10 January 2025
A year that calls
for common sense, clarity and a lot of courage
Victor Angelo
In this first text of
the new year, I seek to share some of my vision on the major global challenges
that we will have to face in the next twelve months. Some of these challenges
come as a continuation of the immense political difficulties that marked the
international scene in 2024. Their trajectory in 2025 appears to continue in
the direction of worsening. I see the stakes on moderation and peace as
extremely complex and difficult, but absolutely necessary.
Added to these
concerns are new problems, among which the following stand out: 1) the
inequities and madness that the Donald Trump/Elon Musk Administration will
introduce into international relations; 2) the acceleration of the use of
Artificial Intelligence to respond to the designs and control of the strategic
agenda by various imperialisms; and 3) access to power in several Western
democracies, and elsewhere, by ultra-reactionary parties inspired by Nazis,
fascists or simply xenophobic influences. Austria was, this week, the most
recent example of this trend, that is, of the shift in public opinion towards
populism and extremist nationalism. Herbert Kickl, leader of the far-right FPÖ
party (symbolically called the National Social Party, an appellation inspired
by the party of a certain Adolf Hitler), was invited to form a government.
This kind of
perspective requires clear and courageous ambitions. Most of our leaders talk a
lot, but their statements are vague, even incomprehensible in some cases. They
do not understand the current context, nor can they imagine the future. They
use the media to sell us the past and to maintain the illusions on which their
power is based. It is up to us to combat these attitudes, but it is not easy.
Access to the market for realistic and humanist ideas is increasingly narrow.
Just look at who has access to airtime to understand how difficult it is to see
on any screen who has the courage to dismantle the illusory contexts that serve
as a basis of support for the bosses of the main political parties or for the
leaders of some regional or global powers.
Anyone who has
influence and authority should have at least five major ambitions.
First, peace. It's
2025, not the past. The great powers, but also each one of us, must abandon the
idea that problems can be resolved by force of arms and ultimatums. With
technological advances, wars only serve to cause the cruellest human suffering.
Second, the
preservation of universal values. International law has made enormous progress
since 1945. Its principles must be respected. With balance, equally, whether it
is country A or B. Double standards lead to the discredit of universal ethics.
Third, respect for the
life and fundamental rights of each person. This is the issue that receives the
most emphasis when talking to the inhabitants of the most forgotten areas of
the world, in the regions where many of the conflicts occur.
Fourth, reduce the
underdevelopment gap. After several years of success, we are now moving in the
opposite direction. The increase in economic and social disparities is, on the
one hand, a source of tension, instability, hostility towards more developed countries,
uncontrolled migration and environmental deterioration. On the other hand, it
generates racism, xenophobia, contempt and indifference towards the poverty of
many.
Fifth, contribute to
the revival of the political role of the UN. I do not want to enter the debate
about the Secretary-General's room for manoeuvre. But I cannot help but
remember the importance of the United Nations Charter. We must insist,
repeatedly, on absolute respect for the principles defined there.
The defence of
Europe's democracies will certainly be a central issue in 2025. However,
reducing the issue to the expansion of our defence industries is a mistake. It
is also unrealistic and destabilizing to demand spending that would represent
5% of each State's GDP out of hand. The real challenge is to be able to build a
coherent and shared European defence policy, which recognises the main dangers
and considers, in a consensual manner, the possible contribution of each
country.
This is essentially a
political issue. There will be States whose current leaders will feel closer to
the enemy than to our regimes of freedom. This year’s debate cannot ignore this
reality. We will have to define a common position towards these individuals. There
is another key question: to review and update the relations between the US and
other NATO members – a subject that deserves a very detailed reflection at the
appropriate time.
