Venezuela needs a credible mediation process

There are a few crisis situations in the world that must be seen as requiring urgent attention. Venezuela is certainly one of them. And, in terms of response, mediation is the word. It is necessary to find a mediation mechanism that could be accepted by both sides, meaning the Maduro camp and the Guaidó supporters.

Nicolás Maduro has asked the Pope to lead such mediation. It is true that the Catholic Church could play a facilitating role. But the other side has not expressed the same kind of appeal. Basically, they believe that Maduro´s presidency is not legitimate and, therefore, he must go without any concession being made. That position should be helped to evolve as rapidly as possible.

The United Nations could also be approached. Yet, I think Maduro sees the UN as too close to the Western interests. In the circumstances, the UN Secretary-General should take the initiative and be in personal contact with both leaders. The UN has a lot of experienced people in the field of mediation. And it could also work closely with the Vatican and offer a join platform for negotiations. Countries in the EU should send a message about the UN’s potential.

It’s equally critical that Maduro understands that there is a way forward for him and his family. The other side must leave a gate open for a dignified solution. It’s a mistake to try to push Maduro and his camp against the wall. That would make any bridging effort fail and it could easily bring mass violence instead a negotiated solution.

The mediation agenda would be defined by the parties. That’s how it should be. But I can guess it would certainly include issues such as the shape of the political transition, who would chair it, the organization of credible elections, the role of the armed forces and the police, as well as amnesty matters.

No to public disorder

The French National Assembly is debating a new law drafted to address the issue of violence during public demonstrations. It’s known as the “anti-casseurs law”. “Casseur” is the name given to anyone who breaks or wrecks things. The new piece of legislation aims at preventing the destruction of public and private property by hooligans and other ruffians, people that take advantage of legitimate manifestations to create hell.

In France, a number of politicians and intellectuals see this new law as restricting the freedom to demonstrate. But the fact of the matter is that fringe groups are systematically taking advantage of genuine street protesters to behave destructively. That cannot be accepted. Law and order in public places must be kept. If not, we are creating the conditions for extreme-right movements to ride on chaos and gain political space. The democratic values, in France and elsewhere in our part of the world, require a firm hand when dealing with violence and looting. Anarchy, if untamed, leads to dictatorship.

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.