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)

In Europe, migration remains a critical issue

Migrations and European fears

Victor Ângelo

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 10 September 2021)

 

 

Europe and its disagreements on migrations

Europe adrift in the sea of migrations

Victor Ângelo

 

A meeting of the European Union's ministers of foreign affairs and internal administration on migration was held this week at the initiative of the Portuguese presidency. The previous one had taken place in 2015, when more than a million people arrived in Europe from Syria and other parts of the Middle East, Afghanistan, and the countries of the Indian subcontinent, as well as Africa. The long gap between the two meetings happened because migration is an extraordinarily complex and fractious issue among EU member states. Leaders have systematically swept the imbroglio under the rug.

Now the meeting was a new attempt to define a common policy. There were some generic statements about the need for a comprehensive and coherent response that combines development and security partnerships with the migrants' countries of origin and transit, that opens avenues for controlled migration, that prioritizes political relations with North Africa and West Africa. All very vague and at the level of mere lapalissades. The result was, once again, below expectations.

The Mediterranean Agenda proposed in February by the European Commission, which was one of the reference documents, is equally imprecise. It lumps together completely different national realities, as if the Mediterranean geopolitical space were homogeneous. And it does not make a critical balance of the past. It suggests continuing and deepening a cooperation model that, in reality, has failed to help transform any state in the region into either a prosperous or democratic nation.

The fact is that there is no common position beyond strengthening Frontex as the European Coast Guard and border police. That is the only accepted and shared responsibility, the lowest common denominator. As for the rest, everything else is business as usual. It will be managed by chance events. The countries of entry of illegal immigrants will continue to have to bear the political, humanitarian, and economic costs that result from receiving those who arrive there. Despite the repeated appeal by the Portuguese Minister of Internal Administration, there will be no solidarity among Europeans in this matter.

The great truth is that most member-states do not want to receive new waves of immigrants coming from other geographies and unfamiliar cultures. Even countries that have traditionally been the destination of Maghrebian, African and other immigrants share this position. We, the Portuguese, are a little on the outside. We do not really understand the weight of migratory pressure on the cohesion of the social fabric of big cities in France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, for example. Nor do we have a clear notion of the political impact of the presence of vast foreign communities, when they are not integrated into the societies that received them, thus being an argument easily exploited by right-wing extremists and potential terrorists. 

Europe will continue to speak constructively and act restrictively, even repressively, on this issue. International migration is one of the most complex dilemmas facing us, but one that many Europeans do not want to consider. Despite the progress of tolerance values, we are not fully prepared for the diversity of cultures and faces. Anyone in doubt should visit the new ethnic ghettos that exist in certain European metropolises. And without going any further, you can start with certain outskirts of Lisbon.

We have already seen that the sea is not enough of a barrier for those who are desperate or dream of a better life. But since the intention of those in charge is to stop population movements that seem threatening, Europe will go further. It will pour fortunes into countries that have the potential to send us new waves of migrants - as is already happening with Turkey. It is a carrot and stick gamble. Now, in these countries, the powerful always get the carrot, and the poor and the weak always get the stick. For this reason, many seek to flee to Europe.

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

Libya, Turkey and us

After Syria, Libya has become the new confrontation ground between Russia and Turkey. In both cases, confrontation means bullets, military deployments, and death. In Libya, Russia supports the Benghazi-based Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar and his forces, whilst Turkey has come into the country to fight side by side with the Tripoli-based Unitary provisional government, led by Fayez al-Sarraj. For the time being, the Turkish side of the conflict has gained more ground than the men Moscow has bet on.

 All this has a strategic impact on Europe and should be seen with great concern. Any decision and any critical move by these two countries might become a serious threat to Europe’s stability and security. Vladimir Putin and Recep Erdogan are no friends of Europe. I say so, and at the same time, I do not forget that the latter is the leader of a country that is a member of the NATO Alliance. Erdogan is the peril within.

First, the confrontation between both can bring Europe into a clash with Russia if Turkey invokes its membership of NATO and calls for assistance. However, I am not particularly worried by such possibility as I expect the key leaders of the Alliance to find a way of saying no to a Turkish request for assistance against Russia. Therefore, this prospect is rather remote.

The real problem is that President Erdogan is now in control of the two main migratory routes that bring illegal immigrants into the European Union. The Eastern one runs through his own country and he knows how to make use of it to put pressure on the European politicians. And now, being heavily present in Tripoli and the surrounded areas, his men and their Libyan allies are in command of the Central Mediterranean migratory lane. That gives President Erdogan enormous leverage when dealing with European countries. Mass migration remains a major issue that can seriously undermine the unity and the continuation of the EU. The Turkish President knows it and will keep playing that destabilising card to his own advantage.

Here, like in other areas, the EU foreign policy is being outsmarted by our adversaries.

