It’s
a grave mistake to refer to autocrats as “illiberal leaders”. They are undemocratic
political monsters that managed to get to positions of power because they
manipulated their country’s public opinion and were able to ride on the most
primary sentiments one can find in some nations that are experiencing deep
crisis. The media and the academic circles must call those leaders what they
are: demagogues, totalitarian, despot, or just dangerous populists.
Monday, 18 February 2019
Sunday, 17 February 2019
No to a "post-human rights" society
In
the context of this year’s Munich Security Conference, it has been said that we
are living in a “post-human rights”.
In
my opinion, that’s an unhelpful concept. It sends the wrong message. Human
rights should remain the very basic and indispensable foundation of today’s
politics. We might see all other conventions being challenged by different
types of strongmen in power. That’s most worrisome. It’s as serious move towards
the past. But, at least, human rights should remain as the last fortress, the
last strong tower of values.
In
the end, everything in politics and our daily lives is about respecting the
dignity of everyone, man or woman, boy or girl. If we do not firmly stand for
that, if we accept a “post-human rights” reality, even just as an intellectual
frame of analysis, we can say goodbye to the moral and legal achievements and
progress of the last 70 years or so. That’s not acceptable and it should not be
taken as a “modern concept”.
Saturday, 16 February 2019
Sahel and the Islamist threat
Another link on the Sahel security situation:
https://africacenter.org/spotlight/the-complex-and-growing-threat-of-militant-islamist-groups-in-the-sahel/
https://africacenter.org/spotlight/the-complex-and-growing-threat-of-militant-islamist-groups-in-the-sahel/
Labels:
Algeria,
Burkina faso,
Chad,
Islamism,
Mali,
Mauritania,
Niger,
radicalism,
Sahel,
terrorism,
West Africa
The Sahel is important
https://www.securityconference.de/en/media-library/munich-security-conference-2019/video/parallel-panel-discussion-security-in-the-sahel-traffick-jam/
The link will bring us to the panel discussion on the situation in the Sahel that took place today at the Munich Security Conference.
The link will bring us to the panel discussion on the situation in the Sahel that took place today at the Munich Security Conference.
Friday, 15 February 2019
Mark Rutte on the EU
"And I’ve said many times before that I believe the EU is stronger when a deal is a deal. In the EU there can be no haggling over democracy and the rule of law. We must always draw the line when fundamental values come under pressure, as they have in countries like Poland and Hungary.But a deal is also a deal when it comes to the euro and the Stability and Growth Pact. Because here too, bending the rules can erode the entire system, and we cannot have that. To me the whole idea of the EU is a group of independent member states working together to bring each other to a higher level of prosperity, security and stability. Unity is the source of our capacity to act in the outside world."
Churchill Lecture by The Netherlands Prime Minister Mark Rutte, Europa Institut at the University of Zurich
Speech | 13-02-2019
Munich and the annual security debate
Once
more, the conflict between Israel and Palestine is not on the agenda of this
year’s Munich Security Conference.
This annual conference started today and
runs up to Sunday. It’s a key international meeting on security.
This year, Syria and Ukraine
are again on the menu, as it is the insecurity situation in the Sahel, the
nuclear weapons issue and the security dimensions of climate change. The exclusion
of the Palestinian crisis from the debates is deliberate, of course. For many, it’s too
delicate a subject. For others, and I am among those, it’s a never-ending conflict.
Better move on and deal with those that have a chance of being resolved.
Thursday, 14 February 2019
Theresa May and Valentine's defeat
Today,
Prime Minister Theresa May lost another Brexit vote in Parliament.
It
was not a “meaningful vote”, as the British like to say when the motion is only
symbolic. But it’s full of political meaning. Basically, it shows that the
Prime Minister cannot count with the hardliners within her Conservative party.
Moreover,
here in Brussels the vote is seen from two complementary angles: first, Theresa
May is not in a very strong position to negotiate any kind of clarification or
addition to the existing draft deal; second, she can only avoid a catastrophic
no deal scenario if she negotiates with the Labour Party. Therefore, there will
be increased pressure on her to do so. She might resist it, she might even find
such option as difficult as swallowing the bitter pill, but in the end, she
must think in patriotic terms, not just in a partisan manner.
But
can she do it? That’s a big and very serious question mark.
Wednesday, 13 February 2019
EU Parliament and Italy
Yesterday,
Giuseppe Conte, the Italian Prime Minister addressed the EU Parliament in
Strasbourg.
I
do not share some of the views he expressed. However, I would assess his speech
as moderate and pro-European.
