Diplomacy today: the art of deception?

The Diplomacy of Deception: War and Cynicism in the Easter Season

Victor Angelo

We enter this Judeo-Christian Easter period with a world marked by instability, prolonged violence, and a disturbing normalisation of war. From Ukraine to the Middle East, and including Iran, conflicts are accumulating that expose not only the marginalisation of traditional diplomacy but also a growing cynicism in international relations. Instead of the pursuit of peace, we are witnessing the instrumentalisation of diplomacy as a Trojan horse for force and aggression, a systematic contempt for International Law, and the accelerated erosion of the multilateral order built after 1945.

Regardless, this is one of those times of year that demands we speak even louder, and with total courage, about the importance of peace and ethics in politics and life.

In the case of Lebanon, the answer is clear: the violence and the gravest humanitarian crisis the country faces have no end in sight. Benjamin Netanyahu's government is betting on war and the destruction of the forces it classifies as enemies. His government's actions also have a very negative impact on the international image and the future of Israel—something that, it seems to me, does not receive due attention. The Israeli people are held captive by a coalition of extremist fanatics who manipulate the country's public opinion and use racism, the illusion of an ethno-religious belief, and fear as instruments to consolidate power.

Netanyahu disregards international norms and United Nations resolutions. His political decisions and the resulting military campaigns will one day be judged in the international courts based in The Hague. Meanwhile, the European Union (EU) has a moral obligation to condemn the policies of Netanyahu's government and to maintain a diplomatic distance from that regime.

This should, in fact, be the EU’s diplomatic practice when dealing with regimes that do not respect International Law. This is called soft power: a coherent position in the face of global or regional challenges, based on principles established as International Law over decades. The EU's geopolitical strength must lie in an unambiguous diplomacy, free from indecision or opportunism. To be seen by the rest of the world as a Union that follows an international policy based on convenience—in the vein of double standards—might be considered by many as political realism. But that type of realism leads to the disregard for Human Rights and to the crises currently crushing the Middle East and other parts of the world. Geopolitical realism is a historical step backwards.

The warlords practise the diplomacy of deception. It is an error to classify this practice as the diplomacy of chaos and improvisation. The politicians behind the aggressions against Ukraine, Iran, the rest of the Middle East, and other regions, pretend to be ready to negotiate. However, they follow a deliberate strategy of disruption. They know what they are doing. Diplomacy masks bellicose intent. There may be a good measure of historical ignorance and miscalculation, but the primary explanation for their decisions lies in the return to the old idea of "gunboat diplomacy" as the engine of international relations.

The war of aggression against Iran, which has political and economic consequences reaching far beyond the collapse of the Middle East, showed that traditional diplomacy—based on treaties, protocols, and predictability—has ceased to matter to leaders like Donald Trump. It has been this way since 2014 and, on a large scale, since 2022 with Vladimir Putin.

The diplomatic initiatives that pretend to be underway hide a preference for the theory of shock and confrontation, and an imperial Diktat philosophy inspired by the 19th-century world and the reality experienced until the end of the Second World War. The ruse involves keeping adversaries and allies in a climate of constant pressure and uncertainty, acting on the basis of surprise. It is not about improvising, but rather about surprising in order to attempt to dominate.

Surprise causes institutional paralysis, namely at the level of multilateral systems and diplomatic alliances. In reality, in Trump's case, it endangers the continuity of the UN's political dimension and the credibility of NATO. Within these and other multilateral institutional frameworks, trust disappears—which is the foundation of effective diplomacy—and with the loss of trust, the future of these institutions enters a phase of absolute uncertainty. I believe it is naive not to see this danger.

What should the response of European States be? Subtly clear. It must be based, concretely, on firmness and diplomatic distancing while continuing to insist on the value of alliances, which must not compromise multilateral cooperation. European leaders must also stress that it is vital to bring an end, without further delay, to the armed aggressions currently underway. Moreover, Europe needs to understand that an unpredictable international reality based on subordination to a problematic ally favours the political centrality of other States—in this case, China.

China seeks to be seen as a bulwark of stability and the sturdiest pillar of multilateralism. The big question, besides it being an authoritarian power, is whether the Chinese economy can sustain this global leadership role that is falling into its lap.

In any case, Europe cannot afford to lose out in this competition for centrality. Any imbalance that favours a superpower, even one as apparently predictable as China, contains, in the long run, a great risk of conflict.

This Easter, the message I dare to address to European leaders is summarised as follows: it is fundamental to resurrect. 

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.

Today's Iran: and tomorrow?

