Asking AI what is my position about sanctions against criminal States

 Based on available information from his public commentary and his background as a former UN official, Victor Ângelo's opinion on diplomatic sanctions is nuanced. He generally views diplomatic and economic sanctions as a legitimate tool to pressure "rogue states" and hold them accountable for their actions. However, he also recognizes their limitations and potential problems.

His perspective is shaped by his decades of experience in the UN, where sanctions were frequently used as a tool of international diplomacy.

The Nuance of Sanctions

• Targeted Sanctions are Preferred: Ângelo, like many in the international community, sees targeted sanctions as more effective than broad-based ones. For example, he has noted how the UN Security Council has imposed targeted sanctions, such as travel bans on key individuals, to make clear the political price of unacceptable actions. This approach is intended to pressure a regime without causing undue hardship to the general population.

• Symbolism and Geopolitical Impact: He has also pointed to the symbolic and strategic value of sanctions. Sanctions can be a way for the international community to signal its collective disapproval and to isolate a rogue state.

• Limitations of Sanctions: Ângelo understands that sanctions are not a guaranteed solution. He has recognized that states with significant resources, such as oil and natural gas, or those with strong emerging alliances, may be less vulnerable to financial pressure.

In his analysis, he often highlights the complexity of international relations, where a single tool like sanctions may not be enough. He advocates for a comprehensive approach that includes a mix of diplomacy, containment, and engagement with a country's neighbors to address the behavior of rogue states.

Vladimir Putin, Ukraine and all of us

When fascism enters our homes

Victor Ângelo

 

In its essence, the fascism of today coincides with that of the last century: in the existence of an autocrat, in the dictatorial power, in the ultra-nationalism, in the continuous exaltation of the homeland and traditional values, from religion to family, and in an inhuman vision of the use of force, either to maintain the internal order and crush the opposition, or to create problems abroad. The dictator manipulates the narrative of his people's past with glorious words, in an idealised way, as if the nation had a historical and civilisational, as well as divine, mission. He sees himself as the personification of the noble national destiny. He places himself on a pedestal above everyone else. He treats the members of his immediate circle theatrically, with arrogance, cynicism, and an iron hand, in order to obtain subservience and flattery. On the international stage, he only respects the rules that suit him. It seeks to impose fear but ends up being treated with mistrust and aversion. Its only foreign allies are found in the puppet elites of vassal countries, in extreme right-wing movements, in others who advocate totalitarian modes of governance, or even in fools.

Fascist dictators are a danger to democracies as well as to international peace. Indeed, as Vladimir Putin reminds us today, fascism leads to war. 

Putin is at the head of a great nation, which throughout history has made a remarkable contribution to European civilisation and culture. A heroic people, who played a decisive role in the defeat of Nazism. A people that belongs fully to the "European house", the great strategic partnership between the EU and Russia, dreamt of in 2003, with the ambition of building an area of freedom and cooperation from Lisbon to Vladivostok.

We are now a long way from that dream. The nightmare come true of the violation of Ukraine's sovereignty, its invasion, the menacing language used by Putin, the verbal threats against our part of Europe and the unacceptable demands, place all of us Europeans in a very serious confrontation. Conflicts, once started, usually get out of control. We know when they start, but we do not know when they end, nor what the damage, the level of suffering and the consequences will be. Not to mention the internal policy Putin conducts, it must be clear that the external one, towards Ukraine and his country's European neighbourhood, is unacceptable and criminal. It is completely outside established norms.

It is time to return to the international legal framework, which has been built since 1945. In that sense, the statement made by António Guterres, on the events of this week, is highly significant and courageous. It will go down in the record of his tenure as a memorable moment. Guterres said, "The decision of the Russian Federation to recognise the so-called "independence" of certain areas of Donetsk and Lugansk is a violation of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine." He added that the decision contradicts the principles of the United Nations Charter, as well as the General Assembly Declaration on Relations of Friendship and Cooperation between States and the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice. He repeated the same words again, in a deeply concerned manner once the invasion was consummated.

Never in the history of the UN had a Secretary-General dared to be so clear in condemning a large-scale illegality practised by one of the permanent members of the Security Council. U Thant, who was in charge of the organisation between 1961 and 1971, referred several times to the United States and its unjust war in Vietnam, but did not go that far.

