Thoughts and paths: a wider view of some geopolitic dimensions

Victor Angelo's public interventions address the intricate and rapidly evolving landscape of global geopolitics, underscoring the imperative for enhanced, authoritative, international mechanisms to manage crises rooted in human security, justice, and democracy. His views try to elucidate the transformation of conflict dynamics post-Cold War and the paramount importance of key values --cooperation, trust, dignity and human rights -- in global affairs.

Global Challenges Surpassing Responses: The swift and complex changes in geopolitics have created a disparity between global challenges and the capacity of existing international mechanisms to address them effectively. Leadership's Impact on Crises: Ethical and competent leadership is essential for peace and stability, with leaders acting as agents of change or contributors to conflict, highlighting the need for principled diplomacy that balances national interests and universal values. 

Centrality of Human Security: Human security, which integrates national protection with human rights, democracy, and economic opportunities, emphasizes empowerment and civic participation in crisis contexts.

Shift from State-Centric to Individual Focus: Post-Cold War conflicts have transitioned from interstate to internal, with individuals becoming central to international affairs paradigms. However, we are witnessing at the same time a return to interstate conflicts. This time they combine classical means of war with hybrid, digitally based attacks and sanctions of different nature.

Role of Civil Society in Peacebuilding: Civil Society Organizations and community groups have become indispensable partners in conflict resolution, although international bodies continue to struggle with effectively engaging local and traditional authorities. Good Governance and State Fragility: Good governance, encompassing accountability, human rights, and political pluralism, as well as social progress and full respect for the nature, is crucial to preventing crises; failing states lose control of core key sovereignty functions, thereby risking instability and conflict. For the first time since 1945, developed states are also entering in a political and social downwards spiral.

United Nations' Pivotal Role: Despite criticisms, the United Nations remains the central institution for legitimizing and managing peace and security efforts, with the Security Council supposed to play a key role through resolutions and mandates. Challenges in Peacekeeping Mandates: Security Council mandates are often broad and challenging to implement, with issues such as host nation consent and mission coherence complicating peacekeeping effectiveness. Complexity of Modern Conflicts: Contemporary conflicts are asymmetric and multifaceted, necessitating coordinated multidimensional responses that consider political, military, and economic factors, including the economic drivers of conflict.

The European Union project needs a stronger leadership

 I am deeply concerned about the geopolitical challenges facing the European Union. These include the refugee crisis, the rise of far-right political parties and Euroscepticism, and a potential "desintegration" of the bloc if common solutions are not found.

Furthermore, the EU needs to increase its defense spending and address the reasons behind public apathy and a lack of belief in the European project.

"Vivência e Reflexões Geopolíticas": a book that should be widely read

 Vivências e Reflexões Geopolíticas ("Experiences and Geopolitical Reflections") is a book by Victor Ângelo that offers a unique perspective on global affairs, blending his personal experiences with professional analysis. Rather than a formal academic text, it is a collection of reflections informed by his long and distinguished career.

Here's what you should know about the book and its author:

About the Author and His Perspective

Victor Ângelo is a highly respected Portuguese diplomat who spent over three decades working for the United Nations, including serving as Special Representative of the Secretary-General. This background is crucial, as the book is a product of his on-the-ground experience in various conflict zones and complex geopolitical environments, such as Sierra Leone and the Central African Republic.

His writing is described by critics as clear, direct, and non-academic. He is known for cutting through complex issues with a straightforward style that makes geopolitical topics accessible to a wider audience.

Main Ideas and Content

The book is a mix of memoir and geopolitical commentary. It uses Ângelo's personal "vivências" (experiences) as a foundation for his "reflexões" (reflections). Key themes include:

• The Role of the UN: He provides a first-hand account of the United Nations' role in managing and resolving conflicts, offering a candid view from inside the organization.

• Contemporary Conflicts: The book analyzes major international issues, including the war in Ukraine and the tensions between the West and China, drawing on his expertise to offer context and potential solutions.

• A Call for Reform: Ângelo is a strong advocate for the reform of the UN Security Council, an idea he has discussed in various public appearances. This theme is central to his work.

In essence, the book is valued for its unique blend of personal narrative and professional insight, providing a grounded, practical look at the challenges and complexities of modern international relations from the perspective of someone who has been in the room.

