Power and dominance

In responding to a friend that lives in China, I said I am also genuinely concerned regarding the growing tension between his country and the US. We do not believe there will be, in the foreseeable future, an armed confrontation between these two powers. We both know that today's wars are fought in diverse ways, but no longer through the classical approach of bullets and boots on the battlefields. Big countries make use of other means to disrupt and weaken the adversaries. The armies are for smaller fights and to show off. We live in a more civilian world, and we fight with a variety of tools that are available in a multidimensional toolbox. Such means can be very destructive as well, with a wide impact on a number of the things, including on the livelihoods of many people.

And this time the conflict is not about ideology, like during the Cold War, but about what each side sees as its vital national interest. In addition, history has taught us that the dominant power perceives the emerging power as a major menace. That is the trigger. And all this makes the confrontation move way up to a more dangerous level, more multifaceted and certainly far more complex to mediate. Moreover, it brings in other countries that have no choice but end up by being forced to take sides. They will also be dramatically affected by the dispute.

In such a dangerous context, my view is that we should keep talking about international norms and cooperation, as well as about clairvoyant leadership. In all truth, the leadership thing is the key issue. It can bring us back to a more reasonable world or take us to the abyss.

A very unequal new world

One of the most damaging consequences of the pandemic will be the augmentation of social inequalities. Some people will not be particularly impacted by the economic crisis that results from the measures taken to combat the Covid-19. They will experience no real change in their lifestyles. But the others, many of them, will see their income disappear or be dramatically reduced. They will be the new poor, finding themselves in desperate conditions. Their numbers will reach new heights, causing a totally distorted social reality and extreme instability. Such a situation will be explosive. The new poor are not used to navigate the poverty waters. They will feel left behind. We should expect if nothing is done to mitigate the misery, a very serious political challenge.

Five fundamental questions

As I see it, there are five big questions on our European table. One, how to strike the balance between public health and the health of the economy? Two, what role should each State play and what are the limits the governments should not overstep? Three, what kind of societal changes should be promoted for a better type of human society in the post-Covid era? Four, what about the implications of this extraordinary crisis on the future of the European Union? And five, what will be the new shape of globalisation?

These are the key lines of reflection as we look ahead. The debate about each one of them is open. It is a complex one but must be conducted. The depth of the current crisis calls for a complete review of the way we have been doing business. Those who think that we just have to press the recovery button, and everything will be back to what we had in January are wrong. We are not going back.

Let the airlines take a chance

A brief note about civil aviation and everything related, including plane makers and service providers. This is a sector that is deeply impacted by the coronavirus crisis. It will be one where major losses will occur. Every airline is losing massive amounts of money daily. And no one can predict when the skies will open again. The longer the wait the greater the risk of insolvency, of extensive disruption. And governments cannot save the entire sector. Any public money invested in aviation economics will be based on a reduced presence in the skies, on fewer planes and fewer jobs. It will be very tough. They will be competing against so many other demands on limited public resources. But let me be clear: it is critical to resume a handful of flights. It might be less expensive than keeping the planes on the ground. And it will help everyone to see where the priorities must be. The airlines will make their choices. In this case, the first role of governments should be to facilitate air travel, to lift the restrictions that make no real sense from a public health point of view.

Three challenges

Besides the public health challenge and the balanced approach to the opening of economic life, the third big issue we are confronted with is about democracy and freedom. Our governments are imposing too many limitations and controls on matters that have to do with our liberties and personal choices. We can accept such decisions for a while and with full justification. But they must be temporary. No way we can have a state of exception for extended periods of time. Pandemics are not treated with limitations of liberties and the deployment of police forces. That was the practise in the middle ages. They are treated with masks, disinfection, hygiene, distancing, and medical surveillance and advice. We must understand that governments love to control people. It is in their genes, even in our multiparty societies. And if they can, they will keep some form of control for an awfully long time. That could be the beginning of a regime change that we certainly do not want. In the end, we do not want to copy the Chinese government when it comes to human rights issues.

