Charles Michel

In his new capacity as President of the European Council, Charles Michel cannot be perceived as Emmanuel Macron’s agent. He must show, early in the game and throughout, that he is as close to the French President as he is to any other key European leader. Michel’s overriding challenge is to be his own man, as Donald Tusk has been all along. I am sure he understands it. I can only hope that Macron is also clear in his mind. He tends to boss around. He cannot do it with Michel.

The new European leadership team

On international affairs, the new European leadership team will have to deal with an interesting deck of cards. I mean the Russian President, Vladimir Putin, the US Donald Trump, the very strategic Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in Turkey, the unreliable Boris Johnson in the UK, just to mention some of them. I could add Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu in Israel, if he survives the next round of elections, Nicolás Maduro, and so on. That is a most unique scenario that is waiting for them. The international scene shows all the signs of a perfect storm. And I am not mentioning the tricky situation around Iran, a major epicentre of a potential catastrophe. 

On the domestic front, within the EU space, they will be confronting Matteo Salvini, the strong man in Italy, Viktor Orbán and his neighbours in the Czech Republic and Poland, political instability in Belgium, Spain and Romania, as well as lots of pressure to move faster in areas that divide the European nations, such as the common defence, the climate emergency, the Brexit negotiations, and the pivot to Africa.

This is a most challenging environment. It requires a very strong and united leadership team. Not easy, not easy at all for a team that comes to power almost by chance. Let’s keep watching how strong and determined the new team is.

Travelling and the EU game

I travelled quite a bit during the last four days or so. Travelling is essential to see the reality for ourselves. It’s the other side of reading. They complement each other. But more effectively than reading, travelling feeds the imagination, which is a major tool for transformation.

And talking about transformation, during these days four people were nominated to take over leadership positions at the European Union’s key institutions. There are a few comments that can be made about the choices made. I will share mine soonest.

But I would like to suggest that the decisions have shown the trend that has defined the EU during the last ten years or so. The Heads of State and Government are the real force, for good or for worse, behind the EU machinery. That basically means, among other things, that the decisions are taken mainly to respond to the overriding concern of keeping the balance between the interests of the major States or geopolitical blocks. It is the game of national agendas and petty powers that is played by the key actors, not the ambition to have a common future and build it together. That behaviour is certainly not very promising

I see the EU Council as positive

The European Council could not reach an agreement on nominations to the big positions. The decision is particularly difficult when it comes to agree on Jean-Claude Juncker’s successor.

The European political scene is divided, and no political group is strong enough to get its candidate through. Alliances and balancing acts are required. And those things take time to achieve.

I do not share the view of those who think the European Council meeting was a disaster. For me, it was an opportunity to clarify the different national interests and the personal dimensions of each possible candidate. They are now much clearer and that should allow Donald Tusk to come up with a combination of names that could meet the calls for fairness, geographical balance, experience, political diversity and gender equality.

The Heads of State and Government that made disparaging remarks after this Council meeting must be reminded that leadership requires maturity, capacity to negotiate in good faith and patience. European construction is not a straight line. And it is not about fulfilling the demands coming from the so-called big countries. It is a consensus project. That is the only source of its strength.

Equality and freedom

In our societies, a lot of emphasis is place on equality. Even without making the difference between equality of opportunities or equality of results and outcomes. It’s just a repeated reference to equality, as a banner. And politics is then compelled to give a lot of attention to the matter, very often without a proper debate of the issue, which is more complex than it looks.

I have also worked in places where people are just struggling daily. They might think about equality as well. But their main demand is about freedom and basic rights. In other places, it is also about space to act without too many administrative constraints and much less bureaucratic interference.

We seem to have lost sight of the aspirations of such peoples. It is not a balanced view of the world.

The Korean Day

Today’s front-page news is about the meeting between President Trump and Chairman Kim Jong-Un. And it can be summarised in two words: bold and positive. The US President takes a good chunk of the credit because the initiative came from his side. But the North Korean Leader – and the President of South Korea, Moon Jae-in – must equally be recognised.

Conflict resolution never follows a straight line. In the Korean case, after decades of confrontation and impasse, one should not be surprised to see the route following some unexpected turns. That was the case today.

Now, both sides have to transform the positive move they took into concrete negotiations and clear benchmarks. The benchmarks must be about confidence-building measures. They concern both Koreas and the Americans, above all. But they should seek to tranquilise the Japanese and the Chinese as well.

It would be a mistake to be over optimistic. But it would also be a serious failure not to accept that today’s event opens the door for serious discussions. The leaders have created hope. Now, they must sustain it.

