Coronavirus and daily routines

The coronavirus outbreak keeps making the headlines. It is on all the major news channels and papers. There is uncertainty and that causes some level of preoccupation.

In our part of the world, there are only very few cases of people infected. Seen from the perspective of the ordinary person on the street, the disease remains a distant threat. People don’t wear masks. If one went out with a mask that would generate a lot of anxiety around. But everybody knows we live in a globalised world. The contamination can spread fast. People are also aware of the economic importance of China. In many ways, some of us are more concerned with the economic impact than with the public health dimensions.  

In the current context, let’s keep the focus on the public health aspects. The key points are to contain, to reassure and to avoid unnecessary alarm. It is also advisable to combat all types of stereotypes.

Daily routines should go on.

A New Green Deal

Economic growth cannot be achieved at any cost. In today’s world, the impact of production on environment must be part of the calculations. Growth that deteriorates the environment, that increases the CO2 emissions, that is artificially supported to keep quiet some sectors of the electorate – the EU agricultural policy is the best example of distorted and wasteful growth, and we are talking about billions of euros every year  – all that should be considered negative growth and accounted for as such. 

Almost 30 years ago, the UN Development Programme (UNDP) came up with the concept of human development. This model was much more inclusive than the old notion of economic growth. It included more than just the production of additional goods and services. It was an approach designed to add to the response to the basic needs of a population other essential dimensions that would bring social peace, equality of opportunities and people’s creativity and dignity. And gradually, it also incorporated the judicious use of natural resources and the environmental dimensions. We tried to resume it under the designation of sustainable growth, but it was more than that. There was a strong human security aspect in it as well as a resource sustainability dimension.

In many countries, lots of people have been brought out of poverty during the last three decades as well. But the environmental dimension was kept aside, not considered when planning and opening new economic avenues. And if we travel to India or China, we can immediately understand the costs those societies have to pay for not paying attention to the natural context.

The problem is that natural phenomena do not respect national borders. What starts as a national problem ends up by being an international issue. That’s what the Paris Climate Conference of 2015 tried to put on the table. Global matters require concerted international efforts. 

In terms of urgency, it is obvious too many of us that economic expansion cannot bring additional CO2 on a net basis. There is a need to mitigate and to compensate. These two words should guide the way we look at the production, distribution and consumption of goods in the future. The new economy should be about proximity, mitigation, compensation and substitution. These areas offer immense opportunities, both in terms of business and jobs. They allow us to put GDP in the shelf where history keeps the past events and imagine a new Green Deal. That’s the one of the most immediate challenges.   

Absolute power leads to disaster

Four out of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council are now led by men with absolute power. They have been able to place themselves at the apex of the pyramid, undoubtedly above the institutions existing in their countries. They exert their authority in political contexts with no real checks and balances. They decide, they command and everybody else obeys. In two of the countries, there are democratic oppositions, one should recognise it. But the recent happenings show that such opposition parties have very little room to act as balancing powers, as an alternative brake to any excess. Extreme polarisation makes the majority party act as block, as a protective barrier to the leader.

All these situations are very worrisome. Recent history, especially at different moments of the past century, has shown that autocratic leadership can be the fastest route to disaster. Dictators, big and small, need to create conflicts with foreign powers to survive and justify their policies. The process they follow is clear. They start by challenging the validity of international law and the role of multilateral organisations. Then, they try to ride on an existing sub-regional conflict by taking sides. That allows them to make the enemy identifiable. And the tension keeps growing.

It is time to clearly state that diplomacy is better than conflict. And to add that in a world as global as it is ours today, the only way to keep peace and prosperity is through increased cooperation and positive alliances. But above all, we must reaffirm that democracy and full respect for everyone rights are the best lessons we have learned from past crises.

Macron leads on defence

Today President Macron of France delivered a very long, dense speech to the top military personnel. The President shared his deep concern with the new international order, which is basically defined by rapports de force and not by international law and underlined once again the need for an autonomous European defence pillar, as well as his call for a strategic dialogue with Russia. But his main messages were about France as a global power and his country’s nuclear capabilities. He spent a bit of time explaining his approach to nuclear power, as a means of deterrence, a weapon that is there not to be used. France is the only nuclear power within the European Union, now that the British are outside.

But my deep reading of his address makes me conclude President Macron wants to take the lead in European defence matters. That could be part of his legacy. But he is very much aware that Germany is not ready to move too far in such field and that several other EU countries, particularly those in the East, think that the key dimension of our common defence passes through keeping the US fully engaged in Europe. 

In such circumstances, the French President wants to convince the Poles to adopt his views. That’s why he was in Poland at the beginning of the week. He also needs to convince the Polish leaders that European defence is a genuine concern, not just a screen to have France and Germany dominating the European military scene. There is a bit of a silent rivalry between Poland and Germany on defence matters.

Poland pays a lot of attention to its armed forces and it has become a key player in European military matters. The problem with Poland is that its leaders follow a political line that is very different from the one Macron promotes. And that does not facilitate a collaborative approach.

A very destructive man

One of the deepest-rooted attributes of an authoritarian politician is to react with great violence when criticised. They get wild if they are attacked. And if they can, they will seek all means of revenge. The focus is on destroying the enemy, not just on beating him or her. And everyone who is not servile to the boss is a foe.

We have seen that today in Washington.

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.