China, European Union, Ukraine and Vladimir Putin

Where is China's leadership?

Victor Angelo

It took 12 days of aggression against Ukraine for Xi Jinping to come down to earth and discuss his reading of the crisis with Emmanuel Macron and Olaf Scholz. The day before, his foreign minister, Wang Yi, had organised a long press conference focused on the same subject.

Analysing these two speeches, I get the impression that Beijing wants to please Greeks and Trojans, i.e., the Europeans of the EU and the regime of Vladimir Putin, and to escalate the rhetoric against the US. Xi sought to encourage dialogue between the Europeans and the Kremlin, as well as to create a fault line between the European and American positions. This is how the Chinese initiative can be summed up.

Above all, Xi's aim is to project an image of composure and serenity, in defence of the multilateral system and of peace. He wants to appear as the great apologist for international principles, while the Americans should be seen as the instigators of conflicts, including the one now being suffered in Ukraine. China would be mainly concerned with the promotion of international cooperation - the word cooperation was mentioned more than 80 times in Wang's speech - development and the prevention of large-scale humanitarian crises.

All this is an exercise in style in the realms of propaganda and ambiguity. China needs to maintain a very close relationship with Russia. They are two big neighbours, with various complementarities, beyond the immense geographical continuity. Beijing imports raw materials extracted in Russia – oil represents about 60% of total imports coming from Russia – and provides an outlet for its neighbour's economy. Most important of all, it sees the US as a common enemy. Geography brings the two countries together and geopolitics unites them. It is, however, a fragile union: it is fundamentally based on the wills of Xi and Putin. It has no solid popular expression, because each people have their own cultural framework, without shared roots or references.

And China knows how to calculate too: in one year, trade with the EU exceeds USD 800 billion, while with Russia it is much lower, at USD 105 billion. This figure roughly equals the annual trade between China and the Netherlands. Politically and economically, Xi Jinping depends on an open and friendly European market. For the Chinese leader, international trade is essential to maintain the pace of growth in living standards for his citizens. This has to do with his continuity in power. It is the key argument to justify his legitimacy and absolute authority.  

The fact is that the Chinese leadership does not support the military assault that Putin has ordered against Ukraine. For what I write above, and for three other reasons. First, because it flouts two of the fundamental principles of Chinese foreign policy, that of the inviolability of national borders and non-interference in the internal affairs of other states. Secondly, it destabilises European economies and puts them at risk of a deep crisis. Third, it reinforces the role of the USA in NATO and its influence in Europe.

However, Xi Jinping does not think it prudent to criticise, or even talk to Putin now. He prefers to go through Macron and Scholz and advise them on a dialogue with the Kremlin, pretending not to see that this path is currently blocked. Putin does not listen to the European leaders.

Faced with the Ukrainian resistance against the invaders, Putin is determined to repeat what other dictators have done throughout history: expand the use of armed force, including the bombing of civilians - a war crime - and the siege of cities, in the old medieval style. Xi Jinping knows the costs of this kind of criminal folly. It is what prompted him to contact Europe's leaders. He should show that his words about the value of multilateralism and diplomatic negotiations make sense and move with clarity in the UN Security Council and with his partner Putin. Only then can he be taken seriously. 

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 11 March 2022)

 

 

Talking of mediation: who could it be?

Vladimir Putin's Pandora's box

Victor Angelo

 

The last two years have been exceptional times of great concern at the global level. The truth is that we were not prepared to face challenges of this magnitude and that were added to the very complex - and vital - problem of climate change.

First was the pandemic, which remains a huge challenge, especially for countries with fewer resources and extremely fragile public health systems.

With this backdrop still part of our horizon, a second factor of enormous instability has now emerged and which, like Covid-19, should contribute to reconfiguring the future of our societies and international relations. This factor has its point of origin in Vladimir Putin's inexplicable, anachronistic, and illegal decision to declare war on the people of Ukraine.

