The human dimension in politics

The pandemic has reminded us that health, politics, ethics, social justice, and human rights are deeply interconnected. It has also sent us a strong message that health is a public good, not just an individual matter or an economic issue. Politicians are made to realise that human life is at the centre of all concerns. The human dimension of politics must be seen as central.

Our Putin policy

Russia in fat letters

Victor Angelo

 

This week, Vladimir Putin and Russia made headlines again. One of the reasons was the message of congratulations that Putin sent to Joe Biden. The Russian leader turned out to be one of the last heads of state to congratulate the winner of the US elections. The pretext for the delay was to wait for the results of the Electoral College. This formalism, which was impeccable from a legal point of view, but undiplomatic and inconsequential in terms of future relations, barely conceals Putin's preference for Donald Trump. In Moscow's view, Trump's incompetent, incoherent and divisive policy was the one that most weakened the international position of the USA and best served the Russian geopolitical renaissance. Not to mention, of course, the deference that the American always showed for the Kremlin's strong man. 

Putin's message speaks of cooperation and puts his country on a par with the USA, in the very exclusive league of the great states "especially responsible for global security and stability". Putin, always attentive, takes this opportunity to reaffirm his country's indispensable role on the world stage.

In the meantime, other headlines have emerged about Russia. Since March she has been accused of infiltrating the computer systems of several major American targets. The list of federal institutions and private companies violated, as well as the level of refinement used, show the gigantic scale of the operation, which can only have been carried out by the highly specialised services that make up the official Russian espionage web. It is true that other countries are constantly trying to do the same. But the fact is that the Russians have succeeded and for a long time. This can only mean that the leadership invests exceptionally in cyber-espionage. It will never be known exactly what information has been extracted. The hope remains that the volume of data will be of such magnitude that it will eventually overwhelm the analysts. In these matters, it is one thing to obtain information, but another to have the capacity to carry out its analysis, in order to transform it into knowledge and courses of action, and this in good time, which becomes short as soon as the infiltration is discovered.

To complete the bunch, it was simultaneously noticed that the Russians had also pirated the European Medicines Agency. And CNN published a detailed report of the persecution and poisoning of the opposition figure, Alexei Navalny, by Putin's agents. Then came the news about doping and the ban on participation in the next Olympic Games. A series of negative headlines about a regime that loves to sell its image as respectable.  

Amid all this, Europeans extended sanctions against Russia until July 2021. These measures, which come from 2014 and relate to Russian armed intrusions into Ukraine and the occupation of the Crimea, have a narrow scope. They do not include, for example, the suspension of the construction of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, which will link Russia and Germany across the Baltic. Another title of the week was to announce that work on the installation of the pipeline had resumed and had even entered the final phase.

The reality is that EU leaders do not have a clear political vision of what the relationship with Russia should be like. There has been much debate on the issue, including the design of scenarios, but no agreement. The trend seems to me, as we look at the decade ahead, a mixture of deadlock, hesitation, opportunism, mistrust, and detachment. A policy of uncertainties, with Putin setting the pace.

The Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), now with Helga Schmid at the helm, should seek to be the bridge for dialogue between us and Moscow. But not only that. The EU's external agenda needs to define a strategic line on Russia, including proposals for joint action, first in areas of least controversy and serving to build understanding and trust. The same should happen at the military level, both in the EU and NATO. Russia is our massive neighbour. Threatening, certainly, with autocratic leadership, but geographically, culturally, and economically close. A policy of locked doors has no way out.

 

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published today in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper)

 

 

China and Europe: an agenda that differs from the American one

China and us

Victor Angelo

 

China's Foreign Minister Wang Yi spoke this week to the cream of US business leaders based in his country. The focus of his speech was the resumption of political dialogue between China and the United States under Joe Biden. He felt there was an urgent need to restore communication and mutual trust. He hinted that it was time to overcome the lack of objectivity and rationality that had marked Donald Trump's governance.  Apart from the reference to the red line of non-interference in Chinese domestic affairs - that is, Beijing does not want to be talked about human rights - his communication reflected a positive and reassuring official line.

