The USSR, Russia, Trump and Marcelo's hermeneutics

A security and defense expert from CNN International commented on the President of the Portuguese Republic's statements about Donald Trump, saying he had heard the same from other European leaders, "but always in private." At the PSD Summer University, Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa said that "the supreme leader of the world's greatest superpower, objectively, is a Soviet or Russian asset." The statement about the US President, head of NATO's most important state, leader of the so-called "free world," and Portugal's main military ally, landed like a bombshell and made headlines across the globe, from the US to Brazil, from India to Ukraine. Shortly thereafter, Foreign Minister Paulo Rangel distanced himself from the President's remarks, downplaying them: "The government is the one who leads Portuguese foreign policy," he declared. Now, while it may seem like the cherry on top of what remains of the silly season , Marcelo's statement, besides being misunderstood here at home and, especially, abroad, whether due to misinterpretation or mistranslation, is an inconvenient truth that, as the CNN expert acknowledges, many think but no one says—until someone comes along and says it all, "like crazy people." As for the Portuguese Foreign Ministry's reaction, it should be noted that—as we'll see later—it's not quite like that...

So, what did Marcelo mean? The key to the controversial phrase lies in the words "active" and "objectively." In the language of international espionage, an "active" is a secret agent, a spy, or simply an informant, often recruited from within the adversary's forces or cadres. Trump's past ties to Russia, even as a businessman and long before the American tycoon's foray into politics, coupled with the way he constructed his first electoral victory, with proven Russian intervention, help to translate Marcelo's "active" as a Russian "agent" abroad. Furthermore, it has been suggested several times, but never proven, that Trump was recruited by the KGB, the Soviet secret service from the USSR era. Therefore, the word "Soviet," which Marcelo used, before correcting it to "Russian," would also not be the result of a slip of the tongue or confusion, but of premeditated intent. The President of the Republic has yet to explain what he meant, but his statement suggests a much less conspiratorial theory. "Ativo" (asset), in Portuguese—and in economics—also means "value." A company's assets, for example, can be its shares, facilities, or even its employees. A club's assets are its players. An asset is someone, or something, that adds to an entity's wealth. For Marcelo, Trump's "asset" is nothing more than someone Russia can count on, which is very different from saying he's someone Russia, or the USSR, recruited. The key lies in the word "objectively." Here, we can go back to Marxist-Leninist concepts and even to the times of the Portuguese revolutionary process, commonly known as the PREC (Revolutionary Revolution). An "objective ally," in the Leninist concept, is someone who, despite having no connection to the entity they favor, ultimately benefits it with their activities. In 1975, with a Labor Minister from its ranks in the provisional governments, and with control of a trade union federation, the PCP accused activists from parties to its left, who incited wildcat strikes or inorganic street actions, as "objective allies of the reaction." These "allies" had, formally speaking, nothing to do with the forces—which also existed—linked to the far right... but they "proved right" to the enemy. Thus, when he says that Trump "objectively, is a Soviet, or Russian, asset," Marcelo is saying that the US President, through his actions, is favoring, intentionally or unintentionally, deliberately or naively, the interests of Russia, the power that succeeded America's great enemy during the 20th century, the Soviet Union. "Active," "objectively," and "Soviet" are used in the phrase to convey this same message.

Having translated Marcelo's statements, let us move on to Minister Paulo Rangel's reaction. Tensions between Belém and Necessidades, in terms of foreign policy, are not new. They are recurrent and are part of the pitfalls of the coexistence between presidents and prime ministers. It began during the administration of Ramalho Eanes, the president most accused of engaging in "parallel diplomacy"—and accused by three prime ministers: Mário Soares, Sá Carneiro, and Pinto Balsemão. Above all, the former, a politician particularly skilled in foreign policy matters, with his own channels and international friendships (and enmities), and especially sensitive on the issues of relations with Angola and the PALOP countries, an area on which he was never able to reach an agreement with Belém. As president, Soares himself had consecutive disagreements with the Cavaco Silva administrations, and Angola would once again be the bone of contention. During the Bicesse Agreements, for example, the President demanded to be "in the picture," and the government had to pretend to give him a role in the formal signing in Cascais. At the Lages Summit, which brought together the leaders of the US, the UK, and Spain in the Azores, following an idea from Spanish Prime Minister José María Aznar, who chose the location and invited himself to "someone else's house," with Prime Minister Durão Barroso acting as "butler," President Jorge Sampaio was completely outmaneuvered, which led to the most serious institutional conflict of Durão's tenure. In fact, in addition to his top leadership duties in matters of Defense, the President of the Republic has external representation functions, duly backed by the Portuguese Constitution. He is responsible for declaring war and making peace. And while foreign policy is the government's responsibility, it is therefore unclear whether the executive branch always has the final say. In fact, there were moments of tension between this President and António Costa regarding their stance on the war in Ukraine. Paulo Rangel may have wanted to downplay the situation—certainly to defuse a potential diplomatic conflict with the US—but the President's foreign policy positions are not to be underestimated.

Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa may have entered a phase of his term in office where, with nothing to lose, he has become freer and less restrictive. This tension has, in fact, been reflected in his institutional relations with Luís Montenegro. This episode does not help what is perceived as strategic diplomatic cooperation between Belém and São Bento. The President's statements are diplomatically imprudent. But the current practice of American diplomacy has already shattered what were, until now, the sweet talk and discursive rituals of international chancelleries. If there's one language Donald Trump understands and respects, it's this: clear, direct, aggressive, and forceful. Perhaps Marcelo realized this ahead of time. And perhaps his words will be revived, sooner or later, by some international leader in relations between Europe and the United States. Even if only after Marcelo has ceased to be an asset to Portuguese politics.