The Libyan future

 The Libyan conflict started nine years ago. It has been violent, and it destroyed most of the economy and livelihoods, as well as the State administration, which was already weak before the crisis. It also had a major impact on the region, as it contributed to increased insecurity in the Sahel. In the circumstances, the announcement this afternoon of a ceasefire, by both key players in the conflict, should be received with some degree of optimism. It came as a surprise, that is a fact. But the positive reactions expressed by Libya’s neighbours and friends, and by the Arab League, are very encouraging. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to comment on the declarations with any type of cynicism. I know it will be difficult to build peace. But the main question this evening is about building peace. How can the partners of Libya help to make sure that the ceasefire holds and that some stability and inclusiveness is created?

Europe meets on Belarus

The leaders of the European Union met today to discuss the situation in Belarus. They agreed that the presidential elections of 9 August were not credible and therefore the results announced by the country’s electoral authorities cannot be accepted. That is a good statement. But it is not enough. The leaders should have called for new elections to be held as soon as possible. They put a lot of emphasis on dialogue between the dictator and the opposition. That dialogue should be about the electoral process to be followed when organising new elections.

The leaders have also expressed support to the possible role the OSCE (Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe) could play in Belarus. I found it a bit strange as we all know that this Vienna-based entity is in a crisis mode. All its key leadership positions are filled by officers-in-charge. They have no political clout to facilitate any dialogue in Belarus.

In the end, the most important thing the EU can do is to send a clear message to Alexander Lukashenko that his legitimacy is not recognised and personal responsibility for human rights violations will not be forgotten. Dictators love strong messages. Brussels must realise it.

Mali and its blind partners

 The serious political situation Mali is going through raises in my mind some fundamental questions about the political performance of the key external partners of the country. Basically, what I mean is that we cannot keep supporting national leaderships that are not appreciated by the vast majority of their people. We might feel comfortable with them. But what is the value of that if they are not accepted by their own citizens?

In this case, France, other European countries, and the UN have been supporting a regime that has not implemented the peace agreement they have signed with their own rebels and that has closed their eyes in an attempt not to see the rapid deterioration of the security and poverty situations. The partners played the same game.

And now, several years down the line, we have a much graver national crisis, that has grown into a regional one as well. And we see that the image of the external actors has also been seriously damaged. That is a sure way of undermining the role of the UN and of some key Western countries.

 

 

Lukashenko is on his way out

 My crystal ball is out of order. Therefore, I cannot see what is next in Belarus. But I have looked at the pictures of the crowds that came to the streets every day since the election last Sunday. I have all seen the reports about today’s rally against the dictator, the fraudster Alexander Lukashenko. I concluded that he keeps losing ground, including within his administration and the police forces. People have shown a tremendous amount of courage. They are determined to get him out of power. He has lost the support of the factory workers, which he thought would keep their loyalty towards the regime and his person. He thinks he can count on the police and the army, plus the support coming from Russia. He might be wrong. My reading is that his position is very fragile. Any intervention coming from Putin’s side will make things worse. And Putin knows that as well.

Lebanon and the international freezer

 Translation of today’s opinion piece I published in Diário de Notícias (Lisbon). 15 Aug. 2020

From Lebanon to the conflict freezer

Victor Angelo

 

The district of Beja in Southern Portugal and Lebanon have the same territorial area. But the comparison ends there. If on one side we have around 153 thousand inhabitants, on the other there are seven million, who live in one of the most unstable regions of the globe. And they are an extremely fragmented social mosaic, full of rivalries, which subsists at the expense of precarious balances, always ready to be broken. Each segment of society pulls the embers to its sardine. The respective bosses corrupt the system and capture the institutions of governance. To the emergence of more honest leaders, the bosses respond with murder or intimidation, to shut up or push into exile anyone who questions them.

This explains why a country of entrepreneurial people with a high cultural level went through a long civil war, from 1975 to 1990, and has been experiencing a deep national crisis for years. The situation entered an acute phase in October 2019, with thousands of citizens protesting regularly in the streets. The economy and the financial system ceased to function. The central government has become a prisoner of the fierce rivalries that exist between the 18 political-confessional groups that make up the country and which serve as chess pieces in the game of tension between the regional powers, especially Iran and Saudi Arabia.

The situation became catastrophic after the explosion in the port of Beirut. Since then, the country has made the front page of the news and the priority list of the usual powers, thanks in particular to the efforts of Emmanuel Macron. Lebanon will remain on this list as long as international attention is focused on its crisis. Sooner or later a new tragedy will appear somewhere and the country, like others that are also experiencing recurrent national conflicts, will move to the shelf of the forgotten, in the world freezer where so many unsolvable crises are stored and kept frozen. 

