The Sky is Not Falling on the European Union

This is a difficult time to be an optimist in Brussels. It is even more challenging to advocate for a positive look at European affairs. And it becomes almost impossible to talk about collective hopes for a more united Europe in the future. Many will say such optimism belongs to another epoch. Now, the dominant discourse is one that announces a new catastrophe every week. Like Chicken Little, these so-called realists shout, “The sky is falling! The sky is falling!”

As a contrarian, I want to maintain faith in the European project. And be inspired by a forward-looking approach. The best way to build a prosperous and safe future for all of us in Europe is through a united endeavor.  I say it whilst realizing the European Union is at present facing two major crises. They crowd everything else off the agenda, giving strong arguments to pessimists and those who are against continuing the Union. I mean a possible Brexit and the realities of mass migrations.

Challenging the Unity of the European Union

With the UK spinning further away from common approaches and policies, arguments for integration and joint responses have indeed become more fragile. In effect, such arguments are practically inaudible because many leaders prefer to focus their attention on their own national agendas. The silence of most of them on the affairs of the European Union is deafening.

The UK´s position has brought a lot of uncertainty to the table. At this stage, nobody can predict the outcome of their referendum. It is also difficult to forecast the consequences of a Brexit for the future of the European Union.

Nevertheless, the European Union would survive a Brexit. Why? Because the UK and the other member states have already learned to go their own separate ways in many areas – the Euro, Schengen, labour laws, justice, and internal security, just to mention a few.  Perhaps the biggest worry is what a Brexit would do to the British themselves, to the status of Scotland, as well as to their tiny neighbor to the west, Ireland.

Brexit or not, the European Union shouldn’t be too worried.

The larger question is about immigration. Can the European Union survive a continued and expanding mass migration crisis? Many believe it cannot. We keep hearing that without a solution to the current migratory flows, the European Union will soon collapse. There is a good degree of exaggeration in the air. The soothsayers of disaster easily capture the headlines. Obviously, the mass arrival of refugees and migrants does pose major challenges and it is essential to recognize this. It is a situation well out of control. Furthermore, this crisis shakes the key foundations of the Union, its values and the role of Europe in the international arena.

More importantly, the migration issue touches the core of a vital dimension of European states—the question of national identity. The people of Europe have shown that they are ready to give away a good number of their sovereign prerogatives, accepting that Brussels can deal with them. This has been the case in a wide range of areas related to economic management, budgets, agriculture, trade, environment, justice, development aid, external relations and other important matters.

Yet, they are not at all prepared to abdicate or dilute their national features, language and everything else that creates a people´s identity. Nor should they. Europe is a complex mosaic of languages, cultures, nationalities and even prejudices. Yes, our views of our neighbours are still shaped by prejudices in significant ways. History and many wars have both divided us and created the diverse assortment we are today. Patriotism is still, and will continue to be for a good while longer, far stronger than pan-Europeanism.

Seeing the Glass “Half Full”

All this must be taken into account. Populists are effective in doing just this, trying to gain the political advantage in the process by exploiting feelings of nationalism. It’s all a little more complicated for an optimist.

This reality notwithstanding, let´s be clear about the present crisis. Let´s imagine we had to face the current migratory instabilities and frictions that the migrations have created in a past context of separate nation states. We can readily assume that some of us would already be at war with our neighbours. We would see coalitions of countries taking military action against others, trying to defend their borders and their own perceived national interests. We would be responding to the threats facing us with weapons drawn upon one another. In the past, this challenge would lead to armed conflict and chaos. We know that the long history of Europe has been written through a succession of wars. 

Discussions between Jean Monnet, Konrad Adenauer and Walter Hallstein about the Treaty establishing the ECSC. Photo credit: www.cvce.eu
Discussions between Jean Monnet, Konrad Adenauer and Walter Hallstein about the Treaty establishing the ECSC. Photo credit: www.cvce.eu

This all changed when the European Union was established. Now, disputes are taken to summits. Summits come and go, often without many concrete outcomes. But, sooner or later, they end up producing acceptable results of one sort or another. We have learned to take the right decisions at the eleventh hour, that´s true. But we have done so around a conference table and through diplomacy. That´s the kind of lesson we should keep in mind as we get closer to two more summits on the migration crisis: one with Turkey, on the 7th of March and one among the European Union leaders on the 17th.

