Afghan elections: people's determination

Tomorrow, it’s elections day in Afghanistan. It’s the presidential election, with the incumbent President, Ashraf Ghani, running against the leading politician Abdullah Abdullah, who has been the number two in governing arrangement that now comes to an end. There are another 15 or 16 candidates in the ballot paper. But the real contest is between the Ghani and Abdullah. They hate each other but have been able to sit side by side in many recent occasions. That’s striking. In my opinion, the fact that the country is somehow able to organise an elections day is even more memorable. It is true that in some areas there will be no vote because of the security situation. People are desperate for peace. They want to vote; they want democracy and normalcy to win.

It will be a very tense day, a risky process, with the Taliban and other armed groups trying to disrupt the election. I can only wish them a safe day and express my admiration for their perseverance. The Afghan people deserve all the support the international community can provide them.

The populism is attacking our democracies

Populist leaders will do anything to keep power. They get to power through lies, manipulation of facts, verbal violence, intrigue and appeals to the most primary instincts of people. They keep using the same tactics once at the top of political food chain. They are then particularly dangerous as they have control over the institutional levers of authority and manage to acquire the support of those in the media that love to be obsequious to dictators and are ready to embark on the same disastrous demagogic train. All of them, leaders and their media acolytes, create a special type of enemy, what they call the elites. Everyone that opposes them, or comes up with different ideas, or talks about the respect for rules, institutions and separation of power, is tagged as an elite. The members of the elite are then called enemies of the people. We hear that accusation being thrown at judges, democratic politicians, professional journalists, competent civil servants, and so on.

All this is not really new. What is new and extremely worrisome is to see this type of unacceptable political behaviour taking ground in our traditionally open and democratic societies. The worm is now in our democratic apple. That’s a major development that needs to be combated with clarity of purpose and extremely effective communications. We must not be perceived as hesitating in front of the populists that are in charge or try to get to power. We must show leadership and moral strength.

The rule of law in the UK

Today’s ruling by the UK Supreme Court is about law and the respect by everyone, including the country’s Prime Minister, of the constitutional arrangements that define the exercise of executive power. It was a legal decision. And it must be seen as such. The Supreme Court unanimously decided that the Prime Minister’s prorogation of Parliament was unlawful and therefore void and of no effect.

The initial reaction of some of Boris Johnson’s unconditional supporters, including in the media – The Telegraph is just an example – was to say that the Court’s decision was political. That the eleven Supreme Judges were just taking the side of the Remainers. Later in the day that kind of incendiary opinion disappeared from the front pages and was also deftly abandoned by the extreme Brexiteers that were invited to comment. Someone had realised that to criticise the Supreme Court with political rhetoric would backfire. That was the second victory of the day for the rule of law.

Greta and her words

I am most impressed by Greta Thunberg’s brief speech at the Climate Summit today. I am convinced her address will join the list of the best speeches ever delivered. Greta came out as thoughtful, sincere, direct and challenging. And let me believe the new generations are ready to change the world. That’s a powerful message.

Iran is choosing the wrong approach

The drone cum missile attacks against Saudi oil facilities remain a major international issue. Analysts have tried to read beyond these strikes. They seek to understand what Iran’s game plan is. That’s certainly a key question, in addition to several others. We need a plausible answer to it.

Iran is clearly coordinating its actions with their clients in Yemen, the Houthi rebels. Today, both Iran and the Houthi leadership have extended a hand of dialogue. Last week, the hand they were showing resulted in the attacks, a clear act of war. Now, they talk about bringing down the tension. At the same time, the Iranians organise military parades and public demonstrations of force.

But, again, the question is what is their plan? Escalation, on one side, and diplomatic talk, on the other, is a tactic but not a strategy. It is actually a very dangerous approach. It can easily get things out of hand. And that risk is still very much in the air. We are not out of the danger zone.

