The Straits and the competition between USA and China

 

---

Hormuz, Malacca, and the Straits of Power

By Victor Ângelo

International Security Advisor. Former UN Under-Secretary-General

Published: 30 April 2026

There are places on maps that, in times of peace, seem like mere details—curiosities. Yet, when rivalry between great powers intensifies, these details become strategic. The Straits of Malacca and Hormuz, Bab el-Mandeb (the Red Sea), and the Indian Ocean routes are now at the heart of global politics: it is through these passages that the economy flows—and it is there that Washington and Beijing test the limits of their competition.

American foreign policy has revealed an emerging pattern: an increasing focus on so-called ‘choke points’—the maritime passages through which energy, commodities, and influence circulate. Control over these points projects both force and deterrence. Consider Hormuz. The figures speak for themselves: the International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that, by 2025, over 20 million barrels per day will have transited the strait—approximately a quarter of the world’s maritime oil trade.

For the United States, a robust presence in these corridors is not merely about maritime security; it is also a means of protecting its vital interests in the event of a severe crisis.

This is why the ‘Malacca Dilemma’ remains a strategic obsession for Beijing. China depends heavily on maritime routes that traverse this narrow, congested corridor, which is difficult to replace without colossal costs—precisely the type of vulnerability any state seeks to reduce when anticipating a prolonged period of competition.

The Strait of Malacca, though exceedingly long, is only a few kilometres wide at its narrowest point. From an energy perspective, the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) classifies Malacca as a vital choke point: in the first half of 2025, an estimated 23 million barrels of oil per day will have transited the strait. It is this volume—and the immense difficulty of diverting shipping to more expensive alternatives through more treacherous seas south of Indonesia (the Sunda and Lombok waters)—that makes Malacca a national security priority for China and several Asian states.

And it is not merely energy. It is also the container ships, carrying every conceivable type of cargo, and the infrastructure of telecommunications. The Strait of Malacca is a critical corridor for digital connectivity, possessing a high density of subsea cables that link Asia to a significant portion of the globe.

In this context, the agreements and joint exercises between the United States and Indonesia gain a special significance. For Washington, Indonesia is crucial because it sits at the hinge between the Pacific and the Indian Oceans, and its territory defines one side of the strait. For Jakarta, cooperation with the US is useful: it bolsters capabilities, signals autonomy, and helps manage frictions with China—including recurring incidents in border waters—without abandoning its tradition of non-alignment.

The Chinese response to all of this has been simultaneously maritime and continental.

The growth of the Chinese Navy—now the world’s largest by number of vessels—follows a simple logic: if trade is conducted primarily by sea, then national security must also be sea-based. Hence the investment in the naval sector, in the capacity to operate further from its shores, and in port partnerships that, even when presented as commercial, may have military utility in crisis scenarios.

The ‘New Silk Road’ reinforces this strategy: it multiplies connections with the outside world. Projects such as the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, logistical links through Myanmar, and the pursuit of navigation through the Arctic in coordination with Russia seek to create exits that circumvent Malacca and reduce exposure to the control of rival powers. Furthermore, on the technological level, Chinese dominance in critical segments of certain value chains—for example, in the processing and refining of rare earths, where it remains globally dominant—functions as an instrument of leverage to prevent extreme situations and the risk of shocks.

The result is a rivalry that leaves less and less room for naivety—and which turns the straits into the strongholds of the geopolitical chessboard.

There is, however, a global legal framework worth recalling: the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the principle of freedom of navigation. This framework regulates transit through straits used for international navigation and limits arbitrary interference. Rules do not eliminate rivalry, but they increase the political, economic, and reputational costs when restrictions lack acceptable justification.

Summit diplomacy, however theatrical it may seem, matters. The White House has signalled that Donald Trump is slated to visit Beijing in mid-May to meet with Xi Jinping. The meeting will not change geography, but it may help clarify ‘red lines’ and reduce the risk of misunderstandings in an environment where the temptation to ‘test’ the other to the limit is constant. Trump’s trip serves as a test: not of the end of competition, but of the will to define its boundaries. In an interdependent world, the stability of routes is a common interest—even when the rivalry is structural.

If Washington and Beijing transform the straits—and commercial interdependencies—into instruments of permanent pressure, international relations will enter a far more dangerous phase: that of generalised insecurity. In such a scenario, the concern with deterrence becomes a daily occurrence. A miscalculation will, inevitably, be more likely and certainly catastrophic.

