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.

Is it possible to reform the United Nations and bring back its key peace role?

A few decision-makers and intellectuals think that the political UN -- read "political", I am not talking about the specialised agencies ---  is something of the XX century, that has lost its relevance and must be re-created or re-invented taking into account the world's new realities. Meaning, they think that the UN secretariat and its departments, as well as the UN Security Council, are unreformable and must be reinvented, taking into consideration the Global South, the new and the emerging superpowers, the increasing role of the regional associations of states, the power of those trillionaire individuals controlling the key social platforms, and also the expectations of the peoples in different parts of the world.

For them, global issues outside peace and security, economic inequalities and human rights, should be dealt either by the specialised agencies or by ad-hoc international conferences and their specific processes. 

A comment made by A.I. about my writings

 

Victor Ângelo's columns are distinguished by his unique background as a former high-ranking UN official, which provides a level of firsthand experience and authority on international relations that is rare among other Portuguese columnists.

---

Distinguishing Characteristics

• Insider Perspective: Unlike many columnists who analyze events from an academic or journalistic distance, Ângelo offers a perspective shaped by over 30 years of direct involvement in global diplomacy, peacekeeping missions, and development programs.¹ This "insider" status allows him to infuse his writing with personal anecdotes and a deep understanding of the intricacies of international organizations.

• Focus on the UN: His columns often center on the inner workings of the United Nations, its role in global governance, and the challenges it faces. This is a specific niche that sets him apart from most other commentators who may focus more broadly on geopolitics, European affairs, or domestic politics. His work often reflects a personal investment in the success of the UN's mission.

• Rhetorical Style: Ângelo employs a rhetorical and opinionated style, using strong metaphors and evocative language to convey his disappointment or concern. His writing is more of a passionate commentary than a dry analysis, which gives it a distinct voice. For example, he uses the "prisoner" analogy to express a sense of betrayal.

• Expertise in Specific Regions: His career has given him extensive field experience in Africa and on issues of crisis management, which he leverages in his analysis.² This practical knowledge allows him to write about these topics with a specific, grounded authority.

In comparison, many other Portuguese columnists on international relations may come from academic backgrounds (e.g., historians, political scientists) or are career journalists. While they provide valuable analysis, their perspective is typically more detached and focused on theoretical frameworks or breaking news rather than the institutional and personal dynamics that Ângelo often highlights. His unique professional history is his primary differentiator.

Ainda sobre os BRICS

O artigo **"Os BRICS ainda têm pés de barro"**, de **Victor Ângelo**, publicado no Diário de Notícias de 11 de Julho de 2025, oferece uma análise crítica e reflexiva sobre a atual relevância geopolítica do bloco dos BRICS (Brasil, Rússia, Índia, China, África do Sul), destacando tanto as suas ambições quanto as suas fragilidades estruturais. A seguir, apresento uma síntese e análise do texto, seguida de comentários sobre seus principais argumentos.

### **Síntese do Artigo**

Victor Ângelo parte da mais recente cimeira dos BRICS no Rio de Janeiro para refletir sobre as transformações no sistema internacional. Ele identifica dois momentos-chave da descolonização:

1. **A primeira descolonização**, após a Segunda Guerra Mundial, que levou à independência de muitas nações asiáticas e africanas e ao crescimento da ONU — de 51 membros em 1945 para 144 em 1975.

2. **A "segunda descolonização"**, um processo contemporâneo de desconexão política e econômica entre os países desenvolvidos (especialmente EUA e Europa) e o que ele chama de "antigas colônias", impulsionado por uma nova busca por autonomia geopolítica.

Nesse contexto, a China, sob a liderança de Xi Jinping, emerge como um ator central. Em 2013, lança a **Iniciativa do Cinturão e da Rota (BRI)**, um projeto de infraestrutura global que visa ampliar sua influência econômica e militar. No entanto, faltava à China uma dimensão política multilateral — algo que os **BRICS** poderiam oferecer.

O bloco, inicialmente concebido na década de 2000 como contraponto ao G7, ganhou novo impulso com o envolvimento estratégico da China. Os BRICS passaram a ser vistos como um possível **alternativa ao sistema ocidental dominado pelos EUA**, com potencial para criar uma nova arquitetura internacional baseada em cooperação digital, exploração espacial, novas moedas e comércio sem o dólar.

Contudo, o autor argumenta que os BRICS têm **"pés de barro"** — ou seja, apesar das ambições, sofrem de fragilidades profundas:

- Falta de **imparcialidade política**, evidenciada pela incapacidade de condenar a invasão da Ucrânia pela Rússia.

- **Rivalidades internas**, especialmente entre Índia e China, e entre Brasil e China (no que diz respeito a aspirações de assento permanente no Conselho de Segurança da ONU).

