France matters

Emmanuel Macron's New Year

Victor Angelo

With this first day of the new year, the six-month French presidency of the European Union begins. Is it the time to make vows of renewal or to expect more of the same? For Emmanuel Macron, this should be an exceptional period, in many ways. In the coming months, two of his great ambitions will be at stake: being re-elected president of the French Republic and shaping the future of the European Union. For the moment, neither is guaranteed.

The easiest to achieve will perhaps be his re-election. There may be eight candidates in the presidential race, but what counts is the passage to the second round, and then, the decisive voters’ decision. In recent years, it was taken for granted that the final would be between Macron and Marine Le Pen, a kind of repeat of what happened five years ago. And that the French would once again say no to the far-right candidate. That would make Macron's victory almost certain.

But politics, in a society as socially fragmented as France's, has its surprises. In recent months, Éric Zemmour, a television commentator with xenophobic and radical nationalist views, and who has made the fight against Muslim immigration and influence his main hobbyhorse, has upset the game. His entry into the field has reduced Marine Le Pen's chances. And although the radical right as a whole represents around 30% of the national political opinion, the current prediction is that neither Le Pen nor Zemmour will be able to make it to the second round of the presidential race. They will neutralise each other.

If it happens, that will be good news for France, but sad news for Macron. Even worse for him, however, is the emergence of Valérie Pécresse as a centre-right candidate, by choice of the Les Républicains party, a grouping of conservatives of various shades that has its roots in the Gaullism of old. Pécresse, a former minister under Nicolas Sarkozy and currently president of the region that encompasses Paris, attracts the same kind of electorate as Macron. She is a woman who has a modern, elegant, and calm image that goes over relatively well on television.

As the left does not carry any weight in France today - the socialist candidate, Anne Hidalgo, is credited by the most recent polls with only 2%-3% of voting intentions - the big contest will occur in the centre as well as in winning, in the second round, a share of voters from the ultra-right.

It is in such a context that Macron will start leading the EU. The central theme he proposes for the period of the French presidency is the strengthening of European sovereignty. In his view, this objective should be based, as a priority, on stricter border controls in the Schengen area. By emphasising this issue, he aims to kill two birds with one stone: he addresses the concerns of leaders like Viktor Orbán - with whom he recently held talks in Budapest; and he captures votes on the right, and even the extreme right, as far as the electorate in his country is concerned. These voters are against anything that might appear to be easy on migration issues.

The second dimension, he tells us, would be based on what he calls "a Europe of defence", something pointed out as the other fundamental pillar of European sovereignty. A subject often mentioned by the French president, but which remains a vague issue that divides member states. It is also based on an outdated notion of international power projection, essentially based on military force. In the European case, what may effectively counts is the vitality and modernity of its economy and the quality of its democracy, combined with a diplomacy of peace, cooperation and conflict mediation. In saying this I do not wish to belittle the function of the European armed forces. But above all they must try to refocus their strategic and operational role within NATO. It is above all there that the defence of Europe begins, consolidating, within the organisation, a wider area of decision-making autonomy for European member states.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 31 December 2021)

 

 

 

 

Christmas reflection

Peace. Dignity. Equality. Planet.

Victor Angelo

 

On this Christmas Eve, it seems appropriate to recall the current motto of the United Nations: "Peace, dignity and equality on a healthy planet". It is a call for the implementation of policies that place people and nature at the centre of public interventions. It expresses well the wishes that I would like to leave here.

We live in a complex reality, full of real concerns and dangers. The UN itself appears to many to have been weakened and marginalized. In this context, it is easy to lose hope, to confuse realism with pessimism, and to fall into an attitude of every man for himself, each behind his own walls. There is also the temptation to recover the growth that the pandemic caused to be lost with economic programmes based on unsustainable recipes. In other words, without considering the long-term consequences, the excessive debt that will burden future generations, the environmental commitments, and the need to transform the way we live and how we relate to other societies, especially the less developed ones. Electoralism turns democracy into an exercise of political opportunism.

Russian demands and military manoeuvres are the most immediate threat to peace. I wrote about this last week. Since then, Putin's stated conditions - and the language used - have become even more categorical and unacceptable. And military preparations have intensified. We are two days away - 26 December - from the thirtieth anniversary of the demise of the Soviet Union. A historic moment, seen by Putin as the great tragedy of millenarian Russia.  

What are the reasons behind the present Russian escalation?