USA and Iran, a very serious conflict: what's next?

A Profoundly Perilous and Complex Confrontation: The USA and Iran

Victor Ângelo

Are we on the precipice of an armed conflict between Iran and the United States? This remains one of the pre-eminent questions of our days. The answer is neither simple nor definitive. Indeed, the risk may be considered imminent. However, the costs for both parties—and for the world at large—would be so catastrophic that it is both necessary and urgent to reach an accommodation.

Mediation ought to be undertaken by regional states or the more influential members of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation—some closer to the Sunni interpretation of Islam, others to the Shia practice—provided they are acceptable to both Washington and Tehran. Ideally, the responsibility would have been vested in the UN or India. Regrettably, neither the UN Secretary-General nor the Prime Minister of India possesses sufficient credibility in this instance. Narendra Modi squandered his political capital regarding the Middle East the moment he chose to anchor his domestic power in the marginalisation of India’s Muslim citizens. He is an autocrat who plays the ethnic card and resorts to populism to retain his grip on power.

As for António Guterres, he carries no weight in Washington and is perceived in Tehran as an outsider—a Westerner approaching the twilight of his tenure. He is regarded as a Secretary-General for humanitarian causes and little else. For many, he lacks the political stature and the requisite "vigour" for conflict resolution. The fact remains that Guterres has been plagued by misfortune. Enduring two Trump administrations, each more deleterious than the last, is a singular stroke of ill luck.

The reality is that we are witnessing a formidable military escalation in the Persian Gulf, one of the world’s most sensitive regions. This escalation could trigger an open war at any moment. This is a dispute of immense complexity. The nuclear carrier USS Abraham Lincoln is currently in the Persian Gulf, accompanied by its strike group, bristling with hundreds of Tomahawk missiles and supported by elite fighter jets, satellites, and surveillance drones that monitor every movement within Iran and its territorial waters. Furthermore, the US maintains tens of thousands of personnel across five bases in the region. They also conduct constant policing of the Strait of Hormuz—a vital artery for oil supplies, primarily to China, but also to India. Should either the US or Iran open a front in this transit zone, they would impede, or at the very least disrupt, the daily passage of approximately 20% of the world’s trade in oil and liquefied natural gas. The economic fallout of such a confrontation would be dramatic, both for the region and for the economies of China and numerous other nations.

Few stand to benefit from such a crisis. It is, however, difficult to believe that a deployment of American forces of such formidable proportions has merely deterrent objectives, regardless of protestations to the contrary.

On the Iranian side, military capacity is significantly inferior to that of the Americans. Currently, following the setbacks of its allies in Lebanon (Hezbollah), Syria, Yemen, and Gaza, its strategic strength rests primarily on three pillars: its vast and diversified ballistic arsenal, the mass production of drones, and the ability to sever navigation in the Strait of Hormuz and the Bab el-Mandeb—the maritime bottleneck connecting the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden and, by extension, the Indian Ocean. Bab el-Mandeb is a vital route through which a significant portion of global trade traditionally flows.

In truth, when considering Iran, one must account for a fourth pillar: the religious fanaticism and the ferocious dictatorship that underpin Iranian political power. It was this volatile mixture of fanaticism and disregard for human life that formed the backbone of the barbaric repression against the populace last month, resulting in an incalculable number of victims. The conclusion is simple: by the standards of modern humanism, the Ayatollahs’ regime resides in a world of five centuries ago—the heart of the Dark Ages. It cannot be countenanced in this day and age, however much one respects national sovereignty or the internal politics of a state. This is a message Guterres ought to convey to Xi Jinping, reminding him that the sovereignty of any state begins with respect for the dignity and human rights of its citizens.

Xi Jinping might, indeed, begin by revisiting the principles adopted by Deng Xiaoping following the death of Mao Zedong in 1976. Deng was the architect of "socialism with Chinese characteristics"—the leader who modernised China, liberalised the economy beyond state control, invited foreign investment, and ended the agriculture of famine. Xi Jinping, however, wagers primarily on absolute power, reminiscent of the Maoist era, coupled with unbridled economic capitalism and a personal brand of rivalry and competition against the US. He is above all preoccupied with Chinese supremacy in military, technological, economic, and geopolitical spheres. Consequently, he errs by aligning himself with powers that view geopolitics through an archaic lens—notably Iran and Russia, another staunch ally of the theocratic dictatorship in Tehran. Xi views the future as a zero-sum rivalry between his nation and the United States, proving that he regards global challenges and international solidarity merely as pawns in China’s international geopolitical gambit.

