Security Council Resolution 2720 on Gaza and its tragedy

 1.        The UN System, under the leadership of the SG, is fast moving to be ready to implement SC res. 2720. This should be acknowledged.

2.        The Israeli government is ignoring the resolution and expanding the military aggression. The SC should draft a new resolution to impose sanctions on key Israeli leaders, in view of their disregard of res. 2720.

3.        This is not just about averting “a greater catastrophe and uphold dignity”. It is also about full respect for international law and the SC’s decisions. The Israeli behaviour violates international law and must be dealt with as such as well.

4.        The peace in the region is about to unravel. This should be mentioned as a major concern.

5.        Hamas leaders must also be prosecuted.

6.       The call for a total and immediate ceasefire must be loud, clear, and express a strong sense of urgency.

7.       Special responsibility lies with the UNSC. We must bring the UNSC back to the centre of key peace processes. Its members, particularly the P5, must show they can force the parties to implement a resolution like the 2720. Enforcement must become a very central priority for the SC.

8.        The humanitarian response should go together with the launching of a political process.

9.        The sovereign rights of the Israeli and Palestinian peoples are unquestionable.

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)

 

 

In Europe, migration remains a critical issue

Migrations and European fears

Victor Ângelo

 

The Afghan crisis has placed the problem of immigration again at the center of European discussions. In essence, it is the fear that thousands and thousands of people coming from Afghanistan will arrive in Europe, pushed to migrate for a combination of reasons: the flight from the Taliban regime, the economic misery, the lack of future prospects and the attraction that richer societies exert on those who live a daily life of despair and constant struggle for survival. Faced with this fear, the European ministers have identified the lowest common denominator as a plan of action: to try to contain the people within Afghanistan's borders or in the bordering countries. To do so, they are counting on the cooperation of the new Afghan power, the self-interested will of the Pakistani and Iranian leaders, and the experience and good name of the UN humanitarian agencies and the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement.

The President of the International Committee of the Red Cross, the Swiss Peter Maurer, was in Afghanistan this week for three days for discussions with the Taliban leadership and field visits. Also, the UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, the British Martin Griffiths, visited Kabul to meet with Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, now Deputy Prime Minister, and to obtain minimum assurances necessary for the acceptable delivery of humanitarian aid. These rounds of contacts have gone well, and the EU is likely to be the main source of resources for these organizations to do what is expected of them.

However, many Afghans will end up seeking refuge outside their national borders, particularly in Pakistan. It is not clear how many Afghan refugees were already living in Pakistan. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) officially registers 1.4 million people. But there is a multitude outside the records. It is estimated that since August 15, the day Kabul fell, about 10,000 people a day are crossing the border into Pakistan. This flow will possibly increase because of the political, economic and social situation now in Afghanistan. A significant portion of these new refugees will seek to reach Europe.

Pakistan does not have the economic and institutional conditions necessary to host a new wave of refugees. It needs international support. The Pakistani ruling class knows how to operate. It will ask Europeans for material aid and political favours. It is not that it needs much political support, as it already has the full backing of the Chinese. Still, it will let the Europeans know that its willingness to provide humanitarian reception will be stronger if there is, in return, a cooling - even if discreet - of relations between the EU and India. In this geostrategic game, New Delhi stands a good chance of losing.

In the case of Iran, it is a different story. Relations between Europe and Iran are affected by two types of constraints: the lack of agreement on the limits of Iran's nuclear program and the sanctions and restrictions imposed by the Americans, which the Europeans are not capable of challenging. Despite all this, I maintain that Europe cannot exclude Iran from the humanitarian process. Even more so if we take into account that most of the migratory routes pass through that country. What will Tehran ask in exchange for a collaboration that will prevent the transit of human masses? This question cannot be ignored.

The different European states are willing to welcome those who have worked directly with their military forces. But they have no intention of going any further. The usual Viktor Orbán and company are now joined by a new star, Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz. And the social networks are already full of catastrophic theories about the impact that an increase in the proportion of Muslims in European lands would have. Not to mention, they say, the possible dangers of terrorist attacks. The reality is that here in the EU, as in other parts of the world, questions of cultural identity are increasingly at the centre of the political agenda.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 10 September 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)

World Food Programme and Peace

The laureate of the Nobel Peace Prize 2020 has been announced today. It is the UN World Food Programme. And I think it is the right decision. The WFP is a huge UN agency providing food assistance to millions of people in many corners of the world, including in the most dangerous places. The dedication of its staff is enormous. It is matched by excellent logistics: the WFP has the best logistics within the UN system.

This well-deserved recognition comes at a time when the UN needs all the support it can get. The Nobel Committee knew it. I am sure they took it into account when deciding this year’s prize.