That is the big question, far beyond the old tape of the narrative about NATO's eastward expansion. The most plausible answer will be to ask heaven and earth, to get a no, and thus create a pretext to annex part of Ukraine. And, at the same time, reaffirm the determination and strength of the Kremlin.

But what is Putin's strategic objective?

Strengthening his control of domestic politics will not be a sufficient explanation, even if we recognise that there is a marked erosion of his popularity. It has been seen: last September's parliamentary elections were a massive exercise in deceit and coercion to hide the extent of popular discontent.

It could then be an attempt to paralyse NATO by dividing it, showing its weaknesses. At the same time, it will send a signal to the Baltic countries. And still, that one does not make policy in the immediate vicinity of Russia without the green light from the Kremlin. 

Whatever the intention, we must insist on peaceful coexistence in Europe. On mutual concessions. As indeed in other parts of the world. In Syria, at war for more than ten years. In Palestine, in the Sahel, in Central Africa, in Ethiopia, in Myanmar, in Yemen. Today is the day to mention again these and other places that have been so afflicted.

Dignity and equality mean respecting the basic rights of every person, as defined in the 1949 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the additional conventions and protocols. The proclamation that "all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights" and have "the right to life, liberty and security of person" applies to humanity, regardless of the specific contexts of each nation.

I recognize that the vision that inspired the Universal Declaration places the individual at the centre of rights, while in certain cultures the well-being of the community is presented as having primacy. In one case and in the other, it is about people, the protection of their lives and their creativity. There are no cultural differences there.

On the planet, a little more than a month after the COP26, just a few words to share a thought of solidarity with the thousands of victims of the recent natural disasters. The floods in South Sudan, with entire regions submerged and misery transformed into despair. The typhoons in the Philippines. The tornadoes in the USA. Extreme climatic phenomena are becoming more and more overwhelming. Let us remember, in relation to this great challenge and the others, that this must be the time of rebirth.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 24 December 2021)

A very dangerous end of year

An unrelenting holiday season

Victor Ângelo

 

This could be a troubled end of the year, on the international scene. There are three major crises looming - Iran, Russia, and the new variant of the pandemic. These things tend to erupt at the worst of times, when politicians are out celebrating the holidays, skiing, or sunbathing away from their offices. To say that we are entering a period when a lot can happen is not pessimism. It is simply a sign that we are paying attention to a particularly complex reality.

Let us start with Iran. This week's UN Security Council debate on Iran's nuclear programme showed that the conditions are not in place to revive the agreement signed in 2015 between Tehran and the five permanent members of the Security Council, plus Germany and the European Union. The US continues to impose an extremely tight regime of economic sanctions. And although Iran has turned to China, the truth is that American sanctions have a huge impact.

On the other hand, the new Iranian government has been accelerating its uranium enrichment programme, in clear violation of the 2015 Plan of Action. By now, it has accumulated enough fissile material to be able to produce several nuclear weapons. At the same time, it has accelerated the production of ballistic missiles and air assets capable of carrying a nuclear payload. All this is very serious and raises many red flags in the usual places.

At the time of the Council meeting, the permanent representatives of Germany, France and the United Kingdom to the UN issued a joint statement expressing their governments' deep concern. The final sentence of that statement says it all: "Iran's continued nuclear escalation means that we are rapidly reaching the end of the road." Such a statement sends the signal that it will soon be time to opt for solutions other than diplomacy. The probability is now stronger.

As far as Russia is concerned, President Putin met on Wednesday with his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, by video conference. The main objective seems to have been to show a united front against the Westerners. It would be too farfetched to see in this summit a coordination effort to link the tension around Taiwan with a possible offensive by the Russians against Ukraine. The timetables do not coincide, it is not credible to think of simultaneous operations. The American response would be different, in one case fundamentally economic and financial - against Russia - and in the other, with military means.

In any case, the most immediate threat is still the Russian one. Vladimir Putin made the foreboding even more real by speaking of "genocide" that would be in preparation against the ethnically Russian population of Eastern Ukraine. This would be the justification for a military intrusion, an invention easy to propagandise internally and in some international circles.

Meanwhile, this week, Putin again insisted on the urgency of talks with the Americans and NATO. What for? Essentially, for the West to approve Moscow's demands and its vision of geopolitical relations with Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova, among others. Washington and Brussels do not seem willing to accept these impositions. Which means that tension will continue and the possibility of destabilising action in Ukraine is quite high.

