Brexit: decision time

Theresa May’s leadership style can be criticised for many reasons. But it’s difficult to challenge her level of resolve, her determination.

The Prime Minister believes she must deliver the outcome of the 2016 referendum on Europe. Also, that the exit needs to be based on a deal between the UK and the EU.

There was a time when she repeatedly said that “no deal was better than a bad deal”. On that, she has changed her mind. Since last summer she has become fully convinced that an accord is necessary. And not just for the transition, not just for the short term. It’s critical for a mutually profitable relationship between her country and its major economic and security partner, the EU.

She is also sure that the draft deal she has negotiated with the Europeans is the best possible arrangement. Therefore, she will keep pressing on. Theresa May wants her proposal approved.

This week we will find out if she wins or loses. The coming days are crucial for the continuation of her leadership. 

This is now the time to go beyond the crossroads. I, like all of us here in Brussels, would prefer to see her determination rewarded.

Maduro's days

The Venezuela standoff goes on. Time plays against Nicolás Maduro. He sees what remains of his authority being eroded with the passing of the days. He knows that, I believe, and is certainly preparing a heavy-handed response. And that’s the main danger at this stage: serious loss of lives.

Maduro also understands that the current context is different and not very favourable to him. The opposition is united. They have a charismatic and widely accepted leader. There is regional and international support to the new leader. Moreover, the regional rapport of forces is no longer what it used to be: now there is Bolsonaro next door, and the countries of the region are against him, except for Mexico, Cuba and Bolivia. And there has been a serious deterioration of the hardships most of the population is confronted with. The circumstances are playing against Maduro.

But he is still in the Miraflores Presidential Palace. And he has the support of his generals and admirals. That is important. The question is about the support of the lower ranking officers within the armed forces. That’s one of the keys to unlock the crisis.

Venezuela needs a domestic settlement

Venezuela is again a huge headline in the international agenda. And this time, the situation is extremely delicate. The country is at the hedge of major internal violent conflict.

The positions of the different Sates in Latin America and elsewhere must therefore be very clear.

It’s obvious that the last presidential elections have no credibility. As such, Nicolás Maduro cannot claim any legitimacy. He can claim power, as many dictators usually do, because he controls the armed forces and the police. The armed forces are now in charge of the oil business and that’s the reason why they still support Maduro and his regime. But many in the ranks know that the people to whom they belong, the grassroots men and women, are under enormous stress and just struggling to cope with poverty and the lack of very basic goods. This has nothing to do with imperialist forces in the outside world. It has to do with Maduro’s madness and crazy approach to the national economy.  

The EU has taken a view on the crisis that is very reasonable. It has called for a full respect for the National Assembly´s decisions and for the integrity of its leader, Juan Guaidó. It has called for proper elections to be organised. That’s fine, but how to organise them, in a way that meets internationally accepted criteria, that’s the impossible question. Elections are indeed the way forward, but I do not see them coming soon.

The most immediate step is to see how to stop a very likely escalation of violence. That’s, for me, the most urgent issue.

In the meantime, the US has said they do accept Maduro’s decision about the end of their diplomatic relations. That’s understandable. But Washington should however withdraw its diplomatic staff from Caracas. To keep them there opens a new opportunity to fire up violence, this time against the embassy personnel. And that could be an excuse for an American intervention that nobody wants. An outside military intervention would be a major mistake. It should be clear that it is not under preparation and that no action will be taken to try to justify it.

The people of Venezuela has now suffered enough. They need to find a domestic solution to their crisis.

Davos 2019: power and planes

Davos 2019 is now underway.

Davos is the annual high mass on globalization and power. This year’s headline is about the absence of key political leaders. The big names – Trump, Xi, Putin, Modi, Merkel, Macron, May – are not attending. They have more pressing matters to address at their respective home fronts. Even second line political leaders are not many this time. Bad omen for the organisers: Jair Bolsonaro of Brazil is the star at the opening.

Almost 50 years down the line, since the first meeting, the World Economic Forum is at risk of becoming no more than a networking venue for major corporate leaders, friendly NGOs heads, and plenty of star media people. Also, one high-visibility opportunity for the elites that love to be seen attending seminars and participating in panel discussions on global themes. Boring as such talks can be, and abstract, so many times, they pretend to identify the key challenges of the day and come up with new solutions. That sounds great and visionary.

But it is not just the question of the elitist image, of powerful people deeply disconnected from the realities of the ordinary citizen meeting on the rocks of Davos. It’s also that nowadays there are many competing initiatives, dozens of conferences in many places that debate the same issues and come to similar conclusions.

Maybe the only true difference is related to private planes. In Davos this year, they expect around 1,500 of them. That’s the ultimate symbol of power. The private plane.

On the situation in DRC (Congo)

Regrettably, chaos and misery are the two words closely associated with the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). A good part of this enduring disaster comes from the political leadership in Kinshasa. They manipulate the institutions and fire up the instability and the divisions for their own corrupt gain.

The presidential electoral process has very much been an illustration of all the ills associated with such leaders. As a process, it is not credible at all. But it has brought a ray of change. And that, for now, seems enough to keep the people tranquil. The Congolese wanted, above all, to get rid of Joseph Kabila and his henchmen. The announced outcome of the election, as disputed as it can be, might also be a step in that direction. A very timid step, it’s recognised, with a rather weak new President, but still, at the eyes of many, a step forward.