As a humanitarian agency, WFP has a good degree of autonomy within the UN system. That is the way it should be. It is important to keep a separation line between political work and humanitarian assistance. That notwithstanding, WFP keeps a close relationship with the rest of the system, in particular in those situations where major conflicts are underway.

Congratulations, then, to the WFP, its staff, current and past.

Lebanon and the international freezer

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

From Lebanon to the conflict freezer

Victor Angelo

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

Aid to Lebanon

There have been some discussions about the conditions to be attached to the humanitarian aid to Lebanon. I would like to clarify that such aid should only have one provision: it should reach those in need. There is no other political condition when it comes to saving lives. The political dimensions belong to another sphere, not to the humanitarian one.

Moving backwards

This afternoon I called a few people in Africa, to find out how the pandemic is affecting their fellow citizens. And I got the same message from each call. Poverty and desperation are the main consequences of border closures and other domestic restrictions. The pandemic is ruining their fragile economies. There are no commercial flights coming in and out, no significant cross border trade, besides the traditional exchanges related to the informal sectors, little exports, and plenty of job losses. This pandemic takes these countries backwards. For those like me who spent a number of years working in the development field, it is an incredibly sad moment. Many of the gains are just being lost.  

The health challenges in the refugee camps

How is the coronavirus situation in the refugee camps around Syria? What is the risk level? Are the host governments, the UN and the NGOs prepared to deal with such threat?

I do not have an answer to these questions. And I am afraid we have lost sight of them, as well.

The border line

Today, the Presidents of the European Council, the Commission and the European Parliament visited the Greek border with Turkey. The Prime Minister of Greece was their host. The message they put across is very clear. The European borders are now closed to mass movements. Immigrants and refugee candidates are not welcome.

The visiting party basically approved the decision taken by the Greek authorities to use all means available to enforce the message. This is a clear shift from the policy line followed by Angela Merkel and others in 2015. It places security and social homogeneity above any other consideration.

The humanitarian dimension is seen as a funding activity. The Europeans pay and others will take care of the refugees. Outside the EU borders. This is the new policy line on mass immigration.

No to Erdogan's resettlement plan

President Erdogan of Turkey wants to repatriate a large number of Syrian refugees. His plan is to create several resettlement camps on the Syrian side of the border, in the “safe zone” his troops control, between the towns of Tel Abyad and Ras al-Ain.

He is putting a lot of pressure on the UN Secretary-General António Guterres. The President wants the Secretary-General to bless the plan and convene a donor meeting to raise money for its implementation. Erdogan met Guterres yesterday and the meeting was vintage Erdogan: either the UN does it, or I will.

Things do not work like that when it comes to repatriation of refugees and the role of the UN. The Secretary-General must make it clear. Repatriation must take place on a voluntary basis, with strong security guarantees, and it cannot disturb the very fragile ethnic balances that define Northern Syria. It is also true that traditional donors are not ready to finance any plan imposed by force. But that is not the key issue. The point is that people must be willing to go back. I am sure that point is not met today.

Maduro and Guaidó must accept mediation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Syria: looking ahead

Regarding the Syrian complex crisis, it´s obvious that Assad and Putin believe in the military solution. And they are now close to achieve the military control of a good deal of the territory.

That option might result for a while, but it cannot resolve the deep divisions existing in the country. It does not address the overwhelming call for inclusiveness and democracy coming from so many segments of the population. It only suspends and postpones the crisis.

I am not sure Bashar al-Assad realises he must open up and engage in political dialogue, after winning on the military front. This should be the key message the EU leaders should put across to him. For that, they have no alternative but to re-engage the contacts with the strongman in Damascus. The channels of communication between the EU and Syria ought to be re-established.

That´s my advice as the EU prepares to chair another conference on Syria.

Such conference must not be just about humanitarian assistance coupled with a mere statement reiterating past options. Options that time has shown to be as good as dead ends.

Moreover, it is not a great idea to link in the same conference two different matters: humanitarian needs should be discussed in a different forum. Not good to mix them with politics.

UN funds should not be cut

The new US Administration plans to cut in a big way the country´s financial contributions to the UN. This decision, if it materialises, will have a major impact on programmes and operations at a time of greater demands and some extreme dramatic situations. 

At this early stage, it is not possible to measure the effect of such a decision. 

It´s only possible to say that the UN has the experience, the logistics and the credibility that make such operations tremendously cost-effective and able to reach many difficult corners of the globe. This might be a weak argument in some circles in Washington. But it is a strong reason for many to keep fighting for a strong, efficient, and properly funded UN system. 

Humanitarian note

I would not feel good if I did not mention that today is the World Humanitarian Day.

