Portugal’s partners confer on Syria

While the main international organisations with which Portugal is most closely associated have all condemned the use of chemical weapons in Syria, there is no consensus yet on what should be done about it and little support for President Obama’s call for military intervention.

NATO and the European Union believe the Syrian government was responsible  for the chemical weapons attack near Damascus and must be censured in some way, but neither body has fully spelt out how. The Vatican is adamant that military action would be “futile” and should be ruled out in favour of diplomacy.

NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen insists that a firm international reaction is needed to show not only President Bashar al-Assad, but also dictators around the world, that such weapons cannot be used with impunity.

“It would send a dangerous signal to dictators all over the world if we stand idly by and don’t react,” said Rasmussen.

NATO, of which Portugal is a founder member, has stopped short of offering to get involved militarily, at least for now. It would, however, strongly defend Turkey if this member state were attacked in any widening of the Syrian conflict.

On President Obama’s call for a punitive military strike, Rasmussen said,” I’d envisage a very short, measured, targeted operation, and you don’t need the NATO command and control system to conduct such an operation.”

EU defence ministers meeting in the Baltic state of Lithuania agreed that the evidence presented so far indicates that the Assad regime was behind last month’s chemical weapons attack on his own people. The ministers agreed that “those responsible must be held accountable” and tried by the International Criminal Court, but there was no mutual support for military action.

The French government is the most hawkish and the only European country likely to materially back any American strike, even though polls show that the majority of the French people would oppose it.

The Vatican’s view is unequivocal. Pope Francis wants an end to the “senseless massacre” of innocent people in Syria. He has called for a negotiated diplomatic settlement to the prevailing “one-sided interests.” The Vatican insists the main priority should be to stop the current violence that risks involving other countries and creating “unforeseeable consequences in various parts of the world.”

An opinion poll conducted before last month’s chemical weapons attack indicated that 80 per cent of Portuguese respondents rejected military action in Syria. Almost three-quarters of all Europeans and 62 per cent of Americans questioned in the survey said their government should not intervene in the Syrian civil war. 

Portugal, like other NATO, EU and Catholic countries believes that Syria’s flagrant breach of international law banning chemical weapons must be condemned, but it is concerned that a military strike may  jeopardise the prospects for peace and make any United Nations Security Council resolution all the more difficult.

Russia’s President Putin has said the “ridiculous” suggestion that the Syrian government was to blame for the attack was “a provocation by those who want to drag other countries into the Syrian conflict.”

The Iranian government has said a foreign military response could turn the civil war in Syria into a regional conflict. Intelligence reports indicate that Iranian-backed Shiite militias are threatening retaliation inside Iraq should the US strike Syria.

The pro-Assad Hezbollah militant group in Lebanon has reportedly put “tens of thousands” of fighters and reservists on alert in anticipation of a US strike. A Hezbollah response to US action could involve Israel.

In the meantime, confused and divided Syrians of all religious and political persuasions are reportedly trying to prepare for some sort of US intervention but do not know what President Obama means by a “limited” attack and what consequences it could have.

Syrian chemicals pose moral dilemmas

The Portuguese government would like to see a military punative response to the recent use of chemical weapons in Syria, but only if it is backed “as far as possible” by an international organisation such as the Security Council of the United Nations.

This cautious view is in contrast to the blustering hostility and hypocrisy that has been streaming out of the United States.

Portuguese Foreign Minister Rui Machete has said there is “little doubt” chemical weapons were used and he understands “the need to sanction a practice that flagrantly violates international law.” But he notes that it is very difficult to accurately predict the consequences for peace of a military strike. “We await developments,” he said.

Machete was speaking after the British parliament’s rejection of military action and before the matter is fully discussed by the US Congress. His hope that no action will be taken without UN approval is in line with that of President Putin of Russia.

Meanwhile, an air of confusion prevails. In reporting all the rhetoric coming out of  St Petersburg,Washington, Damascus and elsewhere, the mainstream media has largely ignored the moral dilemma posed by the current outrage.

While it does not make the killing of 1,429 men, women and children near Damascus with chemical weapons any less heinous, it should be remembered that an estimated 100,000 Syrians have been killed by conventional weapons in the current civil war.