 

The Rubicon is Crossed: From the "Farsa" of Geneva to the Fire of the Gulf

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

 

When I wrote in these pages yesterday that the clock for an intervention in Iran was measured in "hours or days," I did so with the heavy heart of someone who has spent several years trying to prevent precisely this kind of diplomatic bankruptcy. Today, as the first reports of explosions in Isfahan and near the Strait of Hormuz confirm that the "Sentinel’s Wrath" (or whatever branding the White House chooses for this tragedy) is underway, the "Cantinflas" theatre has officially closed. The masks are off, and the stage is now set for a conflict of unpredictable proportions. 

The collapse of the Geneva talks—which I previously described as a "farsa"—was the final signal. Sending real estate investors to discuss nuclear enrichment with a millenary power was not an act of naivety; it was a deliberate provocation designed to fail. Their message was an ultimatum. 

By presenting the Iranians with an ultimatum disguised as a "deal," Washington ensured that the path to war was paved with a veneer of "having tried diplomacy." As I warned, it was a crass error to underestimate the pride of Tehran, but perhaps the greater error was believing that this administration ever intended for those talks to succeed. 

The immediate implications are now twofold. First, we face the inevitable economic blowback. The Strait of Hormuz is not just a geographical feature; it is the jugular vein of the global energy market. Any Iranian retaliation there—which their doctrine of "asymmetric response" practically guarantees and it is now closed—will send oil prices into a spiral that will make the inflationary crises of 2025 look like a minor market correction. The "triunfalismo" of the White House may soon be dampened by the reality of ten-dollar-a-gallon petrol. 

Second, we are witnessing the final decapitation of the Rules-Based Order. By bypassing the UN Security Council and ignoring the "patient persistence" that Gorbachev, Reagan and Kofi Annan once championed, the superpowers have effectively declared that International Law is a relic of a dead century. We have entered the era of "Transactional War," where the strongest decides the "deal," and the weakest pays the price in blood and sovereignty. 

The regime in Tehran is now at its most dangerous. While it is true that many Iranians yearn for an end to the theocratic dictatorship, history teaches us that foreign bombs rarely foster internal revolution; they more often unify a nation under the flag of "divine protection." 

We are no longer debating whether a "deal" is possible. We are now in a race to see if the world can contain a fire that was started by people who believe the globe can be managed like a luxury hotel chain. Churchill believed in the power of summits; today, we are left only with the power of the bunker.

Fiber Optic Communications Cables in a very sensitive region

 

Palestina: a entrevista em podcast que dei ao Expresso

O meu podcast publicado no Expresso e reproduzido nos orgãos de comunicação social da Impresa, sobre o reconhecimento da Palestina.

https://expresso.pt/podcasts/o-mundo-a-seus-pes/2025-09-22-reconhecimento-da-palestina-e-fundamental-mostra-claramente-oposicao-a-politica-seguida-por-israel-a49db9fc

Trump, Davos and a changing world

 https://www.dn.pt/opiniao/trump-davos-e-o-mundo-real

Trump, Davos and the Real World

Victor Angelo

Much of political activity is spectacle, and the best charlatans often win the most coveted prizes. This was a week rich in such matters.

It started with the inauguration of Donald Trump and the avalanche of measures he immediately took. As the days went by, they filled the most visible space in the media. The repercussions of his election were a recurring theme, both in the press and in the most varied political meetings. On Tuesday, there was even room for a long audiovisual performance between the presidents of the Russian Federation and China. Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping wanted to remind everyone that they have a special relationship, when it comes to competition with the US.

It was, however, an ambiguous message. Trump had invited the Chinese leader to the inauguration ceremony, thus showing who weighs on his international agenda, in addition to half a dozen crazy extremists or close friends of his current pet squire and sidekick, Elon Musk. On the other hand, during the week and without much commitment, in a sort of aside, Trump criticized Putin for not being interested in opening a peace process with Ukraine.

Trump is particularly interested in the relationship with China, considering it the real rival of the US. And he sees the competition as a question of economics and political influence, of world leadership, and not so much as a question of defense, as he does not believe that Beijing will one day be able to surpass American military power. Careful observation of certain indicators leads me to conclude this, as well as that his objectives include undermining the alliance between Putin and Xi and preventing the formation of a hostile pact in the Global South. In fact, one of the threats he made in recent days was against the BRICS. It seems clear that he will do everything to prevent such an understanding, that type of organisation.

His inaugural address can also be seen as a particularly important message for Xi: if China were to take military action against Taiwan, the current administration in Washington could view such aggression as none of its business, just as a Chinese internal affair, and therefore would not intervene. Trump has made it clear that he has no intention of engaging in any wars other than those directly directed against American interests. The Taiwan question, in the American president's mercantilist philosophy, does not present the same dangers that possible attacks against Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Vietnam, Southeast Asia or certain islands in the Western Pacific would represent.

