Asking AI what is my position about sanctions against criminal States

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

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

The Nuance of Sanctions

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

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

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

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

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.

Supporting Fatou Bensouda

 The sanctions the US has decided to impose on Ms Fatou Bensouda, the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), are an abuse of power. Totally unacceptable, they cannot be supported by any European country. They show, once more, that the current Administration in Washington has little respect for the United Nations and international norms.

The UN Secretary-General said he took note of the American decision. I do not understand what that means. Note of what? Of their lack of respect for the basic principles that should guide their international relations? This statement is too weak. It does no favour to the standing of the Secretary-General.

China, Europe and the others

This is the wrong time to behave like a bully in the international arena. The Chinese Foreign Minister, Wang Yi, seems to know it. He appealed for a better relationship between his country and the US, now that we are at the door of a new Cold War, to paraphrase what he said. The words that call for cooperation instead of competition are the right words. He for sure is aware of that. And I am sure he is also mindful that for the time being the relationship with the US will not improve. Actually, it is possible to forecast deterioration. That is certainly not good. But he and his fellow leaders in Beijing have a chance to show that they mean business. They can establish a better relationship with the European Union. The Europeans are ready for that if it is a more balanced and equal one. Let us see if the Chinese are also willing. That could have an incredibly positive influence on the trade, global affairs, and the image of China in the world. There are negotiations going on between Brussels and Beijing. They should be concluded by September and send the right signal.

Where is the UN Security Council?

These are very strange times. The international scene has been deeply challenged since the beginning of the New Year. And we heard no mention of the UN Security Council. The Council is supposed to be the ultimate custodian of international peace and security, I like to remember the people I talk to. Now, the Council seems to have become the ultimate guarantor of a silent approach to major crises. That should not be accepted.

The EU's position on Iranian matters

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

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

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

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

Supporting the Kurdish people in Syria

Turkey’s military invasion of North-Eastern Syria is illegal, from the international law perspective. It is also a tremendous political mistake, with many possible consequences. I have not seen a single country, among those who matter in international affairs and in the region, that has supported President Erdogan’s decision.

In this kind of dangerous military interventions experience has taught us that we know when the operation starts but nobody can predict when it will end. Erdogan’s people can find themselves caught in a never-ending drama.

Moreover, the Kurds of Syria have been brave allies of the anti-terrorist forces that have fought the Islamic State criminals. They have generated a very important capital of sympathy in Europe and the US. It is not only that we are indebted to their courage and fighting spirit. It is also that we all recognise that they have created a space of tranquillity and some type of normalcy in a country that has been in chaos. It is that order that President Erdogan is now destroying with his heavy artillery and fighter planes.

It is unacceptable.

Malaysia Airlines and Jamal Khashoggi

Yesterday, we got two pieces of news that reminded us that the respect for international norms is currently very low. States act as they please and just ignore the existing enforcement mechanisms that the international system has built during the past decades. Alliances of countries that share the same interests have become stronger than the UN, its principles and its regulatory instruments. The Security Council, established as the ultimate authority in terms of peace and security, is at present simply ineffective. That has a major impact on the UN’s image and work as well as on respect for multilateral answers to shared problems.

All this makes might rule over right. It is a field day for dictators and strong men. Above all, it is a serious regression and a dangerous state of affairs. One must express one’s fear and condemnation of States that do not respect the established international rules. One should not remain silent.

One of the news was about the Malaysia Airlines plane that was shot down in 2014 over Ukraine. Key people have now been accused of murder. More indictments are yet to be announced. We can lament that it took to long to come up with these four names. True. But it is a step in the right direction, a move that shows this type of state-sponsored crimes cannot be carried out without punishment. Blame and shame might not be enough. But it is important to do it, to point in the direction of the powerful, particularly when the chances of bringing the accused to justice are very slim.

