Briefing Note: Russia’s Policies and Implications for APEC

Purpose

To inform APEC leaders of the strategic risks posed by Russia’s current foreign and economic policies and their potential impact on regional stability and economic cooperation.

---

Key Observations

1. Militarisation and Geopolitical Assertiveness

   • Russia prioritises hard power over diplomacy, using the Ukraine conflict as leverage for global influence.
   • Increased military presence in the Arctic and Asia-Pacific signals readiness to escalate tensions, undermining regional security.

2. Economic Weaponisation

   • Energy exports remain a geopolitical tool, with infrastructure projects used to divide allies.
   • Despite extensive sanctions, Russia sustains its war economy through alternative trade networks, deepening global fragmentation.

3. Strategic Dependence

   • Russia’s “pivot to Asia” has led to structural reliance on China, limiting autonomy and raising long-term viability concerns.

---

Implications for APEC

• Trade Disruption: Russia’s stance on sanctions and WTO mechanisms introduces friction into APEC’s consensus-driven model.
• Security Spillover: Militarisation risks transforming economic forums into arenas of strategic rivalry.
• Normative Erosion: Push for “multipolarity” challenges rules-based governance, creating uncertainty for smaller economies.

---

Recommended Actions

• Reaffirm APEC’s Core Principles: Emphasise rules-based trade and economic cooperation.
• Strengthen Collective Resilience: Diversify supply chains and enhance energy security to reduce vulnerability.
• Engage with Caution: Maintain dialogue on economic issues while countering destabilising tactics through coordinated responses.

---

Bottom Line:
Russia’s policies combine revisionist geopolitics, economic opportunism, and strategic dependency. APEC must navigate engagement carefully to safeguard stability and uphold its mission of inclusive, sustainable growth.

Guterres writes about the dramatic financial situation of Peacekeeping missions worldwide

 

