Bloomberg's poor beginning

Michael Bloomberg might have learned a key lesson last night, when assessing his performance during the Nevada Democratic Debate: a presidential race in the United States is a complex matter. It is not enough to have money, plenty of it. One also needs to convince the voters and, above all, to be perceived as presidential material. To be an extremely successful businessperson is not enough. The race is about representativeness and political banners. It is also about emotions and the capacity to create a few great ideals.

Bloomberg came out of the debate weaker. He must find a flame within himself to be able to recover the ground he lost. Unfortunately, money cannot buy that inner fire he seems to lack.

Idlib and the divided Security Council

The UN Security Council today met on Syria. One more meeting for nothing. The humanitarian situation in the Idlib Province is desperate for around 900,000 people, many of them children. That was one of the reasons for the meeting. The other is that a growing military offensive is under way. The leadership in Damascus is convinced that they can win and retake the province. For Assad, there is only one solution to the rebellion, a military one. His allies, the Russians, share the same view. And that is what is being implemented.

The Council could have adopted a resolution calling for a ceasefire. It did not happen. The Russians have opposed it. The only thing the Council did was to recall the peace process it had approved four years ago, in December 2015, and insist on its implementation. That’s a ridiculous approach. Today’s situation is very different from the one in 2015. For instance, now there is a heavy involvement of Turkey in this corner of Syria. There is a serious risk of clashes, even confrontation, between the two sides. That means, there is an enormous potential for escalation. That and the humanitarian crisis are the two dimensions that require immediate attention.

But the UN Security Council is too divided. The bet must be placed in another forum.

France and radical Islam

Radical Islam is being taught in several mosques of France. The preachers are paid by countries such as Turkey or Algeria. In most of the cases, they do not speak French, or just a few words, do not know the laws of the country and have an approach to civic life that is not compatible with the accepted practices. The Ministry of Education has no authority over such schools.

All this divides the French society. The children that go through such system are not prepared to integrate the wider society. They feel they do not belong, which is one of the most damaging feelings one can have vis-à-vis his or her own country. And many citizens end up by developing a strong bias against such system and Islam in general. They end up by voting for extreme right parties.

President Macron today addressed the issue. He said it is time to bring the State into such system and make sure that the preachers understand that France is a lay republic, where the laws do not discriminate people because of their religious beliefs or lack of them. His words have shown that one the most difficult communities to deal with is the one linked to Turkey. The Turkish government keeps sending imams to France without any consultation with the French government. And those imams are more interested in keeping their students linked to Turkey than anything else. That creates a serious division in society.

The mass immigration is a fact of life in France and in many other European countries. However, it cannot be a cause for significant cultural fractures in the host countries. Our countries have a set of values that were built along the path of history. They are the mainstream cultural cement that keeps our societies together. It would be a serious negligence not to protect those values. It would certainly open the door to dramatic conflicts within our own borders.

Let’s see what Emmanuel Macron will be able to change. This is important for France and for others within the EU.

Idlib and its humanitarian tragedy

Today, I must write about the situation in the Idlib Province of Syria. Following the military operations ordered by President Bashar al-Assad and supported by the Russian air force, there is a major humanitarian crisis in Idlib. Hundreds of thousands of people – the more accurate figure must be close to a million – are just caught in between the advancing regime forces and the border with Turkey, that remains closed. These people require urgent assistance. The UN and the key NGOs could provide much of needed help but can’t operate when there are bombardments going on. We must advocate for a temporary halt. And let the civilians move on.

This tragedy should be brought to the attention of the UN Security Council. I have no illusion about the Council. But I think the European countries that sit in the Council should urgently table the situation. That’s a moral move. A necessary one. It might also get us to a short humanitarian window of opportunity.

The US presidential election

On this side of the Atlantic Ocean, we can’t say much about the US presidential campaign that has started to roll on. But we watch with studious interest some of the key candidates on the Democratic side. On the Republican side there is nothing to see. Donald Trump is the candidate and he will fight with his usual bravado, and contempt, to keep the presidency. Concerning the Democrats, there is a lot to keep us interested during the coming weeks. Including, of course, Michael Bloomberg. The question he raises is very simple: how much support can a billionaire buy? At this stage, there is no real answer. But he will attract a good deal of attention and lots of fire, from all sides.  

The Munich Conference and the European views

The US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, addressed the Munich Security Conference today. His line was very clear: the US has not moved away from supporting the European Defence, they remain even more engaged than before. In addition, he expressed the conviction that West is winning in the international arena.