Leadership is about courage and clear priorities

Navalny and Zelensky: two examples of extraordinary courage

Victor Angelo

I want to start this week's text with a posthumous tribute to Alexei Navalny, who was executed exactly a week ago by Vladimir Putin's regime. Navalny was a fearless opponent in a country where power terrorises its citizens and coldly executes its main opponents and dissidents. This is also what happened these days to Russian helicopter pilot Maxim Kuzminov, who at the age of 28 was shot dead at point-blank range in a town in the province of Alicante, in other words on Spanish territory, without Russia's special operations forces showing any respect for either the law or Spain's sovereignty. In August 2023, in an operation planned with the Ukrainian secret services, Kuzminov diverted a Mi-8 military transport helicopter loaded with sensitive parts destined for Russian fighter jets to Ukraine. Putin was unforgiving and the young pilot, who had taken refuge in Spain in the meantime, was tracked down by a specially-created group, discovered and murdered. The Spanish secret services only realised what was at stake when the body was found, a few days after the murder, in the garage of the building where the former pilot lived. The same thing happened in Berlin in 2019 to a dissident of Chechen origin and to others in the UK and elsewhere. 

Political assassination is a practice from another era, except for people like Putin. Yevgeny Prigozhin, the leader of the Wagner terrorist group, has forgotten this fact and fallen for the bait. Navalny, on the other hand, was aware of the risk. He had already experienced a first attempt in 2020, which didn't work thanks to the reaction of the captain of the commercial flight he was travelling on and then medical care in Germany. Once treated, he dared to return to his home country, fully aware of the dangers he would face. In this way, he sent Putin and his fellow citizens three messages: firstly, a leader doesn't abandon the battlefield; secondly, such a leader keeps his eyes on the target he considers fundamental - in this case, ousting the corrupt clique from power; and thirdly, a true leader believes that, sooner or later, the dictator will eventually be defeated. 

Portugal has no such problems. But it does have major political flaws, which place it in a mediocre position in various EU rankings. We lack leaders who are capable of fighting for vital priorities, who have an unwavering concern for the common good and who believe that it is possible to transform Portugal into a more efficient country capable of harnessing its existing potential. Recent debates have shown that we need leaders with clear ideas and the ability to unite citizens around projects that will allow us to consolidate citizen ethics, put our house in order and modernise the country. When I heard about Navalny's assassination, I was exceptionally shocked and, on the other hand, thinking that a man like that makes our politicians poor puppets of the television channels. Or, at best, half-wits, some more naive and others more opportunistic, with a lot of talk, a lot of parrying and little operational capacity.

Volodymyr Zelensky does not play the game and has equally exemplary courage. At this point, two years after the devastating invasion ordered by Putin, I couldn't fail to mention Ukraine, the bravery of its people and the unusual qualities of its leadership. Ukraine surprised the Kremlin, which thought it could take over Kyiv in three days, and won the admiration of all those who value freedom and resistance against the imperialism of the great powers. 

Now the country urgently needs another extraordinary amount of foreign aid. Joe Biden has been endeavouring to get the House of Representatives to approve a supplementary budget to contain the current Russian offensive and finally repel the invader. But the leader of the House, under orders from the notorious Donald Trump, won't even put the matter to a vote. It would certainly be approved, as it has already been by a very large majority in the Senate. Without these funds, Biden could appear in the election campaign as the loser in Ukraine and unable to resolve the migratory pressure on the Mexican border. That's what Trump wants to win votes. Trump is, in his own way, just as dangerous as Putin. 

We cannot let Putin emerge victorious from his war against Ukraine. The Eastern European countries, Denmark, the United Kingdom and others understand this. Germany is a key player on our side. There has been some evolution in the right direction at the level of its leaders. But Olaf Scholz is still hesitant, particularly when it comes to supplying full-power long-range missiles without reducing their capabilities. We must advise him to take inspiration from the courage of Navalny and Zelensky. It is also critical to make him understand that there can be no hesitation when it comes to people like Putin and issues of self-defence. Putin will never negotiate in good faith, contrary to what Scholz and other naive people imagine is possible.

A.I. translation of my opinion piece published on Diário de Notícias (Lisbon) in the Portuguese language on 23 FEB 2024

Asking a few questions

A very unusual year: where are we heading to?

Victor Angelo

 

The Russian Armed Forces are currently firing thousands of shells a day at Ukraine. My friend Zulmiro, who is, and always has been, a primary communist militant, is not bothered by this volume of daily destruction. For him, every Ukrainian is a Nazi. Although he cannot explain the concept of Nazism in the year 2022, the accusation, imprecise as it is, justifies everything and tidies up the matter. It is impossible to argue with him, despite many decades of friendship. In view of this, and moving to a more general level, I ask how it will be possible to launch a process of negotiations between the Ukrainian leadership and Zulmiro's idols in the Holy of Holies, the Kremlin? That is one of the big questions of the moment. There is talk of diplomacy, but that, what does it mean?

