Brazil´s politics might get closer to the Venezuela´s model

Two days later, the situation I described in the previous post about the Brazilian crisis has reached a new level of political immorality. Lula da Silva has indeed been sworn in as super minister, some kind of premiership equivalent position, just to see his appointment cancelled by a federal court. That judicial decision has further weakened President Dilma Rousseff´s standing as well. Her credibility got a new serious blow.

The crisis is now so deep that it will be very difficult for Dilma to keep the presidency for much longer. But she will not go without a real fight. Dilma wants to bring the issue to the streets and have one side of the population confronting the other side. That will give her some grounds to say that if she goes there will be civil unrest. She will try to grasp that last straw. But the problem is more complex. Brazil is deeply divided, the political actors have no moral authority and we can expect extreme manifestations of discontent. In some sense, Brazil could become a lighter copy of the chaos that is occurring in Venezuela. 

Brazil: moving fast in the wrong direction

The political crisis in Brazil is deteriorating fast. President Dilma Rousseff´s decision to appoint former head of State Lula da Silva as a senior Cabinet minister has contributed to a new level of malaise. People cannot understand this attempt to extract Lula from a regular judicial scrutiny.

And there are new revelations about corruption within the inner circle of power.

The pursuit of the impeachment process is now more likely. And we can also expect some additional desperate moves from Dilma´s side.

All this will bring additional deep fractures among Brazilians and further economic difficulties. The country will be in a very bad shape at a time it should be at its best to host the Olympic Games. But that´s only a lesser detail. The true challenge will be to repair the great damage that all this corruption will cause to Brazil´s self-respect and its international image. 

Trump and the others: what´s happening?

The challenge I have been confronted with today is very clear: how can we explain the wave of popularity on which Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders, and Jeremy Corbyn are riding?

Not long ago, people like them and others similar would be looked at as oddities at the margins of the political spectrum. Their support would have been peanuts. Now, they are mainstream leaders and, at least in the case of Trump, not too far from getting to a position of real power. And they have caught us by surprise. 

What does it say of the social environment in our Western societies?

This is a critical question. It calls for a very serious debate. It´s not enough to say they are mere populists. That is a very incomplete explanation. 

Poland is a key country within the EU

There is no doubt regarding the political legitimacy of the new Polish government, led by the Law and Justice Party (PiS). The voters gave PiS the largest number of seats at the October 2015 general elections and naturally the party took over the country´s government. The problem is a different one. There have been a series of moves by the Cabinet that have raised serious question marks about its approach to democratic governance in a European context.  The legislative action it took against the Constitutional Court´s independence is the best known example. But there are several others, including smear campaigns against the civil society organisations. And there have been also some grave attempts to bring under party control some of the key positions in the defence sector.

The European Commission has called the attention of the new authorities in Warsaw. The same happened to the Council of Europe. But the PiS leadership seems to be in its own planet, not in the EU, and has paid no real attention to the advice. That should be considered worrying.

It would be a serious mistake – one more, taking into consideration several other blunders made in other political areas – to let it go. The European institutions have to be very clear in their political dialogue with Warsaw to ensure that respect for the opposition and plurality of opinions are fully accepted by PiS. The EU should also insist on keeping the Polish key institutions stable and free of partisan meddling. Any weaker approach on the Brussels side would encourage other governments elsewhere to follow the path that the Warsaw authorities are now pursuing. And that would add serious additional challenges to a union that is already under severe stress.

Serbia: the little Russia at our doorstep

When it comes to party politics, media control, state propaganda, antagonism against civil society organizations and the biased narrative about the US and the West, Serbia looks very much like a smaller version of Putin´s Russia. It is however a candidate country to the EU. How can we and they understand that without deep changes, the membership is just a distant illusion? 

A comprehensive approach to mass migrations

The mass movements across the Mediterranean Sea towards Greece and, in much smaller numbers, to Italy, cannot be seen only from the humanitarian perspective. It is a fact they represent a major humanitarian challenge. That should not be disputed. And people in need have the right to be assisted. But that´s only one dimension. In the short run, it is the most urgent one. However, there are other aspects that require careful attention as well. They cannot be neglected. They have serious implications in matters of security, political stability in different countries of Europe, xenophobic reactions, capacity to integrate such diverse populations in the long term, job availability and so on. All this matters. All this ought to be taken into account when responding to these extraordinary movements of people. Light or single line responses would only lead to very serious new crises in the future. 

Closing the gates on immigrants

The Balkans route, as it is known, is now closed to the immigrants stuck in Greece. The Macedonian government got the message well before the European media and public opinion. That´s why they decided to prevent people from crossing. And if we look carefully at what they have been doing during the last week, we can say that they have also been informed that Iraqi people as well as Syrians from Damascus will not be accepted any longer as refugees. This means the EU approach is becoming much narrower. Fine. But the big question is about what to do with the tens of thousands of people from those areas and from elsewhere, Afghanistan, North Africa, Iran, etc, etc, that are already in Greek soil? Repatriation? How fast can that go before it has a dissuasive impact on those getting ready to cross the sea from Turkey?  

Preparing for the migration meeting with Turkey

The EU-Turkey migration summit of 7 March might be more conclusive than what we had expected. The European positions on the migratory flows are becoming sharper and more united. The leaders see the meeting as an opportunity that should not be wasted. That´s good news. But they need to have a clear approach when talking to the Turkish leaders. This is no time for wishful thinking and certainly no time for further ambiguities.