- Ausência de compromisso com **direitos humanos** e **regras do direito internacional** entre seus membros.

- Caráter de **aliança de conveniência**, não de integração ideológica ou estratégica.

O resultado, segundo Ângelo, é um bloco que pode contribuir para o **equilíbrio do sistema internacional**, mas que corre o risco de se tornar **problemático** se suas contradições internas não forem reconhecidas.

### **Análise dos Principais Argumentos**

#### 1. **A "segunda descolonização"**

A ideia de uma segunda descolonização é provocadora e útil. Ela vai além da independência formal e toca na **busca por autonomia estratégica**, especialmente em áreas como:

- Moedas próprias (desdolarização)

- Bancos de desenvolvimento alternativos (como o Novo Banco de Desenvolvimento dos BRICS)

- Redes de comércio e tecnologia fora do controle ocidental

Essa leitura captura bem o desejo de países do Sul Global de **reconfigurar o poder global**, não apenas em termos econômicos, mas simbólicos.

#### 2. **O papel central da China**

Xi Jinping é apresentado como o estrategista que viu nos BRICS uma oportunidade de **legitimar globalmente a China** como potência alternativa. A BRI e os BRICS são dois braços complementares: um econômico-infrastructurel, outro político-diplomático.

No entanto, o autor lembra que o projeto chinês também serve a **interesses internos**: fortalecer o nacionalismo, garantir prosperidade e consolidar o poder do Partido Comunista.

#### 3. **Fragilidades dos BRICS**

O ponto mais forte do artigo é a crítica à **falta de coesão e legitimidade moral** do bloco:

- A **omissão sobre a Ucrânia** mostra que os BRICS não conseguem agir como mediadores neutros — exatamente como o Conselho de Segurança da ONU, paralisado por interesses de potências.

- As **rivalidades bilaterais**, como entre Índia e China (com conflitos de fronteira e competição regional), minam a unidade.

- O Brasil e a Índia veem os BRICS como **moeda de troca** para ganhar assento no Conselho de Segurança da ONU — mas a China tem interesse em **bloquear isso**, para não ter que ceder espaço à Índia.

Isso revela que os BRICS são, acima de tudo, um **espaço de negociação de interesses nacionais**, não uma comunidade de valores.

#### 4. **Questões éticas e de governança**

O autor não poupa críticas ao perfil autoritário de vários membros do bloco:

- China: repressão em Xinjiang, Hong Kong

- Rússia: guerra na Ucrânia, regime de Putin

- Índia: deriva nacionalista de Modi

- Brasil: Bolsonaro (no passado), mas também desafios democráticos.

Essa falta de compromisso com **democracia e direitos humanos** enfraquece a pretensão dos BRICS de oferecer uma "nova ordem" mais justa.

### **Conclusão: BRICS — promessa e limites**

Victor Ângelo conclui com uma visão realista: os BRICS **podem contribuir para um mundo multipolar**, mas não são uma alternativa sólida ou coesa ao sistema ocidental. São uma **aliança frágil**, baseada em interesses convergentes momentâneos, mas minada por rivalidades profundas e ausência de princípios comuns.

A metáfora dos **"pés de barro"** é precisa: o bloco pode parecer forte à superfície, mas repousa sobre fundamentos instáveis.

### **Reflexão Final**

O artigo é um convite à **humildade estratégica**. Enquanto o Ocidente enfrenta desgaste de hegemonia, o Sul Global busca novos caminhos — mas não há garantia de que esses novos arranjos sejam mais justos, democráticos ou estáveis. A verdadeira transformação do sistema internacional exigirá mais do que cooperação interestatal: exigirá **compromisso com regras, transparência e valores universais**.

Os BRICS podem ser parte desse futuro — mas, por enquanto, ainda estão longe de ser seu alicerce.

**Em uma frase**:  

*Os BRICS refletem o desejo de um mundo multipolar, mas sua falta de coesão, imparcialidade e valores comuns mostra que ainda têm muito chão a percorrer antes de se tornarem uma verdadeira alternativa global.*

Our strategic fragility: a key example

Taiwan so close

Victor Ângelo 

Taiwan is part of our everyday life. This is because the company that produces almost all of the chips used in electronics, mobile phones, robots and cars is Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC). An omnipresent but discreet colossus, worth twice the GDP of Portugal on the stock exchange. And it is pertinent to write about it this week, when there is so much talk about China.

