Let's be positive and wise

Today's world in Brussels should be "restrain". This is a time that requires moderation, tact, discretion, prudence, circumspection, you call it whatever you deem more appropriate. I prefer “restrain”.

And I would add to it that this is no time to irritate the side that might seem very confused. It’s actually the moment to be warm about the future, because the future can only be about cooperation and mutual interests.

Italy's rare birds

To recall one’s ambassador accredited to another State is a major move. A decision that is taken at the highest level of authority. It shows that there is a serious political tension between the governments concerned. France did it today. They recalled their Ambassador to Italy. I can’t recall any similar situation in Western Europe in the last seven decades. This is certainly not good either for both countries or the EU. It takes the EU to a new and unknown type of conflict. And, unfortunately, I do not see who could try to undertake the bridging between Emmanuel Macron and the radical populists that are in charge in Rome. It is also true that one cannot accept the kind of political hostility that is coming these days from Salvini and Di Maio. That must be said in very clear terms. They are an aberration that must be denounced.

The UK deep crisis is getting worse

I see the ghost of early elections coming rapidly in the direction of Prime Minister Theresa May.

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.