In the meantime, emergency humanitarian aid has been announced. It is vital that this aid arrives quickly and is delivered to those who are in a very precarious situation. Here the role of the United Nations organisations is to ensure the credibility of the distribution of humanitarian goods, which must be channelled through Lebanese NGOs. We must avoid political exploitation of this aid, either by internal factions or by donors. That is why I do not think it is too much to remember that humanitarian action aims to save lives, with transparency, without corruption. It has nothing to do with possible changes in the political spider web.

It is true that Lebanon needs to change its political labyrinth. In recent days, a series of proposals have emerged that would place this burden on the shoulders of the international community. Some have suggested a new mandate regime. The country was under a French mandate until 1943 and there are many people in Lebanon, at the grassroots level, who would like this to happen again. That, even with adaptations to the realities of modern politics, would be a thing of the past. It does not correspond to the current vision, which puts the responsibility for change in the hands of national political agents.

Nor do I think it is possible to send a United Nations contingent with a political mission approved by the Security Council under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. This part of the Charter allows for the use of military and police force, which would theoretically make the mission more efficient. In reality, it only works if there is a strong enough national political will to change the way the country is run, which seems to be very difficult to achieve in Lebanon. One could use the functions of mediation and facilitation of political dialogue, a role that is increasingly central to the United Nations menu. I just do not believe that Lebanese politicians are ready for such an effort.

So, while some humanitarian aid is being provided and internal political cooling is expected, I fear that Lebanon will join the group of countries that the Security Council's inertia regularly puts in the freezer of conflicts.

 

 

 

 

How to deal with Erdogan?

The situation in the Eastern Mediterranean is becoming very tense. Turkey is doing oil mapping at sea, in waters that are contested by a fellow NATO Member State – Greece. The oil vessel is escorted by several Turkish warships. And now France has responded to a Greek appeal and is sending navy assets to the region. This situation can easily escalate and become an open conflict. It must be dealt with by the NATO and European authorities immediately.

The truth of the matter is that Europe does not have a clear line of approach towards Turkey. Delaying the accession negotiations or approving a light package of sanctions against the regime in Ankara is not an effective policy line. A firmer position is required. The European leaders must understand that President Erdogan is a major threat to the stability of Europe. In addition, they must realise that someone of his calibre does not understand a soft approach. He knows about force and can get the message if the message is forceful.

Aid to Lebanon

There have been some discussions about the conditions to be attached to the humanitarian aid to Lebanon. I would like to clarify that such aid should only have one provision: it should reach those in need. There is no other political condition when it comes to saving lives. The political dimensions belong to another sphere, not to the humanitarian one.

Writing about security and democracy

 

Translation of today’s opinion piece I published in Diário de Notícias (Lisbon)

Questioning the obsession with security

Victor Angelo

The European Commission has got into the habit of producing strategies. It is a good practice, as it allows to move forward the reflection on priority themes and to draw the attention of the different governments to the need for coordination and joint actions, when appropriate. However, it is a pity that these documents are only to be known in the European District of Brussels and in certain specialised circles, and are not debated in national parliaments and by the public opinion in the various Member States.

The Commission has just outlined another, what it called the Security Union Strategy 2020-2025. It has been developed under the baton of the Vice-President for the Promotion of the European Way of Life, Margaritis Schinas, who has the task of ensuring the link between the external and internal dimensions of security. In other words, an almost impossible job, as there is no harmony of interests about foreign policy, not even regarding neighbouring Russia. Nor is there the courage to act against those states that pose a threat to Europe's internal stability, such as Turkey, among others.

The new security strategy is, above all, an exercise in enumeration. It provides an exhaustive overview of ongoing initiatives, including those concerning cybercrime and intoxication and misrepresentation campaigns from outside - without any reference to the internal actors who serve as a sounding board for these lying messages. It is all very technical, based on the intervention of police and criminal investigation bodies. It lacks the link to the Global Strategy, approved in 2016, and the Common Security and Defence Policy. It is as if the Commission is just adding another silo to the European political edifice. That is bad. It also lacks an analysis of the vulnerabilities of certain categories of citizens according to age, gender, place of residence, social and economic fragility, ethnic or cultural belonging. That is even worse. 

Anyone who is patient enough to read the document gets the impression that at the end of the reference period, the year 2025, we will have a Europe in which every step of every citizen will be recorded and can be scrutinised. It is easy to get the impression that we will then arrive at an extensively watched society, with gigantic databases storing every detail of our lives. The strategy shows, moreover, that the process has already begun and that it will be accelerated by the progress of digitisation and Artificial Intelligence. The prevention of terrorism and hybrid attacks, which may jeopardise key infrastructure, and the fight against financial crime will be three of the lines used to justify close surveillance, which seems to be inspired by the Big Brother imagined by George Orwell.

Even when it is said that the ultimate goal is the defence of the rights and freedoms of European citizens, we cannot fall into the trap of omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent security. The reason is simple. A security state is always one step away from slipping into an oppressive and manipulative state. Past examples show that political leaders easily fall into the temptation to divert security functions to ends that have nothing to do with consolidating the democratic regime and the real tranquillity of citizens.