If Iran can only rely on allies of such a kind, the answer to my initial question must be: let there be resolve, extensive diplomacy, and an absolute respect for citizens and for peace.

President Trump in Asia: Power, Adulation, and the Rearrangement of Forces in a New Era

My geopolitical calendar differs from the conventional one. The twentieth century era, marked by two major wars, the Cold War, decolonisation, and large-scale industrial expansion, ended in 1991 with the collapse of the Soviet Union. That is when, in my reading of history, the twenty-first century began. We entered a period of economic globalisation, multilateralism and international cooperation, the development of democratic regimes, and a focus on sustainability and major global challenges.

My calendar also tells me that the twenty-first century was rather short. It seems to have ended with Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Times changed then, with a return to former practices, the undisguised use of military and economic force as determining factors in international relations. At the same time, we have witnessed an accelerated race towards the future, driven by technological transformations and the digital revolution. The concern about inequalities between peoples has given way to insensitivity regarding development issues.

We are now in a strange and ambiguous period of universal history: we live simultaneously in the past and the future. We are connected by thousands of fibre optic cables and an increasing number of satellites. Global information is instantaneous, but it seems we are rapidly returning to old nationalist ideas, to every man for himself.

Indifference has become a distinctive feature of this new era. The excess of data ends up anaesthetising us. We become oblivious to what happens outside our immediate circle. This apathy makes it easier for populist, extremist political leaders to manipulate public opinion, using digital platforms to influence citizens’ behaviour. Paradoxically or not, the manipulators themselves end up listening to their own clamour and seem to believe the narratives they create. Thus, they fuel the cycle of misinformation and collective detachment from the major issues that remain unresolved.

In this context, commitment to critical thinking becomes fundamental. It is necessary to know how to question, analyse and interpret the intentions hidden in messages. Developing the ability to ask pertinent questions and assess the credibility of sources is essential to avoid manipulation and conformity. As Socrates argued 2,500 years ago, exploring alternative ideas and challenging established opinions is politically indispensable in a democracy.

This reflection originated from a recent comment made on one of our television channels about the new Russian nuclear-powered cruise missile, known in Russia as 9M730 Burevestnik and in NATO as Skyfall. Vladimir Putin announced that on 21 October the missile had been launched and that the test was a success. He added that the device had been airborne for 15 hours, covering more than 14,000 kilometres, and could therefore be directed at a target in the most remote corner of the planet. He also emphasised that no other state has the capability to intercept it. In other words, Russia was claiming to have taken another step towards consolidating its place at the forefront of the new era, the era of confrontation and force.

The commentator, a person I respect, said that Trump had “blithely” ignored Putin’s announcement. The reason for Trump’s indifference was missing.

I think it is relevant to try to understand this apparent disdain. I say apparent because yesterday the American president ordered his armed forces to begin a programme of nuclear tests, something that had not happened for more than three decades.

In my analysis, Trump, who has spent the week in Asia, is neither afraid of Russia nor particularly interested in Putin, except regarding the Russian war against Ukraine. He wants to add peace in Ukraine to his list of supposed peace treaties, always with the obsession for the Nobel Peace Prize. At this moment, today, Friday, he is convinced that Putin is the main obstacle to a ceasefire. Saturday, we shall see.

Apart from that, it has become clear in recent days that the absolute priority of the US administration is rivalry with China. His tour of Asia sought to demonstrate the influence and power of the United States in a region increasingly close to China. That is why Trump was in Malaysia, at the ASEAN summit, then in Japan, South Korea, and showed moderation at yesterday’s meeting with the Chinese president, Xi Jinping. In addition to trade agreements, several of them linked to cutting-edge technologies that will define the coming years, the success of Trump’s presence in Asia and the adulation he received reinforced his illusion that the US has decisive influence in that part of the globe. Putin’s missile, however powerful it may be—something yet to be confirmed—does not matter to Trump nor distract him, as he considers the fundamental priority to be relations with Asia, in the context of competition with China.

He makes, I believe, a superficial and mistaken reading of reality. He needs to understand that this new century, which began in 2022, seems to be heading towards the de facto consolidation of the strategic alliance between China and Russia.

Are you talking about the UN reform?

