We cannot keep shooting ourselves in the foot

Tidying up the ghosts that haunt us

Victor Angelo

 

In the times of the Soviet Union, it was said in Moscow that the past was unpredictable. The history of communist governance changed every time a new clique took over the Kremlin. That joke reminds us that the narrative about history has colossal political importance. It is usually captured by the ruling class to justify its control of power. This is the case in dictatorships.

In a democratic framework, a version should prevail, especially in describing the most controversial eras, which is as close as possible to a broad consensus. States are built with ups and downs. They result from the various facets that peoples have experienced over time, in a connection of heroic and creative moments with others of retrogression and tragedy. The truth is that a modern country cannot live in continuous disquiet with its past. States that have experienced profound national crises and have finally managed to leave behind authoritarian regimes that abuse human rights must find ways to put that phase of their history in order and focus their energies on building a future that is free, prosperous, and more just. And at peace with itself.

This is what happened in the 1990s in South Africa or, later already in our century, in Sierra Leone after the atrocities committed during the civil war (1991-2002). In both cases, the new political authorities established Truth and Reconciliation Commissions. In addition to holding accountable those who had played a key role during the dark period and acknowledging the crimes committed by individuals who acted as excessive enforcers of orders received, the commissions allowed for the building of an acceptable memory about those painful times, provided a platform for victims to make their voices heard and addressed common anxieties.

Over the past three decades more than forty countries have seen the need to make a collective introspection of their past. They have used tools for the administration of justice and reconciliation close to those piloted by the South Africans and Sierra Leoneans, with the necessary adaptations for each context. In general, these efforts have led to the strengthening of national cohesion. A summary of their conclusions shows that the focus was always placed on four pillars: explaining what happened, amnesty, reparations and resolving discrimination. The aim is to acknowledge mistakes, prevent their repetition, erase hatred and create the conditions to face the future in a constructive manner.

One of the most recent commissions was the Canadian one (2015). The core of its mission was to analyse the injustices perpetrated against indigenous communities and to propose measures of reparation and equalisation of opportunities. The issue was important as it fed a social fracture line and gave space to racist discourses on white superiority. Looking at the United States, Canadians understand the importance of combating racism and radicalism based on skin colour. 

A people cannot spend their days discussing the ghosts of old. Nor imitate the Stalinists who erased characters from official photographs according to the political convenience of the hour. The ghosts that each people have - some will have more than others - should be catalogued with common sense and stored in the museum of historical facts.

Recent noises have led me to write this text. I am referring to the controversy about the coats of arms in Praça do Império opposite the Jerónimos Monastery in Lisbon, the demolishing idea that brought the Monument to the Discoveries to the social networks or even the passing of a former soldier who won his medals in the colonial war. The extreme passion of the positions taken by many shows, once again, that we still cannot talk calmly about the Portugal that turned the page almost fifty years ago. Now, without forgetting what happened, the many problems we face require us to move on to the next chapter. Otherwise, we will be in conflict with ourselves, absorbed in shooting ourselves in the foot, for the profit and pleasure of those who want to keep us distracted.

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

 

 

 

 

The G20 should coordinate the global response

A vaccine against geopolitical rivalries

Victor Angelo

 

Boris Johnson convened an extraordinary virtual G7 summit today. He justified it by saying it was urgent to find an agreement that would allow a global response to covid-19, i.e. access for all to the immunisation possible. He added that it would also be an opportunity to coordinate demand for vaccines to avoid a headlong rush to the few quantities already available. The summit would be the occasion to resolve the competition between states, which, if it continues, could lead to serious political fractures between traditional partners, as seen recently in the increased tension between the EU and the London government.

The UK holds the G7 presidency in 2021. Hence the legitimacy of Johnson's initiative. But the prime minister may have other objectives well beyond seeking a global response to the pandemic. The man is a skilled politician with a knack for spectacular actions. He will try to make the most of the opportunity that the leadership of the G7 offers him to show his constituents that he has a global stature capable of setting the agenda of the group of the most developed countries. If this translates into an increase in international cooperation, which badly needs to be stimulated, we can only be grateful.

