Is it possible to reform the United Nations and bring back its key peace role?

A few decision-makers and intellectuals think that the political UN -- read "political", I am not talking about the specialised agencies ---  is something of the XX century, that has lost its relevance and must be re-created or re-invented taking into account the world's new realities. Meaning, they think that the UN secretariat and its departments, as well as the UN Security Council, are unreformable and must be reinvented, taking into consideration the Global South, the new and the emerging superpowers, the increasing role of the regional associations of states, the power of those trillionaire individuals controlling the key social platforms, and also the expectations of the peoples in different parts of the world.

For them, global issues outside peace and security, economic inequalities and human rights, should be dealt either by the specialised agencies or by ad-hoc international conferences and their specific processes. 

Joe Biden and his Middle East mistake

Joe Biden, the Middle East and consistency in politics

Victor Angelo

 

After two days spent in Israel and Palestine, the American President is today in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.  Even having read what Joe Biden wrote in the Washington Post on July 9, to try to justify his voyage, I am one of those who do not agree with the political opportunity of this trip. I see it as a move of mere opportunism.

In the present context of confrontation with Russia, the trip weakens those who use the arguments of respect for international law, democracy and human rights. The Middle East is a maze of problems with no solution in sight. A geopolitical labyrinth where, among others, the United States is also lost. In the region, in addition to the suffering in the countries visited and in occupied Palestine, we still have the inhuman violence of the Syrian regime, with a fratricidal war that has dragged on since 2011, the barbarity of the conflict in Yemen, the chaos in Lebanon, the Iranian threat, the oppression of the Kurdish populations, fundamentalist extremism and the deadly rivalries between Sunnis and Shiites. It is a question of dealing with a powder keg that explodes according to the interests of the different local or international players.

A visit that does not bring any kind of response to the Palestinian question, to the obscurantism and cruelty of the Saudi regime, or to the containment of the Iranian threat, can only be noted in the negative. Biden was in Israel with the November mid-term elections in his country in mind and to please a part of his domestic voter base. And he is in Saudi Arabia to seek to increase oil production in order to contain the price of a barrel. This is also an electoral concern: the cost of petrol, when it comes time to fill up the tank, is a strong political argument in the USA. But it will not be easy to convince the Saudis, who are already adding 400,000 barrels a day more compared to what they were doing in February. Note, moreover, that Saudi daily production is now equivalent to Russian, both occupying (almost ex aequo) second place in the world.

Israel is not comparable to Saudi Arabia. But the systematic violation of the rights of Palestinians is one of the strongest arguments used by those who accuse the US of using a double-edged sword in international relations. The Palestinian cause has for decades been one of the most important thorns in the throat of those who speak of the need to respect the international order and the rights of oppressed peoples. You can't fight for that in the case of Ukraine and turn a blind eye when it comes to the same in Palestine.

Saudi Arabia is a country of contradictions. Modern in technology, medieval in the rights of women, of poor immigrant workers or in the treatment of political opposition. The Crown Prince, Mohammed bin Salman, personifies well these contradictions and the brutality of the regime. He will go down in history for having had opposition journalist Jamal Khashoggi murdered and hacked to pieces in 2018. Joe Biden had said during his election campaign that this crime had turned Saudi Arabia into a pariah state. Today, he will shake hands with the ringleader of the killers and discuss cooperation and oil. The prince will look good in the photo, even more arrogant than usual. The American president, on the other hand, will be more vulnerable.

It is time to repeat that in international politics not everything counts. And to underline once again that believing in principles has a cost. The narrative has to become clearer. Political leadership will only be credible if it is coherent. Spending time thinking about the next elections, political manoeuvring and expedients that vary according to the interests at stake may lead to the re-election of presidents, prime ministers and secretaries-general, but it does not contribute to solving the major problems. The current crises, in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, Sri Lanka, Pakistan or Myanmar, in parts of Africa or Central America, as well as in the field of climate change, nature conservation or food insecurity and the fight against poverty, should teach us to be truthful, responsible and courageous. In these times of great problems, this way of doing politics is the greatest challenge.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 15 July 2022)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They keeping echoing Putin's lies

The restlessness of confused intellectuals

Victor Ângelo

 

Some of our intellectuals are somewhat confused, especially when it comes to the war in Ukraine. They complain, for example, about the media and the political class, which are allegedly engaged in persecuting those who do not follow what they call "the one way of thinking". They even claim that there is an attack against "the faculty of thinking". It must be a very sneaky attack, because the TVs and newspapers are full of all kinds of opinions and the most foolish and biased theories, including some of their own.

