The forthcoming UN General Assembly

 1. The UN and the General Assembly: Between Symbolism and Effectiveness

• Vote on Palestine: The General Assembly’s vote on recognizing Palestine as a full UN member state is symbolic and non-binding. Full admission requires Security Council approval, where the US holds veto power. The denial of a visa to Mahmoud Abbas clearly signals Washington’s unconditional alignment with Israel and the weaponization of the UN for foreign policy ends.
• Israel’s Isolation: If the vote significantly increases the number of countries recognizing Palestine, Israel will become even more diplomatically isolated—except for US support and a few allies.

---

2. The Veto Power and UN Reform

• US Veto Threat: The US threat to veto in the Security Council highlights how the current system allows a single country to block the will of the majority. This reinforces criticism that the veto is a “historical aberration” needing revision, especially in a multipolar world.
• Reform (UN80): António Guterres launched a reform plan (UN80), but without support from major powers (US, China) and meaningful dialogue with UN staff, real change is unlikely. The priority should be holding member states financially accountable, but political will is lacking.

---

3. The US and Trump’s Stance

• Disdain for the UN: Trump views the UN as a stage for his ego, not a forum for multilateral cooperation. The absence of a confirmed permanent representative and reduced financial contributions reflect US disinterest—or even hostility—toward the organization.
• Selective Vision: The US wants a UN focused only on peace and security, but on its own terms. Development, human rights, and the environment are left to others (Europeans, Chinese), weakening the UN’s ability to act holistically.

---

4. China and the Global South

• Chinese Alternative: China is building an alternative political and economic order, allied with the Global South, focused on development and national sovereignty. For Beijing, human rights are a domestic issue, not a multilateral one, further undermining the UN’s ability to promote a universal human rights agenda.

---

5. The Future of the UN

• Marginalization Risk: The UN risks marginalization in its three pillars (stability, development, human rights), especially if major powers continue to ignore its rules and use the organization only when convenient.
• Sign of the Times: The upcoming General Assembly session will be a crucial indicator of whether the UN can remain relevant or will become a forum for empty rhetoric and bloc confrontation.

---

Final Reflection

The UN was created to foster cooperation and peaceful conflict resolution, but today it is hostage to great power rivalries. Its credibility and effectiveness depend on reforming the veto system, holding member states accountable, and balancing national sovereignty with global governance.

This text is a summary of a longer text I published today 19/09/2025 in Diário de Notícias (Lisbon)

Gaza and the international law

The future of Gaza is called Palestine

Victor Angelo

I understand all the concerns and questions about the future of Gaza. I also realize that, in recent days, some confusion has arisen about the new format of its government, once the current situation of destruction and massacres has ended. I have been receiving a flood of calls and inquiries on this matter. But the answer is simple, from the point of view of international practice and the right that each people has to decide on their independence and their form of governance, as long as they respect the Charter of the United Nations and all other norms that regulate international relations.

The territory, even in the state of destruction in which it finds itself, after around fifteen months of systematic bombings, war crimes and a condemnable humanitarian siege, is an integral part of Palestine. International law is very clear on the matter. And there cannot be a so-called “two-state” solution, one Israeli and one Palestinian, if the Gaza Strip is not integrated into Palestinian sovereignty. It is not easy to achieve, we are still very far from a peaceful solution, but there is no room for doubt on the issue. The community of nations has stated on several occasions that the future will only be possible if it manages to establish a Palestinian country that can live in peace with Israel and that is viable.

The population of the Strip has its family and historical roots in the territory. They cannot be forced to abandon Gaza and go live on the periphery of the lives of neighboring peoples, be they Egyptians or Jordanians. Or any others. This is what happened to multitudes of Palestinians in 1948 and from then on until today. It did nothing to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Furthermore, it transferred a whole series of challenges, difficulties and situations of misery to neighboring countries. One of the nations that has suffered most from successive waves of expulsions of Palestinians from their ancestral lands has been Lebanon. In the mid-20th century it was referred to as the “Riviera of the Middle East”, to use an expression that was in vogue this week. Now, Lebanon is a country in deep crisis, both internally and in its relations with Israel and many Palestinian refugees.

Europe and states that respect international norms must be more assertive when it comes to the Middle East. Starting with the question of Palestine. Anyone who takes these things seriously, without fear and with dignity, knows what it means to be more assertive. Furthermore, we must move away from a logic of hostility and conflict between the peoples of the region. And to enforce the decisions of the UN Security Council, the International Court of Justice and respect the mandates of the International Criminal Court. This is the world we aspire to, and it must first apply to Palestine, including the Gaza Strip. We do not want to return to the Middle Ages or resurrect Hitler or Stalin.

