Europe and its weak strategy regarding the ASEAN

 From Kuala Lumpur to Brussels, the ASEAN summit shows the weakness of the European strategy towards Southeast Asia

Victor Ângelo

The European Union and its Member States have shown limited attention to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), which has allowed China to significantly expand its influence in the region. Other countries, such as India, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand, have also strengthened their ties with ASEAN. All this contrasts with the inertia on the part of the EU—a missed opportunity for both sides and a vacuum that others skillfully fill. It also highlights yet another failure of imagination, initiative, courage, and understanding of the political game in that part of the world at the level of European external action. This scenario of European imprecision is particularly relevant in a geopolitical area that is rapidly gaining weight in international relations.

Recently, the United States has also recognized the strategic value of ASEAN. Donald Trump will be present at this year's summit, from October 26 to 28, in Kuala Lumpur, the capital of Malaysia. In addition to meeting with the ten ASEAN leaders—who will become eleven, with the formal admission of Timor-Leste, an important step for the political, economic, and cultural integration of the country into the region to which it truly belongs—the American president will also have the opportunity to meet other prominent politicians, such as Narendra Modi, Li Qiang (Prime Minister of China), Sanae Takaichi (the new ultraconservative leader of Japan), Lula da Silva, and Cyril Ramaphosa.

The Prime Minister of Malaysia, Anwar Ibrahim, also invited Vladimir Putin, a significant gesture, although the Russian president has indicated that he will not be able to attend. Even so, Russia will be represented at a high level. Until the announcement this Wednesday of the new American sanctions, the possibility of a last-minute participation by Putin was not excluded, considering the media and political projection that this would have. Now, it is certain that Putin does not wish to meet Trump, unless the latter reverses this week's decision.

Among the European guests, the Prime Minister of Finland and Giorgia Meloni of Italy stand out, with Meloni already confirming her presence. Meloni recognizes that her visibility at international events is fundamental for consolidating her domestic policy. However, it remains uncertain who will represent the European institutions, with António Costa being one of the names mentioned in diplomatic circles. If confirmed, his presence will be mainly symbolic, since much of the power, namely the executive, resides with the European Commission, led by Ursula von der Leyen.

The European Union needs to look at ASEAN with greater realism and commitment, strengthening political and economic ties with a group of countries that together make up the third most populous region in the world (about 685 million people) and the fifth largest global economy. ASEAN is one of the engines of development of the so-called Global South and aims to play a prominent role in building a new international order. Ignoring this reality would be a strategic mistake for Europe. Historically, Europeans feel closer to Africa and Latin America, but betting on Southeast Asia is increasingly an inevitable path for the coming decades. Furthermore, competition with China, Russia, India, and the USA will be more balanced if the EU manages to establish a solid relationship with the region.

The Kuala Lumpur summit will focus on four major themes considered priorities by the Member States: economic cooperation, regional stability and security, renewable energy production (with the goal of reaching 45% by 2030), and the deepening of free trade agreements with partners such as China, Japan, South Korea, India, Australia, and New Zealand.

Significantly, the summit will not address the serious political crisis affecting Myanmar, one of ASEAN's Member States. This deliberate omission reflects the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of each State, one of the Association's pillars, something that clearly contradicts the political cooperation project and obviously favors economic interests. This stance, partly inspired by China, contributes to the distancing between Europe and Southeast Asia, especially due to the indifference of some ASEAN members regarding human rights.

In this context, the messages that the European Union should convey at the Kuala Lumpur summit are clear. On the one hand, to affirm that we, Europeans, consider it mutually beneficial to deepen the full range of relations with ASEAN. On the other hand, to express our conviction that respect for citizens is the only way to guarantee peace, strengthen international cooperation, and ensure sustainable prosperity.

The English AI translation of today's opinion piece.

 

Pessimism About the UN is a Mistake

By Victor Ângelo

Following tradition, Brazil was the first state to take the floor at the opening of the high-level segment of the United Nations General Assembly this week in New York, and President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva's speech was one of the most notable. He spoke for 18 minutes—a little over the 15-minute rule that almost no one respects. It is worth watching the video that recorded his address.

If one had to limit his words to a couple of lines, one would say it was a firm voice representing the Global South, the countries that are defining a new power chessboard in the international order and that seek to be heard more in global institutions. Lula defended the role of the UN, the sovereignty of states within a framework that reinforces multilateral cooperation and condemns the arbitrary interventions of the strongest. He highlighted three of the fundamental issues on the global agenda: the regulation of digital platforms, to protect the most vulnerable and prevent manipulation without restricting freedom of opinion; climate change; and the fight against poverty, particularly hunger. He took a correct position regarding the tragedy in Gaza. The passage about Ukraine should be considered a serious blemish on his communication. Lula was vague and deferential to the ears of Moscow, failing to use the words invasion and aggression or refer to the conflict as he should have: an indisputable violation of the UN Charter by Russia. On this matter, Lula showed that he dances to Putin’s tune.