This manifest confusion leads them to try to explain the unacceptable at all costs and with supposed geopolitical and historical approaches, which were developed during the Cold War and are now largely obsolete. And the unacceptable is the violation of international norms by the undemocratic and aggressor regime that Vladimir Putin personifies. And they also forget the war crimes and crimes against humanity that Putin's troops carry out on a daily basis, as Amnesty International reminded us of this week. Crimes that are already under investigation by the International Criminal Court in The Hague, as well as documented by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, based on a resolution by member states passed on March 4.

These intellectuals add to their ideological clumsiness several attacks against intergovernmental institutions to which Portugal belongs and which are fundamental to guarantee our defence, security and prosperity. In doing so they seem not to understand the gravity of the crisis in which our part of Europe finds itself, in the face of Putin's revanchism and his aggression against the people of Ukraine, including Russian-speaking Ukrainians.

I want to believe that political alignment with the adversary is part of a visceral attitude of opposition to the prevailing order and common sense, a philosophy of good-natured contrariness, proper to those who think they are smarter than the rest. At a time like the present, some may see in this positioning something close to a betrayal of national interests. I think it is an exaggeration to characterize these people in this way, because we are not in an open war against any state, and therefore it is not appropriate to talk about treason.

To understand the defence Europe of now, it would be good to remember that the countries of the former Soviet area of influence, which joined NATO in the late 1990s and already in this century, could have sovereignly opted for an alliance with Russia. Moscow had created a parallel military structure to NATO in 1992, currently known by the initials CSTO - Collective Security Treaty Organization. However, on the European side, only Belarus and Armenia made this choice. In addition to these states and Russia, only three Central Asian countries have joined, the former Soviet republics of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. The other countries, and there are several, either stayed out or preferred the Atlantic Alliance. The so-called NATO enlargement was, in reality, the result of a series of sovereign national decisions. What authority does a Portuguese thinker have to tell the Polish, Latvian, Romanian, or any other people that they should not have made the choice they did? The same question can be addressed to Vladimir Putin.

To the theory of strategic zones of influence, an analytical construction dating from the early 1960s of the last century, but which had its origins in the colonial and imperialist movements of the 19th century, and which was consolidated at the Yalta Conference in 1945, the United Nations proposes a new vision. An alternative that has as its foundation the respect for human rights and universal norms, peaceful resolution of conflicts, and international cooperation. This may sound like idealism and geopolitical unrealism, especially when one bears in mind Putin's way of doing things or the strategic competition between the US and China. But this should be the banner of progressive intellectuals and all reasonable people.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 1 April 2022)

 

 

 

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)

What next regarding Aghanistan?

We can't sweep Afghanistan under the rug

Victor Angelo

 

Mario Draghi, the Italian Prime Minister and current leader of the G20, is convening an extraordinary summit of the group for October 12, with only one item on the agenda: Afghanistan. This is an urgent meeting that cannot wait for the annual summit, which is scheduled for the last two days of this month. The concerns about Afghanistan are essentially twofold: the humanitarian drama, already much worsened at the moment, but which will become catastrophic with the imminent arrival of winter; and defining the conditions necessary for the international recognition of the Taliban regime.

The European Union has meanwhile approved a humanitarian package of 200 million euros. Other aid is urgently needed, not least because the donor community pledged more than a billion dollars on September 13, in response to an appeal launched by António Guterres. But, as always, promises are one thing, but their materialization is another. In addition to logistical difficulties and insecurity, the humanitarian agencies need guarantees of neutrality from the Taliban. This is the only way to ensure that food aid, medical and health care, and educational support reaches those in need without exclusion on the basis of ethnicity, gender, religion, or power relations.

Still in the humanitarian area, there are three other major issues.

One is the payment of salaries to civil servants and security forces who have not been paid for months. I don't think there is a willingness at the G20 level to finance this. Recently, my former colleague Jan Egeland, a recognized voice in the humanitarian field and who now heads the prestigious Norwegian Refugee Council, wrote an open letter on this subject to the UN Secretary-General. It called for mechanisms to be put in place to find a solution to pay salaries to the Afghan civil service, as was already largely the case under the previous government. The letter was a follow-up to his recent visit to Afghanistan and his shock at the widespread poverty. 

