Out of my routine

My daily routines will be completely messed up  during the next two weeks. There will no real writing to be expected on this site... 

May´s rhetoric

The rhetoric the new UK Prime Minister is practising deserves attention. It signals a policy change, not just a different style of oratory. It aims at projecting a tough, hard-nosed nationalistic approach combined with populist overtones. 

But I am not fully sure it works. 

First, it is becoming repetitive, which shows a bit of an imagination deficit. It´s not too far from the broken disk sloganeering. Then, second, it´s not direct enough. It might not be fully understood by the working class fellow. It has an intellectual pretentiousness that contradicts the ambition of being close to the people. Thirdly, it sends a message of arrogance that is irritating some of the key European leaders.

Reforming Peacekeeping

There are several areas of the UN´s work that call for reform. Today, I would mention the Protection of Civilians in relation with the mandates of peacekeeping operations. The reason I raise this issue derives from the report the Center for Civilians in Conflict, a Washington based NGO, just published on the recent dramatic events in South Sudan. Basically, the report states that the UN Blue Helmets did not move out of their barracks and therefore neglected to protect the humanitarian workers. Several of these workers became then victims of extreme violence at the hands of the national soldiers, governmental and rebels alike.

These facts are accurate. The truth of the matter is however much more complex. The UN troops had no means to confront the heavily armed South Sudanese fighters. The UN weapons disadvantage was a crying one. And the fighters were simply determined to shoot and kill the UN Blue Helmets, in case the latter would become too visible on the streets.

These raises a very good number of fundamental questions about deploying a UN peacekeeping force where there is no peace to keep. Should the UN be there? Was the Security Council right when approving the mandate for the South Sudan mission? Should we envisage an international fighting force first, for an initial intervention? How should we put together such a combat mission?

There are indeed many questions just on this issue. And this just one of the many issues that call for serious rethinking.

Antonio Guterres

Antonio Guterres will be the next Secretary-General of the UN. He stood head and shoulders above all the other candidates. His qualities were so obvious that he could overcome the geopolitical pressure to have someone from Eastern Europe and also the advocacy campaign to have a woman as the new head of the UN. He has also been able to unify, at least on this matter, a much divided Security Council.

This is a difficult job. And the current international environment makes it even more complex. As I congratulate Guterres, I also trust he will have the wisdom the moment requires. 

The US and Russia today

We reached today a new peak of tension between the US and Russia. It is directly related to the Syrian crisis and the fact that each country is clearly supporting one side of the conflict. A conflict that is too complex to be sorted out by political means alone.

But that´s only the immediate cause. The deeper reason is rooted on political competition between the US and Russia. It´s not about ideological differences between them, as it was the case during the Cold War. It is far more serious. It´s related to perceived vital national interests. Each country sees the other as very dangerous competition. And this is a new development, a new dramatic feature in the international scene.

I see it as particularly threatening to peace. I believe it is urgent to talk loud and clear about it and try to change this very hazardous views of power politics.

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.