    The argument that the use of chemical or biological weapons is in some way more evil than other forms of slaughter is highly questionable when it is remembered that the North Korean dictators Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il reputedly killed thousands if not millions of their own people through starvation. 

 Humans have been carrying out appalling mass killings since the dawn of history. For example, historians estimate that during the 16th century Lisbon Pogrom, otherwise known as the 1506 Easter Slaughter, between 2,000 and 4,000 suspected Jews were massacred and thrown into pyres across the Portuguese capital.

Although it was already considered “uncivilised,” poison gases were widely used during World War I. Well over a million tons of chemical agents claimed hundreds of thousands of casualties.

The United States used Agent Orange extensively during the Vietnam War. It resulted in the death or maiming of 400,000 people. Half a million children suffered birth defects. The US government disputes the figures, but the Vietnam Red Cross estimates that up to a million people are disabled or have health problems due to Agent Orange.

During the Iran-Iraq conflict in the 1980s, tens of thousands of Iranian soldiers were killed during Iraqi chemical weapons attacks, aided by intelligence reports on Iranian troop movements from President Reagan’s administration, which was well aware of Iraq’s chemical weapons capabilities at the time.

In the 1990s, the United States itself had a huge stockpile of chemical weapons and it is said to have retained 15 per cent of its Sarin gas arsenal even after the international chemical weapons ban was introduced in 1997.

The United States and Israel, as well as the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, have been accused of using white phosphorus in battle in the past ten years.

International law still allows the use of napalm against military targets. While most famously used by the Americans in Vietnam, this deadly chemical incendiary agent has been used by several other countries, including Portugal during its 1961-74 colonial war.

“Is there a sliding scale for the ethics of a heinous action? Is it worse to die of gas or hunger?”  asks Carl Hausman, editor of Ethics Newsline, among the few journalists to tackle the moral issue over Syria head-on this week.

On the other hand, “What level of certitude must we attain before the United States can commit ethically to a punitive strike? In a similar vein, can we ever hope to definitively conclude that every diplomatic option has been played out before we attack? Is waiting for a larger consensus always the ‘right thing to do,’ even if it draws out the risks associated with an already demonstrably deadly situation?”

Peaceful Portugal is preoccupied with its own dire domestic problems and has no real option but to urge caution and view the Syrian crisis from the sidelines. Caution seems preferable to President Obama’s aggressive blustering.

Don’t forget, this is the same Obama who in 2009 was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.”

Portugal’s UN hopes on Syria fade

As the international rhetoric ratchets up over the use of chemical weapons, Portugal may be drawn into possible foreign military intervention in the civil war in Syria, but only on the fringe. 

The US Secretary of State John Kerry issued the strongest signal yet that the United States intends to take military action against the Assad regime by describing the “undeniable” use of “the world's most heinous weapon” as a “moral obscenity” against Syria’s own people.

Iran quickly responded that foreign military intervention would result in conflict engulfing the whole region and indicated its resolve to defend the Assad government. A Shia Muslim country, Iran is Assad’s closest ally and has accused militant Sunni Islamist groups, along with Israel and western powers, of trying to use the conflict to take over the region.

Russia, too, strongly opposes calls for intervention not only from the US, but also such countries as the UK, France, Germany and Turkey.

It is conceivable that the strategically important Lajes Air Base in the Azores could play a support role for aircraft involved in any military action that goes beyond a short, sharp, punitive strike with cruise missiles.  In reality, though, Portugal can do little more than offer moral support and watch from the sidelines, hoping that some sort of solution can ultimately be found within the United Nations Security Council.

Portugal is well aware of the complexities and limited powers of the Security Council having served three terms as a non-permanent member, most recently in 2011-12.

  The then president of the council, Ambassador José Filipe Moraes Cabral, made a statement in New York in which he said, “This human tragedy could have been averted had the Syrian Government not responded to the legitimate aspirations of the Syrian people with sheer brutal force, resorting to the use of tanks, helicopter gunships and fighter jets against civilians. Let us be clear: such actions are illegal under international law and totally unacceptable, no matter the circumstances.” He went on to appeal for a political solution saying that “further militarization of the conflict can only lead to additional human suffering and will aggravate the humanitarian crisis even more.”

