International dialogues at the beginning of the New Year

From nuclear power to Europe's affirmation and credibility

Victor Angelo

 

The joint statement on nuclear war prevention issued this week by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council is a good start to the new year. It is the first time that China, the United States, France, the United Kingdom and Russia have pledged to avoid a nuclear conflict between them, unambiguously acknowledging that such a confrontation has no winners and therefore should not occur. They also affirm that their nuclear weapons are for deterrence only and that they will continue to negotiate to end competition between them with regard to such weapons. And they set nuclear disarmament as a long-term goal.

At a time when there are very serious rivalries between some of these countries, what value can be given to such a declaration? It is easy to answer with scepticism, given the current international situation, which includes very serious tensions around, among other cases, Ukraine and Taiwan. And which registers an enormous increase in military spending and innovation by the big three: China, the United States and Russia. Furthermore, on a global level, it is experiencing a period of unprecedented uncertainty for the current generations, with risks and dangers that could profoundly destabilise the fragile world political and economic order.

It is better, however, at this start of the year, to take an optimistic view and underline the positive side of the declaration. The agreement on nuclear danger could mean that there is understanding and realism at the level of the leaders of the great powers that continuing on the path of confrontation will bring enormous costs for all. In reality, an armed conflict between some of these countries would be a catastrophe of unimaginable proportions, given the existing capacity for destruction. There are no small, controlled wars between colossuses. If a first shot were to be fired, it would always be a major war.

In a scenario of complex crises such as the present, 2022 must be a year of dialogue and reinforced international cooperation, in the most promising areas. This is what is required of those who call the shots in this world.

The negotiations that will begin next week in Geneva and Brussels between Russia, the USA and NATO do not offer much hope at the outset. Yet they are important. Several decades of work on the international scene have taught me that most negotiations start with very low expectations. Over time, they can turn into positive exercises. To get results, you have to be patient and persevering. And keep the contact at the highest level and focus on what is essential.

The European institutions complain about not being included in the talks with Russia. Especially since the discussion will be about security and stability in Europe. Also, because many in the EU consider normalising the relationship with Russia as a mutually advantageous priority.

I think it is a mistake that President Biden has not insisted on European participation. He knows that weakening the EU is one of the Russian leader's strategic machinations. Putin wants a Europe that is as fragmented as possible. He has now scored an important point.

It is not enough to say that 21 out of 27 EU members are also members of NATO and that Europe is therefore well represented. There can be no illusions here: it is the USA and a few Eastern European states that define Russian NATO policy. Nor is it an argument that the EU has no common position on Russia. The preparation of such negotiations would be a catalyst moment to advance the definition of the European position.

It is still possible to make amends. NATO's foreign ministers are meeting today by video conference to discuss the dossier. It would be appropriate for several of them to raise the issue of EU involvement. And that they continue to do so in the days to come. The affirmation and credibility of the European project would thus be strengthened.

 

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 7 January 2022)

China and the COP process

More solar panels and fewer nuclear warheads

Victor Angelo

 

It is true that the Chinese president did not come to the COP26 summit. But it is also a fact that Xi Jinping has not travelled out of the country since January 2020, because of an extraordinarily stiff official interpretation of what the fight against the coronavirus pandemic should be.

The American president took advantage of his counterpart's absence to criticise him openly. I think this was a mistake. Joe Biden should seek to build bridges with China rather than new fronts of conflict. There are already enough points of friction between the two countries. It is not wise to add this one.

The global fight against climate change needs everyone's cooperation. Including China, which emits about a quarter of the world's total carbon dioxide, although in per capita terms the impact of each Chinese person is half that of the average American. This reminds us, moreover, that the wealthiest are those who contribute most to global warming and that a large part of the response must be based on this observation.

It should also be added that President Xi did not ignore the summit. He sent a written communication, which I felt was relevant in several respects.

First, because he stressed the need to respect the commitments already made, both in the UN Climate Change Framework Convention and in the 2015 Paris Agreement. His statement was a clear call for the strengthening of multilateral responses through the United Nations system. It was also a call for the deepening of mutual trust between states, which is so sorely needed. This is a key issue that the UN Secretary-General could explore in order to make his role more central and more action oriented. 