10 October 2025 | Worldwide | Secretary-General

Contingency Plan Letter to Staff Members Dear Colleagues,   I am writing to update you on the financial status of United Nations peacekeeping operations and what it means for us all.   Our peacekeeping operations are facing an extremely difficult financial situation. The current liquidity crisis is the direct result of arrears and the non-payment of assessed contributions in full and on time. Over the past few years, we have actively engaged with Member States to find solutions to this growing challenge. As a result, the United Nations General Assembly in 2019 and 2022 approved some measures that have enabled us to deal with the operational impact of late or non-payments. However, while the level of peacekeeping budgets has been steadily declining, the outstanding contributions have increased significantly, especially in recent months. At the start of this peacekeeping budget cycle on 1 July 2025, arrears amounted to US$2.066 billion. Our collections for the financial period may fall short by about US$880 million, putting a further strain on our liquidity situation.   In addition to actively engaging with Member States, we introduced measures in 2024 to restrict spending and align it with cash inflows. Thanks to these measures, and your dedication and commitment, and the generosity of troop- and police-contributing countries, we have managed to carry on. The troop- and police-contributing countries are, in effect, financing the system, waiting many months and sometimes over a year for reimbursement of their personnel and equipment costs. This is unsustainable. The margin of manoeuvre gained from earlier liquidity measures approved by the General Assembly, as well as our own spending restrictions, is now exhausted. Despite recent positive news that a sizeable amount from a major contributor will be entirely available to distribute flexibly across the peacekeeping missions and to establish a reserve for the United Nations Support Office in Haiti (UNSOH), the reality remains: the overall shortfall is grave.   In a context of deep uncertainty and a worsening cash position, I asked all peacekeeping missions funded under the peacekeeping budget to prepare contingency plans based on possible reductions of 15 to 25 per cent of their expenditures. Troop- and police-contributing countries were also informed, together with the relevant host countries. I am grateful to our missions for working hard over the past few months to prepare these different scenarios.   Based on our current financial estimates and after a careful review, I have decided to request all peacekeeping missions funded under the peacekeeping budget to implement their contingency plans for a 15 per cent reduction in expenditures, the lower of the two scenarios. These reductions will affect all areas: uniformed components, civilian personnel and operations. Separately, the United Nations Support Office in Somalia (UNSOS) will be required to achieve a 25 per cent reduction in expenditures within the current fiscal year, reflecting unique budgetary pressures that will need to be addressed in close coordination with the African Union.   These reductions must now be achieved within the remaining nine months of the budget period. Therefore, the impact on the reduction of capacities — and thus on operations and mandated activities — will be proportionally greater. The consequences will be painful. With the exception of UNSOS, we will need to repatriate around 25 per cent of the uniformed personnel and their equipment in the coming months. Peacekeeping operations — together with the Department of Peace Operations and other relevant departments — have carefully identified the contingents and individual uniformed personnel that should be repatriated.   On 7 October 2025, I briefed the members of the United Nations Security Council and the troop- and police-contributing countries on the contingency plans. We will continue to update them on the implementation and impact on our operations.   Repatriating around 25 per cent of troops and police in the space of a few months will be a major and complex logistical exercise.   The impact on civilian, international and locally recruited staff and affiliate personnel will be significant. Some separations will be inevitable, and missions will soon need to invoke the downsizing policy to reduce their civilian staffing, in consultation with staff representative bodies. I know the impact on affected staff, personnel and their families will be enormous, and I want to acknowledge the personal toll such measures entail.   The work of identifying which contingents and individual personnel will be repatriated has been carried out with care, weighing mandate priorities, operational requirements and, above all, the safety and security of those who will remain. While our missions carry out their contingency plans to address their funding shortfalls, they will continue to implement their mandates to the extent possible under these financial circumstances. The protection of civilians, the advancement of peace processes and support to fragile communities cannot and will not be abandoned. However, given the magnitude of the problem and the challenging context in which our missions operate, it is difficult to predict the impact on the ground. We have planned for this scenario and our staff in the field and at Headquarters will continue to work with dedication and professionalism. But this is a situation that the Organization has never faced before, and the impact remains uncertain.   I want to express my deep appreciation to all peacekeeping personnel for their service and sacrifice. I deeply understand the concerns that carrying out these plans raises, and the impact it may have on missions and personnel. Unfortunately, the Organization has no choice but to move forward with the implementation, despite the difficult impact it will have. I am determined to continue advocating for peacekeeping as a collective and shared responsibility. Without the support of Member States, the Organization cannot function properly. I will continue to appeal to all Member States to pay in full and on time so that our peacekeeping operations can remain a strong and dependable instrument of the United Nations. I remain hopeful that we will be able to resolve the current liquidity crisis, and I will work tirelessly towards that end.   I want to, once again, thank you for undertaking your essential work with enormous strength and resilience under these very difficult circumstances. You have continued to serve in some of the world's most difficult and dangerous situations, not for recognition, but for the cause of peace. That spirit is the heart of this Organization. Together, I am confident that we can take on the challenges, uphold our values and create the opportunities needed to address our unstable and uncertain world.   Yours sincerely, Antonio Guterres

China's responsibilities as a permanent member of the UN Security Council

Ukraine: what are China's responsibilities as a P5?

Victor Angelo

 

Earlier this week, Olaf Scholz met by videoconference with Xi Jinping. A day later, it was Emmanuel Macron's turn. I imagine there was a prior settling of positions between the two European leaders, even though the face-to-face meeting between the two only took place a few hours after the German chancellor's virtual meeting with the Chinese president. Xi Jinping is convinced that strengthening European unity will eventually allow Europe to gain greater autonomy in relation to the USA. That is why he must have compared the statements made by Scholz and Macron to see if they are along the same lines.

The big issue, in an extensive agenda of issues to be dealt with between China and Europe, is that of the war in Ukraine. During the calls, Xi repeated phrases he had uttered before - Europe's security must be in the hands of Europeans; it is fundamental to build a new security structure in Europe that takes into account the concerns of all parties; China has acted diplomatically for peace to return to Ukraine, starting by insisting on a ceasefire and respect for the country's territorial integrity; it continues to promote multilateral solutions, because it recognises the central role of the UN; and, finally, China defends the globalisation of markets. At the outset, these declarations are positive. But what do they mean in concrete terms, when it comes to putting an end to Russian aggression against Ukraine and stopping the risks of the conflict spreading?

Scholz, Macron and the entire European leadership must go further and unambiguously confront Xi Jinping: what does China intend to do to contribute with all its political and economic weight to making Vladimir Putin's Russia cease hostilities and respect the sovereignty of its neighbour? The videoconferences need to be more demanding and explore what the grand declarations of principles mean in practice. The gravity of the international situation requires a dialogue that goes beyond make-believe.