In citing the Asian priority, Trump and those in his orbit seem to have those countries in mind above all, as well as freedom of navigation in the seas surrounding China and in the Indian Ocean. In one case, to hinder Chinese expansion and gain access to waters close to North Korea. In another, because the Indian Ocean allows the US Navy to easily target the Middle East and Iran. The concentration of a significant maritime force in the Indian Ocean and the vast presence in the Diego Garcia atoll allow the US to be present in the region that can seriously threaten Israel and defend the production and trade of oil and gas from countries that are fundamental to the stability of the Middle East. East, without the Americans needing to have troops on the ground.

India's stability is an equally paramount factor. Trump seems to be paying no attention to this evidence. Many of those in Davos for the annual meeting of the Economic Forum, the other major political event of the week, felt that India is increasingly becoming one of the world's major economic players. It does not have, nor will it have in the coming years, the necessary capacity to be a serious rival to China or the USA, as it lacks national unity and a strong central power, but it does have the ingenuity, the creative ability, the population size, a diaspora of scientists and a geographic location that work strongly in its favor. The European Union should pay special attention to its relationship with India. For all these reasons and also to reduce the relative weight of the US and China in the European economy and international alliances.

Interestingly, in the same week in Davos we had the great annual mass celebrating multilateralism and globalization, and in Washington, the solemn enthronement of its opposite. Davos returned to focus on major global issues and the need for international cooperation. Although in most cases it is just an opportunity for good conversations and to renew contacts, drink champagne and taste caviar, this year it had the merit of highlighting that there is more to the world beyond the megalomania of Donald Trump, Elon Musk and other multibillionaire limpets.

To start the New Year: reflections about ongoing conflicts

 

2024 is a crucial year, demanding courage and responses to match
Victor Ângelo

 

I spent decades leading United Nations political, peace and development missions. It was at the UN that I grew professionally and learned how to resolve conflicts, some quite serious, in which death and pain lurked behind every dune, tree or rock. I thus gained a broader view of the international system and the way in which the relationship with the Security Council should be carried out. Then, for years, I worked as a civilian mentor at NATO, preparing future heads of military operations, repeatedly highlighting the need to obtain the support of populations and humanitarian organizations in these operations.

Experience taught me the paramount importance that must be given to safeguarding people's lives. When I addressed generals, police force commanders and UN security agents, the priority was to emphasize the value of life. That of ours, who were part of the mission, as well as protecting the lives of others, simple citizens, whether or not suspected of collaborating with the insurgents, and even the lives of enemies.

Nothing can be resolved in a sustainable way if there is not deep respect for the civilian populations living on either side of the barricades, if others are treated as worthless people, to whom access to vital goods, such as mere animals, can be cut off. to slaughter without mercy or mercy. Killing does not resolve any conflict. For every death today, new fighters emerge tomorrow, with even stronger feelings of revenge. The fundamental thing is to create the conditions for peace, open the doors to negotiations and understanding. A retaliatory war is a mistake. It is a retaliatory response, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, inspired by an ancient legal order. Or, in a more current hypothesis, it is a war directed by political leaders who lack common sense and foresight.

I also had in mind, in my guidelines, the wisdom of the brilliant Charlie Chaplin, in the moving character of the clown Calvero. In his film Highlights (1952), Chaplin at one point makes the clown Calvero say that “life is a beautiful, magnificent thing, even for a jellyfish”. Yes, even for a jellyfish, a gelatinous invertebrate for whom few will have any sympathy. I have always thought that this phrase, so simple, should occupy a top place in our way of facing conflicts. Politics only makes sense when it allows everyone to live in freedom and safety.

One of the great challenges of 2024 is to be able to explain this understanding to the medusa, the life and work of the United Nations in a language that certain leaders are able or forced to understand. How can we say this in the perverse and sophistry patois that is said in the Kremlin? How can we express this wisdom in progressive Hebrew or Arabic with accents of peace? How can we make the speech of reconciliation heard by people responsible for conflicts in other regions of the world, taking into account that 2023 was a year of acceleration in multiple expressions of hatred and radicalism?

We have two issues here that will need to be clarified and resolved as quickly as possible.

First, anyone who doesn't understand Charlie Chaplin and the value of life should not be at the head of a nation. The place of war criminals is in The Hague or before a special court created for that purpose, as happened in Yugoslavia or Rwanda. I say this, and I emphasize it, so that there is no doubt, in my capacity as someone who was at the forefront of the founding of the Arusha Court, in Tanzania, established to judge those mainly responsible for the genocide that took place in Rwanda in 1994. The precedents exist and those responsible for the massacres in Ukraine and the Middle East know them. As criminals always fantasize, they may even think that they will escape these trials. At the speed at which things are changing, they should not be calm.

Second, the Secretary-General of the United Nations must go far beyond humanitarian issues. Humanitarian assistance is essential, without a doubt, and cannot be forgotten. But this is something short-term and precarious, as there are many situations of need, tragedies are enormous in various parts of the world, and resources are always scarce. The UN Charter is above all about political solutions. The Secretary-General must maintain tireless dialogue with the parties and present without further delay a peace plan for Ukraine and another for Palestine. Plans that address the roots of the problems, that are based on international law and that courageously point out the political steps that the Security Council must consider.

