The King of Jordan and Portugal’s Test in the Security Council

 Diário de Notícias 
 Opinion 

Victor Ângelo
International Security Advisor. Former UN Under-Secretary-General

Published on: 02 Oct 2026

Portuguese foreign policy has a habit of waiting. It waits for Washington, Brussels, Paris, or Berlin to decide what is to be praised, what is to be condemned, and what is to be passed over in silence. In September 2025, by recognizing the State of Palestine, Lisbon demonstrated that it can decide on its own. This now remains to be confirmed. King Abdullah II’s speech at the 81st United Nations General Assembly on 22 September 2026 provides the occasion.

Diplomacy prefers ambiguity. The King rejected it. For decades, the King stated, the international community has managed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict rather than resolving it, treating every violation as temporary until the temporary became permanent, and the permanent was converted into policy. For him, Gaza and the West Bank are two fronts of a single Israeli strategy: making a Palestinian State unviable. In Gaza, the destruction aims to erase Palestinian life. In the West Bank, settlements, land appropriation, demolitions, and expulsions have become a political objective.

He recalled that the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative remains valid: normalization in exchange for peace and a Palestinian State. He denounced the use of humanitarian aid as an instrument of pressure, and warned that the weakening of multilateral institutions threatens the security of all. Inaction, he said, is a choice, because there are sanctions, asset freezes, and diplomatic isolation, which have already been applied in other cases. He pointed to Israel's "expansionist appetite" and cited Syria as a warning: repeated incursions and faits accomplis, including around vital water resources.

The essence of the speech is rooted in international law. The forced transfer of populations is prohibited by the Fourth Geneva Convention and constitutes a war crime under the Rome Statute. The acquisition of foreign territory by force violates the United Nations Charter. Security Council Resolution 2334 (2016) declared the settlements to have no legal validity. In July 2024, the International Court of Justice concluded that the Israeli presence in the occupied territories is illegal, and that States must refrain from supporting it. The Security Council enshrined the two-state solution in 2002.

Portugal does not possess the colonial past in the Middle East of the great powers. It has centuries of contact with Islam, in its language, tilework, and toponymy, alongside longstanding relations with the Islamic cultures of Africa, the Indian Ocean, and Asia. It can serve as a bridge, provided it does so with States that respect international law. Moreover, Portugal has a direct interest: the stability of the Mediterranean has a decisive bearing on migration, energy, and the security of Europe's southern flank.

Jordan is a stable interlocutor, hosts a vast population of Palestinian refugees, and acts as the custodian of the Islamic holy sites in Jerusalem. It is not a democracy, and nobody needs to pretend that it is. In foreign policy, however, it meets the criteria of the rule of law and multilateralism better than some habitual partners.

Consistency will be put to the test when Portugal takes its seat on the Security Council in 2027 and 2028. Two years of votes, declarations, and abstentions will be placed on record. It will fall to the Government to conduct foreign policy. The Council of State, the consultative body to the President of the Republic, must be called upon to offer its opinion on the broad outlines of Portuguese participation in the most sensitive matters. In the Assembly of the Republic, the Committee on Foreign Affairs and Portuguese Communities will scrutinize the positions adopted, ensuring that the mandate on the Security Council is not reduced to an uncritical alignment with other governments.

For now, I propose three gestures, in ascending order of demand.

The first is to invite King Abdullah II for an official visit in the coming months. The last visit to Lisbon by the Jordanian monarchy was in March 2009. The invitation is the prerogative of the President of the Republic, in consultation with the Government. Made now, upon entering the Security Council, it signals to the world whom Portugal wishes to speak with, and what it considers to be a priority. In May, Minister Paulo Rangel told his Jordanian counterpart that the two countries share a very similar political vision. An invitation to the King would lend this convergence the seal of the State.

The second is to propose that Jordan join the CPLP (Community of Portuguese Language Countries) as an associate observer, a status already held by Qatar. The decision rests with the Community, but the initiative can originate in Lisbon. A prominent Arab State would connect the CPLP to the Islamic world, within a Lusophone sphere that includes relevant Muslim communities, such as those in Mozambique and Guinea-Bissau.

The third is to move the two-state solution from rhetoric to action. In Brussels, Portugal must advocate for effective conditionalities against those who render it unviable in reality. In European practice, the word sanction remains a taboo when the recipient is Israel: the Union affirms a principle on paper and tolerates its opposite on the ground, even when faced with a Head of Government sought by the International Criminal Court. In New York, Portugal must keep the issue on the agenda and vote according to the law, not according to a bloc reflex.

Jordan has limitations, regime interests, and dependencies, and no serious analysis ignores them. Yet, a speech that names the facts, invokes the precise legal instruments, and links Palestine to regional security provides Portugal with an anchor that Western ambiguity has ceased to offer.

If Portugal limits itself to being a predictable vote, aligned by reflex and silent out of convenience, the recognition of 2025 will remain an isolated episode. The King recalled that attention is a geopolitical resource, and that the world chooses where to focus it. Whoever is to sit on the Security Council for two years cannot pretend not to have heard the speech.

Supporting the Vienna process on Syria

A week ago, I criticised the conveners of the Vienna meeting on Syria for not inviting the UN and EU. Now, after today´s new round of discussions in Vienna, I should commend the US and Russia for bringing to the room not only the UN and the EU, but also the other countries that can have an impact on the solution of the long lasting civil war. It was particularly important to have Iran in the conversation.

This basically means that for the first time, after so many years of destruction and human pain, there is a bit of hope for the Syrians. The road ahead is still very difficult. But at least the diplomacy is now seriously trying to initiate a peace process.

The next step is to find a way of bringing in the Syrian representatives themselves. I am confident that it should be possible, if all those who met in Vienna today do their honest part of the bargain.