Meanwhile, the Russian gamble continues to be on force, terror, and violation of the international order. Vladimir Putin and his men want the annihilation of the Ukrainian state and the surrender of its leaders. To achieve this, they will continue to machine gun and wipe out Ukraine. Systematically and intensely, with total inhumanity and a great sense of urgency, to weaken the Ukrainians' capacity for resistance and legitimate defence to the utmost before the promised arms arrive from Western countries.

Many do not want to look seriously at the question of self-defence, preferring, on our side, the comfortable ambiguity proper to nations well established in life. On the one hand, we help the victim and, on the other, we try not to harass the aggressor beyond the limits that could jeopardise our peace of mind. We keep repeating that we are not at war with the Putin regime, a half-truth which certainly makes him laugh with irony. He is at war with us, and he knows that the wars of today can be fought with missiles and cannons, as in the case of Ukraine, or with power cuts, cyber sabotage, disinformation, financing of extremist groups, and much more.

Self-defence raises a strategic question: either we ally ourselves with the aggressed, the weaker, or tomorrow it will be our turn. We may be on the verge of the decisive moment: to support with a new kind of intensity or just with minimal costs?

Looking further ahead, I would say that it has been decades since the international situation reached such a dangerous point as now. On top of a pandemic that has paralysed the world, we now have a combination of very serious conflicts and tensions. In Ukraine, Yemen, around Iran, in and around Burkina Faso, Libya, Myanmar, in addition to the never-ending crises in Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, Congo (DRC) and others.

In the most developed countries, people are coming out of the peak of the health crisis with a very acute consumerist fever. The issue of global warming, and the accelerated destruction of nature, has disappeared from the radar of citizens and the speeches of politicians. Even Greta Thunberg, who had mobilised global attention in the period before the pandemic, can not make herself heard.

Then came war, thanks to the imperialist and dictatorial madness of Vladimir Putin. I am sorry to say to the analysts who talk about these things that this is not a geostrategic issue. Putin wants to be the Tsar Peter the Great of our times, when he may end up being seen as the little Hitler of 2022.

Meanwhile, the tension between the US and China has entered a far more dangerous phase. And the impoverishment of the most vulnerable countries, something that has disappeared from the fat print of newspapers, is accelerating. In Sri Lanka, the Sahel countries, Central America, Haiti, and Pakistan, to name but a few. And the economies of the richest nations are increasingly living off the debt of future generations, amidst inflation that shows the mismatches between production, imports, and consumption patterns. Meanwhile, multilateral organisations continue to lose strength and image.

We are at a crossroads of critical uncertainties and serious risks. Where are we heading to? And where are the visionary leaders capable of proposing common-sense paths?

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 18 June 2022)

 

Looking at a possible UN role in Ukraine

UN: a roadmap for peace in Ukraine

Victor Angelo

 

More than a month has passed since an open letter was sent to the UN Secretary-General on the situation in Ukraine, signed by former senior officials. Meanwhile, António Guterres has been in Moscow and Kyiv, and has managed to push forward the UN humanitarian response. The political dimension, however, continues to be determined elsewhere. In general, words coming out of the West have been accentuating the possibility of a Ukrainian victory. Statements of this kind tend to aggravate the confrontation. It is true that there has been a considerable increase in arms support to Ukraine and that this is positive, as it allows for a redoubling of self-defence efforts. But in public, we should only talk about self-defence and, in tandem, the urgency of peace.

In this context, it makes perfect sense for the Secretary-General to stand up for a political process that recognises both the right to self-defence and war reparations, and the imperative of a peace agreement, guaranteed by the United Nations.

A new open letter should now insist on this line of action. A draft was prepared this week. I was one of those who found the text too vague, when the moment demands clarity and a firm assumption of responsibilities. So, for the time being, there will not be a new missive from us. The important thing is to show that the political pillar of the United Nations has the necessary authority to propose a way out of the crisis which will counter the escalation of military aggression and prevent the destruction of Ukraine.

The UN's political agenda could be built around four converging lines of intervention.

First, by seeking to establish temporary pauses in the fighting, in various localities deemed vulnerable, in order to protect civilians and facilitate humanitarian assistance. In this vision, the pauses would be monitored by a contingent of UN observers, with a mandate from the Security Council. The proposal to create a group of international monitors would be appreciated by many, although it is acknowledged that it would encounter immense obstacles to be approved.

Second, by maintaining a constant call, repeated until heard, for an end to hostilities and acceptance of a UN-led mediation process, which could include the preparation of a conference on a new framework for cooperation and security in Europe. 

