The international crises

World War III? No, a Crisis of Impunity

Victor Ângelo

It is an exaggeration to claim that the Third World War has already begun. It is evident that the combined attack by the US and Israel against Iran has profoundly aggravated an already complicated international landscape. This occurred following other very serious violations of the UN Charter, namely the genocide in Gaza, the violence against Palestinians in the West Bank and the populations of Southern Lebanon, and, closer to home, the massive and illegal invasion of Ukraine by a superpower holding a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council.

However, the sum of all these conflicts does not mean the world is on the brink of a global war. What is happening in the Middle East does not share the same nature or direct links as the situation in Ukraine. The crises in Sudan or Myanmar also arise from distinct contexts.

The common thread between these different conflicts is the use of force to resolve political issues—in other words, the practice of illegality in the face of International Law. In the specific case of the bombing of Iran, for example, the Israeli-American decision is indisputably illegal, as noted by European political leaders and others, as well as by the majority of experts in International Law. Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu have ignited a situation of enormous tension in the Middle East, with a very grave and multidimensional impact.

This decision, which ignores the prohibition on the use of force without Security Council authorisation, has also generated significant humanitarian consequences for a large portion of the region's population, particularly in Iran and Lebanon, but also in Israel, the State of Palestine, and almost all Gulf countries. Yet, the drama created by Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu cannot be viewed as a global confrontation. It is a complex but circumscribed conflict. It does not directly concern the defence of Europe. It may, indirectly, jeopardise the stability and security of our continent. It does not, however, resolve the problems of the Middle East.

I repeat that the real problem lies in the lack of respect for international norms. Certain governments are convinced that, at this moment in history, what matters are missiles and other weapons. These are people who deliberately associate "might" with "right". They systematically confuse military strength with political legitimacy. Leaders of this type, in extreme cases, should be taken to the International Criminal Court in The Hague—where some already have a cell reserved—to answer for their actions.

For now, it is vital to emphasise that the present and the future demand a climate of peace, justice, equality, and sustainability. The multilateral system, developed over decades, exists for this purpose. The responsibility of States consists fundamentally in the improvement, expansion, and consolidation of this system. The leader who could aspire to the Nobel Peace Prize would be the one who succeeds in revitalising, modernising, and enforcing respect for the multilateral system.

At the heart of the system is the United Nations Security Council. As I have mentioned in previous texts, Portugal is a candidate for one of the two seats reserved for Western Europe in 2027-2028. Portugal is running alongside Germany and Austria. A television channel asked me this week if our country has any chance in this competition or if it will be the country left out. My answer could only be positive. We have a diplomatic machine that works and an international posture that goes far beyond our membership of the EU. Our power of influence within the EU serves, among other functions, to remind other Union Member States that the EU must be seen by the community of nations as a defender of the values and rules of international diplomacy.

Jean Monnet, one of the founders of the EU, always insisted on supranationalism as a means of guaranteeing peace between States. Following his thought, a divided world would be a world on the path to self-destruction. Our campaign for the Security Council must keep this guiding principle in mind and fight for complementarity between the various regions of the globe.

The Council is now deeply divided. Portugal must insist on a Security Council that seeks to establish consensus. To do this, it must prepare a list of priority issues, starting with the most consensual, and build alliances around them. This list must include strengthening interventions in the areas of Human Rights, development, the environment, and climate, as well as those related to peace missions.

In the latter case, it is important to keep three dimensions in mind:

1. The success of a peace mission has a huge impact on the UN's reputation;

2. Missions must aim to uphold a peace agreement between parties and not act as a mere "screen" hiding imbalances and preferences;

3. Mission mandates must be clear and sharply focused on the essentials, avoiding the trend of the last two decades to include a multitude of objectives, which end up turning missions into a kind of "Christmas Tree", covered in lights. Brilliant to look at, but impossible to achieve results.

Certain issues are especially difficult but cannot be ignored: it is necessary to review the Right of Veto and increase the number of seats on the Security Council to make it more representative of the 193 States that make up the United Nations. These two matters are exceptionally difficult to achieve. They will always meet opposition from those who currently hold the veto power. However, they cannot be ignored by the Portuguese campaign. We must have the courage to seize the moment and place them as central themes of our vision.

How will President Trump respond to his defeats?

President Donald Trump may have learnt a few things from the elections that took place this week in New York City and in the States of New Jersey and Virginia. I say this, albeit with some doubt, from personal experience. I have worked closely with several dictators and other absolutists, and I noticed that they always find a justification for their defeats, when they are not outright claiming victories. They continue along the same autocratic line, while making a few electoral adjustments and finding a few scapegoats, both internal and external enemies. The blame is attributed to these enemies, who are more or less invented and fiercely demonised. The regime's propaganda is then always intensified. I have never seen an authoritarian leader leave office of their own accord or take responsibility for an electoral defeat.

Trump must have noted the reasons for these defeats – or someone in his inner circle will have risked the politically suicidal courage to point it out to him.

Firstly, the cost of living and the voters' economic situation continue to be important electoral arguments. New York is one of the world's most expensive cities. It ranks first when it comes to the cost of rental housing. And the price of essential goods, when compared to the average salary of its inhabitants, is proportionally one of the highest on the planet. New Jersey and Virginia have excessive rates and taxes, unaffordable energy and healthcare systems, and a lack of jobs. The economy is, in democracies, a very strong electoral argument.

Secondly, pragmatism attracts votes. People are starting to tire of the inter-party intolerance, which is fuelled daily by extremists in the USA, with Trump at the forefront. Moderation and realism in the face of day-to-day problems have great electoral advantages. It is a lesson that may be valid in other parts of the world where voting is free, in Portugal or as happened last week in the Netherlands. The citizens of our democracies are starting to be fed up with shouting, exaggerations, and idiotic extremism. They want proposals for solutions that address their fundamental worries and difficulties. They also do not want a media that amplifies verbal radicalism and boorish behaviour.