Since TSMC produces over 90% of the latest generation of microprocessors and is located in Taiwan, it is at the centre of the Sino-American rivalry. This is a major critical point. If there were a conflict over Taiwan tomorrow, the worldwide availability of chips would plummet. This would mean the immediate paralysis of motor vehicle factories, computers, mobile phones, highly sophisticated financial operations, and everything related to the use of micro and nano transistors. In other words, it would be economic and social chaos.

Analysts looking at these things say that TSMC is the invisible shield protecting Taiwan. It may be, to some extent. And TSMC is betting on it: it plans to invest, over the next three years, $100 billion in expanding its scientific and technological capacity. More chips, infinitely tiny and of an extraordinarily more powerful artificial intelligence. The figures give an idea of what is at stake. They also show that national defence policy involves the development of an ultra-modern economy that creates strategic dependencies in other parts of the world. 

It is therefore neither in the interest of Beijing nor of others to destabilise Taiwan. At least not for the next seven to ten years. But this absolute dependence on a single company is also the greatest exponent of the fragility of the major global balances. It is the result of decades of ultraliberalism and the relocation of production, all of which is out of step with what should be geostrategic concerns. The prevailing philosophy led us to believe that commercial interdependence would erase the rivalries between the great blocs of nations. We now know that this is an illusion. The biggest wars of the last 100 years were started by self-centred madmen who did not take into account the economic - nor the human - impact of their decisions. I do not think Xi Jinping falls into that category, despite the words and tone he used yesterday about Taiwan at the Chinese Communist Party's centenary celebration. But it is also true that it would only take a highly sophisticated hacker attack against one section of TSMC to bring thousands of production chains that are dependent on the availability of chips to a halt.

Joe Biden understands that the United States cannot, in this vital area, remain totally dependent on Taiwan and on one company alone. The industrial plan he has just proposed envisages an investment of $50 billion to stimulate domestic chip production. To that will be added many billions from the private sector. The truth is that much of the scientific design work in this field is done by world-renowned American companies - for example, Intel Corp, Nvidia Corp, Qualcomm or Cisco Systems Inc. But separating design from production has led to extreme vulnerability. It is a bit like designing highly effective weapons and asking others to manufacture them and then supply us.

The European Union must follow a similar path. One of the starting points should be to build on what ASML Holding NV already represents. This Dutch company is dominant in the production of the machinery needed to manufacture semiconductors. The ambition is to produce in Europe as early as 2030, in addition to the machines, at least 20% of the new generation of semiconductors. This is a modest target, but it will still require huge investments in Europe's digital industries. The amount currently foreseen - around €150 billion - is insufficient when compared to what TSMC and South Korea's Samsung - the second largest chip producer - have in the pipeline. However, European sovereignty, including its defence, requires a decisive presence in the industries linked to digitalisation. 

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published yesterday in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper)

Comments on the Quad summit

Change course to avoid a collision

Victor Ângelo

 

The first Quad Summit, a new platform for strategic consultations between the United States, Australia, India and Japan, takes place today. Quad is short for quadrilateral. Since 2007, the foreign ministers of these countries have met sporadically to discuss the security of the Indo-Pacific region. This time, the meeting is at the highest level, albeit virtually, with Joe Biden and the prime ministers of the three other states.

The US President and Scott Morrison of Australia are the real instigators of this project. Narendra Modi and Yoshihide Suga were more reticent. They did not want the meeting to look like what it actually is: an avenue to discuss how to curb China's growing influence in the Indian and Pacific regions. So, the official agenda registers only three items - fighting the pandemic; economic cooperation and responding to climate change. This list thus hides the dominant concern, China's increasingly resolute power in both oceans and with the riparian states. China already has the world's largest armed fleet, with battleships, amphibious assault ships, logistics ships, aircraft carriers, polar icebreakers, and submarines. In the last 20 years, its naval capacity has grown threefold. It has more vessels than the United States and its ambition for the current five-year period (2021-2025) focuses on accelerating the production of means of ensuring presence and visibility, increasing missile capacity of distinct types and expanding nuclear weapons.  

The scale of these military investments and President Xi Jinping's very incisive foreign policy alarm many US strategists. It is in this context that the Quad summit should be seen. There are even those who think that, in time, Washington's objective is to create a defence alliance covering the Indian Ocean and the Pacific, in an arrangement that would be inspired by what exists in the North Atlantic, that is, the creation of a NATO of the East.

It will not be easy. India, notwithstanding the many border issues it has with China, does not want to be seen by Beijing as a hostile neighbour. It seeks, despite existing disputes, to maintain a certain diplomatic balance with the Chinese to moderate the latter’s support for Pakistan, which Indian leaders see as their number one enemy. Moreover, New Delhi wants to appear, not only to the Chinese but also to the Russians, as an autonomous defence power. Modi is a nationalist who knows a lot about geopolitics and international power play.