Omicron is also complicating the end of the year. Apart from its health dimensions, it has serious economic costs, at a time when the most developed states are experiencing exceptional levels of public debt and budget deficit. In several European countries, it also has a political impact that cannot be ignored. The restrictions it imposes have given segments of the European radical right the opportunity to mobilise. These are minority groups. Even so, they worry the democratic leaderships of the countries where this is happening. The pandemic and the denialists remind us that the fight against radicalism cannot have a truce. Not even during the festive season. 

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 17 December 2021)

 

 

 

 

Biden and Putin: they have the keys

Biden and Putin: an indispensable dialogue

Victor Angelo

 

When leaders like Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin spend two hours in a frontal discussion, we, simple mortals, can look at it positively, even when the results seem uncertain. I have always argued that major crises should be directly discussed between those who actually hold power. Leaving such crises to be dealt with at the level of foreign ministers, however experienced, is not enough. So often it only serves to aggravate misunderstandings and pander to extreme positions. We often see ministers who are more papist than the Pope. Even when they foresee solutions, they do not dare mention them, for fear of the leader's reaction. It is up to the leader to send appeasement signals, to show the way and mark the bounds, which are now known as "red lines".

That is what Biden and Putin sought to do. And this is the way they should continue, preferably in personal meetings. Diplomacy is done with handshakes. Even in times of pandemic. Leaders know this. That is why Emmanuel Macron was in the Emirates and Saudi Arabia a few days ago, with much success, regarding the French war industries - and much criticism from human rights activists. And Pope Francis, who does not stop despite apparent physical frailty, went to Cyprus and Greece. Vladimir Putin himself made a lightning trip to India on Monday to spend a few hours strengthening relations with Narendra Modi, encouraging trade and, above all, deepening political-military cooperation.

A positive outlook does not prevent us from seeing the gravity of the current situation. The massive deployment of troops and exceptional logistical means in Russian regions close to the eastern border of Ukraine makes one think, whether one likes it or not, of the preparation of a military offensive. That is the interpretation that prevails in the main European capitals and in Washington. Some academics and others with an open window to the media street say it is a way for Moscow to apply pressure, to get certain political guarantees coming from the opposite side. That may be so. But the truth is that this reading is not accepted by Western leaders, who see in Russia's military moves all the signs of a short-term warlike action against Ukraine. The pretext for such action would be to counter a hypothetical campaign by Kiev against the pro-Russian separatists who control the Donetsk and Lugansk regions of Ukraine. The Kremlin swears it has no intention of intervening militarily, but this message does not get through, because of the extraordinary degree of mobilisation on the ground. Putin needs more than solemn declarations on the right to homeland defence, a statement that makes no sense since nobody intends to invade this or any other part of the Russian Federation. 

Indeed, Russians and Westerners need to get out of the trap they have let themselves fall into, especially since 2013, as if there should be a permanent hostility between the two. Unfortunately, it seems that only demonstrations of force make eyes open. So, on the Western side, there is now a threat that has been clearly explained to Putin. But it is not a military threat. It would be a package of measures that would have a huge impact on the Russian economy, which is no longer in good health. Russia would be cut off from a large part of the international financial and payment systems, which are in fact controlled by the Americans, it would have immense difficulties in changing its roubles into euros and dollars, not to mention other restrictions in terms of investment, trade, and travel to Europe. Biden was very shrewd in his approach. Before and after his conversation with Putin, he involved Germany, France, Italy, and the United Kingdom in the consultation. We have a cohesion of five. For prudence's sake, I believe, it does not include Poland or any other Eastern European country. It is clearly an agreement that tells us that we are at a dangerous crossroads and that the continuation of the conversation between the leaders is the indispensable way forward. 

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 10 December 2021)

 

 

The Demcracy Summit and its question marks

We are all for democracy

Victor Angelo

 

President Biden is organising a virtual summit on 9th and 10th for democracy. It will be the first of two. The aim of the summit is to get each leader to announce measures to strengthen democracy in their respective countries. The second, in a year's time, will take stock of the promises made next week. The US will also make commitments. We will see which ones, because in recent years the American democracy has shown worrying weaknesses. The US is one of the countries in democratic decline according to this year's report by the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA), an authoritative organisation based in Stockholm.