 The future demands political courage, strategic vision, and a UN that is respected

Victor Ângelo

Eighty years ago, on October 24, 1945, the UN Charter came into force, having been approved four months earlier in San Francisco. That is why this date in October is celebrated annually as United Nations Day.

I am referring to the political part of the organization. The specialized agencies, such as FAO, UNESCO, WHO, ILO, and all the others, emerged at different times. Each has its own history, as well as its own specific governance structures, independent of the authority of the Secretary-General (SG). Over time, special programs and funds also emerged, such as WFP, UNDP, UNICEF, UNFPA, and several others—a long list of acronyms. These programs and funds are headed by individuals chosen by the SG, mostly in response to pressure from some of the more powerful states. They do not belong to the same division that includes the specialized agencies.

The system is in crisis. But if the UN did not exist, it would be necessary, even in today’s confusing times, to invent it. This is a frequently repeated idea.

The United Nations exists; there is no need for any creative exercise. But President Xi Jinping, who also contributes to the marginalization of the UN and seeks to take advantage of it, now proposes an alternative system, inspired by his vision of China’s central role in the world. He had already proposed a Global Development Initiative, another on international security, and yet another called the Global Civilization Initiative. At the recent Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit, which took place less than two months ago, Xi completed the picture and proposed the missing initiative, on global governance. That is, on the principles that should regulate relations between states. When I say he completed the picture, I am referring to four fundamental pillars of the UN: development, peace, human dignity, and now, the political one.

Xi’s proposal on international governance is little more than a restatement of the content of the United Nations Charter in other words. The five basic principles he proposes for global governance are contained in the Charter. Xi refers to respect for the sovereignty of each state, including retrograde and dictatorial regimes; subordination to the rules of international law; defense of multilateralism and the role of the United Nations—something that China itself does not practice when it is inconvenient; the value of people, who should be the main concern in political matters; and the need to achieve concrete results in solving global problems. There is certainly no significant disagreement with these ideas. The Chinese initiative is basically a political maneuver.

The problem is that these principles are often ignored by several member states, starting with the great powers such as China, Russia, and the United States of America, and by states outside international law, such as North Korea or Israel.

Thus, the United Nations ceases to be the central forum for international relations, discussion, and resolution of major conflicts. The blame lies with certain member states, and in particular, with the malfunctioning and lack of representativeness of the Security Council (SC). The UN has been completely marginalized in the cases of Ukraine, Gaza, Sudan, Myanmar, the end of the embargo against Cuba, and so on. However, the real problem lies with the SC: without a Council that represents the realities of the 21st century, the political UN will continue to live in the past and be doomed to decline.

The plan that President Donald Trump had adopted regarding the dramatic crisis in Gaza—a vague plan that is practically impossible to carry out in its key points—does not mention the UN or assign it any kind of responsibility. Even if it is discussed in the Security Council, which is not yet confirmed, the various points imposed by President Trump do not take into account the experience accumulated in similar situations. It is a plan that was not negotiated by the interested parties—Israel and Palestine—that is, it did not follow a fundamental procedure in peacebuilding. I fear that it will achieve little beyond the release of the remaining living hostages, the freedom of a group of prisoners held in Israel, and a temporary and insufficient humanitarian opening in the face of the absolutely basic needs of the civilians still surviving in Gaza.

The SG is trying to implement a process of organizational reform, which he called UN80. In reality, the effort is little more than a bureaucratic response to the organization’s financial crisis. Instead of insisting, day and night, that delinquent states pay their dues and mandatory contributions on time, and clearly defining what justifies the existence of the UN, the SG chose the option that goes over better with certain leaders and their finance ministries: eliminate jobs, reduce the scope and functioning of field missions, transfer services to cities where the cost of living is lower than in New York or Geneva. The refrain is “do less with fewer resources.” In fact, it should be another: “making peace and promoting human dignity require everyone’s contribution and respect for the UN’s courageous voice.” That assertion is the only one consistent with the defense of international cooperation and multilateralism. That is what I learned and applied over decades.

Ukaine and Europe versus the Russia-China alliance

President Zelensky talked twice over the weekend with the US President Donald Trump. The Ukrainian leader was also in contact with key European leaders. His message was very clear: Ukraine needs urgently extra support now that Vladimir Putin is intensifying his air attacks against Ukraine.