A challenging March

As we get into March, we can be sure we will have major challenges in front of us. The coronavirus will probably be the most critical. It has all the key ingredients to confuse many of us. People will keep pressing the panic button and the political leaders will be jumping in all directions, just to show to the citizens that they are moving as required. Then, there will be the economic impact. On the economic side, the crisis can be multifaceted. There will be less demand, the supply chains will be disrupted, and many enterprises will face serious cash problems. In addition, the stocks will not be able to recover the immense value that has been lost during the past week and probably the week ahead.

Obviously, the health systems will be under serious stress. They will become distorted as much of the resources will be focused on the Covid-19 pandemic.

Adding to the above, we will see an escalation of the conflict between Turkey and Syria, supported by Russia, a new migratory crisis and a Brexit on the rocks.

This is a time that calls for a new type of leadership.

Angela Merkel meets Vladimir Putin: good move

From a European perspective, the resolution of the Libyan civil conflict is a priority. Such crisis has several consequences that are of special importance for the EU Member States. It’s next door, it’s related to a very central migratory flow line, and it has also a serious impact on security in the larger Sahelian region.

But the conflict is far from being resolved. It is getting more complex and deeply dramatic these days. In such context, today’s travel to Moscow to meet President Putin has placed German Chancellor Angela Merkel at the centre of the European efforts. It was the right thing to do. The Europeans must talk to the Russians if they want to see the Libyan drama resolved. The Russians have been very supportive of one of the Libyan sides, the one led by the rebel General Khalifa Haftar. But they have not closed the door on the other side, the one based in Tripoli and recognised by the international community. Moreover, the Russians keep talking to other external actors that are involved in Libya’s domestic situation, to the Turks, the Egyptians and some Arab Gulf States.

Another positive move, out of today’s travel, is the reaffirmation by Angela Merkel that the Libyan peace process must be facilitated by the UN. This is the kind of support that is so much needed.  

   

NATO and the Sahel

As we approach the door of the London NATO Summit, which opens on 3 December, we cannot ignore one of the key questions the Alliance must address: what kind of role should it play in North Africa and the Sahel?

But before answering it, the member States should recognise that such region is closely linked to some important European countries. Its security will have an impact on those countries, sooner or later. And not just on matters of illegal migrations. An expansion of terrorist groups out there will end up by spilling over to Europe.

One cannot look at North Africa and the Sahel as if they were in a far corner of the world.

My very best wishes

In my part of Europe, a region that has Brussels at the centre, about 60% of the citizens see 2017 with some apprehension. This disquiet results from a combination of different factors, including the unresolved issues related to mass migrations, domestic and international security, the uncertainty that comes out of the US presidential elections, and the perceived lack of leadership in some of our key European countries and the impact that might have on the future of the EU. Brexit, interestingly, is not at this stage considered as a major problem.

Nonetheless, the majority of the people are still very much in favour of the EU. It is important to sustain such support. And that responsibility should lie mainly in the hands of the national leaders. They should stop the practice of blaming the Brussels institutions or the European Central Bank for their domestic difficulties. We ought to be firm on this and openly criticise those who keep doing it in 2017. They are not the kind of politicians we need now.

This is a time to be positive. And fight for a stronger, clear-cut political New Year.

A plan on migration and refugee matters

The European citizens have little trust left in the ability of the EU institutions and national governments when it comes to managing the migratory flows. Many think the matter is out of control and the politicians are just improvising and pretending. Consequently, that generates criticism, fear and additional support to radical views.

The political leaders must focus on convincing the public opinion that they have a proper plan to effectively respond to the mass arrivals of migrants and refugees. I would also underline that it is not just a question of defining the appropriate policy approach. The circumstances have reached a point and a time when people want to see determined action and understand that the measures that are being implemented are part of a coherent plan. 

Combatting radicalisation

There is an EU Commissioner for Migration and Home Affairs. Among his responsibilities, I would underline the following: “identifying where the EU can make a real difference in fighting terrorism and radicalisation, with an emphasis on addressing the problem of foreign fighters”.

That sounds good.

And there is indeed a lot of work that has been done by different EU players and also in coordination with the member States during the last two years, after the approval on 15 January 2014 of a plan under the title of “Preventing Radicalisation to Terrorism and Violent Extremism: Strengthening the EU's Response”. The problem seems to be that the European public opinion is not aware of all this. The citizens have the impression that there isn´t really an approach to deal with radicalisation.

I think it is time to inform them. That´s another way of combatting the growing fear. 

Our European problems and Cameron´s

There is very little time, these days, to think about David Cameron and his conditions for the UK to remain within the EU.

France and Marine Le Pen´s initial electoral victory are taking a lot of the attention span available. And there are good reasons for that. Le Pen´s race to power needs to be stopped. And the concerns of her voters must be responded to at the same time. These are two immense jobs. They concern not only the French but all those in the vicinity who believe in a united Europe.

Then, there is the fight against terrorism. The key issue is to devise approaches that could effectively prevent the radicalisation of some young Europeans. There is a lot of debate about the issue of radicalisation but not enough concrete ideas on how to tackle it. The competition for new ideas is open.

