Rhetoric delights, persuades and moves. Empty the thought and, little by little, as it lights up, close the doors to dialogue and agreement. It is more typical of autocracies than of democracies, but this week we have seen it shine in Madrid and Washington as well as in Hong Kong and Moscow.
When short of ideas and solutions, leaders rant, yell and threaten. Seeing themselves threatened, they build historical myths, release intransigence and embrace fundamentalism. Refugees in the caves of the leadership, they take for real the shadows that drown their people. They would not survive without fundamentalist fire and the distortion of its flames. At his side, the world suffers and today is something more dangerous than yesterday.
The judicial fundamentalism of the Supreme Court of the United States that denies women the right to be the owner of their body touches with the religious fundamentalism of Iran and Saudi Arabia. Putin supports his war in Ukraine with historical fundamentalism, while Xi justifies the subjugation of Hong Kong with an ideological fundamentalism that divides the exhausted Chinese society between patriots and traitors.
When they look in the mirror, the leaders of fundamentalism see themselves carved in marble. His destiny is historical. They believe they are called to save countries and guarantee national, racial and religious hegemonies.
Citizens of liberal democracies also adore and suffer from them. Le Pen has won two vice presidencies of the French National Assembly, where he is the main opposition force. Macron cannot sleep peacefully. Few European leaders can, and even less so after their silence this week in Madrid.
They have been silent in the face of NATO’s militaristic fundamentalism. In discharging him, it should be recognized that it is difficult for him to raise his voice when the war drums beat in Washington and they do so, moreover, for the good of Europe. It is as if NATO protected us even from ourselves, that is, from the European Union. How sad not to have heard in Madrid an argument in favor of a European peace for a European war. There is no leader in a position to confess what he thinks, that is to say, that Europe is entering a very long conflict from which it will come out very badly. Neither is well established in their own parliaments. Macron is not, but neither is Scholz, Draghi, Sánchez and Johnson.
Public opinion does not know what to think of the new arms race. He understands the seriousness of the Russian threat, the need to defeat Putin in order to recover the lost stability. Buy the argument that this is the most dangerous time since World War II. But when inflation tightens at the end of summer, it will demand heads.
A credible leader could convince them that without sacrifice there is no freedom, that this is not the time to complain because if Putin wins he will go for more. But we do not have a strong and, at the same time, sensible leader. Democracies seem incapable of producing them. The strongest thing they make is aggressive populists like Trump.
Any leader knows that if he is not strong at home he cannot be strong abroad. Hence, they compensate for this weakness with fundamentalism and rhetoric. They cannot face reality. If they did they would lose power. That is why they say and sign what they do not believe.
Look at the rhetoric of NATO’s new strategic concept, the commitments it requires, the expense that the military effort will entail, not to mention the transfer of sovereignty in the inner sanctum of defense and foreign policy, the last bastion of the state nation. It is very difficult for the parliaments of the 30 allied countries not to object.
Moreover, while the strategic concept calls for reinforcing the southern flank, that is, the Sahel, the Saharan region where the jihadist forces are regrouping with the support of the Russian mercenaries of the Wagner group, Germany and Spain reduce their troops to a minimum after France has withdrawn.
There will be no freedom without sacrifices, but neither will there be without leaders capable of treating us like adults, getting to the point and explaining the truth to us, such as that the war in Ukraine will have an enormous socio-economic cost and that the same Russia that is defeated deserves a prominent place in the big European family.
To achieve this, we need people like Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, the director general of the World Trade Organization (WTO), who a few days ago in Geneva got 164 states – Russia, China, India, the US and the 27 partners of the EU between them – will close impossible pacts. From now on, for example, it will be more difficult to subsidize overfishing with public money and it will be easier and cheaper to produce vaccines against covid.
Nigerian Okonjo-Iweala banned endless rhetoric and speeches. She imposed marathon work sessions that left many delegations sleepless and in the end she achieved the consensus that no one had achieved since the founding of the WTO 27 years ago: enough agreements to make world trade fairer. No one won outright, but no one lost out entirely either.
While the men of war were shirtless in Madrid, Moscow and Hong Kong, she, elegant from head to toe, opened a window to a better world.