It´s a little window of opportunity to remind ourselves that millions of human beings are currently in desperate need of a bit of assistance. For them, it´s a matter of survival. It is not about poverty and lack of development, it is about dire political and security circumstances that are putting their lives at great risk. They are the best testimony to a world that combines extreme violence in their lands with profound indifference in ours.

The day also gives us a tiny space to remember the enormous sacrifices and tremendous services that thousands of humanitarian field workers provide on a daily basis. Many perform in extreme stressful environments and face multiple security threats. They are part of a multitude of unsung heroes. We are not told about their little personal victories.

But I should also say something more political. Just in passing, as the day is about humanitarian dimensions, not about power struggles and games of influence. On the international political arena, the humanitarian work does not get the same type of attention than the matters of war and peace or the issues of global economics do get. The humanitarian field is seen as a secondary domain, an outer circle of status, not as prestigious as the others. That´s the reality I have seen so many times. And that´s a matter that needs to be reflected upon.

Being positive on Europe Day

Every 9 May, the EU celebrates Europe Day.

This year we might conclude there isn´t much to be happy about. Martin Schulz, the EU Parliament boss, in an interview to a Portuguese daily newspaper, compared Europe to a bicycle with “flat tyres”. Basically, it would mean it has to keep moving but there is no air in the rubbers, the wheels can´t move properly.

I think we should be a bit more positive nonetheless. At least today.

The EU is still one of the most attractive places to be in the world. For its quality of life and for its standards of living. Also, because it is a space of liberties – yes, plural – and rule of law, as well as a continent of peace and security. It is still pretty predictable in terms of one´s human rights. And, in international relations, it is a major actor in the fields of development and humanitarian assistance.

These are some remarkable dimensions that one should emphasise on this day.

"Cessation of hostilies"

After today´s announcement of a “cessation of hostilities” in Syria, some commentators have shown a lot of scepticism about the effective implementation of such an agreement. The doubts are even stronger because the declaration was basically a joint statement by the US and Russia, with no apparent or implicit involvement by the Syrian parties to the conflict. 

My position on this proclamation is clear. I want to believe that the Americans and the Russians are indeed committed to creating the very minimal conditions for the political negotiations to take off the ground. I also think they would like some kind of humanitarian assistance to be facilitated. Assistance is urgently required in many areas of the country. Some pause on the war would make it possible to reach many of those in need.

As I am ready to accept the good faith of the declaration, I should also add that we are still far from the beginning of a true peace process. But at least there is some movement now and one has to clutch whatever little candle of hope is flaming. Even when the flame is pretty tenuous. 

We decided to ignore South Sudan

South Sudan has now joined the list of the forgotten crises.

The country was the darling of the international community three or four years ago. In the meantime, it experienced a very serious civil war, hundreds of thousands of displacements and a plunge into political chaos. In many ways, such violent crisis could have been prevented if the UN and the key partners of the country had played a more courageous supporting role.

Now, South Sudan is trying to move out of violence. The needs are huge. Including, to start with, the ones related to basic humanitarian assistance. But the donors are not responding. The UN Humanitarian Coordinator has just revealed that the humanitarian appeal for South Sudan remains outside the radar screen, nobody is paying attention to it. Indeed, he stated that only 2% of the required humanitarian funds have been raised so far.

It is time to be a bit louder about South Sudan again.

About the Syrian donors´meeting

One facet of the recent big pledging conferences, like the one of yesterday in London, convened to mobilise resources for Syrian refugees, is that most of promises never materialise. Countries make commitments, and in some cases, very substantial ones. But the disbursements, in many cases, are well below the pledges. And in other cases, countries do announce contributions that never materialise.

One of the reasons is that the monies that are declared during the conferences have never been discussed with the country´s finance minister. They come out of the foreign minister´s mouth. He or she might be a very influential and strong politician. But in the end, funds are the prerogative of finance ministers.

I have seen many disappointments after these types of meetings. One gets the impression that the call was very successful only to realise later on that most of funds never materialise. That creates frustration. It also gives room for very serious misunderstandings between the authorities from the receiving countries and the intended beneficiaries. The latter do not see the support promised and then get to believe that the money was misappropriate by the administering authorities. 

Making the distinction between humanitarian and development aid

At present, with the refugee crises and the displacements of people in many countries, the humanitarian funding needs are exceptionally high. Several donor countries have markedly increased their contributions during the last few months. Among them, the European Commission and some EU countries, as well as the US, have shown leadership. They are again among the top contributors to humanitarian assistance.

The challenge is to finance the humanitarian response without cutting the aid development budgets. These should be seen as two different strands within the international cooperation finances. But the fact of the matter is that in several countries the humanitarian resources are generated these days by diverting development money to meet immediate requirements. The development assistance resources for 2016 will be seriously affected, if this trend is not reversed.