Difficult to keep countries together

It is time to define the priority sectors that would require reform, innovation, and fresh resources. That is what some European governments are doing. Unfortunately, not all of them have engaged in such a planning exercise. They will remain further behind in terms of access to the new funding facility the European Commission is putting in place. That means more economic divergence in a project that was put together to bring equal prosperity to every member State. Development gaps, as they wide, they create the roots for dissension and destruction.   

President Macron's final leg

France has a new government. President Emmanuel Macron asked Edouard Philippe, who had been Prime Minister for the last three years, to resign and he did. Philippe had no other choice but to go, in view of the presidential system of power that prevails in France. The new PM, Jean Castex, is an experienced senior civil servant and a lightweight politician. He will serve the President as required. And the key point for Macron is to score a few deeds during the next two years, before the end of his current mandate. His concern is to be re-elected. He is playing the middle ground and the moderate right to try to achieve such goal. It is not going to be easy for him. He has created many negative reactions among the voters. At a time of crisis – and I am talking about the period before the pandemic – he was already perceived as too distant from the concerns of the more fragile segments of society. Macron’s image has become associated with privilege and elitism. Those are two bad labels in today’s context. I am afraid he will not be able to change such a perception. At this stage, I cannot bet on his re-election. But I wish his new government a smooth sailing.  

Iran's growing dependence on China

Iran is counting on China’s investments and political support. China will become the most powerful ally of Iran. Oil is one of the reasons, but not the only one. They are now negotiating a cooperation framework for the next 25 years. All in all, Iran will become seriously dependent on China.

As the Americans invest in their relationship with the Saudis, the Chinese can only get interested on the opposing side. Saudi Arabia and Iran are fierce rivals in the region. A good deal of the future of the Middle East will derive from such rivalry. But behind it, there is the growing and dangerous competition between the US and China.

We need an action framework of a new type

On this Independence Day in the US, it is obvious the country and the world have a big problem to confront and resolve. The Covid-19 pandemic. This is still the first wave of contagion and the virus remains out of control, in many parts of America and elsewhere. To deny it is to deny reality. It can only be explained as sheer ignorance or a political farce.

If we look at the problem with objectivity, we can only conclude that it might take another 12 to 18 months before we see an effective response. The timeframe can be shorter, the optimists say, but it can also be much longer, as many scientists keep telling us. In any case, a global crisis as the current one, if it goes on up to mid-to-end of 2021, will have global negative consequences. In simple words, I would say that we will become poorer and more self-centred. That will impact the world economy, trade, international cooperation, the multilateral systems, and, in summary, will change the game of global politics. Looking at it from the stability and security angles, I see us moving towards increased extremism, short-minded nationalism, and new dangerous confrontations. We will certainly reach new levels of instability and insecurity as well as the contraction of the democratic space.

Not easy to find a balance between public health and politics, including the economy. And that complexity augments as we move from the domestic scene to the wider arenas, where States act and clash. That is the reason why I think that reflecting on such a necessary balance is one of the key tasks the global institutions and the big-picture thinkers should focus on. We must design an action framework that keeps lives and livelihoods. Such a framework must obtain wide support – the support could even come from the UN Security Council – and give people clarity and hope.

Mass immigration as a negotiating tool

Earlier in the day, I was explaining to a local group of futurists that I see Morocco playing little Turkey, on their side of the Mediterranean Sea. They have learned from the Turkish how masses of migrants can be manipulated to put pressure on the European countries. It is happening on the Greek borders, it will be repeated in Libya, now that Erdogan’s troops and armed men are getting stronger in Tripoli and its surroundings. These are the two main migratory routes, and both are now under Turkish control. Is there a better way to be in a robust position when negotiating with the European Union?

The Moroccan are beginning to do the same with Spain and even with Portugal, I guess. In the last couple of months, groups of young men coming from Morocco have arrived by sea at the Southern Portuguese region of Algarve. It is a long sea crossing for their small boats. It is an impossible journey with such fragile vessels. My suspicion is that they get some help from powerful syndicates on the Moroccan shores and that is done under the blind eye of the authorities. Their sponsors might bring them closer to the Portuguese coastline and then let them complete the trip and be perceived as desperate migrants.

This flow has the potential to get bigger. To become route number three for the migrants from Sub-Saharan Africa and even from elsewhere.

On the European side, it is about time to start looking at it with greater attention. And, at the same time, to initiate a serious talk with the government in Rabat.