Another issue concerns the electricity supply. Millions in Kabul and the country's largest cities are at risk of being left in the dark. With the onset of winter, this could be yet another cataclysm to add to all the others. Afghanistan imports about 70 percent of the electricity it consumes. Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and Iran are the suppliers. With the Taliban victory and the administrative chaos that followed, payments for electricity imports have ceased. If the situation does not change soon, it is very likely that some of these countries, especially those that were part of the former Soviet Union and have no sympathy whatsoever for the extremists in Kabul, will suspend supply. If this happens, popular unrest will take on a new dimension. 

How long Afghanistan will need exceptional humanitarian aid is the third big question. Assistance must have a time horizon. The country needs to build an economy that allows it to import the energy and basic commodities it cannot produce, and to have a reasonable standard of living. The economy should not be based almost exclusively on opium production.

Recognition of the new regime, including its representation in the UN, will depend on the position that each G20 member adopts. Recent events show a tendency to establish occasional contacts, while at the political level there will continue to be talk of values, human rights, national inclusion, or the fight against terrorism. And to show a lot of mistrust towards Taliban governance. As time goes by, if there is no extreme migratory crisis or terrorist attack that affects the Western world, the new Afghan regime, whether recognized or not, could be just one more to add to the list of repressive, failed and forgotten states.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 8  October 2021)

 

 

The UN and the new Afghanistan

The United Nations and the Taliban challenge

Victor Ângelo

 

António Guterres has just underlined the gravity of the humanitarian situation in Afghanistan. He reminds us that about half of the population needs food aid in order to survive and that basic social support, particularly in the area of health, is closed or on the verge of collapse. With the onset of the harsh winter weather, the crisis will become even more serious and the capacity to act will diminish. He therefore announces that as early as next week the UN system will launch an urgent humanitarian appeal.

It is not possible to predict what response he will get. A good deal will depend on the kind of access the Taliban will allow, both to UN officials and NGOs. There is still no certainty in this regard, including the participation of women in humanitarian operations. The security of the implementing agents and their ability to act independently are also crucial. These are fundamental questions, which the Secretary-General will have to resolve before launching the appeal. It is not enough to make a general statement about these requirements. Concrete commitments are needed from those in power in Afghanistan. This means that it is urgent to initiate direct contacts between the United Nations at the highest level and the political leadership of the Taliban.

The humanitarian agenda is a good gateway to broader talks. It is true that one should not mix the humanitarian field, which has the sole and primary purpose of saving lives, with political matters. Aid that alleviates human suffering, prevents the physical and mental stunting of children, and keeps people alive is a duty of the international community, regardless of governance systems and ideological choices. But it can enable the opening of a path of rapprochement and political dialogue.

Guterres should take the initiative and seek to open a negotiation with the Taliban power that considers what the United Nations expects in terms of respect for international norms, human rights, and the commitments that bind Afghanistan to the community of nations. No matter how much we talk about national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of each country, and even accepting that relations between states are primarily based on these principles, today's times do not allow one to remain indifferent when there are violations of people's fundamental rights and situations that could pose a danger to the peace and security of the region and other parts of the globe. 

There are many points where the untangling of the skein can begin. One of them is the protection of the nearly 3,000 UN national staff from possible reprisals. Another concerns the future of the UN Assistance Mission on the ground, UNAMA. The mandate of this mission expires on September 15. What kind of configuration will be possible after that date? The Taliban may be ready to accept the presence of the more technical or directly humanitarian assistance-related UN agencies. What about the rest, the other UN agencies? That must be negotiated. Another matter that should be looked at is the representation of the country at the next UN General Assembly, which starts on September 14. The Taliban, given the way they came to power, will be excluded from participating, as has already happened in the past, at the end of the 1990s and until 2001. But this exclusion may be a matter to be put on the table for discussion.