Maintaining and enforcing the current ceasefire is the first step. Unfortunately, I don't think it will last, hearing the comments in Washington from Benjamin Netanyahu. But let's hope so. Therefore, to establish real and lasting peace, it will be necessary to design a plan that allows Gaza to be reconstructed, compensate its population and integrate it into a Palestinian state. The Palestinian Authority must be encouraged to seriously reform and strengthen itself. It has to become an administration capable of managing a State, far beyond an amalgamation of militants. Illegal settlements must be expropriated and transferred to Palestinian ownership. The order and creation of a legitimate central authority recognized by the Palestinians and the United Nations are fundamental and urgent issues. We need a plan that is acceptable to everyone. It is up to the international community, and not just the European Union or one or another State, to encourage, help and work in this direction. And we should draw on the expertise of UNRWA, the UN’s trusted and highly specialized programme.

This has been, for eight decades, the greatest challenge for the United Nations Security Council. The Council must agree on a solution. Otherwise, the political pillar of the UN will not be able to safeguard what little remains of its reputation and will eventually cease to have any reason to exist. In other words, the Council is about to become just a formal body, powerless in an increasingly complicated, divided and chaotic world. A world given over to the excesses of those in charge of two or three superpowers.

Are we getting closer to a big war?

The world smells dangerously like gunpowder 

Victor Angelo

The Munich Security Conference, an annual event now celebrating its 60th edition, begins today and runs until Sunday. As has become customary, it is a high-level meeting. This time, it will feature the participation of around 50 Heads of State and Government, another hundred ministers and a good number of leaders of international organizations, academics, thinkers and journalists of international importance.

The report that serves as the basis for this year's conference makes a diagnosis of the main ongoing conflicts and, in summary, suggests two conclusions. First, geopolitical competition continues to worsen, now reaching a level of intensity and complexity unprecedented since the creation of the United Nations. Second, the reestablishment of international cooperation must be seen as an absolute priority. Only in this way will it be possible to resolve the most dangerous challenges, which in reality know no borders and have an impact that cannot be ignored. It is a positive recommendation, in a report that is, in essence, pessimistic.

When reflecting on 2024, the rapporteurs particularly draw attention to the growing risks in four regions of the globe. We are told that the international scene has more fires than firefighters, that there is an accumulation of serious crises to be resolved and an international system that is no longer respected. It's a clear question: instead of all of us winning, would we all rather lose?

One of these regions is Eastern Europe. The geopolitical vision that prevails in the Kremlin is a threat that must be taken seriously. It consists of increasing arrogance and aggressiveness, based on ancient practices of first inventing conflicts with neighbors seen as rivals, and then trying to resolve them with swordplay. My reading of this region is familiar: either Russia withdraws and recognizes the sovereignty of Ukraine, or what is now happening in that country will end up spreading to others in the region. A crisis of this kind would bring immense problems to the unity of NATO and the major countries of the Western world. In democratic contexts, these alliances are more fragile than they might seem.

In the Middle East, that's a powder keg. It is a region of great fractures, where xenophobia and the absurdity of decisions taken in the 20th century are added to cultural and religious hatred, and a multiplicity of borders that do not respect historical identities and give way to nations without homogeneity and without resources, to in addition to oil and gas.

What is conventionally called the Indo-Pacific is another problematic area. It demands increasing attention, as it could be the theater of a major conflict surrounding the issue of Taiwan and beyond. Xi Jinping has just been reappointed for the third time as leader of the single party and as President of China, for new five-year terms. At the end of these terms, he will be 74 years old and no one knows if the conditions will exist for him to be re-elected again. Now, in my opinion, Xi wants to go down in history as the leader who managed to subdue the Taiwanese rebellion. If that is indeed his ultimate ambition, it is very likely that military action against Taiwan will take place before 2027. And if Trump is in the White House, distracted by pursuing his internal adversaries, starting with the Biden family, Xi could conclude that The time has come to step forward and inscribe your name at the top of the list of heroes of communist China.

The Sahel forms the fourth region of deep insecurity. At the moment, the list of absolutely unsafe countries includes Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger. It must also include Sudan, which is plunged into a merciless civil war and a humanitarian crisis of unimaginable proportions. But Sudan has been excluded from media headlines in an unacceptable way. The crises in the Sahel have all the conditions to spread, as is already happening on a large scale in Nigeria and now in Senegal, due to the political confusion created by the president. In the same Senegal that had always been considered an example of stability and democracy.

Three other major themes are also discussed in this year's report: the growing disparities and economic rivalries between different blocs around the world, including with regard to what could happen with the development of the BRICS; the consequences of climate change on international relations, including migration; and the impact of the technological and digital revolution.

The report describes a world evolving in a worrying direction. And it would be even worse if the spectre that roams the corridors of Munich, silently, were re-elected in November, as no one likes to talk about evil spirits. But November is still a long way away and until then anything can happen.

A.I: translation of my opinion text published on 16 February 2024 in the Lisbon daily newspaper Diário de Notícias. 

Vladimir Putin' s rhetoric about the Third World War

My opinion column of this week, published on 9 Feb in Diário de Notícias, Lisbon, in Portuguese language. This is an Artificial Intelligence translation on my text, thanks to Google Translate. 

