Deep Seek and Light Trump: the new globalism

 Artificial Intelligence, the competition between the great powers and Trump's disorientation

Victor Angelo

As in previous weeks, the week began with a big surprise, this time coming from China. It was the emergence of a new version in the field of Artificial Intelligence (AI), an efficient and incredibly cheap Chinese program, competing at the highest level with the very expensive solutions coming from the USA. It came up with the name DeepSeek and is ready to give an instant response in a variety of languages. The news, which in just a few hours caused American and European technology companies to lose hundreds of billions of dollars in the capital markets, brought with it two major messages.

The first is about money, showing that it is possible to successfully invest in AI without spending the fabulous sums that large North American multinationals have been spending. The Chinese experience seems to show that the capitalization of Western competitors is more related to stock speculation than to real financing needs. They are true incubators of billionaires. The value of shares listed on the NASDAQ in New York or on certain European stock exchanges has much more to do with capitalist greed than with the scientific and business costs of large technology corporations based in California and one or another European location.

This observation regarding costs brings to mind what comes to us from Ukraine: the country's armed forces are using AI on a large scale, transforming classic equipment into digitally operated weapons. They are thus able, with modest expenditure, to go far and strike hard, almost compensating for their lack of weapons when faced with a much more powerful aggressor, and thus obtain unbelievable results. For the avoidance of doubt, I will immediately add that Ukraine is doing what it can with domestic science, but it continues to urgently need massive assistance in terms of air defense, artillery, ammunition, missiles and aircraft, and much more material available in the Western countries, but delivered with a half-closed hand and a short and timid arm, so as not to irritate excessively the delinquent who lives in the Kremlin.

The second message we get from China is that the country is much more advanced in terms of AI than Americans and Europeans think. American supremacy shook a lot this week. We do not have concrete data on this subject, but we already know two things: on the one hand, that Beijing considers the issue a top priority; and that President Xi Jinping argues that whoever wins the digital race will be the strongest global power in the future. This is one of the reasons why he is betting on the forced annexation of Taiwan, a territory that has a cutting-edge industry in terms of the production of nanochips, which are essential for top AI performance. The other reason for Beijing's high interest in Taiwan stems from a mix of ultranationalism and imperial, geopolitical ambition. Xi is fortunate that President Donald Trump confused, as happened this week in one of his verbal slips, Taiwan as an extension of the People's Republic of China. The same Trump who also seems unaware that Taiwan has around 65 billion dollars invested in the US in the area of ​​cyber technologies.

And so we entered the second week of the Trump administration. In addition to the flood of measures he set in motion, the carriage's progress confirms what was already feared.

Domestically, his first executive orders are potentially disastrous for the country's economy and social stability. They will accentuate internal fractures and could provoke serious political unrest.

On the international scene, it can be predicted that we will see the collapse of the multilateral system. WHO appeared as a first target, for reasons of competition with China, and for no other reason. China could be, and most likely will be, the main beneficiary of the Trump Administration's fury against UN organizations. NATO itself could also be the target of this furor against the international system. It will not be destroyed by Trump's wrath, but it could face moments of great turbulence in the face of the impositions and contradictions invented in Washington.

Still on the subject of foreign policy, Trump will limit himself to dealing with Benjamin Netanyahu, Vladimir Putin, both wanted by international justice, with Xi Jinping and with the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Salman, an expert in the dismemberment of journalists. And perhaps also with the exotic, crazy and murderous Kim Jong-un. Netanyahu will be in Washington next week as the first official guest. As for Europe, Trump will want to see on the map not a European Union or valuable allies, but a scattering of countries that he thinks have already passed into history.

Trump, Davos and a changing world

 https://www.dn.pt/opiniao/trump-davos-e-o-mundo-real

Trump, Davos and the Real World

Victor Angelo

Much of political activity is spectacle, and the best charlatans often win the most coveted prizes. This was a week rich in such matters.

It started with the inauguration of Donald Trump and the avalanche of measures he immediately took. As the days went by, they filled the most visible space in the media. The repercussions of his election were a recurring theme, both in the press and in the most varied political meetings. On Tuesday, there was even room for a long audiovisual performance between the presidents of the Russian Federation and China. Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping wanted to remind everyone that they have a special relationship, when it comes to competition with the US.

It was, however, an ambiguous message. Trump had invited the Chinese leader to the inauguration ceremony, thus showing who weighs on his international agenda, in addition to half a dozen crazy extremists or close friends of his current pet squire and sidekick, Elon Musk. On the other hand, during the week and without much commitment, in a sort of aside, Trump criticized Putin for not being interested in opening a peace process with Ukraine.

Trump is particularly interested in the relationship with China, considering it the real rival of the US. And he sees the competition as a question of economics and political influence, of world leadership, and not so much as a question of defense, as he does not believe that Beijing will one day be able to surpass American military power. Careful observation of certain indicators leads me to conclude this, as well as that his objectives include undermining the alliance between Putin and Xi and preventing the formation of a hostile pact in the Global South. In fact, one of the threats he made in recent days was against the BRICS. It seems clear that he will do everything to prevent such an understanding, that type of organisation.