The Russian dictator has opened a Pandora's box. One must be aware of this. And now even hope seems to have come out of the box and to be drifting. Russia's own foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, who is now visibly behaving like a lackey of his master, has himself added fuel to the collective sense of anxiety. On Wednesday, speaking of the sanctions that have been imposed on his country, the minister said that the response could be a third world war. And he stressed that it would be "a devastating nuclear war".

Many will think that this is just talk, to raise the stakes, that is, to get Ukraine destroyed and guard the rubble, put pressure on the West, gain strategic weight and avoid a new wave of sanctions.

I for one am one of those who take these bravadoes very seriously. The measures taken against Putin and the circles that support his power are extraordinarily far-reaching, close to a declaration of hostilities. The impact in the areas of the economy, finance and domestic policy will be enormous. In the face of this, the Kremlin's response may be economic, beyond bans on the use of airspace, the transit of goods from China, visas, etc. But I fear that Putin does not consider such retaliation sufficient. He may want to show that Russia is not playing softly, that it is neither Iran nor Venezuela.

As I have written here before, we have reached a very dangerous turning point.

The only reasonable solution would be a diplomatic effort of good offices - understanding that a solution needs to be found that guarantees Ukraine's independence, but also accepting that there is much more at stake than that. The UN and its Secretary-General should be the key players in this initiative. It is part of their remit, and they should dare. But I don't see a chance, Putin would not accept such mediation. For him, the UN is just a secretariat, a structure at the service of the states, but without equal status and below them. And Guterres is now presented in Moscow as an agent of the Americans. 

Mediation would have to be undertaken by a state accepted by all the parties. If the issue were only between Russia and Ukraine, I think the possibility that China could play that role should not be ruled out. Even taking into account that the Chinese anti-American rhetoric has escalated in the last two or three days. Today, given the complexity of the crisis, it would be preferable for mediation to be done by a tandem, or even a triumvirate, of countries. For example, China, France and another country that has the confidence of Europeans and Americans but is independent from NATO and outside the European arena. What might that be?

Having said this, I would like to make it clear that I do not have much faith in the possibility of mediation. I would prefer a palace coup. That might be the solution. But officially we must insist on the diplomatic route. The crossroads we are at is very clear: either there is diplomacy or there is a strong possibility of large-scale confrontation, suffering and chaos. It is up to each one to take responsibility for their choice and, in the end, to pay the bill, starting with Vladimir Putin.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 5 March 2022)

 

 

 

Russia and Ukraine: a fast worsening tragedy

Putin and us: from bad to worse, danger!

Victor Angelo

 

We are now in a new, much more dangerous stage of the crisis started by Vladimir Putin about a week ago. The sanctions adopted by the EU countries and their allies, the placing on alert of the Russian nuclear deterrent forces, the entry of Belarus into the confrontation by abolishing its nuclear neutrality, and above all the large-scale expansion of military aggression against Ukraine, including the attack on civilian targets, all lead to a worsening of the tension between Putin and our part of the world.

The moment demands maximum prudence. Military aid to Ukraine, for example, should be provided without grandiloquent declarations. We must help, but without adding fuel to the fire of rhetoric, without giving the enemy the opportunity to use our words to justify themselves to their public opinion and to escalate further. This is my message to Ursula von der Leyen and the other European leaders.  

The time also demands absolute firmness in applying the economic and financial sanctions that were decided this weekend. 

The SWIFT issue is particularly important. Even without including Russian gas and oil. The lessons I draw from recent past cases - North Korea, Venezuela, and Iran - reveal that a large part of the sanctioned country's foreign trade is suspended. The impact on GDP and the day-to-day running of the economy is enormous. The international payment system ceases to function, and alternatives are few and far between. Trade, which today sustains the standard of living of citizens, is drastically reduced.  

This is how it will happen now. Russia recently set up a system independent from SWIFT, but the number of banks involved is no more than a couple of dozen. And those banks, when faced with the exclusionary measures now decided upon, will certainly hesitate about transactions with Russia, for fear of the associated penalties and restrictions. The safest thing, in business terms, is to stop having banking relations with the Russian system.