Thirdly, opposition to the instability, inhumanity, and poor and dangerous governance of Trump is growing. In last week's CNN/SSRS poll, the president's approval rating had fallen to 37%. He continues to be unconditionally supported by a significant fringe of Republicans, but the trend among Independents is in continuous decline. It is also noted that a portion of the Democrats who voted for him a year ago are now regretful.

Trump may be considered a poor governor and a prominent member among the autocratic leaders who are in charge of various countries, but I am sure he knows what all of them know: the essential thing is not to lose power. To achieve this, these people create fictions and false narratives, especially those that can most instil fear, destabilise the electorate, and stimulate hatred against segments of society that can be accused of being outsiders and having different behaviours.

He tried to do this with the winner of the election for New York City mayorship, Zohran Mamdani. This candidate, who ended up defeating not only Trump but also the usual Democratic Party elites, met all the conditions to be an easy political target: Muslim by religion, democratic socialist by conviction, and the son of immigrant parents of Afro-Indostanic origin. He won and showed that religion or immigrant status are not arguments that weigh heavily in an advanced democratic society. Sadiq Khan, the Labour mayor of London, had already demonstrated this when he was elected in 2016. In 2018, Khan was considered by Time magazine one of the 100 most influential people on the planet. I do not see any Portuguese politician on the Time lists.

In the next 12 months, before the federal Congressional mid-term elections, Trump will try to sabotage the governance of Mamdani and the two now-elected governors. He will do the same against all Democrats leading other states and cities. This is how the falsified narrative of the opponents' incompetence is constructed. He will also continue the deployment of National Guard military personnel to Democrat-majority cities, to establish in the public opinion the idea that the Democratic opposition is synonymous with social chaos and an inability to fight crime.

At the international level, he will seek to demonstrate a firm, warrior-like hand against Venezuela, Colombia, and Nigeria, among others.¹ He will not show firmness against Russia or China. Trump's style is one of subordination before the strong and brute force against the weaker. He knows he should not attack strong powers. But the others can easily be defeated, some under the pretext of fighting organised crime that traffics drugs to the USA, others under the invented alibi of defending Christian practitioners. In both cases, we have here matters that can mobilise voters and paint a noble and determined portrait of Trump. In the politics of make-believe, image often counts far more than the truth.

After these defeats, Trump will play hard and dirty, accentuating his authoritarianism. Will Americans and Europeans have the courage to raise their voices and say no, enough is enough?

P.S. Note: This the AI translation of my op-ed of today 7/11/2025 published in Lisbon in the daily "Diário de Notícias"

https://www.dn.pt/opiniao/como-ir-responder-o-presidente-trump-s-suas-derrotas

Trump and the politics of resentment

These are strange times. That´s why someone like Donal Trump is now in the centre of the stage. And then we find ourselves spending hours on him and his theatrics.

That´s what many of us did yesterday, as he was delivering his “major speech” on foreign policy. After the delivery, we all decided to write about it. Basically, to state that his views are naïve, simplistic, unaware of the complexities of state relations and so on. Fine.

But we also forgot that he was not speaking to us. His audience was the down-to-earth white American that feels the world of today is not responding to his or her preoccupations. Those who believe America is losing influence, international prestige and job opportunities.

I am afraid they might have liked his acting, the words, the conviction and the simplicity that comes from a very effective, but empty slogan, “America first”.

Trump might not win the presidential contest. But he is certainly contributing to harden the views and the resentments of those in the US that believe they are left behind by the elites. That will have some very serious long term consequences. 

Thinking aloud

At a time of great uncertainties, the key responsibility of a political leader is to minimize potential risks and bring tranquility to the minds of the citizens. To contribute to further instability, uncontrollable perils and to the loss of economic opportunities is bad leadership. Even when moral values and principles are on the line, the point is to respond to those challenges within the law and rules that can be accepted by the larger number of people. To go alone on politics is the best way to increase the risk and to find oneself on the wrong side of the solution. 

Bilderberg: a Western old men's joke

Today you and I know that we do not matter. Our names are not in the list of those attending this year’s Bilderberg Conference. This is annual secret get-together of politicians and businessmen that many see as the plotting house of the world. It is indeed a very secretive meeting, its list of attendees is small but powerful, and there are many conspiracy theories about the contents and intent of such annual meetings.

In the 2013 edition, that is just under way in the UK for the first time – the tradition is to have the meetings in the US – there are about 140 participants. Only 14 are women, which seems to show that when it comes to combining power and secrecy the big men do not trust the other gender. Also very interesting, almost everyone in attendance, with one exception, I think, is from a North-American or West European background. This seriously undermines the importance of the Bilderberg process: the world today is much bigger than the White Circles of the West. Even when those circles are bankers, media gurus, and their politicians. 

The responsibilities of a leading country

John Kerry has now been endorsed by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to be the next US Secretary of State. Although expected, this is good news. He follows the work of a great woman, Hilary Clinton, in one of the most demanding political jobs on earth.

I retain from his testimony to the Committee that he expressed a comprehensive view of American foreign policy. He went beyond military might and conflict resolution, which are certainly critical for peace, to include food and energy security, humanitarian assistance, the fight against disease, development aid, and climate change as integral parts of the American response to today's global issues. These are matters that would benefit tremendously from a deeper US involvement. What else should we anticipate from a leading country? Where should the example come from?

The point is to translate the intent into a coherent policy. I agree that words are important. But deeds speak louder.

I wish him well.