His inaugural address can also be seen as a particularly important message for Xi: if China were to take military action against Taiwan, the current administration in Washington could view such aggression as none of its business, just as a Chinese internal affair, and therefore would not intervene. Trump has made it clear that he has no intention of engaging in any wars other than those directly directed against American interests. The Taiwan question, in the American president's mercantilist philosophy, does not present the same dangers that possible attacks against Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Vietnam, Southeast Asia or certain islands in the Western Pacific would represent.

In citing the Asian priority, Trump and those in his orbit seem to have those countries in mind above all, as well as freedom of navigation in the seas surrounding China and in the Indian Ocean. In one case, to hinder Chinese expansion and gain access to waters close to North Korea. In another, because the Indian Ocean allows the US Navy to easily target the Middle East and Iran. The concentration of a significant maritime force in the Indian Ocean and the vast presence in the Diego Garcia atoll allow the US to be present in the region that can seriously threaten Israel and defend the production and trade of oil and gas from countries that are fundamental to the stability of the Middle East. East, without the Americans needing to have troops on the ground.

India's stability is an equally paramount factor. Trump seems to be paying no attention to this evidence. Many of those in Davos for the annual meeting of the Economic Forum, the other major political event of the week, felt that India is increasingly becoming one of the world's major economic players. It does not have, nor will it have in the coming years, the necessary capacity to be a serious rival to China or the USA, as it lacks national unity and a strong central power, but it does have the ingenuity, the creative ability, the population size, a diaspora of scientists and a geographic location that work strongly in its favor. The European Union should pay special attention to its relationship with India. For all these reasons and also to reduce the relative weight of the US and China in the European economy and international alliances.

Interestingly, in the same week in Davos we had the great annual mass celebrating multilateralism and globalization, and in Washington, the solemn enthronement of its opposite. Davos returned to focus on major global issues and the need for international cooperation. Although in most cases it is just an opportunity for good conversations and to renew contacts, drink champagne and taste caviar, this year it had the merit of highlighting that there is more to the world beyond the megalomania of Donald Trump, Elon Musk and other multibillionaire limpets.

Trump. Musk and Europe

 Europe faces the challenges of the Trump-Musk duet

Victor Angelo

No one knows for sure what's coming. Even American billionaires, people used to doing whatever they want, feel that the rules of the political game are changing. Many decided not to wait for the inauguration to show their subordination to the ideas and plans that the president-elect has already announced. It is an unusual submission. Is this a question of agreement of views, or mere opportunism? In fact, it seems to result from a combination of these two dimensions, a bet on a limitless nationalist economic liberalism and the hope of exponential growth in the balance of their personal accounts.

The absolute masters of cyber technology, digital platforms and mainstream media began to change their tune from the moment they realized that Trump would return to the White House. The latest example comes from Mark Zuckerberg, the head of Meta, which includes Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp and other global platforms. Yesterday's moralist has in recent days become a follower of the methods that Trump advocates. And that Elon Musk inspires.

Trump and Musk make up a team of unhinged and strangely reactionary narcissists. That's what we have, the choice is made. They pose an immeasurable danger to the stability of the United States, neighboring states and also to democratic Europe. And they don't just influence billionaires. Their tentacles are vast and powerful. Trump has transformed and pocketed the Republican Party, the Supreme Court, and controls all other branches of federal power. And Musk has in his hands key sectors of the economy and two essential instruments to manipulate public opinion – the X platform and his colossal fortune.

Trump and Musk reflect a dictatorship of a new kind, supported by an alienated, ultra-nationalist, arrogant, materialistic and selfish majority. It's populism on the attack, with modern techniques and a dominant economy. They relegate a dictator like Vladimir Putin to the second division of the championship. And although they consider themselves to be in competition with China, they are convinced that this game will end with their opponent's defeat. They forget or do not know that it is a fatal mistake to underestimate the competition between great powers. History shows us that rivalries like this have in the vast majority of cases ended up causing terrible armed conflicts between the antagonists. With fools in power, the likelihood of repeating certain tragedies experienced in the past is a possibility that cannot be ignored.

For the European Union, it is essential to know how to respond to the Trump-Musk Administration. In these situations, and first of all, our best response is active, intense and formal diplomacy. This means frequent contacts, discussions on equal terms, based on recognized values, reciprocity of measures and an essentially protocolary behavior, without effusions, in dealing with the Americans.

As far as possible, the point of contact on the European side should be well defined, be managed at the highest level and be based as much as possible on consensus. We cannot have, for example, Georgia Meloni expressing one position and Emmanuel Macron another. This is where the famous observation wrongly attributed to Henry Kissinger would make perfect sense: when Trump wanted to discuss with Europe he would call the designated contact. They will tell me that with Trump, rules and predictability do not count. I would retort that one must insist.

