The international crises

World War III? No, a Crisis of Impunity

Victor Ângelo

It is an exaggeration to claim that the Third World War has already begun. It is evident that the combined attack by the US and Israel against Iran has profoundly aggravated an already complicated international landscape. This occurred following other very serious violations of the UN Charter, namely the genocide in Gaza, the violence against Palestinians in the West Bank and the populations of Southern Lebanon, and, closer to home, the massive and illegal invasion of Ukraine by a superpower holding a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council.

However, the sum of all these conflicts does not mean the world is on the brink of a global war. What is happening in the Middle East does not share the same nature or direct links as the situation in Ukraine. The crises in Sudan or Myanmar also arise from distinct contexts.

The common thread between these different conflicts is the use of force to resolve political issues—in other words, the practice of illegality in the face of International Law. In the specific case of the bombing of Iran, for example, the Israeli-American decision is indisputably illegal, as noted by European political leaders and others, as well as by the majority of experts in International Law. Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu have ignited a situation of enormous tension in the Middle East, with a very grave and multidimensional impact.

This decision, which ignores the prohibition on the use of force without Security Council authorisation, has also generated significant humanitarian consequences for a large portion of the region's population, particularly in Iran and Lebanon, but also in Israel, the State of Palestine, and almost all Gulf countries. Yet, the drama created by Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu cannot be viewed as a global confrontation. It is a complex but circumscribed conflict. It does not directly concern the defence of Europe. It may, indirectly, jeopardise the stability and security of our continent. It does not, however, resolve the problems of the Middle East.

I repeat that the real problem lies in the lack of respect for international norms. Certain governments are convinced that, at this moment in history, what matters are missiles and other weapons. These are people who deliberately associate "might" with "right". They systematically confuse military strength with political legitimacy. Leaders of this type, in extreme cases, should be taken to the International Criminal Court in The Hague—where some already have a cell reserved—to answer for their actions.

For now, it is vital to emphasise that the present and the future demand a climate of peace, justice, equality, and sustainability. The multilateral system, developed over decades, exists for this purpose. The responsibility of States consists fundamentally in the improvement, expansion, and consolidation of this system. The leader who could aspire to the Nobel Peace Prize would be the one who succeeds in revitalising, modernising, and enforcing respect for the multilateral system.

At the heart of the system is the United Nations Security Council. As I have mentioned in previous texts, Portugal is a candidate for one of the two seats reserved for Western Europe in 2027-2028. Portugal is running alongside Germany and Austria. A television channel asked me this week if our country has any chance in this competition or if it will be the country left out. My answer could only be positive. We have a diplomatic machine that works and an international posture that goes far beyond our membership of the EU. Our power of influence within the EU serves, among other functions, to remind other Union Member States that the EU must be seen by the community of nations as a defender of the values and rules of international diplomacy.

Jean Monnet, one of the founders of the EU, always insisted on supranationalism as a means of guaranteeing peace between States. Following his thought, a divided world would be a world on the path to self-destruction. Our campaign for the Security Council must keep this guiding principle in mind and fight for complementarity between the various regions of the globe.

The Council is now deeply divided. Portugal must insist on a Security Council that seeks to establish consensus. To do this, it must prepare a list of priority issues, starting with the most consensual, and build alliances around them. This list must include strengthening interventions in the areas of Human Rights, development, the environment, and climate, as well as those related to peace missions.

In the latter case, it is important to keep three dimensions in mind:

1. The success of a peace mission has a huge impact on the UN's reputation;

2. Missions must aim to uphold a peace agreement between parties and not act as a mere "screen" hiding imbalances and preferences;

3. Mission mandates must be clear and sharply focused on the essentials, avoiding the trend of the last two decades to include a multitude of objectives, which end up turning missions into a kind of "Christmas Tree", covered in lights. Brilliant to look at, but impossible to achieve results.

Certain issues are especially difficult but cannot be ignored: it is necessary to review the Right of Veto and increase the number of seats on the Security Council to make it more representative of the 193 States that make up the United Nations. These two matters are exceptionally difficult to achieve. They will always meet opposition from those who currently hold the veto power. However, they cannot be ignored by the Portuguese campaign. We must have the courage to seize the moment and place them as central themes of our vision.

Ukraine, Iran and the European geopolitical priorities

 

Ukraine or Iran? The Frontier of European Sovereignty

By Victor Ângelo

The war launched on 28 February by the US and Israel against Iran is not merely a flashpoint of instability in the Middle East and a high-risk global disruption. It is the result of a labyrinthine decision that raises many questions. For this reason, it has become the most debated topic in various international arenas. The angles of analysis are numerous: the legality of the decision, its objectives—including Iran’s nuclear power and the essence of its regime—geopolitical, macroeconomic, and humanitarian implications, the absolute marginalisation of diplomacy and the multilateral political system, as well as issues related to American domestic politics.