Iranian leaders think they are now in a stronger position. That’s probably the reason for the attacks. They wanted to show they can strike a country as heavily armed as Saudi Arabia is. A country that is a close ally of the Americans. They wanted to be seen as a sophisticated military power. And send a message that it is better to negotiate with them than to confront them. The problem is that they have little support outside the small circle that is constituted by a few client governments and a couple of armed groups. Bigger countries will choose the Saudi side, if they have to. And the extensive sanctions the US has imposed on them will ruin their fragile economy and will create further opposition to the clerics that control Iran’s power machinery.

I can only anticipate disaster for Iran, if they continue to strike the neighbours and to make bellicose announcements. Therefore, I see the attacks against the Saudi refineries and plants as a very serious miscalculation. It is a tactical victory and a strategic error.

To launch drones and other missiles is a serious mistake

I do not know yet who is behind the destructive action taken against the Saudi oil facilities on Saturday. I see many fingers pointing in the direction of Iran. They might be right. We will see. But what I certainly know is that the attacks must be considered acts of war and very serious political mistakes. Whoever took the decision to launch the drones and the missiles must be made to understand that conflict escalation can only bring further destruction and misery to the region. Our condemnation of such decision cannot be ambiguous. It must be as strong as they make them, which does not necessarily mean military retaliation. It means isolation and sanctions.  

Our reaction to the drone attacks

The drone attacks against the Saudi oil refineries brought a new level of danger and complication to the complex conflict involving, among others, Yemen, Iran and, of course, Saudi Arabia as well as an external actor such as the United States. 

The reactions we have seen in the key markets go beyond the oil supply issue. They indicate there is a deep concern about the crisis in that part of Middle East and its geopolitical consequences. 

I can understand the fears. Anything can happen. However, as long as there is a tiny hope of a summit between the US President and the Iranian one, I think we can expect our side to hesitate and avoid extreme actions. Am I right? I hope so. The opposite would take us into a much deeper conflict of unimaginable proportions.

Debating the new European Commission

The European Parliamentarians – MEPs, as they are known – will be discussing soon the names and portfolios of the next European Commission, as proposed by Ursula von der Leyen.

We can expect a deep controversy about one of the proposed portfolios, the one about "protecting our European way of life".

The title is misleading and gives room to diverse interpretations. Under it, von der Leyen is including immigration, security and the new emerging threats, as well as employment and education. That’s quite a mixed bag. But Ursula von der Leyen’s main intent is, as stated in her letter of mission to the Commissioner appointed to head such area of work, to ensure there is a common approach to these issues, especially to the one related to immigration and the integration. 

It will not be an easy job. We will see how it will be approached. The first indications should be visible during her debate with the MEPs.

Good riddance, Ambassador Bolton

John Bolton is a crazy warmonger. I expressed my deep concern when he was appointed US National Security Advisor. I should now show some degree of relief because he has just been sacked by the President. That’s a piece of good news. It also reveals that the President is more balanced than some of the crazies that claim to be part of his inner circle. He might be an erratic leader. But, at least, he seems to understand that military strikes are not exactly a solution to the many issues that complicate today’s international agenda. I hope the next National Security Advisor will come from the profession and not from the area of radical politics. There is still enough radicalism within the current administration.

South of Europe

In the Southern flank of the EU, just next door to all of us, the instability and systematic violations of people’s rights are growing by the day.

The area is a combination of several active political volcanoes. It is the situation in Libya and in most of North Africa plus the Sahel, vast area of absence of government. The Sahel was a semi-desert, now is a full-fledged governance desert. It is the deepening of the conflict between Israel and her neighbours. It is the all-out conflict in Yemen and the war crimes in Syria. Add to that, Iran and its fast deteriorating economic circumstances plus the armed competition with the vicinity and beyond, the violence in Afghanistan, the mess in Pakistan. And, of course, the crazy political line President Erdogan is following in his country.

The different components of this Southern neighbourhood are all extreme violent and with far reaching consequences. Mass movements are one of them. The complexity calls for a much better-defined EU political approach. It also requires more public attention. Leaders in Brussels and the capitals should be speaking about these matters more often and with better words. The words must be explicit, comprehensive and coherent.

Our role is to put pressure on our leaders for lines of action to be defined and the narrative to become strategic. And we should act with a strong sense of urgency.