Let´s keep talking and pushing for an agreement. From the cacophony of diverse European voices and the play of varied interests, action will follow. The most relevant contribution of the pessimists, Eurosceptics and  nay-sayers has been to create a greater sense of urgency. Now, the optimists among us have to state that there is only one answer to the big question on the table: Do we allow this challenge to destroy the hard-won political and economic achievements of the European Union or do we build on these successes to constructively address this crisis and, in the process, strengthen our union?

I am convinced that realism that will prevail. The European sky isn’t falling.

 Victor Angelo is a Portuguese columnist based in Brussels and a former Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary General.

Mugabe’s Heart: A Zimbabwean Valentine

Cover photo: Robert Mugabe puckers up for his wife Grace.  Will Zimbabwe see a dynastic transition of power from husband to wife? Photo credit: http://allafrica.com/

In January Robert Mugabe returned late from his annual Christmas vacation to Asia. A delay in Dubai caused him to miss the arrival of his friend and ally, President Obiang Nguema of Equatorial Guinea at the start of a three-day state visit to Harare. The bizarre refusal of Mr. Mugabe’s office to issue an explanation for the regrettable misstep sparked rumors that he may have suffered a massive heart attack. A sudden cardiac event is certainly plausible for someone of Mugabe’s age – he will be celebrating his 92nd birthday next week – but even a minor illness raises fears that Zimbabwe may be cast suddenly into what is effectively a struggle for succession.

Mugabe’s strong opinion is notably absent on the question of transition, leaving room for factions to form within his party, the Zimbabwe African National Union – Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF). Some speculate that through inaction, Mr. Mugabe may be paving the way to power for his wife Grace, a political novice. Whatever the case, after nearly four decades under Mr. Mugabe’s dominant leadership, it is not clear that ZANU-PF is ready to weather the storm effectively.

The Rise of ZANU-PF

Like its South African cousin, the African National Congress (ANC), ZANU-PF, was born as a counter to white-minority rule. Unlike the ANC however, Mugabe’s ZANU-PF was the result of a struggle and ultimate reconciliation between two communist-supported factions. Mugabe’s five-year political-paramilitary struggle against the white government of Ian Smith in the 1970s followed by a low level conflict with the rival Zimbabwean African People’s Union (ZAPU), hardened Mugabe’s attitude towards white landowners and allowed him to tightly consolidate his power as leader of the unified party.

The result has been a spectacular story of longevity in power. Mugabe and ZANU-PF have continued to rule Zimbabwe without interruption since winning the country’s first post-independence election in 1980. There have been setbacks, including a brief civil war with the remnants of ZAPU and a more recent electoral challenge by Morgan Tsvangirai’s Movement for Democratic Change (MDC). Mugabe responds to these challenges with a combination of political accommodation and serial repression of key rivals. The brutal story of Morgan Tsvangirai’s unity deal illustrates Mugabe’s great skill in employing these tactics effectively without touching off a deeply rooted tribal backlash.

Organized in 1999 as an alternative to Mugabe’s ZANU-PF, the MDC rose quickly into a viable opposition party with a strong showing in the 2000 parliamentary elections. The overwhelming win for MDC in Matabeleland hinted at dangerous tribal divisions in Zimbabwean politics as the leadership of ZANU-PF is mostly Shona. Not surprisingly, the government quickly began targeting MDC officers, arresting (and acquitting) Morgan Tsvangirai three times for treason. In the last instance in 2007, he was tortured and his injuries became public after photos were smuggled out of the prison where he was being held.

Tsvangirai
Morgan Tsvangirai after his release from prison in 2007 where he was allegedly tortured. Photo credit: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/

Tsvangirai’s travails splintered the MDC into two factions though the Zimbabwean intelligence service, the Central Intelligence Organization (CIO), is widely thought to have engineered the split. Matters came to a head in 2008 when the general election forced a runoff between Mugabe and Tsvangirai whose refusal to participate in the runoff sparked a month of violent tension across the country. Eventually, South Africa’s Thabo Mbeki was able to negotiate a power sharing agreement but three weeks after it was signed, Tsvangirai’s car was hit head on by a lorry, severely injuring him and killing his wife instantly. That the lorry was an official US Agency for International Development (USAID) vehicle carrying medicines somewhat mitigated conspiracy accusations but it did not stop MDC officials from speculating about the possibility.