Following a massacre in Houla in central Syria last year, Portugal ordered the expulsion of Syria’s ambassador to Lisbon, declaring Lamia Chakkour “persona non grata.” It cited the lack of respect shown by Damascus over the UN peace plan led by Secretary General Kofi Annan.

Portugal went on to vote in favour of a UN Security Council draft resolution aimed at halting the continuing violence and the devastating loss of mainly civilian life in Syria. But even with a favourable vote from a majority of the members, the council remained paralysed because of the power of veto by Russia and China.

Portugal’s foreign affairs ministry said in a communiqué, “With each passing day, Syria’s stabilisation becomes harder. Portugal considers it crucial that the UN Security Council takes hold of its responsibility for maintaining international peace and security and takes decisive action in the resolution of the crisis”

Australia - like Portugal, a staunch US ally - takes the rotating chair of the UN Security Council this coming Sunday.  Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said this week: “We assume the presidency of the UN Security Council at a time when the Syria crisis is at its highest. Without doubt Syria is now the world’s greatest political crisis and unfolding humanitarian disaster. What we are confronting as an international community now is a fundamental assault on all international norms by what appears to be the use by this regime of chemical weapons against innocent civilians. This is a crisis of historic proportions.”

Whatever happens next, Portugal is sure to stick with America. When President Obama and President Cavaco Silva last met they spoke of the “deep friendship and long standing alliance” between the two countries and emphasised the importance both attach to the role of the UN in the promotion of “peace, democracy, good governance and human rights.”

Such rhetoric is sounding a bit hollow at the moment. Yet again the talk seems to be more about war than peace.

Mozzies can buzz off, bees must stay

A world without mosquitoes would be a very much better place, but we are told that a world without honeybees would probably be a planet devoid of human habitation.

This is not the view of someone on holiday who has been exposed to too much sun. It is the considered opinion of many research scientists. If it is true, it is as relevant to us in southern Portugal as to everyone else across the globe.

Mosquitoes have been more irritating than usual in certain parts of the Algarve this summer. Infinitely more worrying elsewhere is that mosquitoes are responsible for spreading malaria, a disease that each year infects well over 200 million people and kills a million of them. And then there is potentially deadly yellow fever, dengue, Japanese encephalitis, Rift Valley fever, Chikungunya virus and West Nile virus, all caused by mosquitoes. 

Of the 3,500 or so species of mosquitoes in the world, none of those in mainland Portugal is lethal or even dangerous, although much farther to the south, many people have been infected by the dengue virus over the last 10 months in the Madeira archipelago. 

Malaria was eradicated from Portugal in the 1950s. A resurgence is possible in tandem with global warming, but the likelihood of this anytime soon is considered low. For now at least, mosquitoes on the Portuguese mainland are just a bloody nuisance.

Ecologists generally agree that insect-eating creatures that currently heavily depend on them for food would adapt rather than go hungry in a world without mosquitoes.

It would apparently be a different scenario in a world without honeybees.

The Western honeybee (Apis mellifera) is credited with pollinating a third of the fruit and vegetables grown across Europe and North America. “We can thank them for one in every three mouthfuls of food we eat,” has become a popular way of expressing in the press.

Worryingly, populations of honeybees have collapsed in recent years. Scientists are not sure why. Pesticides, especially a new class of chemicals called nicotinoids, are high on the list of suspects. The European Commission has ordered a two-year ban on the use of nicotinoids.

Bacterial diseases, fungal infections and microscopic mites are also under investigation as possible causes. Portuguese specialists are very concerned too about a predatory species of wasp, Vespa velutina, which arrived in Europe from Asia in 2004 and has been rapidly spreading ever since. It is at the peak of its bee-killing activity at this time of year.

If bees are drastically depleted further, the crops most likely to suffer include those most commercially important in southern Portugal. Almonds are said to be totally dependent on bee pollination and citrus fruits heavily so.

Portugal’s 18,000 beekeepers are watching the situation closely, not least so in the Algarve, the largest honey producing area in the country.

Over ninety percent of Portuguese producers are non-professionals with less than 150 hives. The national daily newspaper Diário de Noticias recently quoted one of them, Gualdino Dias, 74, who is devoting more time to beekeeping now that he has retired. Producing large quantity of honey is laborious, he said, “because beekeeping is like music - it never ends.”