I fear, however, that it will not achieve that result. The subject of the meeting is clearly a priority, but it cannot be limited to the G7 countries. It is true that Australia, South Korea, and India have also been invited to take part in the summit. India counts in terms of vaccine production. But the invitation reflects, above all, the UK's specific interest in strengthening its relations with these countries and not the contribution they can make to getting vaccines to the poorest and most remote parts of the world. It also reflects another political agenda, one that is shared by others, especially Joe Biden. That of thwarting the geopolitical ambitions of the main rivals of the United States and its Western allies. But making international policy at the cost of a pandemic does not seem to me to be ethically acceptable.

In fact, it would be more appropriate to organise a G20 meeting to deal with the harmonisation of vaccine distribution and define everyone's contribution to achieving this objective. The G20 has the merit of sitting at the same table all the G7 countries plus China and Russia, among others. Coordination with these two States is fundamental for a rapid, effective, and generalised fight against the virus. The intrusion of hegemonic rivalries should not be admitted when it comes to responding to a problem that threatens the health of all, social progress, and the stability of the future. According to World Bank estimates, the pandemic has already pushed a dramatic number of people back into extreme poverty - it could be around 115 million. Moreover, the lack of access to vaccines for people in the poorest countries will cause a global distortion with unimaginable consequences. Among other things, international inequalities would become even more accentuated, even explosive. The worsening of imbalances between regions of the globe is one of the greatest risks facing us.

The G20 is currently chaired by Italy. The Italian executive, now with Mario Draghi at its head, faces immense internal problems. It is not in a position to play a leading role on the international stage at a time when the latter needs a giant to mobilise it in an undisputed way. Draghi is scheduled to hold a global summit in Rome on 21 May on the pandemic and related issues. May is, however, an eternity away when urgent decisions are needed.

In the meantime, in a positive spirit, I hope that today's G7 meeting will make it possible to strengthen COVAX, the mechanism set up by the WHO, in collaboration with various organisations, to guarantee countries with limited financial and operational resources equitable access to covid vaccines. If this happens, we will have to recognise that the initiative taken by Boris Johnson will have had some merit.

 

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

 

Discussing security and governance in the Sahel

In the Sahel, a lot of military and little politics

Victor Angelo

 

The call came from Bamako. On the other end of the line was a former colleague, now back home after a brilliant career in the United Nations. The essence of his conversation was against the massive presence of foreign troops in his country. There are more and more of them, both in the framework of the UN mission - known by the acronym MINUSMA - and due to calls by France. Contrary to recent statements by Emmanuel Macron, who said that the war against terrorism in the Sahel was being won, my friend told me about the deterioration of the situation in Mali and in neighbouring countries. In other words, there are more military personnel but, paradoxically, less security.

Let us look at the latest statistics from the International Organization for Migration. They count about 1.7 million displaced persons due to instability and armed actions in this part of the Sahel, especially in the tri-border area between Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso - a region known as Liptako. It is estimated, on the other hand, that about seven thousand lives were lost in the last twelve months due to acts of terrorism and counterterrorist prevention and response operations. These are figures well above the average of previous years. What is more, a recent United Nations investigation shows that war crimes and atrocities have been committed in Mali since 2013. The report, which in addition to pointing the finger at terrorists calls into question the armed forces of certain states, has fallen into a deep hole in the Security Council and awaits debate at the Greek calends. 

Liptako is a vast territory, with an area where Portugal could fit three times over. The Fulas, as nomadic herdsmen and itinerant traders in long caravans, have traditionally shared these dry, harsh expanses with other ethnic groups. But ways of life have changed. Accelerated population growth in recent decades, coupled with enormous pressure from cattle rearing - a multiplication of herds -, increasingly irregular and scarce rainfall due to climate change, poverty and the absence of effective state administration have contributed to a widespread environment of social instability, rebellion and conflict. The rush for gold, which began to be exploited intensively on an artisanal basis some twenty years ago, has also attracted new waves of violence. This is the framework in which various armed gangs move and operate under the confused banners of the terrorist network of the Islamic State in the Greater Sahara (ISGS) or, further north, on the way to the border with Algeria, the people affiliated to Al-Qaeda. Religious fanaticism serves as an excuse or muddles along with banditry. For many young people, the Kalashnikov has replaced the shepherd's stick or the farmer's hoe in a context that is becoming progressively more arid, unpredictable, and dangerous. Someone from the region told me that joining an armed group is for many an act of self-protection.

