Challenging the welfare state

Willem-Alexander, who has recently been inaugurated as King of the Netherlands, addressed Parliament for the first time. In his speech he announced that the Dutch welfare system is no longer sustainable. And he linked his statement to the globalisation and the ageing population.  He could also have mentioned the serious public account deficit the country is confronted with.

I suspect this statement will be quoted often in the near future.

In the meantime, on the same occasion, a friend of mine, an American lawyer well known in some circles, reminded me that in the US the age group that is growing faster, in proportional terms, is the one concerning the people aged 95 and plus.

European defence and the fools

I have yet not found the time to look at the proposals that are being prepared for the December EU Summit on European defence. But knowing what I know about the national armies in the key member states and all the budgetary cuts and reductions of means that are taking place all over Europe, I am afraid the proposal might be a disaster and an illusion. The so called EU defence might end up by being a ghost that nobody fears.

I recognise we might have some serious reservations about the US and its spying habits. But to think we can have a European defence without a strong alliance with the US is totally foolish. And Brussels these days has plenty of fools roaming around. 

Let's have hope

Today I told someone: The glass might be empty but it is not broken.

Riga is a good example

For the third time in a row, duty brings me to Riga during the last three weeks of September. And I should immediately add I am always delighted to be in this city. It is a pretty place, very well kept, with many parks, flowers and promenades, little or no traffic in the heart of it, and an atmosphere of peace, calmness, good manners and strong optimism.

I think people from other European cities should be brought here to learn a lesson or two. For instance, as we are about to have municipal elections in Portugal, at the end of the month, it would be good for the Portuguese to have some of their key mayoral candidates to come first to Riga and get some inspiration. Lisbon, Porto and other Portuguese places are beautiful spots with uninspired managers in charge.  

German elections

The German Election Day is getting closer. But there seems to be more debate in several corners of Europe about these elections and their impact of the future of the EU than in Germany itself. Domestically, the issues being discussed are very pedestrian. And there is indeed very little interest in matters larger than the petty things that are on the German table. Any reference to the euro, the Brussels institutions reform, the countries in financial distress or the banking union is no more than a passing whisper. It has very little weight.

One or two key observers keep repeating that Berlin simply lacks the political ambition to provide straightforward leadership in times of big challenges. I do not think so. Merkel and the others know what they want. And they are satisfied with what they have now, when it comes to Europe: no borders, a free trade zone, a strong euro and a bunch of governments that are too preoccupied with their own domestic problems to be able to pay more attention to the Union. Better, they are too busy to be able to challenge Berlin and ask for more from the Germans.

It is that kind of “minimal Europe” or “status quo Europe” that pleases the Germans. Then, they can think about their little problems at home and keep increasing the exports to Asia, the Middle East and the US. And that’s what they have been doing. The rest of the world is now more important for the German industries than the fellow European countries. And that determines the level of ambition Berlin wants to have

Putin's writings

President Putin’s opinion text in the New York Times is worth the reading. First, it is well written. Second, it says a few things that make sense, including the reference to the “exceptionalism” the US claim. Third, it keeps the door open for dialogue.

But it is also an extraordinary piece of cynicism. Many of the accusations he implies against the US can also be made towards Russia, including an extreme form of Russian nationalism that is not far from the American exceptionalism.

The wise thing to do is to take the good points he makes and engage the Russians on them. That’s why the meeting that is taking place in Geneva between Secretary Kerry and Minister Lavrov is of great importance. It has, however, to produce concrete results. Time is of the essence. Agreements and action plans, and above all a UN Security Council Resolution on the destruction of Syria’s chemical arsenal, need to be out and running soonest.

Furthermore, besides addressing the chemical weapons issue it is also critical to bring to justice the perpetrators of the 21 August massacres. A Resolution on this matter is also necessary.

With all this in mind, Syria’s case remains the priority number one in the global lists of issues. The daily death toll and the incredible number of refugees and internally displaced people are a reminder of that. A painful reminder, a dramatic reality for millions of people. 

New international relations theories in the making

History is happening on a daily basis.

Very exciting times, indeed. And also very enriching in terms of new approaches to international relations. They are an invitation for an in-depth reflection about might and right. 

A very good gaffe

John Kerry’s remark on the international control of Syrian chemical weapons might have been a blunder. But thanks to Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister, the blunder has become a tiny window of opportunity. And in a world that is tired of wars and abominates state-sponsored violence, as well as all types of violent conflict, the blunder is now a powerful argument against one-sided strikes.

History is so often built on blunders. And historical blunders have led to so many disasters. Maybe this time we will have a positive development coming out of a gaffe. 

EU, Syria, ICC and imagination

International law and moral principles are against collective punishment. One cannot punish the people for the crimes perpetrated by some of their leaders. Even in matters of war crimes and related offenses, the responsibility cannot be attributed to a group of leaders. It has to be linked to the individual responsibilities of each one of them, taking into account that there are different degrees of responsibility that call for different types of sentences. That’s why I think it is important to underline the following paragraph in Baroness Ashton’s statement of yesterday on the situation in Syria:

“The EU recalls the individual responsibility of the perpetrators of attacks of this type, who must be held accountable, and the role of the ICC in investigating and judging such acts.”

I wrote something similar in my weekly column of Visao, two or three days ago. But I went further. The UN Security Council has the duty to refer the chemical attacks to the International Criminal Court for investigation. It will be the Court that will decide on who should be in the list of suspects and then proceed against each one of them.

This is the way forward. 

It can, of course, be combined with a political process. And it should.

They are both missing. The ICC and the political process.

Some of us continue to prefer action to justice and imagination. Yes, imagination, because a political process in the case of Syria is above all an exercise extremely demanding in terms of creativity. 

Prying eyes

President Dilma Rousseff of Brazil said that her planned visit to the US can only go ahead if she receives a clear explanation from President Obama regarding the spying accusations. Indeed, the US seems to have been snooping on the Brazilian President –and others, such as the Mexican head of State. This is certainly a very unfriendly action and one understands Dilma’s position. It is the only acceptable response.

But in diplomacy realism tends to prevail. She will receive some type of assurances from Obama. Then, she will say the US has apologised and the visit will move on. That’s fine. By then, the point would have been clearly stated. The question will however remain: one cannot envisage an American administration that is not “watching” under cover what the two main rivals of the US in Latin America are cooking. Washington will say sorry, and then change the system and will continue the old practise. It is in their blood and in their own interest, as they see it.

It is up to Brazil and others to keep protesting and keep saying this is not acceptable.  And to try to protect itself from prying eyes.