The trouble is, beekeeping may well end if ways are not found to check the current collapse in the bee population. At least that is how it is being generally reported.

Time magazine is running a six-page cover story in its latest edition headlined “A World Without Bees.” It quotes Jeff Pettis, the research leader at the US Department of Agriculture’s Bee Research Laboratory: “The take-home message is that we are very close to the edge. It’s a roll of the dice now.”

But hang on, is this not just another example of over-emotional sensationalism based on incomplete or wonky science?   Maybe. Maybe not.

Albert Einstein is widely quoted as having predicted long before there was any hint of a problem: “If the bee disappeared off the face of the earth, man would only have four years left to live.”

Actually, there is no documented evidence Einstein ever said this at all.

Camerons stay at Tatler ‘Top 50’ villa

 Now that British Prime Minister David Cameron and his family have returned home, it can be revealed without the risk of fuelling further sartorial excitement  that they chose to spend their summer holiday in the delightfully named and idyllically located Cabana dos Rouxinois (House of the Nightingales), between Monchique and the Algarve highest point, Foia.

They stayed with the English owners and another couple of friends with young children at a place described as “the ultimate family holiday retreat with all modern facilities” and featured in Tatler’s ‘Top 50 villas to rent’.

Sleeping eight in the main house and four children and a nanny in  a cottage, this “English country house set amidst  three hectares of beautiful garden” normally rents for £3,000 per week in July and August, plus £500 for the cottage.

A special feature of the property is the immaculately maintained garden, originally designed and planted 30 years ago by Mr and Mrs Michael Hornby, creators of the famous Pusey Garden of Oxfordshire.

The Camerons’ holiday was six months in the planning, with a local agency, Turifoia, also arranging accommodation in a nearby villa and hotels for members of the prime minister’s personal staff and security personnel.  

David Cameron, his wife Samantha and their three children clearly enjoyed their stay and in some respects were able to behave just like any other holidaying family. They bought their groceries at local supermarkets and ate at modest restaurants without causing too much of a stir.

The ruse of holding an initial photo opportunity in the public market in Aljezur, way over towards the west coast, failed to deflect the media from the Camerons’ real holiday whereabouts, but the family were able to fully relax thanks to CCTV cameras and a largish contingent of Portuguese police. 

How different it might all have been had the prime minister decided to holiday on the Costa del Sol. No sooner was he back in No.10 than he was confronted by escalating tensions with Spain over Gibraltar.

The prime minister's concerns arose after Madrid said it was preparing to impose a €50 fee on the border crossing with the British territory and threatened to close airspace to planes using the Gibraltar airport.

That would certainly mess up a few holidays.  

Exposed: British PM without socks

The media 'silly season' got off to a pulsating start with fascinating revelations about British Prime Minister David Cameron’s dress sense while on holiday in the Algarve with his wife Samantha and their three children.

At a time of the year when the British tabloids print even dafter rubbish than usual, The Sun ran the headline: “David Cameron kicks off hols with another fashion mishap.” The paper went on to report: “Strolling around the stalls at the Aljezur market on the Algarve, Samantha looked immaculate in an elegant green dress. In contrast, the PM, who’s become known for his holiday fashion mishaps, was so keen to wear his new shirt he forgot to iron out the creases from its packaging.”

The bit about the ironing was an exclusive. The other papers missed it. Most went so far as to acknowledge that the light denim shirt and knee-length shorts were a big improvement on his past holiday outfits.

“Through no fault of our own, summer dressing isn't something that comes naturally to us Brits,” admitted The Sun.

The Daily Mail noticed that “Cameron appeared slightly awkward in his holiday garb, but at least he’s not wearing those black work shoes again.”

To the Mail’s relief,  during his visit to the Aljezur market “Mr Cameron sported a pair of brown loafers (without any socks).” 

The paper reminded us that last year, the Prime Minister was ridiculed by fashion watchers for wearing dark cotton trousers and smart black work shoes during a family break to Majorca. After coming in for criticism for his stuffy holiday outfits in the past, his Algarve attire was certainly “a step in the right direction.”

The Daily Telegraph was the most effusive of the lot. “David Cameron listens to fashion critics on holiday wardrobe choices,” it trumpeted. It is no less than one would expect from a good Tory newspaper, of course.