Fear of a Post-Mugabe World

After the death of his wife, Tsvangirai never seemed to recover his drive to force Mugabe to share power. Sensing opportunity, the old fighter used the political respite to further consolidate his grip on politics in Zimbabwe. A constitutional change after the 2013 general election abolished the office of the Prime Minister and effectively ended the unity government, once again making Mugabe the sole executive leader in Zimbabwe. Responding to a perceived threat, he purged Vice President Joice Mujuru and her supporters in 2014 by accusing her of plotting to murder him.

Though ZANU-PF is enjoying its political zenith, there is a fearful undercurrent of what will come next and a growing recognition that the question of Mugabe’s age cannot be ignored any longer. There are indications that behind closed doors some ZANU-PF officials quietly acknowledge the need for planning though very indirectly. Ongoing factionalism within ZANU-PF has elevated Mugabe’s wife Grace to a level of political prominence and she is increasingly seen as an alternative to Vice President Mnangagwa despite her lack of a background in politics. In keeping with the bizarre reluctance of ZANU-PF to openly address the succession, Grace routinely disavows interest in politics while actively campaigning on her own behalf.

Some fear that politics under “President Grace” would be a tumultuous affair with rival factions, opposition parties, and even some civil society groups emboldened to oppose her in ways they would not have dreamt of doing with her husband. Though Mugabe’s failure to organize an orderly transition is essentially an internal matter for ZANU-PF, opposition parties like the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) are growing bolder in their calls for a National Transitional Authority. This kind of open discussion of a taboo subject by an opposition party would have been unthinkable not too long ago and may be an indication that ZANU-PF is losing its grip.

A Zimbabwean Valentine?

Absent a coherent transition plan from Mugabe and ZANU-PF, the manner of Zimbabwe’s succession will be determined in large measure by the circumstances of their leader’s death.  An unexpected passing could lead all the players to consider bold moves that would potentially result in social unrest or even organized violence whereas a longer decline would feature intense jockeying for position both within the party and outside it.

Though the pressure will certainly mount as the succession question gathers momentum, it is not clear which players benefit from which scenario. Within ZANU-PF, Mrs. Mugabe and Mr. Mnangagwa seem headed for a clash, with Grace enjoying a protected position as the nation’s first lady. However, as the noted scholar, James Hamill points out, her advantages could quickly melt away if she doesn’t consolidate her position in the days just prior to or immediately following the death of her husband. A slow decline could make it harder for her to do so leading to the macabre realization that a sudden death of her husband Robert could be seen as a very big Valentine for Grace.

Lino Miani is a retired US Army Special Forces officer, author of The Sulu Arms Market, and CEO of Navisio Global LLC 

Let’s Change: Argentine Voters Speak

In the first run-off election in the history of Argentina, the people’s voice demonstrated a drastic change for the future of Argentina and potentially the international community.

On 9 August 2015, all seemed certain that Frente Para La Victoria (FPV) candidate Daniel Scioli was destined to continue the current 12-year reign of the Peronist Party in Argentina. However, after the presidential primary elections were held the assurance that Argentina would continue marching under the same political party rapidly disintegrated with every passing day. As the days and months grew nearer to the presidential elections on 25 October 2015, the voice of the Argentine voters echoed one unified idea: change. The people of Argentina rallied behind a new hope and a new image of an improved future. The face of that future rested in the ideas, initiatives, and spirit of one man that led not only a young political party, but a significant social movement. That man was Mauricio Macri.

Top: Presidential Elections, 9 August 2015 Bottom: Presidential Elections, 25 October 2015
Top: Presidential Elections, 9 August 2015
Bottom: Presidential Elections, 25 October 2015

A Rising Opposition

Macri was the face of the political opposition, “Cambiemos,” (Lets Change) and rightfully so as he started the party just eight years ago when he ran for and was elected mayor of the City of Buenos Aires. Many would describe Macri as a well-connected businessman whose party was considered by so many as having a long shot to win the elections and lacking the political influence to govern the country. However, with every passing election in 2015, “Cambiemos” demonstrated the power of a socially connected and driven movement.