G20 official picture: the messages

Some people will spend a bit of their time reading the official picture of the 2019 G20 Meeting just held in Osaka. These types of pictures contain many hints. They cannot be taken lightly. The protocol and the political seniors of the host country – in this case, the Japanese who are masters in matters of meaning and symbology – invest a lot of working days deciding the positioning of everyone in the picture. Their final choice has a deep political import.

This year’s photo gives special attention to the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. He stands at the centre, between the host, Prime Minister Shinto Abe, and the US President. We could think that such placing might be related to the fact that Abe is just back from a visit to Iran and he wanted to show that he also pays special attention to the diplomacy towards Saudi Arabia. Maybe he would love it to be interpreted that way. But it is just a happy coincidence for the Japanese. Abe is close to the Crown Prince because Saudi Arabia will be organising the next G20 Meeting, in November next year.

That’s the reason why the President of Argentina, Mauricio Macri, is also on the front row. The last meeting took place in his country (2018). That’s protocol.

Then, the rest of the front row brings together some of usual suspects: the leaders of China, Russia, Germany and France. But also, some special friends of Japan. First, two close neighbours, South Korea and Indonesia. And three other countries representing other regions of the world: Brazil, Turkey and South Africa. Surprising is to see Prime Minister Modi emerging in the second row. That’s not where India should be.

On the last row, a bit lost as he looks in the wrong direction, we can find the UN Secretary-General. This is not new. It has nothing to do with António Guterres. To place the UN boss in the background has been the tradition. I always thought such positioning sends a very inappropriate signal. The UN must be better recognised by the world leaders, particularly in a meeting that deals with global issues. It is important to battle for that.

In the end, my overall assessment of the meeting is positive. Many people might say these summits have no real purpose and are not useful. That’s a respectable way of looking at them. I want to take the opposite view, particularly in respect of this one. We are living in a period of tensions and great complexities. These leaders have the power to make it go in the right direction. They represent most of the world’s population and 85% of the global economy. When they meet and send some positive messages, the world feels a little bit more hopeful.

European Defence and Security

Brief answers to questions about the EU defence and security:

First, it is obvious that NATO remains the strongest defence option for the Europeans. It is a powerful structure, it has invested a lot on training and change, it is well known in the European military circles, and several EU member States see it as the key umbrella. They think that without the might of the Americans, the EU defence is not strong enough.

Second, several EU leaders think that Europe should have its own common defence capacity and that such capacity should be in place in 10 to 15 years’ time. For that to happen, its building must start now, which means more joint EU military activities, more coordination, joint defence industries, shared means, and so on. This option will keep growing but the pace might be slow.

Third, the EU geopolitical interests and views are becoming divergent of those pursued by the US. That is true in Middle East, that is also the case regarding our relations with China, and India, and so on. Diverging interests mean that sooner or later we must be able to put together an independent capability.

Fourth, the EU are afraid of being dragged into conflicts that are only in the interest of the US. They are afraid of a deeper confrontation between the US and China. The EU does not want to automatically take sides on such dispute, if it occurs.

The UN and the current crises

The United Nations is always required to be politically smart. That’s the way I saw it, when performing the responsibilities that had been assigned to me. And that’s what I still believe to be the best approach. Smart means above all to be able to say what must be said but with the words that build trust and show concern. Timidity is not the best road to achieve results and guaranty the necessary credibility.

I mention it because today I had to state that things must get better. If the UN remains basically inspired by risk aversion, it will keep pushing itself to the margins of the key current issues.

The Member States must be reminded, as often as the opportunity arises and as it is authorised by the UN Charter and by the history of the organisation, that they ought to support the central role the UN is supposed to play in case of international crises and conflicts. They should also be helped to keep in mind – and act accordingly – that any conflict resolution situation and peacebuilding effort require a comprehensive response. The UN System has the know-how to provide comprehensiveness. And the System must say it loud and clear. It should also smartly – diplomatically – challenge those leaders who keep betting on a security solution to complex crises. A security response, even a powerful one, is just a tool. It is not the master key.

Leadership and renewal

I spend a bit of time talking about leadership in the context of strategy formulation and implementation. The quality of the leader determines the excellence of the strategy. Very often we forget that fact. We look at the strategy but do not consider the merit of those in charge of designing it, of talking about it to do the convincing part, and of its operationalisation.

We have also to keep in mind that leaders emerge, and grow but that one day, they must go and leave room for the next generation. The rotation issue is an important one. It keeps the creativity on. Therefore, true leaders must prepare the new crop that will end up by taking over. This is an evidence that is often ignored. By the leaders themselves, first.