Merkel as the leader of the G7

We might not always agree with Chancellor Merkel´s views. But there is little doubt she is a strong leader and one that is level-headed, a feature I consider of particular importance when looking at leadership qualities. Her taking over the command of the G7 is good news. Particularly at this stage, when the international community is preparing for the discussion in September, at the UN General Assembly, of the new set goals to fight underdevelopment and poverty. Angela Merkel has pledged to pay special attention to getting the G7 fully committed to the Sustainable Development Goals that will be then approved.

She has also expressed her willingness to contribute to the approval of concrete results at the December Paris Conference on Climate Change. That´s a key moment in terms of our common future. We should see the key world leaders aware of its importance and keen enough to get the climate agenda off the ground. It is a good chunk of our future that is at stake. Leaders should not shy away and take refuge in their own national problems, as they so often like to do. Let´s hope Merkel will be able to set the example.

Finally, there is the question of gender equality. The status of women and girls is still a big issue, in many parts of the world. Merkel has expressed a special interest in this matter. Her voice needs to be loud and clear. 

Greece´s poker game

The Greek government is playing hard ball. They are convinced, I guess, that in the end the EU creditors will do whatever it takes to keep Greece within the Eurozone. And their poker hand is based on that assumption.

It´s a risky position. Athens might know more than we know about the concessions the other Europeans could possibly be ready to accept. But I am not sure they know. They just take the chance and hope to be right, that´s what I believe.

At this stage it is difficult to forecast the events of next week or so. We are certainly close to a clarification. And that moment of truth might be a difficult one for the Greek people. 

Notes on peace operations

GENEVA CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY

Notes for my seminar of 02 June 2015

Victor Angelo

 Reinventing Peace Operations?

(Reflections and question marks)

World is changing rapidly. But are today´s conflicts very different from the ones 15-20 ago? Yes and no.

Examples:

            South Sudan, CAR and Congo: clear failure of the state building processes. The same in Libya.

            Syria: the national dimensions combined with regional dimensions.

            Very different from civil war in Mozambique in late 80´s or the Cambodia conflict of early 90´s or the Sierra Leone crisis of 1999/2000?

o   The big difference might be at the level of the Non-State Actors:

ü In the past, we had insurgencies, national liberation movements, separatists, revolutionaries with a cause, warlord’s armies…

ü Now, the players are more difficult to categorise and to fight/contact, they are more fragmented, we witness continuous changes of alliances, they make greater use of terrorist methods and pose news threats to peacekeepers and civilians, they have closer links with Organised Crime, they do not accept the role of the UN, they do not seek a peace agreement – they want to win.

From forcing an agreement, that was the past line, to today´s approach, which is about winning the argument.

o   Also, the use of different means of waging war, combining kinetic with soft power: propaganda, social networks; there is indeed a greater emphasis on winning the narrative

The story that is told to the population and the world matters

o   Furthermore, the information is now global. Actions are taken to get international attention

v Above all, what is changing is our approach to conflict management and resolution: from a one-dimension approach to an integrated, comprehensive approach; but we are not yet good enough at dealing with:

            Asymmetric threats

            The narrative/image

Each conflict is different, but they all have in the end a number of common features:

Ø Poor leadership:

We should pay more attention to issues of leadership, time-bound mandates, political legitimacy, inclusiveness, power balancing between the executive, the legislative and the judiciary, power-sharing, constitutional issues

Ø Governance performance and state failure:

Many years of unsatisfactory governance, unable to respond to the basic aspirations of the populations, including the human security dimension and human rights, and widespread corruption

Ø The extreme competition for and the control of natural resources:

In the past, diamonds, coltan – short for columbite–tantalite

Now, water in Darfur, and access to rangeland in the Sahel and CAR

Ø A combination of domestic and regional dimensions:

Domestic political crisis are further aggravated by the interference of regional conflicting interests: Syria is a striking example

Ø They are chaotic and their management is about the ability to manage the chaos

Complexity is a key feature of any violent conflict; the response cannot be one-size-fits-all

International order: Are we getting into a more dangerous world?

Depends on one´s perspective. We could spend quite a bit of time discussing the question.

·        However, a more connected world is certainly a more dangerous world. Local problems become easily regional and then international threats to peace, stability and security.

·        The world media channels bring the problems to our homes and we feel threatened

·        There is also a new race for dominance: the West, the Fundamentalist Islam, Russia, China, other emerging powers

·        And a clash of values and cultures, somehow; some type of an anti-West surge

Is the use of force the solution?

