New era, new questions

Have the big questions changed because of Covid-19? What are the essential questions we all face today? Is there a new ranking in terms of global priorities? Do we see global threats differently? Can we keep trying to respond to shared problems through nation-based measures? Are we asking ourselves the right questions?

A plane trip in the new normal

Yesterday, I took the plane for the first time in this post-Covid era. I had a compelling reason to travel.

It was a three-hour trip out of Frankfurt. And I got a couple of surprises. First, the aircraft was full. Like in the old days. It is true that everyone was wearing a mask, but every seat was taken. And this is still a time of restrictions on travelling abroad, even within the Schengen area. Second, there were all types of passengers, from young families with small kids to older couples, and everyone in between. I would have loved to ask my fellow passengers what the reason for travel was, but I had no authority to do it. I know that the airline had asked them a similar question, in very vague terms and without requiring any supporting document. Third, there was no health or temperature checking before embarkation. Just a request to keep a safe distance before passing through the boarding pass control, a request that was in contradiction with the crowding on board.

Upon arrival at the destination, there was a temperature check. And that was it. We all left the airport to go and take care of our own business.

My conclusion was that it is better to re-open the air travel soon. And, at least, check the temperature of the would-be passengers before boarding. If there are more options to travel, more flights available, there might be less crowding on each plane. This should go hand in hand with the lifting of restrictions on cross border road and train trips.

At the same time, it is important to keep repeating the recommendation for people to think twice before travelling. Many will follow such advice, I am sure.

A busy summer ahead of us

People in Europe are rapidly moving past the pandemic and looking forward to a normal summer. There are still a number of restrictions in place, in most of the countries, but everyone seems convinced that by the end of the month they will be lifted. Optimism is a good thing, particularly after a difficult and long period of deep constraints, not to mention death, sorrow and anxiety. It might be somehow unjustified, but as I think of it, I get convinced we need a good dose of hopefulness. It helps us to move forward.

Beyond the health dimensions, it is true that for a good number of people the prolonged crisis has meant a serious loss of income. For others, it dramatically means either unemployment or job insecurity. It also threatens the survival of many companies, with a serious impact on national wealth and public revenue, well beyond the employment dimensions. We must be aware of all this and promote the right social and economic policies that we believe are most appropriate to respond to the many forthcoming challenges. And as we write or speak about these things, we must find a way of mixing realism with optimism.

The decision the European Central Bank has just announced, adding another 600 billion euros to the pandemic-related bond purchasing mechanism, is at the same time very encouraging and a clear indication of the crisis we are in. Money in substantial amounts is critically important. But we must be very judicious about the priorities and wise, in terms of change. The money must be an instrument of recovery, I agree, but also, a powerful tool to promote change.

One of key priorities must be the reestablishment of the education system. I have seen how the primary and secondary school pupils are being affected by the closure of the schools. Their current virtual studies are little more than a lie or a joke. It is crucial to create all the conditions to re-open the next school year, in September, effectively. Not much is being talked about that, less still is happening in terms of action. Teachers and academic authorities must be assisted from now on to create the conditions for a rentrée that makes sense and brings everybody back to the reorganised classrooms.

In the end, as we approach the summer period, we realise that this should be a very intense period of work. We must recuperate what has been lost and look forward to a better horizon.

The US is going in the wrong direction

Poor American society. I should not say more than that this evening. But I believe there are enough citizens in the United States who understand that the current direction must be changed, by democratic means. To continue the same path can only bring added conflict, divisions, and violence. That is not the kind of ally we want to have. That is not the kind of superpower that can make the world safer

The drifting United States

The US is in crisis and I feel deeply sorry for the many friends I have in that great country. It continues to be deeply affected by the coronavirus pandemic, more than 100,000 lives have been lost and millions of people are without a job. Now, there are demonstrations and anger in many cities in response to police brutality and racism. The African-Americans are the main target of the racist attitudes we can easily notice within the police forces and in some segments of society. But the key problem resides in the political leadership of the country. President Donald Trump is a man that stirs up conflict and social disharmony. His approach to power is based on antagonising part of the American society. It is the politics of the hatred and rejection, splitting the citizens in two clear-cut groups: the supporters and those that he sees as enemies. At a time the country needs solidarity and unity of purpose, President Trump brings in discord and resentment. Seen from this side of the ocean, that is the most direct route to a deeper national disaster. And we can only be extremely worried because the US are the most powerful nation on earth. It cannot be adrift, rudderless.