We have to rise to the very serious challenges that lie ahead, in what has everything to be a crucial year in contemporary history.

Published in Portuguese in today's edition of Diário de Notícias, Lisbon, 5 January 2024. 

Security Council Resolution 2720 on Gaza and its tragedy

 1.        The UN System, under the leadership of the SG, is fast moving to be ready to implement SC res. 2720. This should be acknowledged.

2.        The Israeli government is ignoring the resolution and expanding the military aggression. The SC should draft a new resolution to impose sanctions on key Israeli leaders, in view of their disregard of res. 2720.

3.        This is not just about averting “a greater catastrophe and uphold dignity”. It is also about full respect for international law and the SC’s decisions. The Israeli behaviour violates international law and must be dealt with as such as well.

4.        The peace in the region is about to unravel. This should be mentioned as a major concern.

5.        Hamas leaders must also be prosecuted.

6.       The call for a total and immediate ceasefire must be loud, clear, and express a strong sense of urgency.

7.       Special responsibility lies with the UNSC. We must bring the UNSC back to the centre of key peace processes. Its members, particularly the P5, must show they can force the parties to implement a resolution like the 2720. Enforcement must become a very central priority for the SC.

8.        The humanitarian response should go together with the launching of a political process.

9.        The sovereign rights of the Israeli and Palestinian peoples are unquestionable.

Writing about Iran

Iran: the next day

Victor Angelo

 

 

In 2018, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh became known when Benjamin Netanyahu accused him of being the scientist at the head of the Iranian nuclear programme. Fakhrizadeh was murdered on the outskirts of Tehran a week ago. There are contradictory accounts of the crime. What is certain is that the ambush was conducted by a reasonable number of agents, at least ten of them, and in a professional way - the wife, who was travelling with him, came out of it unharmed, she was not part of the objective. I have no doubt that the ambush was carried out by special forces, with perfectly trained executioners, who had at their disposal the information, logistics and means necessary for a high-risk mission. It is peaceful to conclude that it was not the work of the internal Iranian opposition. It had all the characteristics of an operation planned, organised, and carried out by a state hostile to Iran. And I cannot help but think of the regime's three main enemies: Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Donald Trump's United States.

Those who know these things point in the direction of Israel. It is true that the secret services of that country, in particular the legendary Mossad, have already demonstrated an incomparably greater ability to penetrate Iranian official circles than any other espionage service. One example of this ability, with the trial of the indicted currently taking place in Antwerp, is the following: it was Mossad that made known to the Belgian authorities the terrorist attack the Iranian government was plotting in 2018 against the National Council of Iranian Resistance in exile. The European intelligence services where the plot was being prepared - the Belgians, the French, and the Austrians - had not noticed anything. 

Israel can never admit the slightest hint of responsibility for murders of this kind. Such an admission would open the door to prosecution in the International Court of Justice in The Hague or in the jurisdiction of a United Nations member country. International law is clear. An extraterritorial, summary, and arbitrary execution, promoted by a State outside a situation of armed conflict is a crime which violates international human rights law, the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the 1977 Additional Protocols. Moreover, the United Nations Charter expressly prohibits the extraterritorial use of force in times of peace.

For all these reasons, the paternity of what has now happened to Fakhrizadeh will remain unknown for the time being. We will have to be contented with the suspicions.

The assassination has shown that the Iranian system of internal espionage and counterespionage, which terrifies the population, has very serious flaws. The powerful Ministry of Intelligence is more concerned with the repression of the growing internal opposition than it is prepared to identify the most sophisticated threats from outside. This is not new. In early July, for example, the security services were unable to prevent an explosion at the Natanz nuclear power plant, nor were they able to avert the sabotage of missile-making programmes. All these actions were handled by a foreign country.  

A fundamental issue is to try to understand the central motive for the assassination. What seems more obvious, which would be to strike a major blow capable of further delaying the regime's nuclear programme, makes no sense. The country already has several teams of scientists capable of enriching uranium. The attack on Natanz and the sabotage have already delayed the plans. The real reason must be different.

If we look upstream, we will see that the Israeli government is on the brink of collapse and that Netanyahu will need convincing campaign arguments again. The presumption of a strong hand against the ayatollahs will certainly bring a good number of votes. Looking further ahead, we see that the new Biden administration is in favour of reopening a negotiating process with Tehran. This would be more difficult if the clerics responded to what happened to Fakhrizadeh in a violent manner. The old leaders of Iran are fanatical and backward. But they are astute in international politics. They must look at the assassination as an attempt at political provocation. And they know that waiting patiently for Joe Biden to take office may be the best response to the challenge they were given days ago.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published today in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper)