Monday Commentary

To listen to world leaders speaking these days, one would think that the world has embraced multilateralism, as the guiding principle in international relations. From Brussels to Beijing the concept is lauded, often to distinguish countries or groups of countries from Trumpian America, which has turned multilateralism into a bogey, and often a punching bag. But a closer look indicates that many countries are talking at cross-purposes.  At one end you have the European Union, itself a quintessential multilateralist project grouping 27  member states, some of whom had spent the last century fighting each other. At the other extreme, there is China, a country with great ambitions, and a great discourse that accompanies these ambitions, who however presents itself as the self-proclaimed leader of the global south. Put simply, multilateralism is when a group of countries agree to pursue a common goal in cooperation, and based on equality. On the European continent, multilateralism was for fifty years the way the continent conducted business, and two organisations became a clear expression of this multilateralist path: the European Union (EU), and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). They both operate by consensus. Beyond the continent, on a global level, the UN is in crisis. It will take a lot of time, effort, and money, to fix it. Three countries can help, or they can make matters worse: the US, Russia, and China. Trumpian America does not like the UN and has turned its back on multilateralism. The shameful US national security strategy creates a wedge between the US and Europe and sets a narrow vision of the world. Trump described the document as a "roadmap" to ensure the US remains "the greatest and most successful nation in human history". Russia is today in no position to counterbalance the US position, even if it wants to. So, its role in the future world order will be one of an opportunistic spoiler. China is another matter. It has the ambition to be a superpower and global player. It has good connections with the global south, although its claim of leadership is often overstated, and it pays lip service to multilateralism. It needs to be engaged, but with caution. Attempts at multilateral initiatives in the South, for example BRICS, are increasingly dysfunctional. Yet, multilateralism remains the best option for addressing the future. Some of the world's problems, such as climate change, simply cannot be tackled by one country, or one country working alone. But most of the institutions are greatly in need of an overhaul. The European Union must take the lead. It must also engage with China on a case-by-case, topic-by-topic basis. This will be a long and laborious process. But the rules of the game, and the assumptions that underpinned them, have changed, or at best are being challenged. It is time for a global rethink. (Click the image to read the full Monday Commentary).

Talks were held in Geneva on Sunday (23 November) between the United States and Ukraine. Also present in Geneva were representatives of the key European countries, France, Germany and UK, and the EU. The talks are expected to continue today. The future if Ukraine is at stake, and so is the future of Europe. There should be no doubt that Putin’s ambitions do not stop in Kiev. The talks are expected to continue today (24 November), and Ukraine’s de facto capitulation is not an option for Europe. The scandalous draft of the plan called “the US plan”, but probably written by the Russians, appears to have been put aside. Officially it is still called the “US plan”, that is what the ego of US president, Donald Trump, requires. But it started to look increasingly like the plan put forward by the Europeans, which is much closer to the Ukrainian position. The Europeans were not represented in Geneva by Ministers and politicians, but by their national security advisors, somber men who are cool and calculating. They have a difficult task: on the one hand they understand very well that Ukraine’s war is Europe’s war, and they know better than anyone else how big the threat of Putin’s Russia is to European peace and security. The risks of the “original US plan” are obvious to them. But they also understand that Ukraine, and up to now Europe, depend on the US for their security. So, they cannot alienate the American president too much. US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, well understands the European dilemma. He finds himself in the unenviable position of needing to reconcile his president’s views, with the Ukrainian and European one. At stake is Ukraine’s future as a state. Ukrainian president Vlodomyr Zelenkiy quaintly calls it “Ukraine’s dignity”. But it is much more than that. Russia does not want Ukraine to exist as a state in any meaningful way. It should either have a puppet government, as it wanted to impose on Kiev when it launched the invasion in February 2022; or be so weak and dismembered that it will be in all but name a vassal of Russia. Whatever is finally agreed in Geneva, and whatever Donald Trump finally decides, 2026 is going to be a crucial year for Ukraine. European support has so far been steady, but must become steadier, regardless of Trumpian shenanigans. 2026 must be the year of European Ukraine. For this to happen their must be more resolve in Europe, and a stronger determination to support Ukraine fully. (read the full commentary by clicking on the image).