A moral approach to politics

The new encyclical letter of Pope Francis has been issued today. It is called Fratelli Tutti, to remind us that we are all brothers. The Pope says it is a social document and indeed it is very political. It took him a good couple of years to write it down. It is, therefore, a reflection that must be taken into account. It cannot be dismissed, even by those who are not Catholics. In tomorrow’s world, we must spend more time listening to moral voices. They will certainly help us in the fight for ethics in politics. Politics with principles and for the common good should become the main transformation we should aim at, in the post-covid world.

The Europeans and their immigrants

My text in today’s edition of Diário de Notícias newspaper (Lisbon)

 

Europe and migrations

Victor Angelo

The European Commission has just presented the broad outline for a pact on migration and asylum. It has also promised to submit in the coming months a complementary package of proposals dealing with the various facets of the issue. These include the integration of migrants; repatriation operations - in other words, expulsion - for those who are denied asylum and residence; the revision of the rules governing the Schengen area and the strengthening of the Union's borders; the fight against human trafficking; and a new type of cooperation with migrants' countries of origin. It is an ambitious programme. My fear is that all this work will bring a lot of pain and little result. This is one of the most divisive issues for EU countries. Agreements cannot be reached beyond strengthening the Union's external borders and the intention, always difficult to carry out, of the muscular return of immigrants who are not accepted. This has been the case since the migration crisis of 2015, and I fear it may continue to be so. 

But it is worth insisting. The Commission has the merit of reminding us that the issue of migration is one of the main problems we face. It also reminds us that this is a common challenge and not just for the countries that geography and history have brought closer to Africa, the Middle East, the Indian subcontinent, or Latin America. Some, however, do not want to see the problem as being for everyone. They think it can be solved by closing the borders to prevent mass movements. The bet on watertight borders is an unrealistic proposal. It does not consider the demography, the conflicts, the lack of opportunities and the despair that exist on Europe's doorstep.  If I were a young man from Niger or Tunisia, my overriding ambition would be to try to emigrate to Europe at all costs. I would have the same attitude if I came from Pakistan or Bangladesh. Today, it is like that. Tomorrow, the migratory pressure will be incomparably greater.

Faced with such a scenario, it is understandable that the Commission feels it is better to be prepared. It will not be easy, but one must try. Disordered migration and responses at the national level alone will end up calling into question the Schengen agreement and the continuation of the EU. Above all, they will become a flag for populists, and therefore a threat to democracy in several European countries. It is, therefore, a political issue of the utmost importance.

In Portugal, the problem is not so visible. We are more a country of emigrants than immigrants. It's true that in certain European circles people are already beginning to talk about Portugal as a gateway and an antechamber of passage for those coming from Guinea, Cape Verde, Brazil and even India, to mention only the most important. And there are already those who look at the sea between Morocco and the Algarve and see there a new route, which needs to be stopped as soon as possible.

In France, the situation is different. President Macron knows what the political costs of uncontrolled immigration could be. He is also aware of the fractures that certain immigrant communities cause in French society. He calls these fractures "separatism" and considers them to be one of the most pressing problems. The separatism of which he speaks is more than the lack of integration in the Gallic nation. It is a deliberate attitude of groups of people of French nationality, but with foreign roots, who refuse to accept the secular, tolerant and egalitarian values that define the French ethos. These values are similar to those prevailing in the rest of the Union, but they are not recognized in other lands, which have lived different historical experiences from ours. This deliberate rejection of assimilation is a new and worrying phenomenon.

I mention France by way of example. I could speak of other countries which, on the central axis of Europe, have been the destination of migrants from outside the European culture for the last sixty years. In all these countries, migration is a sensitive topic, latent when economies thrive and open when difficulties tighten. With the economy on the verge of a major crisis because of the impact of the covid, not to deal politically with the migration issue would be a mistake of unpredictable consequences for Europe. We cannot allow this error to persist.

 

 

Translated from Portuguese with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

 

 

Mr Trump is positive

I got a couple of emails from the US on President Trump´s covid infection. The messages were similar and expressing deep worries that the President will try to get a lot of mileage from his condition. He will receive the best medical treatment available in the world and will certainly recover. Then, he and his supporters will present his coming back as a confirmation of his strength and determination. The evangelist crowd and they are many and absolutely lunatic, will say that his return shows that God wants him to be around and continue his work as president.