Even more important is the decision to block many of the operations of the Central Bank of Russia. Putin was counting on the $630 billion that this bank has as reserves in foreign currency and gold bullion. The problem is that a good part of these reserves - at least 50% of the total - is deposited in other central banks, in countries that have now adopted the sanctions regime. In Japan, Germany, France, the US, the UK, Austria. Access to these deposits is frozen. 

In addition to these reserves, the Central Bank of Russia holds gold bars in its vaults to the tune of 3300 tonnes. It may try to sell a good part of them. But with the sanctions in place, the buyers, even if they are Chinese, will face a great risk when they later try to market this gold. So they will only buy the bars if Russia offers a discount from the current market value, a discount that could be around 30% or more. Thus, what would be worth around 190 billion US dollars under present conditions could, at most, raise 130 billion US dollars. 

These sanctions will lead to a continued devaluation of the national currency, the rouble, which has already lost about 30% against the dollar. They will also destabilise the operation of the country's commercial banks. We are entering into what I would call the "Venezuelisation" of the Russian financial system. Now, this has huge political costs. The European narrative must be able to explain to the Russian population what is behind all this: Vladimir Putin's irresponsible and criminal policy. 

The sanctions are already contributing to the country's international isolation. Dictators don't like to be pushed to the wall and don't like dead ends. This explains the new level of brutality in the offensive against Ukraine. Putin needs a military victory without further delay, even at the cost of war crimes. He thinks that from then on, he will be able to negotiate more forcefully with the Europeans and the Americans. We must tell him that he is utterly mistaken. 

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 2 March 2022)

Vladimir Putin, Ukraine and all of us

When fascism enters our homes

Victor Ângelo

 

In its essence, the fascism of today coincides with that of the last century: in the existence of an autocrat, in the dictatorial power, in the ultra-nationalism, in the continuous exaltation of the homeland and traditional values, from religion to family, and in an inhuman vision of the use of force, either to maintain the internal order and crush the opposition, or to create problems abroad. The dictator manipulates the narrative of his people's past with glorious words, in an idealised way, as if the nation had a historical and civilisational, as well as divine, mission. He sees himself as the personification of the noble national destiny. He places himself on a pedestal above everyone else. He treats the members of his immediate circle theatrically, with arrogance, cynicism, and an iron hand, in order to obtain subservience and flattery. On the international stage, he only respects the rules that suit him. It seeks to impose fear but ends up being treated with mistrust and aversion. Its only foreign allies are found in the puppet elites of vassal countries, in extreme right-wing movements, in others who advocate totalitarian modes of governance, or even in fools.

Fascist dictators are a danger to democracies as well as to international peace. Indeed, as Vladimir Putin reminds us today, fascism leads to war. 

Putin is at the head of a great nation, which throughout history has made a remarkable contribution to European civilisation and culture. A heroic people, who played a decisive role in the defeat of Nazism. A people that belongs fully to the "European house", the great strategic partnership between the EU and Russia, dreamt of in 2003, with the ambition of building an area of freedom and cooperation from Lisbon to Vladivostok.

We are now a long way from that dream. The nightmare come true of the violation of Ukraine's sovereignty, its invasion, the menacing language used by Putin, the verbal threats against our part of Europe and the unacceptable demands, place all of us Europeans in a very serious confrontation. Conflicts, once started, usually get out of control. We know when they start, but we do not know when they end, nor what the damage, the level of suffering and the consequences will be. Not to mention the internal policy Putin conducts, it must be clear that the external one, towards Ukraine and his country's European neighbourhood, is unacceptable and criminal. It is completely outside established norms.

It is time to return to the international legal framework, which has been built since 1945. In that sense, the statement made by António Guterres, on the events of this week, is highly significant and courageous. It will go down in the record of his tenure as a memorable moment. Guterres said, "The decision of the Russian Federation to recognise the so-called "independence" of certain areas of Donetsk and Lugansk is a violation of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine." He added that the decision contradicts the principles of the United Nations Charter, as well as the General Assembly Declaration on Relations of Friendship and Cooperation between States and the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice. He repeated the same words again, in a deeply concerned manner once the invasion was consummated.

