Christmas reflection

Peace. Dignity. Equality. Planet.

Victor Angelo

 

On this Christmas Eve, it seems appropriate to recall the current motto of the United Nations: "Peace, dignity and equality on a healthy planet". It is a call for the implementation of policies that place people and nature at the centre of public interventions. It expresses well the wishes that I would like to leave here.

We live in a complex reality, full of real concerns and dangers. The UN itself appears to many to have been weakened and marginalized. In this context, it is easy to lose hope, to confuse realism with pessimism, and to fall into an attitude of every man for himself, each behind his own walls. There is also the temptation to recover the growth that the pandemic caused to be lost with economic programmes based on unsustainable recipes. In other words, without considering the long-term consequences, the excessive debt that will burden future generations, the environmental commitments, and the need to transform the way we live and how we relate to other societies, especially the less developed ones. Electoralism turns democracy into an exercise of political opportunism.

Russian demands and military manoeuvres are the most immediate threat to peace. I wrote about this last week. Since then, Putin's stated conditions - and the language used - have become even more categorical and unacceptable. And military preparations have intensified. We are two days away - 26 December - from the thirtieth anniversary of the demise of the Soviet Union. A historic moment, seen by Putin as the great tragedy of millenarian Russia.  

What are the reasons behind the present Russian escalation?

That is the big question, far beyond the old tape of the narrative about NATO's eastward expansion. The most plausible answer will be to ask heaven and earth, to get a no, and thus create a pretext to annex part of Ukraine. And, at the same time, reaffirm the determination and strength of the Kremlin.

But what is Putin's strategic objective?

Strengthening his control of domestic politics will not be a sufficient explanation, even if we recognise that there is a marked erosion of his popularity. It has been seen: last September's parliamentary elections were a massive exercise in deceit and coercion to hide the extent of popular discontent.

It could then be an attempt to paralyse NATO by dividing it, showing its weaknesses. At the same time, it will send a signal to the Baltic countries. And still, that one does not make policy in the immediate vicinity of Russia without the green light from the Kremlin. 

Whatever the intention, we must insist on peaceful coexistence in Europe. On mutual concessions. As indeed in other parts of the world. In Syria, at war for more than ten years. In Palestine, in the Sahel, in Central Africa, in Ethiopia, in Myanmar, in Yemen. Today is the day to mention again these and other places that have been so afflicted.

Dignity and equality mean respecting the basic rights of every person, as defined in the 1949 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the additional conventions and protocols. The proclamation that "all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights" and have "the right to life, liberty and security of person" applies to humanity, regardless of the specific contexts of each nation.

I recognize that the vision that inspired the Universal Declaration places the individual at the centre of rights, while in certain cultures the well-being of the community is presented as having primacy. In one case and in the other, it is about people, the protection of their lives and their creativity. There are no cultural differences there.

On the planet, a little more than a month after the COP26, just a few words to share a thought of solidarity with the thousands of victims of the recent natural disasters. The floods in South Sudan, with entire regions submerged and misery transformed into despair. The typhoons in the Philippines. The tornadoes in the USA. Extreme climatic phenomena are becoming more and more overwhelming. Let us remember, in relation to this great challenge and the others, that this must be the time of rebirth.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 24 December 2021)

Daring times

Many thinkers in our part of the world are advocating for a changed world. They are convinced the current global health crisis is a golden opportunity to build a more reasonable future. On the same vein, the UN Secretary-General is also talking about a “better world”.

I certainly would support an approach that would reduce the fragilities many people are exposed to and respect the environmental balance we all know it is needed. The big question is, however, how can we do it with the same old leaders? If there is no change in leadership, the chances we will see a transformation are extremely limited. Therefore, the point is to challenge the current leadership.

How feasible is that?

My question should not be seen as giving up. I am convinced it is important to draw lessons from the crisis and battle for them to influence the next choice of options. We are facing the first global crisis of the modern times. This is a global world with a global shock and a common set of deep problems. We have in our hands a unique opportunity to think differently and act otherwise. The UN should take the lead and set up a set of proposals for the consideration of the world leaders. It might not be heard to at the beginning. But it could rapidly generate enough popular traction and then the political leaders would have to take those ideas into account.