There is a huge problem here that fundamentally requires two types of approach: one will be political and the other will be to combat desertification and poverty. I will mention only the political part, which requires the inclusion of all, without discrimination on ethnic grounds. It also means publicly showing a firm hand against corruption, in military institutions and state administrations. Inclusion and probity are two fundamental issues, which must be resolved by national elites.

 The European partners have closed their eyes and pretended not to see these problems. For example, they have been training officers in the Malian armed forces for years, knowing fully well that these officers have kept a tribal mentality and systematically divert resources intended for the country's stabilisation effort to their own advantage. We need to change the way we act in the Sahel. Dialogue with the countries in the region must be respectful. The future that is at stake is theirs, independently of the external dimensions. We cannot take the direction of the process away from them. Being more papist than the Pope in other people's land is a practice that must be put away once and for all, in a drawer of the past. But it must be a frank dialogue.

 

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

 

 

 

From Myanmar to the EU: a quick journey

Suu Kyi and our Ursula

Victor Angelo

 

 

I intended to write about the coup d'état in Myanmar. I follow regularly what happens there, especially the role of civil society associations in defending citizens, the Chinese investments, and their political impact, as well as the actions carried out by the different ethnic-based armed groups. China, which is the second largest foreign investor in the country - the first is Singapore - shares a long border with Myanmar and sees its neighbour mainly as an economic corridor with shorter and more direct access to the Gulf of Bengal. This corridor is of huge strategic interest to the Chinese, both for gas and oil imports and for exports to the Middle East and Africa. The messages I would include in my text would be to condemn the military coup and defend the process of democratisation that began in 2015 and the November 2020 legislative elections – which the Carter Center considered acceptable despite the restrictions imposed by the pandemic and the armed rebellions.

I would also seek to discuss the question marks that Aung San Suu Kyi's political activity has raised in Western circles, while recalling that she won the November elections by a large majority. The appreciation of the Burmese is very different from the judgments that we, with our European eyes, make. I would have mentioned in my text the impasse that exists in the UN Security Council when it comes to take decisions about that country. This inability to condemn has been clearly demonstrated since 2017 when close to a million Rohingya people were persecuted and expelled to neighbouring Bangladesh. The objection always comes from the same side, from Beijing, and with Moscow doing the political favour of aligning itself with the Chinese, in a tactical manoeuvre to obtain Chinese political dividends. This time, however, I was surprised by the positive. China and the other members of the Security Council yesterday approved a declaration which I consider strong and which explicitly condemns the military coup and the arbitrary arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi and all the others. It was an encouraging surprise, including a clear call for respect for human rights and freedoms, including those of the press. I would speculate that this agreement on Myanmar is a good sign, which could be seen as a conciliatory gesture by Xi Jinping addressed to Joe Biden. 

However, I have decided to change my mind and focus on the mess that the vaccination campaign in the European Union has become. Each day shows that the issue of vaccines is highly political, and that delays, failures, slowdowns and injustices can have a devastating effect on the image of the European Commission and the moral authority and stability of national governments. It is also clear that the priority in the EU must be to immunise without delay the largest number of citizens.

At the end of December, Ursula von der Leyen said, with a mixture of joy and arrogance, that the campaign was being launched simultaneously across Europe. The Commission rightly decided that orders with pharmacy industry would be placed in a unified way, for the whole EU. This would increase our negotiating strength in the face of a sector which is immensely powerful and experienced in writing commercial contracts. After five weeks, we have about 2.9% of the population vaccinated in the Union, and over 14.5% on Boris Johnson's land. The vaccines ordered are not made available to national health services because there is not enough production capacity, logistics and because the pharmaceuticals already had other contracts signed in advance.

Thus, we enter February with the clear realization that there is no more explosive subject than this. And with the certainty that it is fundamental to transform vaccination into a real campaign, urgent, massive, effective and with fair criteria accepted by the people. Otherwise, we would be heading for political and social chaos. Far and different from Myanmar, of course, but equally destabilising. 