Third, by continually recalling the Geneva Protocols on the limits of war. The major concern is the defence of civilian populations. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited; acts of military violence to create terror are a war crime; infrastructures essential to the survival of communities must be spared; certain types of munitions are absolutely prohibited, including cluster bombs, chemical and biological weapons. It is also time to underline the rules on the treatment of prisoners of war, now that the defenders of the last stronghold in Mariupol have surrendered to Russian troops. This surrender is a highly political and symbolic event, which calls for a special reference, in defence of the rights of these prisoners. And of all the others, of course. 

Still under this heading, it seems essential to me to reiterate that the UN is already engaged in documenting possible war crimes and will seek, as far as possible, to increase its efforts in this regard.

Fourth, bearing in mind the divisions within the Security Council, and considering this war to be the greatest threat in 77 years, the Secretary-General could try to set up a Contact Group on the conflict. Such a group would bring together several influential countries that would be in constant liaison with Guterres in the search for solutions. It is a way to multiply the Secretary-General's capacity for intervention and to create a circle of support to protect him from political attacks. It would also show that the crisis has an international and not just a European scope.

None of this would be easy. But the fact remains that the job of UN secretary-general is anything but an easy one.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 20 May 2022)

 

 

 

 

 

António Guterres and the role of the UN Secretary-General

What to expect from the United Nations?

Victor Angelo

 

Charles Michel has just been in Kyiv. The visit followed those of other European leaders, including the presidents of the Parliament, Roberta Metsola, and the Commission, Ursula von der Leyen.

One of the first to make the trip to Kyiv was Peter Maurer, president of the International Committee of the Red Cross, who was in the Ukrainian capital on 16 March at a time when the city was under very close threat. And Pope Francis is said to be preparing a similar trip.

Regardless of the practical results of these trips, their symbolic importance must be recognised. In a conflict situation, the symbolism of certain initiatives is fundamental to reinforce the legitimacy of the cause one of the parties is defending, as well as to underpin its narrative. Legitimacy and narrative are essential in conflicts such as the one in Ukraine, which are taking place under the watchful eye of world public opinion, thanks to the courage of many journalists, Ukrainian and foreign.

Politically, each visit seeks to show solidarity with the country that is the victim of the war of aggression. It is thus underlined that the invasion decided by Vladimir Putin is unacceptable. At the same time, it makes it possible to reaffirm the will to contribute to a political solution to a crisis which can in no way be resolved by force. The time has come to show that the use and abuse of force is no longer accepted as a source of rights on the international stage.

In Maurer's case, it was a question of highlighting the humanitarian dimension. This is the raison d'être of the International Red Cross. Maurer, who has moved on from Kyiv to Moscow, knows that leadership means being tirelessly on the front line and in contact with those in power.

For the United Nations, the humanitarian response should also be a way forward. For two reasons. First, because we are facing a major humanitarian crisis. Second, because it can open the diplomatic bridges needed to mediate the conflict. This has happened so many times without compromising the independence and neutrality of the humanitarian work, whose ultimate goal is to save lives. I have always advocated that there must be a clear separation between humanitarian action and political initiatives. But I have also always advocated that a political process can be built on humanitarian intervention.

It is in this line that the letter sent this week to António Guterres, and signed by a group of about 250 former senior UN officials, fits in. The tragedy unleashed by Putin seriously undermines the political credibility of the United Nations. Based on this concern, the main message of this letter is to call for the maximum personal and visible engagement of the Secretary-General in the search for a solution to the crisis. Given the gravity of the situation, the role gives him the moral authority to do so and requires him to be clear, objective and resolute.

In the view of the signatories, the Secretary-General must repeat loud and clear, and unceasingly, that aggression of this kind violates the international order and dangerously destabilises existing balances.  It is not just a question of condemning the actions of a permanent member of the Security Council. It is essential to express an extraordinary level of concern and, at the same time, to show an insurmountable and tireless back-and-forth dynamic between the capitals that count. Firstly, to insist on a cessation of hostilities - of Russian aggression, as it were - and then to propose a peace plan.  A plan that allows the victims to be compensated, those responsible for the aggression and war crimes to be punished and the process of reforming the Security Council to be initiated. Basically, the challenge is twofold: to promote peace and to adapt the UN to today's world.

In signing the letter, I had three questions in mind. First, about the complexity of the function of Secretary General of the United Nations, which is, above all, an eminently political task. Second, about the need to have an up-to-date global organization that corresponds to today's world and the challenges ahead. Third, about good leadership, which requires a very astute balance between prudence and courage.