Never in the history of the UN had a Secretary-General dared to be so clear in condemning a large-scale illegality practised by one of the permanent members of the Security Council. U Thant, who was in charge of the organisation between 1961 and 1971, referred several times to the United States and its unjust war in Vietnam, but did not go that far.

Meanwhile, the EU must respond to this immense crisis with all the diplomatic, financial, and economic arsenal at its disposal. And with a strengthening of its defence architecture.  The aim is to isolate, weaken, punish the dictatorship in power in Moscow and force a return to peace. At the time of writing the measures that will be adopted are not yet known. They should, however, make it clear that a fascist, warlike regime in Europe is morally and politically unacceptable. It will not pass, not now, not ever again. 

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 25 February 2022)

 

 

Looking for a serious partnership: Europe and Africa

Europe and Africa: a very complex relationship

Victor Ângelo

 

The sixth summit between the European Union and the African Union started yesterday and continues today in Brussels. I take the opportunity to share some personal thoughts on the relationship between Europe and a continent that has absorbed more than three decades of my professional life, including as Director for Africa of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) operations.

A chessboard that covers 82 countries and around 1.7 billion people can only be quite complex. This complexity is compounded by the imbalances that history has caused and the disparities in development that exist between the two continents. Therefore, establishing partnerships of equals must be the absolute priority for both parties. This is an extremely sensitive issue. European leaders have not always shown sufficient political tact. There is still a logic that sees donors on one side and needy on the other. Or, worse still, that sees Africa as an area of instability, which, combined with unparalleled demographic pressure, will eventually lead to mass migrations to the EU. For those who think like this, Africa appears as a money drain and a threat.

The summit, scheduled for 2020, has been repeatedly postponed because of the pandemic. Now it is being held under the co-presidency of France and Senegal, because they are currently in charge of their respective regions. It is not the best coincidence. There is now an anti-French feeling in West and Central Africa. And the Senegalese president, Macky Sall, and even Dakar and its elite, are seen as the Parisians of sub-Saharan Africa. This has given rise to talk that this is yet another Elysée-inspired summit. Moreover, the impression has been given that not enough attention has been paid during the preparatory work to the concerns of the Anglophone and Lusophone countries.

The truth is that the African continent is very diverse. Each sub-region has specific characteristics and even deep-rooted prejudices towards the others. It is enough to listen, as I have often heard, to what a Southern African politician says about the situation in certain West or Central African states to understand that the façade hides many cracks.

Stability and prosperity sum up the aspirations of the participants.

Stability requires competent governance, in tune with the wishes of the people and capable of protecting their security and rights. This is an area which requires a frank dialogue between the partners to define everyone's responsibilities. Drawing up plans in Brussels and then landing to implement them in the Sahel, or elsewhere, ends up leading to the rejection of these initiatives and leaves room for slippage, as is happening in Mali and the Central African Republic. Nor can one accept a military junta in Chad and say no to another in Burkina Faso, for example. Such ambiguities only serve to discredit cooperation from Europe. Moreover, in the fight against terrorism it is imperative to obtain visible results without delay. The continuing deterioration of the security situation in the Sahel and beyond calls for an analysis of the reasons for failure and, on the basis of lessons learned, a different approach.

Prosperity must rest on five pillars. First, the fight against corruption. Second, the electrification of the continent. Brussels tells us that 50% of Africa's population has no access to electricity. That figure is obviously underestimated. We all know that electricity grids only work when they work, meaning that the cuts are longer than the supply. Third, in a green revolution, which modernises agriculture and livestock. Fourth, industrialisation, local processing of raw materials and agricultural products. Fifth, in the effective abolition of customs barriers between African countries. Trade between these countries represents no more than 15% of the continent's foreign trade. This is far too little.