 

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

 

 

On Putin and us, the Europeans in the West

Putin has become agitated

Victor Angelo

  

Vladimir Putin is a real puzzle in the literal and figurative sense. In the face of recent and multiple popular demonstrations, he has responded with renewed violence and has again shown that in his political vision there is no room for the slightest objection. He opposed democratic aspirations with police batons and the arrest of thousands of citizens.

Experts in Russian domestic politics tell me that, for the first time, Putin does not feel at ease. He sees what is happening in Belarus and fears contagion. In addition, his opponent Alexei Navalny appears today more than ever as a real threat. The courage that Navalny showed on his return to Moscow, despite knowing that he was going to put himself in the wolf's jaws, impressed many of his compatriots. He showed determination, which is one of the main qualities required of a political leader. On the other hand, Navalny has released this week a long video showing the luxurious palace that Putin has built for his own pleasure. The report on this immense extravagance, a delirious version of Versailles in the Black Sea, is being seen by millions of citizens. Those who know these things consider the political impact of the video on Putin's image to be extraordinarily strong. If this is the case, it confirms what I have always said: to bring down the autocrat it is necessary to shake and challenge his alleged moral authority. Putin's name must be directly associated with the large-scale corruption that exists in the meanderings of the elite in which he moves. It is essential to show that the abuse of power and the lack of ethics are aimed at the satisfaction of the president's ego and personal greed.  

Putin is also a puzzle for EU leaders. After six years of European sanctions against the Russian regime, nothing has been achieved. On the contrary, the sanctions offer him a pretext to strengthen his nationalist narrative, to proclaim that the West is against Russia and that his historical role is to defend the Russian homeland and soul.

The EU's measures against autocracy and the hostility of the Kremlin are not very incisive. On Russia, Angela Merkel and other Europeans to the west of Germany have a very ambiguous approach. They do not reach the centre of power and do not touch, if only slightly, one of the main sources of revenue for their public finances, gas. The most striking example is the Nord Stream 2 project, which is almost complete. The move to the operational phase of this pipeline must be used an opportunity for political dialogue including, for example, the release of Navalny and other political prisoners, the end cyber-attacks on strategic European targets and of Kremlin’s support for German, French, Italian and other neo-fascist movements. In other words, the entry into operation of Nord Stream 2 must be linked to the re-establishment of a platform of political trust between the parties. 

Meanwhile, Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin had a first conversation. In addition to allowing for the continuation of the nuclear arms control treaty, the New Start, which had been signed in 2010 and would expire in eight days' time, the US president clearly set out his position on matters relating to Ukraine's sovereignty, espionage and cyber-attacks by the Russian services, and defence, including the protection of Washington's allies. He also stressed that Navalny should be released. This way of dealing with Putin points to the line that must be followed by Europeans. An open, clear and firm line based on continued contact with Moscow and constant reference to the values of democracy. The same values that mobilise thousands of Russian citizens, despite the cold and the repression. 

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

 

 

A new chapter in the international scene

Biden on the trapeze and the world on the tightrope

Victor Angelo

 

Much of what is decided in the circle of power in Washington has a global impact, whether you like it or not. I apologise for starting this text with this banal observation. But it is a fact that American policy continues to weigh more heavily than any other in international strategic and economic relations. So, with the entry into office of the Biden administration, the international scene has begun a new chapter. It is a profound change of course in a positive and democratic sense. For the time being, it heralds the hope of a calming of the tensions created over the last four years and which have put the dynamics among the world's major players on a potentially explosive level. The dialogue should replace the policy of confrontation and the abuse of force.

But we are living in a time of great questioning. The mobilisation of tens of thousands of paramilitaries to ensure the tranquillity of the ceremony for the new president to take office is a clear indication of the seriousness of the internal contradictions that exist in American society. Joe Biden has a balancing act waiting for him. He knows that the hostility fomented by his predecessor and amplified by several leaders who sit in Congress or by commentators who appear on certain television channels, is fierce. It is even more dangerous because it has generated in the minds of many fanatics a demonisation of their opponents. In the sick logic of some of these crazy people, the next step is violent action, trying to take any opportunity to shoot to kill democracy. This possibility is a risk that the Secret Service will have to consider on a permanent basis. 