Fight against foolishness or open the doors to populist danger?

Victor Angelo

The bellicose rhetoric of Vladimir Putin and his acolytes against NATO and the European Union has worsened as we approach the Russian presidential election, scheduled for March 15th to 17th. Experience teaches us that there are no reasons for surprises. It is a common tactic of dictatorships. The political narrative of these regimes seeks to convince voters of two deceptions: that the danger coming from the “external enemy”, so designated even though it is not in fact an enemy nor is it actually preparing for armed intervention, is now more serious and imminent; and that only the re-election of the absolute leader, with an overwhelming percentage of votes, will be able to prevent the enemy from launching the alleged aggression, invented by the dictator's lying propaganda. That's why we now hear talk in Moscow about the possibility of a third world war, a topic that is part of the frequent interventions of Putin's most famous court jester, the vice-president of the Russian Security Council, Dmitry Medvedev.

In my opinion, Putin and his people do not want to enter into an open and widespread war with NATO. Rather, they intend to maintain control of political power in their country and transform the fierce aggression against Ukraine into what could be seen by the international community as a Russian military victory. In concrete terms, it is about seizing a significant part of Ukrainian territory and imposing an armistice entirely based on the political conditions defined by the Kremlin. In this way, they would reinforce their image as a great power in the international context. This is one of Putin's biggest concerns, showing an unbeatable Russia, in the champions league and capable of dictating its political will on the international stage. They would feel safer not only in relation to the West, but also in relation to China. The alliance with China is seen, by influential ideologues of Putin's ultranationalist regime, as a double-edged sword. Political friendship and cooperation with an extremely vast, populous neighbouring country with thousands of kilometres of common border hides, at the same time, the roots of a rivalry that could degenerate into a major conflict. This is why Russia needs to show military muscle, West and East.

On the European side, as I always insist, it would be a mistake to leave half-hearted aid to Ukraine in the legitimate defence of its sovereignty. The combination of economic, diplomatic, informational and military means is essential to convince the Kremlin to put an end to the invasion that began in 2014. Those who do not understand this fact and the need for an integrated strategy, which combines the four vectors mentioned in the previous sentence , is creating the conditions for, sooner or later, a series of oppressive governments to emerge in Europe, inspired by what is happening in Russia. We would then have a Europe that would be a very dangerous chessboard of replicas of Hungary.

It would also be a mistake not to prepare our geopolitical space for an armed confrontation with Russia. Whoever wants peace prepares for war, as it was said in ancient Rome. And although it can be recognized, as I do in this text, that Putin does not deep down want to start a war with our part of Europe, that possibility exists.

We need to speak frankly. We are, as has not been the case for a long time, in a complex and dangerous situation. We cannot accept either populism or a lack of ethics in international relations.

Populism lies, and only leads to confusion. It fails to understand what should be a priority in order to respond only to vote hunting and polls. Populist leaders, on the left and on the right, promise the impossible, spend resources on unsustainable policies, create debts that future generations will have to resolve and ignore that security and defence are indispensable for safeguarding democracy. They don't have the courage to tell the truth and explain that there are moments in history when sacrifices have to be made. Populists are narcissists and born dictators disguised as friends of the people.

Disregard for values prevents international alliances from functioning. Cooperation is replaced by chaos. Countries lose their credibility and principles are no longer the standards for resolving conflicts. The ethical references that have been built over decades are forgotten. The defenders of opportunism, which they call political realism, regain the stages they had lost.

  In the European case, international law is rightly defended when it comes to Ukraine. At the same time and in an incomprehensible way, ambiguity and laxity are expressed when it comes to the inhumanity that is occurring in Palestine. This foolishness makes us lose allies, which are very necessary, and has, in the long run, a very high cost.

European leadership and their incoherence

Artificial Intelligence translation of my opinion column dated 2 Feb. 2024 and published in Lisbon in Diário de Notícias

From Ukraine to Gaza: where is European coherence?

Victor Angelo

With exceptions, politics is a world inhabited by opportunists. Five hundred years ago, Niccolò Machiavelli entered the history of modern political science when he wrote on the subject, placing emphasis on the word cynicism. But the practice came from antiquity and continues today, in governments, parties and the ability to manipulate citizens' opinions. Ethics, that is, respect for principles, for the common interest, for contemporaries and for future generations, is a word that makes many people in politics laugh, covertly. For these, the only thing that counts is their personal benefit, guaranteed by maintaining power thanks to a political clientele.

In the case of the EU, Viktor Orbán repeatedly reminds us of this truth. It is the worst example of a European leader. Orbán plays with a double-edged stick: on the one hand, to show that he belongs to the club of democracies, as a member of the EU, and, on the other, to make the most of the available funds. The staff he leans on is called Vladimir Putin. This allows him to spend the money coming from Brussels without serious controls and to govern without respect for democratic rules and in a corrupt manner. The counterpart that gives him strength is to complicate European politics in a way that pleases his friend of convenience, the master of Russia. This explains why Hungary continues to not approve Sweden's accession to NATO. There is no other reason than to do Putin a favour. And that is also why, until yesterday, it prevented financial aid to Ukraine — 50 billion euros. This amount is essential to keep Ukraine afloat over the next four years. Hungary has also opposed the creation of another European fund for military cooperation.