This is no time to be short in ambition and frightened by crazy people in power. It is just the opposite that must happen. It is time to show we can respond to the call of the future.   

Times of change

We all agree the economic recovery is pressing. Truly, we are confronted with extreme urgency. There are too many people without income, or with a reduced one, too many companies close to insolvency, plenty of sectors working below capacity. The economy is seriously disrupted, in many countries, including in the EU states. Speed is, therefore, the key concern, in the minds of the politicians as well as in the private sector.

Then, a number of intellectuals have come forward and said this post-pandemic time is the big opportunity to change direction and make the economy greener and people-friendly. I agree with their proposals. They are not all of them entirely realistic, but they are well-meaning and the right type of utopia we need to make this world a better place. It would be a mistake not to give attention to them.

There will be some changes, for sure. More people will be working from home, there might be less commuting, and we will witness a lot of pressure from the politicians for the entrepreneurs to bring home some of the investments made far away. There will be a new impetus to move on to a greater share of renewable sources of energy.

But the urgency might upset some of these proposals. Jobs, investments, and revenue generation will be the key criteria for decision-making. And they might not coincide with the new economy we would like to see. But there will be progress in that direction. People are coming out of this crisis with a different approach to life and their own priorities. That is why I think it is important to keep insisting on progressive modifications to the way we produce and trade goods, and a new approach to the worth of some services the pandemic has shown to be of essential importance to our daily lives. 

  

There will be a process of change. Not as much as we would like, but we should not give up. This is an appropriate time to talk about a more balanced world.

Plenty of hope

During the on-going crisis, a major one, lots of people have shown the better side of themselves. It has happened in various walks of life, from the health professionals and personnel to the common citizen, that has accepted the confinement with patience and discipline. That is very encouraging. They are certainly ready for a more reasonable approach to the future.

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.  

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.

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.

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.

European energy policy: a priority

Energy remains high in the list of strategic factors. Countries that matter pay a lot of attention to the issue. The U.S., for instance, managed to address it by investing heavily on shale rock exploration. They will become, within the next five years, the key exporter of oil, overtaking Saudi Arabia and Russia. Moreover, they are already a major exporter of liquefied natural gas (LNG). All that is fossil energy. Not what people would call environmentally friendly.

Europe must take a different route. At present, the EU imports 55% of all the energy it consumes, which means around €270 billion per year.  The EU imports 87% of crude oil it consumes. It is time to invest much more money on clean sources of energy, on diversification and on energy efficiency. Including on better performing engines and engines that can run on alternative sources of energy, such as hydrogen.

Europe must pay special attention to its energy policy. That includes the links between energy use and the environment and matters related to our own strategic sovereignty.

Notre-Dame and the response of the wealthy

Many people have shown sincere astonishment and expressed deep shock when told that a small group of French billionaires and some big corporations have pledged close to one billion Euros to finance the restoration of the Notre-Dame Cathedral. People compare such largesse to the poor response given to recent humanitarian appeals.

The gap is indeed abysmal and difficult to understand.

I do not pretend to know the minds of the very rich. But I have met a few. And they are indeed much more willing to give money to the arts, the protection of the natural world, the advancement of scientific research, and other broad issues than to alleviate poverty and address social issues like the plight of the homeless or drug addiction. Patron of the arts is a tradition that comes from the aristocratic times. It occupies a very high position in the status ladder.

Moreover, it is also my reading that many of those who became outrageously wealthy believe that poor people are responsible for their own fate. They kind of share the moral high ground those who have been successful in life love to place themselves. From those heights, they look at everyone else as people who have not been able to create their own life opportunities or have just accepted their condition without fighting back. Many rich people – and I am only referring to those who are generous enough to pay for big causes, I am not talking about the greedy and the corrupt – are convinced that poverty is an individual responsibility. They do not say it loudly. But they think people should have tried harder. They also believe that the social security systems are good enough to take care of those in dire need.

