My full text of today about the UN General Assembly translated by AI

---

The UN and its General Assembly Must Be Taken Seriously

Victor Ângelo

The annual high-level session of the UN General Assembly begins next week. The leaders of most of the states that make up the international scene will be in New York. One of the exceptions will be the President of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas. The American administration has not granted him or his delegation an entry visa. It can refuse to grant a visa, and has done so in the past on rare occasions, despite the Headquarters Agreement signed by Washington in 1947. This agreement stipulates the general, but not absolute, obligation to grant visas to representatives of states intending to participate in UN meetings, especially in the case of the General Assembly.

As always, the US justified the decision by invoking national security and foreign policy reasons. The real motives are clear. First, it is about showing the total alignment of American leadership with the government of Israel. Second, it is to express displeasure with the initiative by Emmanuel Macron and other leaders to bring to the General Assembly the proposal for the recognition of Palestine as a full UN member state. And finally, it is to punish the Palestinians for having filed several complaints against Israel in the international courts based in The Hague.

In any case, the Assembly will vote on Palestine, as proposed by France, the United Kingdom, Spain, Canada, Saudi Arabia, and other members. The UN currently has 147 countries that recognize Palestine as a state. This number is expected to increase significantly after the vote. Israel will be diplomatically more isolated if it is confirmed that its policy on Palestine is not accepted by almost all states, with the exception of the U.S. and a few others.

The vote will have a symbolic, non-binding political value. No state can become a full member of the United Nations with only the favorable vote of the General Assembly. It inevitably needs the support of the Security Council, with no veto from the five permanent members. In this case, it is evident that the U.S. will exercise its veto. Trump will ignore the will of the community of nations. And he will remind us that the right to veto is a historical aberration that needs to be reviewed, or at a minimum, deeply restricted given the new balance of power in the international framework.

Trump's speech on the morning of the first day (23/09) is awaited with enormous apprehension. It begins with an originality: for the first time, an American president speaks at the podium without the process of appointing a permanent U.S. representative having been completed. In May, the White House announced that Mike Waltz would be the representative of the Trump Administration to the UN, after having played the very important role of National Security Advisor and then being dismissed a few weeks later. His confirmation is still dragging on in the Senate corridors. The U.S. is represented in New York by a team of interims, who receive few or no directives from Washington. Trump does not have the UN on his list of priorities, except when it comes to leaving certain organizations or cutting or eliminating the financial contributions he is obligated to pay to the UN system.

He will certainly insist on a UN fundamentally focused on peace and international security, words spoken for reasons of mere personal image. Trump dreams of being seen as the mediator par excellence of conflicts, the champion of peace, worthy of the Nobel Prize. He does not believe in the UN's capacity in this matter. In reality, I believe he places no value on the United Nations. It is just a podium that allows him to display his oversized ego. But he does not want an active UN in any of the system's three pillars: international stability, development, and human rights.

The responsibility for stability, which should stem from respect for the UN Charter and international law, falls to the Americans, according to his way of thinking. Development, social progress, and environmental issues are matters for the Europeans. He forgets, however, that in these areas, the ones gaining ground are the Chinese, who are deeply committed to an alternative political and economic order, in a broad alliance with the so-called Global South. As for human rights, the issue will be left to the domain of the use of force and to the interpretations that each state will make of the dignity and life of its citizens. For the Chinese and their allies, human rights are a matter of national sovereignty that should not be included in the multilateral agenda.

All of this signifies the marginalization of the UN's political and human dimensions. Next week will allow us to better understand what the future of the UN may be.

Meanwhile, António Guterres launched what he called an exercise in system reform in May. He named it UN80 and said it would have three objectives: reduce expenses; eliminate mandates that no longer make sense; and carry out an institutional transformation. It was an ambitious plan that could only be successful if it had the support of the major countries and was carried out in dialogue with the organization's staff. None of that happened. In reality, the priority should have been to go door-to-door and beg the delinquent states, such as the U.S. and China, to honor their financial commitments. UN reform begins with holding each member state accountable.

A ONU e a sua Assembleia Geral têm de ser levadas a sério

 

A sessão anual de alto nível da Assembleia Geral da ONU começa na próxima semana. Os dirigentes da maioria dos Estados que compõem a cena internacional estarão em Nova Iorque. Uma das exceções será o Presidente da Autoridade da Palestina, Mahmoud Abbas. A administração americana não lhe concedeu o visto de entrada, nem à sua delegação. Pode recusar atribuir o visto, e já o fez no passado, em raras ocasiões, apesar do Acordo de Sede assinado por Washington em 1947. Esse acordo estipula a obrigação geral, mas não absoluta, de conceder vistos aos representantes dos Estados que tenham a intenção de participar nas reuniões previstas pela ONU, sobretudo no caso da Assembleia Geral.