Meanwhile, the EU must respond to this immense crisis with all the diplomatic, financial, and economic arsenal at its disposal. And with a strengthening of its defence architecture.  The aim is to isolate, weaken, punish the dictatorship in power in Moscow and force a return to peace. At the time of writing the measures that will be adopted are not yet known. They should, however, make it clear that a fascist, warlike regime in Europe is morally and politically unacceptable. It will not pass, not now, not ever again. 

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 25 February 2022)

 

 

Our dictators and our democracies

In any democratic society, as we understand them in our part of the world, to rule by decree or by Presidential Orders can only be accepted in exceptional circumstances. Besides that, it becomes a worrisome practice, that might easily lead to abuse of power and end up as an autocratic way of governing.

The separation of powers is still the best approach to democracy. But we should not forget that it requires an independent, impartial judiciary as well as a legislative chamber that is more than a rubber-stamping body.

Unfortunately, we are seeing the opposite in some of the most powerful Western countries. We stare at Presidents that ignore the institutions and the representative system and govern as if to be in charge means to be campaigning all the time. And we know of Parliaments that act only along partisan lines, with no will to be more than an excellent job opportunity that must be kept by being faithful to the party bosses. Not to mention the judges that are either relics of the past or just too concerned with the public opinion.

There is indeed a crisis of democracy in our countries. And I am not going beyond our corner of the world. In other corners, the situation can be even more dramatic.

The trend is negative and must be stopped

Their power resides on the capacity to build collective fear. In different parts of the world, some governments are taking advantage of the pandemic to create extreme anxiety among their people. Then, they make sure, through all kinds of media platforms, that they are perceived as very decisive, able to take tough decisions to save as many lives as possible. Some of those measures go far beyond the necessary, from a public health perspective. They basically have a political purpose, to strengthen those in power. In addition, such radical measures allow the governments to hide the weakness of their national health systems, their extremely poor capacity to respond to emergencies. The truth is that many governments are just inept and cannot find the balance between an adequate health response and the mitigation of poverty. That incompetence and the political dividends they expect to draw from tough decisions are just ruining their countries. We are going back to a world that will combine despotism, increased inequality, and desperation. Can we accept that trend? The answer must be clear and strong.

A dictator called Viktor Orban

The emergency powers approved yesterday by the Hungarian Parliament are outside the democratic framework that guides the European politics and governance. They allow the Prime Minister, Viktor Orban, to rule by decree as he pleases and for as long as he wants to. He will have the authority to imprison any opponent for years, including journalists, bloggers, human rights activists and whoever he sees as a threat to his leadership. This move must be clearly denounced by the European leaders. It cannot just be mentioned in vague terms, as Ursula von der Leyen did today. It must be spelled out with all letters and with the Prime Minister’s name attached to it. The EU has no place for people like Mr. Orban.

Vladimir Putin is for ever

Vladimir Putin's current term of office ends in 2024. His country’s Constitution stipulates that he cannot run again. He has been in power for 20 years. But today, in the middle of all the sad and worrying news about the coronavirus, we got a nice breeze of fresh air coming from Moscow. The Russian Duma – Parliament – has approved a resolution that opens the way for Mr. Putin to stay in power until 2036. He will be 84 by then. That’s a very nice age for an early retirement from the Russian politics.

Large-scale corruption

Today’s revelations about Isabel dos Santos, the Angolan entrepreneur and the richest woman in Africa, just confirm a few things I keep repeating. 

First, dictatorship and high-level corruption go hand in hand. 

Second, corruption is the key impediment of development and human security. 

Third, European leaders know that corrupted practices are widespread in non-democratic regimes, but they quite often prefer to turn a blind eye on the issue, if there are political or economic interests at play. 

Fourth, global consultancy firms do not mind offering some cover to illegal transfers, if there is money to be made from that. 

Fifth, an independent media is essential to uncover malpractices. And to keep dictators on guard, under watch. 

The EU's position on Iranian matters

As I express my disagreement and concern regarding the decision to execute General Qassem Soleimani, I must also recognise that the regime he spent his life fighting for is an aberration in today’s world.

I acknowledge the rights of the Iranian people to decide about their government and its politics. The problem is that their leaders do not give the people the freedom to choose. The leaders have imposed on the population a religion-based dictatorship, that has all the features of a medieval type of life. The country has become hell on earth, in the name of God. That is unacceptable, in Iran, as well as in the neighbouring countries or anywhere else in the world. And that must be denounced in all kinds of forums. The condemnation is not about religion, it is about making use of religious beliefs to impose a totalitarian regime on people.  