CNN is only about US disasters

I have stopped watching CNN International for a while. The news is every day and every hour about President Trump and the virus. Tiring. These are two very disturbing subjects. Dangerous. An overdose of any of them can make you extremely sick. The combination of both is explosive. I feel sorry for my American friends that have to go through such a sorry moment. Nobody would expect the US to be confronted with such a complex situation.

Without borders

My point is that the borders should re-open shortly. First, the borders between European states, the Schengen area. To keep them closed for longer has a tremendous impact on the economy of the countries concerned and feeds the prejudiced views that the nationalist extremists try to propagate. Europe is about freedom of movement and accepting the others as fellow Europeans. To erect borders and obstacles between the countries undermines that critical dimension of the European Union. It sends an extremely negative message about the other. It makes us go back to the old suspicions and narrow views.

Second, it is necessary to resume international travel, well beyond the European space. Most of the progress that has been achieved during the last decades is linked to international contacts, to a global view of trade and tourism. Our world, the world we built during the last decades is based on mobility.

We have, of course, to ensure the safety of those who will be travelling as well as protect the health of those providing the services to this economic sector. That is possible. It does not require we keep each nation behind thick walls.

Plenty of hope

During the on-going crisis, a major one, lots of people have shown the better side of themselves. It has happened in various walks of life, from the health professionals and personnel to the common citizen, that has accepted the confinement with patience and discipline. That is very encouraging. They are certainly ready for a more reasonable approach to the future.

The judges and the economic crisis

The judgement issued by Germany’s Constitutional Court regarding the European Central Bank’s bond purchasing programme must be taken very seriously. It challenges the autonomy of the Bank, it gets the judges into monetary and fiscal matters, where the Court is not necessarily in familiar territory, and, above all undermines the authority and the mandate of the European Court of Justice. In the end, the judgement imperils the European Union itself.

But it came as no surprise. Many in Germany and elsewhere are still looking at some other European countries through the lenses of historical prejudice.

In any case, it must be responded to in a manner that is as comprehensive as possible. The ECB will take its part. It should be able to produce the justification the Constitutional Court requires. And key European politicians must state in clear terms the ultimate authority of the European Court of Justice. More concretely, Angela Merkel should come up with a statement that would underline the exceptionality of the current crisis and the need to go beyond the conventional approaches. It should add a word of respect for the Constitutional Court, of course, and, at the same time, remind everyone that the ECB’s plans and decisions are fundamental to overcome the calamity we are in.

Notes about China and Europe

In the last few days, I have re-tweeted some articles on China, must of them without a personal note about their content. Just sharing. I did it because I think we need to have, in this part of the world where I live, a serious debate about the future of our relations with China.

Looking ahead, my starting points are two. First, the growing hostility between the US and China is dangerous for both countries and for the rest of us. I have written about that and I will keep repeating it. I see such antagonism spreading in the US, both among Republicans and Democrats. And it has now reached some other circles in the West, from Australia to Europe. The second point is that the European Union must engage positively with China, meaning, in a balanced and frank way, defining clearly what we expect from this relationship and what are the limits we cannot cross. The Chinese would be expected to do the same. Such dialogue would be based on the understanding that both sides would gain from a close and fair relationship.

I do not want to spend time commenting on the internal politics of China. However, I should be clear about such an important matter. My approach is that there are values we all must follow. The list would include freedom of speech, human rights, and acceptance of political diversity. A leading country must be a sharp example of full respect for such values. In our dialogue with China, as well as in our policy discussions with the US, Russia, and others that play paramount roles in the world, we cannot ignore such values. The younger generations expect us to act based on fundamental principles, that are common to all peoples.

Having said that, I do recognise the great achievements the Chinese can legitimately claim and the potential they have for further innovation and the betterment of their society. I also know some of the contributions they made to the growth of other nations. All that is incredibly positive. I am also aware of China’s increased contributions to peace, security, and development in various parts of the world.

There is -- and there will be in the times ahead of us -- a good number of Western politicians that will try to gain popular support by systematically attacking the Beijing leadership. Please do not count me in that group.