China, beyond its status as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, is a global power, however much that pains some Western leaders. Both realities, in New York and around the world, give China rights and responsibilities. And in the case of the violation of Ukraine's sovereignty, China has a duty to actively contribute to the return of peace and international law. It cannot use the argument that this is only a European problem and that it is therefore up to the Europeans to solve it. Nor should we insist on this line of argument.

What we are facing is a conflict that could dramatically threaten international peace and security, particularly if non-conventional weapons are used. And which already has a widespread impact on food security, supply chains, energy prices and other dimensions that lead to the impoverishment of millions, and even more so in the most economically fragile countries.

In essence, my message is that Europe needs to talk more assertively with China. Xi says it is for peace and international order, for the centrality of the United Nations. So, ask him how he translates those admirable axioms into a peace process for Ukraine.

Meanwhile, the annual summit between the EU and Japan took place yesterday in Tokyo. Charles Michel and Ursula von der Leyen led the European delegation. They began by pointing out that Japan is Europe's most important strategic partner in the Indo-Pacific region, which must have attracted some attention in Beijing. The intensification of sanctions against Russia was one of the central themes of the discussion. There is a convergence of views between Brussels and Tokyo on the issue. But here too it would have been strategic to discuss how to involve China. This is now one of the big questions. It is not enough to write in the final communiqué that the EU and Japan will "deepen exchanges with China", namely in the political and security fields. That is mere lip service.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 13 May 2022)

 

 

Christmas reflection

Peace. Dignity. Equality. Planet.

Victor Angelo

 

On this Christmas Eve, it seems appropriate to recall the current motto of the United Nations: "Peace, dignity and equality on a healthy planet". It is a call for the implementation of policies that place people and nature at the centre of public interventions. It expresses well the wishes that I would like to leave here.

We live in a complex reality, full of real concerns and dangers. The UN itself appears to many to have been weakened and marginalized. In this context, it is easy to lose hope, to confuse realism with pessimism, and to fall into an attitude of every man for himself, each behind his own walls. There is also the temptation to recover the growth that the pandemic caused to be lost with economic programmes based on unsustainable recipes. In other words, without considering the long-term consequences, the excessive debt that will burden future generations, the environmental commitments, and the need to transform the way we live and how we relate to other societies, especially the less developed ones. Electoralism turns democracy into an exercise of political opportunism.

Russian demands and military manoeuvres are the most immediate threat to peace. I wrote about this last week. Since then, Putin's stated conditions - and the language used - have become even more categorical and unacceptable. And military preparations have intensified. We are two days away - 26 December - from the thirtieth anniversary of the demise of the Soviet Union. A historic moment, seen by Putin as the great tragedy of millenarian Russia.  

What are the reasons behind the present Russian escalation?

That is the big question, far beyond the old tape of the narrative about NATO's eastward expansion. The most plausible answer will be to ask heaven and earth, to get a no, and thus create a pretext to annex part of Ukraine. And, at the same time, reaffirm the determination and strength of the Kremlin.

But what is Putin's strategic objective?

Strengthening his control of domestic politics will not be a sufficient explanation, even if we recognise that there is a marked erosion of his popularity. It has been seen: last September's parliamentary elections were a massive exercise in deceit and coercion to hide the extent of popular discontent.

It could then be an attempt to paralyse NATO by dividing it, showing its weaknesses. At the same time, it will send a signal to the Baltic countries. And still, that one does not make policy in the immediate vicinity of Russia without the green light from the Kremlin. 

Whatever the intention, we must insist on peaceful coexistence in Europe. On mutual concessions. As indeed in other parts of the world. In Syria, at war for more than ten years. In Palestine, in the Sahel, in Central Africa, in Ethiopia, in Myanmar, in Yemen. Today is the day to mention again these and other places that have been so afflicted.

Dignity and equality mean respecting the basic rights of every person, as defined in the 1949 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the additional conventions and protocols. The proclamation that "all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights" and have "the right to life, liberty and security of person" applies to humanity, regardless of the specific contexts of each nation.

I recognize that the vision that inspired the Universal Declaration places the individual at the centre of rights, while in certain cultures the well-being of the community is presented as having primacy. In one case and in the other, it is about people, the protection of their lives and their creativity. There are no cultural differences there.

