Von der Leyen's State of the Union

In general terms, I found the speech delivered yesterday by the President of the European Union to the European Parliament as positive, optimistic, and forward-looking. It contains a number of indications about the Commission’s future work and one should keep comparing the words with the implementation achievements. On the less positive side, Ursula von der Leyen’s statement does not mention the need for increased coordination between the EU states during the forthcoming months, as the pandemic crisis keeps paralysing the European nations. This is an immediate challenge and must be addressed. We cannot have a repetition of chaos we witnessed during the March-June period, with each government taking decisions without coordinating with the others, not even with the neighbours next door. Secondly, there was no reference to the threats the European project is facing, either from domestic actors or foreign sources. The Union is not as solid as many would think. This must be acknowledged and appropriate lines of action should be proposed.

 

This year's strange General Assembly

The 2020 UN General Assembly has started. Unfortunately, due to the pandemic, the world leaders will not be travelling to New York for the General Debate, scheduled for next week. The debate will be even less participatory than in the past. They will be sending pre-recorded videos with their statements. But the most important dimension of the General Assembly, the side meetings between leaders, will be missing. Personal contact is critical in world affairs. Its absence makes all of us more fragile. It makes cooperation less pressing. At a time when we need augmented cooperation between the nations. These are indeed difficult times.

Europe and China: a difficult dialogue

The summit call that took place today between the EU leaders and President Xi revealed a gulf of differences between the two sides when it comes to political values and the interference of the State in the economy. On the European side, reference was made to human rights as a fundamental value, as well as to the Chinese leadership’s policies towards the Uighur minority, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. President Xi did not like what he heard. But he could notice that the Europeans consider these matters fundamental and will continue to be raised in the future. At the same time, the economic relationship between both sides will continue – the trade between them amounts to one billion euros a day. And on this matter, the key issues will remain and must be addressed. The Chinese must open up to European investment and cease all kinds of political meddling in the governance of European firms already operating in China.

In the meantime, and as we wait for progress on these fronts to be achieved it is becoming clear that Chinese investments in critical European infrastructure can only be accepted if they do not put at stake the strategic dimensions of European security and stability.

The two sides must cooperate. They are key players in the international scene. It is therefore important they keep talking and be frank when doing it.

On Mali and the region

 

In today’s Diário de Notícias (Lisbon)

Notes on Mali

Victor Angelo

 

 

Mali is a fascinating country, diverse in its landscapes and cultures. It is home to great singers and traditional musicians who play the korah, an ancestral instrument made from a large gourd, the Dogon masks and statues, birthplace of the city of Timbuktu, a unique historical reference in Islamic studies. For four centuries, until 1670, Mali was the epicentre of a great empire in West Africa, an empire recognized by Portuguese explorers, who traded extensively with it across the Gambia River. I would also add that I had several Malian colleagues at the UN who proved to be excellent professionals and held important positions in the different multilateral organizations. I write this to fight the summary opinions of those who are in the habit of arranging everything African in a dark corner, in the shadow of the usual prejudices. I am sad, like many others, when I see the country tearing itself apart and becoming insecure, as it continues to do daily.

Mali has made the news again in the last three weeks following the military coup of August 18. It is, for the same reason, the subject of debate, including in European circles. Moreover, some conspiracy theorists have seen Moscow's hand behind the colonels who took power, a hypothesis I consider unlikely. But there are other hands at work in Mali, from France to Saudi Arabia, and with vastly different intentions.

Also, at stake is the role of the United Nations, which has maintained a peace mission in the country since 2013, with more than 15,000 elements. MINUSMA, as the mission is called, has, over time, become a case study because it has not been able to respond to the political and governance issues that are at the heart of Mali's problems. The political direction of the mission resolved, to please the French and out of strategic opportunism, to stick to the president that the coup has now deposed. In New York, at the Security Council, no one had the courage to correct this trajectory. Thus, credibility is lost, and the future is mortgaged. 

Returning to the current debate, it should have emphasized that more than two thirds of Mali's population is under 25 years of age. And that education and the economy are unable to meet the challenges that such an age pyramid entails. When I was in Mali for the first time in 1990, its total population was around eight and a half million. Today, thirty years later, it is close to twenty million. The same happens in the other countries of the region. They all have explosive age pyramids. Demographic pressure has grown throughout the Sahel along with the advance of desertification and poverty. Being young in the Sahel means looking to the future and seeing only a multitude of arid politics, a desert of opportunities and a chaotic and inhumane urban habitat. Thus, hope and social peace are hard to achieve. All that remains is migration to Europe, or else adherence to armed banditry and fanatical rebellions. Fanaticism has grown exponentially over the past decade, thanks in particular to the proliferation of mosques, Wahabist koranic schools and radical preachers, all financed by the Saudis and others of the kind. 

Those who neither emigrate nor join the extremist groups, vegetate in the big cities, where they can observe how social inequalities have become blatant, the fruit of the corruption that prevails in political circles, in the security forces and in the administration of justice. They also see that European countries and other international actors turn a blind eye to the manipulations practiced by the powerful. This is what happened in Mali. After months of popular protest against the indifference of the president and the greed of his own circle of friends, a group of senior officials decided to act. They have popular support, at least for now. It is true that one should not support anti-constitutional coups. But it is also true that one can no longer pretend that one does not see corruption, ineptitude and the failure of territorial administration, with vast areas of national space without any state presence. The mitigation of crises begins with the promotion of probity and the restoration of local power, beyond the treatment of youth issues. This is what we must remind the colonels, the leaders of the region, the UN Security Council and the European partners of Mali, Portugal included. 

 

 

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.