The UN Pact for the Future

 

The UN Pact for the Future was adopted in September 2024.

The Five Core Pillars 

The Pact is organized into five "tracks," each containing specific actions to move from rhetoric to implementation:

1. Sustainable Development & Financing: A radical push to reform the "International Financial Architecture." It aims to give the Global South a greater voice in the IMF and World Bank and to close the $4 trillion annual investment gap for development.

2. International Peace & Security: A commitment to revitalize the UN’s role in conflict prevention. Crucially, it includes the most significant language on Security Council Reform in decades, specifically prioritizing the under-representation of Africa.

3. Science, Technology, and Innovation: Ensuring that the benefits of tech are shared globally. It addresses the "digital divide" and sets the stage for the first global standards on emerging risks like lethal autonomous weapons.

4. Youth & Future Generations: Transitioning from "short-termism" to "long-termism." It establishes a dedicated Declaration on Future Generations to ensure that current political decisions account for those not yet born.

5. Transforming Global Governance: The overarching goal is to make the UN "fit for purpose"—more inclusive of civil society, regional authorities, and the private sector.

Europe and its autonomy

Europe Must Depart the Labyrinth and Establish its Autonomy

by Victor Ângelo

Europe can no longer afford the luxury of hesitation upon the international stage—most especially now, as the global landscape increasingly resembles a field of forces set upon a collision course. For too long, we have permitted our strategic vision to be held captive by two obsessions: a credulous subordination to the patronage of the United States, and a lingering dread of a destructive avalanche from the Russian quarter. In both instances, Europe has suffered a diminishment of its sovereignty and its standing. Our paramount duty is to reclaim them.

We exist today amidst hostilites emanating from various quarters. It is imperative that we confront them. The external strength and the reputation of the European Union are but a direct reflection of our internal cohesion. In these times, it is essential to accord respect to others, to advocate for equilibrium, and yet, at once, to project power. Internal cohesion is, therefore, in my judgment, the foremost concern.

To achieve this, we must bolster European complementarity through decisive measures: firstly, by the harmonisation of our principal policy dimensions, thereby ensuring that internal fragmentation is not exploited by external competition; secondly, by fortifying our democratic resilience against disinformation, establishing an effective protocol to counter hybrid threats and the falsehoods intended to fracture our societies; and thirdly, by massive investment in integrated infrastructures—both in energy and the digital realm—to ensure that no Member State remains a vulnerable target for the blackmail of third parties.

A Europe that is not solid at its core can never truly be sovereign at its frontiers, nor can it exert significant geopolitical influence. This necessitates the strengthening of our common identity—whilst respecting our cultural and national diversities—and the active engagement of our citizens and their representative institutions.

By "sovereign independence," we do not imply a defensive isolationism, but rather the capacity to assert and defend our strategic interests. We speak of a multidimensional sovereignty: energetic, technological, cultural, political, and military. To be sovereign is to ensure that the decrees of Brussels and elsewhere reflect our common priorities, and that our partners are chosen upon the basis of reciprocity, never of submission.

We must not overlook China, which occupies the very heart of the super-powers. Our relationship with China demands a realism unburdened by naivety. Our course must be charted in Brussels. The objective is the reduction of risk, though without a rupture, protecting strategic sectors and ensuring that relations are governed by mutually accepted rules.

Simultaneously, sovereignty is won by engaging with all. It is imperative that Europe, as a singular whole, speaks with Moscow as much as it does with others. To maintain open channels with the Kremlin is not a demonstration of weakness, but a realist acknowledgement of our geographic circumstance. A productive dialogue with the Kremlin is, at present, well-nigh impossible. To Don Quixote, it would be akin to inviting a serpent to one’s table and naming it diplomacy. Nevertheless, I believe that democratic Europe, in its entirety, must attempt a dialogue. Russia, under its current leadership, has been transformed into an ill neighbour; it inspires no confidence—rather the reverse—yet it dwells at our very doorstep. The first step must be to demonstrate to Moscow that the prolongation of its aggression against Ukraine leads to the ruin of all, Russia most of all. Sun Tzu, in his celebrated work The Art of War, observed that "there is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare." When victory is not swift and decisive, the wisest course for the aggressor is withdrawal.