On the same day that Wang spoke, Washington added 14 Chinese personalities to the list of those sanctioned for repression in Hong Kong. In Singapore, US Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross argued to an audience of leaders coming from the region that China would be the main military and economic threat to Asian countries. This is consistent with the Trump team's intention to create a fait accompli that would condition Biden's policy towards China. And I would say that it is managing to reduce, at least for some time, the room for manoeuvre of the new administration. A large part of public opinion and of the US political class share an ideological position of hostility towards China. 

Days before, John Ratcliffe, the director of U.S. National Intelligence and, as such, the supreme coordinator of the country's seventeen espionage and counterintelligence agencies, had published an opinion on China in the Wall Street Journal. Given its author, the text attracted much attention. The song was the same and the title of the article summed it up: "China is the No. 1 threat to national security". In the body of the text, it went further, stating that China would also be the greatest danger to the world’s democracy and freedom. The rest of the writing was an amalgamation of scattered ideas about China’s actions without differentiating well what would be within the domain of national security from the anecdotal or just a fight for the interests of American multinationals.

The legacy that Trump seeks to leave in this matter is also intended to condition the Europeans. He is already achieving this in NATO. The group of experts set up by the Secretary General to reflect on NATO 2030 is co-chaired by the American Wess Mitchell, an intellectual so dear to Trump as hostile to Beijing. The document the group has produced, now under discussion by the Alliance's foreign ministers since the beginning of this month, refers to China as an "acute threat".

However, Europe cannot look to China only from the unique perspective provided by the Americans. Our interests and our geopolitical deployment are different. Nor are we in a race for military power, nor do we have the engines of Chinese aircraft carriers snoring through waters close to us. We know, on the other hand, that you cannot put all the risks in the same bag. Every threat, be it military, political destabilisation, scientific, technological, or economic espionage, in the field of intellectual property or unfair competition, requires specific treatment.

In Europe's case, attention must be focused on three types of action. First, the fight against espionage, intrusion and theft linked to scientific and technological advances. European intelligence services must prepare themselves for this task and cooperate more closely with each other. Secondly, a common frame of reference should be defined to give coherence to the way European states relate to China's politics and economy. In other words, this means that opportunistic relations, and outside that framework, between EU member states and China should be considered unacceptable. Third and foremost, the EU must state clearly that cooperation is the only desirable way forward. So, without calling into question our alliance with the US, and without forgetting that Beijing is a dictatorship, political dialogue with China must seek mutual benefit, the promotion of universal rights and values, and cooperation in tackling major global challenges.

 

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published today in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper)

 

 

Writing about Iran

Iran: the next day

Victor Angelo

 

 

In 2018, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh became known when Benjamin Netanyahu accused him of being the scientist at the head of the Iranian nuclear programme. Fakhrizadeh was murdered on the outskirts of Tehran a week ago. There are contradictory accounts of the crime. What is certain is that the ambush was conducted by a reasonable number of agents, at least ten of them, and in a professional way - the wife, who was travelling with him, came out of it unharmed, she was not part of the objective. I have no doubt that the ambush was carried out by special forces, with perfectly trained executioners, who had at their disposal the information, logistics and means necessary for a high-risk mission. It is peaceful to conclude that it was not the work of the internal Iranian opposition. It had all the characteristics of an operation planned, organised, and carried out by a state hostile to Iran. And I cannot help but think of the regime's three main enemies: Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Donald Trump's United States.

Those who know these things point in the direction of Israel. It is true that the secret services of that country, in particular the legendary Mossad, have already demonstrated an incomparably greater ability to penetrate Iranian official circles than any other espionage service. One example of this ability, with the trial of the indicted currently taking place in Antwerp, is the following: it was Mossad that made known to the Belgian authorities the terrorist attack the Iranian government was plotting in 2018 against the National Council of Iranian Resistance in exile. The European intelligence services where the plot was being prepared - the Belgians, the French, and the Austrians - had not noticed anything. 