PS: After receiving the message and seeing how the Russian side reacted to it, Guterres moved and wrote to Putin and Zelensky.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 22 April 2022)

The EU and its neighbours, starting with Belarus

A Europe beyond barbed wire

Victor Angelo

 

The confrontation taking place on the border between Belarus and Poland is worrying, but it cannot be analysed in black and white. It is a complex crisis that raises a whole series of questions. We are facing humanitarian, migratory, security, geopolitical and ethical problems, in other words, a constellation of challenges that need to be debated calmly, frankly, and thoroughly.

In the background, we have two major problems. The first is about democracy. The second focuses on extreme poverty in a world that is profoundly unequal, and that conflicts, pandemics and climate change are making even more uneven and fractured.

But first, you have to think about the people who are now trapped in the no-man's-land between the Polish barbed wire and the truncheons of the Belarusian special units. It is not known how many thousands there are - estimates are not reliable. It is known, however, that they include fragile people, many of them children, who are hungry and cold and suffer constant humiliation and violence. They are also permanent targets for false news that Belarusian agents constantly circulate in order to keep the migrants' illusions alive.

Alexander Lukashenko, the master of Belarus, is clearly taking advantage of the misery of certain peoples. But our side cannot remain indifferent to the suffering of those who have allowed themselves to be manipulated, people who live in such complicated contexts that any promise, however unrealistic it may be, always brings a thread of hope. And that throws masses of people into the minefields of illegal migration.

The border with Belarus separates the European area from an autocratic regime, in which anything that can keep the dictator in power is done. Lukashenko is our most immediate concern today, but he is not the only case in the neighbourhood. If we look around and focus on who represents the closest potential or real threat, we have a bouquet that also includes the leaders of Russia and Turkey. I do not want to add some Moroccan politicians to this list, but I would recommend not losing sight of this North African neighbour of ours, who has already shown that he knows how to use mass migration as a political weapon.

It is true that there are also those within the EU who are destabilising European integration. But that is a matter for another reflection.

Let us now talk about democracy. The EU needs to formulate a doctrine that defines how it should relate to non-democratic neighbours, especially when situations of open hostility arise, as is now the case. In the current framework, one gets the feeling that democracies tend to lose out to outlaw states. It is therefore necessary to clearly establish what the appropriate response should be to aggressions of a hybrid nature, carried out at the tangent of the red line of armed conflicts between States, without, however, crossing it. A first step should be a firm and unequivocal response. This includes the adoption of sanctions in a swifter, multi-faceted and more character-focused manner. Another means will be to make greater use of the multilateral system. This will allow actions like the one Lukashenko ordered at the expense of the despair of the Iraqi Kurds, the Syrians and other peoples of the Middle East to be included on the international agenda,

As for the disparities that exist between a rich Europe and a whole series of poor countries, the pull effect is inevitable. Mass migration from South to North will be one of the most striking phenomena of this and the following decades. The EU cannot pretend it does not see the trend. It is unacceptable to leave a matter of such importance to the discretion of individual member states. The issue must be dealt with jointly. And the subject must become one of the main lines of debate at the Conference on the Future of Europe. It is also time to tell the citizens that this conference is taking place and get them involved.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 19 November 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)

Europe must keep engaged with China

Europe, China, and the US: a turbulent triangle

Victor Ângelo

 

European policy towards China requires a smart balance between respect for democratic values and economic interests. It is a complex issue that touches the daily lives of European citizens. You only have to look at the map of rail connections - 5,000 freight train journeys are expected in 2021 - or at the sea charts showing the routes of cargo ships to understand the interdependence between Europe and China. We need to import what we do not produce - or have stopped producing. The Chinese need our markets to ensure important levels of economic growth, one of the pillars of internal stability and regime continuity.

This interdependence has increased spectacularly since Xi Jinping came to power in 2013. It is part of his strategy. And the trend is for it to accentuate in the coming years. In addition to mutual investments and the increasing purchase by Westerners of Chinese stocks and treasury bonds, note that the economic corridor is more and more diverse. Some lines pass through Russian Siberia, others through Kazakhstan. Later, there will be a land link via Iran and Turkey, not forgetting the sea routes, which rely mainly on the ports of France, Italy and the Netherlands. The smooth functioning of this vast transit area requires a permanent political dialogue between the countries, which will have to be based on an understanding of mutual interests and perceptive pragmatism. To facilitate this dialogue and open a wider door, Europe should take the initiative to propose the creation of a consultative platform for the Eurasian corridor. Any disruption of traffic, for political or security reasons, would have a dramatic impact on the economy and people's lives, particularly in the European area. This tangle of relationships stems from the process of globalisation that began more than two decades ago. Anyone who thinks that the way in which the international economy is now organised can be significantly reversed is dreaming politics without having their feet firmly planted in reality.