In seeking a broader view of what might happen following this turning point, I note that no one can convincingly predict the contours of what lies ahead. It can only be said that the world of tomorrow will be different from what we have known so far. Anyone who thinks that everything will return to where we were in 2019, before the pandemic, or in 2016, before Donald Trump's presidency, can only dream of the past.

The chapter that now opens combines a certain amount of optimism with a long list of uncertainties. On the eve of Biden's inauguration, I took part in an international discussion on the prospects and challenges ahead for the coming years, and there was no clarity of ideas. Anyone who looks to the future with intellectual honesty can identify a number of clues, but in the end, has to confess that everything is uncertain and hazy.

The only points of agreement concern the coronavirus pandemic. First, we all accept that the pandemic is a huge challenge, which conditions everything else. It must therefore be treated as the priority of priorities. This requires an exceptional mobilisation of political attention and all necessary means. The second area of agreement is on the imperative of international cooperation. Countries in the North and South, as we euphemistically put it, must all collaborate to make vaccines accessible to each person. The fight against covid must be a bridge of union and cooperation between peoples, not a line of major fracture. It would be a tragedy of incalculable consequences to emerge from this crisis with a world even more divided between rich and poor, and unfortunately, this possibility exists. Thirdly, there is also agreement on the duration of the crisis. We cannot entertain the illusion that everything will be resolved within months. The logistical issues, the financial difficulties, and the shortcomings in infrastructure, especially in the poorest countries, the changes that the virus is undergoing, not to mention the behaviour of some people, all call for time, diligence, patience, and prudence. These are the messages that must be stressed.

Uncertainty is a source of fear, insecurity, and conflict. It is conducive to the emergence of crazy politicians, who reduce the complexity of facts to two or three sentences, and solutions to a pair of slogans. That is why we must be vigilant and combat all forms of demagogy and political lies, which feed all shades of populism.

 

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

 

Merkel's succession

Some good news from Germany. Armin Laschet is a balanced choice to succeed Angela Merkel as CDU party leader. He is the respected Chief Minister of the North Rhine-Westphalia Region and has demonstrated his pro-European Union credentials. He advocates for a fair relationship between its member states.

The point now is to see if he can win the September federal elections to the Bundestag and be his coalition candidate for the chancellorship.   

Marine Le Pen and her little brothers elsewhere

Le Pen and our pains

Victor Angelo

 

Marine Le Pen came to Portugal to support his ideological relative. In France, she is the most visible and fierce face of right-wing extremism. Her party, the Rassemblement National (RN), is a collection of backwards, neo-fascists, racists, ruffians, antiglobalists, as well as several political orphans and other resentful people. The mixture includes part of the new poor, a proletariat which the modernisation and internationalisation of the economy have pushed to the suburbs of politics and life. The RN represents a little over 20% of the electorate, a revealing percentage of a France full of contradictions, frustrations, inequalities, and hatreds. On the party scene in the country, Le Pen and his people are regarded, including by the conservative right, as not at all recommendable, people one should not be associated with.

In 2017, Le Pen went to the second round of the presidential elections against Emmanuel Macron. She emerged unequivocally defeated and with an image of incompetence. In the television debate against her opponent, she got lost when discussing issues of substance. She could not go beyond the stereotypical plates. This confirmed that her ideology was hollow, lined with primary ultranationalism, nostalgy of the past, xenophobia and unbridled personal ambition.

She is now preparing for the presidential elections of 2022. A part of the conservative right knows that a new clash between Macron and Le Pen will bring a new defeat. Therefore they have tried to find a more credible alternative, but without achieving it. Marine Le Pen and the local deployment of RN leave no room for such manoeuvres. The face of right-wing extremism remains hers. But after the failure of 2017, she has learned that power is not won in a politically mature society with mere slogans and banalities. In the interview with the Diário de Notícias (10/1/2021), she made it clear that her campaign will focus on four themes - security, immigration, traditional family values and employment. This means that in order to win votes, she will seek to exploit fears and weaknesses, especially the fear of what is foreign, feelings of precariousness and social injustice, as well as prejudices stemming from an old-fashioned view of relations between people.

