Yellow vests: the key question

Everything we write and read about the root causes of the Yellow Vests movement is based on political and sociological speculation. We should be clear about it.

We know that the high cost of living, the permanent state of fatigue that comes from suburban life, the ever-increasing tax burden and the many forms of resentment against the professional politicians play an important role in the mobilisation. There is bitterness and anger towards the urban elites and the globalist crusaders. These are the key, most immediate reasons for the demonstrations.

We also know that these areas of misgivings and rebellion combine themselves into a complex social malaise.

But are we witnessing something larger and deeper than what meets the idea? Something transformative? That’s the very question that must be answered to.

On the Yellow Vests

The French Gilets Jaunes (Yellow Vests) have now demonstrated every Saturday since mid-November. Yesterday it was their 12^th Saturday of mass rallies in Paris and other cities and towns of France. We cannot ignore the meaning and the political dimensions of such a movement. It must be better understood, first. Then, we should reflect about the response that should be provided.

I get the impression that both questions – understanding and responding – have not been fully considered.

Many words have been written about the grievances, but they do not explain the persistence of the street protests. Moreover, in winter, which is not the best season to be on the street and public squares. The analysis of the root causes calls for more objectivity and less ideological explanations.

The response the government has adopted is two-pronged: massive police presence during the manifestations, to prevent violence and looting; and the launching of a campaign of national dialogue, to look at issues of taxation, State organisation and political representativeness, as well as climate policies. But both lines of the response are being challenged. They have not convinced a good deal of those complaining, even among those who do not come to the streets on Saturday. 

The matter needs therefore a much more comprehensive assessment. It’s very much on the table.  

Politics as currently played

I rarely write about religion. I am even tempted to say I never write about the matter. But being prudent by nature, let me use the word “rarely”. Or let me say it differently: to me is clear I avoid commenting on religious matters.

As a regular blogger, both in English and Portuguese, and when for many years I wrote as a columnist, politics is my theme.  And now, as I watch the political debate and the fights associated with it, I am getting the impression that for many people partisan politics has become like an act of faith.

Politics today seems to be much closer to religious beliefs, and the traditional intolerance that goes with them, than to social and economic choices. There is plenty of emotion and very little rationality. That has an obvious impact on the discourse of public figures that want to be successful in politics. They go for the soul, not for the mind.

INF and the UN

President Trump’s decision to pull out of the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) is as much about Russia – the other country signatory of the Treaty – as it is about China and its build-up of cruise missiles. Russia has been violating the INF since 2012. And China is investing heavily on new types of missiles capable of carrying nuclear heads. China is actually becoming a major military adversary of the US. And that is done in close coordination with Russia. Both Presidents – Xi and Putin – are consulting and have the same goal: to increase, in their geopolitical areas of influence, their countries’ capacity to confront the US and its allies. This is certainly a very dangerous strategy. The US will respond by augmenting their investment in nuclear capabilities. That means a serious arms race in a field that is particularly destructive and could bring mayhem to Europe and some parts of Asia.

One should be truly worried.

The UN could take the initiative to open a serious process of confidence building in the matters of nuclear armament. There is even a department within the Secretariat in New York that is mandated to deal with this type of matters. But the UN seems unable to move in such a critical area. Or, inaction and silence cannot be the right course of action at this very risky moment.

Brexit: time to move on

Brexit is taking too much of EU leaders’ attention and energy. It’s time to sort it out, to have enough clarity about the direction to follow and then move on. There are many other issues that require top attention. Including an assessment of what remains to be achieved as the current leadership ends their mandates and a definition of what should be the goals for the next cycle. Being clear about those goals could allow for a more substantive campaign for the European elections of May this year. It would bring the debate to a higher level. The candidates must be questioned about their responses to the key challenges. Beyond, well beyond, Brexit. 

Intelligence and balance

President Trump said today that the US intelligence chiefs are “extremely passive and naïve” and that “they should go back to school”. The President is indeed sui generis. Uncommon, and odd, to be clear.

These remarks he made are unjustified. That’s how we see it, from this side of the Alliance. The people that are currently in charge of the US national security are actually very experienced and balanced. These might be the characteristics the President has serious difficulties to identify with. They talk based of facts and assessments. The other side talks based on political instincts and emotions, and on a view that places him at the centre of the universe. Power blinds and disturbs quite often those who see themselves as above the crowd.

As an additional note, let me add that the American people and we in Europe are lucky enough to have such kind of professionals in charge of a key State function. And we encourage them not to feel undermined by unjustified and prejudiced remarks. They should keep playing the serene role that is theirs and is so crucial to avoid immature and irrational strategic decisions.

Sugar-coated Brexit

Today the British Parliament discussed and voted a few motions on Brexit.

Beyond the words, the show and the votes, for me the point is clear: the deal that is on the table, the one painstakingly negotiated between Theresa May and the EU, is the best option at this stage. Today’s Westminster session seems to reveal that a good number of MPs have also realised that. They said clearly, they do not want to vote without a deal. And they expect the EU leaders to put some sugar on top of the current proposal. Just to make it a bit more palatable. If the EU does it, if some language is changed in the Political Declaration – not in the deal, I do not see it as possible – the MPs will twist that coat of sugar in such a way that it will save their face, as they finally approve the deal.

Very shrewd political actors they are.

Brexit means noise

Brexit reminds me of many parts of India. It’s all about noise. There is noise everywhere and people live in the middle of the most disturbing noise. But, in the end, there is a way out. People find a solution. It might not be the best one, it can even be painful, but they must keep moving, go beyond the chaos. Life goes on, as they say. At a cost, of course.

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.