Calm down on Ukraine, please!

The rhetoric on Ukraine remains too passionate. It is time to de-escalate the war of words as well. At the end of the day, the EU and Russia should unite to save the country from violent conflict. They should also co-sponsor a joint economic recovery programme that would bring the Ukrainian economy back to its feet. That should be the aim of the diplomatic initiatives in the next few days. 

Clinton´s Hitler

Madness is a key ingredient in the making of a political leader. The crazier one is the greater are the chances of getting in charge. We tend to let mad people go ahead with their folly and they end up in positions of power.

Today´s candidates to top the crazies and dreamers lists look like stranger idiots from the cold. These are dangerous times.

This is also a very regrettable trend.

Mrs Clinton felt she should joint this club. And to be sure she would be accepted in the inner circle, she came to the fore and compared Hitler with the Russian leader. A very unfortunate comparison. But it can certainly bring a good handful of votes. And in politics that´s much more important than being reasonable and moderate. 

Back and promoting negotiated solutions to shared crises

Back from a long voyage, I recall that one of the last posts I wrote before travelling has been about Russia and NATO. That post remains so current!

But I should add that we, on our side of the world, have a biased view of Russia as well. The Russians might believe in confrontation. But we have also shown we share the same believe. We might say that everybody wins if we cooperate and dialogue. However, we love to impose sanctions on others and still think that the ultimatum is a fine diplomatic instrument. Or the best diplomatic tool is to be able to understand the strategic interests of the adversary and initiate a dialogue taking such interests as the starting point for a negotiated solution.

Vacation notice

THIS BLOG WILL BE OFF DURING FEBRUARY.

IT WILL RESUME PUBLICATION ON 3 MARCH.

PLEASE COME BACK THEN:

Russia and NATO

Russia is still obsessed with NATO. The Russian leaders cannot understand that today´s NATO is very different from the Cold War organisation. In result, they still believe that NATO is a race against Russian interests. That´s the way they look at events in Ukraine, for instance. They see the West´s hand everywhere and always against Moscow´s strategic security interests.

From our side, we have the responsibility to help the Russians to overcome such a vision of today’s world. The dialogue and the partnership with Russia needs to be re-thought very carefully and with great attention to the concerns that feed the other side´s fears. 

Germany and the peacekeeping operations

Joachim Glauck, the German President, in his speech at the opening of the Munich Security Conference, expressed the view that his country should be more involved in multinational peacekeeping operations. 

Such position is most welcome.

Germany has been the noticeable absent in many of the key military deployments authorised by the UN. Besides Afghanistan and Kosovo, the Berlin leadership, particularly Angela Merkel, says automatically no to any suggestion their armed forces should be part and parcel of EU and UN operations. They have said no to Mali, to Central African Republic, just to mention recent examples. That´s not what one should expect of a key country like Germany. Being economically strong gives them the responsibility to be more engaged in world affairs.

Hollande has cut short the socialist ambitions

The West European socialists, on the centre-left, the social-democrat kind of socialists, feel these days very betrayed by François Hollande. Based on his press conference of 14 January, they think he has changed course and is basically courting the employers. For them, Hollande is now more interested in making it easier for the capitalists to invest than in matters such as employment, public investment, and protecting the social rights of the workers.

There is disappointment in the air, within the socialist circles.

And also the fear that they will lose quite a number of seats in the May European Parliament elections.

The fact of the matter is that the European socialist movement has lost the initiative. It has not be able to come up with a coherent and appealing body of ideas that could be seen as a credible alternative to the Right.

Why is it?

Munich is far away from Africa

The 2014 Munich Security Conference (MSC) will open this Friday. With time, the MSC has become an important and very high profile annual event. If you are somebody in the area of international security, you better be there.

This year´s agenda has somehow surprised me. There is no session on Africa, not even on the Sahel. Cyber issues, energy, intelligence, the Middle East, in particular Syria, Central and Eastern Europe, with a special session on Kosovo, all that is on the table, during the three-day meeting. But Africa? Out of order…

How can we explain this omission?

Critical peace issues

I had a long discussion today about the current impact of the UN missions on peace and security. It all started with a silent crisis, Guinea-Bissau. Nobody talks about that country and the lasting disaster that has been around for so long. That is a DPA-led mission, meaning, the UN department of Political Affairs has the responsibility to guide the UN presence on the ground and report to the Security Council on a regular basis. Then, we looked at Cote d´Ivoire, where we have had a peacekeeping operation for quite some time. There is very little progress, I would say in a very diplomatic language, as far as domestic reconciliation is concerned. Next to it there is a UN peacekeeping presence in Liberia. The country has been struggling to rebuild itself, after many years of civil war and wanton destruction. There are now some serious issues of governance. Are we addressing them?

And we moved on, to the Central African Republic, South Sudan and Mali, not to mention the work of the UN missions in Libya and elsewhere. And the same question came out a number of times? Are we addressing the key issues?

The point is very simple. In all these situations, conflicts can come back, sooner or later, if we are not able to deal with the critical causes of instability. And in some cases, it is even worse. We are simply not able to help the countries to move out of the swamp. 

Today´s Egypt

I have talked to someone who knows Egypt well. And I came to the conclusion that any black-and-white approach to the current situation in the country would be a serious mistake. Egypt is a very fragile society, with many divisions and fault lines. The military offer a bit of a unifying platform. But many in the country think that their future is going backwards. And unfortunately, we can expect a long period of instability. The military response to instability is authoritarianism. Many people will resent it. But the region cannot afford a chaotic Egypt. Where to strike the balance?