Within this new architecture, NATO must transcend its one-way dependency. Aligning with the vision that Mark Rutte has brought to the Alliance at the commencement of his tenure, Europe must strive to construct a European pillar of defence that is operationally autonomous. As the Secretary-General has reiterated: "European security cannot continue to be an imported commodity." To reform NATO is to ensure that Europe assumes primary responsibility for the stability of our own continent.

In the wake of Davos 2026 and the forthcoming Munich Conference, and within the process of the United Nations' reorganisation (UN80), Europe must assert itself as the architect of a reinvigorated and effective multilateralism. The message must be plain and direct: we must restore trust between States. In the reform of the UN—which is now more urgent than ever—Europe must lead the transition toward a system that reflects contemporary reality, advocating for an expanded Security Council wherein the voice of the Global South and regional powers is institutionalised, and the power of veto ceases to be an instrument of paralysis.

This effort toward multilateral reform is currently imperilled by transactional and exclusionary proposals, such as the extraordinary "Board of Peace" suggested by the United States administration. This proposal, which seeks to replace collective diplomacy with a directory at the service of the personal interests of Donald J. Trump, constitutes an unacceptable ambition. By attempting to circumvent international institutions, the "Board of Peace" seeks to impose a mercantilist order, founded upon a vast ego and a nineteenth-century concept of empire that disregards the rights and sovereignty of States. In a word, it is an aberration.

The stability and geopolitical influence of Europe shall not spring from arms alone, nor from the modernity of our economies. They shall result, also, from our capacity to stand shoulder to shoulder at every level with those who wish to subjugate us, from the moral force we bring to the defence of universal values, and from the bridges we choose to build with democratic regimes across every region of the globe.

Mahatma Gandhi´s position about the world order: an imaginary letter

 

If Nietzsche represents the Will to Power, Mahatma Gandhi represents the Will to Truth. Gandhi would likely view my letter as a honest diagnosis of a sick patient (the world), but he would find Nietzsche’s "nihilism" to be deeply misguided.

Here is Mahatma Gandhi's imaginary but well-grounded response:

---

Wardha, India (In the Eternal Present)

My Dear Friend Victor,

I have read your letter to the German philosopher with a heavy heart, though not a surprised one. You speak of the "death of the international order" as if a grand cathedral has collapsed. But I must ask you: was this cathedral ever built upon the solid rock of Truth, or was it merely a house of cards held together by the glue of mutual fear and the greed of empires?

You and your friend Friedrich speak much of Nihilism. He sees it as a vacuum of power; you see it as a loss of rules. I see it as a simple, tragic forgetting. You have forgotten that the only "order" that can endure is not one written in treaties by men in expensive suits in Davos, but the one written in the human heart. When you say the "international order is dead," you are merely admitting that a peace maintained by the sword has finally—and inevitably—perished by the sword.

You look to Davos and the Mercosur agreement as signs of hope. I look at them and ask: “Where is the last man?” Does this trade pact serve the weaver in a village in Paraguay or the farmer in the Alentejo, or does it merely grease the wheels of a global machinery that consumes the soul to produce a profit? A bridge built of gold and paper will always buckle under the weight of human suffering.

My friend, you call for "European Defence Autonomy." You say the world is a perilous place and that you must arm yourselves to survive the "Kremlin’s brute force as well as others'." This is the oldest trap in human history. To arm yourself against the brute is to admit that the brute's way is the only way. You seek to become a "Geopolitical Power," but in doing so, you risk losing your soul. True autonomy—what I call Swaraj—is not the ability to destroy your enemy; it is the courage to remain unmoved by his violence.

Nietzsche tells you to seek Strength. I tell you to seek Gentleness. He tells you to look into the Abyss. I tell you to look into the Eyes of your Oppressor until he sees his own reflection and is ashamed.

The "Order" is not dying because Putin and others are strong or because the UN is weak. It is dying because the West tried to build a "Rules-Based Order" without a "Moral-Based Life." You cannot have peace in the world if there is a war in your lifestyle.

Do not waste your breath trying to "reconstruct" the old institutions. They were top-heavy and soulless. Instead, build from the ground up. Let the Global South not bring "interests" to your table, but a new simplicity. If Europe wants to lead, let it lead not by the thickness of its armour, but by the depth of its sacrifice for the planetary good.