The
Prime Minister talked about immigration – a very central theme for his
government but also for the rest of Europe. And about the need to go back to reinforced
solidarity among the European States, as well as about defence matters, foreign
policy and the EU at the UN. He emphasised that cooperation with North Africa
and the Sahel are a priority for his government and invited the EU to be more
coherent and proactive towards those two neighbouring regions. But above all,
Conte reminded the MEPs that the connection between the EU institutions and the
citizens is crucial. Too much emphasis on economic measures without considering
the people’s views is wrong, that was basically his opening point and one of
the key messages. It’s an opinion that reflects the view that there is a
serious gap between the citizens and the elites. We might see that as a
populist slogan, but I think it’s important to pay attention to it.
Giuseppe
Conte represents a government that is politically distant from the mainstream
parties that control most seats in the EU Parliament. Therefore, as many had
anticipated, the responses that followed his speech were distinctly negative.
The star MEPs focused their critical interventions on some of the recent decisions
taken by Conte’s powerful deputies – Matteo Salvini and Luigi di Maio. These
are the strong players in Conte’s government. The MEPs gave no truce to Conte
on account of those two.
In
my opinion, that approach was the wrong one. Conte’s statement was a
constructive attempt to build a bridge. His effort should have been recognised.
Nevertheless, the MEPs decided to push the Prime Minister into his usual corner,
and punch him, instead of offering a helping hand and try to bring him to the
centre-ground of the European preoccupations. I judge the MEPs showed little
maturity. Once again, they were more concerned with theatrics and sound bites,
trying to project a tough public image, than with looking for sensible action.
The
Prime Minister must have gone back to Rome with a strengthened impression that key
European politicians, in the EU Parliament, do not understand the political
realities his country is going through. They prefer to put Italy in the dock.
That's poor political judgement.
Tuesday, 12 February 2019
Theresa May and her negative delaying tactics
As
I listened this afternoon to Theresa May’s statement at Westminster – and to the
following parliamentary debate – I could only conclude that the Prime Minister
has no concrete alternative plan to the existing draft Brexit Deal.
Moreover,
she is not credible when she sustains that “the talks are at a crucial state”. There
are no real talks taking place. And there is no plan to that in the days to
come.
The
Prime Minister is just trying to gain time. Not that she expects a miracle to
happen in the next couple of weeks. No. Her hope is that in the end the British
Parliament will approve the Deal, with some cosmetics added to it, but
basically the same document that she has agreed with the EU last November.
To
believe in an approval because the MPs will have their backs against the wall
is a very risky bet. Also, it’s distinctly unwise. In the end, it might bring
all of us closer to a No Deal Brexit. Such possible outcome would have deeply
negative consequences both to the UK and the EU. Only open fools, like David
Davis, Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mogg, can believe that a No Deal situation
is a good option for the UK.
It’s
time to bring the Prime Minister back to earth and stop the delaying tactics.
As
a footnote, it’s quite shocking to see that idiotic belief about the positives
of a No Deal being militantly supported by some mainstream British media. For
instance, by The Telegraph, the well-known right-wing daily newspaper. This
media behaviour is clearly the result of a mixture of chauvinist madness with
commercial opportunism – trying to sell newsprint paper to the retrograde
Conservatives that constitute a good share of the British market. It’s abundantly
irresponsible.
Labels:
Boris Johnson,
Brexit,
Brexit deal,
chauvinism,
Conservative Party,
David Davis,
Donald Tusk,
EU,
European Union,
Jacob Rees-Mogg,
Jean-Claude Juncker,
Jeremy Corbyn,
media,
The Telegraph,
Theresa May,
Westminster
Sunday, 10 February 2019
Additional notes on the Yellow Vests
In
yesterday’s writing, my main point was we cannot ignore the social dissatisfaction
some French citizens experience. I had particularly in mind those who live in
the sprawling, huge and hastily urbanised areas that ring the most prosperous
cities of France. These citizens are wrongly called “suburban people” – an expression
that hardly hides the disdain the professional, city-based elites feel towards those
persons. The fact is that most of them live in big agglomerations, but those are
little more than sleeping areas. The rest of their lives is spent on commuting,
long hours wasted in crowded public transportation systems or on congested
roads. Everything is far and stressful to reach: work, schools, medical
facilities, public services, even the shopping malls. The only people they know
are like them, sharing the same frustrations and the same fatigue.
They
also know this is a life condition that will continue forever, at best. There
is very little hope in the air. The prevailing sentiment is of being trapped. Vulnerable
as well. They also believe that they are just ignored by the more fortunate
fellow citizens and the political actors. The elites don’t care, that’s the
judgement that is often mentioned.
But
there two other questions I must raise.
First, that violence and destruction
are not acceptable. There is no justification. Those who practise such acts
must be punished. And we all must say no to violence, no to chaos, no any type
of public rebellion.
Second, that these rallies should cease and dialogue be
given a chance. President Emmanuel Macron has launched a consultative process
that is rather ambitious. It touches some very key issues. And it’s also an
attempt to look at democracy and representativeness from a less formal and
distant perspective. It’s important to participate in that initiative. It will
also show that there is maturity there where it might seem absent for now.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)