Lebanon and the international freezer

 Translation of today’s opinion piece I published in Diário de Notícias (Lisbon). 15 Aug. 2020

From Lebanon to the conflict freezer

Victor Angelo

 

The district of Beja in Southern Portugal and Lebanon have the same territorial area. But the comparison ends there. If on one side we have around 153 thousand inhabitants, on the other there are seven million, who live in one of the most unstable regions of the globe. And they are an extremely fragmented social mosaic, full of rivalries, which subsists at the expense of precarious balances, always ready to be broken. Each segment of society pulls the embers to its sardine. The respective bosses corrupt the system and capture the institutions of governance. To the emergence of more honest leaders, the bosses respond with murder or intimidation, to shut up or push into exile anyone who questions them.

This explains why a country of entrepreneurial people with a high cultural level went through a long civil war, from 1975 to 1990, and has been experiencing a deep national crisis for years. The situation entered an acute phase in October 2019, with thousands of citizens protesting regularly in the streets. The economy and the financial system ceased to function. The central government has become a prisoner of the fierce rivalries that exist between the 18 political-confessional groups that make up the country and which serve as chess pieces in the game of tension between the regional powers, especially Iran and Saudi Arabia.

The situation became catastrophic after the explosion in the port of Beirut. Since then, the country has made the front page of the news and the priority list of the usual powers, thanks in particular to the efforts of Emmanuel Macron. Lebanon will remain on this list as long as international attention is focused on its crisis. Sooner or later a new tragedy will appear somewhere and the country, like others that are also experiencing recurrent national conflicts, will move to the shelf of the forgotten, in the world freezer where so many unsolvable crises are stored and kept frozen. 

In the meantime, emergency humanitarian aid has been announced. It is vital that this aid arrives quickly and is delivered to those who are in a very precarious situation. Here the role of the United Nations organisations is to ensure the credibility of the distribution of humanitarian goods, which must be channelled through Lebanese NGOs. We must avoid political exploitation of this aid, either by internal factions or by donors. That is why I do not think it is too much to remember that humanitarian action aims to save lives, with transparency, without corruption. It has nothing to do with possible changes in the political spider web.

It is true that Lebanon needs to change its political labyrinth. In recent days, a series of proposals have emerged that would place this burden on the shoulders of the international community. Some have suggested a new mandate regime. The country was under a French mandate until 1943 and there are many people in Lebanon, at the grassroots level, who would like this to happen again. That, even with adaptations to the realities of modern politics, would be a thing of the past. It does not correspond to the current vision, which puts the responsibility for change in the hands of national political agents.

Nor do I think it is possible to send a United Nations contingent with a political mission approved by the Security Council under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. This part of the Charter allows for the use of military and police force, which would theoretically make the mission more efficient. In reality, it only works if there is a strong enough national political will to change the way the country is run, which seems to be very difficult to achieve in Lebanon. One could use the functions of mediation and facilitation of political dialogue, a role that is increasingly central to the United Nations menu. I just do not believe that Lebanese politicians are ready for such an effort.

So, while some humanitarian aid is being provided and internal political cooling is expected, I fear that Lebanon will join the group of countries that the Security Council's inertia regularly puts in the freezer of conflicts.

 

 

 

 

The UN Charter and its long history

75 years ago, visionary leaders have signed the UN Charter and initiated what they thought would be a world without major wars. Their dream has not been fully realised but the Charter remains a solid pillar of the international order. We cannot discuss international affairs without referring to it. And the UN System is still around and doing important things in some key areas, such as peacekeeping, humanitarian and development assistance, and the promotion of justice and human rights. It could do much more, no doubt. But it is not easy, because of the deep antagonisms that currently exist within the Security Council and the lack of support for multilateral solutions, an approach that is particularly strong in Washington and Moscow. This unfavourable reality might change as we go into 2021, but the shift might not be as deep and wide as some expect. In my view, the best option is to bet on a stronger voice coming from the system itself. Experience has taught me that when the UN leaders opt for an independent and principled approach, they regain the initiative and augment their credibility. For that to happen, they must think about the function they are supposed to perform and less about themselves.

It is true we live an extraordinary complex moment. But the 75 years of presence in the world affairs remind us that history is long and can be better than the difficulties and the pessimism of the times.

The Europeans and the Sahel: a fake dialogue

A ministerial meeting of the International Coalition for the Sahel was held on Friday, 12 June 2020 and co-chaired by Mauritania, the EU and France.