So let us wait for the results of the summit. And to battle on with optimism.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 18 February 2022)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Chinese hope Europe will remain peaceful

China, Russia, peace in Europe and beyond

Victor Angelo

 

Yesterday I was in contact with a well-informed Chinese source living in Beijing. The main topic of discussion was the crisis in Ukraine, a subject that has not been highlighted in the Chinese press. The media is focused on the Winter Olympics, which are being held in an exemplary manner, and on the success of Chinese athletes who were born in the USA but chose to compete under the Chinese flag. The remaining space is devoted to Taiwan and the meeting of the foreign ministers of the Quad (United States, Australia, India, and Japan), taking place today in Melbourne, and which is seen as yet another attempt by the two Anglo-Saxon countries to create an alliance hostile to China. As for Europe, the only issue that Beijing seems to be concerned about remains Lithuania, because of the opening in that country of a commercial representation with the name of Taiwan inscribed on the façade.

During my videoconference, it became clear that China does not see any advantage in a possible armed conflict in Europe. For several reasons.

Firstly, because such a confrontation would quickly spiral out of control. It would eventually take on an extraordinary dimension, far beyond the Ukrainian borders. Second, because European markets contribute significantly to the prosperity of the Chinese economy. It is crucial that they continue to function without disruption. Xi Jinping's legitimacy rests in large part on continued rapid economic growth. Third, because the conflict would severely disrupt the movement of goods by rail, given that trains from China pass through a significant part of Russian territory before reaching European destinations. Fourth, because Poland would certainly be in the front line and would therefore be deeply destabilised at a time when Chinese decision-makers have decided to consider Poland as one of the most important logistical hubs from which overland deliveries will be routed to the rest of Europe. Fifth, because Ukraine is an important trading and agricultural partner of China - 80% of the corn imported by China comes from Ukrainian fields. Sixth, because the official Beijing narrative is based on the promotion of international peace, with China at the centre of the efforts for the peaceful resolution of conflicts and as one of the new pillars of the multilateral system. 

The reason for the absence of any reference to Ukraine in the joint communiqué that came out of the recent summit between Xi and Putin has also become clearer to me. The communiqué explicitly mentions NATO, which is, after all, the strategic alibi for Putin's manoeuvres, but ignores the Ukrainian crisis. A crisis which, moreover, goes against one of the basic principles of Chinese foreign policy, namely the inviolability of national borders. The Chinese do not look favourably on the annexation of Crimea or on the presence of Russian special troops in the Ukrainian region of Donbass, who are there to support the rebel groups. And they do not want this annexation to be compared to the Taiwan problem, which is presented as an internal Chinese issue.

The alliance between Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin is based on a pragmatic, non-ideological vision, on the part of the Chinese. China imports Russian oil, gas, and other raw materials as it also needs to maintain good neighbourly relations. By way of example, note that Russia is China's second largest supplier of oil and coal, and the first, in terms of electricity. A significant part of the New Silk Road passes through Russian territory. On the other hand, Beijing is fully aware that Moscow will never again become the capital of a superpower, but only of a second-rate power. The real competition is with the United States of America. And to win that competition China needs, among other things, continued economic expansion, which depends to a large extent on the prevalence of a climate of peace in Russia, the rest of Europe and beyond.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 11 February 2022)

 

 

Vladimir Putin's friends

Europe: de-dramatize and fight the deceit

Victor Ângelo

 

Diplomacy has been in a frenzy for the past two weeks. Russian threats were taken seriously and suddenly everyone in Europe and the United States thought it was indispensable to talk to Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelensky. And both have lent themselves to the game. Just a few days ago Viktor Orbán was in Moscow, and Boris Johnson in Kiev. At first sight, a forceful response to the threats triggered a series of diplomatic initiatives. The parties continue to pursue the path of negotiation, even as they acknowledge the lack of progress. This, despite the strengthening of military positions, which has been unrelenting, is positive. The likelihood of a military confrontation has not gone away, and remains very high, but it is no longer the only alternative. 