All this serves the interests of Russian imperialism. It contributes to the weakening of Ukraine and aims, in the long term, at the disintegration of the EU. Now, Russia is currently the main threat to peace in Europe. It is a hostile country, an enemy in the style of the past. As long as it maintains this behaviour, Russia must be treated as such, without hesitation. Orbán, when he behaves like a de facto ally of Putin, is betraying European interests.

It's time to call things by their names. Years ago, at a European summit, Jean-Claude Juncker patted Orbán on the back and joked, calling him a dictator. Today, he could perhaps add the word traitor.

However, at the "H" time when it is essential to guarantee Ukraine's future, we see the US handcuffed for months on end. The country is deeply fractured, internally, from a political and social point of view, and faces a number of foreign policy problems that disperse its intervention capabilities and confuse the order of priorities. It's the southern border. The problematic alignment with Israel. The obsession with Iran. The suicidal competition with China. The fear of North Korean madness. Putin's unpredictability. And now, the specter of Trump. All of this gives rise to two major conclusions. Europe, that is, NATO on this side of the Atlantic, cannot rely on US assistance in the event of a conflict in Europe. And Ukraine must seek to establish bilateral alliances with European and other countries as it continues its response to the Russian invasion. These alliances must above all be established with nations neighbouring or close to Russia. These are states that sooner or later could come into the Russians' sights, if Ukraine were unable to resist the Kremlin's aggression.

Europeans must step up support for Ukraine. Approving financial assistance for the next four years is an excellent step. Regarding the Ukrainian crisis, Europe has adopted the most appropriate positions. The same cannot be said with regard to Israel. There has been, on the part of the major European nations, an incoherent attitude towards the drama in Gaza. They swallow everything that Benjamin Netanyahu serves them on a plate. When the Prime Minister of Israel wanted to forget, last week, the preliminary orders of the International Court of Justice, which were clearly addressed to the Israeli government, he spoke of the 12 UNRWA agents who would have participated in the attacks of October 7, in a universe of 13,000 Agency employees in Gaza. He did not present any kind of evidence, nor did he talk about the colossal disproportion between the numbers, nor about the extraordinary work that UNRWA has been doing for 74 years, but his diversion was a masterstroke. And he managed to create an uproar against an organization that has helped millions of Palestinian lives. Several European countries opportunistically took advantage of the wave created by Netanyahu.

Many will think that on the European side, meekness, armchair politics and inconsistency prevail. Or, simply put, the cynicism of those who pretend not to understand what the word ethics means dominates.

Gaza and the International Criminal Court

Articial Intelligence translation of my opinion piece of this week published in Portuguese in daily national newspaper Diário de Notícias (26 JAN 2024)

Gaza: an earthquake in international politics

Victor Angelo

The Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs was in Brussels this week, at the invitation of Josep Borrell. The purpose was to allow the minister to discuss three major issues with his European counterparts: the dramatic situation in which the population of Gaza finds itself, within the framework of the enormous military intervention ordered by Benjamin Netanyahu; the requirements for an immediate ceasefire; and the dimensions and phases of preparing a peace plan.

Borrell was aware of Security Council Resolution 2720 (2023), which approved on December 22 the implementation of humanitarian pauses and the opening of corridors that would allow essential goods for their survival to be delivered to the inhabitants of Gaza. The Security Council had recognized the extreme urgency of humanitarian assistance.

A month later, it is undeniable that the situation continues to worsen. Israel reveals absolute disrespect for the Security Council. Controls became even tighter. The hundreds of humanitarian trucks that should enter Gaza daily are faced with a tragically different reality. Borrell mentioned that the average would be around eighty trucks a day. Calls for “humanitarian pauses” have been met with an intensification of military operations and the continuation of attacks against civilian targets, including UN installations, which prefigure war crimes. Resolution 2720 has been simply ignored, despite its mandatory nature.

Regarding peace, the approach proposed by Europeans would be multidimensional. The first concern would be the creation of a sovereign State of Palestine, capable of peacefully coexisting with the State of Israel. This idea is nothing new. It was approved in 1947 by the United Nations General Assembly (Resolution 181) and reaffirmed in the 1993 Oslo Accords and at the Camp David Summit in the USA in 2000. But it never went beyond paper, with both sides accusing each other for failures.

The international community is firmly committed to this solution – two independent states. This is the only viable, albeit complex, solution that can lead to the construction of a peaceful neighbourhood. It will only happen if there is an unquestionable commitment from interested parties, as well as from countries in the region and the main members of the UN. It needs, above all, Israeli and Palestinian leaders of exceptional vision and calibre.

The current Israeli government does not accept this solution. And contrary to the Palestinian National Authority, there are Palestinian extremists who also do not accept it. This shows that the tragedy that is taking place in Gaza, and to a certain extent in the other occupied Palestinian territories, in the West Bank, can seriously contribute to a radicalization of positions.

The Israeli minister did not understand the message that awaited him in Brussels. He talked nonsense about strange, meaningless things, such as the construction of an artificial island off Gaza and a railway corridor that would connect this territory to the rest of Palestine. In my opinion, it was a way of conveying to Europeans a clear position from the Netanyahu government, for whom the EU is seen as a featherweight.

Borrell responded, at the press conference after the meeting, that Europe has “a moral responsibility”. He spoke of looking for a path to peace. I would respond that the moral responsibility that must weigh on our consciences is not only to fight for peace, but also to ensure that humanitarian laws and the laws of war are respected. And bring individuals suspected of having violated these international rules to the attention of Karim Ahmad Khan, the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC). That's what the ICC is for, to judge political leaders. It is a separate instance from the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which judges conflicts between States, as is now the case of South Africa against Israel and which today issues a first Order on the accusation of genocide. Khan, who is a British citizen, was very active in the case of the accusations against Vladimir Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova. He did what he was expected to do. But he has been as low as a stone in the face of the atrocities committed on October 7th and ever since. The credibility of the ICC is thus called into question.

We live in a time of great dangers and enormous challenges. Anyone who has their eyes open and sees beyond their parish knows that this is the case. Extraordinary times require extraordinary political courage. And serious justice, impartial and expeditious.

Traduction IA de ma chronique d'aujourd'hui publiée dans le Diário de Notícias, Lisboa

 2024 est une année cruciale, qui exige du courage et des réponses à la hauteur

Victor Angelo

J’ai passé des décennies à diriger des missions politiques, de paix et de développement des Nations Unies. C'est à l'ONU que j'ai grandi professionnellement et appris à résoudre des conflits, certains assez graves, dans lesquels la mort et la douleur se cachaient derrière chaque dune, arbre ou rocher. J'ai ainsi acquis une vision plus large du système international et de la manière dont les relations avec le Conseil de sécurité devraient être menées. Puis, pendant des années, j'ai travaillé comme mentor civil à l'OTAN, préparant les futurs chefs d'opérations militaires, soulignant à plusieurs reprises la nécessité d'obtenir le soutien des populations et des organisations humanitaires dans ces opérations.

L'expérience m'a appris l'importance primordiale qu'il faut accorder à la sauvegarde de la vie des personnes. Lorsque je m’adressais aux généraux, aux commandants des forces de police et aux agents de sécurité de l’ONU, la priorité était de souligner la valeur de la vie. Celle des nôtres, qui faisaient partie de la mission, ainsi que celle de protéger la vie des autres, de simples citoyens, soupçonnés ou non de collaboration avec les insurgés, et même la vie des ennemis.

Rien ne peut être résolu de manière durable s'il n'y a pas un profond respect pour les populations civiles vivant de part et d'autre des barricades, si les autres sont traités comme des personnes sans valeur, à qui l'accès à des biens vitaux, comme de simples animaux, peut être coupé. ... à abattre sans pitié ni pitié. Tuer ne résout aucun conflit. Pour chaque mort aujourd’hui, de nouveaux combattants émergent demain, avec un sentiment de vengeance encore plus fort. L’essentiel est de créer les conditions de la paix, d’ouvrir les portes aux négociations et à l’entente. Une guerre de représailles est une erreur. Il s’agit d’une réponse de représailles, œil pour œil, dent pour dent, inspirée d’un ordre juridique ancien. Ou, dans une hypothèse plus actuelle, il s’agit d’une guerre dirigée par des dirigeants politiques manquant de bon sens et de clairvoyance.

J'avais aussi en tête, dans mes lignes directrices, la sagesse du génial Charlie Chaplin, dans le personnage émouvant du clown Calvero. Dans son film Highlights (1952), Chaplin fait dire à un moment donné au clown Calvero que « la vie est une chose belle et magnifique, même pour une méduse ». Oui, même pour une méduse, un invertébré gélatineux pour lequel peu de gens auront de la sympathie. J'ai toujours pensé que cette phrase, si simple, devait occuper une place primordiale dans notre manière d'affronter les conflits. La politique n’a de sens que lorsqu’elle permet à chacun de vivre en liberté et en sécurité.

L’un des grands défis de 2024 est de pouvoir expliquer à la méduse cette compréhension de la vie et de l’œuvre des Nations Unies dans un langage que certains dirigeants sont capables ou forcés de comprendre. Comment peut-on dire cela dans le patois pervers et sophistique qu’on dit au Kremlin ? Comment exprimer cette sagesse en hébreu progressif ou en arabe avec des accents de paix ? Comment faire entendre le discours de réconciliation auprès des responsables de conflits dans d’autres régions du monde, sachant que 2023 a été une année d’accélération des multiples expressions de haine et de radicalisme ?