On the planet, a little more than a month after the COP26, just a few words to share a thought of solidarity with the thousands of victims of the recent natural disasters. The floods in South Sudan, with entire regions submerged and misery transformed into despair. The typhoons in the Philippines. The tornadoes in the USA. Extreme climatic phenomena are becoming more and more overwhelming. Let us remember, in relation to this great challenge and the others, that this must be the time of rebirth.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 24 December 2021)

China and Europe: an agenda that differs from the American one

China and us

Victor Angelo

 

China's Foreign Minister Wang Yi spoke this week to the cream of US business leaders based in his country. The focus of his speech was the resumption of political dialogue between China and the United States under Joe Biden. He felt there was an urgent need to restore communication and mutual trust. He hinted that it was time to overcome the lack of objectivity and rationality that had marked Donald Trump's governance.  Apart from the reference to the red line of non-interference in Chinese domestic affairs - that is, Beijing does not want to be talked about human rights - his communication reflected a positive and reassuring official line.

On the same day that Wang spoke, Washington added 14 Chinese personalities to the list of those sanctioned for repression in Hong Kong. In Singapore, US Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross argued to an audience of leaders coming from the region that China would be the main military and economic threat to Asian countries. This is consistent with the Trump team's intention to create a fait accompli that would condition Biden's policy towards China. And I would say that it is managing to reduce, at least for some time, the room for manoeuvre of the new administration. A large part of public opinion and of the US political class share an ideological position of hostility towards China. 

Days before, John Ratcliffe, the director of U.S. National Intelligence and, as such, the supreme coordinator of the country's seventeen espionage and counterintelligence agencies, had published an opinion on China in the Wall Street Journal. Given its author, the text attracted much attention. The song was the same and the title of the article summed it up: "China is the No. 1 threat to national security". In the body of the text, it went further, stating that China would also be the greatest danger to the world’s democracy and freedom. The rest of the writing was an amalgamation of scattered ideas about China’s actions without differentiating well what would be within the domain of national security from the anecdotal or just a fight for the interests of American multinationals.

The legacy that Trump seeks to leave in this matter is also intended to condition the Europeans. He is already achieving this in NATO. The group of experts set up by the Secretary General to reflect on NATO 2030 is co-chaired by the American Wess Mitchell, an intellectual so dear to Trump as hostile to Beijing. The document the group has produced, now under discussion by the Alliance's foreign ministers since the beginning of this month, refers to China as an "acute threat".

However, Europe cannot look to China only from the unique perspective provided by the Americans. Our interests and our geopolitical deployment are different. Nor are we in a race for military power, nor do we have the engines of Chinese aircraft carriers snoring through waters close to us. We know, on the other hand, that you cannot put all the risks in the same bag. Every threat, be it military, political destabilisation, scientific, technological, or economic espionage, in the field of intellectual property or unfair competition, requires specific treatment.

In Europe's case, attention must be focused on three types of action. First, the fight against espionage, intrusion and theft linked to scientific and technological advances. European intelligence services must prepare themselves for this task and cooperate more closely with each other. Secondly, a common frame of reference should be defined to give coherence to the way European states relate to China's politics and economy. In other words, this means that opportunistic relations, and outside that framework, between EU member states and China should be considered unacceptable. Third and foremost, the EU must state clearly that cooperation is the only desirable way forward. So, without calling into question our alliance with the US, and without forgetting that Beijing is a dictatorship, political dialogue with China must seek mutual benefit, the promotion of universal rights and values, and cooperation in tackling major global challenges.

 

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

 

 

The United Nations at 75: to be more political again

My opinion piece on the United Nations, as published today, in Portuguese language, in the Diário de Notícias (Lisbon)

 

Maintaining the relevance of the United Nations

Victor Angelo

 

The United Nations celebrates 75 years of existence at the beginning of the coming week. This is also the week of the General Debate, which allows world leaders to address the General Assembly and those who are prepared to hear them. This year, despite the symbolic importance of the anniversary, everything will have a low profile, digital-only, because of the pandemic. The heads of state and government will not travel to New York. They will send videos, in most cases with the usual nonsense intended for their domestic audiences. The absence of the leaders will cause the most relevant part of the annual meeting to be missed, which is to allow a whole series of face-to-face meetings among the great ones of this world. All this makes this year's session relatively invisible, precisely when the United Nations needs to regain international attention. 