At first, I thought the initiative was a mistake, a further attempt to create divisions within the community of nations and a further stab at the multilateral system. But given that the international democratic climate has taken serious steps backwards recently, in the end I decided to give Biden the benefit of the doubt. And I, like many others, await the results. Anything that can contribute to the strengthening of fundamental rights and better governance will be welcome. As will a discussion on the impact of the digital revolution on political choices and the liberation of citizens' voices.

Such a meeting is, however, a big deal. The list of those excluded will give as much to talk about as the topics under debate. The UN has 193 member states. Biden invited about 110. In the EU, Viktor Orbán was left out, thus giving a strong argument to those who see the Hungarian leader for what he really is: an autocrat. But Poland, which is certainly not a better example of the rule of law, is on the list. The reason seems clear: Warsaw is a faithful, and increasingly strong, military ally of American policy in Eastern Europe. Still regarding NATO, Recep Tayyib Erdogan does not appear on the list either. Most probably because the Americans do not appreciate his political-military closeness to Vladimir Putin. Erdoğan has become a stone in NATO's boot and that makes many people uncomfortable. In the case of the CPLP, the Portuguese-speaking community of States, the exclusion of the two Guineas - Bissau and Equatorial Guinea - is understandable. But one wonders why the White House did not invite Mozambique.

Neither China nor Russia will take part in the meeting. Their respective ambassadors in Washington co-signed an article condemning the summit. Then came other criticisms, in Beijing and Moscow. China, which is furious that Taiwan was invited, asserts that it is a socialist democracy, widely supported by the population - today no one talks about the dictatorship of the proletariat anymore. Russia goes further and claims a parliamentary system that is over 100 years old, which includes the entire era of Stalin and company. Both regimes swear blindly that they are democratic, each in its own way. And that the summit is therefore arrogant, divisive, and in essence a provocation against China and Russia.

Democracy is a very elastic concept. No dictator will ever acknowledge that his regime is undemocratic. On the contrary, they all maintain that they were democratically elected. So say Vladimir Putin, Alexander Lukashenko, Nicolás Maduro, Bashar al-Assad and many others. Even Robert Mugabe, in his time, said that the elections, which he stole by stealth, were perfectly legitimate and free. So did others, whom I have come to know during my professional life and after having witnessed various electoral shenanigans. The only one who will have no such worries will be Kim Jong-un, the comic-tragic despot of North Korea.

The issues under discussion - how to curb authoritarianism; the fight against corruption; and the defence of human rights - are fundamental pillars of democracy, let there be no doubt. Where there will certainly be room for doubt is when we learn of the commitments that certain countries will proclaim, thinking that all this is just talk. Even so, it may be worth going ahead with the summit, because progress is also made with idealistic initiatives.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 3 December 2021)

 

 

Emmanuel Macron and Mario Draghi: two Europeans

Italy, France, the neighbours, and all of us

Victor Angelo

 

Mario Draghi and Emmanuel Macron represent two different generations of Europeans. The former belongs to the one that became adult and free around the time of May 68 and whose parents had suffered the horrors of the Second Great War. For an Italian of that time, the values of peace, freedom, prosperity, and cooperation between nations are the foundations of a common Europe. Macron is one of the younger leaders, those who lived through their formative years after the fall of the Berlin Wall and at a time when globalisation was in full swing. His generation sees the deepening of the Union as indispensable if it is to face up to competition between the major powers and maintain a relative degree of strategic independence.

Today they are signing a new treaty of friendship between their countries - a treaty of enhanced cooperation, as they call it. The aim, they tell us, is to promote better coordination on policy, security and defence, migration, and other areas. Beyond the bilateral dimension, the intention is to support each other in the European arena. They come from different generations, but they both believe in the future of the European project. For them, homeland and Europe are mutually enforcing concepts.

I believe it is essential that both countries play a central role in strengthening European unity. And let them be joined by Germany, now under the leadership of the new chancellor, Olaf Sholz. This will give us a balanced core, supported by pragmatic moderates and social democratic forces, to which other leaders can be added. The future of European politics must be based on a vision that combines the economic transformation demanded by the climate challenges and the digital age with humanism and respect for the values enshrined in the Lisbon Treaty.

And what about defence, could Josep Borrell ask, the high representative who recently presented the first version of a European defence and security plan? Baptised as Strategic Compass, and now under consideration in the European capitals, could this plan benefit from the treaty signed today in Rome?

