Donald Trump and his rabbits

In addition to his domestic claims, President Trump wants to be seen by the American voters as an international statesman. That’s why he is organising all kinds of diplomatic deals. It was the economic deal between Serbia and Kosovo, signed a few days ago. It does not address the delicate political dispute between the two sides, but it was a good photo opportunity. Interestingly, the President of Serbia seemed surprised by some of the terms of the deal, as they were mentioned by Donald Trump. He did not recognise some of the aspects the US President was referring to. But the big game is around the Israeli situation. The President knows that is a big prize, with a significant impact in important American circles. Therefore, he convinced the United Arab Emirates to sign some kind of “peace” commitment with Israel. And today, it was the turn of Bahrain. President Trump will try to get more Arab states to follow suit. That will be big, as he sees it, from the electoral perspective. My understanding is that his people, starting with Jared Kushner, his son-in-law, are now talking to Oman and Qatar to join the bandwagon. That will give Donald Trump and his supporters a lot of ammunition for the rest of the electoral campaign. As I keep saying, it would be a mistake to consider the election won by Joe Biden. Trump will keep pulling new rabbits out of his hat.

France and Turkey

The hostility between France and Turkey reached a new level today. For now, it is just a war of words. But words matter a lot, in diplomacy and conflict. I would be very prudent. If I were in a position of international visibility I would advise both sides to moderate their statements and I would offer my good offices for a mediation effort. I would not shy away from my responsibilities. I would be very clear in expressing my deepest concerns.  

Lukashenko must go

The people of Belarus had never occupied the centre of our European attention. For us, in the European Union, they were just a small nation at the outer periphery of our political space. We knew nothing about them. Now, they are at the centre of our admiration. They have shown, since the fraudulent early August elections, to be a very valiant people. They have been on the streets almost every day, to tell the dictator that enough is enough and that he should go. Men and women, lots of folks, some older people as well, everyone is ready to face the police repression because they want to be heard. This is no revolution pushed from outside the country. This is a genuine popular movement. I think that sooner the dictator will have to yield. The popular dislike is too obvious for him and his small group of supporters to be able to ignore it. And he cannot count of Vladimir Putin’s help. If this one comes to help – I hope he will not – he will get rid of him in any case. Putin knows that Lukashenko is politically finished.

Dealing with Vladimir Putin's regime

This is an AI translation of my opinion column of today, published in Lisbon by Diário de Notícias, a national newspaper

 

Beyond poison

Victor Angelo

 

The European Union's political relationship with the Russian Federation remains very nebulous and tense. It exploded again this week after the German announcement that Alexei Navalny had been poisoned with a chemical composition, banned by international law, but available in the Russian state arsenal.

Apart from Navalny, the impasse in Belarus, the renewed US pressure against the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, the recent statements by Sweden on military threats in the Baltic Sea, the arrest of a senior French officer accused of collaborating with Russian espionage, all reminded us in recent days that defining a European policy towards Vladimir Putin's regime is an urgent and complex matter. It must go beyond the current package of economic sanctions, which was approved following the invasion of Crimea in 2014. These sanctions, now in force until 2021, mainly concern financial transactions and the export of material that can be used in oil production and exploration or in military areas. They are strictly linked to the evolution of Russian intervention in Ukraine, including the Crimea, and not to the broader question of how to face and deal with today's Russia.

I recognize that the issue has been much discussed and remains on the agenda. Josep Borrell, in recently launching a process of reflection on security and defence, which he named "Strategic Compass", had this issue in mind. The problem is that Russia is viewed differently by the distinct EU member countries. In the Baltics or Poland, it is considered as the great external threat. This opinion fades as we move towards the Atlantic and move away from the East and the traumas of Soviet times.

The debate has revived with Vladimir Putin's return to the presidency in 2012. In the previous two years, in NATO and in the European institutions there was still some hope for a constructive and cooperative relationship between the two parties. Russian general officers were even invited at that time to participate in high-level operational command exercises of the Atlantic Alliance. There were also other attempts to define a new neighbourhood policy. I speak from my own experience. In one of them, in which I participated as a facilitator on a Swiss initiative, it became clear that Russian nationalist pride had been irresponsibly mistreated in the years following the end of the Cold War, and that Vladimir Putin's agenda would be to restore the country's international presence and present the bill to the West. A revanchist project.