It may be that the US President will be the only one to make the trip and speak in person. It would be advantageous for him to do so to as it would allow him to spend some time with Secretary General António Guterres. Donald Trump is known to slow down his impulses when there is personal contact, something that has not happened between the two for quite some time. But more important than whether he goes to UN headquarters is what the President will say. There has been a lot of speculation and nervousness around it. There are even those who say it might include the threat of his country leaving the United Nations. I don't think he will say that. That it is going to be a speech aimed at the American electorate, it is going to be. It will mention Israel and the recent diplomatic victories President Trump managed to pull out of his hat. We can also expect strong references to his pet enemies, starting with Iran. In relation to this, one can anticipate direct criticism of the Russian and Chinese positions, a criticism that will also touch the Europeans, because they have not supported recent American decisions on Iran. But above all, I fear that the President will develop a narrative that will allow him to justify a hypothetical intervention in Iran in the coming weeks, something that cannot be ruled out as a possible electoral asset. 

President Trump does not seem to have much regard for the UN. He and his team have already realized that they cannot use it meekly as an instrument to give them international legitimacy after the event. This was the case at the end of August, when the Security Council rejected the US claim to impose new sanctions on Iran. In these situations, the American response has been one of two: either to leave the specialized organizations of the UN, as seen with UNESCO, the Commission on Human Rights or the WHO; or to marginalize and ignore the institution, as has happened with the United Nations Secretariat. Moreover, the current American leadership has already shown that it does not believe in multilateral solutions. The prevailing foreign policy option is to make pressure and demands, based on the principle that might is right.

Faced with the erosion of multilateralism and marginalization, the response must be powerful. It must be based on the constant repetition of the fundamental role of the UN in promoting peace and security, as these concepts are understood today. This means the recognition that the organization exists to facilitate political solutions, in case of risk, threat or conflict. The dimensions of development and humanitarian action are important pillars of the UNAIDS system, but the primacy must be given to political work. This is the message that New York must make heard with a firm voice. And explain that for there to be peace and security, there must be respect for people's dignity, their rights and aspirations for freedom, good governance, and equal opportunities. In other words, the ideas of human development and individual security must be given a more intense political sense. These concepts were formulated in the 1990s and recognized as major advances in the way international relations are viewed.  They remain, however, orphans in terms of the political oratory. They need to be translated into a political language. This one remains timid and traditional, very much based on the sovereignty of states and non-interference in the internal affairs of each country. The narrative must now, at the age of 75, stress the need for a balance between sovereignty and the rights of each of us. "We, the peoples of the United Nations," as it says at the beginning of the Charter.

 

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.

The EU must be more creative in matters of crisis response

Josep Borrel, the EU High Representative for Foreign Policy, addressed the UN Security Council yesterday. It was a long speech about several crisis situations. But the true message was about multilateralism. He stated the strong support the EU is providing to the UN and repeated the message that global problems do call for multilateral action. That was positive. But he was speaking to a very divided and weak Security Council. His words were certainly the right ones, but I can safely guess that their impact was negligible. The climate in the Council is not favourable to global or multinational responses. In addition, his description of the crisis was not creative. For instance, he spoke about the Sahel but added no new idea to what is already known. His concern was to show that the situation in the region is deteriorating – an important message – and that the EU and the UN are cooperating throughout the Sahel. But there was no indication of a line of action that should be followed to stop the fall.

The EU must be more realist in terms of crisis resolution. It should recognise that the current approaches are not yielding results. And it must come up with alternative paths. That would be a much stronger message and a way of giving strength to the EU’s role in matters of peace and security.

Power and dominance

In responding to a friend that lives in China, I said I am also genuinely concerned regarding the growing tension between his country and the US. We do not believe there will be, in the foreseeable future, an armed confrontation between these two powers. We both know that today's wars are fought in diverse ways, but no longer through the classical approach of bullets and boots on the battlefields. Big countries make use of other means to disrupt and weaken the adversaries. The armies are for smaller fights and to show off. We live in a more civilian world, and we fight with a variety of tools that are available in a multidimensional toolbox. Such means can be very destructive as well, with a wide impact on a number of the things, including on the livelihoods of many people.