Second, because President Xi mentioned the need for an extra effort by all, in particular the most developed countries. Here he referred to the aid that has been promised and should be given to the poorest countries to mitigate the catastrophic effects of climate change and significantly increase their peoples' access to renewable sources of energy.

Third, because he said clearly that the community of nations must accelerate the green transition. In his view, this means increasing investment in science and technology in order to achieve industrial transformation and the types of energy and consumption that are best suited to safeguarding the environment, without jeopardizing economic development. There is a half-truth here, based on the theory that scientific progress is the best response to environmental challenges. This position does not take into account that economic growth policies must change and that the behaviour of people in the richest countries, including China, cannot be based solely on the continued increase in consumption and material well-being.

In the final part of his communication, Xi Jinping referred to a number of measures that his government is already conducting or will adopt in order to reduce the carbon footprint. He did not say this now, but he had already informed the UN General Assembly that the official Chinese ambition is to reach carbon neutrality by 2060. To this, one could reply that China has the means to achieve this neutrality much sooner. And it should do so, taking advantage of the moment to show that China can also play a leading role in this area. The country has the necessary knowledge and means. It would be a matter of investing less in the war industries and more in energy transformation. A nation that plans to have a nuclear arsenal of at least a thousand nuclear warheads in 2030 - five times more than in 2020 - and a whole arsenal of hypersonic weapons, bombers, aircraft carriers and submarines with nuclear capability, has all the conditions to also be an example in terms of managing carbon emissions. It is time to show that the defence of the planet and peace are two interconnected issues. Global leadership should focus on this.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 5 November 2021)

 

Writing about Iran

Iran: the next day

Victor Angelo

 

 

In 2018, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh became known when Benjamin Netanyahu accused him of being the scientist at the head of the Iranian nuclear programme. Fakhrizadeh was murdered on the outskirts of Tehran a week ago. There are contradictory accounts of the crime. What is certain is that the ambush was conducted by a reasonable number of agents, at least ten of them, and in a professional way - the wife, who was travelling with him, came out of it unharmed, she was not part of the objective. I have no doubt that the ambush was carried out by special forces, with perfectly trained executioners, who had at their disposal the information, logistics and means necessary for a high-risk mission. It is peaceful to conclude that it was not the work of the internal Iranian opposition. It had all the characteristics of an operation planned, organised, and carried out by a state hostile to Iran. And I cannot help but think of the regime's three main enemies: Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Donald Trump's United States.

Those who know these things point in the direction of Israel. It is true that the secret services of that country, in particular the legendary Mossad, have already demonstrated an incomparably greater ability to penetrate Iranian official circles than any other espionage service. One example of this ability, with the trial of the indicted currently taking place in Antwerp, is the following: it was Mossad that made known to the Belgian authorities the terrorist attack the Iranian government was plotting in 2018 against the National Council of Iranian Resistance in exile. The European intelligence services where the plot was being prepared - the Belgians, the French, and the Austrians - had not noticed anything. 

Israel can never admit the slightest hint of responsibility for murders of this kind. Such an admission would open the door to prosecution in the International Court of Justice in The Hague or in the jurisdiction of a United Nations member country. International law is clear. An extraterritorial, summary, and arbitrary execution, promoted by a State outside a situation of armed conflict is a crime which violates international human rights law, the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the 1977 Additional Protocols. Moreover, the United Nations Charter expressly prohibits the extraterritorial use of force in times of peace.

For all these reasons, the paternity of what has now happened to Fakhrizadeh will remain unknown for the time being. We will have to be contented with the suspicions.

The assassination has shown that the Iranian system of internal espionage and counterespionage, which terrifies the population, has very serious flaws. The powerful Ministry of Intelligence is more concerned with the repression of the growing internal opposition than it is prepared to identify the most sophisticated threats from outside. This is not new. In early July, for example, the security services were unable to prevent an explosion at the Natanz nuclear power plant, nor were they able to avert the sabotage of missile-making programmes. All these actions were handled by a foreign country.  