In principle, yes. But these common defence things are complicated. Let's take a current example. On the same day that Draghi and Macron embrace, Italian government ministers continue to oppose the sale to a Franco-German consortium of an Italian company that produces cannons for ships, tank parts and torpedoes. The amount the consortium is willing to pay is generously high. But Italian nationalism on defence industries and jobs speaks with a loud voice. And the deal is on hold.

This is just one example of the difficulties that the Strategic Compass will encounter. And which it needs to take into account, explicitly.

Nationalisms aside, the truth is that the people of Europe do not have an integrated vision of the external threats that may jeopardise Europe's peace, well-being, and unity. And Borrell's plan does not help.

Firstly, because it assumes that the danger comes only from outside, when in fact some of the major threats to the stability and security of the EU are internal. They stem from existing social fractures in some of the countries of the Union and their accelerated worsening. They also stem from autocratic tendencies in some Member States, ultra-nationalist populism and the poor functioning of the institutions that should underpin democracy at national level.

Secondly, because Borrell starts from the ambiguous concept that Europe is in "strategic contraction", something that would result from the progressive decrease in our economic and demographic weight compared to the rest of the world. If this argument were valid, Russia, which has a third of the population and a tenth of Europe's GDP, would not have any strategic influence. International projection is not necessarily based on economic or demographic gigantism. Take the example of Norway.

We will return to the Strategic Compass on another occasion. For now, and because of what is happening today in Rome, the important thing is to stress that strengthened cooperation between neighbours is one of the most direct ways to consolidate the EU.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 26 November 2021)

 

 

 

 

 

The EU and its neighbours, starting with Belarus

A Europe beyond barbed wire

Victor Angelo

 

The confrontation taking place on the border between Belarus and Poland is worrying, but it cannot be analysed in black and white. It is a complex crisis that raises a whole series of questions. We are facing humanitarian, migratory, security, geopolitical and ethical problems, in other words, a constellation of challenges that need to be debated calmly, frankly, and thoroughly.

In the background, we have two major problems. The first is about democracy. The second focuses on extreme poverty in a world that is profoundly unequal, and that conflicts, pandemics and climate change are making even more uneven and fractured.

But first, you have to think about the people who are now trapped in the no-man's-land between the Polish barbed wire and the truncheons of the Belarusian special units. It is not known how many thousands there are - estimates are not reliable. It is known, however, that they include fragile people, many of them children, who are hungry and cold and suffer constant humiliation and violence. They are also permanent targets for false news that Belarusian agents constantly circulate in order to keep the migrants' illusions alive.

Alexander Lukashenko, the master of Belarus, is clearly taking advantage of the misery of certain peoples. But our side cannot remain indifferent to the suffering of those who have allowed themselves to be manipulated, people who live in such complicated contexts that any promise, however unrealistic it may be, always brings a thread of hope. And that throws masses of people into the minefields of illegal migration.

The border with Belarus separates the European area from an autocratic regime, in which anything that can keep the dictator in power is done. Lukashenko is our most immediate concern today, but he is not the only case in the neighbourhood. If we look around and focus on who represents the closest potential or real threat, we have a bouquet that also includes the leaders of Russia and Turkey. I do not want to add some Moroccan politicians to this list, but I would recommend not losing sight of this North African neighbour of ours, who has already shown that he knows how to use mass migration as a political weapon.

It is true that there are also those within the EU who are destabilising European integration. But that is a matter for another reflection.

Let us now talk about democracy. The EU needs to formulate a doctrine that defines how it should relate to non-democratic neighbours, especially when situations of open hostility arise, as is now the case. In the current framework, one gets the feeling that democracies tend to lose out to outlaw states. It is therefore necessary to clearly establish what the appropriate response should be to aggressions of a hybrid nature, carried out at the tangent of the red line of armed conflicts between States, without, however, crossing it. A first step should be a firm and unequivocal response. This includes the adoption of sanctions in a swifter, multi-faceted and more character-focused manner. Another means will be to make greater use of the multilateral system. This will allow actions like the one Lukashenko ordered at the expense of the despair of the Iraqi Kurds, the Syrians and other peoples of the Middle East to be included on the international agenda,

As for the disparities that exist between a rich Europe and a whole series of poor countries, the pull effect is inevitable. Mass migration from South to North will be one of the most striking phenomena of this and the following decades. The EU cannot pretend it does not see the trend. It is unacceptable to leave a matter of such importance to the discretion of individual member states. The issue must be dealt with jointly. And the subject must become one of the main lines of debate at the Conference on the Future of Europe. It is also time to tell the citizens that this conference is taking place and get them involved.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 19 November 2021)

