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. 

New era, new questions

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

On the anniversary of NATO

All along, I have listened to a good number of dinner speakers. And I have noticed that, in general, they believe that a successful speech is the one that confirms the views of the attendees. They end up by seeing themselves as “comfort speakers”, as I would call them, invited to reinforce the prevailing ideas that have already gained a seat around the table.

That has been the case, for instance, on matters related to NATO. I mention the Alliance as its leaders get together in London to celebrate its 70^th anniversary. And I recall that I have repeated at a few occasions the Organisation needs an independent view of its relevance and role. They should even listen to some “positive contrarians” – another expression I use –, people that are ready to raise some fundamental questions instead of just re-stating dogmatic or diplomatic views.

I would also like to recall another of my frequent messages to senior officers: we can only succeed if we consult, de-conflict and harmonise our respective strategic and operational interests.  

Good riddance, Ambassador Bolton

John Bolton is a crazy warmonger. I expressed my deep concern when he was appointed US National Security Advisor. I should now show some degree of relief because he has just been sacked by the President. That’s a piece of good news. It also reveals that the President is more balanced than some of the crazies that claim to be part of his inner circle. He might be an erratic leader. But, at least, he seems to understand that military strikes are not exactly a solution to the many issues that complicate today’s international agenda. I hope the next National Security Advisor will come from the profession and not from the area of radical politics. There is still enough radicalism within the current administration.

New approaches to the Armed Forces

This week, we were engaged in a discussion about the future shape and configuration of the armed forces in contexts such as those we find in Europe. The starting point was that tomorrow’s defence will be very different in terms of means and personnel from what we have seen in the past. We should not be preparing for future conflicts the same way we have been doing during the last twenty years or so. Tensions and hostilities will be much more complex than they have been in the past.

I will not go into the details of the discussion this time. I just want to mention that one of the issues was about the participation of the armed forces in domestic security patrolling. Something we saw in recent years in France, above all, but also in Belgium and elsewhere, soldiers walking side by side with the Police – or on their one, no Police personnel being around – in the streets and shopping malls of our cities.

This remains a major point of disputation. I am not in favour. I do not think military personnel should be doing routine patrols that are very much within Police’s territory, unless there is a special emergency. But several senior military officers are for it. And some politicians as well, for reasons that have more to do with political gain than with increased levels of security.

The debate is not closed.

The UN and the current crises

The United Nations is always required to be politically smart. That’s the way I saw it, when performing the responsibilities that had been assigned to me. And that’s what I still believe to be the best approach. Smart means above all to be able to say what must be said but with the words that build trust and show concern. Timidity is not the best road to achieve results and guaranty the necessary credibility.

I mention it because today I had to state that things must get better. If the UN remains basically inspired by risk aversion, it will keep pushing itself to the margins of the key current issues.

The Member States must be reminded, as often as the opportunity arises and as it is authorised by the UN Charter and by the history of the organisation, that they ought to support the central role the UN is supposed to play in case of international crises and conflicts. They should also be helped to keep in mind – and act accordingly – that any conflict resolution situation and peacebuilding effort require a comprehensive response. The UN System has the know-how to provide comprehensiveness. And the System must say it loud and clear. It should also smartly – diplomatically – challenge those leaders who keep betting on a security solution to complex crises. A security response, even a powerful one, is just a tool. It is not the master key.

Munich and the annual security debate

Once more, the conflict between Israel and Palestine is not on the agenda of this year’s Munich Security Conference. 

This annual conference started today and runs up to Sunday. It’s a key international meeting on security. 

This year, Syria and Ukraine are again on the menu, as it is the insecurity situation in the Sahel, the nuclear weapons issue and the security dimensions of climate change. The exclusion of the Palestinian crisis from the debates is deliberate, of course. For many, it’s too delicate a subject. For others, and I am among those, it’s a never-ending conflict. Better move on and deal with those that have a chance of being resolved.