For us, it is also the shock that has exposed the European Union’s strategic hesitations. While the world wonders about the future, Europe faces an undeniable truth: by allowing itself to be dragged into the Persian Gulf, it risks forgetting that the future of our continent will be decided, in large part, on the plains of Ukraine.

For Europe, supporting Ukraine is not just any foreign policy choice among others—it is an absolute priority. It concerns the defence of our territorial integrity and our values, the security of neighbouring countries seeking to join the community, and the survival of the European project itself. Russian aggression targets not only Kyiv, but above all the demolition of the entire architecture of cooperation that has sustained peace on our continent since 1945.

Ukraine’s return to a solid and just peace will reinforce the conviction that European borders remain inviolable. For Europe, to lose would herald a future of submission to Moscow or an endless dependence on a Washington that is now increasingly distant from European philosophy and political choices.

Leaving Russia aside, let us add that the EU cannot be subordinate to American zig-zags and interests. Partnership and alliance must not be synonymous with vassalage. This does not imply waiving the right to criticise or sanction autocratic regimes. Sanctions are a way to resolve disputes between states without resorting to war. What remains unacceptable are armed conflicts and military actions outside the legal framework of the United Nations.

An alarming dimension of the current conflict in the Middle East is the immediate drainage of resources that would be vital for the legitimate defence of Ukraine. Recent estimates indicate that more than 1,000 Patriot (PAC-3) interceptor missiles have already been fired against Iranian attacks since 28 February. It is a contrast in which Ukraine loses out, despite the gravity and legitimacy of its situation being incomparably superior. In four years of resistance, Ukraine has received fewer than 600 of these very same interceptor missiles.

This disparity suggests that the Trump administration markedly prioritises the regional objectives of Benjamin Netanyahu’s government over European democracies. Brussels cannot stand by in silence while the "shield" that should protect the Ukrainian air space is consumed in a strange war in the Middle East. Every resource spent in the Middle East represents a new opportunity for the Russian missiles that massacre the Ukrainian people day and night.

It is in the light of this strategic error that the recent position of the European leadership must be read. In this scenario, the message Ursula von der Leyen delivered this week to EU ambassadors is profoundly ambiguous. The speech left the impression that von der Leyen has moved closer to the ideas of Trump and Netanyahu than to the letter and spirit of the United Nations Charter. In the specific case of the attacks on Iran, von der Leyen echoed the arguments—the pretexts, to be more precise—repeatedly mentioned by Washington and Tel Aviv rather than International Law. She abandoned the field of neutrality and mediation, once again weakened Kaja Kallas’s more dialogue-oriented line, and left a significant portion of European observers perplexed, including important wings of the European Parliament.

Europe must be seen by the rest of the globe as a space of values and compliance with international law, of geopolitical balance, and as a defender of the multilateral system. Our strength lies there: in cooperation with the countries of the South who see in International Law the protection they require. By adopting the rhetoric of "military force," as if Europe could become an armed superpower overnight, the President of the Commission seemed to ignore that the true authority of our Union rests on the acceptance of universal values and solidarity with the different peoples of the world. As António Costa stressed after the President’s speech, the EU must defend the international order based on rules. Costa left no room for ambiguity.

I, too, do not wish to be seen as ambiguous. I am against submission, and I do not defend a policy of neutrality, because not choosing is in itself a choice, and rarely the best one. I advocate neither silence nor indifference. As Dante said more than seven centuries ago in his monumental work, the Divine Comedy: "the most pitiless flames in Hell are reserved for those who chose neutrality in times of crisis." Respect for International Law and the right to self-defence are not neutral. They are civilised ways of saying no to arbitrary decisions, the use of brute force, and attacks against human rights. It is this crystal clarity that I expect from European leaders and that the future demands of us.

No to realpolitik, yes to principles and the International Law

 

Geopolitical Realism: When Might Prevails Over International Law

By Victor Ângelo

I regret having to repeat myself, but criticising the theory of geopolitical realism (realpolitik) does not constitute an exercise in naive idealism. On the contrary, it is a matter of recalling three fundamental dimensions of the relations between States. First, that peace must be the foundational principle of the international order. Second, that the United Nations Charter — even if it lacks updating regarding representation and the functioning of the Security Council — must be scrupulously respected. Third, that the power of military force cannot, and must not, prevail over the force of International Law. The world is not a boxing ring, nor a gladiatorial arena, where the strongest invariably wins.