The immigration issue is still unresolved. That adds a very heavy burden to the European agenda. And the longer it takes the more complex it becomes. The first step here is to strengthen the Schengen external borders. But there are many other things that need to be dealt with, including the very serious challenge of integrating those who are already in. This task is now particularly complex in view of the current change of opinion about the massive presence of Muslim populations in the European space.

In the midst of these very critical issues the UK´s referendum looks very much like Cameron´s self-created problem. He will have to take the lead in sorting it out. He knows that his key financial masters want the UK to stay in the EU. He also understands he cannot deceive them. He has therefore to be smart and imaginative. What a challenge!

Getting ready for the EU-Turkey Summit

The next summit between the EU and Turkey will take place this Sunday in Brussels. The key issue, on the European agenda, is about migrations and the role the government of Ankara could play to control the flux from Turkey to Europe.

Turkey will be represented by its Prime Minister, Ahmet Davutoğlu. He is a smart negotiator. He knows he comes to Brussels in a strong position and he will take advantage of that to try to obtain as many concessions from the Europeans as possible. He wants more money to compensate Turkey´s for the refugee presence in the country, visa facilities for the Turks, and a firmer calendar for the negotiations related to his country´s accession to full EU membership.

The EU side should balance the Turkish position with a couple of requests that will put Davutoğlu at his place. The Europeans should remind him that freedom of the press is a critical criteria for European membership. On this, Turkey is going squarely in the wrong direction. They should also recall that human rights and the rights of the minorities are key pillars in any democracy. They have to be enshrined on the Constitution and fully implemented.

These reminders would level off the discussion. They will also show the Turks we see them as important partners but we are not afraid of talking the talk and be frank. That´s how diplomacy needs to be carried out in the days of now.   

Economic migrations

The immigration issue remains at the top of the EU agenda. Every day brings new flows of people into Italy, Greece and elsewhere.

 Many of these migrants come from countries in deep national crisis. From a legal point of view, they are bona fide candidates to be accepted as refugees.

Some others are coming for obvious economic reasons, as they try to run away from poverty and find jobs in Europe. This category should be confronted with greater hurdles to get through the legal process. But there is a growing view that poverty might also be a good reason to be recognised as a candidate to obtain a legal status, particularly if you have taken so many risks to get into the EU.

This is of course a matter that needs to be discussed. A common approach needs to be agreed as far as these economic migrants are concerned. It is urgent, it should be shared by all the Sates in the EU, and it should also be clearly explained to the European citizens.

The leaders cannot give the impression that there is no policy, that there is no clear idea about the issue. And that´s is, at present, the image that prevails.

Syria´s deadlocked political process

The Syrian political process is completely dead in the water. There is no initiative on the table, after the failed attempt to create a temporary halt of hostilities in Aleppo, no room for any opening at this stage. There is also no clear strategy to move out of the deadlocked situation. It is just another crisis that will remain unresolved for a long time. Some people, on the different sides of the conflict, will benefit from that inaction. But not the millions that have been displaced and live today in horrifying conditions. Many of them know there will be no solution in the foreseeable future. That´s why they try to cross the waves, against all odds, and travel North. 

Human displacements and conflict

The illegal migrations across the Mediterranean Sea towards Europe are a matter of great concern. For different reasons, including the risk of loss of life and the political impact the immigration has on the domestic politics of the EU, as they are a fertile ground for the radical right-wingers to propagate their extremist ideas. But one should be proportionate. The numbers are certainly big and growing. However, they are much smaller than the unbelievable numbers of refugees in Lebanon, Turkey or Jordan, just to mention those countries that border Syria and have received millions of displaced and desperate people. That is what should make us think twice. How can we help in the solution of conflicts and crises that are the mass producers of human suffering and large scale human displacements? 

Africa and Europe

I have been asked to think about Africa´s challenges in 2015.

The question is too ambitious. It´s again based on a very common misunderstanding we find in our part of the world: to believe that Africa can be seen as a single entity.

But it is also a good opportunity to keep the African issues on the European agenda. We are in a deeply interlinked world. And Europe´s future is also very much related to developments in Africa. That´s actually the key message I wish to put across. 

Central Africa and the Sahel

I spent a bit of the day on the news and comments being produced about the dramatic events in the Central African Republic (CAR). And I end up the day very much amazed by the little knowledge people seem to have about the root causes of the current crisis. Then, I wonder how can the external players contribute to a finding a solution to a problem they do not fully understand?

I served in CAR from 1985 to 1989. Then, I came back in 2008 up to 2010, to be deeply involved with the unfolding events.

I vividly remember my discussions with President Bozizé. Including about the role of Muslim armed groups operating in the border areas with Darfur and South-Eastern Chad. And the growing tensions with pastoralists coming from the Sahel. CAR had obviously changed in its social set-up between my first and second stay in the region. And that change was not only a warning of the crisis in the making. It was, in many ways, one of vectors of much deeper and multifaceted transformation that is being imported from the arid lands of the North and moving into the Bantu areas of central tropical Africa.