The Amazon rainforest and President Bolsonaro's policies

I do not agree at all with his views but I cannot criticise the Brazilian population for their decision to elect Jair Bolsonaro as President. I am a foreigner and I live far away from Brazil. Moreover, I do not want to discuss the electoral propriety of the process that led to his election. I leave that to the Brazilians themselves and to their institutions, media and political class. They are more than prepared to do it.

However, I should feel free to criticise the political decisions of President Bolsonaro that either violate established common values or have an international impact. In particular, his approach to the Amazon rainforest. The President is not protecting the forest, as he is ignoring the rights of the indigenous populations that call the Amazon home. His policies encourage the destruction of the Amazon by greedy ranchers, latifundia farmers, illegal miners, criminal loggers and many other individuals that have no respect for the law and human life. Some of this people are most likely behind the thousands of fires that are consuming the Amazon. Such fires are a major ecological disaster for the region and the world. One cannot ignore them.

In this circumstances, international pressure on President Bolsonaro must be intensified for him to change his policies, and to protect the indigenous populations and to seek international cooperation in the fight against the destruction of the forest. At the same time, a global fund must be fully supported to finance the preservation of the Amazon, regenerate what can be rebuilt and compensate the Brazilian people for doing so. Here, as in many other issues, President Bolsonaro should not hide behind false nationalism. He must accept the role and the resources of such fund.

The forthcoming G7 Summit

This year’s G7 summit will take place at the end of the week in Biarritz, France. President Macron, the host, has now decided that there will be no final communiqué at the end of the meeting. He said a communiqué takes a lot of the participants’ time to be approved and ends up by distracting them from the substantive discussions. In the end, the final text is bland and means little.

I agree with him. It is better to spend time on the issues and to make the event as informal as possible. It is a serious opportunity for exchanges among the leaders and it should be focused on that. Particularly at a time when we see significant differences of opinion about key matters. It would be unrealistic to try to get a consensus during the summit. But it is not unrealistic to debate them and make one’s points known to the rest of the group.

I also appreciate the fact that the UN Secretary-General has been invited to address the meeting and be around for the discussions. His authority must be re-established. President Macron understands this point.

Still on who should be in the room, I am against inviting back President Vladimir Putin. The Russian role in the Ukrainian issue is not resolved. And democracy is deteriorating in Russia, under the direct supervision of the President. Those are two strong arguments to keep Putin out. G7 meetings are not for dictators and autocratic leaders. They have their seat in the G20. Moreover, they can be engaged through other mechanisms, and there are plenty of them.  

Zimbabwe and the regime's savagery

In the afternoon I was on the phone with a Zimbabwean friend based in Harare. We discussed the recent human rights violations and the police brutality. All that is unacceptable and shows that President Mnangagwa is not able to respond to the deep crisis the country is in. Old habits die hard. And the President is going back to what he has known all his life, under the leadership of Old Robert: violent repression of popular discontent. That can only bring more suffering and misery to the country. It is very sad. I add my voice to the condemnation of such acts of tyranny and to the lack of respect for the people of Zimbabwe.

Hong Kong people send strong messages

A huge crowd rallied today in Hong Kong. Its size has sent a strong message to Mainland China. The pro-democracy movement is deeply rooted in the Hong Kong society. It can’t be addressed with militarised police coming from the other side of the border line. And there is a second message, as pressing as the first one: Carrie Lam, the Chief Minister, and her governing team must be replaced. They have no capacity to respond to the complex challenges the territory is facing, from democracy to housing, and beyond. Also, they have lost the confidence of large segments of the population.

A deteriorating situation around Kashmir

One of the most militarised borders in the world is the one between India and Pakistan. Men and the most sophisticated means of control stand of both sides of the line. The tension level is always very high, close to open conflict. Unfortunately, these days it is even closer. We are witnessing an extreme delicate crisis between the two countries. The reason is once again the dispute and the unresolved situation around Kashmir. I do not think we, in Europe, should take sides. But we should advise both countries to lower the pressure. We should express our deep concern with the current escalation of the conflict. And appeal to China to remain out of the problem. By taking sides with Pakistan, the Chinese are not playing the constructive role they should be playing in the region. That is not the Chinese foreign policy President Xi Jinping has pledged he would follow.

President Trump moves to Greenland

Hong Kong on the streets, North Korea firing new missiles, Amazonia being threatened, migrants at sea, Ebola in Congo, and so many other issues. But this is August, it’s summertime in the Northern Hemisphere, and people want something light. President Trump got it. He is indeed a genius. He is fast and very much attuned to the people’s wishes and priorities. Therefore, today he suggested the US could think of purchasing Greenland, a massive piece of land that belongs to a European State, Denmark. That is indeed a fresh idea, cool, very appropriate for a hot mid-August weekend.

