Europe: looking ahead

European horizons and balances

Victor Ângelo

 

We live in a time of uncertainty. The pandemic is still at the centre of all worries. The different mutations of the virus and the immensity of the vaccination campaigns show that we are far from the exit of the tunnel. And the economic, social, and psychological impacts are yet to be determined. They will certainly be huge and long term. In Europe, for the time being, we are helping ourselves to the oxygen balloons that the central bank and political expedients are making available. In reality, we are living on reputation and the pledge of the future. Meanwhile, we are lagging when compared to China or the United States. And we will receive a share of the problems of a neighbourhood – to the south and to the east – which was already poor, and which will see its future difficulties increase uncontrollably. None of this is pessimism, just an announced puzzle.

To these challenges are added the geopolitical ones. We find ourselves drawn into disputes that are not necessarily our own. The Anchorage meeting, which brought two high-level delegations – one American and one Chinese – face to face late last week, revealed that the rivalries between these countries have reached an acute stage of antagonism. For the first time, neither one side nor the other sought to disguise the degree of hostility that exists. Journalists were even invited to stay in the room to take note of the mutual accusations that were made from the very beginning. Only then did the delegations move on to the quiet and substance of the bilateral discussions.

Two issues became clear. The Chinese leadership emerged strengthened from the session of the National People's Assembly held earlier this month. It now has a much more assertive mandate, internally and externally. For example, the deputies ratified a motion that opens the possibility of military intervention in Taiwan if the island's authorities take a path that could strengthen the independence thrust. This is an incredibly significant change in language. Even more telling is the new posture toward foreign governments that criticize Beijing. China has decided to advance to the geopolitical duel without a mask and with a tactical marking.

We have entered a risky cycle that could lead to a confrontation between these powers. And the new vision that the United States is proposing for Europe, through the document NATO 2030, puts the Europeans in this conflict. What is on the table, as seen at this week's NATO ministerial meeting, is an expansion of the alliance's theatre of operations in order to legitimize Washington's geopolitical ambitions in the Pacific and the Indian Ocean. These regions are far outside the areas that are of direct concern to us. What is more, an extension to the far reaches will certainly weaken European capabilities in the geographies that really matter to us, which are on Europe's immediate borders.

You may retort that China is an economic and cyber threat. But these things are solved through negotiations, through trade measures and countermeasures, through the strengthening and protection of our economies, and through increasing the capacity of our intelligence services to act. In short, they require a more cohesive Europe.

The redefinition of NATO's role is necessary. The horizon we face is quite different from the past. We should, however, ask ourselves what our priority area of defence should actually be. We also need to discuss what is the balance between a Europe looking towards a Euro-Asian future and the history of our Euro-Atlantic engagement. I see two variables here that need to be addressed. One has to do with our long-term relationship with Russia. Vladimir Putin is not eternal. Russia is part of our strategic neighbourhood, our economic complementarities, and our cultural references. The other concerns the EU's defence and security autonomy. It must be permanently reinforced, without, however, jeopardizing our historic commitments to the Atlantic Alliance. Uncertain times demand that we clearly know which balances to maintain, and which path to choose. It is a question of combining courage with vision.

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

 

The G20 should coordinate the global response

A vaccine against geopolitical rivalries

Victor Angelo

 

Boris Johnson convened an extraordinary virtual G7 summit today. He justified it by saying it was urgent to find an agreement that would allow a global response to covid-19, i.e. access for all to the immunisation possible. He added that it would also be an opportunity to coordinate demand for vaccines to avoid a headlong rush to the few quantities already available. The summit would be the occasion to resolve the competition between states, which, if it continues, could lead to serious political fractures between traditional partners, as seen recently in the increased tension between the EU and the London government.

The UK holds the G7 presidency in 2021. Hence the legitimacy of Johnson's initiative. But the prime minister may have other objectives well beyond seeking a global response to the pandemic. The man is a skilled politician with a knack for spectacular actions. He will try to make the most of the opportunity that the leadership of the G7 offers him to show his constituents that he has a global stature capable of setting the agenda of the group of the most developed countries. If this translates into an increase in international cooperation, which badly needs to be stimulated, we can only be grateful.