The Sahel is going through enormous challenges. Therefore, an initiative like this conference can only be considered as positive. The problem is, however, that the emphasis was basically placed on the security dimensions, without a proper discussion about the human rights issues and the poor governance that prevails in much of the region. The armed forces of the G5 Sahelian countries – Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Mauritania, and Niger – are weak, except for the Chadian ones, and have a questionable record in terms of human rights. The weaknesses are ignored by the European partners and the human rights dimensions are always absent from the debate. Besides that, there has been a proliferation of militia groups, particularly in Burkina Faso. They are supported by the national governments and the experience has shown that they have become part of the problem

The Europeans, led by the French, are not fully sincere when discussing the Sahel situation. Their dialogue with the Sahelian leaders is not frank. It is too formal, full of niceties. It does not touch the root causes of the ongoing conflicts. And without frankness, there is no way the fast deteriorating situation can be addressed. It will continue to worsen.

Power politics

Politics is obviously about controlling the power of governance. And such power must be played with the aim of managing conflicts, finding a balance between different and contradictory interests, as well as to create alliances and to open opportunities for as many people as possible. Then, we can say we have a progressive approach to politics.

One step in the right direction

The Iranian leadership has shown restraint. The attack against two military camps that accommodate deployed American service men was surgical, in order to avoid an escalation of the situation at this stage. That was a wise move. The American leadership responded to it with wisdom as well.

That could be seen as encouraging. However, it is too early to draw any definitive conclusion. One thing is the direct response from the Iranian military and political establishment, another is the way irregular groups can act as part of the feud.

The fact of the matter is that Iran cannot engage in conventional conflict with the US. Its military budget is a tiny grain of sand when compared with the US. Washington spends in about 9 days what the Iranians budget for a full year. We are therefore talking about two different worlds. For the tiny player, the options are clear: either play
 it down or make use of non-conventional means, which are cheap and can be very impactful. I really hope the Iranians will choose the first option. Much better for them and all of us.

What next in the Persian Gulf Region?

Regarding the killing of its star general, Iran might be envisaging an asymmetric response – meaning, through non-conventional means, making use of all kinds of irregular groups and covert operatives. I guess it would be a tit for tat, an eye for an eye move, an assassination attempt comparable to what happen to their man in Baghdad. They would consider that a measured response, a limited act of revenge.

I am afraid they would try to implement such an intent. They must be firmly and promptly advised not to pursue such a line. It would be a very serious mistake, as things stand now. The US would consider such strike as both escalatory and a trigger for a campaign of massive retribution. It would be like opening the gates of hell.

That’s why major international players must move fast in terms of re-opening the dialogue avenues. EU countries could play a major role if they dare to decide to pursue such an endeavour. It ought to be a well-publicised initiative, to help the Iranians to save face, combined with an extremely confidential and prudent set of moves.

It is a realistic possibility. It just requires the appropriate leadership at the EU level, people that could be accepted by both by the US President and the Iranian leaders.  

Poor democracy

For many opportunistic politicians, the truth is a MIA – missing in action. Values have been kicked aside, in today’s partisan disputes. The politicians do not want to recognise the facts if those facts play against them and their political friends. It is more than just lying. It is deep bad faith, and no shame. It is to negate the evidence and logical dimension of the facts. In the end, that creates deep divisions, extreme rancour and an immense discredit of everything political. With time, it might lead to violent action as well.

It is very worrying as a new trend.

We have now daily examples of that, in our democracies. And as I wrote yesterday, our democratic systems are therefore continuously undermined. And our societies are becoming more extreme instead of more harmonious.

To talk to a political bully?

In politics, we tend to forget that to be principled is different from being dogmatic.

A principled leader knows the goal posts, keeps in mind the values that must be respected, and, because of that, he or she can engage in a negotiation. The dogmatic one is just a bully, a political ruffian. He can only operate from what he sees as a position of force, even when such position is no more than an illusion. The bully lives in a fantasy world and sees himself at the centre of it. To engage in a dialogue with such a person is a lost of time, unless it is just a tactical move to regain the initiative.

A deteriorating situation around Kashmir

One of the most militarised borders in the world is the one between India and Pakistan. Men and the most sophisticated means of control stand of both sides of the line. The tension level is always very high, close to open conflict. Unfortunately, these days it is even closer. We are witnessing an extreme delicate crisis between the two countries. The reason is once again the dispute and the unresolved situation around Kashmir. I do not think we, in Europe, should take sides. But we should advise both countries to lower the pressure. We should express our deep concern with the current escalation of the conflict. And appeal to China to remain out of the problem. By taking sides with Pakistan, the Chinese are not playing the constructive role they should be playing in the region. That is not the Chinese foreign policy President Xi Jinping has pledged he would follow.

The Korean Day

Today’s front-page news is about the meeting between President Trump and Chairman Kim Jong-Un. And it can be summarised in two words: bold and positive. The US President takes a good chunk of the credit because the initiative came from his side. But the North Korean Leader – and the President of South Korea, Moon Jae-in – must equally be recognised.