Nous sommes ici confrontés à deux questions qui devront être clarifiées et résolues le plus rapidement possible.

Premièrement, quiconque ne comprend pas Charlie Chaplin et la valeur de la vie ne devrait pas être à la tête d’une nation. La place des criminels de guerre est à La Haye ou devant un tribunal spécial créé à cet effet, comme cela s'est produit en Yougoslavie ou au Rwanda. Je dis cela, et je le souligne, pour qu'il n'y ait aucun doute, en ma qualité de personne qui a été à l'avant-garde de la fondation du tribunal d'Arusha, en Tanzanie, créé pour juger les principaux responsables du génocide survenu en Rwanda en 1994. Les précédents existent et les responsables des massacres en Ukraine et au Moyen-Orient les connaissent. Comme les criminels fantasment toujours, ils peuvent même penser qu’ils échapperont à ces procès. À la vitesse à laquelle les choses évoluent, ils ne devraient pas rester calmes.

Deuxièmement, le Secrétaire général des Nations Unies doit aller bien au-delà des questions humanitaires. L’aide humanitaire est sans aucun doute essentielle et ne peut être oubliée. Mais il s’agit d’une situation à court terme et précaire, car les situations de besoin sont nombreuses, les tragédies sont énormes dans diverses régions du monde et les ressources sont toujours rares. La Charte des Nations Unies concerne avant tout des solutions politiques. Le Secrétaire général doit entretenir un dialogue inlassable avec les parties et présenter sans plus tarder un plan de paix pour l'Ukraine et un autre pour la Palestine. Des plans qui s’attaquent aux racines des problèmes, qui sont fondés sur le droit international et qui soulignent courageusement les mesures politiques que le Conseil de sécurité doit envisager.

Nous devons relever les très graves défis qui nous attendent, au cours de ce qui s’annonce comme une année cruciale dans l’histoire contemporaine.

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.

Joe Biden and his Middle East mistake

Joe Biden, the Middle East and consistency in politics

Victor Angelo

 

After two days spent in Israel and Palestine, the American President is today in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.  Even having read what Joe Biden wrote in the Washington Post on July 9, to try to justify his voyage, I am one of those who do not agree with the political opportunity of this trip. I see it as a move of mere opportunism.

In the present context of confrontation with Russia, the trip weakens those who use the arguments of respect for international law, democracy and human rights. The Middle East is a maze of problems with no solution in sight. A geopolitical labyrinth where, among others, the United States is also lost. In the region, in addition to the suffering in the countries visited and in occupied Palestine, we still have the inhuman violence of the Syrian regime, with a fratricidal war that has dragged on since 2011, the barbarity of the conflict in Yemen, the chaos in Lebanon, the Iranian threat, the oppression of the Kurdish populations, fundamentalist extremism and the deadly rivalries between Sunnis and Shiites. It is a question of dealing with a powder keg that explodes according to the interests of the different local or international players.

A visit that does not bring any kind of response to the Palestinian question, to the obscurantism and cruelty of the Saudi regime, or to the containment of the Iranian threat, can only be noted in the negative. Biden was in Israel with the November mid-term elections in his country in mind and to please a part of his domestic voter base. And he is in Saudi Arabia to seek to increase oil production in order to contain the price of a barrel. This is also an electoral concern: the cost of petrol, when it comes time to fill up the tank, is a strong political argument in the USA. But it will not be easy to convince the Saudis, who are already adding 400,000 barrels a day more compared to what they were doing in February. Note, moreover, that Saudi daily production is now equivalent to Russian, both occupying (almost ex aequo) second place in the world.

Israel is not comparable to Saudi Arabia. But the systematic violation of the rights of Palestinians is one of the strongest arguments used by those who accuse the US of using a double-edged sword in international relations. The Palestinian cause has for decades been one of the most important thorns in the throat of those who speak of the need to respect the international order and the rights of oppressed peoples. You can't fight for that in the case of Ukraine and turn a blind eye when it comes to the same in Palestine.

Saudi Arabia is a country of contradictions. Modern in technology, medieval in the rights of women, of poor immigrant workers or in the treatment of political opposition. The Crown Prince, Mohammed bin Salman, personifies well these contradictions and the brutality of the regime. He will go down in history for having had opposition journalist Jamal Khashoggi murdered and hacked to pieces in 2018. Joe Biden had said during his election campaign that this crime had turned Saudi Arabia into a pariah state. Today, he will shake hands with the ringleader of the killers and discuss cooperation and oil. The prince will look good in the photo, even more arrogant than usual. The American president, on the other hand, will be more vulnerable.