Again, yes and no.

We are seeing a new arms race and the witnessing the call for increased investments in defence, after many years when the dominant views were about cooperation, defence budget reductions and disarmament

At the same time, there are calls for greater security cooperation through the Interpol and a better exchange of information: that was the case last week, when the Security Council discussed again the approaches to respond to terrorism.

But we live in culture that tends to give priority attention to the military and the national security issues first, to answer to the issues with a hammer and consider the police as lesser tool

The only long-lasting solution to a conflict is a political agreement that strikes a balance between conflicting interests; this means, politics first and in the end

The UN Security Council is eventually the only source to authorise the legitimate use of force

A few positive comments on the UN SC:

·        Let´s be positive and objective about the Council; a cynical position leads nowhere; we all know about its deficit of representativeness and the need to reform; however, nobody knows when the reform will happen

·        Every State wants to have the Council on its side; the Council´s agreement and support are considered as critical for the international image of any State

·        The UN SC pays special attention to peace operations – in particular to peacekeeping – and has accumulated a lot of experience in the supervision of such operations

·        It is a better position than any other authority to impose an integrated response by the UN agencies, funds and programmes

However, there are a number of short-comings the UN SC should address:

·        Its current divisions; they have been exacerbated in the aftermath of the Libyan crisis of 2011; they are inspired by tensions between the P5, geopolitical interests; they block the decisions on major crisis, such as the one on Syria

·        Strike a better balance between peacekeeping and special political missions; the SC shows greater interest for peacekeeping operations for different reasons (military, police, budgetary, …)

·        Better define the links between peace operations and peace building; peace building approaches are still very much based on phasing out and cost reductions

·        Be able to take into account the interests and grievances of Non-State Actors; the Council´s perspective is still too much based on the State (and the government of the day) as being the key interlocutor and the player; also, there is a need to go beyond the national borders and bring in the regional dimensions – work better with the regional organisations

·        Improve the understanding of the integrated response concept; it cannot be just the approval of a huge and diversified mandate and the expectation that the SRSG will be able to bring together the different parts of the UN

·         Focus more on providing strategic direction when dealing with the UN Secretariat and the peace missions

·        Re-assess the pertinence of the peacekeeping principles – Consent of the parties, Impartiality and Non-use of force except in self-defence and defence of the mandate – and define better the “robustness approach”

On Robustness:

ü 2/3 of the UN peacekeepers are deployed in countries where ther is no peace to keep

ü The accent is on force not on the politics and dialogue process

ü Tactical use of force: it calls for the UN SC approval and the consent of the host country;

ü Makes the UN a party to the conflict

ü Creates divisions among the Troop Contributing Countries (TCCs)  and UN key member states

Looking ahead, we can expect robust operations to be the new norm

The approval should be guided by:

Ø The seriousness and the urgency of the threat; atrocities, Protection of Civilians, extreme humanitarian urgency

Ø A reasonable motive: the military action has to be seen as the best way to stop the threat

Ø Last resort

Ø Proportionate;  just the necessary force

Ø Based on a clear understanding of all its consequences

Ø Clearly explained to the public opinion

But, in my opinion, robust operations should be carried out by either:

Ø Coalition of Forces under a UN SC mandate

Ø Regional organisations  ( AU, AL, NATO, EU, CSTO…)

Ø Making better use of international police systems, shared information and enhanced combination of military/police/civilian responses

It´s indeed time to have a better coordination between the UN and the regional organisations. That´s a key path towards the future.

It´s also time to address the marginalisation of the UN in peace operations; the UN is very busy, the demand is increasing, but it is kept away from the major conflicts. Or it cannot be seen as just a machinery to address the conflicts of the poor countries.

Putin´s ban list: forget!

The Russian government has issued a list with the names of those barred from travelling to Russia.

I have reviewed it with some detail. It is a mixed bag of second rate EU personalities, nothing more. It pulls together members of parliament, a few politicians, including local ones, another couple of opinion makers, and a handful of senior civil servants from different EU countries.

It is obviously a list to retaliate. Most of those on the list have little power to decide about the European relations with Moscow. They might be vocal, in a few cases, but I am not even sure the EU leaders listen to them.

The best approach to the Putin list is to ignore it. 