The central error of so-called "political realism" lies in reducing the State to the role of the sole actor, ignoring democratic practices. Institutions, citizens' associations, economic agents, the media, and intellectuals are devalued or instrumentalised as mere pawns of power. Oppositions are diminished in their rights, despite being normal alternatives in a democracy. In reality, this alleged realism, which is nothing more than a form of political reductionism, opens the doors to absolute and arbitrary power, even in apparently consolidated democracies.

When leaders view the world solely through the lever of force and military aggression, they live anchored in other times; their mental roots are buried in the past. They place themselves outside the law and call it pragmatism. They ignore — or pretend to ignore — that there is a "before" and an "after" 1945, and that the world has changed radically since the end of the Cold War. When they speak of "negotiations", they are actually referring to the submission of the weak to the will of the strong. In the 19th century, such a practice was termed an "ultimatum". Today, it is presented under the cloak of a dense "geopolitical fog". This lack of visibility allows for a game played without clear rules. Diplomacy is captured to buy time, sow confusion — both among adversaries and domestic public opinion — and prepare, in the shadows, the logistics of war. Can we trust such leaders, today or tomorrow?

The war against Iran reminds us that it is imperative and urgent to insist on international ethics and human rights. When brute force becomes the primary criterion, no one is truly safe — not even the most powerful. If human rights are despised, fear becomes the only acceptable truth and the dominant social rule. George Orwell's "Newspeak" is, disturbingly, beginning to be imposed as a linguistic norm when, in certain European capitals, people speak of unusual characters now appearing at the front of the stage.

What is happening today in the Middle East underscores a constant reality: during and at the end of bad decisions and despotism, there is always a vast number of human beings paying the bill. This reality leads me to contend that the only sovereignty that truly counts is that which is based on the protection of life and human dignity. Everything else belongs to the tragic comedy of power, to absurd megalomaniacal ambitions, and to indifference towards people and the world itself. Are we witnessing the definitive decline of humanist concerns?

It is urgent to bring this theme to the table of the Security Council. Portuguese diplomacy, committed to obtaining a seat on the Council for the 2027-2028 biennium, must adopt this vision as its own banner: the banner of peace, dialogue, and tolerance, with humanity above all else. By doing so, Portugal will align itself with the majority of Member States and with the very essence of the UN. We will not be mere passive spectators of the current nihilism and unilateralism, but an active voice capable of proclaiming that great challenges demand collective and multilateral responses.

Our participation in NATO has an objective of peace and does not prevent the building of bridges with regional organisations in Latin America, Africa, or Asia. At a time when some powers are distancing themselves from the UN, or seeking to subordinate and capture it, Portuguese diplomacy can serve as another pillar — in coordination with other States — in building consensus, defending International Law, and supporting institutions of common interest. For example, the international courts based in The Hague and the bodies of the United Nations system, which are vital for billions of people and for the planet.

In June, the General Assembly will vote on the composition of the Council for the next two years. The Portuguese campaign takes place in a demanding and quite delicate context. Our greatest asset must be the intransigent promotion of peace through the reinforcement of the political role of the UN. This is the message that the world wants — and most needs — to hear with clarity.

---

Contextual Post-Script (March 6, 2026)

As I review this translation, the events of this week add a sharp layer of irony to the text's call for "institutional ethics" and its critique of "transactional realism":

• The Merz-Trump Dialogue: Just three days ago, on March 3rd, Chancellor Friedrich Merz met with President Trump at the White House. While Trump pushed his "energy dominance" agenda, Merz was forced to navigate the exact "geopolitical fog" you describe. He specifically cited the war in Iran as a disaster for energy prices, urging a swift conclusion to protect German industry.

• The Rosneft "Carve-out": In a classic example of the "transactionalism" you critique, the US Treasury just yesterday (March 5th) lifted sanctions on Rosneft Deutschland. This was the result of intense lobbying by Merz to ensure Germany could continue refining oil through its state-controlled (but Russian-owned) assets. It confirms your fear: the "ideals" of sanctions are being traded for the "pragmatism" of industrial survival.

• The "Empty Shell" Reality: While the UN General Assembly watches from the sidelines, the "Coalition of the Willing" (led by Merz, Macron, and Starmer) met virtually this week to discuss troop deployments to Ukraine if Trump's peace deal fails. The "rescue mission" you envisioned is being led by heads of state, while the UN remains the "passive spectator" you warned against.