The disruptions currently occurring here in Europe in the supply chains for raw materials or finished products produced in China and the escalating cost of transporting a container from a Chinese port to a European one already give us a bitter taste of what could happen if there were a serious disruption due to disagreement between the parties or the imposition of ill-considered sanctions. For example, before the pandemic, transporting a 40-foot container by sea from Shanghai to Europe could cost between $2,000 and $4,000. Now it has reached $17,000 and the waiting time can be up to several months. And this is despite the fact that Chinese container production accounts for more than 85% of the world's total. These problems may be temporary, the result of an acceleration of economic recovery in the more developed parts of the world and the pressure they put on shipping. Any European importer who needs made-in-China goods or components to maintain their manufacturing activities will be well able to explain the importance of a trade relationship without unnecessary hindrance. The more informed will also stress the need to avoid a further escalation of tensions in Taiwan and the South China Sea. This also applies to the Chinese side, which should not continue to pursue an escalation of offensive actions in these sensitive areas.

In a deeply interconnected world, one cannot think geopolitically and make strategic decisions following past models or seeing the world as a black and white scenario. The Americans have chosen a path of confrontation. On this side of the Atlantic, that option appears to be a dangerous choice and contrary to our interests. This is why Europe cannot and must not copy Washington.

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

 

 

Reflecting about democracy

 Democracy cannot be make-believe

Victor Ângelo

 

In the most developed societies, we are witnessing an acceleration in the digitalisation of all dimensions of citizens' lives. The pandemic has contributed enormously to this digital revolution. But more is coming.  The ability to process millions of pieces of information through new methods of artificial intelligence and advances in automation will allow the control - and, in many cases, manipulation - of people in a way never seen before.

The new digital age brings numerous challenges, and even threats, for democracy. Think, for example, of the role of robots in the multiplication of propaganda, fake news, and the creation of echo chambers, which give the impression of massive political support for some, and build around them all sorts of illusions, alongside the harassment of others, the opponents, with thousands of hostile messages from fake profiles. But the most immediate aspect concerns participation in the electoral act. If a citizen can pay his taxes or renew his identity card while sitting at the kitchen table, why is he not allowed to vote by computer link-up, also from home? Going to a polling station, going through crowds of people, queuing up and wasting time seem like procedures from another time, even if people like Donald Trump try to discredit electronic voting.

Already this week, the French have thrown another challenge into the debate. The abstention rate in the regional elections reached a record high. Two-thirds did not vote. Worse still, around 9 out of 10 of 18–24-year-olds were not ready for the hassle. They just ignored the election calls. Analysts were baffled. In discoursing on the reasons for such indifference, they fell into the same simplism that Marine Le Pen, Jean-Luc Mélenchon and other political personalities had already shown on election night - it would be the fault of the citizens, who found the inconvenience not worth it. And they launched cries to the heavens to lament that such a trend could lead to the death of democracy.

All that is television talk. People - especially young people - do not vote because most of the political class doesn't mean anything to them, doesn't inspire them, has no new ideas, is just more of the same, with too much hubris and too few ethics. This is what is happening in France and other European countries. The main threat to democracy does not come from apathy among citizens. That is the consequence. The cause lies upstream, in the political parties - there are always exceptions - which are generally nothing more than a club of opportunists or fanatics, enlightened by short-sightedness.

The question of democracy is also on the agenda of the European Council meeting that has been held since yesterday, marking the end of the Portuguese presidency. The big question, which has been a long time coming and so far, unanswered, is what to do about the authoritarian governance currently practised in Hungary and Poland. The leaders in these two countries have long systematically violated Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union, which defines the fundamental values on which the EU is based - freedom, democracy, separation of powers and human rights. The lack of an adequate response to these violations is another fuel to the fire that is consuming away the citizens' confidence in democracy and politicians.

Less talked about, but equally important for the vitality of democracy, is having a capable system of administration of justice that is independent of politicians. Citizens need to have confidence in the speedy and efficient functioning of the courts, as a means of defending their rights and correcting injustices. In the age of "digital totalitarianism" this is even more essential. In member states where justice is slow, ill-equipped, and inefficient, we have a problem almost as serious as the authoritarianism that exists elsewhere. Those states have a lame democracy. They should also be the subject of criticism in the European Council. Without effective justice, democracy is an illusion. And the citizens, as the French have now shown, are no longer so easily deceived.