Nobody has tried to facilitate the contact between the main parties involved. It is important that Putin and Zelensky speak directly to each other. Even bearing in mind that the underlying issue is much bigger than the dispute between Russia and Ukraine. The peaceful resolution of conflicts is always done step by step, like someone solving a puzzle. Starting with the implementation of the Normandy agreement - which aims to restore peace in the rebel-held areas of eastern Ukraine - would be a big step in the right direction.

What is missing is someone who can bridge and mediate between the neighbouring presidents. Unfortunately I don't see, in Europe or in an international organisation, many who can do this. Mediation and conflict prevention are two particularly difficult areas of international relations. I have learned this from decades of practice. They require intermediaries with great moral authority, personal courage, political influence, and a credible structure to back them up. At present, such personalities are rare birds, as organisations and political systems have been taken over by nationalists or else by distinguished errand boys and other opportunists. At this moment, with the exception that Emmanuel Macron may be, Europe is without protagonists capable of projecting themselves beyond their national borders.

Viktor Orbán is also very much stirred up on the European scene, but for purely domestic reasons. Hungary has legislative elections scheduled for 3 April. If there is no fraud - and there is a big if here - Orbán could lose the battle of the popular vote. So, ensuring the seriousness of this electoral act is especially important for those who believe in a democratic Europe. The current Hungarian prime minister is indeed a negative force on the European scene. Meanwhile, and before the Moscow visit, Orbán was in Madrid last weekend to attend a new meeting of the EU's ultraconservative, neo-fascist, and ultranationalist parties.

It was a meeting organised by the Spanish far-right party Vox. The theme was "defending Europe". Interestingly, it was only after much insistence by the Polish prime minister that the participants included in the final communiqué a reference to the current aggressive stance of the Kremlin and the danger this poses to peace in Europe. Yet Marine Le Pen, when she published the communiqué on her personal propaganda website, kindly deleted this reference to Russian moves. She thus proved once again that Putin can count on the benevolence of certain European neo-fascist and xenophobic groups. And on Viktor Orbán, within the EU. And these fellows can expect, reciprocally, his support, money and more gas at the price offered to allies.

Putin can also count on a few commentators who think it is in good taste and progressive thinking to serve as an echo chamber for the propaganda and falsehoods circulated by the Kremlin. In some cases, these are intellectuals who were trained ideologically during the Cold War. For others, it is just a way of trying to show that they are smarter and that they understand the strategy at play better than anyone else. In both cases, although they are not the political relatives of Le Pen or Orbán, in practice they end up doing an identical service.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 4 February 2022)

 

 

 

Diplomacy and manifestations of force

A diplomacy with strength

Victor Angelo

 

When the United Nations was created in 1945, its founders had in mind the establishment of a supranational organization capable of resolving future conflicts in a peaceful manner, in particular those that might occur between the great powers. We were at the end of the Second World War, which had brought incredible levels of suffering and destruction. The main concern was to avoid new military confrontations. So, they established a structure that gave the primacy to diplomatic negotiations and that should prevent situations like the one that now exists around Ukraine from sliding into a new war. More than seven decades later, the founding fathers, if they were still among us, would be deeply shocked to see that the UN is completely marginalised here in this part of Europe in the crisis between Russia and the West. As it is in other geographies, where the superpowers intervene directly in the struggle for what they consider to be their vital interests.

The focus on diplomacy, regarding Ukraine and the broader issue of European security, is now taking place in other forums - in the EU, in NATO, in the OSCE in Vienna. And, above all, in bilateral discussions between the Americans and the Russians, leaving the Europeans in a secondary position, even though they are the ones who will have to pay the most important part of the bill, the cost of the decisions that will be taken. The extent of the bill remains to be defined, in economic, financial, or even military terms.