The essential is to take the initiative, get the ball in the UN’s hands and put it back into play. The UN is, above all, a political organization. It cannot be governed solely with a humanitarian or development agenda. It is true that it must provide a comprehensive and coherent response that includes these dimensions. But the driving force must be political. And the new Taliban challenge offers the UN the opportunity to reconnect with its history and remake its image as a key player in international relations.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 3 September 2021)

From Myanmar to the EU: a quick journey

Suu Kyi and our Ursula

Victor Angelo

 

 

I intended to write about the coup d'état in Myanmar. I follow regularly what happens there, especially the role of civil society associations in defending citizens, the Chinese investments, and their political impact, as well as the actions carried out by the different ethnic-based armed groups. China, which is the second largest foreign investor in the country - the first is Singapore - shares a long border with Myanmar and sees its neighbour mainly as an economic corridor with shorter and more direct access to the Gulf of Bengal. This corridor is of huge strategic interest to the Chinese, both for gas and oil imports and for exports to the Middle East and Africa. The messages I would include in my text would be to condemn the military coup and defend the process of democratisation that began in 2015 and the November 2020 legislative elections – which the Carter Center considered acceptable despite the restrictions imposed by the pandemic and the armed rebellions.

I would also seek to discuss the question marks that Aung San Suu Kyi's political activity has raised in Western circles, while recalling that she won the November elections by a large majority. The appreciation of the Burmese is very different from the judgments that we, with our European eyes, make. I would have mentioned in my text the impasse that exists in the UN Security Council when it comes to take decisions about that country. This inability to condemn has been clearly demonstrated since 2017 when close to a million Rohingya people were persecuted and expelled to neighbouring Bangladesh. The objection always comes from the same side, from Beijing, and with Moscow doing the political favour of aligning itself with the Chinese, in a tactical manoeuvre to obtain Chinese political dividends. This time, however, I was surprised by the positive. China and the other members of the Security Council yesterday approved a declaration which I consider strong and which explicitly condemns the military coup and the arbitrary arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi and all the others. It was an encouraging surprise, including a clear call for respect for human rights and freedoms, including those of the press. I would speculate that this agreement on Myanmar is a good sign, which could be seen as a conciliatory gesture by Xi Jinping addressed to Joe Biden. 

However, I have decided to change my mind and focus on the mess that the vaccination campaign in the European Union has become. Each day shows that the issue of vaccines is highly political, and that delays, failures, slowdowns and injustices can have a devastating effect on the image of the European Commission and the moral authority and stability of national governments. It is also clear that the priority in the EU must be to immunise without delay the largest number of citizens.

At the end of December, Ursula von der Leyen said, with a mixture of joy and arrogance, that the campaign was being launched simultaneously across Europe. The Commission rightly decided that orders with pharmacy industry would be placed in a unified way, for the whole EU. This would increase our negotiating strength in the face of a sector which is immensely powerful and experienced in writing commercial contracts. After five weeks, we have about 2.9% of the population vaccinated in the Union, and over 14.5% on Boris Johnson's land. The vaccines ordered are not made available to national health services because there is not enough production capacity, logistics and because the pharmaceuticals already had other contracts signed in advance.

Thus, we enter February with the clear realization that there is no more explosive subject than this. And with the certainty that it is fundamental to transform vaccination into a real campaign, urgent, massive, effective and with fair criteria accepted by the people. Otherwise, we would be heading for political and social chaos. Far and different from Myanmar, of course, but equally destabilising. 

 

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

 

 

Christmas in the Sahel

How about lunch in the Sahel?

Victor Angelo

 

A few years ago, my wife and I were invited to an unusual Christmas lunch. The invitation came from the Chad presidency and the repast site was about a hundred kilometres north of Fada, a town more than two hours' flight from Ndjamena, already in the area of transition from the Sahel to the Sahara. The plan was to fly to Fada and follow by land to one of the oases of the Mourdi Depression - a set of deep valleys with several lagoons, much in demand by the traders of the numerous camel herds in transit to Libya, where each camel ends up by being sold at meat markets.

We went there. The journey between Fada and the oasis took place in the middle of twenty-something jeeps of a company of elite troops with operational experience of the region. The open-backed pickup trucks - the famous "technicals" - advanced at high speed, in parallel, on a unique front of several hundred meters. The aim was to avoid the dust and the ambushes of lawless groups that were already wandering in those parts of the Sahel.