I fear, however, that it will not achieve that result. The subject of the meeting is clearly a priority, but it cannot be limited to the G7 countries. It is true that Australia, South Korea, and India have also been invited to take part in the summit. India counts in terms of vaccine production. But the invitation reflects, above all, the UK's specific interest in strengthening its relations with these countries and not the contribution they can make to getting vaccines to the poorest and most remote parts of the world. It also reflects another political agenda, one that is shared by others, especially Joe Biden. That of thwarting the geopolitical ambitions of the main rivals of the United States and its Western allies. But making international policy at the cost of a pandemic does not seem to me to be ethically acceptable.

In fact, it would be more appropriate to organise a G20 meeting to deal with the harmonisation of vaccine distribution and define everyone's contribution to achieving this objective. The G20 has the merit of sitting at the same table all the G7 countries plus China and Russia, among others. Coordination with these two States is fundamental for a rapid, effective, and generalised fight against the virus. The intrusion of hegemonic rivalries should not be admitted when it comes to responding to a problem that threatens the health of all, social progress, and the stability of the future. According to World Bank estimates, the pandemic has already pushed a dramatic number of people back into extreme poverty - it could be around 115 million. Moreover, the lack of access to vaccines for people in the poorest countries will cause a global distortion with unimaginable consequences. Among other things, international inequalities would become even more accentuated, even explosive. The worsening of imbalances between regions of the globe is one of the greatest risks facing us.

The G20 is currently chaired by Italy. The Italian executive, now with Mario Draghi at its head, faces immense internal problems. It is not in a position to play a leading role on the international stage at a time when the latter needs a giant to mobilise it in an undisputed way. Draghi is scheduled to hold a global summit in Rome on 21 May on the pandemic and related issues. May is, however, an eternity away when urgent decisions are needed.

In the meantime, in a positive spirit, I hope that today's G7 meeting will make it possible to strengthen COVAX, the mechanism set up by the WHO, in collaboration with various organisations, to guarantee countries with limited financial and operational resources equitable access to covid vaccines. If this happens, we will have to recognise that the initiative taken by Boris Johnson will have had some merit.

 

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

 

From Myanmar to the EU: a quick journey

Suu Kyi and our Ursula

Victor Angelo

 

 

I intended to write about the coup d'état in Myanmar. I follow regularly what happens there, especially the role of civil society associations in defending citizens, the Chinese investments, and their political impact, as well as the actions carried out by the different ethnic-based armed groups. China, which is the second largest foreign investor in the country - the first is Singapore - shares a long border with Myanmar and sees its neighbour mainly as an economic corridor with shorter and more direct access to the Gulf of Bengal. This corridor is of huge strategic interest to the Chinese, both for gas and oil imports and for exports to the Middle East and Africa. The messages I would include in my text would be to condemn the military coup and defend the process of democratisation that began in 2015 and the November 2020 legislative elections – which the Carter Center considered acceptable despite the restrictions imposed by the pandemic and the armed rebellions.

I would also seek to discuss the question marks that Aung San Suu Kyi's political activity has raised in Western circles, while recalling that she won the November elections by a large majority. The appreciation of the Burmese is very different from the judgments that we, with our European eyes, make. I would have mentioned in my text the impasse that exists in the UN Security Council when it comes to take decisions about that country. This inability to condemn has been clearly demonstrated since 2017 when close to a million Rohingya people were persecuted and expelled to neighbouring Bangladesh. The objection always comes from the same side, from Beijing, and with Moscow doing the political favour of aligning itself with the Chinese, in a tactical manoeuvre to obtain Chinese political dividends. This time, however, I was surprised by the positive. China and the other members of the Security Council yesterday approved a declaration which I consider strong and which explicitly condemns the military coup and the arbitrary arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi and all the others. It was an encouraging surprise, including a clear call for respect for human rights and freedoms, including those of the press. I would speculate that this agreement on Myanmar is a good sign, which could be seen as a conciliatory gesture by Xi Jinping addressed to Joe Biden. 

However, I have decided to change my mind and focus on the mess that the vaccination campaign in the European Union has become. Each day shows that the issue of vaccines is highly political, and that delays, failures, slowdowns and injustices can have a devastating effect on the image of the European Commission and the moral authority and stability of national governments. It is also clear that the priority in the EU must be to immunise without delay the largest number of citizens.

