basic needs of a population other essential dimensions that would bring social peace, equality of opportunities and people’s creativity and dignity. And gradually, it also incorporated the judicious use of natural resources and the environmental dimensions. We tried to resume it under the designation of sustainable growth, but it was more than that. There was a strong human security aspect in it as well as a resource sustainability dimension.

In many countries, lots of people have been brought out of poverty during the last three decades as well. But the environmental dimension was kept aside, not considered when planning and opening new economic avenues. And if we travel to India or China, we can immediately understand the costs those societies have to pay for not paying attention to the natural context.

The problem is that natural phenomena do not respect national borders. What starts as a national problem ends up by being an international issue. That’s what the Paris Climate Conference of 2015 tried to put on the table. Global matters require concerted international efforts. 

In terms of urgency, it is obvious too many of us that economic expansion cannot bring additional CO2 on a net basis. There is a need to mitigate and to compensate. These two words should guide the way we look at the production, distribution and consumption of goods in the future. The new economy should be about proximity, mitigation, compensation and substitution. These areas offer immense opportunities, both in terms of business and jobs. They allow us to put GDP in the shelf where history keeps the past events and imagine a new Green Deal. That’s the one of the most immediate challenges.   

Greta, the Davos star

Greta Thunberg came out of this year’s Davos meeting as a giant, a fundamental voice in today’s world. Throughout the conference she behaved with decorum. She was her own person, no pretentiousness and no deviation from her core message, which is the best approach when you are leading a campaign. The clarity and intelligence of her speeches impressed me once more. And all that at the age of 17.

Davos messages

From today’s reports about Davos (WEF 2020), I take home two important observations. One, that we should always keep in mind the two billion people that are the poorest in the world. The bottom 2 billion. They can be lifted out of poverty if there is political will. And they are the ones that will be the most impacted by climate changes and environmental crises. The second one is about the political leaders. They must show a new level of commitment and leadership. They cannot just think about the next elections. They must learn how to speak to the people about the future and positive change. Values must prevail over opportunism.

COP25 and the people

COP25 has ended. Madrid can return to a more normal life. And the delegates can go home. For many of them, this climate summit would have been a major disappointment. For a few others, the meeting was as vague as they wanted it to be. That is the game of big international politics, to promise the world, and then backtrack, and implement as little as possible. 

Actually, there is a major contradiction between climate action and power politics. Climate requires a long-term view and commitment. Government politics is about the short-term, the eyes on the next election. These two perspectives cannot meet. Political leaders cannot lead the way as far as this issue is concerned, unless they feel the pressure coming from the citizens' movements. The strength of these movements is the only hope we have. In some countries, they matter and then the leaders listen. But in many other nations, the power is too concentrated in the official channels and mechanisms that it leaves little space for the citizens to be able to organise themselves.

The climate emergency needs not only the mobilisation of the citizens but also very clear proposals that can be easily accepted and owned by the people. In many ways, it seems necessary to change the narrative. The citizen knows what is taking place, the effects of climate change. The storms, the heat waves, the wildfires, the disappearing ice cover, all that. What they want to know is what are the concrete measures that must be effectively taken and be assured that those actions will not compromise their job security and the key aspects of their standards of living. They also want to know where the money for implementation will be coming from. 

That’s the story that must be told now. It is not enough to apprise people that the new technologies will generate more jobs. They do not believe it, unless we find the words and the examples that are most convincing.

The climate emergency will not be won if we do not get the people mobilised. That is the real front of this combat at this stage.  

So much has changed

We are about to close the second decade of the XXI Century. As we look back, the last 10 years have been a time of major transformation and change. The year 2010 seems to be far back and to belong to another era. Politics have changed, and not for the better. Lies and polarisation are new key features. The economy has also gone through major transformations. Artificial Intelligence, computerisation are the new dimensions. But they are not alone. The economic changes have also brought new levels of precariousness and powerlessness, job insecurity and a frustration. And then, there is a new understanding of the climate crisis. It is unfortunately accompanied by actions that are too small to effectively respond to the issues we face.

In many ways, I think we end the decade with a stronger feeling hopelessness and deep distrust for those who are in charge. We are also more contradictory in our own way of looking at things. We know but we do not want to change what we got used to. We just hope others will do it.

That goes along with a serious leadership crisis. The political and thought leaders are no longer those who are in power. They are among the little people, the ordinary citizens and, in many ways, among the very young. There again, there is a serious gap between political authority and moral authority. That’s one the challenges we have to address we get into the next decade.

Greta and her words

I am most impressed by Greta Thunberg’s brief speech at the Climate Summit today. I am convinced her address will join the list of the best speeches ever delivered. Greta came out as thoughtful, sincere, direct and challenging. And let me believe the new generations are ready to change the world. That’s a powerful message.

Not bad, this year's G7 Summit

Several experienced international analysts raised the issue before the meeting: is the G7 still relevant? They had in mind last year’s messy summit in Canada, as well as the fact that there are serious divergences within the group, particularly with President Trump’ views, not to mention that these countries have lost weight in the world economy. They barely represent about 40% of the global output, much less than when the G7 was established, over twenty years ago.

Many concluded that the G7 Summit had outlived its usefulness. That the summit was no longer justified.

