Moving backwards

This afternoon I called a few people in Africa, to find out how the pandemic is affecting their fellow citizens. And I got the same message from each call. Poverty and desperation are the main consequences of border closures and other domestic restrictions. The pandemic is ruining their fragile economies. There are no commercial flights coming in and out, no significant cross border trade, besides the traditional exchanges related to the informal sectors, little exports, and plenty of job losses. This pandemic takes these countries backwards. For those like me who spent a number of years working in the development field, it is an incredibly sad moment. Many of the gains are just being lost.  

Still on the European summit

The EU summit is still on, at the end of the second day. It is too early to comment on it, as I do not know what the outcome will be. But I said to a friend, a former ambassador, that I see it as positive that leaders spend a good amount of time trying to get to an agreement. They have in front of them big issues, with many possible consequences, and extremely high costs. These are no simple matters, and we are living in extraordinarily exceptional times. I would be worried if they decided to run through the issues, superficially and with no real commitment. It is true that some of them do have that kind of attitude. They are the lightweights. But the key players take these matters seriously. I can only appreciate that. To call names and badmouth them is a childish approach I do not accept.   

The forthcoming EU summit

On Friday, the EU leaders will meet in Brussels. This will be the first face-to-face meeting since the beginning of the pandemic. The agenda is about money, lots of it. They must decide if they approve the Commission’s recovery proposal, its budget, and the disbursement modalities. It is indeed a delicate agenda

There are two camps. One side wants the new money to flow to each country, with little interference from either the Commission or the Council. In their views, it is up to the national governments to decide on the programmes and projects to be funded, accepting however that those funding decisions must fall within the broad framework proposed by the European Commission. Italy, France, Spain, and Portugal are within this group.

The other side, led by the Prime Minister of the Netherlands, advocates a greater oversight by the European Council. That would mean that country allocations should be endorsed by all, not just by the government concerned. It would give the Council, where the heads of State and government sit or are represented, the authority to say no a country’s allocation plan. They do not see this approach as interference. They think that the volume of money is very substantial, and it should, therefore, be used not only for recovery but also for economic and administrative reform at the national level.

As of today, it is unclear what the outcome of the summit might be. The conflicting positions show that some countries are convinced that others are not doing enough in terms of economic transparency and administrative effectiveness. They see a widening gap between development levels. And they are afraid that the richer part of Europe will be asked to keep contributing to States that are not doing their best in terms of political performance. The opposing side considers such a position as a prejudiced view. In my opinion, both groups of countries have some valid points that must be discussed. Indeed, it is time to discuss the reasons for poor performance and also some of the prevailing national prejudices that are still alive in different parts of the European Union.

My understanding of leadership

I have learned that a true leader sees it as his or her mission to create broad alliances, to bring people of different convictions together. Therefore, when I am asked to give an opinion about any political personality, that is always my point of departure. Is he or she a consensus builder? Every society has its own divisions and lines of fracture. The leader knows that but does not try to take advantage of it.

My advice is very straightforward. Look at the person who is in a position of power and assess if such a politician is a divisive or an inclusive leader. Then, you have a clear-cut criterion to judge. 

And you decide based on your own understanding of what it means to live in a nation. If you are a progressive individual, you will see harmony and social cohesion as part of the national wealth.

Plenty of false prophets around us

Philosophers, sociologists, and other social scientists are exchanging lots of views about the political and societal impact of the coronavirus. And many people just repeat those comments without a thoughtful analysis of what is said. Even serious newspapers do it.

My impression is that many of those intellectuals have a preconceived idea, an ideological business line they try to peddle at all costs. As such, they want us to see in the crisis the confirmation of their pet theories. A kind of "I warned you". It is a biased reading of the situation at a time when we need objectivity and serenity.

This is no time for propagandists. There should be no room for any type of false prophets.

Our objective should be to base ourselves on accepted values ​​and to propose paths which would allow reinforcing these values. Therefore, we must be clear about the values ​​that we share, and which are part of the world’s common treasure, at the international level.

We must include, not exclude. We must understand and look for better ways of living together and sustaining life on this planet. Intellectuals that transform every sentence on bump fire should get no visibility at this stage. Or be thoroughly criticised and rationally challenged.

There is growing hope in Poland

The first projections seem to show that Andrzej Duda has been re-elected as President of Poland. It is a very thin victory, something just over 50% of the votes. Duda has been the country’s President since 2015. His re-election, after a brutal campaign he led against his main opponent and tonnes of support by the official media – and from President Trump –, is not good news for the rest of the European Union. He represents a retrograde policy option and a government that has not respected the basic European values, including the independence of the judiciary. Domestically, his extremely narrow victory, if it is confirmed, reveals that half of the Poles do not believe in the basic demagoguery he propagates. That is a remarkable proportion of the population – people that were not convinced by extreme populism and nationalism of his Law and Justice party (PiS). Those voters tell us, in other parts of Europe, that hope is not lost as far as Poland is concerned. But Europe must have a much firmer policy towards the backward politicians that are still in power in the country.  

Srebrenica

Srebrenica. The massacre happened 25 years ago. In Srebrenica, in Europe. About 8,000 victims, just because they were a bit different, a religion-based difference. And today, after so many years, the reconciliation and the cooperation between the Balkan States are still distant dreams. Dreams that the political leaders do not share. The region remains a powder keg within the European Continent.

It is a sad and dangerous situation.  

Erdogan has become a major problem

I have said many times that the President of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, is a major menace to the European interests. That includes the stability of some European countries, those with a large Turkish immigration, the unity of Europe, and the effectiveness and coherence of our military defence as a common endeavour. Now, I see my warning getting echo in a few media and governance circles. They realise the danger Erdogan represents. They should also be clear that the President megalomaniac ideas are bringing economic chaos to his own country. The man’s ambitions and his political manipulation of Islam have transformed Turkey into a repressive State and an economic mess. The louder we say it, in Brussels and in other capitals, the better for us and for the Turkish population.

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.