The crisis in Ukraine and the subsequent annexation of the Crimea were part of the settlement. Since then, relations have entered a zigzagging phase, with a growing tendency for political and diplomatic confrontation. It became clear that Vladimir Putin wanted to undermine the EU from within, through selective diplomacy and actions of disinformation, propaganda and support for far-right political parties, as long as they had the disintegration of the European project as their flag. The illusion of a "restoration" of cooperation was a short-lived sun. But not everyone wants to see reality that way. Bulgaria, Czechia, as well as Greece and Hungary have, within the EU, a relatively favourable attitude towards the positions of the Kremlin. Others will be, to a certain extent, neutral and available for détente, as will be the case in Portugal. 

The definition of a common policy requires a clear and shared understanding of Vladimir Putin's intentions, of his strategic and personal interests. It begins by understanding that Russia is different from China. China is a competitor, in many areas, and needs an adequate competitive response. Russia under Putin is a hostile state and should be treated as such. No one wants to clash with a powerful and bellicose neighbour. But to ignore it would be a mistake. That is why it must be repeatedly reminded what rules and values must be respected, as well as limit interaction to a minimum, and personally sanction the country's main leaders. It is necessary to show the European population, and above all the Russian, that we consider their leaders to behave badly, in light of democratic practices and international law.

 

Supporting Fatou Bensouda

 The sanctions the US has decided to impose on Ms Fatou Bensouda, the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), are an abuse of power. Totally unacceptable, they cannot be supported by any European country. They show, once more, that the current Administration in Washington has little respect for the United Nations and international norms.

The UN Secretary-General said he took note of the American decision. I do not understand what that means. Note of what? Of their lack of respect for the basic principles that should guide their international relations? This statement is too weak. It does no favour to the standing of the Secretary-General.

The Eastern Mediterranean as a conflict zone

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

29 Aug. 2020

Troubled waters in the Eastern Mediterranean

Victor Angelo

 

The week was on the verge of exploding, in the eastern Mediterranean. Turkey continued its maritime prospecting for gas deposits, with economic and political intentions, and increased its military presence in waters that Greece considers belonging to its continental shelf. The latter, in retaliation, declared that it would conduct naval and aerial exercises in those same waters. And she did so for three days, August 26-28, in collaboration with the armed forces of Cyprus, France and Italy. These manoeuvres followed another maritime exercise, a Greek-American one, which was more symbolic than anything else, but which did not go unnoticed in Ankara. Certain Turkish commentators said, then, in a subtle way because criticizing the regime puts many journalists in prison, that one of the government's objectives should be to avoid the diplomatic isolation of Turkey. A bit of very revealing advice.

The possibility of a military incident between the two neighbouring countries has left some European capitals restless. The big question became how to avoid an open confrontation, which would end up dragging several European countries and even Egypt, among others.

An effort of appeasement in the NATO framework was put aside. The organization is unable to respond to this rivalry between two member states. In fact, the Alliance's paralysis is becoming increasingly apparent in matters related to President Erdogan's political games. Following the ill-told coup attempt in July 2016, Turkey has become a millstone tied around NATO's neck.

The European channel remained. Germany, which holds the presidency of the EU and carries weight in both countries, sent its foreign minister, the social democrat Heiko Maas, to Athens and Ankara. His proposal was clear: to establish a moratorium on the exploitation of the contested waters and to seek a negotiated solution. In Greece, little was achieved. The Greeks had obtained the convocation of a European meeting on the subject and continued to bet on the decisions that could be taken there, as well as on Emmanuel Macron's support. In Turkey, Maas obtained from his counterpart a promise to participate in a process of dialogue. It was a clever way of responding, on the part of the Turkish minister, who thus sought to sap the will of the Europeans to adopt sanctions against his government.

The Greek-Turkish neighbourhood is very complicated. There is only one solution, and that is dialogue and cooperation between the two neighbours. This should be the line recommended by the European partners. It will not be easy to get it accepted, but alternatively, any confrontation would be a catastrophe. We must also send clear messages to President Erdogan, both about the future of the relationship between his country and Europe - which will not involve accession, since Turkey is part of another geopolitical reality and belongs to a cultural sphere that differs from the one prevailing in Europe - and about other issues where the parties' strategic interests may be at odds.

It must be recognized that Turkey is a country that counts in its geographical area. At the same time, we must not forget the choices that President Erdogan has made in recent years, which shock, contradict our idea of democracy and leave many European leaders frankly apprehensive. Erdogan's Turkey has unrealistic ambitions that go far beyond its economic strength - the national GDP is half of Spain's, although the Turkish population is twice that of Spain - and its capacity for regional influence. In fact, Turkey is a country still developing and with serious problems of social inclusion of its ethnic minorities, not to mention the ever-present issue of respect for human rights.  It would do better to spend less on military expenditures - they represent 2.7% of GDP, a figure well above the average and the recommendation that prevails within NATO - and more on promoting the well-being and opportunities of its citizens. If so, it is certain to aspire to a closer association with the EU.