So, it is not only the UN that is left out, but also the Europeans themselves, however much they deny it. It is enough to see that there is no enthusiasm in the Kremlin to discuss a new defence architecture in Europe with the German, French or other leaders. Whether one wants to see it or not, the truth is that the Russians only believe in possible understandings with the Americans. As far as the EU is concerned, Russia is only interested in the most technologically and economically advanced member states, one by one, and only for business reasons. Only on Wednesday, Putin held a videoconference with the heads of the major Italian multinationals (Enel, UniCredit Bank, and the Generali insurance company, among others), while at the same time ignoring the proposals for détente sent to him by Macron and reinforcing the presence of his armed forces in Belarus, a stone's throw from Kiev.

It has once again become clear that we are still part of an international framework in which armed force, or at least those who have it, make the law. This has a very negative impact on the political role of the UN. It also represents a fundamental challenge for the EU, which does not have the military and foreign policy capabilities that would be required to assert its strategic views and interests. The current crisis must be turned into an opportunity to strengthen those capabilities. It is necessary to reduce Europe's double dependence - military and political - on the US just as it is essential to reduce the energy dependence of certain EU member states on Russia.

Returning to diplomacy, I recall that Louis XIV had the Latin locution "ultima ratio regum" engraved on his cannons, to remind us that heavy weaponry was "the ultimate argument of kings". In other words, for diplomacy to be effective when peace is desired, warlike preparation cannot be neglected. However, today's wars are no longer waged using only cannons: economic and financial measures, political restrictions, cybernetics, information and counterinformation are now also part of the arsenal. This is what is known as an integrated response to external aggression.  Such a response is particularly necessary when on the other side we have an autocratic regime, led by an individual who presents himself as the ultra-nationalist protector of his people and national culture, who calls opponents traitors and who does not hesitate to use armed violence, internally and externally, to achieve his personal power objectives.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 28 January 2022)

 

 

Davos and the current crisis in Ukraine

From Davos to Geneva: from the future to the urgency of the present

Victor Angelo

 

Davos 2022 ends today. The meeting took place in a virtual way, because of the pandemic. We did not witness, as had become customary, the shuttle of a large number of private planes, with the powerful of this world converging on the famous Swiss Alpine station. And emitting vast amounts of carbon dioxide.

Until 2020, being seen at Davos confirmed you were part of the global elite, whether political, economic, academic, or journalistic. Last year, Covid-19 prevented that great manifestation of power from taking place. Now we have a meeting that has gone virtually unnoticed. But it wasn't just the pandemic that took the spotlight off it. The geopolitical situation in Europe concentrated the biggest concerns during the week. The issues under discussion in Davos - the pandemic and unequal access to vaccines; the energy transition; the technological and numerical revolution, to name just the most important - were completely overshadowed by Vladimir Putin's moves on European security.

But let's talk a little about Davos 2022. The old fox that is the founder and boss of the Davos World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab, invited Xi Jinping to deliver the opening speech. This gesture was duly appreciated by the Chinese power establishment.  Schwab, who is always ready to tie a knot, thus strengthened relations between his organisation and Beijing. And at the same time, he sent a strong message of recognition of China as a major player on the global stage.

In order not to put all his eggs in one basket, he also asked the Indian prime minister to speak on the first day of the forum. The contrast between Xi Jinping and Narendra Modi was striking.

The Chinese leader sought to underline his country's commitment as a major contributor to international stability, against the use of force and for the strengthening of multilateralism, cooperation and world peace. He defended globalisation. He even said that China is a haven for international capitalism. He also took the opportunity to attack the United States, which he accused of being a source of global tension, a country that closes in on itself and creates obstacles to the economic recovery of the poorest countries. 

Modi, on the other hand, spoke above all to his fellow citizens. He praised the successes that India has known in recent times, including in the fight against the pandemic, in the production of vaccines and in technological and digital areas.

China's ambition is to play a prominent role on the international stage. India remains very much focused on its internal problems. Modi wants to transform the country into a modern and technologically advanced economy.