INF and the UN

President Trump’s decision to pull out of the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) is as much about Russia – the other country signatory of the Treaty – as it is about China and its build-up of cruise missiles. Russia has been violating the INF since 2012. And China is investing heavily on new types of missiles capable of carrying nuclear heads. China is actually becoming a major military adversary of the US. And that is done in close coordination with Russia. Both Presidents – Xi and Putin – are consulting and have the same goal: to increase, in their geopolitical areas of influence, their countries’ capacity to confront the US and its allies. This is certainly a very dangerous strategy. The US will respond by augmenting their investment in nuclear capabilities. That means a serious arms race in a field that is particularly destructive and could bring mayhem to Europe and some parts of Asia.

One should be truly worried.

The UN could take the initiative to open a serious process of confidence building in the matters of nuclear armament. There is even a department within the Secretariat in New York that is mandated to deal with this type of matters. But the UN seems unable to move in such a critical area. Or, inaction and silence cannot be the right course of action at this very risky moment.

Intelligence and balance

President Trump said today that the US intelligence chiefs are “extremely passive and naïve” and that “they should go back to school”. The President is indeed sui generis. Uncommon, and odd, to be clear.

These remarks he made are unjustified. That’s how we see it, from this side of the Alliance. The people that are currently in charge of the US national security are actually very experienced and balanced. These might be the characteristics the President has serious difficulties to identify with. They talk based of facts and assessments. The other side talks based on political instincts and emotions, and on a view that places him at the centre of the universe. Power blinds and disturbs quite often those who see themselves as above the crowd.

As an additional note, let me add that the American people and we in Europe are lucky enough to have such kind of professionals in charge of a key State function. And we encourage them not to feel undermined by unjustified and prejudiced remarks. They should keep playing the serene role that is theirs and is so crucial to avoid immature and irrational strategic decisions.

On Russia and the unity of the West

The Kremlin has been surprisingly slow in responding to the measures taken by Theresa May against Russia´s hostile actions. It´s difficult to come up with a good interpretation of the reasons for the delay.

But two things are clear.

First, I have no doubt they will retaliate. Heavily. And, most likely, before the Sunday presidential elections. The leadership, and Vladimir Putin above all, must show to the Russian voters that they do hesitate when it comes to defending Russia´s international honour and strength, as perceived by the official narrative.

Second, the Kremlin was clearly taken by surprise when they noted the unity shown in the West, particularly in Washington, Paris and Berlin. They wanted to respond to the UK and keep the West divided. Now, they have two big tasks. To deal with the British and look for ways of breaking the common position taken by key Western players.

Putin´s words

Vladimir Putin´s speech on weapons and new missile systems, including the repeated reference to nuclear means, cannot be taken lightly. The Russian President is very strategic when it comes to his public presentations. And yesterday he was clear. He sees the West as deeply hostile to Russia and engaged in a campaign against Putin himself. He believes in what he says, I would add. And he wants us to know he is ready to respond.

We might disagree with his assessment of the West´s intentions. But we must be prepared for all kinds of confrontations. Particularly against cyber-attacks, the most immediate threat coming from his side. He is investing heavily on those attacks. And he is targeting the countries that matter. The big ones. That´s why we witnessed a major cyberattack against Germany in the last two days.

Kim Jong-un, a dangerous provocateur

Kim Jong-un is above all a provocateur. But a dangerous one, let's be clear. His repeated provocations have created a very delicate situation in his part of the world. And that's a complex region, at it's at the centre of fundamental geopolitical and strategic interests of very powerful countries.

In my opinion, he is not reading the current international situation with smart eyes. Political circumstances have deeply changed. As the intelligence about his most strategic means of power and military capabilities has also changed.

He still believes that China will shield him from any military action coming from outside. In addition, he is convinced that his threats of retaliation against South Korea will discourage others from intervening in the North. He might have a point. However, I am no longer sure that such point is strong enough. 

Let the intelligence people do their work

The most dangerous mistake regarding North Korea could result from erroneous intelligence. It´s a real possibility. I know from a number of examples that intelligence agencies, even the best resourced and the most experienced ones, tend to make mistakes on critical matters. That´s particularly the case when they are under serious political pressure, as it is the case.

