A sharper EU foreign policy

I am for a much firmer approach to EU foreign policy. And also for a much more focused approach.

European leaders must be clear. Among themselves and with the outside world. That´s what the citizens – today better informed than ever – expect. They do not want to be taken for fools. They do not take contempt easily.  

To be clear means we call a spade a spade or we just remain silent and move way from what we cannot change or should not try. An example is the EU presence in the Middle East Quartet. This is never-ending swamp. We should make it known we do not believe it can achieve any meaningful progress in the medium term. And call our participation off.

The leaders are also required to be more strategic. That means they should put the resources where it matters. We can´t be everywhere. We shouldn´t be everywhere. We might have a global presence but that does imply a global reach. We have interests to fight for and they should be the priority. Also, we have some international moral commitments. We should also respond to them. In a very unambiguous way.

The current EU foreign policy is too fluffy. It needs a sharper approach. 

On climate change and the EU

I spent part of the week driving across Spain and France. And I could see the impact of an exceptionally hot summer period. It was particularly shocking in the Vallée de la Loire: many of the farms showed the effect of a very long and warm dry spell. They are usually green at this time of the year. That was not the case as I could see. And I thought about climate change and the critical importance of getting last year´s Paris Treaty ratified by a good number of countries without further delay.

As such, the news coming today from the EU ministers of environment is good. The European countries decided to move ahead with the ratification process. We should salute the decision. And take advantage of it to say that the EU is still very capable of doing the right things. Together. 

UN is deeply divided

Syria has deeply fractured the UN Security Council. Today´s accusations of war crimes thrown at Russia are a very serious development. They will not be forgotten easily. The divisions will continue for a long time. That will have an impact on the work of the Council, including the selection of the new Secretary-General. It will be more difficult to reach an agreement, maybe for a very unreasonable motive: just for the sake of opposing the other side.

A divided Council is not good for the image of the UN. The organisation will be a key casualty. But more importantly, there will be no diplomatic solution to the crisis in Syria. 

EU and roaming

Jean-Claude Juncker understands that any EU decision on roaming is politically important. Particularly at a time when he needs to please the European citizens and make them believe the EU has a meaning. That´s why he decided to cancel the previous one, which was too restrictive – only 90 days in the year and with a lot of conditionalities. That decision was seen by many in Europe as being too kind to the telecom companies. These big corporations do actively lobby in Brussels.

Now, Juncker´s Commission has announced that roaming calls will cost the same as calls made in the home country, as of 15 June 2017. There will be some rules, to avoid fraud, but the new decision is very reasonable.

The truth of the matter is that the telecom corporations are under serious pressure from the social networks. You travel and as long as you get a free Wi-Fi connection you can call through one of several applications without any cost. That´s the way things are going. That´s the future: a world connected at no direct cost. That´s also why some people think that it is not a good idea to buy telecom stocks. These companies´ share prices will keep going down.

In the case of the EU, I hope their public value will start going up a bit. 

Human rights are also for China

As I read that a well-known Chinese lawyer has been sentenced to 12 years – yes, 12 years – in jail because of some spurious accusation about fraud, I recalled my words of last week to my students. Basically, I emphasised then, in my seminar on peace and security, that human rights should always be a top priority in any political dialogue. I even said that in many cases they should be the entry point for a meaningful discussion.

Some people in the audience challenged my approach. Their argument was that it is sometimes very difficult to raise the issue when facing some tough governments. And they mentioned the Chinese, among others.

Well, not really. The leaders in Beijing might not like it. But the country has signed the Universal Convention on Human Rights. They might not fully respect it today. But that should not prevent us from calling their attention to the Convention and its principles, and also from expressing our dismay for its blatant, and repeated, violations. 

The leaders are in New York

As the world leaders walk the corridors of the UN these days, on the occasion of the General Assembly meeting, we should remind all of them that leadership must be synonymous of service and personal sacrifice. It should also be about promoting and implementing the key conventions and agreements that have been agreed upon in past UN meetings.

The fact of the matter is that most of them think that leadership is expressed by saying a few empty things at the podium of the UN in September. And then, they go back home, with the vain feeling that they have contribute to the shaping of international politics. 

Mali: a matter of serious concern

After a discussion this morning with a Malian friend, who is a former senior UN official, what I retained can be easily summarised in a few words: a failed political process and damaging high level corruption.

Basically, this means that unless the domestic leaders and the international community representatives address these two fundamental issues there will be no peace, stability and economic revival in the foreseeable future. And the country will remain dangerously insecure, dramatically poor and a major source of illegal immigration.

I do not think we can expect much of the current national leadership if we do not discuss the situation frankly with them. This is no time for us, the outside friends of Mali, to be ambiguous. We are required to be frank, courageous but also practice good diplomatic judgement.

Who should take the lead in the policy dialogue, as far as the international community is concerned?

A non-event in Bratislava

For me, the most striking facet of yesterday´s EU summit in Bratislava is clear: it was non-event in terms of the European public opinion. The EU citizens took no notice of it. And that should be a good reason to be worried. At a time of mediocrity and obscurity, when everyone is looking for answers and strategies that could make sense, the heads of State and govern were once more unable to go beyond banalities and piecemeal promises. And, as usual, they announced that it will at the next big summit, this time in March 2017 in Rome, that everything will become clear. 

UN deals

I was trying to explain to a friend that when it comes to the selection of the new Secretary-General of the UN, it is ultimately the agreement reached by the Permanent 5 within the Security Council that matters.

It is true that this year the process has been more visible and that the candidates had a chance to speak out and make their views known. But this is not a regular election. It is not about the one that manages to get more votes. Moreover, it is not about professional and political competency. It is about geopolitical interests, as they are perceived by the “big five”.

And the negotiations among them are about to start. The General Assembly – its annual meeting started today – provides a good opportunity for a series of side meetings, where the key leaders do some trading. It will be hard bargaining. And not just about positions those five countries will take once the new boss is in place. This year the trade-offs could be about sanctions, Syria, the new management positions in the World Bank, trade agreements, Ukraine, and so on. There is enough on the international crisis plate for tough deals to be sought.  

September 11

In a wider sense, this is the day to remember all those that have been victims of terrorism during the last 15 years or so. And the best way to honour them would be to speak clearly against all the states and associations that somehow support, foment or create the sectarian conditions that lead to radical views and violent actions.

We have to be much clearer about these matters. Actually, we should not be silent about the destructive policies that some countries conduct and that have a direct impact on radicalisation. The fight against terrorism should start that way. Name and shaming is powerful political tool.