And this time the conflict is not about ideology, like during the Cold War, but about what each side sees as its vital national interest. In addition, history has taught us that the dominant power perceives the emerging power as a major menace. That is the trigger. And all this makes the confrontation move way up to a more dangerous level, more multifaceted and certainly far more complex to mediate. Moreover, it brings in other countries that have no choice but end up by being forced to take sides. They will also be dramatically affected by the dispute.

In such a dangerous context, my view is that we should keep talking about international norms and cooperation, as well as about clairvoyant leadership. In all truth, the leadership thing is the key issue. It can bring us back to a more reasonable world or take us to the abyss.

We are hiding again behind national borders

One of the characteristics of the new international disorder is to ignore the role of international organisations. The conventions, resolutions, principles and values, which the experience gained during the several decades that followed the Second World War has built up, are being set aside. The United Nations System has been relegated to a little corner of the international relations map. It is simply ignored. Whose fault is it? That’s a matter for a longer debate, but what is worth emphasising now is that nobody listens to the voices that emphasise the importance of multilateral responses and international cooperation. We are back to country-specific decisions, to the primacy of national interests seen in isolation, to relations of force. We have moved back in history, hiding behind national borders. It is simply unacceptable. It leads to conflict and instability.

A new ball game

I find the current realities in international affairs a great opportunity to re-think the way the global political architecture should be organised, the existing alliances and their worth, the responses to conflict and civil wars, and the issues of leadership and responsibility. We are witnessing a new play. Its rules are yet to be decided. But first, we should draw some key lessons from what is taking place in front of our eyes.

Where is the UN Security Council?

These are very strange times. The international scene has been deeply challenged since the beginning of the New Year. And we heard no mention of the UN Security Council. The Council is supposed to be the ultimate custodian of international peace and security, I like to remember the people I talk to. Now, the Council seems to have become the ultimate guarantor of a silent approach to major crises. That should not be accepted.

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. 

August blues

At this time of the year, a good number of people in the Northern Hemisphere are on leave. This is the peak period of the Summer season. But this year, I see some differences. Many people are worried. They look at the international politics scene and do not like the current trends, the surprise decisions, the conflict approach that seems to guide some of the leaders. There is a good deal of uncertainty. That might end up by having an impact on international peace, in addition to the one on the economic situation. Then, people look at the type of weather we are experiencing, the news about the nature, the whales, the Arctic, and wonder about the future.

I do not want to be pessimistic in August. But there is no doubt that things are taking a shape that does not announce easy days ahead of us. It would be inappropriate not to register the apprehensions that one can discern. As it would not be right not to call for a different kind of leaders.

European Defence and Security

Brief answers to questions about the EU defence and security:

First, it is obvious that NATO remains the strongest defence option for the Europeans. It is a powerful structure, it has invested a lot on training and change, it is well known in the European military circles, and several EU member States see it as the key umbrella. They think that without the might of the Americans, the EU defence is not strong enough.

Second, several EU leaders think that Europe should have its own common defence capacity and that such capacity should be in place in 10 to 15 years’ time. For that to happen, its building must start now, which means more joint EU military activities, more coordination, joint defence industries, shared means, and so on. This option will keep growing but the pace might be slow.

Third, the EU geopolitical interests and views are becoming divergent of those pursued by the US. That is true in Middle East, that is also the case regarding our relations with China, and India, and so on. Diverging interests mean that sooner or later we must be able to put together an independent capability.

Fourth, the EU are afraid of being dragged into conflicts that are only in the interest of the US. They are afraid of a deeper confrontation between the US and China. The EU does not want to automatically take sides on such dispute, if it occurs.

The UN and the current crises

The United Nations is always required to be politically smart. That’s the way I saw it, when performing the responsibilities that had been assigned to me. And that’s what I still believe to be the best approach. Smart means above all to be able to say what must be said but with the words that build trust and show concern. Timidity is not the best road to achieve results and guaranty the necessary credibility.

I mention it because today I had to state that things must get better. If the UN remains basically inspired by risk aversion, it will keep pushing itself to the margins of the key current issues.

The Member States must be reminded, as often as the opportunity arises and as it is authorised by the UN Charter and by the history of the organisation, that they ought to support the central role the UN is supposed to play in case of international crises and conflicts. They should also be helped to keep in mind – and act accordingly – that any conflict resolution situation and peacebuilding effort require a comprehensive response. The UN System has the know-how to provide comprehensiveness. And the System must say it loud and clear. It should also smartly – diplomatically – challenge those leaders who keep betting on a security solution to complex crises. A security response, even a powerful one, is just a tool. It is not the master key.