Conflict resolution never follows a straight line. In the Korean case, after decades of confrontation and impasse, one should not be surprised to see the route following some unexpected turns. That was the case today.

Now, both sides have to transform the positive move they took into concrete negotiations and clear benchmarks. The benchmarks must be about confidence-building measures. They concern both Koreas and the Americans, above all. But they should seek to tranquilise the Japanese and the Chinese as well.

It would be a mistake to be over optimistic. But it would also be a serious failure not to accept that today’s event opens the door for serious discussions. The leaders have created hope. Now, they must sustain it.

The UN and the current crises

The United Nations is always required to be politically smart. That’s the way I saw it, when performing the responsibilities that had been assigned to me. And that’s what I still believe to be the best approach. Smart means above all to be able to say what must be said but with the words that build trust and show concern. Timidity is not the best road to achieve results and guaranty the necessary credibility.

I mention it because today I had to state that things must get better. If the UN remains basically inspired by risk aversion, it will keep pushing itself to the margins of the key current issues.

The Member States must be reminded, as often as the opportunity arises and as it is authorised by the UN Charter and by the history of the organisation, that they ought to support the central role the UN is supposed to play in case of international crises and conflicts. They should also be helped to keep in mind – and act accordingly – that any conflict resolution situation and peacebuilding effort require a comprehensive response. The UN System has the know-how to provide comprehensiveness. And the System must say it loud and clear. It should also smartly – diplomatically – challenge those leaders who keep betting on a security solution to complex crises. A security response, even a powerful one, is just a tool. It is not the master key.

Mali and its deep national crisis

This weekend there was another massacre in Mali. This time, the victims were ethnic Dogon villagers living in the central region of the country. It was another tit-for-tat action by another ethnic group, linked to the pastoralist way of life.

The country is moving into a deeper crisis. It all started in 2012, with jihadist radicals operating in the North. Now, it is a more complex situation that combines violence inspired on religious extremism with inter-community ferocious clashes and all types of banditry. To see it as mere Islam-inspired extremism is completely erroneous.

Confronted with such a grave situation, the international community, both through bilateral arrangements and the presence of UN and EU forces, has put most of the emphasis on military operations. A good number of military and police forces have been sent to Mali. That is, in my opinion, unbalanced as a response. It is a hammer approach to an extremely complex political situation.

The UN Security Council will be discussing Mali in the next few days. My message to the members of the Council is very simple: adopt a more political view of the conflict, not just a military-based line. Explore ways of promoting dialogue and joint projects between the ethnic groups of Mali. Have a hard look at economic development. Look at the way the national government addresses inclusiveness and good governance and be frank with the leaders. As friends, we must tell them, in diplomatic but clear words, that they ought to change the way they govern the country. It is there, in the governance area,  that we can find the beginning of a solution to a crisis that, otherwise, will continue to get worse.

Maduro and Guaidó must accept mediation

Venezuela remains at the top of today’s international agenda. People on both sides of the conflict are convinced that the solution to the current national crisis must come out of an open confrontation. That’s where we are now. It would be a serious mistake. The country is deeply divided. Violence can only lead to death and destruction. It will not address the deep causes of conflict.

I continue to insist on dialogue through mediation. Both leaders must accept this approach. The work of the international community should focus on convincing Nicolas Maduro and Juan Guaidó to accept an agenda for dialogue. This is an urgent task to be accomplished.

Unfortunately, the UN is not in a position to play a role, for reasons that I mentioned in my previous post. The UN Secretariat is afraid of Donald Trump. It is paralysed. It cannot master the courage to tell President Trump that there is no other way out but through a conflict resolution process. Through peace.

The European Union has excluded itself from the solution. It has taken sides.

The Latin American States have also aligned themselves with one position or the other. They are too close to the conflict to be impartial.

The only Latin American country that has remained neutral is Mexico. It could be part of an international mediation group. The other two States I see as able of mediating and facilitating are Switzerland and the Vatican.

My proposal is to encourage the Swiss to take the lead and get the other two countries on board. They would approach Maduro and Guaidó to obtain their commitment to the process. They could get it. Particularly if the mediation is accompanied by a serious effort to provide humanitarian aid to the people of Venezuela. True humanitarian aid, of course.

The Hanoi autocrats

The outcome of the Hanoi meeting – no agreement, not even a joint final lunch, let alone a joint statement – should be seen as a reminder that diplomacy is a complex and lengthy process. It cannot just be reduced to two strong men meeting together. Moreover, when these men are markedly narcissistic leaders, well known for their inability to listen to advisors and other common mortals.

President Trump and Chairman Kim should only meet when all the preparatory work has been completed and every line of any draft agreement is ready to be blessed. The negotiations should not be directly and personally undertaken by these two autocrats. (If you prefer, call them rulers…).