Como sempre, os EUA justificaram a decisão invocando razões de segurança nacional e de política externa. Os motivos são claros, na realidade. Trata-se de mostrar, primeiro, um alinhamento total da liderança americana com o governo de Israel. Segundo, de exprimir o desagrado pela iniciativa de Emmanuel Macron e de outros líderes de trazer à Assembleia Geral a proposta do reconhecimento da Palestina como um Estado de pleno direito da ONU. E finalmente, punir os palestinianos por terem apresentado várias queixas contra Israel nos tribunais internacionais sediados na Haia.

De qualquer modo, a Assembleia irá votar sobre a Palestina, tal como proposto pela França, o Reino Unido, a Espanha, o Canadá, a Arábia Saudita e outros membros. Para já a ONU conta com 147 países que reconhecem a Palestina como Estado. Esse número deverá aumentar significativamente, depois da votação. Israel ficará diplomaticamente mais isolado, se se confirmar que a sua política em relação à Palestina não é aceite pela quase totalidade dos Estados, com a exceção dos EUA e pouco mais.

A votação terá um valor político simbólico, não vinculativo. Nenhum Estado pode fazer parte integral das Nações Unidas apenas com o voto favorável da Assembleia Geral. Precisa, inevitavelmente, do apoio do Conselho de Segurança, sem nenhum veto dos cinco membros permanentes. Neste caso, é evidente que os EUA irão exercer o seu veto. Trump vai ignorar a vontade da comunidade das nações. E lembrar-nos que o direito de veto é uma aberração histórica, que precisa de ser revisto, ou no mínimo, tendo em conta a nova relação de forças que existe no quadro internacional, profundamente restringido.

O discurso de Trump, na manhã do primeiro dia (23/09) é esperado com enorme apreensão. Começa, desde logo, com uma originalidade: pela primeira vez, um presidente americano fala na tribuna sem que o processo de nomeação de um Representante Permanente dos EUA tenha sido completado. Em maio, a Casa Branca anunciou que Mike Waltz seria o representante da Administração Trump na ONU, após ter desempenhado o importantíssimo papel de Conselheiro da Segurança Nacional e ter sido logo demitido, passadas breves semanas. A sua confirmação ainda se arrasta pelos corredores do Senado. Os EUA são representados em Nova Iorque por uma equipa de interinos, que poucas ou nenhumas diretrizes recebem de Washington. Trump não tem a ONU na sua lista de prioridades, exceto quando se trata de sair de certas organizações ou de cortar ou eliminar as contribuições financeiras, que tem a obrigatoriedade de pagar ao sistema onusiano.

Deverá certamente insistir numa ONU focada fundamentalmente na paz e na segurança internacional, palavras ditas por razões de mera imagem pessoal. Trump sonha ser visto como o mediador por excelência dos conflitos, o campeão da paz, merecedor do Prémio Nobel. Não acredita na capacidade da ONU nessa matéria. Na realidade, creio que não dá qualquer valor às Nações Unidas. É apenas uma tribuna que lhe permite exibir o seu ego desmesurado. Mas não quer uma ONU ativa em nenhum dos três pilares do sistema: a estabilidade internacional, o desenvolvimento e os direitos humanos.

A incumbência da estabilidade, que deveria decorrer do respeito pela Carta das Nações Unidas e pelo direito internacional, cabe aos americanos, segundo a sua maneira de pensar. O desenvolvimento, o progresso social e as questões do ambiente são assuntos para os europeus. Esquece-se, todavia, que nessas áreas quem marca pontos são os chineses, que estão profundamente empenhados numa ordem política e económica alternativa, numa ampla aliança com o chamado Sul Global. Quanto aos direitos humanos, a questão será deixada ao domínio do uso da força e às interpretações que cada Estado fará da dignidade e da vida dos seus cidadãos. Para os chineses e os seus aliados, os direitos humanos são um assunto de soberania nacional, que não deve ser incluída na agenda multilateral.

Tudo isto significa a marginalização das dimensões políticas e humanas das Nações Unidas. A próxima semana permitir-nos-á compreender melhor o que poderá ser o futuro da ONU.

Entretanto, António Guterres lançou em maio aquilo que designou como um exercício de reforma do sistema. Chamou-lhe UN80 e disse que teria três objetivos: reduzir as despesas; eliminar os mandatos que deixaram de fazer sentido; e proceder a uma transformação institucional. Era um plano ambicioso, que só poderia ser bem-sucedido se tivesse o apoio dos grandes países e se fosse realizado em diálogo com o pessoal da organização. Nada disso aconteceu. Na realidade, a prioridade deveria ter sido ir de porta em porta e rogar aos Estados em falta, como os EUA e a China, que honrassem os seus compromissos financeiros. A reforma da ONU começa com a responsabilização de cada Estado-membro.  

