Reflections on political mediation

More and better mediation in times of conflict

Victor Angelo

The British philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) was one of the most brilliant thinkers of the 20th century. He was also one of the most progressive of his time, one of the first to fight for the institution of a universal minimum income or for the decriminalization of homosexual relations. A profound political analyst, he stressed in 1950, when he received the Nobel Prize for Literature, that "the love of power is, in fact, the strongest motive in the lives of important men. He added that many leaders do not mind impoverishing - and sinking the nation - if they can thereby bring their rivals to ruin. This is still the case in certain parts of the globe.

It was this blind passion for power, a central theme in Russell's work, that served as the starting point for my talk yesterday about conflict mediation. I was participating, by videoconference, in a colloquium of the US Institute of Peace, an independent Washington-based organization dedicated to parallel diplomacy and political negotiations. The challenge was to identify new ways of approaching national crisis resolution, to be shared with the United Nations and other partners active in this area of international politics.

Political intervention, in any society, requires a keen understanding of context and power relations. It is necessary to assess the relative strength of the main leaders, what their power is based on, and what their vulnerabilities are.

In democratic societies, this analysis is easier to do, even taking into account the opacity of certain secret associations, pressure groups and manipulation of social networks. Elections are held regularly, there are visible party structures and an active media. There, credibility is built on electoral legitimacy combined with the projection of a positive public image.

In countries where the abuse of force is the source and instrument of authority, the issue is more complicated. The apparent, institutional system is often deceptive. What counts is the informal web and its hierarchies. The real power is tied to traditional leaders, ethnic affiliations, religious networks, superstitions, or even criminal organizations in the field of drugs or the illegal trade in natural resources.

Throughout my life I have seen many examples of informal power. In Zimbabwe, it was easier to reach Robert Mugabe through the UN representative's driver than through the head of the presidential office. The driver was the first-born son of a tribal chief of the ethnic group to which Mugabe belonged. In Senegambia, a small number of marabouts had more political influence, regionally and nationally, than most ministers in the different governments.

Conflict mediation only works if you negotiate with those in power. The others, ministers and so on, are often mere figureheads or simple stooges of the boss. To get to the decision-maker, you often have to go beyond the formal system of governance.

Another critical aspect concerns the authority of the mediator. Credibility in politics results from the combination of four primary characteristics: a spirit of mission, political realism, balance of opinion, and self-confidence. Several mediators appointed in recent years by the United Nations have been shown to lack this set of qualities. New York tends to pay more attention to regional games, to winning political support in certain quarters, in the Security Council or from influential heads of state in the region concerned, than to the experience and personality of the appointees. The result is a certain marginalization of the UN and a blurring of its image.  During his second term, António Guterres should strive to address this weakness. The strengthening of the mediation capacity should be one of the priority areas in a time that promises to be fertile in conflicts. This is what many millions of people, victims of political violence or on the verge of the ravine, are crying out for every day.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 15 October 2021)

Europe and the world: what must be done

Europe's strategic autonomy

Victor Ângelo

 

Tianjin is a port city, a little more than a hundred kilometres southeast of Beijing. When the European powers established concessions in China, since the middle of the 19th century, this was one of the localities chosen as a gateway, with the advantage of being close to the capital. Today, it is a metropolitan zone that covers an area larger than the district of Beja - imagine the entire Baixo Alentejo urbanized, a landscape of skyscrapers with more than 15 million inhabitants. In 2025, Tianjin should have an economy two and a half times the size of Portugal.

The Tianjin example shows how important it is to see the world with realism. China is an unstoppable giant. It has in its favour the size of its population, authoritarian centralism of power, political will, and massive investment in science, technology, and the acquisition of raw materials. In this context, what future can Portugal, or any of most European countries, have in the global balance of power? Fortunately, there is the European Union. The productive integration and the pooling of political efforts allow the member-states to carry some weight in international economic relations and in the geopolitical chess game. If there were no other reason to justify the deepening of the EU, this alone would be enough.

This is where the question of Europe's strategic autonomy arises. It is part of the ritual of the speeches now in vogue. But it needs to be deepened and transformed into an action plan. That is why I will address three aspects of the subject today, leaving the defence and security dimensions for another time.

In this decade, the first major step towards the affirmation of Europe is the strengthening of the euro as an international means of payment as well as a monetary reserve currency. The European currency is already the second most used in global transactions, well above the Japanese yen and the Chinese renminbi, but it is still far behind the US dollar. It is essential, to allow autonomy in other areas of sovereignty, that there be the political will to accelerate the use of the euro in economic and financial relations with the most diverse regions of the globe. This discussion must get on the agenda of European political leaders. This is not a mere technical problem or a question of waiting for the dynamics of the markets. It is a strategic priority.

The second line of intervention concerns foreign policy. At present, except for the climate issue, Europe's position on major issues is defined by two negative features: subordination to the conveniences of the United States and fragmentation, a consequence of the individual interests of the Union's member states. The EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy represents little more than himself. The current holder of the post, Josep Borrell, although more experienced than the two previous holders, does not show the ability to push a proactive and cohesive agenda. This is not the way for the EU to have a greater voice on the global stage. This is another issue that cries out for a new kind of agreement at the level of European political leaderships.

The third course of action became more evident when the pandemic highlighted the importance of self-sufficiency in the production of cutting-edge goods and services. European economies must continually invest in scientific, technological, and digital innovation, and in the training of citizens. The Social Summit held in Porto recognized the need for lifelong learning. This is the new way to look at the competitiveness of our economies. It remains to be determined which sectors should be considered key, in addition to health, the expansion of artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, and energy. 

