António Guterres and the role of the UN Secretary-General

What to expect from the United Nations?

Victor Angelo

 

Charles Michel has just been in Kyiv. The visit followed those of other European leaders, including the presidents of the Parliament, Roberta Metsola, and the Commission, Ursula von der Leyen.

One of the first to make the trip to Kyiv was Peter Maurer, president of the International Committee of the Red Cross, who was in the Ukrainian capital on 16 March at a time when the city was under very close threat. And Pope Francis is said to be preparing a similar trip.

Regardless of the practical results of these trips, their symbolic importance must be recognised. In a conflict situation, the symbolism of certain initiatives is fundamental to reinforce the legitimacy of the cause one of the parties is defending, as well as to underpin its narrative. Legitimacy and narrative are essential in conflicts such as the one in Ukraine, which are taking place under the watchful eye of world public opinion, thanks to the courage of many journalists, Ukrainian and foreign.

Politically, each visit seeks to show solidarity with the country that is the victim of the war of aggression. It is thus underlined that the invasion decided by Vladimir Putin is unacceptable. At the same time, it makes it possible to reaffirm the will to contribute to a political solution to a crisis which can in no way be resolved by force. The time has come to show that the use and abuse of force is no longer accepted as a source of rights on the international stage.

In Maurer's case, it was a question of highlighting the humanitarian dimension. This is the raison d'être of the International Red Cross. Maurer, who has moved on from Kyiv to Moscow, knows that leadership means being tirelessly on the front line and in contact with those in power.

For the United Nations, the humanitarian response should also be a way forward. For two reasons. First, because we are facing a major humanitarian crisis. Second, because it can open the diplomatic bridges needed to mediate the conflict. This has happened so many times without compromising the independence and neutrality of the humanitarian work, whose ultimate goal is to save lives. I have always advocated that there must be a clear separation between humanitarian action and political initiatives. But I have also always advocated that a political process can be built on humanitarian intervention.

It is in this line that the letter sent this week to António Guterres, and signed by a group of about 250 former senior UN officials, fits in. The tragedy unleashed by Putin seriously undermines the political credibility of the United Nations. Based on this concern, the main message of this letter is to call for the maximum personal and visible engagement of the Secretary-General in the search for a solution to the crisis. Given the gravity of the situation, the role gives him the moral authority to do so and requires him to be clear, objective and resolute.

In the view of the signatories, the Secretary-General must repeat loud and clear, and unceasingly, that aggression of this kind violates the international order and dangerously destabilises existing balances.  It is not just a question of condemning the actions of a permanent member of the Security Council. It is essential to express an extraordinary level of concern and, at the same time, to show an insurmountable and tireless back-and-forth dynamic between the capitals that count. Firstly, to insist on a cessation of hostilities - of Russian aggression, as it were - and then to propose a peace plan.  A plan that allows the victims to be compensated, those responsible for the aggression and war crimes to be punished and the process of reforming the Security Council to be initiated. Basically, the challenge is twofold: to promote peace and to adapt the UN to today's world.

In signing the letter, I had three questions in mind. First, about the complexity of the function of Secretary General of the United Nations, which is, above all, an eminently political task. Second, about the need to have an up-to-date global organization that corresponds to today's world and the challenges ahead. Third, about good leadership, which requires a very astute balance between prudence and courage.

PS: After receiving the message and seeing how the Russian side reacted to it, Guterres moved and wrote to Putin and Zelensky.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 22 April 2022)

New era, new questions

Have the big questions changed because of Covid-19? What are the essential questions we all face today? Is there a new ranking in terms of global priorities? Do we see global threats differently? Can we keep trying to respond to shared problems through nation-based measures? Are we asking ourselves the right questions?

Poor leadership

Europe is again building borders and walls. The leaders decided this week that the external borders of the Union will remain closed for another month or so. I see this decision as an inept response to the problem. Airports and land passage points could be equipped to check travellers’ temperatures and identify the individuals that might require further health scrutiny. Worse, the internal borders between the Member States continue to be blocked for people’s travel. And the governments cannot agree on a timetable and a phased approach to deal with that. There is no news about the matter, besides the closure. That is the best way to feed the nationalistic feelings. It is also one of the direct roads towards a fragmented Europe. Populists must feel excited.

I am shocked by the lack of coordination within the EU. I am also amazed by the timidity of the European institutions’ leaders. They are silent and so afraid of proposing anything. They have become the obedient functionaries of the national leaders and little else.

The world’s recovery, as well as the European one, calls for renewed cooperation, complementary and strategic alliances. We should be debating that in the G20 or a similar forum. All that is yet to be seen. There is no international conference being prepared to agree on a framework for action. No leader speaks on behalf of a greater project, of a different future, of anything else but of his or her own national square mile. It is disappointing and more, it is the wrong approach to build the post-covid world.