For Hong Kong and a bit more

The new Hong Kong National Security Law is a clear violation of the legal process as established by the territory’s Basic Law – there was no consultation with the local population and their representatives – as well as of the agreed principle “One Country, Two Systems”. Furthermore, the key offences it contemplates – subversion, secession, terrorism, and collusion with foreign powers – are defined in overly broad terms. That means the Hong Kong Executive is given extensive flexibility to judge and condemn. They are the ones, not the judiciary, that will apply the law, meaning, they will decide on the offences and the punishments. They will certainly follow a targeted approach to repression.

Another “innovation” of such new law is that it also applies to people outside Hong Kong and Mainland China. If someone in Paris, a French citizen resident in France, says that the territory should be independent and later in life travels to Hong Kong, he or she can be prosecuted for such a statement.

I feel sorry for the people of Hong Kong who cherish freedom and democracy. I have the same feeling for those in the Mainland that share these same values. And I ask myself what kind of political relationship our democracies should have with the leadership in Beijing. It is time to reflect on that before it is too late. The message should be simple. It must tell them that we are not prepared to accept their vision of politics. And we should keep an all-weather distance, as wide as possible, between them and us.

The international arena must be guided by values. It is time to say that again, loud, and clear. Very straightforward values, that take their inspiration from individual rights, the protection of each person against authoritarian States, from our inherent right to freedom and human security. Some might see this aspiration as a utopic one. I hear you. But, please, believe me, the post-covid world opens the door to imagine a more dignified approach to each human being.

The most important question of the day

What kind of post-covid world is it in the making? That is the key question that should be in many minds. That is the debate that needs to take place. With realism and balance, with tolerance but accepting all types of opinions. The answer is obviously a complex one. And certainly not a positive one unless we can convince the leaders to change course. I doubt. The crisis is too big and most of them just want to throw money at it to minimise its effects. That is not change, that is not innovation. It is just the continuation of the recent trends, with all their shortcomings.

Fighting the extremes

Polarisation and radicalisation of views might become two of the main consequences of the current health tsunami. People will withdraw into their little familiar spaces and will end up by seeing everybody who is outside of the small circle as a potential threat. Everyone will be perceived as either belonging or being a stranger. In the best of cases, they will look at them with a great dose of indifference. Political activists, from both extremes will try to take advantage of those feelings. There is a serious risk of seeing the extremist positions becoming more combative. The point is to be able to spot such trends early enough and be able to decry them. There are many tasks ahead, in these extraordinarily complex times. One of them is for sure to oppose any move towards radicalisation and identity politics.

Daring times

Many thinkers in our part of the world are advocating for a changed world. They are convinced the current global health crisis is a golden opportunity to build a more reasonable future. On the same vein, the UN Secretary-General is also talking about a “better world”.

I certainly would support an approach that would reduce the fragilities many people are exposed to and respect the environmental balance we all know it is needed. The big question is, however, how can we do it with the same old leaders? If there is no change in leadership, the chances we will see a transformation are extremely limited. Therefore, the point is to challenge the current leadership.

How feasible is that?

My question should not be seen as giving up. I am convinced it is important to draw lessons from the crisis and battle for them to influence the next choice of options. We are facing the first global crisis of the modern times. This is a global world with a global shock and a common set of deep problems. We have in our hands a unique opportunity to think differently and act otherwise. The UN should take the lead and set up a set of proposals for the consideration of the world leaders. It might not be heard to at the beginning. But it could rapidly generate enough popular traction and then the political leaders would have to take those ideas into account.

This is no time to be short in ambition and frightened by crazy people in power. It is just the opposite that must happen. It is time to show we can respond to the call of the future.   

The UN Charter and its long history

75 years ago, visionary leaders have signed the UN Charter and initiated what they thought would be a world without major wars. Their dream has not been fully realised but the Charter remains a solid pillar of the international order. We cannot discuss international affairs without referring to it. And the UN System is still around and doing important things in some key areas, such as peacekeeping, humanitarian and development assistance, and the promotion of justice and human rights. It could do much more, no doubt. But it is not easy, because of the deep antagonisms that currently exist within the Security Council and the lack of support for multilateral solutions, an approach that is particularly strong in Washington and Moscow. This unfavourable reality might change as we go into 2021, but the shift might not be as deep and wide as some expect. In my view, the best option is to bet on a stronger voice coming from the system itself. Experience has taught me that when the UN leaders opt for an independent and principled approach, they regain the initiative and augment their credibility. For that to happen, they must think about the function they are supposed to perform and less about themselves.

It is true we live an extraordinary complex moment. But the 75 years of presence in the world affairs remind us that history is long and can be better than the difficulties and the pessimism of the times.