The Scottish approach to circling the wagons

The forthcoming Scottish referendum on independence should be seen as part of a movement towards the circle the wagon approach: you and your companions make a circle with all the wagons available, to protect you from the incoming Indians…Scots and other peoples in Europe think they will be better off if they stay by themselves and avoid sharing anything with the neighbours.

This is against the dream of a greater union in Europe. And it is a simplistic and nationalistic response to the challenges of globalization. But it generates a lot of popular enthusiasm, no doubt.

A vote for independence in Scotland will encourage others to go the same road in other corners of the EU.

Are we moving back to the old approach to national sovereignty?

This morning I attended a discussion about the current meaning of national sovereignty in Europe. The discussants recognised that we live now in a context of limited and shared sovereignty. As members of the EU, the countries have transferred some of their national powers to the Commission or the Council. And they have also agreed that some key decisions do require the consensus of the membership. These have been important steps towards a supranational approach to the common good.

Everybody seemed to agree that the trend towards pooled State sovereignty will continue and that there will more co-responsibility in the future and less decisions based on a narrow approach to national interests. 

I think it is good to have an optimistic view of EU´s collective will. That´s what will take us forward.

But I am not sure about the next few years. European countries give the impression they are moving back to the old views about sovereignty. That will certainly be a wrong direction. However, one should be aware of the facts. And be prepared for less. Even when we aim at more.

Security obsessions

The US say, through the National Security Agency (NSA) that President Obama was not aware that Angela Merkel’s telephone had been “monitored” by American spies. Nobody would believe it, of course. But this is the right answer to be given, at this stage. It offers everyone a way out.

And tomorrow public opinion will have moved on to other subjects. Merkel and Obama will carry on. They will reaffirm they are allies. Some token gestures will be made. They have little choice but to be seen pulling in the same direction.

And NSA, on its own, will continue its job as well. And, as usual, in a very obsessive way. There might be an enemy behind the hundreds of millions of calls and mails they catch every day.

Prying eyes

President Dilma Rousseff of Brazil said that her planned visit to the US can only go ahead if she receives a clear explanation from President Obama regarding the spying accusations. Indeed, the US seems to have been snooping on the Brazilian President –and others, such as the Mexican head of State. This is certainly a very unfriendly action and one understands Dilma’s position. It is the only acceptable response.

But in diplomacy realism tends to prevail. She will receive some type of assurances from Obama. Then, she will say the US has apologised and the visit will move on. That’s fine. By then, the point would have been clearly stated. The question will however remain: one cannot envisage an American administration that is not “watching” under cover what the two main rivals of the US in Latin America are cooking. Washington will say sorry, and then change the system and will continue the old practise. It is in their blood and in their own interest, as they see it.

It is up to Brazil and others to keep protesting and keep saying this is not acceptable.  And to try to protect itself from prying eyes.

Summer in Portugal

The preliminary assessments seem to indicate that this has been so far a good summer season in Portugal. The number of foreign visitors is up. Many of them chose the country because it remains tranquil and predictable. There have been no serious labour disruptions this summer.  It should continue like that.

Lisbon as seen from my veranda looks like a major destination for large cruise ships. Every day I see at least two coming in the morning for a day visit. It’s a great view. We need the business they bring in. But we also need them to have a good day in the city and be able to go back and tell everyone that the place is fine and worth the visit.

At the end of the day, tourism is about business and image. Both are critical for a country like Portugal. 

Indifference is gaining ground in international affairs

Disguised indifference: this seems to be the prevailing attitude behind the international standing of big nations, the policy line they currently tend to follow. 

Too big a machinery for tiny gains

National security is a critical function of any state. But it has to be carried out in a reasonable and legal manner, with full respect for the rights and liberties of the citizens. It should not become an obsession, an over-riding set of operations that want to cover everything, collect all kinds of information, employ disproportionate means and spend extravagant amounts of money.  

What we have been told during the last few days shows that in the area of national security it is very easy to go over the limits and be guided by the interests of those who work in the sector rather than by the nation’s interest.

It is also pretty easy to drown in an ocean of useless information, that is collected just to justify the size of the machinery, and lose sight of the targets that really matter. 

On people and power

The world's political environment has changed rapidly since the beginning of this century. This is in many ways related to the massive access to information and the widespread usage of low cost, accessible means of communication. The democratisation of information enhanced the citizen's awareness, self-esteem, sense of force, public participation and leverage.  Everybody is connected, has an opinion and is not afraid of voicing it, if necessary. Fast, power seems to be a click away from each individual. It has become accessible. This means, for many, a new approach towards power as people got convinced that politics is an easy job, accessible, and that they could as well as be the prime minister of their own country or the secretary-general of the UN. The symbolism and distance of power have been lost and the street turns out to be the new seat of authority.

The fact of the matter is that political leaders can no longer ignore public opinion. Even to pretend to be listening is no longer enough. If you are in charge, you better be on guard and listen!

This change has also influenced the way international affairs are conducted. Here, as in national politics, we notice the emergence of a different approach with the individual – men and women – at the centre of the global concerns. Let's take as an example the area of security, as this is a field where the concepts of sovereignty and national security, which are vague and distant for each person, have always dominated. As we moved deeper into the new century, the emphasis on human security, which is about protecting each one of us from all kinds of threats, gained ground and became an important component of the international debate.

In different words, the individual is now the main feature of the new political paradigm, both on the domestic and the international front: the citizen matters more than ever. Policy is defined taking each one of us in mind. At least, it should be, if one wants to remain in power. 

The first decade of the 21st century ended up by being deeply traumatised by the 9/11 events resulting in key western countries becoming heavily engaged in military campaigns in faraway lands, such as Iraq and Afghanistan. In my opinion, these are the last large scale interventions of the West, the final manifestations of a world that is no longer sustainable and acceptable, as sovereign debt, defence cuts and new international power relations make it clear. 

The 2000s was also a period when the different regions of the world gained greater political awareness of their own characteristics and sought to take charge of their own agenda. The launching of NEPAD, in 2001, is an illustration of such trend: Africa decided to change the way it related with the outside world. From then on, the objective became to take care of its own problems and be able to set its specific path towards the future. 

This is also a time of power shifts leading to the consolidation of new centres of influence. The old world’s authority is being challenged by the emerging powers.

As the French philosopher Michel Foucault used to say, power is not a fixed commodity, but a dynamic relationship that constantly changes. It is changing fast today.

UK's national interest and the EU

From today's Financial Times:

Britain needs to adopt a hard-headed approach founded on the national interest – and hold a referendum

I love the idea of "national interest". But I am afraid it is one of the vaguest ideas on the market. It is subject to so many interpretations. The "national interest" as perceived by a banker in London is very different from the one understood by a shop floor vendor in Birmingham, or a a young graduate in Durham. Not to mention people in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. Even a staff writer at the Financial Times will see it differently from a journo at The Sun next door.

Is there a good step-by-step guideline on how to define the "national interest" of a given country? I don't think so. But in a case like this one, the future of the relationship between the UK and Europe cannot just be defined by Conservative politicians or by a coalition government that is above all a marriage of convenience. It would require ample debate at Westminster and a broad consensus in the Commons.