Israel can never admit the slightest hint of responsibility for murders of this kind. Such an admission would open the door to prosecution in the International Court of Justice in The Hague or in the jurisdiction of a United Nations member country. International law is clear. An extraterritorial, summary, and arbitrary execution, promoted by a State outside a situation of armed conflict is a crime which violates international human rights law, the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the 1977 Additional Protocols. Moreover, the United Nations Charter expressly prohibits the extraterritorial use of force in times of peace.

For all these reasons, the paternity of what has now happened to Fakhrizadeh will remain unknown for the time being. We will have to be contented with the suspicions.

The assassination has shown that the Iranian system of internal espionage and counterespionage, which terrifies the population, has very serious flaws. The powerful Ministry of Intelligence is more concerned with the repression of the growing internal opposition than it is prepared to identify the most sophisticated threats from outside. This is not new. In early July, for example, the security services were unable to prevent an explosion at the Natanz nuclear power plant, nor were they able to avert the sabotage of missile-making programmes. All these actions were handled by a foreign country.  

A fundamental issue is to try to understand the central motive for the assassination. What seems more obvious, which would be to strike a major blow capable of further delaying the regime's nuclear programme, makes no sense. The country already has several teams of scientists capable of enriching uranium. The attack on Natanz and the sabotage have already delayed the plans. The real reason must be different.

If we look upstream, we will see that the Israeli government is on the brink of collapse and that Netanyahu will need convincing campaign arguments again. The presumption of a strong hand against the ayatollahs will certainly bring a good number of votes. Looking further ahead, we see that the new Biden administration is in favour of reopening a negotiating process with Tehran. This would be more difficult if the clerics responded to what happened to Fakhrizadeh in a violent manner. The old leaders of Iran are fanatical and backward. But they are astute in international politics. They must look at the assassination as an attempt at political provocation. And they know that waiting patiently for Joe Biden to take office may be the best response to the challenge they were given days ago.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published today in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper)

 

 

 

The future of politics must be based on values

They do not fit into our future

Victor Angelo

 

I recognise the concerns that many thinkers express about what the world will be like in the aftermath of the coronavirus pandemic. A large proportion say that this crisis pulverizes our societies and disrupts democracy and the alliances that bind us to other peoples, promotes a tendency towards isolation, nationalistic selfishness and the loss of the points of reference that gave meaning to international relations. Thus, the world would emerge fragmented from the crisis, with each country more self-centred, more autocratic, and with the institutions of the multilateral system rather weakened.

I propose a different reading of the route we are now taking. I believe that the crisis gives us the opportunity to strengthen the humanist dimension that has been lacking, both in domestic politics and on the international stage. We will certainly be poorer economically, but we can become much richer politically. It is a question of good leadership and strong citizenship movements. The pandemic has reminded us that people are the essential end of politics. Not people in a general and abstract sense, but each of us, simultaneously in our individuality and as members of the social space to which we belong. Politics must place a stronger emphasis on protecting and respecting our fundamental rights, starting with the right to dignity, health, security and diversity, as well as creating the conditions for everyone to develop their potential as best they know how. 

I believe that the pandemic drama has prepared a good part of the citizens for a new kind of awareness as regards their relationship with others and nature. I think it has made us more measured in our ambitions. We are faced with the possibility of renewing political practice. That is the main conclusion I draw from the present situation. It is also the line that guides my vision of the future. Politics tomorrow must mean a continuous struggle for human rights, for democratisation, for smoothness in public management and for more solidarity. We must build on the maturity we have acquired during this period of shock. If this happens, the credibility of politics will be enhanced, multilateral cooperation will be cemented and we will be in a better position to tackle what I consider to be the three biggest global challenges of the decade: the fight against poverty, the defence of freedom and the regeneration of the environment, starting with the mitigation of climate change.

Indeed, none of this should be new to us Europeans. Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union clearly defines - and happily worded, which is not always the case when it comes to legal commitments between states - the values that constitute the fundamental foundations of our common project, including the centrality of the human dimension of politics. But politicians, who are generally very skilful in the games of opportunism and in the ambiguity of consensus designed to please Greeks and Trojans, do not always support themselves as they should in that article of the Treaty.

