China's Day

The new China is much younger than Communist China. The one celebrating today, with an extraordinary show of military power and a strong emphasis on patriotism and loyalty to everything Chinese, and above all, to the authorities, was the older one. 70 years is a long time in the life of a regime. At that age, the big question is about the future: what kind of country will be there ten or twenty years down the line?

Japan and the EU, on the same side

I am not sure that Friday afternoon is a good time for great political moves. At least, from the perspective of public information and support. The weekend is around the corner and the media tend to go slow. If they mention the action, it will be in a lazy line that gets lost fast. On Monday, it is already an old story. And it would have been overtaken by events happening during the weekly break.

The deal signed on Friday between the President of the European Commission and the Prime Minister of Japan seems to have fallen into this trap. Jean-Claude Juncker and Shinzo Abe put their signature of approval on an ambitious agreement that will see both sides cooperating in different parts of the developing world, including in the Balkans and other countries of Europe outside the EU, to build infrastructure and promoting digital industries. A lot of emphasis will be placed on thorough development projects, sustainability, transparency, national ownership and partnerships with the recipient countries and the appropriate multilateral organisations.

They called it a connectivity partnership between the EU and Japan. It can work, if we consider these are two of the largest economies. Together, they represent over 23 trillion US dollars of GDP, which is larger than the US ($21 trillion). And much bigger than China (USD 9.2 trillion).

The point is about politics. Both sides must make this cooperation a priority when dealing with developing nations. And they will be competing with China’s offer, the fast-moving Belt and Road Initiative. That will not be an easy competition. The Chinese leadership are deeply invested in the Initiative. To compete, the Europeans and the Japanese have no choice but to insist on projects that have the support of the populations – not just of the political leaders in the concerned countries – and are financially sound and proper. These are no technical or money matters. They are about strategic political engagements.

Pakistan, India and Kashmir

In January 1957, the Indian Permanent Representative to the UN, V. K. Krishna Menon, spoke for 8 hours, when addressing the Security Council on the situation in Kashmir. That speech remains the longest ever delivered at the UN. It was cut short, if I can say so, because Menon collapsed of exhaustion.

Compared to such feat, yesterday´s 50-minute speech by Pakistan’s Prime Minister was a brief episode. But a striking one, not because of its length – at the UN, it is considered a long speech that goes beyond 35 minutes; this year’s trend has been to have shorter interventions – but because of the words he said. He basically focused on the dispute with India regarding Kashmir. And he talked about the possibility of war between the two countries and made a direct reference to the use of nuclear weapons. Imran Khan stated that Pakistan would go for a nuclear response if there is war and his country is losing it against India.

Such assertion is most upsetting. There is indeed a serious state of cold confrontation between Pakistan and India. The Kashmir situation and Modi’s decision to cancel the autonomy of the region have brought the complexity of conflict to the fore. We have there an extremely dangerous threat to international peace and security. Khan’s words have confirmed it.

Pakistan is getting closer and closer to China. Its dramatic economic situation makes Pakistan very dependent on China’s investments and economic cooperation. China, on the other hand, sees India as a growing competitor. But I can’t believe the Chinese would encourage Pakistan to go for an armed conflict with India. They cannot imagine that such clash would reduce India’s capacity to compete. 

In my opinion, the Chinese should be encouraged to mediate in between both countries. That would have an impact on the easing of the tensions and would strengthen the international standing of China. With the accord of the two antagonistic nations, the Chinese could also bring the matter to the Security Council, to get a greater buy-in for a peaceful way forward.

It is not easy, though. The Indian Prime Minister sees the Kashmir crisis as an internal challenge, a domestic affair. He does not welcome any type of international assistance on the issue. 

That was fine until yesterday, I would retort. With Imran Khan’s dramatic speech at the UN, the issue cannot be anything else but an international matter of great concern. It must be dealt as such and with great urgency. 

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.