Their meeting can only take place when there is a landmark to be announced or as a final step in the process. Then, they sit together, offer all the possible photo opportunities, and give credibility and trust to the agreement achieved by their respective negotiators.

The only problem is that both leaders are unique cases. They only trust their own judgement like any disastrous strongman we have known in the history books.

Venezuela needs a credible mediation process

There are a few crisis situations in the world that must be seen as requiring urgent attention. Venezuela is certainly one of them. And, in terms of response, mediation is the word. It is necessary to find a mediation mechanism that could be accepted by both sides, meaning the Maduro camp and the Guaidó supporters.

Nicolás Maduro has asked the Pope to lead such mediation. It is true that the Catholic Church could play a facilitating role. But the other side has not expressed the same kind of appeal. Basically, they believe that Maduro´s presidency is not legitimate and, therefore, he must go without any concession being made. That position should be helped to evolve as rapidly as possible.

The United Nations could also be approached. Yet, I think Maduro sees the UN as too close to the Western interests. In the circumstances, the UN Secretary-General should take the initiative and be in personal contact with both leaders. The UN has a lot of experienced people in the field of mediation. And it could also work closely with the Vatican and offer a join platform for negotiations. Countries in the EU should send a message about the UN’s potential.

It’s equally critical that Maduro understands that there is a way forward for him and his family. The other side must leave a gate open for a dignified solution. It’s a mistake to try to push Maduro and his camp against the wall. That would make any bridging effort fail and it could easily bring mass violence instead a negotiated solution.

The mediation agenda would be defined by the parties. That’s how it should be. But I can guess it would certainly include issues such as the shape of the political transition, who would chair it, the organization of credible elections, the role of the armed forces and the police, as well as amnesty matters.

Venezuela needs a domestic settlement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On matters of War

War without a concomitant, serious, persistent search for a political solution to the conflict is not morally justified. It´s unacceptable state terror. It´s a crime against the people. 

The reform of the UN Security Council

Acts of war and drawn-out conflicts are among the key factors that undermine the authority of UN Security Council. Actually, they have a major negative impact on the Council. And they are in open contradiction with the positions stated by some key members of the UN that keep repeating that it is important to improve the functioning of the Council and abide by its decisions.

This reminds me that the reform of the Security Council is not just about revisiting the issue of its membership. That one is already an impossible goal. However, it seems easier to achieve than the issues related to improving the Council’s capacity to resolve conflicts that are directly related to the strategic interests of its permanent members. Or the Council's approach to long lasting impasses. What could be the accepted doctrine on intervening in that type of intractable conflicts?

To say thank you to Ban Ki-moon

Ban Ki-moon has left the UN Secretariat building today, at the end of his second mandate.

He spent the last ten years at the UN helm. I worked directly under him during a few years and can´t let him go without saying that he has always tried to do his best as Secretary-General.

People have criticised his low profile style, his communication skills, and his indecision in some critical moments, and so on. But they have forgotten he comes from a very different cultural and civilizational background, one that is more inclined to pursue dialogue and harmony instead of our Western way that puts a premium on personal confrontation. And many have also been blind to his tremendous efforts on climate change, on improving the work of the Security Council, on gender, the protection of civilians, and on enhancing the coordination with the regional organisations, such as the African Union, the EU and NATO. He has managed to keep the bridges open with the key members of the UN Security Council and that´s in itself a major achievement.

We should be mindful to the fact that the UN is an extremely complex organisation. It is the meeting point of all the national interests as the member States perceive them. The Secretary-General is caught in that dense web of narrow interests. He has immense authority, it is true, but it is also seen by the States as their top international civil servant. That´s not a very easy position.

I think it is fair to say goodbye to Ban Ki-moon on a positive note.

Guterres as the new UN boss

António Guterres´s swearing-in ceremony took place today. He is now ready to take over from Ban Ki-moon on 1 January 2017. And he has clearly spelled out, in today´s speech, the key priorities he sees for his mandate: first, to augment the UN´s ability to better contribute to the different stages of crisis management; second, to reorganise the system´s development machinery to make it more coherent and have a stronger field presence; third, to reform the UN, with a clear stress on delivery and improved public communication.

He is aware of the many difficulties ahead. For that reason, he underlined the importance he gives to partnering with other institutions and the member states. It is clear the UN should never work on critical issues alone.

Furthermore, all the work should be inspired by the principles that are enshrined in the UN Charter. A values-based approach gives the UN a stronger sense of mission and enhances its credibility.

One of those key values concerns the basic rights of everyone. They should be respected. That´s the foundation of peace and international cooperation.

Some people would call it respecting the dignity of our fellow humans. I think that concept could be understood differently by different people. I prefer to say human rights. They require no interpretation and have no faith-based connotation. It´s just a question of implementing the existing, universally approved principles. They are clearly written in the UN Convention.