In these circumstances, it is essential that the European Commission's budget for the period 2021-2027 and the exceptional plan for economic recovery, which must respond to the challenges created by the pandemic, recognise the essential need for each Member State to respect the letter and spirit of the aforementioned Article 2. Budgets and democracy are the two sides of the same Europe. Here there can be no tricks or juggling of words and misunderstandings. The Hungarian vetoes of Viktor Orbán and the Polish vetoes of Jaroslaw Kaczynski, now also supported by Janez Janša, the Prime Minister of Slovenia, are unacceptable. Let us speak clearly. Orbán is a despot at the head of a clique that many accuse of kleptocracy. Kaczynski is a backward man who exploits feelings from other times. Janša is a small brain man: he was the only European leader to congratulate Donald Trump on his electoral "victory". They all manipulate public opinion in their countries and will not change as long as they retain control of power. We cannot let these gentlemen think that the EU is just a source of money, unrelated to a policy of democratic values and rights. Any compromise on this issue would mean that we would not have learned anything from the cultural revolution that the pandemic crisis is offering us. 

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published today in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper)

Biden's first steps

I was most impressed by the public presentation of President-Elect Joe Biden’s core team. That was a great moment of hope. The session was wisely organised, and the presentation speeches made by each one of the participants were deeply touching. It was a great start. Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and the nominees sent a strong message of confidence, experience and patriotism to the American people.

The contrast with the outgoing team could not be greater.

Our dear leader Donald "Narcissus" Trump

Narcissus or the fragility of democracies

Victor Angelo

 

To instil realism in a madman who has not his feet on the ground is an almost impossible task. But it is even more difficult to try to explain to a narcissistic politician that he is not the best and most loved of this world and the other. Unfortunately, politics is full of narcissism. It is a personality disorder that makes them politically toxic. They live one step away from becoming autocratic leaders.

Of all the narcissists, Donald Trump is the most visible and, given the power he still has, the most dangerous. The weeks left until the end of his term leave many of us anxious about the kind of decisions he might still take. The order to withdraw a good part of the remaining American troops from Afghanistan and Iraq is only the most recent example. It was decided without prior consultation with the authorities of those countries and in defiance of commitments signed with other NATO partners, who also have military personnel deployed in these theatres of conflict and whose stay goes hand in hand with a minimal presence of American forces. Another example of a very bad decision, also taken this week, concerns the authorisation of gas and oil exploration in the largest natural reserve in the Arctic area of Alaska. The concessions that will be approved in the next few days will leave Biden's administration prisoner to agreements with disastrous environmental consequences.

There is also the possibility of a last-minute madness against Iran. It is true that the advisers who still weigh on the White House and especially the Pentagon are not in favour of such action. It would be like opening a Pandora's box, at a time when Trump's authority is hanging by a thread and the Middle East is very unstable. Apparently, the idea has been put aside. But nothing can be considered definitive as long as he remains in power. We are, in fact, living in a period where each day can bring us a very bad surprise.

In reality, the only significant decision to be expected from Donald Trump will be the recognition of his electoral defeat. I am afraid that his narcissistic disorder will prevent him from doing so. I am convinced that he will continue to plunge into the fantasy he has created, fixated to the end in a fraud that did not exist, but which he needs to believe in, in order to try to heal the great wound that his disproportionate ego has suffered.

I am even more worried when I see prominent members of his party doing crazy things to influence the electoral authorities of several states. To this political pressure, which is simply illegal, are added public statements that call into question the legitimacy of the process and the victory of the elected president. A Reuters/Ipsos poll a few days ago revealed that about 2 out of 3 Republican voters believe that Biden would not have won the presidential election cleanly.

