The road ahead

This moment in our lives calls for prudence, tolerance, and generosity. These are the values that will take us through the deep crisis we are in. They should be mentioned in every major political statement. Leaders must be brave, truthful and be able to put across such messages. They should also be seen as caring and knowing where we are heading.

The growing conflict between the giants

The US Government’s decision regarding the Chinese Consulate in Houston, Texas, takes the tensions between the two superpowers to a higher level of danger. The US is militantly engaged in a campaign against the Chinese leadership. And the Chinese have now decided to respond in kind. This confrontation is certainly not good. It contributes in no small measure to increase international instability at a time of great uncertainties. I see this course of action with great concern. And my advice to the European leaders is quite simple: keep as far away as possible from this confrontation. Say no to the pressure coming from Washington and keep a strong stance as far as China is concerned. Both sides must understand that Europeans cannot be drawn into this very dangerous competition. Actually, we must state that we see international cooperation and full respect for each nation as the key ingredients to build a more stable and prosperous future for all. If we cooperate, we win. If we show disrespect for international norms, we open the door to defeat and disaster.

One single point about the EU summit

After four-and-half days of negotiations, the European leaders reached an agreement on the next budget for the European Commission, covering the period 2021-27, and on the a recovery plan that should help the countries most affected by the pandemic.

There are several remarks that could be made about both documents and the process that took place. I will certainly come back to them soon. But today I would like to underline that the leaders have shown they want the EU to work and to be kept together. That is a crucial message. Nobody tried to rock the European boat. We know there were very tense moments during the summit. In some cases, some harsh exchanges took place. But all of that was about trying to bridge national interests with the collective interests of the EU. I see that as positive.   

We are being treated as vassal States

This is an exceptional moment in our contemporary history. The pandemic is challenging many of our long-held views and opening the door to a number of discussions about the future. One such discussion is about the role of values and principles in international relations.

I am one of those who thinks that big powers are putting aside the norms that have regulated the relations among nations. I see them as trying to reduce others to the status of vassal states. This is the current trend, for instance, when it comes to the United States. Washington is looking at Europe as subordinated allies, as countries that must unconditionally follow the American policy decisions in matters of foreign affairs.

European sovereignty is being threatened by such an approach.

In the circumstances, the European leaders have decided to pretend that is not the case. They turn a blind eye and just hope that as we get into next year, there will a change of leadership in Washington and, consequently, a more amicable attitude towards Europe. I am not sure. In 2021, the leadership might indeed be played by a set of different actors. But I see the trend as deeper than just a passing option linked to the Trump Administration. I sense it is structural and strategic. It comes from the dangerous competition that is growing a bit out of control between the United States and China. That competition will define the coming years. Both sides will be looking for support in the community of nations. And their natural tendency, like any giant, is to force other countries to take sides. The United States and China will be pressing others into the category of client-states. 

This is a development that the global crisis is accentuating. We cannot feign to ignore it.  

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.