The point they tried to make was that the president’s covid condition could be turned around and used as an electoral card. It could even be a fake ailment, a distraction good to get people to forget the debate disaster

I replied to say that we are all contaminated by conspiracy theories. The man is indeed sick, and we can only wish him a speedy recovery.

Never be silent when democracy is at risk

My friend called it “the debacle”. And a tragedy it was. Like a profoundly serious warning that democracy can always be at stake, even in a very well-developed society. Democracy is a never-ending endeavour. Everything rests on leadership and the ability to respond to power abusers. No one can remain silent in that kind of situations. In the end, democracy, respect for the individual opinions of everyone and the fight against fear are the pillars of modern societies. Those who attack them, particularly those who do it from a position of power, cannot be left alone. They must be permanently challenged.

 

Mr Trump speaks to the United Nations

This is the text I published today in Diário de Notícias (Lisbon newspaper). It is a machine (AI) translation. The original is written in Portuguese.

 

President Trump and the United Nations

Victor Angelo

 

The name of this year's Nobel Peace Prize laureate will be announced on October 9. The list of candidates includes 318 names, an impressive number. It seems that Donald Trump's name would be included in the list of nominees, which is not impossible because any member of his government, Congress or any other personality has the faculty to nominate. The fact is that the president would very much welcome the Nobel award, less than a month before the presidential election.

This is how the words spoken this week by the American ambassador to the United Nations, Kelly Craft, when she was called upon to introduce her boss's intervention before the UN General Assembly, should be understood. Craft's brief introduction sought to convey only one message. She said that Donald Trump is a leader who gives special consideration to the search for peace. She then mentioned initiatives related to Israel, the Arab Emirates and Bahrain, the economic agreement signed at the White House between Serbia and Kosovo, North Korea, a country that has disappeared from the news and can therefore be presented as well behaved for the time being. The ambassador also brought in the launching of the talks between Afghans, with American sponsorship.

Then, spoke the president. His speech blurred the image of a leader concerned with peace. If today's times were to be governed by the usual diplomatic norms, President Trump's words should be seen as a harbinger of a declaration of war on China. This country was presented as the cause of the covid-19 pandemic and the associated global economic crisis. It has also been singled out as the biggest polluter of land, sea, and air.

It was a catalogue of accusations to others and praise for himself and the successes his administration would have achieved in various fields, from conflict resolution to carbon emission reduction. All with the eyes on the November elections. 

But we should be clear that the diatribe against China has deep and prolonged consequences on American political life and psyche. It is something that will mark the international relations of the United States, whether Trump is at the head of the country or not. The political class, the military circles and various sectors of American academia, intellectuals and society see China's foreign ambition as a vital threat to the United States' role in the world. For some it is a question of political hegemony or economic interests, for others there will be an ethical dimension and democratic values when they think of a China that becomes a superpower. The decade ahead of us will be marked by obstinate rivalry between these two colossi. Those who think that the European Union can serve as a counterweight and a balance in the face of this competition should put their strategic imagination to work right now. I make no secret of my concern, however, about the growing conflict between the United States and China, or my scepticism about the strategic effectiveness of European foreign policy.

Let us return to the General Assembly and to President Trump's communication. In addition to the harangue against China and the election propaganda, the speech set out what appears to be an agenda for the United Nations, in Washington version. To the issues of peace - the area of "blue helmets" is a priority not only for Americans but for many more; the only issue is that the main recommendations of the Ramos-Horta Commission (2015) and subsequent political lessons remain unimplemented, with a disconnect between military operations and the political work of the missions - the president added the fight against terrorism, the oppression of women, human and drug trafficking, ethnic and religious persecution. He also made special reference to human rights.

It is clear that he did not speak of the deadlocks that hinder the proper functioning of the Security Council, the marginalization of the UN and the multilateral system, which has been a hallmark of his mandate, or the lack of support for the Secretary-General. But what he said on the positive side should be used to give new visibility to the United Nations and relaunch international cooperation. As for the rest, we will see after November.

 

 

EU sanctions on Belarus

The European Union has prepared a list of about 40 Belarusian personalities close to Alexander Lukashenko – his name is not in the list – that would be subject to sanctions. The list should be approved this coming week. I will comment further on it as soon as I have seen it and the kind of sanctions that it includes. However, an initial reflection can be made right now. Sanctions are a straightforward way out. The experience has shown that the type of measures adopted ends up by having little impact on the situation. They do not lead to real change. And, in all truth, they hide the lack of political will to undertake a more proactive approach. In this case, I have not yet seen a single proposal that I can say “that’s a concrete way of helping the Belarusian people to solve the impasse”. The EU is not showing enough creative thinking.