My opinion has gone in the opposite direction. I wrote in my Portuguese language blog that such meetings are still advisable. They can help. Summits give an opportunity for eye contact between the leaders. That is important, particularly at a time when so much power is concentrated in so few hands. We live in a period that considers electoral legitimacy almost absolute, even beyond established rules and practises. I am against such an approach, but the fact of the matter is that we see leaders of our democracies claiming levels of authority that come close to personal autocratic rule. In such circumstances, personal contact can make a difference. Leaders must meet frequently.

The G7 is one such opportunity.

This time, the expectations were relatively low.

But the summit in Biarritz, France, went well beyond the expectations. It has been a better meeting than we had anticipated. The final press conference, that brought together the French and the US Presidents, has showed that the dialogue avenues are not closed. Both Presidents did well when responding to the media. We could see the differences of opinion between them, but they were dealt with tact.

One could say that much of the success achieved during the summit must be put to the credit of Emmanuel Macron. That is to a large measure true. He has been able to navigate the very difficult matters that were on the table as well as the unique egos in the room. It would be unfair not to recognise President Macron’s ability and efforts. However, there is more to it. The issues on the agenda are too big and complex – we have undoubtedly a very delicate mix of global problems. And global means global, when it comes to the negatives of such issues. The mood, when discussing them, could only be a serious one. Even in the case of those leaders that tend to see the world from their own very narrow prism. That’s not bad.

The Amazon rainforest and President Bolsonaro's policies

I do not agree at all with his views but I cannot criticise the Brazilian population for their decision to elect Jair Bolsonaro as President. I am a foreigner and I live far away from Brazil. Moreover, I do not want to discuss the electoral propriety of the process that led to his election. I leave that to the Brazilians themselves and to their institutions, media and political class. They are more than prepared to do it.

However, I should feel free to criticise the political decisions of President Bolsonaro that either violate established common values or have an international impact. In particular, his approach to the Amazon rainforest. The President is not protecting the forest, as he is ignoring the rights of the indigenous populations that call the Amazon home. His policies encourage the destruction of the Amazon by greedy ranchers, latifundia farmers, illegal miners, criminal loggers and many other individuals that have no respect for the law and human life. Some of this people are most likely behind the thousands of fires that are consuming the Amazon. Such fires are a major ecological disaster for the region and the world. One cannot ignore them.

In this circumstances, international pressure on President Bolsonaro must be intensified for him to change his policies, and to protect the indigenous populations and to seek international cooperation in the fight against the destruction of the forest. At the same time, a global fund must be fully supported to finance the preservation of the Amazon, regenerate what can be rebuilt and compensate the Brazilian people for doing so. Here, as in many other issues, President Bolsonaro should not hide behind false nationalism. He must accept the role and the resources of such fund.

President Trump and the EU

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

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

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

August blues

At this time of the year, a good number of people in the Northern Hemisphere are on leave. This is the peak period of the Summer season. But this year, I see some differences. Many people are worried. They look at the international politics scene and do not like the current trends, the surprise decisions, the conflict approach that seems to guide some of the leaders. There is a good deal of uncertainty. That might end up by having an impact on international peace, in addition to the one on the economic situation. Then, people look at the type of weather we are experiencing, the news about the nature, the whales, the Arctic, and wonder about the future.

I do not want to be pessimistic in August. But there is no doubt that things are taking a shape that does not announce easy days ahead of us. It would be inappropriate not to register the apprehensions that one can discern. As it would not be right not to call for a different kind of leaders.

The extreme urgency of addressing environmental matters

If there is anything this Summer is teaching us, I would say it is about the urgency of addressing climate change. It has been an abnormal season, in most of Europe and elsewhere. Now, the extensive forest fires in Siberia and other Arctic regions have given us additional evidence we have entered another epoch in human life. Our duty is to join our voices and political pressure to those activists and to the scientists that keeping underlining the gravity of the current trends. The change must occur now, and it ought to be deep and resolute.

We have no longer the luxury of ignoring the issue. And that’s the message that people like Greta Thunberg are fighting for. Now, we must make the politicians and corporations act.

Munich and the annual security debate

Once more, the conflict between Israel and Palestine is not on the agenda of this year’s Munich Security Conference. 

This annual conference started today and runs up to Sunday. It’s a key international meeting on security. 

This year, Syria and Ukraine are again on the menu, as it is the insecurity situation in the Sahel, the nuclear weapons issue and the security dimensions of climate change. The exclusion of the Palestinian crisis from the debates is deliberate, of course. For many, it’s too delicate a subject. For others, and I am among those, it’s a never-ending conflict. Better move on and deal with those that have a chance of being resolved.

On the Yellow Vests

The French Gilets Jaunes (Yellow Vests) have now demonstrated every Saturday since mid-November. Yesterday it was their 12^th Saturday of mass rallies in Paris and other cities and towns of France. We cannot ignore the meaning and the political dimensions of such a movement. It must be better understood, first. Then, we should reflect about the response that should be provided.

I get the impression that both questions – understanding and responding – have not been fully considered.

Many words have been written about the grievances, but they do not explain the persistence of the street protests. Moreover, in winter, which is not the best season to be on the street and public squares. The analysis of the root causes calls for more objectivity and less ideological explanations.

The response the government has adopted is two-pronged: massive police presence during the manifestations, to prevent violence and looting; and the launching of a campaign of national dialogue, to look at issues of taxation, State organisation and political representativeness, as well as climate policies. But both lines of the response are being challenged. They have not convinced a good deal of those complaining, even among those who do not come to the streets on Saturday. 

The matter needs therefore a much more comprehensive assessment. It’s very much on the table.