The set menu was sheep, stuffed with chicken and couscous, roasted in a hole dug in the sand. The animal, well-done, cleaned of ashes and sand, was placed in front of us, whole, from head to feet, staring at us, so that we, the guests, could begin the feast. The protocol was clear. No one would touch any piece of food before we had finished ours. My wife and I looked at each other, and we did not know what to do. The head of the GOE (Portuguese Police Special Operations Group), who were in charge of my personal security, pulled out a pocket folding knife, cut two pieces and we started munching. Slowly, to show appreciation for the delicacy. Two hundred eyes followed our chewing closely. When we gave the signal that we had enough, the military threw themselves at the animal and the accompanying food. They cleaned everything in the blink of an eye.

In telling all this, my intention is not to invite the reader to a similar Christmas lunch. It is a question of taking advantage of the moment to talk about the Sahel, the hunger and food insecurity that define the daily lives of its people, and the violence that is taking place in these lands. It is also a tribute to those who have little more than their personal dignity, a quality that has always defined the way of being of the people of the Sahel. But that dignity is now often violated by those who have power, whether on the side of governments, armed robbers, or terrorists. The Sahel and the adjacent Sahara are experiencing a deep security crisis, which has worsened continuously since 2012, despite a strong European military presence in the region. 

The year now ending has been the most violent. Jihadists and other armed groups, including popular militias formed by the governments that the Europeans support, will have caused over 4,250 deaths and thousands of displaced people. The most dangerous area is the three borders region between Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger. About half of the attacks were directed against civilian populations. In most cases, the violence, even that which wears a mantle of religious radicalism, has as its main objective to extort resources. Communities that make a living from artisanal gold mining or pastoralism, as well as those that run the trade corridors connecting the Sahel with the west coast of Africa, in Benin, Togo and Nigeria, are the most frequent targets. It is difficult to determine where looting ends and fanaticism, ethnic hatred or human rights violations begin. Terrorism is a label that defines a complex reality badly. But it is around. In 2020 we saw many confrontations between or perpetrated by two of the most important groups: the Islamic state in the Greater Sahel and the Al-Qaeda factions. And we are still hearing reports of war crimes committed by the armed forces of countries to which Europe gives military training.

The EU is preparing a new strategy for the region. It may be ready during the Portuguese presidency. To be valid, it must begin by questioning the reasons for the failure of the strategy that has been followed so far. My first indications are that it will be more of the same. It might then be a good idea to organise a lunch in a remote corner of the Sahel for some European leaders.

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

 

Mr Trump speaks to the United Nations

This is the text I published today in Diário de Notícias (Lisbon newspaper). It is a machine (AI) translation. The original is written in Portuguese.

 

President Trump and the United Nations

Victor Angelo

 

The name of this year's Nobel Peace Prize laureate will be announced on October 9. The list of candidates includes 318 names, an impressive number. It seems that Donald Trump's name would be included in the list of nominees, which is not impossible because any member of his government, Congress or any other personality has the faculty to nominate. The fact is that the president would very much welcome the Nobel award, less than a month before the presidential election.

This is how the words spoken this week by the American ambassador to the United Nations, Kelly Craft, when she was called upon to introduce her boss's intervention before the UN General Assembly, should be understood. Craft's brief introduction sought to convey only one message. She said that Donald Trump is a leader who gives special consideration to the search for peace. She then mentioned initiatives related to Israel, the Arab Emirates and Bahrain, the economic agreement signed at the White House between Serbia and Kosovo, North Korea, a country that has disappeared from the news and can therefore be presented as well behaved for the time being. The ambassador also brought in the launching of the talks between Afghans, with American sponsorship.

Then, spoke the president. His speech blurred the image of a leader concerned with peace. If today's times were to be governed by the usual diplomatic norms, President Trump's words should be seen as a harbinger of a declaration of war on China. This country was presented as the cause of the covid-19 pandemic and the associated global economic crisis. It has also been singled out as the biggest polluter of land, sea, and air.

It was a catalogue of accusations to others and praise for himself and the successes his administration would have achieved in various fields, from conflict resolution to carbon emission reduction. All with the eyes on the November elections. 