It is time to repeat that in international politics not everything counts. And to underline once again that believing in principles has a cost. The narrative has to become clearer. Political leadership will only be credible if it is coherent. Spending time thinking about the next elections, political manoeuvring and expedients that vary according to the interests at stake may lead to the re-election of presidents, prime ministers and secretaries-general, but it does not contribute to solving the major problems. The current crises, in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, Sri Lanka, Pakistan or Myanmar, in parts of Africa or Central America, as well as in the field of climate change, nature conservation or food insecurity and the fight against poverty, should teach us to be truthful, responsible and courageous. In these times of great problems, this way of doing politics is the greatest challenge.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 15 July 2022)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Christmas reflection

Peace. Dignity. Equality. Planet.

Victor Angelo

 

On this Christmas Eve, it seems appropriate to recall the current motto of the United Nations: "Peace, dignity and equality on a healthy planet". It is a call for the implementation of policies that place people and nature at the centre of public interventions. It expresses well the wishes that I would like to leave here.

We live in a complex reality, full of real concerns and dangers. The UN itself appears to many to have been weakened and marginalized. In this context, it is easy to lose hope, to confuse realism with pessimism, and to fall into an attitude of every man for himself, each behind his own walls. There is also the temptation to recover the growth that the pandemic caused to be lost with economic programmes based on unsustainable recipes. In other words, without considering the long-term consequences, the excessive debt that will burden future generations, the environmental commitments, and the need to transform the way we live and how we relate to other societies, especially the less developed ones. Electoralism turns democracy into an exercise of political opportunism.

Russian demands and military manoeuvres are the most immediate threat to peace. I wrote about this last week. Since then, Putin's stated conditions - and the language used - have become even more categorical and unacceptable. And military preparations have intensified. We are two days away - 26 December - from the thirtieth anniversary of the demise of the Soviet Union. A historic moment, seen by Putin as the great tragedy of millenarian Russia.  

What are the reasons behind the present Russian escalation?

That is the big question, far beyond the old tape of the narrative about NATO's eastward expansion. The most plausible answer will be to ask heaven and earth, to get a no, and thus create a pretext to annex part of Ukraine. And, at the same time, reaffirm the determination and strength of the Kremlin.

But what is Putin's strategic objective?

Strengthening his control of domestic politics will not be a sufficient explanation, even if we recognise that there is a marked erosion of his popularity. It has been seen: last September's parliamentary elections were a massive exercise in deceit and coercion to hide the extent of popular discontent.

It could then be an attempt to paralyse NATO by dividing it, showing its weaknesses. At the same time, it will send a signal to the Baltic countries. And still, that one does not make policy in the immediate vicinity of Russia without the green light from the Kremlin. 

Whatever the intention, we must insist on peaceful coexistence in Europe. On mutual concessions. As indeed in other parts of the world. In Syria, at war for more than ten years. In Palestine, in the Sahel, in Central Africa, in Ethiopia, in Myanmar, in Yemen. Today is the day to mention again these and other places that have been so afflicted.

Dignity and equality mean respecting the basic rights of every person, as defined in the 1949 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the additional conventions and protocols. The proclamation that "all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights" and have "the right to life, liberty and security of person" applies to humanity, regardless of the specific contexts of each nation.

I recognize that the vision that inspired the Universal Declaration places the individual at the centre of rights, while in certain cultures the well-being of the community is presented as having primacy. In one case and in the other, it is about people, the protection of their lives and their creativity. There are no cultural differences there.

On the planet, a little more than a month after the COP26, just a few words to share a thought of solidarity with the thousands of victims of the recent natural disasters. The floods in South Sudan, with entire regions submerged and misery transformed into despair. The typhoons in the Philippines. The tornadoes in the USA. Extreme climatic phenomena are becoming more and more overwhelming. Let us remember, in relation to this great challenge and the others, that this must be the time of rebirth.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 24 December 2021)

A plan that has no wings

The “peace plan” President Trump presented yesterday is not acceptable to the Palestinian side, as the initial reactions have shown. There is no surprise here. The document is basically an endorsement of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s views and an instrument to boost his chances during the forthcoming general election. Apparently, it is not adding any support to the Prime Minister’s electoral fortunes, but it is too early to conclude so.

The important point is that one of the two parties to the solution does not recognise President Trump’s initiative as positive. The President, if he really wanted to move the peace process forward, should start by a couple of goodwill gestures. He should authorise the reopening of the Palestine Delegation in Washington, a delegation he ordered to be closed in 2018. He should also resume the US funding contribution to the UN Agency that provides support to the Palestinians (UNRWA). And be much clearer about the future of Jerusalem and the Jordan Valley, two extremely sensitive points. Here, his position should be that both issues must be part of the agreement, without any position of force being stated since day one. Finally, he should establish a link between his vision and the Arab Peace Plan of 2002.

Well, all this is daydreaming, on my side. The truth of the matter is summarised by one single word: partiality.

A one-sided peace plan

I decided long ago not to write about the conflict between Israel and Palestine. The main reason has been that I do not see a solution to it unless the United States plays a balanced role in the peace process. The US is the only country that can help Israel to adopt a reasonable approach and encourage the country’s leaders to engage the Palestinian side in a mutually beneficial way.