All this does great damage to social peace and the good acceptance of the new administration. Democracy seems to have been the main victim of these four years of atypical, self-centred and incompetent governance. The above-mentioned poll showed a growing distrust with the democratic system in the US. Donald Trump could go down in American history as one of the worst presidents of the last hundred years. He will certainly be remembered as the one who contributed the most to the weakening of democracy in his country and to the degradation of the political class. Party politics, the departments of the federal government, the House of Representatives and above all the Senate, are some of the institutions whose prestige has been deeply shaken by the megalomania, instrumentalization of power, nepotism and incoherence that have characterised Trump's governance.

We have learned that democracy in our part of the world is more fragile than was thought.  It is greatly threatened when power is concentrated in a single national leader, who uses it to polarise political life, to practise a rhetoric that divides society into antagonistic camps. That is what happened in the USA. But it is also happening in some European countries, especially when the parliamentary majority is made up of members of parliament who owe their seats to the loyalty they devote with closed eyes to the leader of their party who is, at the same time, head of the executive power.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published today in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper)

 

 

The EU-US partnership

A Bolder Europe

Victor Angelo

 

When it comes to real European politics, it is always good to start by knowing what Angela Merkel thinks. Even bearing in mind that she is due to leave the scene next year, she remains a leading voice. This week the Chancellor unambiguously welcomed Joe Biden's victory. She added that the partnership between the European Union and the United States should be the fundamental alliance of the 21st century. I will agree with this statement if the collaboration is based on a balance of power between the two sides. As I also agree with Merkel when she says in her message to the President-elect that for the cooperation to work effectively, additional efforts will have to be asked from the EU side.

The next day Ursula von der Leyen spoke to the heads of mission representing Europe in the world. She mentioned the future of relations with the USA. Her words were inspired by what Merkel had said. She stressed that it was up to the EU to take the initiative for a new kind of synergy with the incoming administration, that it was not a question of going back to the past, as if nothing had happened during the last four years. Yesterday and tomorrow belong to different historical eras. After such a challenging, radical, and absurd mandate as that of Donald Trump, a large part of American society looks to Europe and the world with suspicion. We must respond to this state of mind, combat isolationist tendencies and re-emphasise the importance of international cooperation for the prosperity of all and for the resolution of problems which know no borders.

The philosophy behind these European declarations, to which Emmanuel Macron's words were added, is encouraging.

The pandemic has turned the world upside down and shown that international solidarity and complementarities are now more necessary than ever. Europe can make a positive contribution to the structural transformation that the new future requires. To do so, it needs to become stronger, more ambitious, in the good sense of the word, and to look to the other major powers on an equal footing. The old attitude of subordination to the United States does not serve European interests. Nor does it allow the EU to gain the autonomy it needs to play a stabilising role between the other major powers on the planet.

The European responsibility is to take advantage of the constructive spirit that Biden's administration is expected to bring to international relations to project a clearer image of what it means to live in a democracy of mutual respect and tolerance, fair and capable of responding to the security aspirations of each citizen. The importance of individual security, in the multidimensional sense of this concept, covering life, employment, health, personal tranquillity, is one of the great lessons that the pandemic gives us. This lesson must be translated into political practice.  

To contribute effectively to the transatlantic partnership and to any bridge with other regions of the globe, the EU must be particularly demanding of itself. Retrograde, ultra-liberal, xenophobic, or even racist or corrupt governments cannot fit into the European area. Nor can we accept simply inefficient and bureaucratic administrations.

Europe's strength will lie in the quality and fairness of its governance and the coherence of its values. It will be complemented by efficient security and defence systems. Here, in the areas of European security, the message is that we are not against anyone, nor will we allow ourselves to be drawn into other people's wars, as unfortunately happened in the recent past, but also that we are not naive. This message is valid for everyone, allies, and competitors. It also means that we know that in tomorrow's world, better defence and more security do not come through more cannons and more soldiers, but through more analysis and intelligence, more highly prepared cadres and officers, more special forces, better cybernetic systems, more effective tracking of social platforms, and information that helps citizens to identify the truth and eliminate what is false.