The order has not perished, Victor. Only the illusion has. Now, for the first time, you are free to build a peace that does not require an army to defend it.

Yours in the service of Truth,

Mahatma K. Gandhi

My letter to Friedrich Nietzsche concerning the current international disorder

 Lisbon, 16th January 2026

My dear Friedrich,

I find myself writing to you from a century that you might well have prophesied, yet one which would surely have left even you aghast. You will recall how, in the waning years of the nineteenth century, you famously proclaimed—with characteristic gravitas—that "God is dead." Your assertion was not an observation of a divine passing, but rather a warning: the Christian moral compass had ceased to guide our traditional values, and the dawning era demanded a radically different ethical framework. You were alerting us to the profound disorientation that inevitably accompanies a paradigm shift, urging us to reflect upon what might follow.

Were you alive today, my dear Friedrich, you would perhaps observe that "the international order has perished." Such a statement would signify that the global legal and institutional architecture—which slipped into a comatose state in February 2022—has finally drawn its last breath at the turn of this year, following the recent proclamations and upheavals that have shattered the international stage.

Following this vein of thought, one might argue that we are presently enduring a period of political and moral nihilism. Fundamental norms, such as the sovereignty of states and the prohibition of the use of force, are being openly flouted by global powers. As was noted in a recent exchange with the New York Times, the only prevailing moral framework appears to be that which is dictated by those who hold the reins of power. This is the very quintessence of nihilism. Institutions and conventions are dismissed as obsolete and ineffective; thus is the fate of the United Nations, which has been systematically marginalized by the leaders of the Great Powers.

It is within this nebulous and uncertain context that the Davos summit commences next week, continuing until the 23rd of January. Hundreds of leaders—drawn from the spheres of governance, commerce, and civil society—shall gather in the Swiss mountains under the banner of a "Spirit of Dialogue." It is heartening to speak of dialogue at a time when it is so conspicuously absent. It is vital that we eschew a posture of weariness or cynicism in the face of these complex new realities. Our current challenges demand courage, candour, and heightened diplomatic finesse.

For the first time, we anticipate a large-scale participation from the Global South. This shift serves as a poignant reminder that any viable future must account for the interests and anxieties of nations beyond the Western aegis. These emerging voices remind us that we must reconstruct the multilateral system, integrating rising economies into a balanced global trade framework while addressing the crises of development, sovereign debt, public health, and the climate.

The American President shall be present in Davos, where a meeting is scheduled with President Zelensky and European leaders who remain steadfast in their support for his peace plan. While this is a significant development, I remain convinced that we are yet far from seeing Vladimir Putin accept such terms. Of late, the Kremlin has intensified its aggression, signalling that it prizes war and the raw violence of force above all else. For Putin, the international order that stood for decades has indeed expired.

We Europeans must prepare ourselves for the consequences of this new paradigm—specifically, the threat emanating from the Kremlin and elsewhere. Thus, beyond discussing Europe’s contribution to a distant peace plan, it is indispensable that we accelerate cooperation between European states and invest, in a coordinated fashion, in the strategic defense autonomy of our geopolitical space. In doing so, we acknowledge that the world has changed and is, for the time being, a perilous place to inhabit.

Simultaneously, Europe must play a more proactive role—in alliance with the democracies of the Global South—in reforming the multilateral system, most notably the United Nations. This task allows us to view the future with renewed optimism and to build bridges with other regions of the globe. The message is clear: Europe remains a believer in the sanctity of international law and stands ready to contribute to a rebalancing of relations between states.

The signing of the EU-Mercosur Trade Agreement, taking place tomorrow in the Paraguayan capital, illustrates the path we must follow. The presence of Ursula von der Leyen and António Costa in Asunción to sign an accord that required decades of gestation belying, in some measure, the thesis that the international order has utterly failed. It is my hope that Davos will also reveal that, even in this age of uncertainty, there remains ample room for the imagination and the will to treat the future with optimism.

Yours in profound reflection,

Victor Ângelo

Reflecting about the new international rules: business and might

The New International Order: Business and Brute Force

By Victor Ângelo

I have many doubts about the footballing abilities—and others—of President Donald Trump, especially now that he has started the New Year with two own goals.