It is also critically important to intensify the destruction of the Islamic State leadership and power structures. For that to happen, one has to be very frank and have the courage to denounce any double game that might occur in the future. We cannot accept a country sits in Vienna and talks about the future of a peaceful Syria and, at the same time, keeps somehow supporting the terrorists.

More on the strategy against the terrorists of the Islamic State

We usually emphasise that each national crisis should have a political response and end up with an agreement between the parties. In the case of Syria, it would be, at this stage, a serious mistake to insist on a political solution. The situation has reached such a dramatic level that the only way forward, for the moment, is through a military approach. Politics and diplomacy have to wait. They will come later.

The goals to be achieved are clear: to destroy the self-proclaimed Islamic State and protect the civilian population from further violence. These objectives do call for a major allied armed offensive and also for a change of tactics when it comes to the Assad regime.

On the military side, my writing of yesterday is clear. I can only add that we just have to make sure that those who will take the decision to go for the force option have the support of the popular opinion in their countries. And then ask those leaders to move fast.

On Assad, it is time to make a difference between the man and his people. The headman will have to go. The key criminals that have directly supported him must be brought to justice as well. But we need to find ways of bringing his ethnic group, the Alawites, and all those who are around the administrative and security machineries on board, on our side, as long as they have no real crimes in their hands. They should be part of the solution. If they are not they will be, soon enough, because Assad´s collapse is getting closer, the next mass victims of the brutes that only conceive death as the appropriate punishment  for those who are different.

It is indeed time to think strategically. And be strong.

Revise the strategy to destroy the Islamic State

The daily reports are clear. They point to a recent succession of military gains by the self-proclaimed Islamic State (IS), both in Syria and Iraq. As I see it, that terrorist group is stronger today than some weeks back. Its ongoing offensives on different fronts show vitality which can only result from new resources, including fresh money and weapons as well as a mass of additional recruits.

The other side of the coin is about weakness. Those opposing IS are today weaker.

The moderate groups in both countries first. They are losing ground and credibility. They have demonstrated they do not have enough vigour to take care of this major challenge. More than ever it is now obvious they necessitate a great amount of external support.

The raids also show that the Western strategy against the terrorist organisation is not working. It has to be revised immediately. Its revision has to focus on a much stronger involvement in the region, through additional deployment of special force units and better coordination among them, more effective and better shared intelligence, and a closer alliance with the Middle Eastern States that oppose IS.

I recognise that a deeper military engagement in Iraq and Syria is a complex and costly matter. But political hesitation is no longer a solution in this case. Public opinion is prepared, in our part of the world, for a serious increase of our military assistance to those who can be our regional and local allies in this combat. We just have to ensure that the alliances are clear and strategic, meaning, they should aim, above everything all, at destroying the IS threat.

Syria: failure and despair

Syria´s tragedy is spreading fast into the neighbouring countries, particularly in Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan. Chaos and human distress have reached new levels, as it is also the case regarding insecurity and instability. People are just desperate, after so many years of war. Those who can afford the fees are now paying large amounts to human traffickers to take them across the sea into Europe. Even at this time of the year, when the seas are rough and the weather threatening. This is no time for hazardous crossings but the anxiety is so high that people just try to sail through. Everything is better than staying behind.

Their sense of urgency is not matched, on our side, by anything similar. We seem to have accepted that there is no solution to the Syrian crisis. The Security Council cannot agree on any meaningful approach to the resolution of the crisis. Now, Russia is preparing a conference – another so-called high level meeting! It will take place in a couple of weeks but nobody knows what for. It is not even clear if the UN Special Envoy will be given any significant role in that meeting. It could be just another excuse for the lack of substantive action. But, as things stand, it´s OK to go for it. At least it will allow a number of voices, here and there, to recall that the Syrian crisis is a major failure of today´s world. 

Human displacements and conflict

The illegal migrations across the Mediterranean Sea towards Europe are a matter of great concern. For different reasons, including the risk of loss of life and the political impact the immigration has on the domestic politics of the EU, as they are a fertile ground for the radical right-wingers to propagate their extremist ideas. But one should be proportionate. The numbers are certainly big and growing. However, they are much smaller than the unbelievable numbers of refugees in Lebanon, Turkey or Jordan, just to mention those countries that border Syria and have received millions of displaced and desperate people. That is what should make us think twice. How can we help in the solution of conflicts and crises that are the mass producers of human suffering and large scale human displacements? 

The strategic interest of the Middle East is tapering

The Middle East, defined in broad terms to include both Egypt and Iran, and the countries in between, remains the most unstable region of the world. It includes very dramatic and intricate crisis, such as the ones in Syria, Palestine, Lebanon, and very fragile governance regimes, such as the ones in Jordan, Iraq and Bahrain, without mentioning Saudi Arabia, which many consider to be experiencing the initial symptoms of instability. It is also home to serious ethnic and sectarian conflicts, as the Kurd situation, which concerns several countries, the rivalries between Sunni and Shia power elites, and the proliferation of extremist groups illustrate. The region is also deeply affected by Israel’s policy towards the Palestinian people.

View from the West, the region has lost a good deal of its strategic importance. Oil from the Middle East can now easily be replaced by oil from other parts of the world, including the US and Canada. Oil is therefore a much weaker argument when looking at the Western interests in the region. Religious fundamentalism and its violent manifestations are still a reason to pay attention to the region. But even in that domain, home-grown fundamentalism in the EU and the US are now getting more attention than distant threats that might be taking roots in the Middle East.

Also, from a trading perspective, the region is perceived as a small market, notwithstanding the wealth available within some of its leading circles.

The trend is therefore to switch the attention away from the Middle East to other parts of the world.