Malaysia Airlines and Jamal Khashoggi

Yesterday, we got two pieces of news that reminded us that the respect for international norms is currently very low. States act as they please and just ignore the existing enforcement mechanisms that the international system has built during the past decades. Alliances of countries that share the same interests have become stronger than the UN, its principles and its regulatory instruments. The Security Council, established as the ultimate authority in terms of peace and security, is at present simply ineffective. That has a major impact on the UN’s image and work as well as on respect for multilateral answers to shared problems.

All this makes might rule over right. It is a field day for dictators and strong men. Above all, it is a serious regression and a dangerous state of affairs. One must express one’s fear and condemnation of States that do not respect the established international rules. One should not remain silent.

One of the news was about the Malaysia Airlines plane that was shot down in 2014 over Ukraine. Key people have now been accused of murder. More indictments are yet to be announced. We can lament that it took to long to come up with these four names. True. But it is a step in the right direction, a move that shows this type of state-sponsored crimes cannot be carried out without punishment. Blame and shame might not be enough. But it is important to do it, to point in the direction of the powerful, particularly when the chances of bringing the accused to justice are very slim.

The second one was about the cruel assassination of Jamal Khashoggi. The UN Special Rapporteur’s words were very clear about the Saudi Crown Prince’s responsibility. Basically, she said there is enough evidence to warrant a criminal investigation of his role. But Saudi Arabia and its main allies do not want to accept that at all. One should not be surprised by the Saudi position. However, one should state in very direct and unambiguous terms that we cannot accept the whitewash the Western countries are engaged in. Saudi Arabia must follow international law. And our role, the role of the democratic countries, is to advise Saudi Arabia to abide. But we are not doing it. And that is a serious breach of the international order that took decades to be shaped.

Munich and the annual security debate

Once more, the conflict between Israel and Palestine is not on the agenda of this year’s Munich Security Conference. 

This annual conference started today and runs up to Sunday. It’s a key international meeting on security. 

This year, Syria and Ukraine are again on the menu, as it is the insecurity situation in the Sahel, the nuclear weapons issue and the security dimensions of climate change. The exclusion of the Palestinian crisis from the debates is deliberate, of course. For many, it’s too delicate a subject. For others, and I am among those, it’s a never-ending conflict. Better move on and deal with those that have a chance of being resolved.

On Russia and the unity of the West

The Kremlin has been surprisingly slow in responding to the measures taken by Theresa May against Russia´s hostile actions. It´s difficult to come up with a good interpretation of the reasons for the delay.

But two things are clear.

First, I have no doubt they will retaliate. Heavily. And, most likely, before the Sunday presidential elections. The leadership, and Vladimir Putin above all, must show to the Russian voters that they do hesitate when it comes to defending Russia´s international honour and strength, as perceived by the official narrative.

Second, the Kremlin was clearly taken by surprise when they noted the unity shown in the West, particularly in Washington, Paris and Berlin. They wanted to respond to the UK and keep the West divided. Now, they have two big tasks. To deal with the British and look for ways of breaking the common position taken by key Western players.

Oil and diplomacy

Last year, in the US, the number of shale oil wells has doubled. The American production is now 9.29 million barrels a day. That is about 47% of the country's daily consumption. And it takes significant pressure out of the international oil market.

It also brings the value of the barrel down.

It has consequently a major strategic impact on oil revenues in Russia and other key producers. The economic strength of such countries is seriously affected. And that will be the case in the foreseeable future. More so, as many developed economies are steadily moving out of fossil fuels into renewable sources of energy.

One of the lessons we should extract from these developments is that, when it comes to deal with adversarial countries, economic factors are at present much more effective – and acceptable – than the military ones.

A related lesson is that your adversaries will not take this matter lightly. Therefore, you must be prepared to confront them on the political field as well. And that means, among other things, promoting the appropriate public information campaigns, keeping your own citizens aware of the challenges at stake, and responding to hostile propaganda. But it also means to open dialogue lines of communication with those antagonistic countries. That´s the role of diplomacy. It is as important as ever.