The EU crisis and Chicken Little

The EU sky is not falling

This is a difficult time to be an optimist in Brussels. It is even more challenging to advocate for a positive look at European affairs. And it becomes almost impossible to talk about collective hopes for a more united Europe in the future. Many will say such optimism belongs to another epoch. Now, the dominant discourse is one that announces a new catastrophe every week. Like Chicken Little, these so-called realists shout, “The sky is falling! The sky is falling!”

As a contrarian, I want to maintain faith in the European project. And be inspired by a forward-looking approach. The best way to build a prosperous and safe future for all of us in Europe is through a united endeavour.  I say it whilst realising the EU is at present facing two major crises. They crowd everything else off the agenda, giving strong arguments to pessimists and those who are against continuing the Union. I mean a possible Brexit and the realities of mass migrations.

With the UK spinning further away from common approaches and policies, arguments for integration and joint responses have indeed become more fragile. In effect, such arguments are practically inaudible because many leaders prefer to focus their attention on their own national agendas. The silence of most of them on EU affairs is deafening.

The UK´s position has brought a lot of uncertainty to the table. At this stage, nobody can predict the outcome of their referendum. It is also difficult to forecast the consequences of a Brexit for the future of the EU.

Nevertheless, the EU would survive a Brexit. Why? Because the UK and the other member states have already learned to go their own separate ways in many areas – the Euro, Schengen, labour laws, justice, and internal security, just to mention a few.  Perhaps the biggest worry is what a Brexit would do to the British themselves, to the status of Scotland, as well as to their tiny neighbour to the west, Ireland.

Brexit or not, the EU shouldn´t be too worried.

The larger question is about immigration. Can the EU survive a continued and expanding mass migration crisis? Many believe it cannot. We keep hearing that without a solution to the current migratory flows, the EU will soon collapse. There is a good degree of exaggeration in the air. The soothsayers of disaster easily capture the headlines. Obviously, the mass arrival of refugees and migrants does pose major challenges and it is essential to recognize this. It is a situation well out of control. Furthermore, this crisis shakes the key foundations of the Union, its values and the role of Europe in the international arena.

More importantly, the migration issue touches the core of a vital dimension of European states—the question of national identity. The people of Europe have shown that they are ready to give away a good number of their sovereign prerogatives, accepting that Brussels can deal with them. This has been the case in a wide range of areas related to economic management, budgets, agriculture, trade, environment, justice, development aid, external relations and other important matters.

Yet, they are not at all prepared to abdicate or dilute their national features, language and everything else that creates a people´s identity. Nor should they. Europe is a complex mosaic of languages, cultures, nationalities and even prejudices. Yes, our views of our neighbours are still shaped by prejudices in significant ways. History and many wars have both divided us and created the diverse assortment we are today. Patriotism is still, and will continue to be for a good while longer, far stronger than pan-Europeanism.

All this must be taken into account. Populists are effective in doing just this, trying to gain the political advantage in the process by exploiting feelings of nationalism. It’s all a little more complicated for an optimist.

This reality notwithstanding, let´s be clear about the present crisis. Let´s imagine we had to face the current migratory instabilities and frictions that the migrations have created in a past context of separate nation states. We can readily assume that some of us would already be at war with our neighbours. We would see coalitions of countries taking military action against others, trying to defend their borders and their own perceived national interests. We would be responding to the threats facing us with weapons drawn upon one another. In the past, this challenge would lead to armed conflict and chaos. We know that the long history of Europe has been written through a succession of wars. 

This all changed when the EU was established. Now, disputes are taken to summits. Summits come and go, often without many concrete outcomes. But, sooner or later, they end up by producing acceptable results of one sort or another. We have learned to take the right decisions at the eleventh hour, that´s true. But we have done so around a conference table and through diplomacy. That´s the kind of lesson we should keep in mind as we get closer to two more summits on the migration crisis: one with Turkey, on the 7th of March and one among the EU leaders on the 17th.

Let´s keep talking and pushing for an agreement. From the cacophony of diverse European voices and the play of varied interests, action will follow. The most relevant contribution of the pessimists, Eurosceptics and  nay-sayers has been to create a greater sense of urgency. Now, the optimists among us have to state that there is only one answer to the big question on the table: Do we allow this challenge to destroy the hard-won political and economic achievements of the EU or do we build on these successes to constructively address this crisis and, in the process, strengthen our union?

I am convinced that realism that will prevail. The European sky isn’t falling.

Time to act on the migratory mass flows

The EU has to adopt a comprehensive response plan to the migratory crisis. The chaotic situations in Greece need to be brought under control. The Greek authorities need a lot of support to be able to address the massive challenges. The other member states must assist.

One of the dimensions of such plan would have to be implemented in the country of arrival. In this case, Greece.

Each person that reaches the Greek soil has to be fully screened. And an initial triage to separate fthose who could qualify as refugees and the rest ought to take place soon after they have arrived. The sorting will be a delicate process but it is indispensable. It will be done by mixed teams, including police officers and civilian specialists. Those failing this preliminary assessment should be taken to holding camps, as their deportation process is completed. Deportation will not be easy but it has to become the norm again for undocumented migrants.

The people accepted as possible refugees will then be taken to waiting facilities and distributed throughout the EU, to those countries ready to accept them. All the others will have to be house in refugee sites, as it is the case in other parts of the world. The EU budget would pay for their keep.

EU has to be seen as generous but also firm. It cannot give the image that it is a free for all situation. 

We are indeed confronted with a major humanitarian challenge. But we are also facing a profound security test. We have to pass both.