A second element of the response must involve strengthening the cooperation between Europe and certain regions of the globe, especially those that have a more tenuous relationship with the US: Africa and Latin America. To these I would add China and India, but with special precautions. Political and economic relations with these two giants are important for Europe, but they require a lot of balance, wisdom and extreme vigilance. And I wouldn't forget either Canada or Japan.

The third pillar of the response would consist of strengthening European integration, including in matters related to culture, banking union and defense. Culture helps us imagine our common future. The defense calls for coherence and more operational and industrial coordination. Trump's political line does not necessarily include military protection of Europe. With or without NATO, Europeans must be able to guarantee their independence. Relying excessively on distant and unpredictable allies is not a policy that can be recommended.

2025: My views and my contribution to the debate

 10 January 2025

A year that calls for common sense, clarity and a lot of courage

Victor Angelo

 

In this first text of the new year, I seek to share some of my vision on the major global challenges that we will have to face in the next twelve months. Some of these challenges come as a continuation of the immense political difficulties that marked the international scene in 2024. Their trajectory in 2025 appears to continue in the direction of worsening. I see the stakes on moderation and peace as extremely complex and difficult, but absolutely necessary.

Added to these concerns are new problems, among which the following stand out: 1) the inequities and madness that the Donald Trump/Elon Musk Administration will introduce into international relations; 2) the acceleration of the use of Artificial Intelligence to respond to the designs and control of the strategic agenda by various imperialisms; and 3) access to power in several Western democracies, and elsewhere, by ultra-reactionary parties inspired by Nazis, fascists or simply xenophobic influences. Austria was, this week, the most recent example of this trend, that is, of the shift in public opinion towards populism and extremist nationalism. Herbert Kickl, leader of the far-right FPÖ party (symbolically called the National Social Party, an appellation inspired by the party of a certain Adolf Hitler), was invited to form a government.

This kind of perspective requires clear and courageous ambitions. Most of our leaders talk a lot, but their statements are vague, even incomprehensible in some cases. They do not understand the current context, nor can they imagine the future. They use the media to sell us the past and to maintain the illusions on which their power is based. It is up to us to combat these attitudes, but it is not easy. Access to the market for realistic and humanist ideas is increasingly narrow. Just look at who has access to airtime to understand how difficult it is to see on any screen who has the courage to dismantle the illusory contexts that serve as a basis of support for the bosses of the main political parties or for the leaders of some regional or global powers.

Anyone who has influence and authority should have at least five major ambitions.

First, peace. It's 2025, not the past. The great powers, but also each one of us, must abandon the idea that problems can be resolved by force of arms and ultimatums. With technological advances, wars only serve to cause the cruellest human suffering.

Second, the preservation of universal values. International law has made enormous progress since 1945. Its principles must be respected. With balance, equally, whether it is country A or B. Double standards lead to the discredit of universal ethics.

Third, respect for the life and fundamental rights of each person. This is the issue that receives the most emphasis when talking to the inhabitants of the most forgotten areas of the world, in the regions where many of the conflicts occur.

Fourth, reduce the underdevelopment gap. After several years of success, we are now moving in the opposite direction. The increase in economic and social disparities is, on the one hand, a source of tension, instability, hostility towards more developed countries, uncontrolled migration and environmental deterioration. On the other hand, it generates racism, xenophobia, contempt and indifference towards the poverty of many.

Fifth, contribute to the revival of the political role of the UN. I do not want to enter the debate about the Secretary-General's room for manoeuvre. But I cannot help but remember the importance of the United Nations Charter. We must insist, repeatedly, on absolute respect for the principles defined there.

The defence of Europe's democracies will certainly be a central issue in 2025. However, reducing the issue to the expansion of our defence industries is a mistake. It is also unrealistic and destabilizing to demand spending that would represent 5% of each State's GDP out of hand. The real challenge is to be able to build a coherent and shared European defence policy, which recognises the main dangers and considers, in a consensual manner, the possible contribution of each country.

This is essentially a political issue. There will be States whose current leaders will feel closer to the enemy than to our regimes of freedom. This year’s debate cannot ignore this reality. We will have to define a common position towards these individuals. There is another key question: to review and update the relations between the US and other NATO members – a subject that deserves a very detailed reflection at the appropriate time.