A fundamental issue is to try to understand the central motive for the assassination. What seems more obvious, which would be to strike a major blow capable of further delaying the regime's nuclear programme, makes no sense. The country already has several teams of scientists capable of enriching uranium. The attack on Natanz and the sabotage have already delayed the plans. The real reason must be different.

If we look upstream, we will see that the Israeli government is on the brink of collapse and that Netanyahu will need convincing campaign arguments again. The presumption of a strong hand against the ayatollahs will certainly bring a good number of votes. Looking further ahead, we see that the new Biden administration is in favour of reopening a negotiating process with Tehran. This would be more difficult if the clerics responded to what happened to Fakhrizadeh in a violent manner. The old leaders of Iran are fanatical and backward. But they are astute in international politics. They must look at the assassination as an attempt at political provocation. And they know that waiting patiently for Joe Biden to take office may be the best response to the challenge they were given days ago.

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

 

 

 

Macron leads on defence

Today President Macron of France delivered a very long, dense speech to the top military personnel. The President shared his deep concern with the new international order, which is basically defined by rapports de force and not by international law and underlined once again the need for an autonomous European defence pillar, as well as his call for a strategic dialogue with Russia. But his main messages were about France as a global power and his country’s nuclear capabilities. He spent a bit of time explaining his approach to nuclear power, as a means of deterrence, a weapon that is there not to be used. France is the only nuclear power within the European Union, now that the British are outside.

But my deep reading of his address makes me conclude President Macron wants to take the lead in European defence matters. That could be part of his legacy. But he is very much aware that Germany is not ready to move too far in such field and that several other EU countries, particularly those in the East, think that the key dimension of our common defence passes through keeping the US fully engaged in Europe. 

In such circumstances, the French President wants to convince the Poles to adopt his views. That’s why he was in Poland at the beginning of the week. He also needs to convince the Polish leaders that European defence is a genuine concern, not just a screen to have France and Germany dominating the European military scene. There is a bit of a silent rivalry between Poland and Germany on defence matters.

Poland pays a lot of attention to its armed forces and it has become a key player in European military matters. The problem with Poland is that its leaders follow a political line that is very different from the one Macron promotes. And that does not facilitate a collaborative approach.

Pakistan, India and Kashmir

In January 1957, the Indian Permanent Representative to the UN, V. K. Krishna Menon, spoke for 8 hours, when addressing the Security Council on the situation in Kashmir. That speech remains the longest ever delivered at the UN. It was cut short, if I can say so, because Menon collapsed of exhaustion.

Compared to such feat, yesterday´s 50-minute speech by Pakistan’s Prime Minister was a brief episode. But a striking one, not because of its length – at the UN, it is considered a long speech that goes beyond 35 minutes; this year’s trend has been to have shorter interventions – but because of the words he said. He basically focused on the dispute with India regarding Kashmir. And he talked about the possibility of war between the two countries and made a direct reference to the use of nuclear weapons. Imran Khan stated that Pakistan would go for a nuclear response if there is war and his country is losing it against India.

Such assertion is most upsetting. There is indeed a serious state of cold confrontation between Pakistan and India. The Kashmir situation and Modi’s decision to cancel the autonomy of the region have brought the complexity of conflict to the fore. We have there an extremely dangerous threat to international peace and security. Khan’s words have confirmed it.

Pakistan is getting closer and closer to China. Its dramatic economic situation makes Pakistan very dependent on China’s investments and economic cooperation. China, on the other hand, sees India as a growing competitor. But I can’t believe the Chinese would encourage Pakistan to go for an armed conflict with India. They cannot imagine that such clash would reduce India’s capacity to compete. 

In my opinion, the Chinese should be encouraged to mediate in between both countries. That would have an impact on the easing of the tensions and would strengthen the international standing of China. With the accord of the two antagonistic nations, the Chinese could also bring the matter to the Security Council, to get a greater buy-in for a peaceful way forward.

It is not easy, though. The Indian Prime Minister sees the Kashmir crisis as an internal challenge, a domestic affair. He does not welcome any type of international assistance on the issue. 

That was fine until yesterday, I would retort. With Imran Khan’s dramatic speech at the UN, the issue cannot be anything else but an international matter of great concern. It must be dealt as such and with great urgency.