A brief personal note on peacekeeping

Peacekeeping missions and diamonds

Victor Ângelo

 

This week, for not very noble reasons, the United Nations peace operations were in the Portuguese media spotlight

A peace mission, approved by the Security Council and accepted by the host country, has a complex configuration. Each mission - there are currently 12 - includes several components, although the best known is the military one. The other dimensions cover the areas of police, political process and national reconciliation, human rights, support to local administration, elections, and justice. They are usually huge operations, headed by a Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General (SRSG), appointed with the approval of the Security Council and at the equivalent rank of Under-Secretary-General.  Today, the largest is based in the Democratic Republic of Congo, with more than 17,000 personnel and an annual budget of more than US$1.1 billion.

The military part is one of the most sensitive, both because of the high number of troops deployed on the ground and because the protection of civilian populations is one of the priorities. I have always defended that the re-establishment of internal security should be one of the first objectives to be achieved, in order to show, without delay, tangible results and facilitate the acceptance of the external presence.

The blue helmets come from the most diverse cultures. Unlike civilian cadres, the military remain in the field for short periods - as a rule, the rotations last for six months. This circumstance and the type of duties they perform do not allow them to gain a sufficient insight into the social and cultural conditions of the people who receive them. That is why I have always determined that the interaction between the military and the population should only be made by elements that are expressly designated and prepared to liaise with the local communities. The rest of the contingent was not allowed to establish any type of individual contact with the population. This was intended to avoid situations of misunderstanding, abuse, and exploitation of poverty. On the other hand, civilian elements of the mission, working at the local level, were also responsible for permanently observing our interaction with the residents in every corner of the country. The good image of the mission was a precious asset that had to be protected at all times.

As SRSG, I oversaw two peacekeeping missions in countries rich in diamonds, misery and violence.

One of those missions was in Sierra Leone. In certain districts, the main activity was artisanal diamond mining. It was a subsistence economy, with thousands of young men digging holes in the bush or sifting river sands, most of the time without result. Around them circled swarms of middlemen, who bought the stones, if any. They then took care of transporting them to Freetown, where specialised traders, mostly Lebanese, obtained the official documentation that allowed them to be exported legally, in accordance with the Kimberley process.

This process, which was launched by the United Nations in 2003 precisely because of the blood diamonds from Sierra Leone, certifies the origin and the path of each stone. It stops the dubious origins, many of them linked to the violence of armed groups. Almost all diamonds on the market today are Kimberley certified. In the European Union, for example, it is practically impossible to introduce a diamond that does not have this type of guarantee. The same happens in the main world markets.

Later I led a mission in the Central African Republic, which included patrolling the border with Sudan. In that region, there were as many shops purchasing precious stones and gold as there were grocery shops. I deployed special forces from Togo in the region. Their behaviour was exemplary. In preparation for their deployment, it was explained to them that the image of their country was at stake. They understood that. A little pebble can have an enormous political impact.

China and the COP process

More solar panels and fewer nuclear warheads

Victor Angelo

 

It is true that the Chinese president did not come to the COP26 summit. But it is also a fact that Xi Jinping has not travelled out of the country since January 2020, because of an extraordinarily stiff official interpretation of what the fight against the coronavirus pandemic should be.

The American president took advantage of his counterpart's absence to criticise him openly. I think this was a mistake. Joe Biden should seek to build bridges with China rather than new fronts of conflict. There are already enough points of friction between the two countries. It is not wise to add this one.

The global fight against climate change needs everyone's cooperation. Including China, which emits about a quarter of the world's total carbon dioxide, although in per capita terms the impact of each Chinese person is half that of the average American. This reminds us, moreover, that the wealthiest are those who contribute most to global warming and that a large part of the response must be based on this observation.

It should also be added that President Xi did not ignore the summit. He sent a written communication, which I felt was relevant in several respects.

First, because he stressed the need to respect the commitments already made, both in the UN Climate Change Framework Convention and in the 2015 Paris Agreement. His statement was a clear call for the strengthening of multilateral responses through the United Nations system. It was also a call for the deepening of mutual trust between states, which is so sorely needed. This is a key issue that the UN Secretary-General could explore in order to make his role more central and more action oriented. 

Second, because President Xi mentioned the need for an extra effort by all, in particular the most developed countries. Here he referred to the aid that has been promised and should be given to the poorest countries to mitigate the catastrophic effects of climate change and significantly increase their peoples' access to renewable sources of energy.