His speech did not generate a lot of enthusiasm. Actually, the participants ‘reaction was very subdued. Polite, but not convinced. The audience’s quietness has shown that the Europeans have serious disagreements about the current Administration’s international politics, including the way it relates to Europe. Among other things, they judge that President Trump is not sincerely committed to collective defence. The NATO exercises, including the large one that is about to start, called DEFENDER-Europe 20, are perceived more as training opportunities for the American troops and less as a demonstration of unity among the allies. Also, those listening to Mr Pompeo have some problems to understand some of President Trump’s approaches to international affairs, in particularly, when it comes to Russia.

Furthermore, the “winning” view expressed by the Secretary of State is not shared by the European leaders. President Macron said it soon after the Pompeo speech. But it is not just the French President that espouses that stance. The German President had stated the same view yesterday, at the opening of the conference.

I take four main points from all of this. First, it is important to continue to assert the European commitment to the alliance with the US. Second, the Europeans should state their views with clarity, particularly when they do not coincide with the decisions and comments coming from Washington. Third, the EU must keep investing on joint military and defence projects. This investment should bring together as many EU countries as possible, knowing that it will not be possible to get all of them to step in, and should be presented as the European pillar of the NATO effort. Fourth, Europe must reach a modus vivendi with Russia and China, that considers the European interests but is not naïve. Russia is our immediate neighbour, which means we must agree on keeping the bordering space between them and us safe and prosperous. China, on the other hand, is a major power in the making. Europe cannot have an indifferent position towards it.  

The 2020 Munich Security Conference is not just about the West

Today started the 2020 edition of the Munich Security Conference (MSC). This is an important annual event, that brings together a good number of decision-makers in the fields of diplomacy and international security. It is necessary to pay attention to what is said at the conference, even if the topics that are discussed reflect a lot the German views and concerns on international instability.

This year the key topic is about a strange word that only a German mind could have invented: "Westlessness". For the organisers, this new concept captures two major fears. One is related to the perceived growing uncertainty about the future of the Western world. The other is about a retreating West, in the sense that our democracies are less and less present when it comes to addressing the key issues of the world.

I must confess I do not like the concept. I have written about the absurdity of still believing that we, the Europeans from the EU and the US, should be considered the centre of the world. It is the idea that our values are higher than those prevailing elsewhere. That’s old fashion thinking. Our values are only good if they strength our democratic institutions and keep people like the US President or the Hungarian Prime Minister within the bounds defined by the rule of law and the respect for minority opinions.

We live in a different world. There are now several centres of power, in different parts of the world. Diversity is the new feature. Regional interests are now very different from those the Europeans were used to. We recognise the new set of regional interests. But we expect every government, big or small, to follow without any ambiguity the human rights principles, as adopted by the UN, and to resolve any conflict through peaceful means. Basically, what this means is a return to the UN system, the reinforcement of its authority and the acceptance of the mechanisms that have been put in place during a good number of decades.

Boris and his crazy world

I would summarise today’s Cabinet reshuffle in the UK along three lines. It was a public opinion disaster, because the only thing people will remember is that Boris Johnson got into a fight with one of his closest allies so far, Sajid Javid. In addition, it demonstrated that the Prime Minister wants to concentrate the key levers of power in his office and leave very little room for policy decisions in the hands of the Cabinet ministers. And, third point, it confirmed that the real power behind the throne Boris occupies is his crazy political advisor, Dominic Cummings. Cummings is a puppet master.  

The right question

I have always admired those who are good at asking the pertinent questions. For me, that proves they are intelligent people. A well-formulated question is powerful. The other side can feel deeply challenged. And that's what we want politicians to feel. 

Leadership in Germany

Chancellor Angela Merkel and her party are losing ground. They are going through a party leadership crisis as well. On the other hand, Alternative for Germany (AfD), the extreme-right party that is host to a good number of Neo-Nazis, is getting stronger. Both facts are bad for Germany and for Europe. And to add to the crisis, we have a very weak Social-Democrat Party, a disappearing SPD.

It is a major paradox to have a political impasse and so much extremism in a wealthy and well-functioning democracy. President Clinton used to say, it’s the economy, stupid! That’s not true in the case of Germany. It’s the national identity issue that is at play. Germany has become an ethnically diverse society. That was further accentuated after the mass migratory flows of 2015. And all this has not been properly addressed. Inclusion is more than learning the language and finding a job. The German situation should make us reflect about the way rich European nations deal with large segments of the population that have different roots and look different from the traditional picture each nation has drawn of herself.

In the meantime, the country must find a credible political leader that can take votes away from AfD, not by copying some of the banners the extremists agitate, but because he or she is a balanced politician and knows how to respond to the people’s views. Angela Merkel did that for many years. But her time is now running out.

Who could be next?

Europe cannot afford to have in Berlin either a weak government or a Chancellor that is not an enthusiastic European. Confusion about the role and the future of Germany in Europe could lead to a catastrophic situation within the EU. This is a crucial issue.