Putin and our side of Europe

The infinite Vladimir Putin

Victor Angelo

 

According to official figures, for what they are worth, the constitutional revision now enacted by Vladimir Putin would have received the approval of 78% of voters in July 2020. The opposition considered the referendum a sham full of pressure and manoeuvres, but the president will always stress that the revision deserved popular support. We all know how results like that are achieved in opaque and authoritarian regimes. In any case, it is estimated that nearly two thirds of Russians go along with the president, despite the economic doldrums, social dissatisfaction and obstacles to freedom. This level of acceptance - or resignation - is due to the regime's incessant propaganda of the leader, showing him to be a resolute and deeply nationalistic leader, the personifier and protector of Russian identity. The population still remembers the chaotic governance that preceded his coming to power in 1999. Putin means for many stability and public order.

Autocracy favours corrupt practices. That is one of the regime's weaknesses. The campaign against Putin's absolute power involves unmasking high-level corruption. Attacking him based on the aberrations inscribed in the new constitution will not have much impact. It is true that the new law allows him to remain president, if life gives him health, until the age of 84 in 2036. That is the most striking aspect of the new constitutional text. It is a cunning move that aims to allow him to leave the scene when he sees fit, without losing an inch of authority until the final moment. The other relevant changes are the lifetime impunity granted to him and his sidekick Dmitry Medvedev, and the ban on homosexual marriages.

Seeing the Russian people condemned to another number of years of oppression makes anyone who knows and cherishes the value of freedom angry. But the problem is fundamentally an internal issue, which will have to be resolved by the Russian political system and citizens' movements. Our space for action is limited to insistently condemning the lack of democracy and the attacks that the regime makes against the fundamental rights of every citizen, starting with Alexei Navalny. But it is essential not to be naïve about the danger Putin represents in terms of our stability and security. When we talk about dialogue and economic relations we do not do so out of fear or mere opportunism. We do it because that is the way to treat a neighbour, however difficult, in order to have peace in the neighbourhood.

One of the most immediate problems relates to Ukraine's aspiration to join NATO. This is an understandable ambition. It should be dealt with according to the membership criteria - democracy, the rule of law, peaceful conflict resolution and guarantees for the proper functioning of the national armed forces, including the protection of defence secrets. Kiev and Brussels do not need to ask Moscow for permission. Vladimir Putin and his people will not be at all happy when it comes to formal negotiations. However, they have no right to oppose a legitimate foreign policy decision by an independent state. However, it is important that everything is done without burning the midway points and with the appropriate diplomacy to prevent an acceptable process being exploited by the adversary as if it were a provocation.

Another area of immediate concern: the cohesion of the European Union. Putin has long been intent on shattering European unity. He sees the French presidential election of 2022 as a unique opportunity. Marine Le Pen has, for the first time, a high chance of winning. She is viscerally ultranationalist and against the European project. Her election would pose a very serious risk to the continuation of the EU. Putin knows this. He will do everything to intervene in the French electoral process and ruin anyone who might be an obstacle to the victory of the candidate who best serves his interests. It is essential to put a stop to this meddling and, at the same time, to bear in mind the lesson that the Russian leader reminds us daily: vital disputes between the major blocs are no longer fought only with a sword and rocket fire.

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

 

The rule of law in the UK

Today’s ruling by the UK Supreme Court is about law and the respect by everyone, including the country’s Prime Minister, of the constitutional arrangements that define the exercise of executive power. It was a legal decision. And it must be seen as such. The Supreme Court unanimously decided that the Prime Minister’s prorogation of Parliament was unlawful and therefore void and of no effect.

The initial reaction of some of Boris Johnson’s unconditional supporters, including in the media – The Telegraph is just an example – was to say that the Court’s decision was political. That the eleven Supreme Judges were just taking the side of the Remainers. Later in the day that kind of incendiary opinion disappeared from the front pages and was also deftly abandoned by the extreme Brexiteers that were invited to comment. Someone had realised that to criticise the Supreme Court with political rhetoric would backfire. That was the second victory of the day for the rule of law.

Assange and the law

Julian Assange has a long legal battle in front of him. The decision about his fate must be based on the law. But his case has so many political ramifications that it will be difficult to separate the legal aspects from their political context. It will be a very controversial process.

No to public disorder

The French National Assembly is debating a new law drafted to address the issue of violence during public demonstrations. It’s known as the “anti-casseurs law”. “Casseur” is the name given to anyone who breaks or wrecks things. The new piece of legislation aims at preventing the destruction of public and private property by hooligans and other ruffians, people that take advantage of legitimate manifestations to create hell.