Third, because he said clearly that the community of nations must accelerate the green transition. In his view, this means increasing investment in science and technology in order to achieve industrial transformation and the types of energy and consumption that are best suited to safeguarding the environment, without jeopardizing economic development. There is a half-truth here, based on the theory that scientific progress is the best response to environmental challenges. This position does not take into account that economic growth policies must change and that the behaviour of people in the richest countries, including China, cannot be based solely on the continued increase in consumption and material well-being.

In the final part of his communication, Xi Jinping referred to a number of measures that his government is already conducting or will adopt in order to reduce the carbon footprint. He did not say this now, but he had already informed the UN General Assembly that the official Chinese ambition is to reach carbon neutrality by 2060. To this, one could reply that China has the means to achieve this neutrality much sooner. And it should do so, taking advantage of the moment to show that China can also play a leading role in this area. The country has the necessary knowledge and means. It would be a matter of investing less in the war industries and more in energy transformation. A nation that plans to have a nuclear arsenal of at least a thousand nuclear warheads in 2030 - five times more than in 2020 - and a whole arsenal of hypersonic weapons, bombers, aircraft carriers and submarines with nuclear capability, has all the conditions to also be an example in terms of managing carbon emissions. It is time to show that the defence of the planet and peace are two interconnected issues. Global leadership should focus on this.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 5 November 2021)

 

COP26 will be shaken by the young people

Youth will challenge COP26

Victor Angelo

 

I admire Greta Thunberg's determination. She has already done more to fight climate change than many political leaders. And she has above all mobilised young people, thus opening a window of hope for the future. In essence, Greta's civic activism demands that we move from words to deeds and that what was agreed at the Paris climate conference in 2015 is actually implemented.

Next week, she will be in Glasgow, in the framework of COP26. She will remind the official delegations of the pacts signed and will underline that it is now even more urgent to reduce carbon emissions, to protect ecosystems, to finance the energy transition in the poorest countries and to mitigate the worrying effects of global warming. The signs are clear: the past decade has been recorded as the warmest ever. 

There is not much optimism about the possible outcomes of this summit. The UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, told us a few days ago that the national commitments already known, coming from around 120 countries and which will be discussed during COP26, fall far short of what is necessary to reverse the current trend, which goes in the wrong direction – a global warming of around 2.7 degrees Celsius by the end of the century. Such an increase would have catastrophic consequences. Some of these effects are already being felt, in different ways depending on the regions of the world: prolonged droughts or devastating storms, followed by floods that destroy everything in their path; gigantic fires, including in tundra areas; the destruction of a large part of the polar ice cap, glaciers and an increase in sea levels and the salinity of rivers and coastal lagoons; the loss of biodiversity; and the large-scale impoverishment of the most fragile populations. In Africa alone, for example, by 2030, climate change will drive a new wave of over 100 million people into poverty.

What is more, Africa is a continent that remains in the dark. The installed capacity to produce electricity is less than that of Spain, while on one side we have 1.4 billion people and on the other, 47 million. The African case highlights two other truths. First, that rich countries had promised the poorest ones, from 2020 onwards, around 100 billion dollars a year to help them in their energy transition. We are a long way from these figures. Secondly, without an extraordinary effort to electrify Africa, there is no way to develop the continent. The potential for renewable energy is enormous. What is lacking, however, are the financial resources, the knowledge, the technological transfer, and, above all, the political will. This week, for example, European foreign ministers met with their African counterparts in Kigali, Rwanda, to prepare the next Europe-Africa summit. They talked about the fight against COVID-19, historic ties and political partnerships, trade, migration, gender equality - the usual hotchpotch of things to please everyone. In the flowery text that the French, German, Portuguese, and Slovenian ministers published on the subject, there is no mention of COP26 and not a single reference to mobilising investments in the field of energy. Yet without accessible and abundant electricity there will be no economic growth or development.

Another ghost that will roam the corridors of COP26 is called national egoism. At the peak of the pandemic, the great leaders and renowned thinkers told us that after the crisis we would build a better, more balanced, ecological, and solidary world. What we are seeing is exactly the opposite: more economic nationalism, greater demand for fossil energies and a return to old consumer habits. The new man we were promised is the same as before, but more self-centred and with a renewed consumerist fury. This is where Greta and young people like her can shake up COP26 and show that an alternative vision is possible. 

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 29 October 2021)