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

 

Summits and dangerous choices

The turmoil they want us to get into

Victor Ângelo

 

The UN General Assembly is today expected to re-elect António Guterres for a second term. The first one was not easy, for various reasons, including the fact that Donald Trump has been president of the United States four of the last five years. Trump had not the slightest interest in multilateralism. He was, moreover, unpredictable and oddball in matters of international politics. To appear to be going against his theses would be a kind of political suicide. This greatly reduced the Secretary-General's room for manoeuvre. Guterres then focused on four major areas: the parity agenda, particularly within the organisation, where he successfully implemented a policy of promoting women to senior posts; climate change; humanitarian response; and finding solutions to crises in countries where it did not clash with the permanent members of the Security Council. He also carried out some internal reforms, notably of the UN's organisation chart and representation at country level.   

The second mandate will be even more difficult. The summits of the last few days - G7, NATO, US-EU, Biden-Putin - have shown that we have entered a very complex phase in the global power games. Several conclusions can be drawn from what has been said. None of them puts the United Nations where it belongs, as a platform for convergence between opposing interests. At these summits, certain players have adopted a confrontational line, and others have allowed themselves to be dragged along. Even when the tone is calm, as was the case at the meeting between Biden and Putin, we cannot fall into illusions: each maintains his positions and sees the other as the hostile side. It is a new era of distrust and direct conflict between the superpowers, outside the established international order.

More specifically, bringing the rivalry with China into the military field and openly including it in NATO's agenda is a mistake. It is true that the two paragraphs dedicated in the final communiqué to relations with China are softer than the messages disseminated before and during the meeting. But in essence, we are giving Beijing reasons to strengthen defence cooperation with Moscow and to increase its participation in joint military exercises with the Russians, including in regions close to the European Union's borders. If we have criticisms to make, in the areas of human rights and freedom, of unfair commercial competition, or even when China pushes certain countries into excessive debt, with investments in infrastructure that serve, above all, its own interests, let us make them in the appropriate political forums. 

When you gamble, as you have done all week, on confrontation and bloc politics, you are almost irretrievably compromising the functioning of the United Nations Security Council. The veto then becomes the standard practice. The result is the weakening of the UN and the marginalisation of its leaders, starting with the Secretary-General. And all this is in contradiction with the repeated promises to strengthen multilateralism, which appear in the documents approved at the G7 and NATO meetings.

Soon after his investiture, Biden decided to bring his country back to the United Nations Human Rights Council, as an observer and to make it more relevant. This is a wiser decision than going ahead with the intention of convening a conference of democracies, an issue that was again on the table during summits with allies. Such a conference, which should include the good guys and exclude the bad guys, according to Washington's criteria, would further divide the international community and put the UN in an extremely delicate situation. To help the multilateral system and help defuse the turmoil looming on the horizon, the European Union should not support such an initiative. Nor should it be towed along by any superpower. It is precisely to avoid this that there is a common project and so much talk of deepening European sovereignty. 

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

Lowering the tension between Russia and the West

Russia and us: maximum prudence and lots of diplomacy

Victor Angelo

 

There are some intellectuals out there with a broken compass. They have shown again this loss of reference points in the way they have reacted to the criticism made to Alexander Lukashenko, the post-Soviet relic who controls the destiny of Belarus since 1994. A character who meets all the requirements that characterize a dictator. He will not have the stature of Vladimir Putin or Xi Jinping, nor the madness of Kim Jong-un, or a strategic vision that goes beyond the simple obsession with perpetuating himself in power. He is a tiny tyrant who, at his manner, ruins the freedoms and the lives of his fellow citizens. This evidence escapes some. With their gaze fixed on the past, they play at being progressive and see in him a heroic survivor of the communist era, a would-be resistor to the imperialist designs of the West. And they swallow all the falsehoods that this variant of Salazar, a version with a moustache and a brute, invents to justify his actions. In particular, the criminal action against the Ryanair commercial flight, and the lies built around Roman Protasevich. They ignore, at the same time, everything that the European leaders have said on the subject. 

The same has been true of the propaganda coming from the Kremlin. For some of our bewildered people, Putin is always right, when he attacks our part of the world. The explanation is the same, although in a strengthened dose, that the Kremlin has a more symbolic meaning and touches the soul of those nostalgic for the Soviet Union more than Minsk.

The truth is different, however. Putin is a threat. Like other despots, his power strategy is to create an external enemy, so as to allow him to appear, in the eyes of his own, as the defender of the homeland, its traditional values, and its nationalist projection as a great power. In this plan, everything that emerges as internal opposition, and that could jeopardize Putin's future, is accused of being at the service of foreign powers and pursued with all ferocity.