With time, the trust has been seriously eroded and peace has become less and less viable. The basis for a resolution has gradually been undermined. In fact, the obstacles have gained additional volume during the past few years.

Today, President Trump launched what he calls “a peace plan” for Israel and Palestine. The plan is very close to Prime Minister Netanyahu’s ambitions. Secondly, it does not consider that peace must come from within, from the involvement of the parties to the conflict. In the case, the Palestinians have not been heard, they have been excluded from the plan’s design. They could still be interested in taking this project and negotiate it. But I doubt. The proposal goes too far in the Israeli direction. And without the Palestinian buy-in there is no true plan.

Let’s in meantime wait for a more detailed reaction from the Palestinian side. Even if one can guess what it might be.

Munich and the annual security debate

Once more, the conflict between Israel and Palestine is not on the agenda of this year’s Munich Security Conference. 

This annual conference started today and runs up to Sunday. It’s a key international meeting on security. 

This year, Syria and Ukraine are again on the menu, as it is the insecurity situation in the Sahel, the nuclear weapons issue and the security dimensions of climate change. The exclusion of the Palestinian crisis from the debates is deliberate, of course. For many, it’s too delicate a subject. For others, and I am among those, it’s a never-ending conflict. Better move on and deal with those that have a chance of being resolved.

UN on Israel´s settlements

Today the UN Secretary-general expressed his concerns regarding the continued expansion of Israeli settlements in occupied territories. And he called for a freeze of the expansion. There is nothing very new here, but it is important it has been said by the top UN official.

The Prime Minister of Israel did not like Ban Ki-moon´s words. I can understand that. What I cannot accept is Benjamin Netanyahu´s official written statement accusing the SG of “encouraging terrorism”.  

Two additional questions about the Middle East

After the agreement on Iran´s nuclear programme, there are two additional questions related to the Middle East that should receive the same amount of attention. They are both related to peace and security in the region. As such, they are vital for a geopolitical space that has known decades of conflict and remains the major focus of international instability.

One of those questions is about fighting violence. What can the UN Security Council and the countries of the region do to bring peace to Syria and Iraq as well as to Yemen? In different words, can we launch a regional conference on peace and security in the Middle East? This is a very central question. It has to be raised and we have to call on the international leaders to take up their responsibilities and dare to initiate such a process.

It cannot be just about peace in country A or B. In this very volatile part of the world we need to look at the future from a regional perspective. The country by country approach has a very limited impact.

The second question is about the Palestinian crisis. The Quartet is not producing any tangible results. The Palestinian issue is just not being properly addressed. We need to ask ourselves what can be done to change the trend and be in a position to initiate a true process that can lead to a durable solution. 

Here, I see a much greater role for the EU. The EU should take the lead. And it has a chance to do it, now that Tony Blair has moved out of the picture. It has also the moral responsibility, to compensate for all the years we have lost with Blair pretending to be around.

The Pope´s decision on Palestine is very important

Pope Francis ‘gesture towards the Palestinian people and its President Mahmoud Abbas should be deeply appreciated. The Palestinian crisis is one of the most enduring and I see no solution in the horizon. But the duty of international leaders is to keep it front page. And contribute, by any peaceful way, to move the two-State agenda forward. No gesture is too small, all positive moves are important. 

Poor weather in the EU capital

Poor weather in Brussels today. Time thus to get ready for my quarterly meeting on peace building. And to realise that there is no strategy, in my part of the world, to deal with the current turmoil in the Middle East. More than ever, the piecemeal approach is the one that dictates the policy. Even so, I am not sure we have a clear policy for each case that is developing in the region. Maybe influenced by the weather, I come to the conclusion that the approaches we are now following are very tentative and full of messy actions. With the exception, maybe, of the dialogue with Iran on the nuclear issues. But the nuclear package is only one dimension of what our Iranian policy should be. Are we connecting it with the rest?

Sad news from the Middle East

The electoral victory of Israel´s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is another piece of bad news for the Middle East. It adds fuel to the existing many crises. The EU and the international community have lost leverage in the region. Tony Blair´s mediation job has been a disaster. The new EU envoy, the Italian diplomat Fernando Gentilini, will have almost no room for manoeuvre. His appointment serves the High Representative’s personal agenda of appointing people loyal to her but brings no political leverage and no hope. In many ways, it is a silent recognition that there is very little the EU can do in the region. I do not see Netanyahu losing any moment of his time talking to the envoy. I actually do not see anyone at this stage able to establish any kind of bridge in the region.

Striking ISIS is a good decision

President Obama´s decision to strike ISIS extremists in Northern Iraq should be supported by a large number of opinion-makers. It is time to say no to that type of medieval savagery as the one implemented by these fanatics.

This is a good point for the current administration in Washington at a time when the same administration has been losing credibility because of their vacillating position regarding Israel´s violations of international law and the lunacy of Hamas´s political decisions.

I appreciate John Kerry´s efforts

Copyright V.Angelo