At the end of December, Ursula von der Leyen said, with a mixture of joy and arrogance, that the campaign was being launched simultaneously across Europe. The Commission rightly decided that orders with pharmacy industry would be placed in a unified way, for the whole EU. This would increase our negotiating strength in the face of a sector which is immensely powerful and experienced in writing commercial contracts. After five weeks, we have about 2.9% of the population vaccinated in the Union, and over 14.5% on Boris Johnson's land. The vaccines ordered are not made available to national health services because there is not enough production capacity, logistics and because the pharmaceuticals already had other contracts signed in advance.

Thus, we enter February with the clear realization that there is no more explosive subject than this. And with the certainty that it is fundamental to transform vaccination into a real campaign, urgent, massive, effective and with fair criteria accepted by the people. Otherwise, we would be heading for political and social chaos. Far and different from Myanmar, of course, but equally destabilising. 

 

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

 

 

A new chapter in the international scene

Biden on the trapeze and the world on the tightrope

Victor Angelo

 

Much of what is decided in the circle of power in Washington has a global impact, whether you like it or not. I apologise for starting this text with this banal observation. But it is a fact that American policy continues to weigh more heavily than any other in international strategic and economic relations. So, with the entry into office of the Biden administration, the international scene has begun a new chapter. It is a profound change of course in a positive and democratic sense. For the time being, it heralds the hope of a calming of the tensions created over the last four years and which have put the dynamics among the world's major players on a potentially explosive level. The dialogue should replace the policy of confrontation and the abuse of force.

But we are living in a time of great questioning. The mobilisation of tens of thousands of paramilitaries to ensure the tranquillity of the ceremony for the new president to take office is a clear indication of the seriousness of the internal contradictions that exist in American society. Joe Biden has a balancing act waiting for him. He knows that the hostility fomented by his predecessor and amplified by several leaders who sit in Congress or by commentators who appear on certain television channels, is fierce. It is even more dangerous because it has generated in the minds of many fanatics a demonisation of their opponents. In the sick logic of some of these crazy people, the next step is violent action, trying to take any opportunity to shoot to kill democracy. This possibility is a risk that the Secret Service will have to consider on a permanent basis. 

In seeking a broader view of what might happen following this turning point, I note that no one can convincingly predict the contours of what lies ahead. It can only be said that the world of tomorrow will be different from what we have known so far. Anyone who thinks that everything will return to where we were in 2019, before the pandemic, or in 2016, before Donald Trump's presidency, can only dream of the past.

The chapter that now opens combines a certain amount of optimism with a long list of uncertainties. On the eve of Biden's inauguration, I took part in an international discussion on the prospects and challenges ahead for the coming years, and there was no clarity of ideas. Anyone who looks to the future with intellectual honesty can identify a number of clues, but in the end, has to confess that everything is uncertain and hazy.

The only points of agreement concern the coronavirus pandemic. First, we all accept that the pandemic is a huge challenge, which conditions everything else. It must therefore be treated as the priority of priorities. This requires an exceptional mobilisation of political attention and all necessary means. The second area of agreement is on the imperative of international cooperation. Countries in the North and South, as we euphemistically put it, must all collaborate to make vaccines accessible to each person. The fight against covid must be a bridge of union and cooperation between peoples, not a line of major fracture. It would be a tragedy of incalculable consequences to emerge from this crisis with a world even more divided between rich and poor, and unfortunately, this possibility exists. Thirdly, there is also agreement on the duration of the crisis. We cannot entertain the illusion that everything will be resolved within months. The logistical issues, the financial difficulties, and the shortcomings in infrastructure, especially in the poorest countries, the changes that the virus is undergoing, not to mention the behaviour of some people, all call for time, diligence, patience, and prudence. These are the messages that must be stressed.

Uncertainty is a source of fear, insecurity, and conflict. It is conducive to the emergence of crazy politicians, who reduce the complexity of facts to two or three sentences, and solutions to a pair of slogans. That is why we must be vigilant and combat all forms of demagogy and political lies, which feed all shades of populism.

 

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

 

The human dimension in politics

The pandemic has reminded us that health, politics, ethics, social justice, and human rights are deeply interconnected. It has also sent us a strong message that health is a public good, not just an individual matter or an economic issue. Politicians are made to realise that human life is at the centre of all concerns. The human dimension of politics must be seen as central.