The second one was about the cruel assassination of Jamal Khashoggi. The UN Special Rapporteur’s words were very clear about the Saudi Crown Prince’s responsibility. Basically, she said there is enough evidence to warrant a criminal investigation of his role. But Saudi Arabia and its main allies do not want to accept that at all. One should not be surprised by the Saudi position. However, one should state in very direct and unambiguous terms that we cannot accept the whitewash the Western countries are engaged in. Saudi Arabia must follow international law. And our role, the role of the democratic countries, is to advise Saudi Arabia to abide. But we are not doing it. And that is a serious breach of the international order that took decades to be shaped.

The Venezuela plan

All the signs seem to indicate that there is a plan to deal with Maduro and the power struggle in Venezuela. That plan can only come from people that have a lot of experience with scene setting and related strategic moves. Where do we find such people? And, second question, how legitimate is such a plan? And, final key question: can it work in a political environment like the one we presently have in Venezuela?

Let’s see what the next few days bring in our direction. And at what cost.

Bringing the bullies together

When I scrutinise the foreign policies of permanent members of the UN Security Council I find no real differences, when it comes to the pursuit of their national interests. Each one of the five States is ready and willing to make use of force and go beyond the diplomatic conventions, tread into illegality, when its leaders think that the country´s national interests are at play. That´s particularly true for each country´s area of influence and strategic importance. It´s the case with China in the South China Sea, with Russia in Eastern Ukraine and Crimea, the US in Syria and Iran, the UK in West Africa and the Gulf Cooperation countries in the Persian shores, and with France in the Sahel Region of Africa.

The strategic options of these powerful countries take the primacy over the workings of the UN or other international organisations. It´s a fact, as well, that some of them do it more often than others. But when necessary, they will go for it. Norms and international law are to be respected as long as they do not collide with the views, ambitions and vital interests of the big five.

The primary role of the UN Secretary-General and other international voices, as well as the leaders of some key States such as India or Japan or South Africa, is to constantly recall the international norms and obligations. But it is also to look for points of equilibrium among the interests of the permanent members. Their critical geopolitical interests are known. The challenge is to negotiate taking them into account.

Challenging times

I went back to the notes I wrote at the beginning of last year and noticed I had pencilled that 2016 would be a year of political renewal. Well, it has exceeded the expectations, but not in the sense I was expecting.

What can I say about 2017?

What a strange question to be raised in mid-March, when the year is already moving fast.

Still, I think I can write that this is the year that is going to challenge many of the lessons we have learned in the past. That might sound pretty worrying. But it is above all a call for those who believe in principles and international cooperation to show they can respond to the danger and have the intelligence and the courage to bring us back to reason.

On cyber as a weapon

Cyber attacks, when organised by an adversary State, must be taken very seriously and considered as a new type of armed aggression. Particularly when matters on national sovereignty and critical institutions are the target. To be soft on that will open the door for more daring and more damaging hostility. Better be clear and firm. The challenging State must be undoubtedly made aware of the consequences such attacks might bring on its own national interests and on its leadership. 

Human rights are also for China

As I read that a well-known Chinese lawyer has been sentenced to 12 years – yes, 12 years – in jail because of some spurious accusation about fraud, I recalled my words of last week to my students. Basically, I emphasised then, in my seminar on peace and security, that human rights should always be a top priority in any political dialogue. I even said that in many cases they should be the entry point for a meaningful discussion.

Some people in the audience challenged my approach. Their argument was that it is sometimes very difficult to raise the issue when facing some tough governments. And they mentioned the Chinese, among others.

Well, not really. The leaders in Beijing might not like it. But the country has signed the Universal Convention on Human Rights. They might not fully respect it today. But that should not prevent us from calling their attention to the Convention and its principles, and also from expressing our dismay for its blatant, and repeated, violations. 

China and the international law

Today´s ruling against China by the Permanent Court of Arbitration, a Hague-based UN-related institution, should be noted as a milestone. It concerns one of the potentially explosive areas of the globe, the South China Sea. It recognises that China´s maritime claims to about 85% of that sea are not founded. Furthermore, the Tribunal stated that China has repeatedly violated the sovereign rights of the Philippines and caused considerable harm to the maritime environment.

