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)

 

 

 

International dialogues at the beginning of the New Year

From nuclear power to Europe's affirmation and credibility

Victor Angelo

 

The joint statement on nuclear war prevention issued this week by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council is a good start to the new year. It is the first time that China, the United States, France, the United Kingdom and Russia have pledged to avoid a nuclear conflict between them, unambiguously acknowledging that such a confrontation has no winners and therefore should not occur. They also affirm that their nuclear weapons are for deterrence only and that they will continue to negotiate to end competition between them with regard to such weapons. And they set nuclear disarmament as a long-term goal.

At a time when there are very serious rivalries between some of these countries, what value can be given to such a declaration? It is easy to answer with scepticism, given the current international situation, which includes very serious tensions around, among other cases, Ukraine and Taiwan. And which registers an enormous increase in military spending and innovation by the big three: China, the United States and Russia. Furthermore, on a global level, it is experiencing a period of unprecedented uncertainty for the current generations, with risks and dangers that could profoundly destabilise the fragile world political and economic order.

It is better, however, at this start of the year, to take an optimistic view and underline the positive side of the declaration. The agreement on nuclear danger could mean that there is understanding and realism at the level of the leaders of the great powers that continuing on the path of confrontation will bring enormous costs for all. In reality, an armed conflict between some of these countries would be a catastrophe of unimaginable proportions, given the existing capacity for destruction. There are no small, controlled wars between colossuses. If a first shot were to be fired, it would always be a major war.

In a scenario of complex crises such as the present, 2022 must be a year of dialogue and reinforced international cooperation, in the most promising areas. This is what is required of those who call the shots in this world.

The negotiations that will begin next week in Geneva and Brussels between Russia, the USA and NATO do not offer much hope at the outset. Yet they are important. Several decades of work on the international scene have taught me that most negotiations start with very low expectations. Over time, they can turn into positive exercises. To get results, you have to be patient and persevering. And keep the contact at the highest level and focus on what is essential.

The European institutions complain about not being included in the talks with Russia. Especially since the discussion will be about security and stability in Europe. Also, because many in the EU consider normalising the relationship with Russia as a mutually advantageous priority.

I think it is a mistake that President Biden has not insisted on European participation. He knows that weakening the EU is one of the Russian leader's strategic machinations. Putin wants a Europe that is as fragmented as possible. He has now scored an important point.

It is not enough to say that 21 out of 27 EU members are also members of NATO and that Europe is therefore well represented. There can be no illusions here: it is the USA and a few Eastern European states that define Russian NATO policy. Nor is it an argument that the EU has no common position on Russia. The preparation of such negotiations would be a catalyst moment to advance the definition of the European position.

It is still possible to make amends. NATO's foreign ministers are meeting today by video conference to discuss the dossier. It would be appropriate for several of them to raise the issue of EU involvement. And that they continue to do so in the days to come. The affirmation and credibility of the European project would thus be strengthened.

 

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 7 January 2022)

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)