But we should be clear that the diatribe against China has deep and prolonged consequences on American political life and psyche. It is something that will mark the international relations of the United States, whether Trump is at the head of the country or not. The political class, the military circles and various sectors of American academia, intellectuals and society see China's foreign ambition as a vital threat to the United States' role in the world. For some it is a question of political hegemony or economic interests, for others there will be an ethical dimension and democratic values when they think of a China that becomes a superpower. The decade ahead of us will be marked by obstinate rivalry between these two colossi. Those who think that the European Union can serve as a counterweight and a balance in the face of this competition should put their strategic imagination to work right now. I make no secret of my concern, however, about the growing conflict between the United States and China, or my scepticism about the strategic effectiveness of European foreign policy.

Let us return to the General Assembly and to President Trump's communication. In addition to the harangue against China and the election propaganda, the speech set out what appears to be an agenda for the United Nations, in Washington version. To the issues of peace - the area of "blue helmets" is a priority not only for Americans but for many more; the only issue is that the main recommendations of the Ramos-Horta Commission (2015) and subsequent political lessons remain unimplemented, with a disconnect between military operations and the political work of the missions - the president added the fight against terrorism, the oppression of women, human and drug trafficking, ethnic and religious persecution. He also made special reference to human rights.

It is clear that he did not speak of the deadlocks that hinder the proper functioning of the Security Council, the marginalization of the UN and the multilateral system, which has been a hallmark of his mandate, or the lack of support for the Secretary-General. But what he said on the positive side should be used to give new visibility to the United Nations and relaunch international cooperation. As for the rest, we will see after November.

 

 

Europe and China: a difficult dialogue

The summit call that took place today between the EU leaders and President Xi revealed a gulf of differences between the two sides when it comes to political values and the interference of the State in the economy. On the European side, reference was made to human rights as a fundamental value, as well as to the Chinese leadership’s policies towards the Uighur minority, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. President Xi did not like what he heard. But he could notice that the Europeans consider these matters fundamental and will continue to be raised in the future. At the same time, the economic relationship between both sides will continue – the trade between them amounts to one billion euros a day. And on this matter, the key issues will remain and must be addressed. The Chinese must open up to European investment and cease all kinds of political meddling in the governance of European firms already operating in China.

In the meantime, and as we wait for progress on these fronts to be achieved it is becoming clear that Chinese investments in critical European infrastructure can only be accepted if they do not put at stake the strategic dimensions of European security and stability.

The two sides must cooperate. They are key players in the international scene. It is therefore important they keep talking and be frank when doing it.

For Hong Kong and a bit more

The new Hong Kong National Security Law is a clear violation of the legal process as established by the territory’s Basic Law – there was no consultation with the local population and their representatives – as well as of the agreed principle “One Country, Two Systems”. Furthermore, the key offences it contemplates – subversion, secession, terrorism, and collusion with foreign powers – are defined in overly broad terms. That means the Hong Kong Executive is given extensive flexibility to judge and condemn. They are the ones, not the judiciary, that will apply the law, meaning, they will decide on the offences and the punishments. They will certainly follow a targeted approach to repression.

Another “innovation” of such new law is that it also applies to people outside Hong Kong and Mainland China. If someone in Paris, a French citizen resident in France, says that the territory should be independent and later in life travels to Hong Kong, he or she can be prosecuted for such a statement.

I feel sorry for the people of Hong Kong who cherish freedom and democracy. I have the same feeling for those in the Mainland that share these same values. And I ask myself what kind of political relationship our democracies should have with the leadership in Beijing. It is time to reflect on that before it is too late. The message should be simple. It must tell them that we are not prepared to accept their vision of politics. And we should keep an all-weather distance, as wide as possible, between them and us.

The international arena must be guided by values. It is time to say that again, loud, and clear. Very straightforward values, that take their inspiration from individual rights, the protection of each person against authoritarian States, from our inherent right to freedom and human security. Some might see this aspiration as a utopic one. I hear you. But, please, believe me, the post-covid world opens the door to imagine a more dignified approach to each human being.

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.

Fighting for a changed approach to security in conflict zones

Following what I wrote yesterday about the national armies in some of the Sahelian countries – that their low operational capacity is one of the key problems, on top of their human rights shortcomings and other serious governance issues – I was reminded by a friend of the example of Somalia. The international community, including European resources, have been engaged in the country for a long time with little results. Billions have been spent and many lives lost. However, the terrorists are all over, including in the capital city. And the national army, that we all have trained and keep repeating is essential to solve the insecurity threats, has a fighting capacity that is estimated at 8%. That means that almost everyone in the army is not prepared to fight an asymmetric war and cannot collect the intelligence needed to crush the terrorist cells. Or, there are two fundamental dimensions of any stabilisation project. They are not enough but if they do not happen nothing else can be achieved.