Leadership is about courage and clear priorities

Navalny and Zelensky: two examples of extraordinary courage

Victor Angelo

I want to start this week's text with a posthumous tribute to Alexei Navalny, who was executed exactly a week ago by Vladimir Putin's regime. Navalny was a fearless opponent in a country where power terrorises its citizens and coldly executes its main opponents and dissidents. This is also what happened these days to Russian helicopter pilot Maxim Kuzminov, who at the age of 28 was shot dead at point-blank range in a town in the province of Alicante, in other words on Spanish territory, without Russia's special operations forces showing any respect for either the law or Spain's sovereignty. In August 2023, in an operation planned with the Ukrainian secret services, Kuzminov diverted a Mi-8 military transport helicopter loaded with sensitive parts destined for Russian fighter jets to Ukraine. Putin was unforgiving and the young pilot, who had taken refuge in Spain in the meantime, was tracked down by a specially-created group, discovered and murdered. The Spanish secret services only realised what was at stake when the body was found, a few days after the murder, in the garage of the building where the former pilot lived. The same thing happened in Berlin in 2019 to a dissident of Chechen origin and to others in the UK and elsewhere. 

Political assassination is a practice from another era, except for people like Putin. Yevgeny Prigozhin, the leader of the Wagner terrorist group, has forgotten this fact and fallen for the bait. Navalny, on the other hand, was aware of the risk. He had already experienced a first attempt in 2020, which didn't work thanks to the reaction of the captain of the commercial flight he was travelling on and then medical care in Germany. Once treated, he dared to return to his home country, fully aware of the dangers he would face. In this way, he sent Putin and his fellow citizens three messages: firstly, a leader doesn't abandon the battlefield; secondly, such a leader keeps his eyes on the target he considers fundamental - in this case, ousting the corrupt clique from power; and thirdly, a true leader believes that, sooner or later, the dictator will eventually be defeated. 

Portugal has no such problems. But it does have major political flaws, which place it in a mediocre position in various EU rankings. We lack leaders who are capable of fighting for vital priorities, who have an unwavering concern for the common good and who believe that it is possible to transform Portugal into a more efficient country capable of harnessing its existing potential. Recent debates have shown that we need leaders with clear ideas and the ability to unite citizens around projects that will allow us to consolidate citizen ethics, put our house in order and modernise the country. When I heard about Navalny's assassination, I was exceptionally shocked and, on the other hand, thinking that a man like that makes our politicians poor puppets of the television channels. Or, at best, half-wits, some more naive and others more opportunistic, with a lot of talk, a lot of parrying and little operational capacity.

Volodymyr Zelensky does not play the game and has equally exemplary courage. At this point, two years after the devastating invasion ordered by Putin, I couldn't fail to mention Ukraine, the bravery of its people and the unusual qualities of its leadership. Ukraine surprised the Kremlin, which thought it could take over Kyiv in three days, and won the admiration of all those who value freedom and resistance against the imperialism of the great powers. 

Now the country urgently needs another extraordinary amount of foreign aid. Joe Biden has been endeavouring to get the House of Representatives to approve a supplementary budget to contain the current Russian offensive and finally repel the invader. But the leader of the House, under orders from the notorious Donald Trump, won't even put the matter to a vote. It would certainly be approved, as it has already been by a very large majority in the Senate. Without these funds, Biden could appear in the election campaign as the loser in Ukraine and unable to resolve the migratory pressure on the Mexican border. That's what Trump wants to win votes. Trump is, in his own way, just as dangerous as Putin. 

We cannot let Putin emerge victorious from his war against Ukraine. The Eastern European countries, Denmark, the United Kingdom and others understand this. Germany is a key player on our side. There has been some evolution in the right direction at the level of its leaders. But Olaf Scholz is still hesitant, particularly when it comes to supplying full-power long-range missiles without reducing their capabilities. We must advise him to take inspiration from the courage of Navalny and Zelensky. It is also critical to make him understand that there can be no hesitation when it comes to people like Putin and issues of self-defence. Putin will never negotiate in good faith, contrary to what Scholz and other naive people imagine is possible.

A.I. translation of my opinion piece published on Diário de Notícias (Lisbon) in the Portuguese language on 23 FEB 2024

Are we getting closer to a big war?

The world smells dangerously like gunpowder 

Victor Angelo

The Munich Security Conference, an annual event now celebrating its 60th edition, begins today and runs until Sunday. As has become customary, it is a high-level meeting. This time, it will feature the participation of around 50 Heads of State and Government, another hundred ministers and a good number of leaders of international organizations, academics, thinkers and journalists of international importance.

The report that serves as the basis for this year's conference makes a diagnosis of the main ongoing conflicts and, in summary, suggests two conclusions. First, geopolitical competition continues to worsen, now reaching a level of intensity and complexity unprecedented since the creation of the United Nations. Second, the reestablishment of international cooperation must be seen as an absolute priority. Only in this way will it be possible to resolve the most dangerous challenges, which in reality know no borders and have an impact that cannot be ignored. It is a positive recommendation, in a report that is, in essence, pessimistic.

When reflecting on 2024, the rapporteurs particularly draw attention to the growing risks in four regions of the globe. We are told that the international scene has more fires than firefighters, that there is an accumulation of serious crises to be resolved and an international system that is no longer respected. It's a clear question: instead of all of us winning, would we all rather lose?