António Guterres closed the list of first speakers. He was a kind of spokesman for the less developed countries. This is the only ground he has left on which to play with a degree of security. In his speech, he underlined the difficulties that these countries have encountered in fighting the pandemic. He advocated urgent reform of the global financial system to make it more accessible to countries with few resources, and emphasised climate issues.

While all this was going on, Europe and the United States were wondering about Mr Putin's intentions regarding Ukraine and NATO. These are particularly urgent, and high-risk issues. Davos has, whether you like it or not, the merit of coldly raising big questions about the future. But right now, the reality in our part of the globe is far hotter and more immediate. Putin continues to move troops into areas close to Ukraine and threaten European stability. The outcome of today's meeting in Geneva between Antony Blinken and Sergey Lavrov is uncertain. I do not think they can open a process of dialogue. The Russian side seems to want to show that it is not closing the diplomatic door, when in fact it is relying on intimidation and duplicity. Here, it is essential to bear in mind the lesson learned in 1938 at the Munich conference: appeasement without mutual concessions only serves to whet the appetites of aggressors of all kinds.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 21 January 2022)

 

What kind of democratic government do we need?

Big problems call for big solutions

Victor Angelo

 

Angela Merkel came to power in 2005 because the Social Democratic Party (SPD) refused to enter into an alliance with the extreme left, which had its ideological roots in the defunct German Democratic Republic. If it had done so, the SPD would have taken the leadership of the new government and Merkel's fate would have taken a back seat. The SPD, which belongs to the same political family as António Costa's party, had obtained 34% of the vote in the September legislative elections, one percentage point less than the CDU/CSU grouping, which had Merkel as its candidate. After three weeks of negotiations, the Centre-right and the Socialists reached a governing agreement. The German parliament then approved the coalition of the two. They represented around 70 per cent of the electorate.

Merkel, at the head of the most voted, took over as head of government. She ended up leading Germany for 16 years, always in coalition. During her last mandate, she had the leader of the Socialists, Olaf Scholz, as vice-chancellor. On 8 December, Scholz became the new chancellor following elections last September. He too governs at the head of a coalition, which brings together the Greens, who are on the left of the political spectrum, and the Liberals (FDP), on the right. The common programme was negotiated over two months, measure by measure, always with the aim of reaching a compromise. During the process it became clear that one can negotiate with everyone except the extremists, the xenophobes and the enemies of freedom.

The German political culture is based on the search for platforms of understanding and the stability of the system. It has been this way since 1949, when Konrad Adenauer headed the first post-war democratic government based on an agreement between three parties in what was then the western part of Germany. In short, it is about maintaining a predictable, balanced course that is representative of as many voters as possible. A large part of the economic growth, modernisation and social welfare that defines Germany today is based on the stability and moderation of those in power.

Annalena Baerbock, leader of the Greens and now foreign minister, said that the new government "reflects the diversity" that exists in the country. This might seem an exaggeration. But the truth is that at the leadership level there is a will to include and to seek a balance between the interests of the different segments of society. There is no notion of a "main enemy", as there is in other political horizons. Whoever thinks of party action in terms of an "enemy" lives, perhaps without realising it, in a totalitarian ideological framework, in which political struggle is seen as an antechamber to the crushing of opponents or as a kind of civil war without shots being fired. There are no enemies in a democracy among all those who respect the constitution and understand that the prosperity of each citizen is fundamental to the progress and security of all.

The German example is not unique in the EU. Next door in the Netherlands, multi-faceted government coalitions have also been the norm. As in Belgium, Italy, Ireland, Finland, Luxembourg and so on. Not to mention the curious case of Denmark, which has a government composed exclusively of social democrats (socialists) but enjoys stable parliamentary support from three left-wing parties.

Advanced democracies are based on the search for broad consensus. Half plus one may be enough to have a majority in parliament and set the governing machine in motion. It is, however, a minimalist and only formal conception of democracy. The digital revolution, global competition, the enormous energy, security and social challenges, all this and much more can only be dealt with in the necessary depth if there is a broad common will to reform, modernise, simplify and protect. We have very complex issues ahead of us.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 14 January 2022)