If we move forward in this way, we will be responding positively to the hope that the election of Joe Biden has created and opening the way for progress towards a more balanced, safe, intelligent, and sustainable world.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published today in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper)

 

 

Reflecting on the United States elections

United States: after the confusion

Victor Angelo 

This week's subject has been the US presidential election. I don't want to get into the current discussion now. I just want to address two aspects that I think deserve more attention. 

The first is about the "beef". In 1984, a hamburger company created an advertising phrase that was immediately appropriated by the political class. The phrase was: where is the beef? In other words, beyond the verbiage, tell us what concrete proposals you are making? The question remains in the political arsenal and has a lot of argumentative force.

This year's election beef was a mixture of economic perspectives, pandemic management, and the fight for racial equality. These were the flags that mobilised the voters, beyond the deep love or disgust that each candidate raised. It became clear that citizens participate more in the electoral act when the meat is consistent, made of great causes.

The economy seems to have been the most important motivator of voter turnout. This reminds me of the famous expression used by Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign: "It's the economy, stupid! Donald Trump was, for his supporters, the best bet in terms of economic recovery. They were convinced that the covid would soon be resolved with the discovery of the appropriate vaccine. The important thing was to have an ultraliberal president in the economic area and a light foot, in fiscal matters. Trump managed to sell this image, as well as the representation of an opponent who would be in the hands of the leftist wing of the Democratic Party, i.e. who would be a puppet of what he called “the socialist radicals”.

On Joe Biden's side, the beef was in the pandemic, repeating the accusation of Trump's incompetence and lack of respect for safeguarding the lives of his fellow citizens. To this he added the fight against racial iniquities and violence against black citizens.  This political hamburger was a complete meal. But there was a catch: his opponent exploited the image of common sense and balance that Biden conveyed, and tried to turn it into a weakness. Projecting energy is part of the qualities of those in charge. So now we have a leader who needs to work on his image and show that he can combine humanism with firmness, including on the outside front. 

And we come to the second aspect. The European Union needs to draw two or three conclusions from all this.

The first is that Joe Biden, having confirmed his victory, will necessarily have to focus on US domestic politics, to broaden its support base and resolve a good part of the bipolarisation, resentment and hatred that exists in the country. In terms of foreign policy, in addition to a moderate return to multilateralism, he will have to focus on relations with China and this country’s neighbours.  It will have little time for European affairs.

The second is that a large proportion of Americans have a very different view of politics, economics and social relations when compared to the Europeans. The continuing divergence of values leads to a weakening of the alliance with Europe. The political gap between the two geopolitical areas will widen. We must therefore work harder for a Europe that is as autonomous as possible in the areas of defence and security, the digital economy, energy, and international payment systems. The blackmail that the outgoing administration has put on us, seeking our alignment with its unilateral decisions on economic and financial sanctions, has taught us that we must create our own mechanisms in these areas. 

Third, Europe must strengthen its foreign policy to gain space and independence from decisions taken in Washington. European foreign policy remains weak despite the resources made available to the European External Action Service. We must be frank and decisively address this weakness. It is a danger to be in the tow of other powers.

This election should lead to a more balanced and constructive international relationship. The European side must be able to seize the opportunity and become a stronger, more active, and independent partner. If it does, we can say thank you to Donald Trump for forcing us to open our eyes.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published today in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper)

 

 

 

Reflections prior to the US election

Election day, with confusion at the door

Victor Angelo

 

Writing about the American elections, while voting is going on, is risky. Despite the opinion polls, you never know what will come out of the ballot boxes. Especially this time, when everything is different, namely the high turnout by post and in person, which has reached unprecedented levels, the uncertainty as to what will happen in eight or nine states which may fall to one side or the other, and the extreme radicalisation of important segments of the electorate. With Donald Trump in the field, the rules and analysis schemes of the past are completely muddled.