In France, a number of politicians and intellectuals see this new law as restricting the freedom to demonstrate. But the fact of the matter is that fringe groups are systematically taking advantage of genuine street protesters to behave destructively. That cannot be accepted. Law and order in public places must be kept. If not, we are creating the conditions for extreme-right movements to ride on chaos and gain political space. The democratic values, in France and elsewhere in our part of the world, require a firm hand when dealing with violence and looting. Anarchy, if untamed, leads to dictatorship.

On leadership again

We do not need an illuminated mind that promises to re-write every rule in the book. We need leaders that follow the rules in the book, that´s what we are looking for. People who know that we have spent the last seventy or so years putting together the rules of today and, in addition, are ready to wisely implement them. That´s about predictability and also about building confidence between nations. No nation is big enough to go for it alone. And no leader should be foolish enough not to understand that the international relations of today are based on cooperation and the harmonization of common interests and values. 

No need to go overboard

Serenity is the best answer to all complex challenges. It´s essential to keep that in mind as we face a number of terrorist attacks. They want to destabilize us. We respond with steadiness. And with the appropriate means. No need for dramatic speeches of the kind we watched yesterday in Paris. A few firm words are enough. 

The political leaders and the police work

The fight against terrorism is above all the work of the specialised police services. They should be able to carry out their duties with a great degree of independence. This basically means that the political leaders should not get involved in the technical tasks of the police. They must be advised to do so, to keep a healthy distance from the police and not to fall in the temptation of becoming super police chiefs. That´s not their role.

The politicians should deal with the public dimensions issues and above all, they ought to bring the security feelings back. That´s about promoting a climate of serenity and fighting the propagation of alarmist views. It´s about explaining the security strategies that are being put in place.

Furthermore, their relationship with the police should be about creating the critical conditions for the services to be able to perform in a coordinated and efficient manner.

But police decisions have to remain the prerogative of the police forces. If the politicians try to meddle in such interference will cause confusion in the ranks of the police bosses and will compromise the professional approaches that the challenge of fighting terrorism requires. 

Turkey: a major shock

The fast moving circumstances in Turkey are now a major headache for that country´s Western allies. Actually, it is more accurate to say that today´s situation is causing a massive shock in our leading circles. Our leaders cannot believe their eyes. They see a level of revenge that is just unacceptable. And they also see that the key institutions of Turkey are under a very serious attack. That starts with the Armed Forces, which are now extremely fragile, confused, frightened and humiliated. That´s certainly not good at all for a country that is located in an extremely complex and dangerous region of the world. And we can expect more complications in the days to come.

The Turkish dilemmas

One should be very worried by the developing situation in Turkey. From a domestic point of view, it is essential to be guided by democratic values and full respect of the rule of law. From a European point of view, the situation brings a great deal of additional complexity to a relationship that was already very challenging. 

Being positive on Europe Day

Every 9 May, the EU celebrates Europe Day.

This year we might conclude there isn´t much to be happy about. Martin Schulz, the EU Parliament boss, in an interview to a Portuguese daily newspaper, compared Europe to a bicycle with “flat tyres”. Basically, it would mean it has to keep moving but there is no air in the rubbers, the wheels can´t move properly.

I think we should be a bit more positive nonetheless. At least today.

The EU is still one of the most attractive places to be in the world. For its quality of life and for its standards of living. Also, because it is a space of liberties – yes, plural – and rule of law, as well as a continent of peace and security. It is still pretty predictable in terms of one´s human rights. And, in international relations, it is a major actor in the fields of development and humanitarian assistance.

These are some remarkable dimensions that one should emphasise on this day.

Time to focus on Angola´s democratization

Angola does not attract a lot of media attention. It is an important country in its part of the world, because of its size, wealth and military power. But is also a very poor example in terms of democratic rule and even worst, if we look at governance and accountability issues. 

It is a rich country with plenty of poverty. And it is a country that locks up people as soon as they express any type of opposition to the ruling class. 

That´s the case with 15 grassroots individuals that have been in jail for about three months for the simple reason they organised a public demonstration to call for more democracy and human rights. They are now under the very serious charge of treason and threats against the constitutional order –“coup d´état attempt”-, as accused by the government. It is a farce, a travesty of rule of law.

It is time to talk about it. As it is time to call for democratic change in the country.

The rule of the Kremlin

I am not sure the Kremlin realises the damaging impact of Mikhail Khodorkovsky's farcical trial on Western European views of present-day Russia. The fact of the matter is that there is little trust left on rule of law in Russia.

It is the rule of Putin that matters, this is how the European citizen sees the situation. And many think that investing in Russia is too hazardous, be it about investing money or political trust.

I have written in the recent past some optimistic pieces about Russia. I am one of those who believes in deepening the engagement. But today's incomprehensible court decision is a major hurdle.