Those who do not share this temptation are so often unable to exercise democratic oversight of security institutions. Most parliamentary oversight committees for intelligence services have reduced mandates, limited access, and unsatisfactory results. The strategy now formulated is silent on the alternatives that should be considered so that independent, non-partisan powers, outside of parliamentary disputes, can effectively curb possible security abuses.  The issue of balanced control of the potential excesses of those who observe our daily lives is, however, essential.  And this is because security obsessions are like witches. There are those who do not believe in them, but they are around, for sure! Even in European democracies!

 

The US and its political crisis

An American friend was deeply concerned by the current political radicalisation her country is experiencing. She specifically mentioned President Trump’s passing references to a possible postponement of the November elections. And there was also a question about the role the military could play if the President would decide to go ahead with such major decision.

I answered as follows.

I do not think he can change the electoral rules unless there is a major event such as an internal rebellion or an external war. The military will follow the existing rules. I do not see them supporting a wild and lawless Trump. He might try a trick or two, including something about the impossibility of a proper postal vote in a situation of public health calamity, but that would not be enough to mobilize enough support within the military, the security agencies, and his own party.

I recognise that the general atmosphere is not good and that many extremists do support him. They are blind and ferocious in that support. That should certainly be a matter to be worried about. But I do not think they can go far in terms of disturbing the electoral process. That said, I also believe that the country is living a profoundly serious crisis. And it is more divided than ever. Politically and socially. It requires a complete change in the political discourse and a new type of leadership, more inclusive and more responsive to the existing dramatic inequalities.

Leaders must direct based on moral values

Translation of today’s opinion piece I published in Diário de Notícias (Lisbon)

This is no time for statues

Victor Angelo

A considerable number of us still see the current situation as something temporary, which scientific research, the announced financial subsidies and time will eventually resolve. I think that is a light view of the pandemic and its consequences. It does not consider the lessons learned from previous crises, which took years to overcome, even though they were not as serious as they are now.

In addition to the economic and social impact, major political fractures may arise. Confusion, uncertainty, and fears are fertile ground from which authoritarian politicians often sprout, painted as megalomaniac messiahs, with ultra-nationalist, populist and bizarrely dangerous ideas. The democratic space is under threat. Miniature copies of Donald Trump and company are beginning to appear. People who, coming from outside the political practice and without the experience of the functioning of institutions, think they have the simple and ready to cook solution that will solve all the evils of today. But, in reality, the shrewdest populists are waiting for the opportunity, which will arise, in their opinion, with the exhaustion of the response capacity of the existing social systems. 

In such a context, we need leaders who are enlightened, courageous, and capable of giving meaning to the transformations that are to come. It happens that people look around them and do not see such leaders. There is no new Nelson Mandela, no new Kofi Annan or a modern version of Jacques Delors. Immediatism and materialism have replaced the struggle for human values. The moral leadership that Pope Francis, the UN Secretary-General, and others could exercise is missing. They have stopped appearing or, when they do, they come late and talk about vague things. No one takes note.

Some people would say that only those who exaggerate are heard. I do not think so. The Prime Minister of New Zealand, Jacinda Arden, is a moderate leader whom everyone admires. She is not particularly active on the international scene because she is above all focused on her country's issues. Yet she is often quoted. Greta Thunberg and Malala Yousafzai can be mentioned as other examples of international leadership. These are respected voices that mark the global agenda. The reason, I would say in a simplified way, is because they go straight to the point, without diplomacy, nor personal fears or ambitions. They are perceived as genuine and combative. And with clear ideas. That is what is expected of those who lead.

On the other side of the coin, look at the United Nations. The last ten years have been a disaster for its credibility. The lack of authority at global level worsened after the crisis in Libya in 2011 and it experienced clear moments of deterioration in the following years. The invasion of Crimea in 2014 and the conflict in Ukraine, all done with impunity, the impasse in Syria, with repeated vetoes, the silence and inaction in the face of mass migration in 2015, the election of Donald Trump in 2016, a politician who does not accept the values of international cooperation, the lack of political response to the genocide of the Rohingyas in 2017, the exclusion of the Security Council from issues relating to Palestine, the attacks against UNESCO and WHO, are some of the milestones in the process of marginalization of the UN. Others could be mentioned, in a list that reminds us that the global institutional framework needs to be rethought. I would just add that there is no greater frustration in international life than being at the head of an institution that hardly anyone listens to.

In these things, I like to suggest we follow the example of that holy man, described in a famous sermon preaching to the fish, because people did not want to listen to him. In other words, this is by no means the time to remain silent, without drawing the lessons that the crisis puts before our eyes. A silent leader is just a statue, which these days is a danger, because the statues are being torn down.