Crossing the line in Hong Kong

The key messages the Chinese government wants to put across are very clear: the demonstrators are violent; they have disrupted the operations of a key international airport for two days in a row; and brought chaos to the territory. In the opinion of the leadership in Beijing, such messages are essential to justify an armed intervention of Mainland forces in Hong Kong. Their content is further reinforced by the image of a powerless Hong Kong Administration. It is true that Carrie Lam, the HK Chief Executive, seems to have lost the sense of direction. She now cuts a very sorry figure. But in the case of the HK Police, I see a deliberate Beijing move behind the erratic tactics the Police is following. The aim is to show that the territory’s Police are out of their depth. And that would be another strong justification for Mainland to cross the border line.

The odds of an intervention are now very high. Any further escalation of the crisis, and the Mainland boots will walk around the Victoria Harbour.

Hong Kong and Xi's response

Today, the Hong Kong crisis led to the cancellation of all flights to and from its international airport. That is a major development. It shows clearly that Hong Kong is now a critical challenge for President Xi Jinping in Beijing.

Knowing the all-out importance the Chinese leadership give to law and order, as well as to obeisance to the rulings of the Communist Party, one can only expect a crushing reaction to the mass demonstrations and, in particular, to the young leaders that have been at the core of the movement. Xi and his circle cannot be perceived by the citizens of other Chinese cities as being confused, unable to respond and condoning mass protests. Their power is based as much on keeping the grip on people as it is on economic well-being.

In view of this political culture of power, the response they are preparing must be extraordinarily worrisome.

President Trump and the EU

A few of my readers have expressed some degree of surprise after reading what I wrote in my last blog about President Trump’s policy towards the EU. I basically said the President is not in favour of a strong EU. And that is a radical change of approach, because for decades his predecessors have encouraged the European countries to cooperate and strengthen the EU. Even in the case of the UK, the message coming from Washington has always been in the sense of advising London to be closer to Continental Europe.

 With President Trump, we have a new situation. First, he sees the EU as economic competition and a market that is huge but has too many barriers when it comes to some critical American exports, such as cars and farm products. But there is more to it, beyond the economic and trade issues. He thinks that the key EU leaders have an international agenda that contradicts his own and weakens it. That is the case on climate, on Iran, on Russia, on Cuba and Venezuela, on multilateralism, even on China. Not to mention the new idea of a European common defence, an idea that Emmanuel Macron personalises. On defence, President Trump follows a line that has been present in Washington for long now: the Europeans must spend more on their armies but keep them under the overall control and command of the US military. He senses that in this area the European response is becoming more independent and he does not like it at all.

August is not a good time to discuss these matters. People on both sides of the Atlantic are above all concerned with the weather and their holidays. It is however a debate that must be reopened after the rentrée in September.

Salvini will become Trump's man in Europe

The Italian people will decide what next, when called to vote for a new government. That’s how our democracies work. It is however quite clear that one of their potential choices, Matteo Salvini, is an anti-European Union, for reasons he knows better than anybody else. He is also an extremist, fully supported by the most reactionary sectors of the Italian society. Many voters might think that he represents the kind of leadership the country needs. But there are also large sectors of the public opinion that see him as the wrong type of choice, someone that can bring disaster to the country. And that disaster could happen quite soon, it is not just a question of long term.

From a European perspective, if Matteo Salvini becomes Prime Minister that is bad news. He will carry division, xenophobia and ultra-nationalism to the European debate. Consensus building will become even more difficult than it is today. He is the enemy from inside. There is no bigger enemy than the one that lives among us.

He is also the strongest ally of the EU’s outside enemies. Some analysts mention his subordination to Vladimir Putin’s money and interests. That is dangerous enough. Putin’s agenda is to destroy the European unity. But I see an additional peril. He will become President Donald Trump’s agent within the EU, in the Council meetings and every time a key decision that might contradict the American policy is on the table. President Trump is no friend of the EU. If I were asked to prioritise the outside leaders that are hostile to the common project, I would start by referring to his name as number one. And I would add that such antagonism is particularly risky, as it comes from the leader of a country that has very close ties with Europe and a strong presence in some of the EU countries, not to mention that it is the most powerful nation on earth. President Trump and his circle will be making good use of Salvini’s duplicity and radicalism.

These are indeed new challenges. They certainly require a different understanding of the old established practises.