The external target par excellence is NATO. And the rhetoric from Moscow, which some here faithfully echo, attributes to the Atlantic Alliance the design of wanting to camp along the Russian borders. It is the alleged eastward expansion of NATO. There are four member states that share border lines with Russia: Poland and Lithuania, which are neighbours of Kaliningrad, a highly militarized Russian enclave, plus Latvia and Estonia. These countries joined NATO by their own will and because they meet the conditions required by the organization: a democratic political system, based on a market economy and respect for people's rights; and the existence of an effective defence structure duly framed by a legitimate political power. It is essentially about democracy and sovereignty. It is this sovereignty - the ability of each country to decide freely on its foreign alliances - that Putin does not want to accept being practiced by Georgia and, above all, Ukraine. Since he has no such right, he uses intimidation, trickery and, when necessary, force as an alternative. 

Those who live in an outdated ideological labyrinth do not understand these things. They pay no attention to the voices coming from the European camp, even though our leaders have the democratic legitimacy that dictators lack. Nor do they care that our side has unsuccessfully sought to revive the NATO-Russia Council, an essential consultative body for détente. The last meeting of that Council took place in July 2019. Further, Russia was invited to send military observers to the allied exercise SteadFast Defender 2021, which is taking place across Europe and with a special focus on the Black Sea. It did not respond to the invitation.

The current conjuncture is worrisome. Tension between the two sides of Europe is as it has never been in the last 30 years. In such a context, the summit planned for June 16 in Geneva between the American and Russian presidents is going to be very difficult. It is urgent to defuse the existing dangerous situation, so this meeting will require maximum diplomacy and prudence.

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

 

 

Lukashenko flies low and will crash

Lukashenko in choppy flight

Victor Angelo

 

For some states, the repression of dissidents knows neither limits nor borders. Anything goes when someone is considered an enemy of the regime. Even when he or she lives abroad, convinced that it is safer. One may not be, however, if one is considered a target for the criminals who control power in the home country. Some dictatorships have an awfully long repressive arm. They have no qualms about operating on foreign soil and conducting murders, kidnappings, or making frivolous or unsubstantiated accusations in order to force Interpol to issue international arrest and repatriation notices. In other cases, they brutally intimidate family members who have remained in the country, with the aim of silencing the opponent in other latitudes.

The atrocious execution in Istanbul of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi in 2018 was the most visible case in recent times. But it is not only Saudi Arabia that violates international law in this way. In a recently published report, the reputable NGO Freedom House took inventory of individual cases of transnational repression and the regimes that practice it, with total disregard for the sovereignty of other states and the norms of political asylum and refugee protection. In addition to the Saudis, the list includes China, Iran, Rwanda, Russia and Turkey. It would be easy, unfortunately, to add a few others. North Korea, for example, which organized the assassination of Kim Jong-un's half-brother at Kuala Lumpur airport in 2017. And as of this week, we have to include Lukashenko's Belarus.

The Belarusian dictator, who is not cleared of the well-founded suspicion of having rigged the August 2020 presidential elections in his favor, is afraid of his population and of those who lead the opposition against his regime. Therefore, it follows the old methods of dictatorships, that is, it represses the street demonstrations with all brutality, creates a generalized situation of fear, and decapitates the organizational summit, the leadership that is capable of making the popular masses move. Lukashenko, who has been in power since 1994, did not go to KGB school like his protector Vladimir Putin, but that does not stop him from acting in "special operations" mode.

That is what he did, by forcibly and cunningly diverting the Ryanair commercial flight from Athens to the Lithuanian capital. The interception violated all international standards related to civil aviation safety. It was also a serious affront to the European Union because it was an air link between two Schengen capitals, and a total disregard for political asylum rules. But it allowed him to kidnap and put out of action an important activist in the fight for democracy in Belarus, the young journalist Roman Protasevich.

The political costs of this criminal act are high. The European Council was expeditious and unanimous in its condemnation and response. The airspace Lukashenko controls is no longer on the route for European flights - and not only that, as several Asian airlines have followed suit - and the national airline of Belarus will have to suspend its connections with destinations within the EU. Moreover, the economic sanctions will be extended.

Some will say that these kinds of penalties have little effect on a country that depends primarily on its relations with Russia. They also add that such measures will increase Lukashenko's political subordination to the Kremlin. It is hard not to recognize the merit of these remarks. Experience shows that sanctions against third countries do not lead to major political transformations, except when they directly hit the ruling clique and the sectors vital for the country's economic survival. It is not yet known which will be the new personalities and which activities will be added to the existing sanctions list. But in these matters, the symbolic dimension is equally important. The political and diplomatic isolation of Alexander Lukashenko, and his people, must be made very clear. It serves as a lever. It is up to the Belarusian democratic opposition to do the rest. 

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