One of these regions is Eastern Europe. The geopolitical vision that prevails in the Kremlin is a threat that must be taken seriously. It consists of increasing arrogance and aggressiveness, based on ancient practices of first inventing conflicts with neighbors seen as rivals, and then trying to resolve them with swordplay. My reading of this region is familiar: either Russia withdraws and recognizes the sovereignty of Ukraine, or what is now happening in that country will end up spreading to others in the region. A crisis of this kind would bring immense problems to the unity of NATO and the major countries of the Western world. In democratic contexts, these alliances are more fragile than they might seem.

In the Middle East, that's a powder keg. It is a region of great fractures, where xenophobia and the absurdity of decisions taken in the 20th century are added to cultural and religious hatred, and a multiplicity of borders that do not respect historical identities and give way to nations without homogeneity and without resources, to in addition to oil and gas.

What is conventionally called the Indo-Pacific is another problematic area. It demands increasing attention, as it could be the theater of a major conflict surrounding the issue of Taiwan and beyond. Xi Jinping has just been reappointed for the third time as leader of the single party and as President of China, for new five-year terms. At the end of these terms, he will be 74 years old and no one knows if the conditions will exist for him to be re-elected again. Now, in my opinion, Xi wants to go down in history as the leader who managed to subdue the Taiwanese rebellion. If that is indeed his ultimate ambition, it is very likely that military action against Taiwan will take place before 2027. And if Trump is in the White House, distracted by pursuing his internal adversaries, starting with the Biden family, Xi could conclude that The time has come to step forward and inscribe your name at the top of the list of heroes of communist China.

The Sahel forms the fourth region of deep insecurity. At the moment, the list of absolutely unsafe countries includes Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger. It must also include Sudan, which is plunged into a merciless civil war and a humanitarian crisis of unimaginable proportions. But Sudan has been excluded from media headlines in an unacceptable way. The crises in the Sahel have all the conditions to spread, as is already happening on a large scale in Nigeria and now in Senegal, due to the political confusion created by the president. In the same Senegal that had always been considered an example of stability and democracy.

Three other major themes are also discussed in this year's report: the growing disparities and economic rivalries between different blocs around the world, including with regard to what could happen with the development of the BRICS; the consequences of climate change on international relations, including migration; and the impact of the technological and digital revolution.

The report describes a world evolving in a worrying direction. And it would be even worse if the spectre that roams the corridors of Munich, silently, were re-elected in November, as no one likes to talk about evil spirits. But November is still a long way away and until then anything can happen.

A.I: translation of my opinion text published on 16 February 2024 in the Lisbon daily newspaper Diário de Notícias. 

Vladimir Putin' s rhetoric about the Third World War

My opinion column of this week, published on 9 Feb in Diário de Notícias, Lisbon, in Portuguese language. This is an Artificial Intelligence translation on my text, thanks to Google Translate. 

Fight against foolishness or open the doors to populist danger?

Victor Angelo

The bellicose rhetoric of Vladimir Putin and his acolytes against NATO and the European Union has worsened as we approach the Russian presidential election, scheduled for March 15th to 17th. Experience teaches us that there are no reasons for surprises. It is a common tactic of dictatorships. The political narrative of these regimes seeks to convince voters of two deceptions: that the danger coming from the “external enemy”, so designated even though it is not in fact an enemy nor is it actually preparing for armed intervention, is now more serious and imminent; and that only the re-election of the absolute leader, with an overwhelming percentage of votes, will be able to prevent the enemy from launching the alleged aggression, invented by the dictator's lying propaganda. That's why we now hear talk in Moscow about the possibility of a third world war, a topic that is part of the frequent interventions of Putin's most famous court jester, the vice-president of the Russian Security Council, Dmitry Medvedev.

In my opinion, Putin and his people do not want to enter into an open and widespread war with NATO. Rather, they intend to maintain control of political power in their country and transform the fierce aggression against Ukraine into what could be seen by the international community as a Russian military victory. In concrete terms, it is about seizing a significant part of Ukrainian territory and imposing an armistice entirely based on the political conditions defined by the Kremlin. In this way, they would reinforce their image as a great power in the international context. This is one of Putin's biggest concerns, showing an unbeatable Russia, in the champions league and capable of dictating its political will on the international stage. They would feel safer not only in relation to the West, but also in relation to China. The alliance with China is seen, by influential ideologues of Putin's ultranationalist regime, as a double-edged sword. Political friendship and cooperation with an extremely vast, populous neighbouring country with thousands of kilometres of common border hides, at the same time, the roots of a rivalry that could degenerate into a major conflict. This is why Russia needs to show military muscle, West and East.