My wild neighbours

It is not easy to survive in the park next to my house. The wild birds have many enemies, including the crows and the neighbourhood cats, and the rabbits keep hiding from the dogs. I haven´t seen many rabbits this spring, by the way.

Even the ducks, who are always ready for a fight, have their own problems. This year, meaning now, this is the season, only one couple has been able to bring a single duckling to life.

In view of this, you can imagine my joy when I saw this morning that the moorhen – also known as the swamp hen – that had been sitting on her eggs for many weeks in the middle of pond was now proudly looking after a brood of four little chicks.

I had feared the local turtles had eaten the eggs before hatching. It did not happen. And I thought that in the end, there is always a small victory on the side of renewal.

Blatter is no fool, Mugabe would say

Sepp Blatter got a new term as president of FIFA. His victory made me recall a comment another life leader shared with me over a decade ago. I was at the end of my assignment in Zimbabwe, ready to go to West Africa. I had then a final meeting with President Robert Mugabe to take leave from him and his country, after four years of work and many encounters. As we reviewed the African scene, as it was at the time, he said – I can´t remember whom he was referring to – that an incumbent president that loses the elections has to be a fool.

Now, Blatter has shown that he can be accused of many things but that nobody is in a position to say he is a fool. 

The ugly face of FIFA

In addition to everything that has already been said by many in the media about the corruption scandal at FIFA, I would add a little question tonight: how can the Swiss authorities explain their want of investigative action against the FIFA´s leadership?

It is a bit difficult to see the US judicial system moving, and striking, and notice, at the same time, that there was no real investigation by the Swiss, notwithstanding the fact that this world football association has its headquarters in Switzerland.

I can´t believe the Swiss prosecutors were not aware of the strong stench coming from the FIFA building. 

Let´s be clear and respectful

In today´s world, when everyone has access to many sources of information and opinion, the leaders cannot continue to believe they will be able to deceive the population. Leadership is indeed about clarity and respect. And not too many words, because lengthy sentences can be seen as hiding places for deceit and weakness.

More on the strategy against the terrorists of the Islamic State

We usually emphasise that each national crisis should have a political response and end up with an agreement between the parties. In the case of Syria, it would be, at this stage, a serious mistake to insist on a political solution. The situation has reached such a dramatic level that the only way forward, for the moment, is through a military approach. Politics and diplomacy have to wait. They will come later.

The goals to be achieved are clear: to destroy the self-proclaimed Islamic State and protect the civilian population from further violence. These objectives do call for a major allied armed offensive and also for a change of tactics when it comes to the Assad regime.

On the military side, my writing of yesterday is clear. I can only add that we just have to make sure that those who will take the decision to go for the force option have the support of the popular opinion in their countries. And then ask those leaders to move fast.

On Assad, it is time to make a difference between the man and his people. The headman will have to go. The key criminals that have directly supported him must be brought to justice as well. But we need to find ways of bringing his ethnic group, the Alawites, and all those who are around the administrative and security machineries on board, on our side, as long as they have no real crimes in their hands. They should be part of the solution. If they are not they will be, soon enough, because Assad´s collapse is getting closer, the next mass victims of the brutes that only conceive death as the appropriate punishment  for those who are different.

It is indeed time to think strategically. And be strong.

Revise the strategy to destroy the Islamic State

The daily reports are clear. They point to a recent succession of military gains by the self-proclaimed Islamic State (IS), both in Syria and Iraq. As I see it, that terrorist group is stronger today than some weeks back. Its ongoing offensives on different fronts show vitality which can only result from new resources, including fresh money and weapons as well as a mass of additional recruits.

The other side of the coin is about weakness. Those opposing IS are today weaker.

The moderate groups in both countries first. They are losing ground and credibility. They have demonstrated they do not have enough vigour to take care of this major challenge. More than ever it is now obvious they necessitate a great amount of external support.

The raids also show that the Western strategy against the terrorist organisation is not working. It has to be revised immediately. Its revision has to focus on a much stronger involvement in the region, through additional deployment of special force units and better coordination among them, more effective and better shared intelligence, and a closer alliance with the Middle Eastern States that oppose IS.

I recognise that a deeper military engagement in Iraq and Syria is a complex and costly matter. But political hesitation is no longer a solution in this case. Public opinion is prepared, in our part of the world, for a serious increase of our military assistance to those who can be our regional and local allies in this combat. We just have to ensure that the alliances are clear and strategic, meaning, they should aim, above everything all, at destroying the IS threat.