That’s why I keep repeating that we must look at these matters with frankness and be clear about what is going on and what needs to change. If we fail to do it, if we keep pretending and talk niceties, we will keep investing in the sand of those vast deserts. We will be wasting resources and lives. And we will be undermining the credibility of the international institutions and other players that are operating in such contexts. Can’t we find the courage to shift our approach?

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.

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.

Three challenges

Besides the public health challenge and the balanced approach to the opening of economic life, the third big issue we are confronted with is about democracy and freedom. Our governments are imposing too many limitations and controls on matters that have to do with our liberties and personal choices. We can accept such decisions for a while and with full justification. But they must be temporary. No way we can have a state of exception for extended periods of time. Pandemics are not treated with limitations of liberties and the deployment of police forces. That was the practise in the middle ages. They are treated with masks, disinfection, hygiene, distancing, and medical surveillance and advice. We must understand that governments love to control people. It is in their genes, even in our multiparty societies. And if they can, they will keep some form of control for an awfully long time. That could be the beginning of a regime change that we certainly do not want. In the end, we do not want to copy the Chinese government when it comes to human rights issues.

Notes about China and Europe

In the last few days, I have re-tweeted some articles on China, must of them without a personal note about their content. Just sharing. I did it because I think we need to have, in this part of the world where I live, a serious debate about the future of our relations with China.

Looking ahead, my starting points are two. First, the growing hostility between the US and China is dangerous for both countries and for the rest of us. I have written about that and I will keep repeating it. I see such antagonism spreading in the US, both among Republicans and Democrats. And it has now reached some other circles in the West, from Australia to Europe. The second point is that the European Union must engage positively with China, meaning, in a balanced and frank way, defining clearly what we expect from this relationship and what are the limits we cannot cross. The Chinese would be expected to do the same. Such dialogue would be based on the understanding that both sides would gain from a close and fair relationship.

I do not want to spend time commenting on the internal politics of China. However, I should be clear about such an important matter. My approach is that there are values we all must follow. The list would include freedom of speech, human rights, and acceptance of political diversity. A leading country must be a sharp example of full respect for such values. In our dialogue with China, as well as in our policy discussions with the US, Russia, and others that play paramount roles in the world, we cannot ignore such values. The younger generations expect us to act based on fundamental principles, that are common to all peoples.

Having said that, I do recognise the great achievements the Chinese can legitimately claim and the potential they have for further innovation and the betterment of their society. I also know some of the contributions they made to the growth of other nations. All that is incredibly positive. I am also aware of China’s increased contributions to peace, security, and development in various parts of the world.

There is -- and there will be in the times ahead of us -- a good number of Western politicians that will try to gain popular support by systematically attacking the Beijing leadership. Please do not count me in that group.

China prefers Donald Trump

It is now clear that the Chinese leadership would prefer Donald Trump. The messages we are getting from Beijing are that they believe that Joe Biden would be tougher on China than Trump. They now know the current President relatively well and they think that if there is an agreement on trade everything else will be manageable. They see Donald Trump as a transactional leader. He is aware of the Chinese geopolitical ambitions and must refer to them in his public speeches. But he can be satisfied with a trade agreement if he thinks the agreement is good for his electoral basis. And it is true he has a good personal rapport with President Xi Jinping. On the other side, the Chinese leadership see Biden as more ideological. He will be raising issues that are particularly unpleasant to the ears of the Chinese Communist bosses. Issues such as human rights, the special status and freedom in Hong Kong, the re-education camps in Xinjiang Province, the relations with Taiwan, and so on. These are extremely sensitive matters for Beijing. Trade is a small business when compared with any of these challenges. Therefore, they will try to do anything they can to make sure that Donald Trump gets re-elected.

Preparing for a new world

It’s time to start thinking about the shape of the world that is emerging in front of us. This pandemic is a deeper and wider challenge than what the politicians want us to believe. Tomorrow’s world will not be just a resuscitation of yesterday’s living styles. Some people say it is a call for a new paradigm. I would say that it is more than a call. It’s a must. Too many people will be excluded if we do not change the way we look at human security and dignity.

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.