On the European side, as I always insist, it would be a mistake to leave half-hearted aid to Ukraine in the legitimate defence of its sovereignty. The combination of economic, diplomatic, informational and military means is essential to convince the Kremlin to put an end to the invasion that began in 2014. Those who do not understand this fact and the need for an integrated strategy, which combines the four vectors mentioned in the previous sentence , is creating the conditions for, sooner or later, a series of oppressive governments to emerge in Europe, inspired by what is happening in Russia. We would then have a Europe that would be a very dangerous chessboard of replicas of Hungary.

It would also be a mistake not to prepare our geopolitical space for an armed confrontation with Russia. Whoever wants peace prepares for war, as it was said in ancient Rome. And although it can be recognized, as I do in this text, that Putin does not deep down want to start a war with our part of Europe, that possibility exists.

We need to speak frankly. We are, as has not been the case for a long time, in a complex and dangerous situation. We cannot accept either populism or a lack of ethics in international relations.

Populism lies, and only leads to confusion. It fails to understand what should be a priority in order to respond only to vote hunting and polls. Populist leaders, on the left and on the right, promise the impossible, spend resources on unsustainable policies, create debts that future generations will have to resolve and ignore that security and defence are indispensable for safeguarding democracy. They don't have the courage to tell the truth and explain that there are moments in history when sacrifices have to be made. Populists are narcissists and born dictators disguised as friends of the people.

Disregard for values prevents international alliances from functioning. Cooperation is replaced by chaos. Countries lose their credibility and principles are no longer the standards for resolving conflicts. The ethical references that have been built over decades are forgotten. The defenders of opportunism, which they call political realism, regain the stages they had lost.

  In the European case, international law is rightly defended when it comes to Ukraine. At the same time and in an incomprehensible way, ambiguity and laxity are expressed when it comes to the inhumanity that is occurring in Palestine. This foolishness makes us lose allies, which are very necessary, and has, in the long run, a very high cost.

European leadership and their incoherence

Artificial Intelligence translation of my opinion column dated 2 Feb. 2024 and published in Lisbon in Diário de Notícias

From Ukraine to Gaza: where is European coherence?

Victor Angelo

With exceptions, politics is a world inhabited by opportunists. Five hundred years ago, Niccolò Machiavelli entered the history of modern political science when he wrote on the subject, placing emphasis on the word cynicism. But the practice came from antiquity and continues today, in governments, parties and the ability to manipulate citizens' opinions. Ethics, that is, respect for principles, for the common interest, for contemporaries and for future generations, is a word that makes many people in politics laugh, covertly. For these, the only thing that counts is their personal benefit, guaranteed by maintaining power thanks to a political clientele.

In the case of the EU, Viktor Orbán repeatedly reminds us of this truth. It is the worst example of a European leader. Orbán plays with a double-edged stick: on the one hand, to show that he belongs to the club of democracies, as a member of the EU, and, on the other, to make the most of the available funds. The staff he leans on is called Vladimir Putin. This allows him to spend the money coming from Brussels without serious controls and to govern without respect for democratic rules and in a corrupt manner. The counterpart that gives him strength is to complicate European politics in a way that pleases his friend of convenience, the master of Russia. This explains why Hungary continues to not approve Sweden's accession to NATO. There is no other reason than to do Putin a favour. And that is also why, until yesterday, it prevented financial aid to Ukraine — 50 billion euros. This amount is essential to keep Ukraine afloat over the next four years. Hungary has also opposed the creation of another European fund for military cooperation.

All this serves the interests of Russian imperialism. It contributes to the weakening of Ukraine and aims, in the long term, at the disintegration of the EU. Now, Russia is currently the main threat to peace in Europe. It is a hostile country, an enemy in the style of the past. As long as it maintains this behaviour, Russia must be treated as such, without hesitation. Orbán, when he behaves like a de facto ally of Putin, is betraying European interests.

It's time to call things by their names. Years ago, at a European summit, Jean-Claude Juncker patted Orbán on the back and joked, calling him a dictator. Today, he could perhaps add the word traitor.

However, at the "H" time when it is essential to guarantee Ukraine's future, we see the US handcuffed for months on end. The country is deeply fractured, internally, from a political and social point of view, and faces a number of foreign policy problems that disperse its intervention capabilities and confuse the order of priorities. It's the southern border. The problematic alignment with Israel. The obsession with Iran. The suicidal competition with China. The fear of North Korean madness. Putin's unpredictability. And now, the specter of Trump. All of this gives rise to two major conclusions. Europe, that is, NATO on this side of the Atlantic, cannot rely on US assistance in the event of a conflict in Europe. And Ukraine must seek to establish bilateral alliances with European and other countries as it continues its response to the Russian invasion. These alliances must above all be established with nations neighbouring or close to Russia. These are states that sooner or later could come into the Russians' sights, if Ukraine were unable to resist the Kremlin's aggression.