That’s why the friends of Congo, both in the region and elsewhere, ought to be very prudent in their approach to the current situation.

Zimbabwe's distress

Unfortunately, Zimbabwe is again in the news headlines for the very wrong reasons. 

This past week has seen mass protests, violence, misery and death. As in the past, the government responded to unrest with extreme and unjustified force. Basic human rights are simply ignored. The regime is brutal, as ruthless as it has been in past similar situations. It’s unclear how many people have been killed by the police and the soldiers.

Zimbabweans have been under tremendous suffering, unimaginable hardship, for the best part of the last two decades. That´s a long national crisis, with a very heavy toll. The leadership has been inconsiderately inhumane.

And the little ray of hope that the new President had brought, after the departure of Robert Mugabe, appears now to have become a very sad illusion. Key democrats feel devastated by the new dramatic events. And as I write this evening, the situation is still getting worse.

Very sad.

Supporting the Kurds in Syria

All indications, facts and intelligence, and independent media reports, show that the so-called Islamic State is still a serious threat in North-Eastern Syria. It would be utterly irresponsible for any democratic leader do deny it.

Moreover, all the support that can be provided to those inside Syria that have demonstrated their determination to effectively fight the IS terrorists should be sustained. That’s the case of the Kurdish fighters under the banner of the Syrian Democratic Forces.

That support must include political negotiations with the Turkish government, even if one knows that such initiative is not easily accepted by President Erdogan. Without ignoring Erdogan’s belligerent approach towards the Syrian Kurds, my recommendation is to keep the strategic liaison with Ankara as close as possible. Turkey must be part of the Syrian stabilization process. There should be no doubt about that, as there is no doubt about the critical role played by the Syrian Kurds and their fellow allies. All this, as we make sure everyone understands that any form of terrorism, war crimes and violence are absolutely unacceptable. 

After the Brexit vote

After the Westminster vote on the Brexit Deal, and its most shocking result, the question that is in all minds is very clear: what’s next? Obvious interrogation, that’s true, but the answer is far from being clear. But the British political class must find an answer to it. For that, they must immediately take the initiative of stopping the Brexit time glass. It’s impossible to keep the current deadline of 29 March. It’s also completely unwise. An extension is required. And that extension is possible, at least up to the opening of the new European Parliament in July 2019.

It’s on the interest of both sides – the British and the EU – to reach an agreement. That’s now the position of many at Westminster. But there are some in that Parliament and above all in the popular media that advocate a No Deal. That is absolute madness. They can’t be serious when they defend that. They are either politically blind or foolish.

On the EU side, it is critical to avoid any kind of statement that would complicate things. Leaders need to show they are patient people and balanced as well. Silence is the best option. When silence is not possible, then the EU leaders should just state they are open to look at any meaningful proposal coming from London.

Westminster is making it impossible

At this stage, the best option for all of us in the European neighbourhood – UK and EU – would be to have the Withdrawal Agreement approved by the British parliament. That would be the most reasonable way forward, this late in the process. Both sides need a Brexit arrangement that would bring clarity and could ensure a good degree of continuity to a very close relationship.

Unfortunately, Westminster seems determined to vote down the deal. That will complicate further a political situation that is already very delicate. The UK population deserves better. And they are also tired of the discussions about the Brexit. But the politicians in Parliament are too divided. Moreover, many of them are just guided by personal reasons and by an idea of Britain that does not tally with the international affairs of today.  

Brexit, NATO and security cooperation

To assert that the deal proposed by Prime Minister Theresa May will put at risk the UK’s place in NATO and the country’s intelligence system is not more than fallacious propaganda. The UK will keep playing a crucial role within the Atlantic Alliance, after the Brexit, as it did in the past. There is no change here. And concerning the security arrangements, the type of cooperation that will be in place if the deal with the EU is approved will be the same as we have now between the UK and the rest of Europe. Even with the UK out of Europol. Security is a critical area for both sides. That has been said several times in the last two years or so. And there is no doubt about the future relation in this field.

A couple of days ago, two gentlemen came to the front door of the British public opinion to affirm and give credibility to such fraudulent assessment: Sir Richard Dearlove and Lord Guthrie. They also said that the UK dues are “ransom money”. Or, the PM has clearly explained that the money the UK must transfer to the EU at the end of the union relates to commitments taken in the recent past and other costs related to the pensions of former EU staff of British nationality. There is no punishment to explain such payment, no liberation money is required to exit the EU.

Sir Richard is a former MI6 – British external intelligence service – director-general. He was in charge during the Iraq false declaration by Tony Blair about “weapons of mass destruction” as well as when Dr David Kelly, the scientist whistle-blower that denied such allegation, was found dead, following an apparent suicide. A very mysterious suicide, for that matter. Lord Guthrie is also an old man now. He had been the boss of the British armed forces at the end of the 90s and at the very beginning of the 2000s. He seems to have lost contact with today’s reality.

Both were powerful men in their times. But now, if they are the true authors of the piece on “risks” associated with the proposed Brexit deal, a piece they both signed as being their position, they have become very partisan and taken their distances from the truth. I can only hope they were more impartial when still in office.