News that the Camerons, like so many other budget-conscious tourists, had chosen to fly to Faro with Easyjet was wonderful publicity for the low-cost airline and for the flagging Algarve tourist industry, but one wonders what Ryanair’s Michael O’Leary made of it.

A press photo opportunity had been laid on for the media the day after the Camerons’ arrival. David and Samantha duly turned up casually dressed to be snapped ambling around Aljezur market having a look at a range of seafood.

Surprisingly, they decided to buy some fresh squid. The Portuguese regard squid as a delicacy, but ‘yuck!’ most Brits turn their noses up at it. The photos suggested the Camerons’ were not all that keen but decided it was a polite gesture to the host country to give it a go.

With the cameramen suitably placated, the Camerons drove back to their holiday retreat in the hills of Monchique where any further media intrusion was discouraged by round-the-clock security provided by police from both the Portuguese PSP and Scotland Yard.

Subsequent enquiries have failed to reveal whether the Camerons enjoyed their squid, if Samantha got around to ironing David’s shirt, or indeed what style of underpants he prefers.

In the interests of political transparency, I think we should be told. 

Crises, climate changes and calamities

Economic chaos, political scandals, social violence, revolutions and wars punctuated by natural disasters sparked by extreme weather conditions dominate the headlines across the world in the second decade of the 21st century.

So what’s new?

We tend to think we live in unique times, but the world has seen it all before. This fact is vividly portrayed in considerable detail by the distinguished British historian Geoffrey Parker in his latest book, Global Crisis: War, Climate Change and Catastrophe in the Seventeenth Century.

The big events during the unprecedented global crisis back then included the Thirty Years War in Europe, civil war in England, massacres in North America, the cruelty of the Inquisition, expansion of the African slave trade and devastating bubonic plagues.

There are plenty of modern parallels, such as 34 years of war in Afghanistan, civil war in Syria, massacres in Africa, extraordinary rendition and torture in the ‘war on terrorism’, international human trafficking and HIV/AIDS.

At this time four centuries ago Portugal was under Spanish rule, but some would argue that this was less harmful than being a member of the eurozone and succumbing to the Brussels-based ‘Troika’.

There is a familiar ring today to the 17th century Ottoman historian Haji Khalifa’s description of his homeland as being “sick because of corruption, high taxation and oppression of the masses.”

Fairly sophisticated printing presses back then facilitated the spread of opinion from other critical thinkers such as Galileo and Isaac Newton, though not with the same efficiently that all and sundry can now air their views via social media.

The early 17th century was the so-called Age of Reason, precursor of the Age of Enlightenment. Whatever became of it? Much of the world in the early 21st century is still steeped in mythology and superstition.

Compared with troubled countries with much longer histories, such as Egypt and Greece, Portugal still remains relatively calm and organised, but there is no end in sight to the simmering economic, social and political turmoil here.

And then there is the added danger of climate change.

Life in the 17th century was made worse not by global warming but by global cooling. Longer and harsher winters followed by cooler and wetter summers disrupted growing seasons. Famine, malnutrition and disease wiped out an estimated one third of the world’s population.

Geoffrey Parker, a professor of history at Ohio State University, and a fellow of the British Academy, the Spanish-American Academy of Arts and Sciences (Cadiz) and the Royal Academy of History (Madrid), has brought a new perspective to our understanding of economic, social and political upheavals.

According to his publisher, Yale University Press, “Parker’s demonstration of the link between climate change and worldwide catastrophe 350 years ago stands as an extraordinary historical achievement. And the contemporary implications of his study are equally important: are we at all prepared today for the catastrophes that climate change could bring tomorrow?”

From Portugal’s standpoint, the answer must surely be ‘no’.  You don’t have to be a merchant of doom to realise that history suggests Portugal could be facing mayhem.

A few Portuguese academics have warned, for example, that in the decades ahead global warming is likely to greatly deplete water resources, perhaps with a devastating impact on tourism, agriculture and other primary sources of revenue in southern Portugal.

Do such things enter the mindset of today’s decision-makers in Lisbon? Fixated on austerity measures that aren’t working and the possibility of needing a second bailout, most of them can probably think no further ahead than the next visit by Troika assessors in a few weeks time.