Juncker´s sucession

Last evening, I watched the debate among the six lead candidates for the European Parliament. This was a good initiative, thanks to Euronews, the TV channel.

Six people is a lot of participants and the conversation is therefore constrained by the time available and the balance that is needed between each candidate. The key subjects end up by being treated superficially, more as statements and slogans and less as part of a substantive dialogue. This was the main limitation. But the discussion took place in a civilised manner and was good enough to keep the viewers interested.

It was also relevant to see two young women in the podium. Both did well, notwithstanding the fact that one is a liberal and the other a green activist. I also found the socialist candidate, Frans Timmermans, to be firm and clear in his positions. He flies much higher than many members of his political family. I do not know what will happen to him in the period ahead, but I am happy to know that at least he will have a strong voice in the next European Parliament.

Manfred Weber is the centre-right candidate. That’s the same European People’s Party to which Jean-Claude Juncker belongs. He is young and has a good track record as a parliamentarian. But he lacks charisma. And he should follow some voice training sessions. Voice power is essential for a leader.

They all aspire to be the next President of the European Commission. I am not sure if anyone of them will get the job. My guess, at this moment, is that Margrethe Vestager stands a good chance. She could be a compromise candidate between the left and the right.

The successor to Juncker must see his or her political family do well in the forthcoming elections. However, that is not enough. The heads of State and government will have a strong say. Their first attempt at deciding who should be the next boss of the European Commission will take place on May 28. At this stage, we can speculate a lot about names. There is already an intense social media exchange about the matter. In my opinion that is, for now, a waste of time.  

Iran and the EU approach

Today, unexpectedly, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo came to Brussels. He met the Foreign Ministers of France, Germany and the UK, and briefly, the EU High Representative for Foreign Policy. The matter was Iran.

The US Administration has placed Iran at the top of its international agenda, next to two other critical themes: the trade talks with China and the internal situation in Venezuela. The American leadership is clearly betting on isolating Iran as a way of weakening the regime. Such policy is above all inspired by advice coming from Israel and Saudi Arabia. Both countries want Iran down.

This is certainly a very risky policy.

The alleged sabotage of four oil tankers in the very sensitive area around the Strait of Hormuz, which was big headlines today, is another very serious development in a very explosive environment. It is unclear what really happened to the ships and who was behind the actions, whatever actions they could have been. To draw any conclusion without more information would be extremely foolish. If there was indeed a big issue with those tankers, if an attack took place, an international commission on enquiry should be mandated to assess the facts. I hope the Europeans told something like that to Pompeo. I expressed interest in being part of the investigation.

I understand there was little common ground today between the visiting Secretary and the EU Ministers. That’s is encouraging. The Europeans must show they have their own way of looking at Iran and the Middle East, for that matter. They appreciate the alliance with the US but, at the same time, they must assert their independent views. Particularly when the gravity of the situation does not allow any misguided approach. As it does not tolerate a partisan policy, choosing the Saudi or the Israel side when the region needs a cool and balanced line to be followed by the Europeans.

Full respect for the British people

In the UK, those Conservative opinion-makers who are unconditionally for Brexit want their readers to believe the EU leaders do not respect the British democratic system and, above all, most of the British people.

That message is false. It is just biased propaganda to justify their own personal frenzy for Brexit.

Brexit might be a major mistake, in terms of its negative consequences for both the UK and the EU. Those fellows know it. But they have a very strong ideological position about it. The extreme Conservatives believe they can gain lots of political leverage if they mine the nationalist feelings that led many citizens to vote for the exit.

That’s what makes such opinion writers tick.

The truth is however very different. In the rest of the EU, the leaders and intellectuals that really matter respect whatever in the end the British will decide about their future links with the European space. We recognise the UK’s right to decide. And there are two more political dimensions we should keep repeating. First, the EU does not want to humiliate the people of the UK and their political establishment. Second, we recognise the evidence that shows that Brexit weakens the UK and the EU. It is bad for both sides.  

Juncker's major shortcoming

On this European Day, I wrote in my Portuguese language blog “Vistas Largas” that a lot has been achieved in terms of our common future and joint response to many challenges. But I also added that the European Commission has been mediocre in matters of strategic communications. There is no Commissioner with that kind of portfolio – this should be corrected when the new team takes power in November. And the Commission seems to believe that press conferences, press releases and a crowd of spokespersons are enough to cover the information needs of the European citizens. That’s not a strategic approach. And the experience has shown that it is not enough to keep the citizens aware and get their active involvement in European matters.

If people do not know, they do not support. And they become vulnerable to those who lie and disseminate anti-EU propaganda. That’s where many of us find ourselves today, a few weeks before the next European parliamentary election.

This is a major failure of the outgoing Juncker team. A far-reaching one.

No let up

The glass might be empty, but it is not broken. 