 Publicado no Diário de Notícias de 19/09/2025

Mr Trump speaks to the United Nations

This is the text I published today in Diário de Notícias (Lisbon newspaper). It is a machine (AI) translation. The original is written in Portuguese.

 

President Trump and the United Nations

Victor Angelo

 

The name of this year's Nobel Peace Prize laureate will be announced on October 9. The list of candidates includes 318 names, an impressive number. It seems that Donald Trump's name would be included in the list of nominees, which is not impossible because any member of his government, Congress or any other personality has the faculty to nominate. The fact is that the president would very much welcome the Nobel award, less than a month before the presidential election.

This is how the words spoken this week by the American ambassador to the United Nations, Kelly Craft, when she was called upon to introduce her boss's intervention before the UN General Assembly, should be understood. Craft's brief introduction sought to convey only one message. She said that Donald Trump is a leader who gives special consideration to the search for peace. She then mentioned initiatives related to Israel, the Arab Emirates and Bahrain, the economic agreement signed at the White House between Serbia and Kosovo, North Korea, a country that has disappeared from the news and can therefore be presented as well behaved for the time being. The ambassador also brought in the launching of the talks between Afghans, with American sponsorship.

Then, spoke the president. His speech blurred the image of a leader concerned with peace. If today's times were to be governed by the usual diplomatic norms, President Trump's words should be seen as a harbinger of a declaration of war on China. This country was presented as the cause of the covid-19 pandemic and the associated global economic crisis. It has also been singled out as the biggest polluter of land, sea, and air.

It was a catalogue of accusations to others and praise for himself and the successes his administration would have achieved in various fields, from conflict resolution to carbon emission reduction. All with the eyes on the November elections. 

But we should be clear that the diatribe against China has deep and prolonged consequences on American political life and psyche. It is something that will mark the international relations of the United States, whether Trump is at the head of the country or not. The political class, the military circles and various sectors of American academia, intellectuals and society see China's foreign ambition as a vital threat to the United States' role in the world. For some it is a question of political hegemony or economic interests, for others there will be an ethical dimension and democratic values when they think of a China that becomes a superpower. The decade ahead of us will be marked by obstinate rivalry between these two colossi. Those who think that the European Union can serve as a counterweight and a balance in the face of this competition should put their strategic imagination to work right now. I make no secret of my concern, however, about the growing conflict between the United States and China, or my scepticism about the strategic effectiveness of European foreign policy.

Let us return to the General Assembly and to President Trump's communication. In addition to the harangue against China and the election propaganda, the speech set out what appears to be an agenda for the United Nations, in Washington version. To the issues of peace - the area of "blue helmets" is a priority not only for Americans but for many more; the only issue is that the main recommendations of the Ramos-Horta Commission (2015) and subsequent political lessons remain unimplemented, with a disconnect between military operations and the political work of the missions - the president added the fight against terrorism, the oppression of women, human and drug trafficking, ethnic and religious persecution. He also made special reference to human rights.

It is clear that he did not speak of the deadlocks that hinder the proper functioning of the Security Council, the marginalization of the UN and the multilateral system, which has been a hallmark of his mandate, or the lack of support for the Secretary-General. But what he said on the positive side should be used to give new visibility to the United Nations and relaunch international cooperation. As for the rest, we will see after November.

 

 

The UN General Assembly is now around the corner

The annual session of the UN General Assembly is about to start. The agenda is diversified and it includes the new global approach to the development goals, environment and climate change matters, population growth issues as well as the usual high rhetoric but politically important speeches by some key world leaders.

Unfortunately, the UN is not in a position to come up with a road map for some very critical on-going conflicts, like the one in Ukraine or the situation in the Middle East, including an accepted agenda to fight extremism and human rights violations. Critics would say it shows the irrelevance of the UN as a mechanism for conflict resolution when the scale of the conflict is too big and related to the contradictory interests of powerful countries.

It is however too much to talk about irrelevance. The UN does what it can, what the member states allow it to do. And in some areas of intervention, like the ones I mention at the beginning of this post, it has done quite a bit. And it is still the only hope that remains for many in very poor and ill governed countries. 

UN General Assembly

The annual meeting of the UN General Assembly started today, with a number of important speeches. My gut instinct is that there is a bit of space for new diplomacy initiatives as far as Syria and Iran are concerned. But then I think of the many other places that attract little attention and are in the midst of serious national crisis. These are the forgotten conflicts. But death, violence, rape, and sheer fear are the ones that do not forget people in those lost corners of our collective memory.