"Vivência e Reflexões Geopolíticas": a book that should be widely read

 Vivências e Reflexões Geopolíticas ("Experiences and Geopolitical Reflections") is a book by Victor Ângelo that offers a unique perspective on global affairs, blending his personal experiences with professional analysis. Rather than a formal academic text, it is a collection of reflections informed by his long and distinguished career.

Here's what you should know about the book and its author:

About the Author and His Perspective

Victor Ângelo is a highly respected Portuguese diplomat who spent over three decades working for the United Nations, including serving as Special Representative of the Secretary-General. This background is crucial, as the book is a product of his on-the-ground experience in various conflict zones and complex geopolitical environments, such as Sierra Leone and the Central African Republic.

His writing is described by critics as clear, direct, and non-academic. He is known for cutting through complex issues with a straightforward style that makes geopolitical topics accessible to a wider audience.

Main Ideas and Content

The book is a mix of memoir and geopolitical commentary. It uses Ângelo's personal "vivências" (experiences) as a foundation for his "reflexões" (reflections). Key themes include:

• The Role of the UN: He provides a first-hand account of the United Nations' role in managing and resolving conflicts, offering a candid view from inside the organization.

• Contemporary Conflicts: The book analyzes major international issues, including the war in Ukraine and the tensions between the West and China, drawing on his expertise to offer context and potential solutions.

• A Call for Reform: Ângelo is a strong advocate for the reform of the UN Security Council, an idea he has discussed in various public appearances. This theme is central to his work.

In essence, the book is valued for its unique blend of personal narrative and professional insight, providing a grounded, practical look at the challenges and complexities of modern international relations from the perspective of someone who has been in the room.

My understanding of leadership

I have learned that a true leader sees it as his or her mission to create broad alliances, to bring people of different convictions together. Therefore, when I am asked to give an opinion about any political personality, that is always my point of departure. Is he or she a consensus builder? Every society has its own divisions and lines of fracture. The leader knows that but does not try to take advantage of it.

My advice is very straightforward. Look at the person who is in a position of power and assess if such a politician is a divisive or an inclusive leader. Then, you have a clear-cut criterion to judge. 

And you decide based on your own understanding of what it means to live in a nation. If you are a progressive individual, you will see harmony and social cohesion as part of the national wealth.

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 dictators and our democracies

In any democratic society, as we understand them in our part of the world, to rule by decree or by Presidential Orders can only be accepted in exceptional circumstances. Besides that, it becomes a worrisome practice, that might easily lead to abuse of power and end up as an autocratic way of governing.

The separation of powers is still the best approach to democracy. But we should not forget that it requires an independent, impartial judiciary as well as a legislative chamber that is more than a rubber-stamping body.

Unfortunately, we are seeing the opposite in some of the most powerful Western countries. We stare at Presidents that ignore the institutions and the representative system and govern as if to be in charge means to be campaigning all the time. And we know of Parliaments that act only along partisan lines, with no will to be more than an excellent job opportunity that must be kept by being faithful to the party bosses. Not to mention the judges that are either relics of the past or just too concerned with the public opinion.

There is indeed a crisis of democracy in our countries. And I am not going beyond our corner of the world. In other corners, the situation can be even more dramatic.

Opinion texts must be short and direct

I said before that brevity is a sign of intelligence. And I am still convinced that is the case. The problem is that I have a few friends who are highly intelligent but think that a long text, with many words and shooting in several directions, is what is expected from an intellectual. How can I change their minds? I try to tell them that there is very little patience for meandering texts of opinion. But they don’t believe me. And they keep copying and pasting their ideas every time they produce a new piece.

The transition ahead of us

Many of us are now getting tired of the lockdown. This is, therefore, a dangerous period, when people start looking for opportunities to escape the quarantine and become more critical of the authorities. They are also feeling the squeeze when it comes to their income. Many families have been living on small budgets. They are at the limit of what they can sustain. They want to go back to the economy. They think it should be possible if adequate protection measures are implemented. Long transition periods might be wise from a public health point of view but have serious political costs. Governments must be clear when explaining the way the transition is expected to work. That is a task that requires top attention.

A war economy or just words?

You call it a war, but you keep acting as if there was no need to reorganise the entire production to win the war. When you are at war, your economy must become a war economy. If not, you are not a good leader and you cannot connect your words with the reality that must be put in place. 

About the intelligence work

During my professional life I had to interact with intelligence personnel. Most of them were very bright people, others were just good at collecting information but not particularly skilled at transforming that information into intelligence, meaning, into proper assessments and sets of assumptions. But the most important thing I have learned is that intelligence is a line of work that requires independence. The staff must feel they are not pressurised in any direction. They must come to the best conclusion they can produce. If the analysis and assumptions are influenced by partisan considerations, they no longer are fully credible. They lose value and can only be used to justify political mistakes and biased decisions. Unfortunately, that happens quite often, thanks to the interference of the political leaders.

France has become a political pandemonium

The French political atmosphere is not acceptable. There is too much mass violence on the streets, too many social demands that are far from being realistic, all that combined with excessive fragmentation and radicalisation of the political parties. Parties have become very marginal in the setting of the national agenda.

The country needs some deep social reforms but there is no political actor strong enough to carry them out. President Emmanuel Macron has not been able to put across his view of the country’s future. He speaks to a small minority that is still prepared to listen to him. He lost the leadership of the process. His concern now is to minimise the opposition to his person and his initiatives. It is sad to see him being overtaken by the radicals that populate the trade unions and the political class. He is walking a route called failure. I am not sure he will be able to change the course of such a route.