On the other hand, Putin is receiving more help than ever from President Xi Jinping because he promised him a free hand in Ukraine for Chinese interests once the Russian has consolidated its territorial gains.

For China, it is about business and the opportunity to have a strong foot in Eastern Europe. The Russian-Chinese strategy has become more evident. It is based on a military-industrial alliance and a geopolitical opportunity for China to reinforce its European objectives. It is also about sabotaging the European Union and the European democracies.

China comes to Poland

 A drone that appears to be a Chinese-designed Gerbera - was found in Mniszkow, around 200 miles from the border between Poland and Ukraine. China's involvement side-by-side with Russia in the aggression against Ukraine seems obvious. Even if we consider that this drone looks very much as a decoy.

What is original in my Diário de Notícias (05/09/2025) text about the Tianjin SCO summit

 What is not original:

• The core facts: The existence and location of the SCO summit in Tianjin, the attendance of key leaders like Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin, and Narendra Modi, and the announcement of Xi's "Global Governance Initiative" are all established facts widely reported by international news and political analysis.

• The main geopolitical themes: The analysis of the SCO as a counterweight to Western influence, the concept of a multipolar world order, and the idea that Trump's policies pushed Russia and India closer to China are common topics in contemporary geopolitical discourse. The idea of a "Reverse Nixon" pivot, where Trump's policies inadvertently strengthen the Sino-Russian-Indian axis, is also a concept discussed by other analysts.

What is original:

• https://www.dn.pt/opiniao/a-reforma-da-ordem-mundial-%C3%A9-maior-do-que-a-china

• The author's personal experience and authority: Victor Ângelo's past role as a former high-ranking UN official (specifically, a former Deputy Secretary-General of the UN) gives his commentary a unique angle. He's not just a journalist or academic; he's someone with firsthand experience working within the very international institutions he is critiquing. This background adds a layer of authenticity and personal insight that sets his text apart.

• The "prisoner" analogy: The powerful, if highly subjective, comparison of António Guterres to a "prisioneiro a bater palmas ao juiz" (a prisoner applauding the judge) is a striking and memorable piece of original rhetoric. It goes beyond a simple critique to express a deep sense of disappointment and betrayal from an insider's perspective. This emotional and rhetorical flourish is a key element of the text's originality.

• The focus on symbolism: The entire article is built around the symbolic power of the photograph and the location of the summit. This focus on "an image is worth a thousand words" allows the author to tell a story about the changing world order in a more evocative way than a dry, fact-based report. The emphasis on Xi as a "dominant figure" and Modi as an unignorable presence is the author's personal interpretation, which serves as the backbone of his argument.

In conclusion, the text is not original in its factual basis, but it is original in its insider's perspective, strong rhetorical flair, and symbolic framing. It uses familiar facts to present a highly personal and opinionated take on a major global event, making it a distinctive piece of commentary.

China wants to become the leading nation in international affairs

 

The Summit of Tianjin and the Shifting Global Order

Victor Ângelo’s article, "The reform of the world order is greater than China," published today 05/09/2025 in Lisbon's Diário de Notícias, analyses the Tianjin Summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), positioning it as a pivotal event in the geopolitical landscape. The author highlights a photograph of Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin with Narendra Modi in the background, seeing it as a powerful symbol of a new international order. In this image, Xi is the dominant figure, while Putin is less prominent and Modi represents India's growing importance. The summit's location in Tianjin, a port city, also underscores the Chinese leadership's focus on international trade.

---

Xi Jinping's Ambitions vs. the Role of the UN

Ângelo argues that Xi Jinping's "Global Governance Initiative," announced at the summit, is an attempt to position China's global policy as an alternative to the Western model. However, the author questions the sincerity of this proposal, suggesting that if China genuinely supported multilateralism, it would have prioritised the reform of the United Nations (UN) under António Guterres. The article expresses concern that Guterres was present at the summit and applauded an initiative that could threaten the UN's relevance.

---

Geopolitical Tensions and India's Strategic Role

The summit is portrayed as a gathering of nations that oppose the established international order, largely in response to Donald Trump's "America First" policy. The author notes that Trump's approach ironically brought China and Russia closer and pushed India into their orbit. The article also points out Modi's clever political strategy: while attending the summit to strengthen ties with China and Russia, he first stopped in Japan to sign cooperation agreements. This, according to Ângelo, shows that Modi "knows how to play on multiple boards" and that the future of the world is being shaped in Asia, by Asia, and for all of Asia.