Human rights and reconciliation

In Northern Mali, now that the French military operations brought state control back to the urban areas, the next challenge is to make sure that the national army respects the human rights of the Tuareg populations. The soldiers come from the south of the country and tend to see everyone that looks Arab or Tuareg as a suspect Islamist, or, at least, as a collaborator of the extremists. This needs to be prevented. There have been already some reprisal killings by the Malian army and the non-black residents of the North are terrified. Their human rights have to be safeguarded.

In addition, it is time for political dialogue and reconciliation between the communities.

All these issues need to be high on the international agenda as some type of assistance is being gathered by donor countries. To start with, France, the EU and the US should make clear statements about the need for a political process, for human rights and tolerance in Mali. 

The tough path to leadership

Some people believe that to become a leader is like deciding to go for a walk in the Central Park. You just put your walking shoes, go there and do it! Leadership and the competition to be in charge are a bit more complex. Getting to be a leader requires a very strong will, sheer determination and absolute dedication. You cannot have one foot in and the other out!

In a world where everything must be comfortable and pleasant, predictable and easy, only very few are ready to impose on themselves the focus, the personal sacrifice and the discipline indispensable, what it takes, bluntly said, to become a leader. That’s why there is a serious crisis of leadership in the world of today. 

On the UN and conflict management

The United Nations is the most important actor in the areas of conflict management and peace building. It is also the key source of legitimacy for the international community. Furthermore, the UN has been able to develop a body of doctrine and the respective instruments that place the organization at the forefront of the international peace efforts.

But it is equally a machinery that is fragmented and complex, composed of entities that often are reluctant to accept effective coordination and tend to compete among themselves. The so-called “turf wars” are quite common at headquarters, with different agency personnel vying for visibility and resources, at the expense of coherence and impact.

 It is also a very decentralized organization, which is an advantage, as it brings the decision-making close to the potential beneficiaries. The decentralization gives a large degree of authority to the UN representatives in the field and the trend seems to be to further strengthen such authority.

For an external partner, the office of the UN field representative is the most appropriate entry point to explore opportunities for joint collaboration and coordinate efforts. 

The responsibilities of a leading country

John Kerry has now been endorsed by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to be the next US Secretary of State. Although expected, this is good news. He follows the work of a great woman, Hilary Clinton, in one of the most demanding political jobs on earth.

I retain from his testimony to the Committee that he expressed a comprehensive view of American foreign policy. He went beyond military might and conflict resolution, which are certainly critical for peace, to include food and energy security, humanitarian assistance, the fight against disease, development aid, and climate change as integral parts of the American response to today's global issues. These are matters that would benefit tremendously from a deeper US involvement. What else should we anticipate from a leading country? Where should the example come from?

The point is to translate the intent into a coherent policy. I agree that words are important. But deeds speak louder.

I wish him well. 

Leaders stand tall

Over a year ago, when addressing an international meeting of political scientists, I made use of an image that I wish to recall today:

Picture this scenario: If a protester sees a rock, he will use it as a weapon. An artist will use the same rock to sculpt a dream. A true leader will use it as a symbol of principled governance. And he or she might stand on it, to have a wider view of the horizon.

I keep asking myself where I stand.

And by the way, key politicians should also pose the same question. Because, at the end of it, everything is a matter of perspective and leadership is about standing tall and opening the horizon. 

To be committed

This is a time for deeper commitment. Crises and challenges are constant in our competitive world. The only variable is the intellect, the ideas and the will to bring about change. 

Leadership analysis

In a crisis situation, we should start by asking a very basic question: who are the agents of change? 

The solution to any major crisis resides in the empowerment of the right leaders and elites, at the national and local level. It is not just the movers and shakers. It is about those who have the capacity to turn the situation around, if given a chance. Sometimes they might require some external help to be able to play the role that is potentially theirs. 

The opposite, people who only care about their interests and those of their narrow power base, bad leadership is a critical contributing factor to further destabilisation. 

My experience has shown that leadership analysis is indispensable to help us to identify and bring together the political, religious, youth and women leaders as well as the opinion makers. 

In every case, from Mali to the EU, from Pakistan to Portugal.  

On conflicts

Today’s conflicts are complex and asymmetric, thus no crisis can be resolved through a linear approach, with a single silver bullet. Complexity calls for multidimensional responses that should combine military, political and civil instruments. But there is an additional challenge when there are multiple actors responding to a conflict: the coherence of the diverse interventions. Coherence is, very often, missing. Also frequently missing is a clear understanding of the political economy of each conflict. What are the economic and business interests that drive a given conflict? From diamonds to columbite-tantalite (Coltan, as it is known in simpler terms), from opium to khat,  from weapons smuggling to access to water and grazing land - the economics of conflict are key determinants and need to be clearly identified. 

Responding to the British Conservatives

After yesterday’s speech about the future of the UK relationship with the EU, David Cameron addressed today the Davos Forum. He was at pains to explain that the true motive behind the speech of yesterday is about Britain contributing to a stronger Europe. We should take these words at their face value and set up a list of measures we would like the UK to consider as a means of effectively contributing to a stronger Europe.  This would be the best response to his speech and would place the ball on his court.

But who, within the EU, is strong minded and strategic enough to draw such a list? 

Two different visions of the EU

Prime Minister Cameron’s speech on Europe, delivered today, should be read carefully, as it poses a number of issues that contribute to the debate about the future of the EU. It should not be dismissed as just an attempt to unite his Conservative party. Of course, it has also that objective. Many Conservatives have become very anti-EU. They think that’s the best way to be consistent with their nostalgia of a dominant Great Britain of yesteryears. And they add to that a feeling of superiority that is very deeply rooted in the British countryside and traditional elites.

Cameron understands that the EU membership is important for the UK. But as he gives in to the more conservative wing within his party he is also opening a period of uncertainty, that will have an impact on investment – a big multinational will think twice before investing in the UK from now on – and an impact on Europe. This is a matter for great concern. And it will be difficult to reach an agreement between Cameron and the other key European leaders, as both sides have very different visions about what the future of Europe should be. That’s where the real divergence lies.