First, Horacio Larreta maintained the influence of the Cambiemos party within the city of Buenos Aires when he was elected mayor on 19 July 2015. A few months later during the primary elections, Maria Vidal defeated Anibel Fernandez (FPV) to claim the governorship of the Province of Buenos Aires. So as the first national run-off election approached on 22 November 2015, the strength and the support for the Cambiemos movement should not have come as a surprise to the FPV Party. However, even with the energy behind the Cambiemos Party and Macri’s continual climb, he was substantially aided by three significant flaws made by Scioli, the FPV Party, and the current government.

The Lead up to the Election

The first of those errors occurred immediately following the primary elections in August 2015 when the Province of Buenos Aires suffered a significant natural disaster. In the two weeks that followed the primary elections, the Province of Buenos Aires received more than 14 inches of rain causing water levels in some areas to raise more than 30 inches and forcing the evacuation of more than 30,000 residents. The storm was one of the worst in history. As the storms started, then Governor of Buenos Aires, Daniel Scioli, departed for Italy to receive treatment on his prosthetic arm while leaving little to no plan to resolve the dire situation. So as Scioli remained in Italy, the floods continued to worsen and Macri remained as the strongest voice of support to aid those in need and provide a plan to assist with the situation.

The second event that continued to deflate Scioli’s campaign occurred on 5 October 2015 during the first-ever presidential debate. The debate consisted of all Presidential candidates except Scioli who elected not to participate. In the events leading up to the debate, Scioli stated that nothing good comes from a debate. A portion of that comment proved to be true, but the reality was that nothing good came for Scioli. As Scioli watched from a distance, the other five candidates used the forum to promote their ideas and highlight the flaws of the current frontrunner, Scioli, resulting in a significant drop in polls for Scioli the following week.

Results of the run-off election showed Macri defeated Scioli and signaled a change in Argentine Politics.
Results of the run-off election showed Macri defeated Scioli and signaled a change in Argentine Politics.

The third and most powerful of the issues that led to Scioli’s defeat was his relationship, or better said, lack of relationship, with the FPV Party and the current President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner. With every passing day after the primary elections, Scioli attempted to separate himself from the criticisms of the Kirchner government in order to obtain more of the votes needed to achieve 45% of the popular vote and avoid a runoff election. However, in doing so, he continued to lose the confidence and support of his party, so much so that President Kirchner would not publicly endorse her support for him as a candidate, an endorsement she did with many other FPV candidates. Furthermore, a week before the runoff election, President Kirchner affirmed that if Scioli was to lose, his decline was not a fault of her or the FPV Party, but that of the actions of Scioli. And as predicted by many, Scioli was defeated. Scioli started as a candidate who presented a grand idea for the future of Argentina, but ultimately lacked the plan, conformity, and energy to continue the reign of the FPV party.

Daniel Scioli’s collapse was fast and essentially unstoppable after the first initial polls in July when he garnered close to 50% of the vote with more than 10 presidential candidates. However, at the end of November when there were only two candidates, he was unable to achieve 50% of the vote to secure the presidency. Thus, Scioli fell to Macri in the runoff election by close to 4% of the popular.

The future of change now rests with President Macri.
The future of change now rests with President Macri.

Moving Forward

The defeat of the FPV Party and the victory of the Cambiemos Party signal a new future in the domestic and international relations of Argentina. As President Macri donned the presidential sash and grabbed hold of the presidential scepter, he takes office with grand ideas to improve the international relations of Argentina most notably with the United States and European leaders. Furthermore, President Macri vows to improve the security situation surrounding the increased drug trade in Argentina as well as improve critical infrastructure along major routes throughout the country. Lastly, among many issues that Macri strives to improve, he looks to take strong and swift action to improve the rapidly devaluating peso that has plagued the people of Argentina for the past two years.

Many of Macri’s right-wing ideas demonstrate a significant shift in the mentality and actions of the future government of Argentina. The question that remains is whether that shift will provide that “change” that Argentines voted for during the country’s first runoff election. Nevertheless, one can expect to see a different domestic and international Argentina in the years to come.

CPT Jonathan Nielsen is a U.S. Army Infantry Officer with combat experience in multiple countries in the Middle East and extensive multinational training experience with various NATO partners.  He is currently attending the University of Belgrano in Buenos Aires. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the U.S. Army, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.

…Access, experience, and knowledge…Worldwide