Dangerous radicalism in America

The American people are very divided when it comes to President Trump’s political performance. Such polarisation was especially visible yesterday, during the delivery of the State of the Union. The President’s style is very divisive. His policy is not about including as many segments of the American society as possible. It is about creating his own support base and keeping it loyal and militant. This approach leads to a profound radicalisation of politics. It’s a worrying option, because from radicalism to violence the distance is very short.

Tough times for the Democrats

The Democratic primary in Iowa has not been an auspicious beginning for the party’s presidential campaign. It has given a chance to the opposing camp to say the Democrats are messy and inefficient. President Trump has already started to shoot. He is very good at ridiculing his adversaries. One should not give him any space to do that.

This year’s presidential campaign is going to be particularly tough. All campaigns are very demanding, that’s true. But the current one could be extraordinarily nasty. Donald Trump knows how to fight a street fight. That’s is main strength. The Democratic side must be able to fight him both at that level and at the substantive level. In addition, it will require a constant attention to the mass communication side of things. The Democratic nominee must have an easy and pleasant TV presence. His or her communications team must be first class.

Not easy.

I am afraid we will keep seeing Donald Trump for a good number of years ahead.

Post-Brexit optimism

I think it is too early to be worried about the future of the European Union’s relationship with the United Kingdom. We are now at the beginning of the transition period. Its duration is not long, I agree, but I also see that both sides will try to reach some sort of agreement before the end of it, before end of December. The posturing we are witnessing today is part of the negotiating tactics. But both sides will be under serious pressure from the respective business communities. They do not want to rock the boat. The economic and trade ties are strong. They should remain strong. Besides that, we share the same geopolitical space and that should be an encouragement for cooperation. Even a fool can understand that.  

We are hiding again behind national borders

One of the characteristics of the new international disorder is to ignore the role of international organisations. The conventions, resolutions, principles and values, which the experience gained during the several decades that followed the Second World War has built up, are being set aside. The United Nations System has been relegated to a little corner of the international relations map. It is simply ignored. Whose fault is it? That’s a matter for a longer debate, but what is worth emphasising now is that nobody listens to the voices that emphasise the importance of multilateral responses and international cooperation. We are back to country-specific decisions, to the primacy of national interests seen in isolation, to relations of force. We have moved back in history, hiding behind national borders. It is simply unacceptable. It leads to conflict and instability.

Follow the WHO rules

The measures taken by many countries to prevent the spreading of the coronavirus epidemic do not take into account the procedures established by the World Health Organisation. They make WHO appear as irrelevant, which is another way of attacking the multilateral system, in particularly the UN.

The measures go well beyond the recommended protocols. Many of them have a political justification and not just a public health concern. They are taken to tranquilise the domestic public opinion in those countries. And they have also a strategic dimension, in the sense they want to send a message to the Chinese authorities, a message that says that China can be isolated from the international community. They are an attempt to point out, basically, that the Chinese strength has very fragile clay feet. That China is not as strong as its leaders want the world to believe.

I totally disagree with such an approach. In this case, I say no to geopolitical games. It is true that China has its own fragilities. But this is not time to take advantage of a major health and social challenge to try to teach a lesson to the leaders in Beijing. The moment calls for serenity and international coordination.

Brexit means additional fragility for both sides

Competition between nations opens the door to conflict and even war. Cooperation leads the way to progress and peace. That should be the message on this Brexit day.

And we should also keep in mind that our adversaries and even some of Europe’s allies would prefer us to be fragmented and disunited.  

The Chinese Communists do not know how to communicate

I have not talked with President Xi Jinping. But I guess he is immensely worried with what is going on in China. There is a major public health problem. We might not know all the dimensions of the problem, but there is no doubt it is a huge challenge for everyone in the country. But besides the health deep concerns, the coronavirus epidemic is creating major economic, social and, I would dare to say, political problems in China. The streets and the malls have been deserted. People are afraid of the contagion. But above all, they are not getting the message that matters politically: that the government knows what they are doing and will be able to control the spreading of the disease. This message must be formulated soonest. And must be made credible.

I do not see it addressed in the next few days. The government knows how to direct but it is not very good when it comes to communication techniques. The official line, repeated again and again, and expected to be trusted because in comes from the top, is not being accepted by the people. They are just growing more and more concerned.

A plan that has no wings

The “peace plan” President Trump presented yesterday is not acceptable to the Palestinian side, as the initial reactions have shown. There is no surprise here. The document is basically an endorsement of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s views and an instrument to boost his chances during the forthcoming general election. Apparently, it is not adding any support to the Prime Minister’s electoral fortunes, but it is too early to conclude so.

The important point is that one of the two parties to the solution does not recognise President Trump’s initiative as positive. The President, if he really wanted to move the peace process forward, should start by a couple of goodwill gestures. He should authorise the reopening of the Palestine Delegation in Washington, a delegation he ordered to be closed in 2018. He should also resume the US funding contribution to the UN Agency that provides support to the Palestinians (UNRWA). And be much clearer about the future of Jerusalem and the Jordan Valley, two extremely sensitive points. Here, his position should be that both issues must be part of the agreement, without any position of force being stated since day one. Finally, he should establish a link between his vision and the Arab Peace Plan of 2002.

Well, all this is daydreaming, on my side. The truth of the matter is summarised by one single word: partiality.

A one-sided peace plan

I decided long ago not to write about the conflict between Israel and Palestine. The main reason has been that I do not see a solution to it unless the United States plays a balanced role in the peace process. The US is the only country that can help Israel to adopt a reasonable approach and encourage the country’s leaders to engage the Palestinian side in a mutually beneficial way.

With time, the trust has been seriously eroded and peace has become less and less viable. The basis for a resolution has gradually been undermined. In fact, the obstacles have gained additional volume during the past few years.

Today, President Trump launched what he calls “a peace plan” for Israel and Palestine. The plan is very close to Prime Minister Netanyahu’s ambitions. Secondly, it does not consider that peace must come from within, from the involvement of the parties to the conflict. In the case, the Palestinians have not been heard, they have been excluded from the plan’s design. They could still be interested in taking this project and negotiate it. But I doubt. The proposal goes too far in the Israeli direction. And without the Palestinian buy-in there is no true plan.

Let’s in meantime wait for a more detailed reaction from the Palestinian side. Even if one can guess what it might be.

Lots of billions lost to flu

Today, we are challenged again to reflect about resources, availability of wealth and how vast amounts of money can be spent wisely or just evaporate. It is also a call to reflect about priorities, decide on the appropriate ones and how to fund them. More concretely, all this is about uncertainty and its impact on capital markets, on short-term decisions and, in the end, on the minds of people.

Today’s uncertainty is about the coronavirus.

More concretely, almost every stock in the STOXX 600, the largest European share index, are trading since this morning in negative territory, in the red, as the specialists say. This represents around 180 billion euros the investors have lost during the day, just today. This is about 2% of the entire capital invested in those companies. But it is a lot of money that has faded away.

The investors are pessimistic about the impact of the virus and the capacity to control its transmission. A friend from the East Asia region told me that, in the current state of world affairs, “when China sneezes, the rest of the world catches the flu virus!” It is not exactly like that. But for sure the Europeans that negotiate in the capital markets got high fever today.