A disciplined and strategic approach

I see the authority of Gen. HR McMaster being consolidated within the White House. And I would like to believe he will be able to get enough support in the Defence and Intelligence circles to master a strategic influence on the President and be able to instil a more disciplined approach by the top cat.

It's true I do not ignore the nature and traits of the President's personality and his tendency to play by his own sheet of music. The question then is very clear: will McMaster and his think-alike friends be able to contain the explosive reactions of their boss when vital matters will be at play? The new trend looks encouraging but it´s too early to make a call.  

The reform of the UN Security Council

Acts of war and drawn-out conflicts are among the key factors that undermine the authority of UN Security Council. Actually, they have a major negative impact on the Council. And they are in open contradiction with the positions stated by some key members of the UN that keep repeating that it is important to improve the functioning of the Council and abide by its decisions.

This reminds me that the reform of the Security Council is not just about revisiting the issue of its membership. That one is already an impossible goal. However, it seems easier to achieve than the issues related to improving the Council’s capacity to resolve conflicts that are directly related to the strategic interests of its permanent members. Or the Council's approach to long lasting impasses. What could be the accepted doctrine on intervening in that type of intractable conflicts?

Trump´s most pressing international challenges

This week, President Trump has been directly trapped by Bashar al-Assad of Syria and Kim Jong-un of North Korea. Both dictators decided to challenge the incoherence that defines the global policy of the new US President. Assad with sarin, the gas that he dropped from his airplanes and killed scores of innocent people. A true war crime, by all measures. Kim by firing a new missile towards the Sea of Japan, just a few days prior to his powerful neighbour´s visit to Florida for a first meeting with the big man from Washington.

He is also being challenged by Vladimir Putin. This special, unique strongman created the most absurd “explanation” to excuse the war crime committed by his ally in Syria. And decided to continue to block any action the UN Security Council could have taken on this appalling crisis.

The US President cannot limit his response to these major challenges to words of condemnation and expressions of outrage. They are essential, indeed, but not enough at this stage. He came to the White House as man of action and determination. He has now to show his resolution. Actions ought to match the promises.

But he has very narrow options.

The first one is about prioritising. He has to focus on one of his challengers and show that man that Trump means business. And that priority as things stand now should be about Assad. It must combine diplomatic initiatives, including a serious push for an international commission of inquiry, with other political measures and direct military pressure. The package has to be multifaceted, clear in its purpose, well explained to everyone but also limited in its range, in its initial stage. 

We are prepared to deal with terrorists

The sponsors of terrorist acts against European countries should be told two things.

First that we are much better prepared to prevent. The attacks by lone individuals, with very modest means, show that at present it is much more difficult for criminal groups to plan and organise terrorist raids. The intelligence services are now much more efficient than a few years ago. Exchanges between these types of individuals have become better monitored. Surveillance is more sophisticated.

Secondly, the sponsors should understand that these isolated acts do not change the way we see public life and do not split our societies along sectarian lines. We respond by continuing to lead routine lives. We carry on. The terrorists might kill innocent people but they have no lasting impact on our democratic values and institutions. Furthermore, they do not generate c continuous state of social panic and entrenched fear. The effect on society is local, and short lived.

A terrorist is a loser.  

EU at Sixty

The EU leaders today met in Rome to celebrate the 60^th anniversary of the common European political dream. And they approved a Declaration to charter the way for the next ten years or so. In my opinion, the most salient point of this initiative is about unity. The leaders have shown they believe in the joint future of the EU Member States. They are particularly keen about strengthening the Euro, as the Union's currency. And they want to focus their attention on four priority areas: security, economic prosperity, social protection and a more strategic presence in international affairs. It´s a good choice even if within each one of these areas there is still a need to be more precise, both in terms of narrowing down the areas to concentrate on what is indeed transformational and timelines.

Challenging times

I went back to the notes I wrote at the beginning of last year and noticed I had pencilled that 2016 would be a year of political renewal. Well, it has exceeded the expectations, but not in the sense I was expecting.

What can I say about 2017?

What a strange question to be raised in mid-March, when the year is already moving fast.

Still, I think I can write that this is the year that is going to challenge many of the lessons we have learned in the past. That might sound pretty worrying. But it is above all a call for those who believe in principles and international cooperation to show they can respond to the danger and have the intelligence and the courage to bring us back to reason.

UN funds should not be cut

The new US Administration plans to cut in a big way the country´s financial contributions to the UN. This decision, if it materialises, will have a major impact on programmes and operations at a time of greater demands and some extreme dramatic situations. 

At this early stage, it is not possible to measure the effect of such a decision. 

It´s only possible to say that the UN has the experience, the logistics and the credibility that make such operations tremendously cost-effective and able to reach many difficult corners of the globe. This might be a weak argument in some circles in Washington. But it is a strong reason for many to keep fighting for a strong, efficient, and properly funded UN system. 

Too much despair

About 30 years ago, the famine in Ethiopia became a big story and millions of people responded to the call. Live Aid was launched and hundreds of millions of dollars were raised from individual donations by people from many countries. We lived a great storm of generosity.

In the last few days, the UN has launched a major humanitarian appeal to respond to dramatic famine situations in Yemen, Somalia and the Sahel. The UN stated this was a crisis of unheard dimensions.

The appeal got a few minutes of attention here and there.

The fact of the matter is that we are inundated with catastrophic news. And we have seen so many pictures of human suffering on our TV screens that we have become indifferent. We have “banalized” distress and death. And we might have also lost a good deal of our humanity. Or maybe, not. It could just be that we are deeply confused by the political horrors we are witnessing these days. We might just feel too powerless.

I wonder.

Europe´s unity

Donald Tusk has been re-elected as President of the European Council. The Council brings together all the Heads of State and Government of the Union. They have voted today for Tusk. With one exception: the Polish government did not support his own citizen. For reasons of domestic politics, that's the truth. Not for reasons of competence: Tusk´s competence has been recognised by everybody else.

This was an important development. The Polish ultra conservative leaders had actively campaigned against the re-election. Some of us thought that the rest of the EU leaders would be willing to accept the Warsaw position in order to keep the European unity. But this time, reason has been stronger that unity at any cost. And that is certainly good news. 

Time for some tough questions about North Korea

Kim Jong-un, the North Korean dictator, is a crazy man. But above all, as a political leader, he is tremendously dangerous. For his people and for the region. He controls an all-pervasive internal security apparatus, a machinery that makes everyone in country look either as mentally retarded or simply terrified. In addition, the tyrant spends most of the country´s limited resources on military hardware, including on expensive nuclear research projects for aggressive ends, and on an incredibly large number of troops, that make North Korea the most militarised country in the world. All this represents a major threat to peace in the region and gives rise to an arms race that includes Japan and South Korea.

The UN Security Council has approved a series of sanctions against the North Korean regime. But the man keeps provoking the international community. Today, it was the launch of four ballistic missiles into the Sea of Japan.

It is now time to make the sanctions more stringent. They should also be expanded. One area could be related to the international travel of the North Korean officials. Those movements should be made more difficult. And the 47 countries housing North Korean embassies should be advised to limit the privileges of the country´s diplomats.

North Korea must understand they have a choice. One option is to accept the existing international order and behave as a partner country. The other, is to continue the rogue policies of today and then face as much isolation and constraints as the international community can implement. And if such rigorous approach by the international community does not bring a change, then it is time to ask some tougher questions about the way we should treat a regime of such nature.