Europeans must step up support for Ukraine. Approving financial assistance for the next four years is an excellent step. Regarding the Ukrainian crisis, Europe has adopted the most appropriate positions. The same cannot be said with regard to Israel. There has been, on the part of the major European nations, an incoherent attitude towards the drama in Gaza. They swallow everything that Benjamin Netanyahu serves them on a plate. When the Prime Minister of Israel wanted to forget, last week, the preliminary orders of the International Court of Justice, which were clearly addressed to the Israeli government, he spoke of the 12 UNRWA agents who would have participated in the attacks of October 7, in a universe of 13,000 Agency employees in Gaza. He did not present any kind of evidence, nor did he talk about the colossal disproportion between the numbers, nor about the extraordinary work that UNRWA has been doing for 74 years, but his diversion was a masterstroke. And he managed to create an uproar against an organization that has helped millions of Palestinian lives. Several European countries opportunistically took advantage of the wave created by Netanyahu.

Many will think that on the European side, meekness, armchair politics and inconsistency prevail. Or, simply put, the cynicism of those who pretend not to understand what the word ethics means dominates.

Gaza and the International Criminal Court

Articial Intelligence translation of my opinion piece of this week published in Portuguese in daily national newspaper Diário de Notícias (26 JAN 2024)

Gaza: an earthquake in international politics

Victor Angelo

The Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs was in Brussels this week, at the invitation of Josep Borrell. The purpose was to allow the minister to discuss three major issues with his European counterparts: the dramatic situation in which the population of Gaza finds itself, within the framework of the enormous military intervention ordered by Benjamin Netanyahu; the requirements for an immediate ceasefire; and the dimensions and phases of preparing a peace plan.

Borrell was aware of Security Council Resolution 2720 (2023), which approved on December 22 the implementation of humanitarian pauses and the opening of corridors that would allow essential goods for their survival to be delivered to the inhabitants of Gaza. The Security Council had recognized the extreme urgency of humanitarian assistance.

A month later, it is undeniable that the situation continues to worsen. Israel reveals absolute disrespect for the Security Council. Controls became even tighter. The hundreds of humanitarian trucks that should enter Gaza daily are faced with a tragically different reality. Borrell mentioned that the average would be around eighty trucks a day. Calls for “humanitarian pauses” have been met with an intensification of military operations and the continuation of attacks against civilian targets, including UN installations, which prefigure war crimes. Resolution 2720 has been simply ignored, despite its mandatory nature.

Regarding peace, the approach proposed by Europeans would be multidimensional. The first concern would be the creation of a sovereign State of Palestine, capable of peacefully coexisting with the State of Israel. This idea is nothing new. It was approved in 1947 by the United Nations General Assembly (Resolution 181) and reaffirmed in the 1993 Oslo Accords and at the Camp David Summit in the USA in 2000. But it never went beyond paper, with both sides accusing each other for failures.

The international community is firmly committed to this solution – two independent states. This is the only viable, albeit complex, solution that can lead to the construction of a peaceful neighbourhood. It will only happen if there is an unquestionable commitment from interested parties, as well as from countries in the region and the main members of the UN. It needs, above all, Israeli and Palestinian leaders of exceptional vision and calibre.

The current Israeli government does not accept this solution. And contrary to the Palestinian National Authority, there are Palestinian extremists who also do not accept it. This shows that the tragedy that is taking place in Gaza, and to a certain extent in the other occupied Palestinian territories, in the West Bank, can seriously contribute to a radicalization of positions.

The Israeli minister did not understand the message that awaited him in Brussels. He talked nonsense about strange, meaningless things, such as the construction of an artificial island off Gaza and a railway corridor that would connect this territory to the rest of Palestine. In my opinion, it was a way of conveying to Europeans a clear position from the Netanyahu government, for whom the EU is seen as a featherweight.

Borrell responded, at the press conference after the meeting, that Europe has “a moral responsibility”. He spoke of looking for a path to peace. I would respond that the moral responsibility that must weigh on our consciences is not only to fight for peace, but also to ensure that humanitarian laws and the laws of war are respected. And bring individuals suspected of having violated these international rules to the attention of Karim Ahmad Khan, the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC). That's what the ICC is for, to judge political leaders. It is a separate instance from the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which judges conflicts between States, as is now the case of South Africa against Israel and which today issues a first Order on the accusation of genocide. Khan, who is a British citizen, was very active in the case of the accusations against Vladimir Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova. He did what he was expected to do. But he has been as low as a stone in the face of the atrocities committed on October 7th and ever since. The credibility of the ICC is thus called into question.

We live in a time of great dangers and enormous challenges. Anyone who has their eyes open and sees beyond their parish knows that this is the case. Extraordinary times require extraordinary political courage. And serious justice, impartial and expeditious.

The United Nations and its current financial challenges

 Friday, 26 January 2024 | New York | Executive Office of the Secretary-General (EOSG)

Secretary-General's letter to staff on UN financial situation

 

Dear Colleagues,

I am writing to draw your attention to the unfortunate deteriorating financial situation of our regular budget operations.

