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

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.

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)

2022 political rentrée: the complexities ahead

A very complex rentrée: now what?

Victor Ângelo

 

We are back after the August break. It is the so-called political rentrée, at the international level always marked by the opening of a new annual cycle of the United Nations General Assembly. The Assembly will start next week, with world leaders putting the finishing touches to the speeches they will deliver. The Secretary-General would like them to talk mainly about peace, the food crisis afflicting various regions of the globe, climate change, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the poorest countries and youth education. But this is a very special rentrée, with a war taking place in the "first world" - something unthinkable a few months ago, when conflict was associated with lack of development, that is, when we were all deluded with theories that wars were the province of poor people living in distant horizons.

This has been a summer without a truce of any kind. Crises and uncertainties have increased and at the same time have shown us that the leaders who weigh on the international scene are unable to present reasonable and convincing proposals. The confusion caused by Vladimir Putin's adventurous and illegal policy is a case in point. We will go to the General Assembly after almost seven months of armed aggression against a sovereign state, our neighbour in Europe, and it will be almost certain that we will not hear any proposal that can respond to this immense challenge. The main European leaders, starting with Emmanuel Macron, are wandering in a political labyrinth. They know that the Kremlin cannot be allowed to win this war. That would be like giving a prize to autocrats and outlaw rulers, and an invitation to further violations of the international order. They also know that assistance to Ukraine may not be enough, however much they repeat the contrary in their public interventions, and that without such support there will be no Ukraine. But they do not draw the necessary conclusion: it is crucial to move to a higher stage, to an even more complete response, leading to an end to the aggression and a change in Russia's foreign policy.

In this context, which is not seen as worrying only by those who are playing political make-believe or preparing the next holiday, the group of former UN officials who wrote an open letter to António Guterres in April has now prepared a second public appeal. On the eve of the General Assembly, the group, of which I am one, is once again insisting on the need to propose political initiatives that will freeze hostilities and make it possible to start a process leading to peace. The agreements on the export of cereals and the inspection of the Zaporijia nuclear power station must be explored politically. The proposal now submitted by Guterres to the Security Council concerning the demilitarisation of the Zaporijia plant is a good starting point and should be strongly supported.

I recognise that such an appeal is very much inspired by an idealistic vision of international relations. It would, however, be a mistake to set idealism and principles aside. But the new position is also based on a very realistic observation: in a war, in these times of global interdependence and high technology, everyone loses, and a lot. Even more so when the threat comes from a superpower and therefore generates large-scale responses from rival powers. The authors of the Charter of the United Nations already thought so in 1945. And our planet is far more fragile today than it was 77 years ago.

It is time to be frank and direct. The ongoing aggression presents us with three options and requires a firm and clear decision. A solution inspired by the bain-marie technique will not work. In fact, over time, it ends up encouraging the offender and others with similar intentions. Here, either we light the fire to the maximum - in the conviction that in the end we will be on the side of the winners and the survivors - or we look for an alternative recipe, a political path. That is the decisive choice that our leaders must make.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 9 September 2022)

 

 

 

The United Nations at 75: to be more political again

My opinion piece on the United Nations, as published today, in Portuguese language, in the Diário de Notícias (Lisbon)

 

Maintaining the relevance of the United Nations

Victor Angelo

 

The United Nations celebrates 75 years of existence at the beginning of the coming week. This is also the week of the General Debate, which allows world leaders to address the General Assembly and those who are prepared to hear them. This year, despite the symbolic importance of the anniversary, everything will have a low profile, digital-only, because of the pandemic. The heads of state and government will not travel to New York. They will send videos, in most cases with the usual nonsense intended for their domestic audiences. The absence of the leaders will cause the most relevant part of the annual meeting to be missed, which is to allow a whole series of face-to-face meetings among the great ones of this world. All this makes this year's session relatively invisible, precisely when the United Nations needs to regain international attention. 

It may be that the US President will be the only one to make the trip and speak in person. It would be advantageous for him to do so to as it would allow him to spend some time with Secretary General António Guterres. Donald Trump is known to slow down his impulses when there is personal contact, something that has not happened between the two for quite some time. But more important than whether he goes to UN headquarters is what the President will say. There has been a lot of speculation and nervousness around it. There are even those who say it might include the threat of his country leaving the United Nations. I don't think he will say that. That it is going to be a speech aimed at the American electorate, it is going to be. It will mention Israel and the recent diplomatic victories President Trump managed to pull out of his hat. We can also expect strong references to his pet enemies, starting with Iran. In relation to this, one can anticipate direct criticism of the Russian and Chinese positions, a criticism that will also touch the Europeans, because they have not supported recent American decisions on Iran. But above all, I fear that the President will develop a narrative that will allow him to justify a hypothetical intervention in Iran in the coming weeks, something that cannot be ruled out as a possible electoral asset. 

President Trump does not seem to have much regard for the UN. He and his team have already realized that they cannot use it meekly as an instrument to give them international legitimacy after the event. This was the case at the end of August, when the Security Council rejected the US claim to impose new sanctions on Iran. In these situations, the American response has been one of two: either to leave the specialized organizations of the UN, as seen with UNESCO, the Commission on Human Rights or the WHO; or to marginalize and ignore the institution, as has happened with the United Nations Secretariat. Moreover, the current American leadership has already shown that it does not believe in multilateral solutions. The prevailing foreign policy option is to make pressure and demands, based on the principle that might is right.

Faced with the erosion of multilateralism and marginalization, the response must be powerful. It must be based on the constant repetition of the fundamental role of the UN in promoting peace and security, as these concepts are understood today. This means the recognition that the organization exists to facilitate political solutions, in case of risk, threat or conflict. The dimensions of development and humanitarian action are important pillars of the UNAIDS system, but the primacy must be given to political work. This is the message that New York must make heard with a firm voice. And explain that for there to be peace and security, there must be respect for people's dignity, their rights and aspirations for freedom, good governance, and equal opportunities. In other words, the ideas of human development and individual security must be given a more intense political sense. These concepts were formulated in the 1990s and recognized as major advances in the way international relations are viewed.  They remain, however, orphans in terms of the political oratory. They need to be translated into a political language. This one remains timid and traditional, very much based on the sovereignty of states and non-interference in the internal affairs of each country. The narrative must now, at the age of 75, stress the need for a balance between sovereignty and the rights of each of us. "We, the peoples of the United Nations," as it says at the beginning of the Charter.

 

This year's strange General Assembly

The 2020 UN General Assembly has started. Unfortunately, due to the pandemic, the world leaders will not be travelling to New York for the General Debate, scheduled for next week. The debate will be even less participatory than in the past. They will be sending pre-recorded videos with their statements. But the most important dimension of the General Assembly, the side meetings between leaders, will be missing. Personal contact is critical in world affairs. Its absence makes all of us more fragile. It makes cooperation less pressing. At a time when we need augmented cooperation between the nations. These are indeed difficult times.

The leaders are in New York

As the world leaders walk the corridors of the UN these days, on the occasion of the General Assembly meeting, we should remind all of them that leadership must be synonymous of service and personal sacrifice. It should also be about promoting and implementing the key conventions and agreements that have been agreed upon in past UN meetings.

The fact of the matter is that most of them think that leadership is expressed by saying a few empty things at the podium of the UN in September. And then, they go back home, with the vain feeling that they have contribute to the shaping of international politics.