I just returned from a trip to the US where I reached the following conclusion: the next president of the United States – whoever he or she is – will be one of the least beloved persons to hold the office in recent decades. Donald Trump’s seemingly structural political incorrectness worries the Republican establishment and may well secure a victory for Hillary Clinton. And yet, she is regarded unfavourably by young people and, paradoxically, by women, who dislike her long-standing relationship with the halls of power, starting with her eight years as first lady. And the numbers back up this assessment: of the 1,712 delegates that Clinton has won so far (Bernie Sanders has secured 1,011), 469 are so-called super delegates, which are allocated by the party and not by voters, while Sanders can only claim 31! Such is the political power of the Clintons. But this time, it appears that there won’t be an Obama to spoil Bill’s wife’s triumphant rise.
Why did Russian President Vladimir Putin suddenly withdraw from Syria, surprising both political pundits and most Western governments? The official statements cite “achieved goals”. But what might these goals be? I think there are two. First, on a strategic-political level, Moscow is demonstrating that it is a responsible actor, not off on an adventure. On the eve of the resumption of Syrian peace talks in Geneva, Putin withdrew after having forced Islamic State to retreat (symbolically represented by the recapture of Aleppo and Palmyra) and having created a safe zone for the Alawites (the minority to which Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s family belongs) along the coast, protected by the Tartus naval base and the Latakia airstrip. Clearly, no decision that is unacceptable to Moscow can be reached in Geneva. The second objective is economic and draws on the lessons learned in Afghanistan. The cost of the military intervention in Syria (500 million euros so far) cannot be sustained in the long term, with the current price of oil and a devalued rouble eating away at the Russia’s financial reserves.
The meeting between the US president (back in Cuba after almost 90 years) and Cuban President Raul Castro was historic and very moving. I met Fidel in 1990, an unforgettable event for a young diplomat. I remember his pride at the renewed dignity of his people after the Batista dictatorship, marred by corruption and decay in line with the narrow-minded United States of the time. Let’s hope that the lesson has been learned and that no limited sovereignty is established that might destroy all the good that the Castro experience still carries with it. On the heels of Obama’s visit, the imminent arrival of the Rolling Stones in Havana bodes well.
As I write, updates are coming in about the latest bloody terrorist attack on our model of civil and peaceful cohabitation, this time in Brussels. We take no pleasure in the fact that we had foreseen it all in these pages. Until we decide to get our hands dirty and get rid of every last flag of the unhinged Islamic State project, we will inevitably find ourselves counting more of our friends and relatives among the casualties. I still find it difficult to understand this ‘clean hands’ policy, which argues that in the past we’ve done more damage than provided solutions. Learning our lesson does not mean never taking action during a crisis, perhaps under a broader mandate, backed by UN approval and with the participation of local populations, with which one can then meet to plan possible post-war operations. These may turn out to be even more costly than the war effort itself, but they would at least contribute to improving the living conditions of communities that are currently devastated by civil war and envisaging a better future for them and, indirectly, for our younger generations. Unfortunately, clean hands politics can also lead to plenty of bloodstained limbs!
Why did Russian President Vladimir Putin suddenly withdraw from Syria, surprising both political pundits and most Western governments? The official statements cite “achieved goals”. But what might these goals be? I think there are two. First, on a strategic-political level, Moscow is demonstrating that it is a responsible actor, not off on an adventure. On the eve of the resumption of Syrian peace talks in Geneva, Putin withdrew after having forced Islamic State to retreat (symbolically represented by the recapture of Aleppo and Palmyra) and having created a safe zone for the Alawites (the minority to which Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s family belongs) along the coast, protected by the Tartus naval base and the Latakia airstrip. Clearly, no decision that is unacceptable to Moscow can be reached in Geneva. The second objective is economic and draws on the lessons learned in Afghanistan. The cost of the military intervention in Syria (500 million euros so far) cannot be sustained in the long term, with the current price of oil and a devalued rouble eating away at the Russia’s financial reserves.
The meeting between the US president (back in Cuba after almost 90 years) and Cuban President Raul Castro was historic and very moving. I met Fidel in 1990, an unforgettable event for a young diplomat. I remember his pride at the renewed dignity of his people after the Batista dictatorship, marred by corruption and decay in line with the narrow-minded United States of the time. Let’s hope that the lesson has been learned and that no limited sovereignty is established that might destroy all the good that the Castro experience still carries with it. On the heels of Obama’s visit, the imminent arrival of the Rolling Stones in Havana bodes well.