If the relevant intelligence people come to the conclusion that the North is about to launch some kind of nuclear or other threatening device, our side might then decide that the time for pre-emptive action is upon us. In these matters, decisions are taken fast.

Once they have been taken, it might be too late to contain and mitigate their multiple consequences.

Therefore, the first point in such a delicate situation as the current one is to make sure the intelligence work is carried out as professionally as possible, outside any type of political compulsion. Secondly, it is essential to fully consider the regional leaders ´opinion. Particularly, the South Korean ones, who are at present at the end of a decisive presidential campaign for an election scheduled for May 9. This is their region and in the world of today, their views are of paramount importance. 

Focus on a conflict at a time

The recent US statements on the current status of the Iran Nuclear deal are not wise. They contradict the position of all the other signatories of the agreement, leaving the US alone on such a delicate matter. That´s what I would call to paint oneself into a corner by trying to appear smarter and bolder than the other key members of the international community.

Furthermore, the new war of words coming from Washington towards Iran opens an additional front of conflict at a time no one has a clear understanding of the Trump Administration's strategy on Syria and North Korea. Why should they want to have one more problem on the table at this stage when the two others are already complex and dangerous enough? And confusing, as well. 

Our dear unpredictable enemy

There are a number of shockingly bizarre leaders and unacceptable governance regimes in the world. The North Korean one is certainly the strangest system. But, above all, it is a very serious menace to peace in the region, not to mention the human rights violations its citizens suffer on a daily basis.

It is also an extremely militarised country. By far, number one on this category. And on top of it, it is absolutely unpredictable.

The unpredictability is the main cause of deep concern in the region and also for the US, a country that has a strong strategic presence in the Korean Peninsula and in neighbouring Japan.

Today, the most pressing question is how to deal with such unpredictability. That´s what is under very active discussion in the special rooms where strategy is formulated. 

Talking about North Korea

The North Korean problem is very much linked to Kim´s power base. Therefore, its solution passes above all through a package of actions that can undermine the dictator's personal standing. Among other measures, which also include ridiculing the man, the diplomatic and economic ones are the most impactful. That means a very high degree of diplomatic isolation of the regime and the intensification of the economic and financial sanctions.

The question cannot be resolved through bombs and bombastic declarations. Such an approach would be used by Kim Jong-Un to his own advantage. External military action against the regime will allow him to further entrench himself in power.   

We are prepared to deal with terrorists

The sponsors of terrorist acts against European countries should be told two things.

First that we are much better prepared to prevent. The attacks by lone individuals, with very modest means, show that at present it is much more difficult for criminal groups to plan and organise terrorist raids. The intelligence services are now much more efficient than a few years ago. Exchanges between these types of individuals have become better monitored. Surveillance is more sophisticated.

Secondly, the sponsors should understand that these isolated acts do not change the way we see public life and do not split our societies along sectarian lines. We respond by continuing to lead routine lives. We carry on. The terrorists might kill innocent people but they have no lasting impact on our democratic values and institutions. Furthermore, they do not generate c continuous state of social panic and entrenched fear. The effect on society is local, and short lived.

A terrorist is a loser.  

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.

Gullibility

The more I listen to the noises made by the incoming US President on matters of international affairs, the more I get convinced that when it comes to his views about Russia and China he is a naïve. It´s all unsophisticated inspiration and no experience or wise listening to those who know about those countries ´political leaders. And that is certainly not good news, it can´t augur well for the US and their allies, especially when you have on the other side of the table foxy fellows like Putin and Xi. These two are no joke. They do not tweet. They plan. 

The US and Russia today

We reached today a new peak of tension between the US and Russia. It is directly related to the Syrian crisis and the fact that each country is clearly supporting one side of the conflict. A conflict that is too complex to be sorted out by political means alone.

But that´s only the immediate cause. The deeper reason is rooted on political competition between the US and Russia. It´s not about ideological differences between them, as it was the case during the Cold War. It is far more serious. It´s related to perceived vital national interests. Each country sees the other as very dangerous competition. And this is a new development, a new dramatic feature in the international scene.

I see it as particularly threatening to peace. I believe it is urgent to talk loud and clear about it and try to change this very hazardous views of power politics.