In essence, the main strategy of Le Pen and all the extremists is to demonise a category of citizens, to create an internal enemy, which becomes the visible and repeated focus of all attacks. In the French case, it is easy to identify this target - the Muslims. They are euphemistically referred to as "immigrants" and concentrate all the fire that the RN brings into combat. To this is added a rhetoric of economic nationalism, which swears to defend the jobs of the French. This is how the slogans against Islam, immigration, globalisation, and strongly anti-EU appear, as well as the flags of patriotism and Western civilisation as understood by the RN. 

It was this dreadful character who came to support the Portuguese "cousin". During her stay, she may have noticed that the Portuguese extremists’ opportunities for growth are practically non-existent. Our nervous extremists lack a social group that can be effectively referred to as a threat to the security of society and the preservation of national culture. Without a target that can generate fear, radical movements do not gain strength. In the absence of serious national fractures, the "Portuguese cousin" had no choice but to focus on the only social group that presents some differences from the generality of citizens. But this group - the Roma community - is not seen by the rest of the Portuguese, despite the existence of images and prejudices that come from far away, as an existential national threat. On the contrary, they are people considered vulnerable and powerless. The truth is that the extremists of the Portuguese right, unlike in other European countries, have little political space, because there is no identity that can be exploited and defined as an enemy.

This does not mean that one should not be attentive. On the contrary. Here, as in the rest of Europe, there will be major social crises in the coming years following the pandemic. And major crises often open the door to the emergence of so-called saviours of the homeland, who, history teaches us, have always sunk it.

 

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

 

Mr Trump and his political brother

Mugabe and Trump, children of the same monster

Victor Angelo

 

Despite the welcome news from Georgia, the essence of American political week has left many of us stunned on this side of the Atlantic. Among other things, it has reminded us that democracy is a never-ending struggle that can never be considered as definitely won. It has also shown us that solid institutions make it possible to defend democracy when attacked by demagogues, opportunists, charlatans, would-be dictators, or mere thugs. But beware, for we have also seen some among these people trying to use the workings of the institutions to try to consummate the assault on power.

At the centre of the anti-democratic onslaught is, as is well known, the infamous Donald Trump. Curiously, as I followed his manoeuvres, I was reminded of the late Robert Mugabe, who had been at the head of Zimbabwe for decades. It may seem unreasonable to put Trump and Mugabe in the same bag. Especially since Mugabe was an educated politician, skilled in diplomacy and knowledgeable in geopolitical intricacies. It is difficult to compare a tyrant whose official behaviour made one think of the image one has of a Scottish aristocrat, while his acolytes eliminated opponents of the regime, with an egomaniac, who behaves like a brainless ruffian. So, I do not compare. But Trump's phone call to demand, over an hour of barely-contained threats and anger, that the Georgian election official "find" - invent - the number of votes needed to falsify the results, and place the loser as the winner, would not fall behind the electoral fraud that Mugabe used to orchestrate. When I have raised the issue of cheating on a number of occasions, the Zimbabwean leader has always told me that anyone who is on the perch, and lets the victory slip away, should be seen as a political fool. Now he, fool, was not.

As Trump considers himself a genius, he cannot accept defeat. Especially against someone he considers weak, a sleepy old fellow. Mugabe, too, looked down on his opponents with great contempt. The same line with various nuances actually unites the dictators.

I never imagined that an American president would make me think of the despots I found in lost corners of the world. I am equally concerned when I see senators and members of the House of Representatives supporting, submissively or opportunistically, Trump's slippage and coup attempts. My concern rises to the level of the nightmare when I notice that millions of American citizens obsessively support these anti-democratic attempts. The conclusion is terrifying: an important part of American society is imbecilely radicalised. There is a latent danger of violence here, both internally and on the international stage. The profoundly serious disorder that has now taken place in Washington, instigated by the ruffian, makes me fear the future.