Stay on message

There is no problem if one keeps repeating the same message because most people are not listening, even when they pretend to. The only advice is to repeat it clearly and gracefully.

Iran and the US: the escalating conflict

The military build-up by the US against Iran is a matter of great concern. The Strait of Hormuz is a vital line of communication. As such, it has the potential to be a major reason for a confrontation. The current US Administration will respond with great show of force to any attempt by Iran to disrupt or control navigation through the Strait.

Iran knows that. But they are being pushed against the wall by the American embargo on their oil exports and might make an error of judgement. That makes the situation in the region more delicate and especially dangerous.

The EU should call for restrain.

Brussels must show leadership and initiative.

Unfortunately, I do not see any appetite in Europe to make a statement against the escalation of the tension in that part of the Middle East. It is true that we are now on the eve of EU elections. But it is also a fact that those in charge of the European institutions are very hesitant when the matter touches the US interests. Even now, when they are at the end of their EU mandates, they lack the stature that a stronger Europe would require.

More about the Gilets Jaunes

Another Saturday, another day of rallies for the Gilets Jaunes in France. This is going on since November 2018, almost six months ago. It has been an incredibly long protest movement.

It is true that today’s mobilisation was much weaker than the previous ones. But people were still on the streets, in Paris, Bordeaux and elsewhere. And the forecast is that the rallies will continue. At least until the end of May, when the European elections will be held.

It is not easy to draw all the lessons from the Gilets Jaunes. President Macron has tried to respond to some of the grievances. However, for some, the President’s announcements were not good enough. He himself is seen by those who continue to walk the streets as the target that must be shot down.

That position will not change.

But it is important for the President to be responsive to some of complaints, but also be firm and determined to modernise the French society. It is equally vital he sends the message that public chaos and law-breaking will be seriously punished. Peaceful demonstrations, yes. Looting and destruction, no.

Furthermore, it will be a mistake to approach the Gilets Jaunes from an elitist perspective. Or from a higher-class platform. They are citizens like everyone else. And they should be treated with respect, as long as they remain within the bounds of the law and the rules of civility. I have seen some intellectuals trying to belittle the Gilets Jaunes. In my opinion, such position is not helpful.

As it is not correct to romanticise or glamorise them, as some artists and people from the creative arts have tried to do today, in the Libération newspaper. Their statement is a hotchpotch of idealism, naivety and populism. It does not take the debate any further. It adds nothing to a better understanding of the social issues and frustrations some people are confronted with.

The Gilets Jaunes simply represent a social group that needs attention, firmness but also the building of some bridges.  

Maduro and Guaidó must accept mediation

Venezuela remains at the top of today’s international agenda. People on both sides of the conflict are convinced that the solution to the current national crisis must come out of an open confrontation. That’s where we are now. It would be a serious mistake. The country is deeply divided. Violence can only lead to death and destruction. It will not address the deep causes of conflict.

I continue to insist on dialogue through mediation. Both leaders must accept this approach. The work of the international community should focus on convincing Nicolas Maduro and Juan Guaidó to accept an agenda for dialogue. This is an urgent task to be accomplished.

Unfortunately, the UN is not in a position to play a role, for reasons that I mentioned in my previous post. The UN Secretariat is afraid of Donald Trump. It is paralysed. It cannot master the courage to tell President Trump that there is no other way out but through a conflict resolution process. Through peace.

The European Union has excluded itself from the solution. It has taken sides.

The Latin American States have also aligned themselves with one position or the other. They are too close to the conflict to be impartial.

The only Latin American country that has remained neutral is Mexico. It could be part of an international mediation group. The other two States I see as able of mediating and facilitating are Switzerland and the Vatican.

My proposal is to encourage the Swiss to take the lead and get the other two countries on board. They would approach Maduro and Guaidó to obtain their commitment to the process. They could get it. Particularly if the mediation is accompanied by a serious effort to provide humanitarian aid to the people of Venezuela. True humanitarian aid, of course.

Venezuela: mediation, mediation, mediation

Today’s situation in Venezuela moved a step closer to national tragedy.

Very concerned, the UN Secretary-General called for both Government and opposition forces to exercise “maximum restraint”. That is a necessary call.

But certainly not enough.

It is a passive reaction to a major development in the Venezuelan crisis. Antonio Guterres should also be offering his mediation authority. Mediation between both sides remains the only peaceful opening, the only hope to avoid additional loss of life and humanitarian suffering.

 I know the big bosses in Washington do not want to hear that word, mediation. They are simply betting on Maduro’s total defeat. But the Secretary-General cannot just pay attention to Washington. He is the voice of the world and the standard-bearer of common sense. His duty is to be at the service of peace. For that, he must underline in very clear terms that the UN good offices are the most reasonable way forward as far as Venezuela’s future is concerned.