The second Head of State to intervene was the President of the USA. There was enormous expectation about what he would say, including about the future of the United Nations. He spoke for almost an hour on the most diverse topics, but always with his own person at the center of the monologue. In summary, one might say that Trump spoke about Trump. It was a bad speech, full of false claims and erroneous political positions, from past eras and long since defeated by historical and scientific evidence. While Lula and other leaders almost always sought to look to the future, reinforce cooperation for the joint solution of major global problems, and underline the need for UN reform, Trump challenged many of the fundamental issues for the survival of our Planet. He directly attacked the policies of many states, including old US allies, and the absence of initiative from the Secretary-General on conflict resolution. He treated the community of nations with paternalism and arrogance, and the UN as a nullity.

In reality, Trump delivered only three messages: that there is not, nor can there be, a better or wiser world leader; that he should be seen as a peace builder, deserving all honors, from the Nobel Prize upwards; and that he is the sovereign of the world's strongest country, which he believes gives him the natural right to dictate the international agenda.

But the impression that emerged from the General Assembly hall seems to be different: Trump represents a debasement of American politics, he is an embarrassment for Western democracies and, moreover, a danger to global stability, alongside some other leaders who, like him, live in the past, in a personality cult, or survive thanks to dictatorial regimes.

Emmanuel Macron and several other speakers underlined the importance of cooperation, exercised primarily through a strengthened UN capable of reflecting the current international political landscape. This reform of the United Nations must have as its first act the restructuring of the Security Council and the modernization of its rules of procedure, particularly with regard to the use of the veto. Macron mentioned a list of countries that, in his opinion, should be added to the Council's permanent members—Germany, Brazil, India, Japan, and two African states. Unfortunately, it is unthinkable that all this can happen in the near future.

The Security Council has become an arena of confrontation between the US, Russia, and China. That is primarily what it has served for since the middle of the last decade. None of these powers wants to accept a new composition that could undermine their strategic interests and geopolitical alliances. The main weakness of the UN political system lies in the current Security Council. And so we will continue. And we will simultaneously witness the division of the international scene into various groupings, some more effective than others.

This does not mean, however, that the main functions of the UN—I exclude here the specialized agencies, which have their own rules of operation, governance, and financing—are doomed to disappear. The world continues to have problems that justify the need for global cooperation, from the issue of poverty to those related to human rights, the protection of nature, climate and humanitarian challenges, the response to the accelerated growth of Artificial Intelligence, organized crime, or civil wars. Therefore, it is essential to insist on the capacity for initiative of UN leaders, starting with the Secretary-General, and on the timely payment of dues owed by each State. In other words, there is no reason for pessimism, nor is there reason to sit back and do nothing.

Published in Portuguese language in today's Diário de Notícias. 26/09/2025

Sobre a Assembleia Geral da ONU, com uma referência ao Sul Global e ao monólogo de Trump

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

O meu texto de opinião no Diário de Notícias de hoje 26/09/2025.

https://lnkd.in/e-yi3Ybt

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.

Brazil´s politics might get closer to the Venezuela´s model

Two days later, the situation I described in the previous post about the Brazilian crisis has reached a new level of political immorality. Lula da Silva has indeed been sworn in as super minister, some kind of premiership equivalent position, just to see his appointment cancelled by a federal court. That judicial decision has further weakened President Dilma Rousseff´s standing as well. Her credibility got a new serious blow.

The crisis is now so deep that it will be very difficult for Dilma to keep the presidency for much longer. But she will not go without a real fight. Dilma wants to bring the issue to the streets and have one side of the population confronting the other side. That will give her some grounds to say that if she goes there will be civil unrest. She will try to grasp that last straw. But the problem is more complex. Brazil is deeply divided, the political actors have no moral authority and we can expect extreme manifestations of discontent. In some sense, Brazil could become a lighter copy of the chaos that is occurring in Venezuela. 

Brazil: moving fast in the wrong direction

The political crisis in Brazil is deteriorating fast. President Dilma Rousseff´s decision to appoint former head of State Lula da Silva as a senior Cabinet minister has contributed to a new level of malaise. People cannot understand this attempt to extract Lula from a regular judicial scrutiny.

And there are new revelations about corruption within the inner circle of power.

The pursuit of the impeachment process is now more likely. And we can also expect some additional desperate moves from Dilma´s side.

All this will bring additional deep fractures among Brazilians and further economic difficulties. The country will be in a very bad shape at a time it should be at its best to host the Olympic Games. But that´s only a lesser detail. The true challenge will be to repair the great damage that all this corruption will cause to Brazil´s self-respect and its international image.