The first own goal was the intervention in Venezuela. It resulted in the deterioration of his country’s international image and handed points on a silver platter to Russia and China.

The UN Security Council meeting revealed the gravity of the American adventure in Venezuela. The Secretary-General, who out of prudence did not attend the meeting in person, had a statement read out which underlined that Venezuela’s sovereignty, political independence, and territorial integrity had been violated. In that communication, he referred to the US military operation as a “dangerous precedent”, which seemed strange to several governments and analysts, considering that the history of the Latin American region is littered with similar interventions—Harvard University historians have inventoried more than forty extraconstitutional ruptures organised with the support or at the instigation of Washington. The most famous occurred in 1973, when President Salvador Allende of Chile was assassinated thanks to the organisational skills of the CIA.

The great difference between the military intervention of a few days ago and previous ones lies in President Trump’s admission that the current one aimed at the usurpation of the oil resources of the attacked country. Past interferences were presented with another level of subtlety, without direct references to expropriations or looting.

I note an additional point regarding Guterres’ communication. Many at the United Nations compared the statement he made following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 with this one now, carried out by the USA. Guterres condemned Russia directly and was himself present at the Security Council meeting for that purpose. He addressed Vladimir Putin unambiguously, in the name of peace and political ethics. In the case of the USA, he used only generic arguments about the international order and the violation of the Charter, without mentioning Trump’s name. Let this be noted, and let it serve as an invitation to reflection.

The first own goal was favourable to the Russian Federation and China. The repeated references in Washington to the theory of spheres of influence made it more difficult to condemn the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Someone circulating in the corridors of the Kremlin sent me a provocative message, albeit with some wit and a touch of diplomacy in the style learned from old Soviet manuals. It said they were sure I would condemn, in this week’s chronicle, the unjustified aggression against the Venezuelan power and demand that the European Union impose sanctions against the mastermind of the kidnappings. A Putin's faithful joker. One might say that the Russian leaders feel happy and content with what happened in Venezuela.

As for China, which was in fact the most indirectly targeted country—Washington does not want China to gain a presence in the area of influence that the Americans consider their own—there was a kind of validation of its claims regarding Taiwan. This does not mean that Beijing is thinking of launching a military operation against Taipei in the very near future. China knows that such an offensive, should it happen, would carry high costs. But it has now received an indication from the Trump Administration that it can increase political-military pressure on the island. And use more bellicose language, which is indeed happening this week after a Taiwanese MP proposed an amendment to the “Act Governing the Relations between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area”, a law adopted by Taipei in 1992. According to the proposal, the statute would be renamed the “Act on Relations between Taiwan and the People's Republic of China”. The new name and content are seen by Beijing as yet another attempt to separate the two parts and promote Taiwan's independence—something that is absolutely unacceptable to the Chinese leadership.

The second own goal resulted from statements by Trump and those around him, such as Stephen Miller—a hawk who serves as the White House Deputy Chief of Staff—regarding Greenland. Trump is preparing to annex Greenland, which is a territory of the European space through its connection to Denmark. The reason invoked—to create a security barrier against Russia and China—makes no sense. The USA has a military base in Greenland and can count on full Danish cooperation. It should be noted that during the Cold War, the base housed around 10,000 American military personnel. Now, it has around 150. This evolution does not reveal great geopolitical fears on the part of the USA. Not forgetting that there are several treaties between the USA and Denmark that recognise Danish sovereignty regarding Greenland.

Trump has his eyes fixed on the territory’s natural riches, on the maritime corridors that climate change will make navigable the Arctic zone, on the airspace controlled by Greenland—which has enormous strategic value—and on History: he wants to see his name added to the list of presidents who augmented the American territorial area.

He should also think about the impact that the annexation will have on the future of NATO. But for him, NATO serves to buy weaponry from the American industry. And that will continue to happen for many years, whether there is NATO or not. The Europeans are captive customers. The new reality is evident: in our day, business and brute force are triumphing over diplomacy and the international order, thanks to Trump, Putin, and others alike.

Published in Portuguese language in today's edition (09/01/2026) of Diário de Notícias.