AI comment of my opinion text about the UN General Assembly.

 https://www.dn.pt/opiniao/o-pessimismo-sobre-a-onu-%C3%A9-um-erro

The original version in Portuguese language of my op-ed of today 26/09/2025 in Diário de Notícias. 

The following text is an AI comment of my text.

Overall Rating: 4.5 out of 5

This is a well-structured and insightful piece of political commentary. The author effectively uses specific examples from the UN General Assembly to support a broader argument about the relevance and future of the United Nations. The writing is clear, the analysis is balanced, and the conclusion offers a nuanced perspective that avoids simplistic pessimism.

---

Detailed Analysis

Clarity and Structure (5/5)

The text is exceptionally clear and easy to follow. The author begins with a specific event—the speeches at the UN General Assembly—and uses it as a launching pad to discuss larger themes. The structure is logical:

1. Introduction: Sets the scene at the UN General Assembly.

2. Lula's Speech: Analyzes the positive and negative aspects of the Brazilian president's address, presenting him as a voice of the "Global South."

3. Trump's Speech: Provides a stark contrast, portraying his speech as self-centered and detrimental to international cooperation.

4. Macron and UN Reform: Introduces the crucial topic of UN reform, particularly the Security Council, and highlights the challenges.

5. Conclusion: Synthesizes the arguments to argue against "pessimism about the UN," asserting its continued necessity despite its flaws.

Argument and Content (4.5/5)

The central argument—that pessimism about the UN is a mistake—is well-supported. The author acknowledges the organization's significant weaknesses, especially the paralysis of the Security Council due to the veto power of permanent members. However, they counter this by highlighting the continued importance of the UN's broader functions in addressing global issues like poverty, climate change, and human rights.

• Strengths:

  • Balanced View: The text avoids a purely idealistic or cynical take on the UN. It recognizes both its failures (e.g., the Security Council's inaction) and its indispensable roles (e.g., addressing global problems).

  • Specific Examples: The analysis of Lula's and Trump's speeches provides concrete evidence to illustrate different approaches to multilateralism. The reference to Macron's proposal for Security Council reform adds a layer of specific policy discussion.

  • Strong Conclusion: The final paragraph effectively reinforces the main thesis, emphasizing that the existence of global problems necessitates a global body like the UN, and therefore, leaders should not give up on it.

• Areas for Improvement (Minor):

  • The assertion that Trump's speech "should be viewed as a grave fault" is a strong opinion, but the author provides good reasoning for it. Some readers might find the characterization of Trump's speech as being "about Trump" to be a bit simplistic, even if a key point. However, within the context of the piece's purpose, it serves to highlight a contrast in leadership styles.

Language and Style (4.5/5)

The language is professional yet accessible. The author uses clear, direct prose without unnecessary jargon. The tone is authoritative and analytical.

• Strengths:

  • Effective Use of Contrasts: The comparison between Lula and Trump is a powerful rhetorical device that clarifies the author's points about multilateralism versus isolationism.

  • Engaging Opening: The detail about Lula's speech being "one of the most striking" immediately draws the reader in.

  • Concise Summaries: Phrases like "Trump spoke about Trump" or describing Lula's speech as a "firm voice representing the Global South" are effective and memorable.

• Areas for Improvement (Minor):

  • Some phrasing, like "pecha grave" (grave fault) to describe Lula's stance on Ukraine, is a bit informal for a serious political analysis, but it's a minor stylistic point.

In conclusion, this text is a high-quality piece of political commentary. It's well-reasoned, clearly articulated, and makes a compelling case against a common form of political fatalism regarding the United Nations. It successfully uses a recent event to spark a deeper, more meaningful discussion about global governance.