But it may be less risky to write now than tomorrow when only part of the results is known and postal vote counts have not yet been completed. Except for miracles, and they sometimes happen, tomorrow begins the confusion. In fact, I fear that in the aftermath of the 3rd of November a period of great pandemonium will arise in the USA. If my prediction is right, we will get into a mess in which it will be difficult to have a clear idea about the future. Writing about this situation of political and social chaos will require a clear-sightedness that far exceeds my ability to navigate in tormenting waters. Those who know American society well think that the storm that is coming is simply terrifying. 

The plot has been in preparation for weeks. There is a plan, nothing happens by chance. The head of the production and prima donna is Donald Trump. As usual, everything revolves around his megalomania, narcissism, and personal interests.

The tragedy may unfold more or less in the following way. Once the results of the day have been calculated, of those who voted in person today, and if these provisional figures are in his favour, President Trump will come on television to proclaim himself the winner. He will say that the votes by post, which have not yet been counted, are not valid. He will thus be trying to ignore the will of millions of Americans who have chosen the safer postal route in these times of pandemic to express their choice. Such a statement about the invalidity of votes not yet counted, if it happens, would be a colossal abuse of power, an illegality and contrary to democratic practices. But the proclamation of Trump will immediately bring his supporters to the streets of the cities of the United States to celebrate the false victory. More than extemporaneous and unjustified celebrations, these demonstrations of radicalised and armed people - this has been a record year in terms of the private acquisition of weapons of all calibres - will serve to intimidate the rest of the citizens. I do not know what the response of the democrats or the police forces will be. But I have no doubt that we will see numerous confrontations. A former colleague of mine, a New Yorker who, like me, oversaw several complicated elections in various parts of the world, told me yesterday that she is more afraid of this post-election period in the US than of anything she has seen in the dictatorships she has been through.

Let us continue the plot. In the days that follow, Donald Trump will continue to speak out against the electoral process and not to accept a verdict from the ballot box that would be unfavourable to him. The political and social confusion will then be joined by a whole series of legal challenges, which the President's lawyers will set in motion everywhere. We will then enter a phase of general upheaval. In such a situation and with the character we have, it will be Donald Trump who will end up imposing himself. It is true that the institutions of counterweight and balance of power are a guarantor of democracy and they exist in the USA. But it is also true that the president has managed to have 220 federal judges and three for the Supreme Court confirmed during his term. These judges will be able to play a key role in the legal game ahead.

The scenario I describe here is obviously pessimistic. To plan the appropriate response, one must be pessimistic at times of major crisis. It would be great if it did not happen or if it happened only in a mitigated way. I would very much like to be wrong. But seeing the shop windows in downtown Washington or New York being protected with timber panes makes me more convinced that there is reason to fear and be prepared for the worst.

That brings me back to our side of the planet. If there is institutional upheaval in the US, the shock waves will have a destabilising global impact. The coronavirus pandemic has already turned much of the world upside down. An additional shock will further complicate the international scene. Are we, here in Europe, prepared to respond to a possible serious US political crisis?

If the above scenario occurs, we will see intense diplomatic pressure from Donald Trump's representatives in European capitals. They will do everything they can to ensure that this so-called victory is recognised. They will need to show the American people that European leaders recognise their boss's victory. This is a way of adding legitimacy to their claim. On these occasions, when elections are free and acceptable, heads of state have a protocol obligation to send their congratulations to the winning candidate. We shall see who does so, within the European Union. At the moment, out of a total of twenty-seven member states, I count between seven and nine leaders who, if they could, would vote for Trump. What position will they take in the event of an election mess? And what will Charles Michel's position be? What kind of relations can be expected between the two sides of the Atlantic in a second term that would be tainted by a markedly dubious legitimacy? These questions provide a backdrop to long discussions. Let us hope that it will not be necessary to return to them in a while.

In the meantime, beyond the European position, I am also concerned about the impact of such a crisis on the future of the United Nations and the multilateral system. Like the European leaders, António Guterres will also be under pressure. What message of congratulations can you send to a president if he emerges from confusion, abuse of institutional power and legal games?

In these unique times, there is no doubt that the best solution is a clear victory by Joe Biden. 

(AI translation of today’s text I publish in the Portuguese magazine Visão)