The European approach to such countries must combine pressure on human rights and democratic values with economic restrictions. In addition, it must include serious security measures to avoid those countries’ hostile actions, including the promotion they could make of all kinds of radicalism and religious fanaticism. Our policy must be a delicate mix of firmness, encouragement, dialogue, distance and prudence. In the end, it is about sticks and carrots, but certainly not about drones and bombs. It should also be about helping other countries that want to move away from the influence of those theocratic dictatorships.

This approach is certainly very different from the one President Trump is pursuing. That’s our right and nobody in Washington can challenge it. Secretary Pompeo’s remarks about the role of EU countries – he basically said that key European States have not been supportive enough of the American action – are not welcome. Here, as in other occasions, it is our duty to be clear about our policies towards a very explosive and complex area of the globe. And our policies are not subordinated to the views in Washington, or elsewhere outside the EU.

The crisis the democracy is in

This a time of great political polarisation, in many of the Western democracies. Matters are decided based on party positions, not on truth or on their merits. The exercise of democracy has become like a war. There are only winners and losers, when that’s the approach. There is no room for dialogue and compromise. That is a serious setback for democratic values. And a very fertile ground for the emergence of dictators and their twins, the populist fools. They just must be able to talk to the prejudices shared by many people, as they struggle to carry on with their daily lives.

Democracy and mass communication are major tools. They can be used to promote progress as they can be the instruments to get the most skilled morons into positions of power.

The populism is attacking our democracies

Populist leaders will do anything to keep power. They get to power through lies, manipulation of facts, verbal violence, intrigue and appeals to the most primary instincts of people. They keep using the same tactics once at the top of political food chain. They are then particularly dangerous as they have control over the institutional levers of authority and manage to acquire the support of those in the media that love to be obsequious to dictators and are ready to embark on the same disastrous demagogic train. All of them, leaders and their media acolytes, create a special type of enemy, what they call the elites. Everyone that opposes them, or comes up with different ideas, or talks about the respect for rules, institutions and separation of power, is tagged as an elite. The members of the elite are then called enemies of the people. We hear that accusation being thrown at judges, democratic politicians, professional journalists, competent civil servants, and so on.

All this is not really new. What is new and extremely worrisome is to see this type of unacceptable political behaviour taking ground in our traditionally open and democratic societies. The worm is now in our democratic apple. That’s a major development that needs to be combated with clarity of purpose and extremely effective communications. We must not be perceived as hesitating in front of the populists that are in charge or try to get to power. We must show leadership and moral strength.

TV shows that create the conditions for demagogues to win

People who spend too much time watching soap TV programmes should not be allowed to vote in elections that go beyond the affairs of local administration. This is certainly a shocking statement and of course, I do not mean it. Everyone has and should keep the right to vote. That is what democracy is about. Every vote matter, be it the one coming from a high-level scientist or from a uneducated person.

My initial phrase aims just at opening the debate about the influence of superficial TV shows on people’s views of their country and the world. I am one of those who is convinced that the competition between TV channels is narrowing down people’s capacity to have a full and intelligent view of their surroundings and the world at large. TV shows are contributing to the development of a majority of voters that do not understand what is going on, do not care about the common good and, in the end, become vulnerable to the crude rhetoric of people such as Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Jair Bolsonaro or Rodrigo Duterte, to cite just a few of them.  

These politicians take advantage of such alienation. They are experts at proposing basic answers to complex issues. They know people can identify themselves with a simpler view of things.

The democratic combat is therefore about fighting banality and stupidity on TV. The younger generations are no longer as connected to traditional TV as the older ones. They prefer to make use of their cell phones and get their information through them. It is not always a good option, but in general is better than TV and their ridiculous treatment of the news and minor issues. But older age groups are still very dependent on what they get through the TV channels, in a classical way of accessing information and entertainment. They are the people that need to watch better TV programmes. They also deserve it, as an expression of respect. 

Big corporations should be under pressure to withdraw publicity that is linked to substandard TV shows. That is a way of approaching the matter.

Sometimes, it is necessary to say no

I fear a people that values blind obedience. And history has demonstrated how far blind obedience can take us on the road to tragedy.