In view of this, the EU must be prudent in its relations with the US. The next few years - for as long as the Biden administration lasts - may just be a brief time of common sense, in a more complex and worrying political landscape. Next time, it will be possible for the presidency to be taken by any successor to today's coup plotter, same style but in a more intelligent version. In time, such a leader could take the country into international confrontation, dragging Europeans into this madness. What happened in Afghanistan or Iraq, with Europeans on a leash, would be seen, in comparison, as simple fighting between rival neighbourhoods.

The EU must use Joe Biden's mandate to strengthen its autonomy in vital areas of domestic and international politics. This means maintaining a cordial but more balanced and progressively emancipated relationship with the US. I, therefore, believe that strengthening European cohesion, in its different dimensions, must be an absolute priority for the next four years. It is not an easy task, especially after the revival of nationalisms due to the pandemic and in view of the lean period ahead, but it is a task that must be conducted. The planned Conference on the Future of Europe, a process which requires the participation of citizens and needs to be quickly reborn from the ashes, must also contribute to this.

 

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

 

China has come out of 2020 more daring

And the prize goes to China

Victor Angelo

 

In the big game of geopolitics, the 2020 world cup must be awarded to China. It has been an exceedingly difficult year for all countries. But here I see that the only one that really comes out stronger, after all the tests, is China. Australia and New Zealand played well, but they are in another league. They do not have by far the political weight of the champion.

The year had started badly, with the city of Wuhan - 11 million inhabitants - at the centre of the concerns. But a strong, extremely nationalistic response and a population shaped by the modern version of ancient Confucianism - those in power command, and the ones who walk the streets of life obey - has turned control of the virus into a political victory for the ruling elite. Above all, for President Xi Jinping.

And the year ended with another goal, scored in the final minutes, with the conclusion of negotiations on investment between China and the European Union. This agreement, important for both sides, had been under discussion for seven years. The drag on this was due to Chinese obstruction, who wanted to have their hands free to invest in Europe while creating obstacles to European ventures in China. Finally, and before Joe Biden took office, Beijing felt it was important to close the pact with the Europeans, thus moving them away from a more combative position that the new American administration might adopt. For the Europeans, the agreement opens the door to investments in finance, health, energy and information technology. If it is respected, it will represent a step forward in rebalancing economic relations between the two sides. The treaty also seeks to defend intellectual property rights and promote certain international labour standards, but without conviction. The Chinese authorities leave no room for manoeuvre in this area, notably in the abolition of forced labour for prisoners or ethnic minorities.

Beyond the economics, our problem with China is above all political. It concerns human rights and democratic values. And there I see no agreement on the horizon, and I guess, not in the distant future. The successes of 2020 and the accentuation of nationalism and Chinese pride, easy to press in the face of confusion in our part of the world, have strengthened the legitimacy and power of Xi Jinping. This legitimacy rests on two main pillars - economic opportunities for most citizens and the maintenance of internal order, including civic discipline. Only this week, when I spoke, as I regularly do, with my correspondents in China, I heard those two dimensions highlighted once more. In response to my references to human rights and democracy, a young Chinese woman reminded me that her generation, even those who have obtained academic degrees abroad and observed how freedoms work in other lands, makes no waves. Young people with higher education prefer to take advantage of the jobs and prosperity that remain immense in a rapidly growing China with a huge internal market. I was told that the number of applications for scholarships in the US and Europe for the next school year has grown considerably. The ambition is to obtain diplomas in prestigious institutions and then return to the market of opportunities that is China. Here, too, the Xi Jinping regime has succeeded in instilling two beliefs. One, that in the long run there will be no future for Chinese graduates who want to settle in the West, because of the growing mistrust that is said to exist there of anyone who might be seen as a surreptitious agent of the Beijing government. Another is that the future belongs to China, which will be the world's largest economy in the coming years, perhaps as early as 2028.

We enter 2021 with a China that feels more powerful and bold, even invincible. But history has long taught us that all giants have feet of clay. Xi Jinping's China, if it does not introduce a certain amount of prudence into its international relations, including moderation in the overmuch New Silk Road and acceptance of fundamental human values, may end up stumbling over its own arrogance and gigantism.  

 

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