Contingency planning for a covid response

Some European states are battling a growing number of coronavirus-infected cases. This is again a major challenge and people are getting a bit fatalistic about it. They have little appetite for new lockdowns. For them, lockdown is synonymous of economic collapse, in addition to the constraints it means for their life routines. Governments themselves are not too keen on lockdowns either. But the perspectives for the next few months are most worrying. We are getting into the colder days and one can expect a serious increase in infections. This and the economic difficulties many will face do represent a completely new threat to social stability. It is necessary to draw contingency plans. Unfortunately, I do not see any government, or the European Commission for that matter, busy with such planning. They seem just as fatalistic as people are. That is certainly not the best way of discharging their policy responsibilities. Some of us must keep asking the leaders about the contingency measures they are preparing for. We know the answer so far – none! – but we should insist on the question.

Von der Leyen's State of the Union

In general terms, I found the speech delivered yesterday by the President of the European Union to the European Parliament as positive, optimistic, and forward-looking. It contains a number of indications about the Commission’s future work and one should keep comparing the words with the implementation achievements. On the less positive side, Ursula von der Leyen’s statement does not mention the need for increased coordination between the EU states during the forthcoming months, as the pandemic crisis keeps paralysing the European nations. This is an immediate challenge and must be addressed. We cannot have a repetition of chaos we witnessed during the March-June period, with each government taking decisions without coordinating with the others, not even with the neighbours next door. Secondly, there was no reference to the threats the European project is facing, either from domestic actors or foreign sources. The Union is not as solid as many would think. This must be acknowledged and appropriate lines of action should be proposed.

 

This year's strange General Assembly

The 2020 UN General Assembly has started. Unfortunately, due to the pandemic, the world leaders will not be travelling to New York for the General Debate, scheduled for next week. The debate will be even less participatory than in the past. They will be sending pre-recorded videos with their statements. But the most important dimension of the General Assembly, the side meetings between leaders, will be missing. Personal contact is critical in world affairs. Its absence makes all of us more fragile. It makes cooperation less pressing. At a time when we need augmented cooperation between the nations. These are indeed difficult times.

Leaders must direct based on moral values

Translation of today’s opinion piece I published in Diário de Notícias (Lisbon)

This is no time for statues

Victor Angelo

A considerable number of us still see the current situation as something temporary, which scientific research, the announced financial subsidies and time will eventually resolve. I think that is a light view of the pandemic and its consequences. It does not consider the lessons learned from previous crises, which took years to overcome, even though they were not as serious as they are now.

In addition to the economic and social impact, major political fractures may arise. Confusion, uncertainty, and fears are fertile ground from which authoritarian politicians often sprout, painted as megalomaniac messiahs, with ultra-nationalist, populist and bizarrely dangerous ideas. The democratic space is under threat. Miniature copies of Donald Trump and company are beginning to appear. People who, coming from outside the political practice and without the experience of the functioning of institutions, think they have the simple and ready to cook solution that will solve all the evils of today. But, in reality, the shrewdest populists are waiting for the opportunity, which will arise, in their opinion, with the exhaustion of the response capacity of the existing social systems. 

In such a context, we need leaders who are enlightened, courageous, and capable of giving meaning to the transformations that are to come. It happens that people look around them and do not see such leaders. There is no new Nelson Mandela, no new Kofi Annan or a modern version of Jacques Delors. Immediatism and materialism have replaced the struggle for human values. The moral leadership that Pope Francis, the UN Secretary-General, and others could exercise is missing. They have stopped appearing or, when they do, they come late and talk about vague things. No one takes note.

Some people would say that only those who exaggerate are heard. I do not think so. The Prime Minister of New Zealand, Jacinda Arden, is a moderate leader whom everyone admires. She is not particularly active on the international scene because she is above all focused on her country's issues. Yet she is often quoted. Greta Thunberg and Malala Yousafzai can be mentioned as other examples of international leadership. These are respected voices that mark the global agenda. The reason, I would say in a simplified way, is because they go straight to the point, without diplomacy, nor personal fears or ambitions. They are perceived as genuine and combative. And with clear ideas. That is what is expected of those who lead.

On the other side of the coin, look at the United Nations. The last ten years have been a disaster for its credibility. The lack of authority at global level worsened after the crisis in Libya in 2011 and it experienced clear moments of deterioration in the following years. The invasion of Crimea in 2014 and the conflict in Ukraine, all done with impunity, the impasse in Syria, with repeated vetoes, the silence and inaction in the face of mass migration in 2015, the election of Donald Trump in 2016, a politician who does not accept the values of international cooperation, the lack of political response to the genocide of the Rohingyas in 2017, the exclusion of the Security Council from issues relating to Palestine, the attacks against UNESCO and WHO, are some of the milestones in the process of marginalization of the UN. Others could be mentioned, in a list that reminds us that the global institutional framework needs to be rethought. I would just add that there is no greater frustration in international life than being at the head of an institution that hardly anyone listens to.

