Assange and the legality of some cover operations

Julian Assange’s predicament leaves no one indifferent, in our part of the world. He has scores of supporters. Also, plenty of detractors. His personality, not just his deeds, is deeply controversial. I will not enter that discussion.

However, I recognise that, thanks to his initiative, it has been possible to demonstrate that a good number of actions taken by powerful Western governments, under the cover of national security and defence, surpassed the limits of what can be considered legitimate. Basic rights and values have been shaken by such actions.

And that brings back a fundamental question that remains unresolved in our democracies. The systems in place do not ensure a proper democratic, ethical and legal control of some undercover operations carried out by special military forces, or by specific police and intelligence services within the security apparatus. It has become obvious that our parliaments are not prepared to exercise such oversight. They intrinsically lack the competence and the political strength to carry out that role. And the justice machinery is basically in the same position of weakness.

I think it is time to envisage the creation of a constitutional body that would bring together a small number of elders, a group of sages who have reached the end of their professional ambitions and careers, and have behind them an immaculate life history, a public image of great credibility. This would be a top-level group mandated to oversee and assess complex legal and ethics practices as carried out by special government agencies. Such independent panel would report to an appropriate parliamentary committee.

This move would certainly respond to some key interrogations that we ought to deal with, based on what Assange and Wikileaks have revealed.  

Assange and the law

Julian Assange has a long legal battle in front of him. The decision about his fate must be based on the law. But his case has so many political ramifications that it will be difficult to separate the legal aspects from their political context. It will be a very controversial process.

Estonia's turn to the far-right

We do not pay too much attention to politics in Estonia. The received wisdom, in Brussels and in the Western part of the EU, is that the country is doing well and springs as an example of e-government and the connected society.

But these days, there are some less tranquilising news coming from Tallinn. The Prime Minister’s Centre Party, a member of the centre-right European family, has now decided, against all pledges, to establish a governing alliance with the extremists on the far-right and offer them five Cabinet positions.

EKRE, that’s the name of the extremist party, is not good political company. Some of its banners are inspired by white supremacist ideas and old-time national-socialist nightmares. 

Estonia is following the same path Austria has already taken. And others. That is certainly not an encouraging development for the rest of the EU. It shows the populists keep gaining access to power in different corners of the Union. European leaders cannot remain silent when these types of coalitions are put in place.  

Brexit is in town

Brexit night, again, here in Brussels. Theresa May wants a short postponement of her country’s Brexit date. That is certainly something that would make sense, now that her government and the Labour Party are engaged in talks. EU leaders could wait for those talks to conclude, be it that in the end there is no agreement between the two sides. The position could stand as a recognition of the merit of such talks, an invitation for a national decision on a matter that is of crucial importance to the British nation.

That would be my position in today’s summit meeting. Such position would give the UK Prime Minister some political strength, at a time when she is very weak, it would show respect to her and it could be supported by the European public opinion.

Europe and China: let's be constructive

The EU and China have their annual summit in Brussels today. The preparatory work has shown that Europe is now prepared to have a firmer position in matters of trade, investment and protection of industrial patents and copyrights. That is the right approach for the economic relations between both sides. Beijing might not like it, but they understand the rationale behind the European position. They fight for their interests, and we should fight for ours. That is the only basis for a sound relationship between two major international players.

When dealing with China, the EU must remain united around the principles of reciprocity, fair competition, and respect for the natural environment.

The Europeans have also to consider that we are dealing with State capitalism at its strongest form. Behind each big corporation, there is the Communist leadership of China and their concern with their own survival as a regime. For that, they need to expand the Chinese economic interests abroad, control new sources of wealth in foreign lands, and bring back prosperity to the people of China. Europe is a special land of business opportunities, an attractive economic space for big investments. That’s fine, if the basic international rules are respected and the link between each side is open to accept traffic on both directions.

Above all, the Europeans must keep in mind issues of national security. As far as we are concerned, China is a partner with greater potential for business but is also a first-grade geostrategic player. We must be able to keep our strategic sectors under our own control. That will contribute in no small manner to balance the geopolitical power of our Chinese neighbours. The world needs our contribution to the balance. Europe’s big challenge, in this area, is to remain a strong pillar of international wisdom.

Genocide: never again?

Today is a day of remembrance. In Rwanda, in Africa, here in Europe and in many parts of the world.

What started twenty-five years ago – a genocide that would last for over three months – is above all a Rwandan tragedy. But it is also a major failure for all of us, starting with the UN Security Council.

All the lessons have now been drawn. All the key responsibilities have been apportioned. But, can we say never again? I really hope so, like everyone else does.

It is true that countries do not want to recognise when a major calamity is in the making. Even when it is already in the horizon, some do not want to say they see it coming. That is also the case within the Security Council. However, I think the global information mechanisms are today more powerful. And that makes it a bit more difficult to pretend that there is no problem.

Libya, Algeria and North Africa

Is there a link between the latest developments in Libya, where the forces supported by the Russians have decided to launch a major offensive against the capital city, Tripoli, and the popular revolt in the streets of Algeria, where a regime close to Moscow could end up by being replaced soon by another one, this time more favourable to the European interests in the region?

North Africa is far from being stable. And, on the other hand, it is a region of great strategic interest for Europe, as well as for a country like Russia. Russia wants to re-establish a strong presence in the shores of the Mediterranean Sea. In addition, it is trying to encircle the EU as much as possible, with the key objective of undermining the Union. A strong presence in North Africa would give Moscow a lot of leverage.

NATO days

NATO is seventy years old. It remains a unique type of organisation. Including because it brings together two very distinct ways of looking at geopolitics and is based on an ambiguous relationship between the political and military spheres of power.

Today, it operates in a very different world. And it is confronted with a complete new set of challenges. In all its organisational complexity, NATO has changed quite a bit during the last ten years or so. It has tried to adapt. 

But, in my opinion, it has not deserved the attention it should from the political leaders. Most of the political statements and positions on NATO are just ready-made, repetitive and half-baked declarations. That is not very strategic.

Wishing the British good fortune

The key European leaders and all those who have a balanced approach to opinion-making here in Brussels and other capitals have no intention of humiliating the British politicians. Moreover, as neighbours and because we share the same values and so many aspects of our European history, we also have a great respect for the British people.

Nobody wants to see a weaker, divided UK in the future. Such view would be an absolute foolishness.

I am sure Theresa May understands all that.

Brexit's new cards

Some people are saying that PM Theresa May’s statement, made this evening, is more of the same. I disagree. It is not. Cabinet did not spend seven hours discussing the matter for nothing.

The Prime Minister´s words are very clear.

First, there is no way she will preside over a No Deal Brexit. That is a key message. She understands the immense negative impact of such an avenue and might have been able to convince enough people in her Cabinet that such an option cannot be seriously considered. She might be very stubborn, but she is no fool. And she is determined in her opposition to a No Deal. I appreciate that.

Second, she has finally accepted she needs to reach an agreement with the Labour Party. That is also an important step forward. And she seems ready to give it a try. I appreciate the move.

Third, the most plausible option could now be the approval of her Withdrawal Agreement (WA) followed by a confirmatory referendum. Or, just the taking of the WA to the voters. That would also be the best option. The second best would be the approval of the WA in Westminster coupled with the endorsement by Parliament of a revised Political Declaration that would point in the direction of a customs union.

Things could be moving fast in the next few days.