Strategic autonomy does not exclude interdependence and cooperation between us and others. And it cannot be just talk. It requires clear ideas and appropriate policies. 

 

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

 

 

We are being treated as vassal States

This is an exceptional moment in our contemporary history. The pandemic is challenging many of our long-held views and opening the door to a number of discussions about the future. One such discussion is about the role of values and principles in international relations.

I am one of those who thinks that big powers are putting aside the norms that have regulated the relations among nations. I see them as trying to reduce others to the status of vassal states. This is the current trend, for instance, when it comes to the United States. Washington is looking at Europe as subordinated allies, as countries that must unconditionally follow the American policy decisions in matters of foreign affairs.

European sovereignty is being threatened by such an approach.

In the circumstances, the European leaders have decided to pretend that is not the case. They turn a blind eye and just hope that as we get into next year, there will a change of leadership in Washington and, consequently, a more amicable attitude towards Europe. I am not sure. In 2021, the leadership might indeed be played by a set of different actors. But I see the trend as deeper than just a passing option linked to the Trump Administration. I sense it is structural and strategic. It comes from the dangerous competition that is growing a bit out of control between the United States and China. That competition will define the coming years. Both sides will be looking for support in the community of nations. And their natural tendency, like any giant, is to force other countries to take sides. The United States and China will be pressing others into the category of client-states. 

This is a development that the global crisis is accentuating. We cannot feign to ignore it.  

Maduro's days

The Venezuela standoff goes on. Time plays against Nicolás Maduro. He sees what remains of his authority being eroded with the passing of the days. He knows that, I believe, and is certainly preparing a heavy-handed response. And that’s the main danger at this stage: serious loss of lives.

Maduro also understands that the current context is different and not very favourable to him. The opposition is united. They have a charismatic and widely accepted leader. There is regional and international support to the new leader. Moreover, the regional rapport of forces is no longer what it used to be: now there is Bolsonaro next door, and the countries of the region are against him, except for Mexico, Cuba and Bolivia. And there has been a serious deterioration of the hardships most of the population is confronted with. The circumstances are playing against Maduro.

But he is still in the Miraflores Presidential Palace. And he has the support of his generals and admirals. That is important. The question is about the support of the lower ranking officers within the armed forces. That’s one of the keys to unlock the crisis.

Venezuela needs a domestic settlement

Venezuela is again a huge headline in the international agenda. And this time, the situation is extremely delicate. The country is at the hedge of major internal violent conflict.

The positions of the different Sates in Latin America and elsewhere must therefore be very clear.

It’s obvious that the last presidential elections have no credibility. As such, Nicolás Maduro cannot claim any legitimacy. He can claim power, as many dictators usually do, because he controls the armed forces and the police. The armed forces are now in charge of the oil business and that’s the reason why they still support Maduro and his regime. But many in the ranks know that the people to whom they belong, the grassroots men and women, are under enormous stress and just struggling to cope with poverty and the lack of very basic goods. This has nothing to do with imperialist forces in the outside world. It has to do with Maduro’s madness and crazy approach to the national economy.  

The EU has taken a view on the crisis that is very reasonable. It has called for a full respect for the National Assembly´s decisions and for the integrity of its leader, Juan Guaidó. It has called for proper elections to be organised. That’s fine, but how to organise them, in a way that meets internationally accepted criteria, that’s the impossible question. Elections are indeed the way forward, but I do not see them coming soon.

The most immediate step is to see how to stop a very likely escalation of violence. That’s, for me, the most urgent issue.

In the meantime, the US has said they do accept Maduro’s decision about the end of their diplomatic relations. That’s understandable. But Washington should however withdraw its diplomatic staff from Caracas. To keep them there opens a new opportunity to fire up violence, this time against the embassy personnel. And that could be an excuse for an American intervention that nobody wants. An outside military intervention would be a major mistake. It should be clear that it is not under preparation and that no action will be taken to try to justify it.

The people of Venezuela has now suffered enough. They need to find a domestic solution to their crisis.

Choppy waters and calm leaders

Notwithstanding the recent political developments in the US, the European leaders should keep a cool approach and fight every manifestation of anti-Americanism.

The EU and the US have been, for many decades, key allies and it´s in their mutual interest to keep it that way.

In terms of social progress, prosperity and peace, alliances between countries are the only way forward. Each side should bring to the fore the best it can offer. That does not mean, of course, that there will be agreement every time. Relations between countries touch a complex and varied number of dimensions, from security to trade and investment, in addition to more political matters, including the promotion of human values, liberties and rights. There will be times when the interpretations of the interests at play might diverge.

The challenge, for the leaders, is to find common ground. And if one of the sides keeps going in a direction that deviates from the traditional path, the duty of the other side is to be firm and clear. And remind everyone that what keeps us together can be seriously undermined by a narrow view of international politics. It can also be tremendously damaged by political amateurism, retrograde beliefs, personal arrogance and a short term view of one´s national interests.

EU leaders walking through a minefield

Donald Trump´s presidency remains the main subject of conversation among the EU politicians. They are still figuring out how to deal with the new American leader.

At this stage the prevailing approach is basically about keeping a courteous distance from the man. Beyond the surprise, they don´t like what they see, that´s obvious. But the Europeans know that it is important not to antagonize Trump. However, more importantly yet, the EU leaders are very much aware that large segments of the European public opinion do not appreciate the new White House man at all. Actually, to be clear, those citizens consider that Trump´s values do not match the democratic practice the West has put in place during the last decades. They see Trump both as an extremely negative, destructive political actor and as a serious menace to the international order.

The EU leaders cannot ignore the views of their citizens. They are therefore walking a minefield. They know they have to be very careful.