Some national leaders and some published opinion have now concluded we cannot depend on China or elsewhere when it comes to medical items, including masks. They put the blame on the Chinese and on the corporations that have established their workshops in the Far East or in India. That is an excuse. I do not accept it. The fact of the matter is that we forgot the concept of strategic health reserves. The national health services were not given enough means and attention. They have been undersupplied; the emergency stores were depleted. It is so much so that in Belgium some of the initial health supplies came from a big bank, that had understood early enough what was going on and created a substantial reserve of masks and so on. That happened with other governments as well. Politicians forgot the old and wise adage that one of the key roles of the government is to foresee impending crises and be prepared for them. To govern is to predict.

Well, the new adage, the one that is now being applied, is different: to govern is to react, a day at a time.

Beyond the facts

Today I give everyone a break. There is no writing about the pandemic. No word about the crisis millions are facing. No mention of the economic collapse we are witnessing. Let’s be light today. It’s better for our own mental health.

A new ball game

I find the current realities in international affairs a great opportunity to re-think the way the global political architecture should be organised, the existing alliances and their worth, the responses to conflict and civil wars, and the issues of leadership and responsibility. We are witnessing a new play. Its rules are yet to be decided. But first, we should draw some key lessons from what is taking place in front of our eyes.

IMF and the EU's ambivalence

The best people that could compete for the leadership of the IMF, following Christine Lagarde's departure, are not from Europe. They are from Mexico – Agustin Carsten, who is currently the General Manager of the International Bank of Settlements –, from Singapore –Tharman Shanmugaratnam, Chairman of the Singapore Monetary Authority and Senior Minister –, and from India – Raghuram Rajan, former Governor of the Indian Central Bank.  These three are head and shoulders above the names the European are putting forward as their candidates. In a better system of global governance, one of them should be the next Managing Director of the IMF.

But, again, it will be a European. This has been the game for the last seven decades. The US gets the top job at the World Bank and Europe goes for the IMF. The European will be chosen because of EU’s political considerations – the balance between the different regions of the Union – and that will be it. It might end up by being someone competent. But certainly, if we give credence to the short list that is under consideration, an intellectual pygmy compared with the names I mention above, from other parts of the globe.

This would have been an opportunity for the EU to show to the world that it means business when it talks about the reform and the strengthening of the institutions of global governance. But the EU leaders do not want to walk the talk. They prefer a narrower view and respond to their EU internal politics first.

It is a bit of a shame, isn’t it?

When the generals write open letters

Over 120 US flag officers – generals and admirals – wrote an open letter yesterday to remind the key leaders of Congress and the top people in the Trump administration in charge of foreign affairs, defence and security that national security is a complex issue. It calls for a comprehensive approach that goes well beyond the military means and the armed response.

In today´s world, national security and the protection of key strategic interests are above all done through means of healthy diplomatic relations, efficient development cooperation and other external programmes that combat poverty, exclusion, disease and bad governance.

As such, these top commanders urge the Administration and the representatives of the American people to keep the investment of public resources on those programmes that fall under the State Department and have been designed and improved over time in order to more effectively prevent conflict in other parts of the globe.

This is a position that calls for wide support. It is the modern way of looking at international relations and of promoting peace and stability. Its relevance is even greater because it is stated by people that know about matters of war and peace. They understand the limitations of the use of armed forces. They are also people who have seen the world. They know what they are talking about.

The link to the letter is the following: 

http://www.usglc.org/2017/02/27/over-120-retired-generals-admirals-on-state-and-usaid-budget-now-is-not-the-time-to-retreat/

The UN of the future

This year there will be a lot of ink invested on who should be the next Secretary-General of the UN. We will see many opinion pieces on the subject. My point is that the debate should be, above all, on the kind of UN we need to have in the future. The choice of its next leader would be then the second layer of the debate. In both cases, we have to be clear about what is possible and try to push the agenda as far as that. 

The heavy skies above the G20 Annual Summit

G20 annual summits have become a meaningless ritual. The one taking place today and tomorrow in the delightful city of Brisbane, Australia, is no exception. Just a few grandiose statements and a handful of leaders that are pretty preoccupied with their own home problems. The statements on global issues are just the usual staff, prepared by the aides and delivered for the gallery.

But this year´s meeting takes place at a time of great tensions. These tensions are now much bigger than the dramatic situations in the Middle East or in parts of Africa. To their complexities we should add new ones, in other corners of the world. These are dangerous times. One cannot ignore the seriousness of the dispute with Russia. And one should not ignore the potential for armed conflict in East Asia.

And these new realities were there in Brisbane and have made the atmosphere of the summit much heavier. Interestingly, Brisbane is used to heavy skies. So, its choice as the venue for the 2015 Summit of the G20 ended up by being rather symbolic.