This decision will have a serious impact on further developments in the region.

China has not accepted the ruling and will continue its policy of military control of the area. That will clash with the interests of the Philippines and also of the other neighbouring countries. It will also aggravate the naval and political tensions with the US.

But China will be on the wrong side of the international law. And it should be constantly reminded that as a Permanent Member of the Security Council it has special international responsibilities. These responsibilities start with respecting the UN-backed tribunals and their patiently worked out decisions.

International law and the fight against terrorism

When discussing terrorism, one should keep in mind a number of issues. One of them is the concept of self-defence. Basically the point is about the lawful use of force by States against an individual or groups of individuals that are recognised as representing, planning or preparing to carry out a serious armed threat. Linked to the concept are the notions of gravity, imminence, and pre-emptive action as well as the measured use of force.

The UN has spent quite a bit of its time looking at these matters. There are two Security Council Resolutions that provide most of the legal basis for the response by States to terrorism. One, UN Security Council Resolution 1368 (2001) was approved in the aftermath of the 9/11 acts. The other – UNSC Resolution 1373 (2004) – authorises States “to take steps to prevent the commission of terrorist acts”.

As the discussion goes on and taking into consideration new developments, such as the drone strikes, it would be appropriate to review these resolutions and maybe adopt a more comprehensive one. The call for legal basis for action should be taken back to the UN Security Council. 

Europe and the sound of boots

The situation in Ukraine is deteriorating fast once again.

I spent some time looking at the uniforms, the equipment and the logistics of the insurgents. They have new tools and the appropriate type of supplies for the season and the terrain.

I have also looked at the tactics. These fighters are very well trained, pretty professional. They have plans and they know how to operate. They are not your usual rebel movement.

It´s quite obvious that many are from a regular army and they have the support of powerful logistics. All this can only come from Russia.

Russia is therefore in clear violation of international norms and the principles of peace and cooperation in Europe.

And this is only part of a wider strategy aimed at the European Union and NATO. 

Let´s be clear: it is a very dangerous strategy, an extremely bad political option. 

We have good reasons to be worried. 

Human rights are the starting point for a better life

I am not sure North Korea celebrates Human Rights Day, as we do today.

And I am pleased that this year the day comes just after the publication of the report on CIA´s torture cases. That reminds us that human rights is a never-ending struggle, even in the old democracies of the West. Actually, my long trek over the world has made it clear that human rights issues, be them related to police brutality, violence against women or children´s slavery, or the freedom of speech for every individual, are the most critical issue people aspire for. A man or a woman might be poor. But he or she wants to be respected and given the space to take care of him or herself. That´s the true essence of life. Respect for each individual. And that´s a good starting point to encourage people to move out of poverty and despair. 

Israel should be reminded of some basic principles of international law

Hamas is certainly an extremist group included in the Western list of terrorist organizations. It needs to be fought and its actions ought to be stopped.

But fighting Hamas is not an excuse for Israel to behave as a State that does not respect the laws of the war, the principle of proportionate force, and the overriding rules about the protection of civilians and the interdiction to inflict collective punishment on innocent populations.

These norms should guide the actions of any civilised State, even when that State is exercising the right of self-defence. In all legislations, self-defence has its limits and needs to be advised by a great sense of restraint. That´s what the modern world is about. 

War crimes are being committed

When the law of the war is not respect – and one should be reminded all the time that wars have their own body of international law that ought to be followed – war crimes are committed. And when they are committed the key leaders of the international community have to speak the words and say the right things. Leadership is about that. To call a spade a spade.  

Israel has to respond in a proportionate manner

Israel, as a close ally of the West, should be requested to behave with full respect for international law. In particular, it has to be told to be proportionate in the way it responds to the security threats coming from the other side of the wall.