I am not trying to justify their approach, please be sure of that. I am just sharing an interpretation. My point is simple. If we do not comprehend the reasons, we cannot contribute to a meaningful change of the behaviour.

My reading of the G20 summit (2017)

On the recent G20, the negative issues on the table, either openly or coated in diplomatic words, could be summarised as follows:

- The risks linked to international uncontrolled massive migrations;

- The US withdrawal from the Paris accord on Climate Change

- New trends towards trade protectionism

- The attempts to side-line key international organisations, including the UN, the WTO and the Human Rights Council.

The positives, as I see them:

- Establishment of a new fund, to be administered by the WB, to promote the entrepreneurship of African women; USD 325 million.

- The review of steel overcapacity issue and the recommendation that a plan of action should be prepared by Nov. 2017 to address this most divisive economic and trade issue.

- More coordination on the fight against terrorism and violent extremism.

- The leaders have shown they want to find a common ground on a number of issues.

On climate change and the EU

I spent part of the week driving across Spain and France. And I could see the impact of an exceptionally hot summer period. It was particularly shocking in the Vallée de la Loire: many of the farms showed the effect of a very long and warm dry spell. They are usually green at this time of the year. That was not the case as I could see. And I thought about climate change and the critical importance of getting last year´s Paris Treaty ratified by a good number of countries without further delay.

As such, the news coming today from the EU ministers of environment is good. The European countries decided to move ahead with the ratification process. We should salute the decision. And take advantage of it to say that the EU is still very capable of doing the right things. Together. 

The G20 summit is appreciated

I am one of those who is convinced that meetings such as the G20 are important. It takes us nowhere to have a cynical view about these types of summits.

This year´s edition is about to begin in China. The leaders might have serious differences of opinion on key issues. There might be accrued tension between China and the West. And some opportunistic views against globalisation. But is wise to give the leaders a chance to meet on a regular basis. These platforms put pressure on them to reach compromises. And to take action together. All that contributes to a less tense international scene.

On the eve of tomorrow´s meeting, China and the US have decided to ratify the Paris agreement on Climate Change. That agreement is critical for our future. And we can only commend President Xi and President Obama for the move. They have sent a very strong signal and tremendously contribute to enhance the G20´s image.

The signal should now be picked by the Europeans. They must move very fast with their own ratification. There is no real reason for further delays. That will be good for the environment as well for their popularity at home.

COP21: good news!

Laurent Fabius, the French Foreign Minister, has been an excellent chair of the Paris Climate Change Conference. Tonight´s global agreement on an action plan is in many ways due to his wise leadership of the COP21 meeting. As we celebrate the agreement that has been reached we should also recognise the work the minister has done during the last two weeks.

And this is good news for the world, for the future and also good news for the French government. François Hollande´s government has been a weak player on the European front. Today´s success brings a little bit of lustre to Hollande and his team. That´s important as the prestige of France is one of the key elements that contributes to a more balanced Europe. 

There is some hope in Paris

There is a fresh breeze of optimism at the beginning of climate change conference. The world leaders’ meeting of today heard quite a number of nice words about the possibility of an agreement by the end of COP 21.

Let´s hope that will be the case. And that some kind of an accepted monitoring mechanism is put in place to keep track of the commitments made by more than 180 States, those that have already prepared a national plan on renewable energy.

The final document might not be a binding agreement. It might be just a shared pledge. But the monitoring system will help a lot in terms of naming and shaming those countries that might get off-track.

It is also important that the major world corporations be invited to commit themselves to the goals of carbon reduction and to invest on cleaner production and commercial processes. They can play a major role. Moreover, by going green they might be able to make some additional bucks. There is indeed a lot of money to be made during the next few years of new technologies, on research and development, and on marketing blue and green products and services.

Celebrating the United Nations and the entire UN System

Time to celebrate the UN and its 70 years of efforts in favour of peace, human rights, development and international cooperation, including in the areas of environment and protection of the world´s heritage.

Time to be positive and commit oneself to a more effective organization, a complex one for that matter but able to perform in the midst of so many national interests and contradictions.