Looking into the new direction

As we get ready to go into June, we must be as ambitious as possible. It is not just a question of optimism. It is not a matter of rhetoric. It is about building a better world. The pandemic has shown the key social and economic challenges we all face. It has revealed the competition and all the prejudices that exist between nations after we have spent seven decades talking about international cooperation. The option is not to keep going in that direction. The decision must be clear: to agree on the set of values that count for all of us and build the foundations of a new type of relations that are geared to promote solidarity, complementary and harmony.

The EU must be more creative in matters of crisis response

Josep Borrel, the EU High Representative for Foreign Policy, addressed the UN Security Council yesterday. It was a long speech about several crisis situations. But the true message was about multilateralism. He stated the strong support the EU is providing to the UN and repeated the message that global problems do call for multilateral action. That was positive. But he was speaking to a very divided and weak Security Council. His words were certainly the right ones, but I can safely guess that their impact was negligible. The climate in the Council is not favourable to global or multinational responses. In addition, his description of the crisis was not creative. For instance, he spoke about the Sahel but added no new idea to what is already known. His concern was to show that the situation in the region is deteriorating – an important message – and that the EU and the UN are cooperating throughout the Sahel. But there was no indication of a line of action that should be followed to stop the fall.

The EU must be more realist in terms of crisis resolution. It should recognise that the current approaches are not yielding results. And it must come up with alternative paths. That would be a much stronger message and a way of giving strength to the EU’s role in matters of peace and security.

A new model of politics

The huge amount of resources that the European Union member States will have available for recovery is a golden opportunity to change what needs to be changed. That means, as I see it, to invest on health and social matters, on an economy that is friendlier to the environment, on the digital dimensions and on greater inclusion of those who have less income and insecure jobs. The funding of new projects should be guided by these concerns. This is a turning point and we cannot miss it. I am confident the Commission will provide the necessary guidance and will try to make sure the governments do respect the paradigm change. The real challenge is to prevent these monies are used to enrich the supporters of those in power. That will be the old tendency. But we are in a new era. The European Commission must ensure that the citizens in each State have enough power to stop the old clientelism and the ways of doing things that make some richer and the vast majority more vulnerable.

A stronger European Union

The European Recovery Fund, proposed by the President of the European Commission, was favourably received in the various capitals of the Member States. The Italians and the Spaniards were happy, on one side, and the Scandinavians as well, notwithstanding earlier positions regarding the need for conditionalities.

It is, in fact, a balanced plan, which reserves a good part of the resources for grant-type financing. And it adds an incredible amount of money to other resources already announced, either by the Commission or by the European Central Bank. Ursula von der Leyen demonstrated opportunity and vision. Her standing as head of the Commission comes out strengthened. Of course, behind all this, we can guess there is the support of Angela Merkel and Wolfgang Schäuble, who is now President of the German Federal Parliament and who continues to have a lot of power, on the domestic scene of his country. In the end, these things happen if the Germans are on board. They do not express it too loudly, but their voice is the determinant one in matters of common economic policies, agriculture excepted.

Opinion texts must be short and direct

I said before that brevity is a sign of intelligence. And I am still convinced that is the case. The problem is that I have a few friends who are highly intelligent but think that a long text, with many words and shooting in several directions, is what is expected from an intellectual. How can I change their minds? I try to tell them that there is very little patience for meandering texts of opinion. But they don’t believe me. And they keep copying and pasting their ideas every time they produce a new piece.