The United Nations at 75: to be more political again

My opinion piece on the United Nations, as published today, in Portuguese language, in the Diário de Notícias (Lisbon)

 

Maintaining the relevance of the United Nations

Victor Angelo

 

The United Nations celebrates 75 years of existence at the beginning of the coming week. This is also the week of the General Debate, which allows world leaders to address the General Assembly and those who are prepared to hear them. This year, despite the symbolic importance of the anniversary, everything will have a low profile, digital-only, because of the pandemic. The heads of state and government will not travel to New York. They will send videos, in most cases with the usual nonsense intended for their domestic audiences. The absence of the leaders will cause the most relevant part of the annual meeting to be missed, which is to allow a whole series of face-to-face meetings among the great ones of this world. All this makes this year's session relatively invisible, precisely when the United Nations needs to regain international attention. 

It may be that the US President will be the only one to make the trip and speak in person. It would be advantageous for him to do so to as it would allow him to spend some time with Secretary General António Guterres. Donald Trump is known to slow down his impulses when there is personal contact, something that has not happened between the two for quite some time. But more important than whether he goes to UN headquarters is what the President will say. There has been a lot of speculation and nervousness around it. There are even those who say it might include the threat of his country leaving the United Nations. I don't think he will say that. That it is going to be a speech aimed at the American electorate, it is going to be. It will mention Israel and the recent diplomatic victories President Trump managed to pull out of his hat. We can also expect strong references to his pet enemies, starting with Iran. In relation to this, one can anticipate direct criticism of the Russian and Chinese positions, a criticism that will also touch the Europeans, because they have not supported recent American decisions on Iran. But above all, I fear that the President will develop a narrative that will allow him to justify a hypothetical intervention in Iran in the coming weeks, something that cannot be ruled out as a possible electoral asset. 

President Trump does not seem to have much regard for the UN. He and his team have already realized that they cannot use it meekly as an instrument to give them international legitimacy after the event. This was the case at the end of August, when the Security Council rejected the US claim to impose new sanctions on Iran. In these situations, the American response has been one of two: either to leave the specialized organizations of the UN, as seen with UNESCO, the Commission on Human Rights or the WHO; or to marginalize and ignore the institution, as has happened with the United Nations Secretariat. Moreover, the current American leadership has already shown that it does not believe in multilateral solutions. The prevailing foreign policy option is to make pressure and demands, based on the principle that might is right.

Faced with the erosion of multilateralism and marginalization, the response must be powerful. It must be based on the constant repetition of the fundamental role of the UN in promoting peace and security, as these concepts are understood today. This means the recognition that the organization exists to facilitate political solutions, in case of risk, threat or conflict. The dimensions of development and humanitarian action are important pillars of the UNAIDS system, but the primacy must be given to political work. This is the message that New York must make heard with a firm voice. And explain that for there to be peace and security, there must be respect for people's dignity, their rights and aspirations for freedom, good governance, and equal opportunities. In other words, the ideas of human development and individual security must be given a more intense political sense. These concepts were formulated in the 1990s and recognized as major advances in the way international relations are viewed.  They remain, however, orphans in terms of the political oratory. They need to be translated into a political language. This one remains timid and traditional, very much based on the sovereignty of states and non-interference in the internal affairs of each country. The narrative must now, at the age of 75, stress the need for a balance between sovereignty and the rights of each of us. "We, the peoples of the United Nations," as it says at the beginning of the Charter.

 

Contingency planning for a covid response

Some European states are battling a growing number of coronavirus-infected cases. This is again a major challenge and people are getting a bit fatalistic about it. They have little appetite for new lockdowns. For them, lockdown is synonymous of economic collapse, in addition to the constraints it means for their life routines. Governments themselves are not too keen on lockdowns either. But the perspectives for the next few months are most worrying. We are getting into the colder days and one can expect a serious increase in infections. This and the economic difficulties many will face do represent a completely new threat to social stability. It is necessary to draw contingency plans. Unfortunately, I do not see any government, or the European Commission for that matter, busy with such planning. They seem just as fatalistic as people are. That is certainly not the best way of discharging their policy responsibilities. Some of us must keep asking the leaders about the contingency measures they are preparing for. We know the answer so far – none! – but we should insist on the question.

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.