This is for the future, perhaps even only possible in a post-Erdogan era. For now, it is essential to halt the military escalation and calm the waters.

 

 

 

 

 

Writing about a minefield

 One of my friends suggested, after reading my opinion column of this week, that I write the next one on Turkey and her relations with the EU. I answered that it is a great idea, a very topical theme, but also a dangerous one. The key European leaders cannot agree on an approach towards Erdogan’s Turkey. This week they will be discussing some options that the European Commission has drafted. I have not seen such discussion paper yet. Therefore, I am not able to comment on the proposals. But I know that the matter has a paralysing impact on European minds. Erdogan has managed to create that effect. Some leaders do not want to be clear on the approach they would advocate. Others are simply afraid of President Erdogan’s political moves. The consequence, in the end, is to block action, to create impasses in the European institutions that have something to do with today’s Turkey.

It is no surprise if I tell you that when I heard the suggestion about my next text, I also felt my hand shaking a bit.

Looking ahead, through the mist

 Translation of yesterday’s opinion piece I published in Diário de Notícias (Lisbon). 22 Aug. 2020

 

Back to the imponderables

Victor Angelo

 

The great challenge in our societies is to find and support the rise of leaders who are realistic, transformative, and convincing. This challenge is pressing today. With the summer vacation approaching its end, and as we look at the four months left to complete the year we cannot find it strange that many of us are apprehensive. We see a high tide of trouble and a low of international leadership. No current leader can go beyond the limits of his parish and propose an encouraging and credible perspective regarding what lies ahead.

The world scene will continue to be marked by the Covid-19 pandemic and, to a large extent, by American domestic politics. Not to mention other complications in our geopolitical neighbourhood, such as the growing tension between Europe and Turkey, now in the eastern part of the Mediterranean Sea, plus the endless conflicts and difficulties in the Middle East and the Sahel, starting with Mali. A list of concerns that is constantly growing and which now includes Belarus, thanks to the dictator Alexander Lukashenko, a reminiscence of Soviet times and of what the single party culture has produced as political monsters. Not forgetting, of course, the fractures within our European area, which is very fragile as a whole and with several national crises already visible or in the pipeline, as will be the case with Bulgaria and, for other reasons, Italy, where there is a very acute social malaise. The pandemic is a global inferno to which a number of local fires are added. The wisdom will be to understand what all this entails as consequences and to know how to propose a different international order. To think like that seems like a mirage. But this is an exceptional moment that challenges us and demands a different vision of the future.

Regarding the presidential elections in the United States, a friend of mine told me this week that we must be patient and wait for November. He added that he had no doubts about the defeat of Donald Trump and that afterwards everything would return to normal, including in international relations. I do not take Trump's defeat for granted. Democrats should not take victory as a bean count. There are, it is true, little more than seventy days to go before the election and the forecasts are not favourable to the President. But this is a time when imponderables can happen. The more objective and attentive analysts remind us that the country is immersed in a multidimensional crisis. It is not only the chaos in the management of the pandemic, its impact on the economy or the President's widespread and flagrant ineptitude. The Trump-Covid mix is causing a deep social shake-up, structural, with racial dimensions, poverty, and despair. It undermines the system and democracy, with the radicalisation of population sectors, especially those who believe that defeating Trump would mean tightening the siege they think exists against their interests.

Donald Trump does not see himself as a loser. He will try anything and everything to reclaim the lost ground, or, in desperation, throw the chessboard down the river. We face unpredictable times. He and his people need to continue the capture of the federal administration for another four years. Some analysts think this could lead to the president playing very dangerous games for the stability of his country and the world. And they are even more concerned when they see the blind alignment of GOP leaders, who dare do nothing to counter the president.

I am one of those who think those fears are exaggerated. The American institutions are strong enough to stop any temptation from the abyss. And the rest of the world is patient enough not to fall for provocation. Including China. But the truth is the year has been a sea of unimaginable surprises. So, for the months ahead, it's best to think of the unthinkable. That would be the challenge I would launch to a couple of European centres of strategic thinking. In the meantime, we should be careful that we continue, here on this side, to work for the best, without neglecting to prepare so that we can respond to further confusion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.