All this has a serious impact on his capacity to play a leading role in the transformation of the EU. Macron’s domestic difficulties translate into a very weak and distant capacity to shape the European politics.

We are unfortunately very far from the hope he represented when elected.

We are also very surprised by the radicalism France is experiencing. There is no other country like that in the EU political space.

Politics is about people and their feelings

The political fights are about emotions and instincts. The ideas must have a strong and clear human dimension to get enough support.

Leadership and perceptions

Leadership is about empathy with the ordinary person on the street. The leader must be perceived as a caring and committed individual.

Poor democracy

For many opportunistic politicians, the truth is a MIA – missing in action. Values have been kicked aside, in today’s partisan disputes. The politicians do not want to recognise the facts if those facts play against them and their political friends. It is more than just lying. It is deep bad faith, and no shame. It is to negate the evidence and logical dimension of the facts. In the end, that creates deep divisions, extreme rancour and an immense discredit of everything political. With time, it might lead to violent action as well.

It is very worrying as a new trend.

We have now daily examples of that, in our democracies. And as I wrote yesterday, our democratic systems are therefore continuously undermined. And our societies are becoming more extreme instead of more harmonious.

At the end of the NATO Day

As I look at leaders ‘meeting, and the way they look at their own forces, always over-estimating the capacity of their forces and inter-states cooperation, I want to shout that too much confidence on your abilities defeats you in the end. It has always been like that and I see no reason for it to be different this time.

To talk to a political bully?

In politics, we tend to forget that to be principled is different from being dogmatic.

A principled leader knows the goal posts, keeps in mind the values that must be respected, and, because of that, he or she can engage in a negotiation. The dogmatic one is just a bully, a political ruffian. He can only operate from what he sees as a position of force, even when such position is no more than an illusion. The bully lives in a fantasy world and sees himself at the centre of it. To engage in a dialogue with such a person is a lost of time, unless it is just a tactical move to regain the initiative.

Deception and intent

We should always remember the wise aphorism about politics. It goes like this: in politics everything could mean the opposite of what it is said or done. Our job is to try to find out what is behind the words or the deeds. Like asking, what is the point? Sharp minds do that.

Assessing the Gilets Jaunes

At my conference, this afternoon, I was asked about the Gilets Jaunes, the French demonstrators that took to the streets every Saturday for a long while, starting in November last year. I replied the protest is dead. And I explained that the Gilets Jaunes missed some important criteria that make the citizens’ movements successful. Therefore, they could only fail, it was just a question of time.

One, their objectives were too broad. In addition, besides being too many and shooting in too many directions, the demands kept changing with time. That is a serious mistake.

Two, they were not able to connect with other movements, not even with the trade unions, not to mention the political parties. No connection beyond the group means no alliance and therefore, no success.

Three, they were not aware that to win you should not demonize those who are not participating. You must show you are open to them. If you call them names, they will turn against you.

Four, to be successful, a citizens’ movement must remain non-violent. That is what history teaches us. Acts of violence associated with the movement play against it. The government knew that and was able to play that card well. Just think of the many TV images that were broadcast to show how much violence was associated with the Gilets Jaunes’ rallies.

Five, civic action calls for visible leaders to be the recognisable face of it. That was not the case. Every time a new potential leader emerged, he or she was immediately attacked by many within the Gilets Jaunes crowd.

Six, the government must propose an alternative to the demonstrations. The Macron government invented a “national dialogue”. It took the steam out of many participants and sympathisers in the Gilets Jaunes.

That is my reading, that is what I shared today.

 

The critical importance of civic movements

As I get ready to address a key civil society association that brings together several prominent NGOs and citizens’ groups on matters of geopolitics and strategy, I try to concentrate my speech on three messages.

First, in today’s world, civic movements are key agents of social change. They contribute more than political parties to real value transformation, as, among others, #MeToo, the #ClimateStrike, the #UmbrellaMovement of Hong Kong, the LGBTQ grassroots actions, or India’s people’s campaign against corruption (@IPaidABribe) have shown. Governments know that fact and that’s why they are afraid of such movements. On the side of the political parties, their leaders are yet to understand how to connect with the citizen’s initiatives without falling into populist approaches and rhetoric.

Second, I would like my audience to discuss the role of the social platforms and the interaction between such networks and traditional media. In my opinion, the networks link people and keep them informed and mobilised, but it is the traditional media that gives a critical boost to such civic initiatives and struggles. TV channels, above all, but also credible print media. When they report about what is brewing in the social media, they give the cause a lot of leverage. They add a critical element of credibility. Therefore, we should not dismiss the links between the new and the conventional means of communication.

Third, we need to understand success. What makes a citizen’s movement successful? There is now some research on the matter. It needs to be further systematised and disseminated. Special attention must be given to issues of good leadership, personal commitment, focus, simplicity and image. But several lessons can already be drawn.

No let up

The glass might be empty, but it is not broken. 

Stay on message

There is no problem if one keeps repeating the same message because most people are not listening, even when they pretend to. The only advice is to repeat it clearly and gracefully.

Tomorrow or today?

Tomorrow, tomorrow, tomorrow. A very political word. Also, a tactical concept, a guide for inaction and avoiding hard decisions, moments of truth.

Or, so often, tomorrow should take place today, make it happen. That’s leadership.