I have written to Member States to inform them of the situation and to alert them that we are now forced to implement aggressive cash conservation measures to avert a default in meeting the legal obligations of the Organization.  I have also reminded them that the ultimate responsibility for our financial health rests with Member States, and I encouraged them to pay in full and on time. 

The main cause of the liquidity crisis is this:  not all Member States pay their assessments in full.  In 2023, we collected 82.3 per cent of the year’s assessment, the lowest in the last five years.  Only 142 Member States paid their dues in full – again, the lowest in the last five years.  As a result, year-end arrears climbed to $859 million, up from $330 million in 2022.

A secondary cause of the liquidity crisis relates to a shift in the payment patterns of Member States, including the unpredictability of both the timing and the amounts of anticipated collections.  In 2023, collections trailed estimates throughout most of the year. We ended the year $529 million short of anticipated collections.

Structural weaknesses in our budgetary process further contribute to liquidity constraints.  These include the inability to assess for new mandates arising during a budget period, intergovernmental decisions to execute additional mandates “within existing resources”, and the return of unspent funds to Member States without offsetting it first against their outstanding contributions.  We are forced into an absurd situation where we must return funds we could not spend because we did not receive the cash, even to those who did not pay their assessments in full. 

We were able to partially mitigate the operational impact in 2023 because we had started the year with about $700 million in cash, including our liquidity reserves, and had imposed spending restrictions from mid-July.  Notwithstanding these measures, these liquidity reserves were exhausted by October, and after some collections in November and December, we ended 2023 with only $60 million left in the reserves.

As you know, we have been working closely with Member States to address the liquidity challenges.  In response, Member States have provided some systemic support over the last few years to alleviate the liquidity problems of the regular budget and peacekeeping operations.  For peacekeeping operations, the General Assembly approved cash pooling, advance assessments and the use of the Peacekeeping Reserve Fund to meet shortfalls in peacekeeping operations.  For the regular budget, the General Assembly increased the level of the Working Capital Fund by $100 million from January 2023.  We have also been allowed to borrow temporarily from the surplus cash of closed tribunals.  These measures were helpful in addressing the liquidity challenges and we will continue to draw on these in 2024.

However, we expect the regular budget liquidity situation to be far more challenging in 2024, as we are starting with very little cash.  In order to avoid a payment default throughout the year, while dealing with the unpredictability of intrayear collections, our initial estimates are that we will need to conserve around $350 million in cash by slowing down and reducing spending until we have certainty that we have enough cash to meet our obligations each month.  This means that we will have to introduce spending restrictions right away or risk running out of cash by August, including the liquidity reserves and the surplus cash of closed tribunals.

Protecting staff from the liquidity crisis to the maximum extent is a priority for me.  I have repeatedly made every effort to do so over the years and I will not relent in doing everything possible to mitigate any pressure on you. 

However, the reality is that personnel costs account for more than 70 per cent of the regular budget.  In order to ensure liquidity for paying staff salaries certain difficult steps will be necessary.  Hiring restrictions will need to be maintained during 2024.  I am keenly aware that this will have a knock-on effect.  High vacancies put an added burden on staff – especially those who work in entities with high vacancy rates.  This step is essential if we are to have any hope of ensuring sufficient cash inflows.

Restrictions in non-post spending will also be critical to bridge the liquidity gap.  As a result, until the situation improves, official travel will need to be limited to the most essential activities.  Purchases of goods and services will be postponed, unless absolutely critical.  Hiring of consultants and experts will be minimized to the extent feasible.  Most construction and maintenance projects will be suspended, except where the slowing down of major construction projects would result in significant future additional expenses.  We will implement energy-saving and other measures to reduce utility bills and curtail expenses on managing facilities. Non-essential security expenses will also be curtailed, as long as they do not impact the safety of our premises, assets and of our personnel and delegates.

I have asked relevant senior managers to engage with Member States and outline the potential impact on our ability deliver on our mandates, including support to intergovernmental meetings across duty stations.  The Department of Management Strategy, Policy and Compliance will work with senior managers to help deal with the impact of these measures.  We will monitor the cash flows carefully and adapt to the evolving liquidity situation.

Member States have been very supportive of my proposals regarding the budget for 2024 and have made positive decisions on initiatives, such as establishing two new offices for Anti-Racism and for Data Protection, increasing funding for core activities of UNRWA, increasing resources for development and human rights activities and strengthening the Peacebuilding Fund with assessed contributions from 2025. However, budgets approved without adequate cash to execute them undermine the essence of the process.

We will also continue to urge Member States to ensure that every effort is taken to avoid any erosion of our capacity to deliver, while working with them to find a sustainable solution that supports staff and enables the United Nations to sustain its operations.

The work of the United Nations has never been more vital.  You are central to our success.  I regret that we are faced with these challenges which are not of our making.  But with your continued dedication and support, we will overcome this crisis and ensure that our Organization can continue to fully perform its vital mission for the people of the world.

Yours sincerely,

António Guterres