In these things, I like to suggest we follow the example of that holy man, described in a famous sermon preaching to the fish, because people did not want to listen to him. In other words, this is by no means the time to remain silent, without drawing the lessons that the crisis puts before our eyes. A silent leader is just a statue, which these days is a danger, because the statues are being torn down.

Empty Summer

As we get closer to August, which is the annual holiday month, we realise this year everything is different. In our part of Europe, people are not travelling that much. They prefer to stay in the vicinity of their home region. They understand that the health crisis is picking up and they do not want to be caught in a messy situation far away from their residence. I live in an area of my city that attracts a lot of tourists. This time, there are no visitors. I do not have to worry about parking spaces. But I worry a lot when I see the shops, restaurants and so on empty and the hotels closed. That is the reality this summer.  

A major shock

The current pandemic crisis is a major global disruptor. It will have a complex cluster of impacts in many areas, from the political one up to the behavioural. Some of the consequences might end up by being positive transformations. When I say that I have in mind an increase in the work from home, which saves time and keeps fewer people in crowded and long commutes. I also think of greater investments in preventive health and more equal access to basic health services. On the other hand, it will have dramatic consequences on jobs, on poverty and despair, and on the performance of major economic sectors, including the banking one. The longer this crisis lasts the more complicated the recovery will be. And we have a prolonged period in front of us. This should mean that we must do whatever we can to prevent the transmission of disease.  

The road ahead

This moment in our lives calls for prudence, tolerance, and generosity. These are the values that will take us through the deep crisis we are in. They should be mentioned in every major political statement. Leaders must be brave, truthful and be able to put across such messages. They should also be seen as caring and knowing where we are heading.

Moving backwards

This afternoon I called a few people in Africa, to find out how the pandemic is affecting their fellow citizens. And I got the same message from each call. Poverty and desperation are the main consequences of border closures and other domestic restrictions. The pandemic is ruining their fragile economies. There are no commercial flights coming in and out, no significant cross border trade, besides the traditional exchanges related to the informal sectors, little exports, and plenty of job losses. This pandemic takes these countries backwards. For those like me who spent a number of years working in the development field, it is an incredibly sad moment. Many of the gains are just being lost.  

Still on the European summit

The EU summit is still on, at the end of the second day. It is too early to comment on it, as I do not know what the outcome will be. But I said to a friend, a former ambassador, that I see it as positive that leaders spend a good amount of time trying to get to an agreement. They have in front of them big issues, with many possible consequences, and extremely high costs. These are no simple matters, and we are living in extraordinarily exceptional times. I would be worried if they decided to run through the issues, superficially and with no real commitment. It is true that some of them do have that kind of attitude. They are the lightweights. But the key players take these matters seriously. I can only appreciate that. To call names and badmouth them is a childish approach I do not accept.   

Plenty of false prophets around us

Philosophers, sociologists, and other social scientists are exchanging lots of views about the political and societal impact of the coronavirus. And many people just repeat those comments without a thoughtful analysis of what is said. Even serious newspapers do it.

My impression is that many of those intellectuals have a preconceived idea, an ideological business line they try to peddle at all costs. As such, they want us to see in the crisis the confirmation of their pet theories. A kind of "I warned you". It is a biased reading of the situation at a time when we need objectivity and serenity.

This is no time for propagandists. There should be no room for any type of false prophets.

Our objective should be to base ourselves on accepted values ​​and to propose paths which would allow reinforcing these values. Therefore, we must be clear about the values ​​that we share, and which are part of the world’s common treasure, at the international level.

We must include, not exclude. We must understand and look for better ways of living together and sustaining life on this planet. Intellectuals that transform every sentence on bump fire should get no visibility at this stage. Or be thoroughly criticised and rationally challenged.

We need an action framework of a new type

On this Independence Day in the US, it is obvious the country and the world have a big problem to confront and resolve. The Covid-19 pandemic. This is still the first wave of contagion and the virus remains out of control, in many parts of America and elsewhere. To deny it is to deny reality. It can only be explained as sheer ignorance or a political farce.

If we look at the problem with objectivity, we can only conclude that it might take another 12 to 18 months before we see an effective response. The timeframe can be shorter, the optimists say, but it can also be much longer, as many scientists keep telling us. In any case, a global crisis as the current one, if it goes on up to mid-to-end of 2021, will have global negative consequences. In simple words, I would say that we will become poorer and more self-centred. That will impact the world economy, trade, international cooperation, the multilateral systems, and, in summary, will change the game of global politics. Looking at it from the stability and security angles, I see us moving towards increased extremism, short-minded nationalism, and new dangerous confrontations. We will certainly reach new levels of instability and insecurity as well as the contraction of the democratic space.

Not easy to find a balance between public health and politics, including the economy. And that complexity augments as we move from the domestic scene to the wider arenas, where States act and clash. That is the reason why I think that reflecting on such a necessary balance is one of the key tasks the global institutions and the big-picture thinkers should focus on. We must design an action framework that keeps lives and livelihoods. Such a framework must obtain wide support – the support could even come from the UN Security Council – and give people clarity and hope.

The most important question of the day

What kind of post-covid world is it in the making? That is the key question that should be in many minds. That is the debate that needs to take place. With realism and balance, with tolerance but accepting all types of opinions. The answer is obviously a complex one. And certainly not a positive one unless we can convince the leaders to change course. I doubt. The crisis is too big and most of them just want to throw money at it to minimise its effects. That is not change, that is not innovation. It is just the continuation of the recent trends, with all their shortcomings.

Daring times

Many thinkers in our part of the world are advocating for a changed world. They are convinced the current global health crisis is a golden opportunity to build a more reasonable future. On the same vein, the UN Secretary-General is also talking about a “better world”.

I certainly would support an approach that would reduce the fragilities many people are exposed to and respect the environmental balance we all know it is needed. The big question is, however, how can we do it with the same old leaders? If there is no change in leadership, the chances we will see a transformation are extremely limited. Therefore, the point is to challenge the current leadership.

How feasible is that?

My question should not be seen as giving up. I am convinced it is important to draw lessons from the crisis and battle for them to influence the next choice of options. We are facing the first global crisis of the modern times. This is a global world with a global shock and a common set of deep problems. We have in our hands a unique opportunity to think differently and act otherwise. The UN should take the lead and set up a set of proposals for the consideration of the world leaders. It might not be heard to at the beginning. But it could rapidly generate enough popular traction and then the political leaders would have to take those ideas into account.

This is no time to be short in ambition and frightened by crazy people in power. It is just the opposite that must happen. It is time to show we can respond to the call of the future.   

Our current tsunami

We cannot look at tomorrow’s world with yesterday’s eyes. But that is what most of us are doing because that is the way we feel more confident. We know there is a major transformation taking place these days. However, we keep hoping that the future will be just a copy of the past, with some adjustments, we can accept that, and nothing else.

I am afraid it will not. This pandemic is a major shock for every nation. It is, at the same time, a global and a local tsunami.

Pandemic and confusing days

The pandemic is still moving around, in our corner of the world. It is not just a problem in the Americas or elsewhere. It should continue to be seen as a dramatic challenge we all face, everywhere. European countries are opening up. But it would be a mistake to believe we are out of the woods. Every measure of prudence must be adhered to. And governments cannot stop the health education campaigns around the Covid. Better, they must be clear in their messages. And the strongest messages are about wearing masks, keeping a distance and avoid crowds, all types of crowds.

I know we are requested to find a balance between health and the economy. I am for the opening of the economic activities, including international travel. However, all of this must be implemented with a deep sense of civic and personal responsibility. Politicians, associations, and every citizen carry a good deal of responsibility. The roles and expectations must be clearly defined. Then, we know what to demand from each one. And what are the red lines we must follow.

There is a great concern with the economic recovery. In most European countries that is the main worry. I fully understand it. The shock is very deep, and the prospects of recovery are uneven, at best. In some countries, with weaker and less diversified productive basis, the prospects are indeed very sombre. I think the quickest way to recover is to let people be responsible in an environment that respects the sanitary norms and, at the same time, gives each one of us a chance to live in the “new normal” and take charge of our own destiny. This no time for unjustified constraints, beyond those that have a scientific reason.

It is also no time to keep children out of the schools. They must go back to a safe and well-organised classroom. They need to be in contact with their age group and their little friends. That is how the socialisation and the learning happen.