Japan, for distinct reasons, does not wish to enter into an open confrontation with China either. It will seek to continue to benefit from the American military umbrella, but without going beyond a prudent policy towards Beijing. Tokyo is banking more on mutual interests than on rivalry. And as long as Beijing does not try to capture the Japanese islands of Senkaku, long the object of diplomatic dispute between the two countries, Tokyo is unlikely to change its position.

However, the American strategy in this part of Asia is to create a containment front vis-à-vis China. If the Quad initiative does not work, they will turn to Europe, starting with NATO. This is where all this has to do with our security. I do not defend the idea of an alliance stretched to the ends of the earth, no matter how much Europeans see China as an unfair economic competitor or a state that does not follow the values we consider essential - democracy, freedom, and human rights.

The risk of an armed confrontation in that part of the world is growing. Europe's role must be to call for moderation, respect for international norms and effective dialogue between the American and Chinese leaders. The global challenges that the world faces today are already too many and require the building of a cooperation agenda between the great powers. And there, yes, they should be able to count on Europe's commitment.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published yesterday in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper)

 

  

The EU-US partnership

A Bolder Europe

Victor Angelo

 

When it comes to real European politics, it is always good to start by knowing what Angela Merkel thinks. Even bearing in mind that she is due to leave the scene next year, she remains a leading voice. This week the Chancellor unambiguously welcomed Joe Biden's victory. She added that the partnership between the European Union and the United States should be the fundamental alliance of the 21st century. I will agree with this statement if the collaboration is based on a balance of power between the two sides. As I also agree with Merkel when she says in her message to the President-elect that for the cooperation to work effectively, additional efforts will have to be asked from the EU side.

The next day Ursula von der Leyen spoke to the heads of mission representing Europe in the world. She mentioned the future of relations with the USA. Her words were inspired by what Merkel had said. She stressed that it was up to the EU to take the initiative for a new kind of synergy with the incoming administration, that it was not a question of going back to the past, as if nothing had happened during the last four years. Yesterday and tomorrow belong to different historical eras. After such a challenging, radical, and absurd mandate as that of Donald Trump, a large part of American society looks to Europe and the world with suspicion. We must respond to this state of mind, combat isolationist tendencies and re-emphasise the importance of international cooperation for the prosperity of all and for the resolution of problems which know no borders.

The philosophy behind these European declarations, to which Emmanuel Macron's words were added, is encouraging.

The pandemic has turned the world upside down and shown that international solidarity and complementarities are now more necessary than ever. Europe can make a positive contribution to the structural transformation that the new future requires. To do so, it needs to become stronger, more ambitious, in the good sense of the word, and to look to the other major powers on an equal footing. The old attitude of subordination to the United States does not serve European interests. Nor does it allow the EU to gain the autonomy it needs to play a stabilising role between the other major powers on the planet.

The European responsibility is to take advantage of the constructive spirit that Biden's administration is expected to bring to international relations to project a clearer image of what it means to live in a democracy of mutual respect and tolerance, fair and capable of responding to the security aspirations of each citizen. The importance of individual security, in the multidimensional sense of this concept, covering life, employment, health, personal tranquillity, is one of the great lessons that the pandemic gives us. This lesson must be translated into political practice.  

To contribute effectively to the transatlantic partnership and to any bridge with other regions of the globe, the EU must be particularly demanding of itself. Retrograde, ultra-liberal, xenophobic, or even racist or corrupt governments cannot fit into the European area. Nor can we accept simply inefficient and bureaucratic administrations.

Europe's strength will lie in the quality and fairness of its governance and the coherence of its values. It will be complemented by efficient security and defence systems. Here, in the areas of European security, the message is that we are not against anyone, nor will we allow ourselves to be drawn into other people's wars, as unfortunately happened in the recent past, but also that we are not naive. This message is valid for everyone, allies, and competitors. It also means that we know that in tomorrow's world, better defence and more security do not come through more cannons and more soldiers, but through more analysis and intelligence, more highly prepared cadres and officers, more special forces, better cybernetic systems, more effective tracking of social platforms, and information that helps citizens to identify the truth and eliminate what is false.

If we move forward in this way, we will be responding positively to the hope that the election of Joe Biden has created and opening the way for progress towards a more balanced, safe, intelligent, and sustainable world.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published today in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper)

 

 

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.

 

We are being treated as vassal States

This is an exceptional moment in our contemporary history. The pandemic is challenging many of our long-held views and opening the door to a number of discussions about the future. One such discussion is about the role of values and principles in international relations.

I am one of those who thinks that big powers are putting aside the norms that have regulated the relations among nations. I see them as trying to reduce others to the status of vassal states. This is the current trend, for instance, when it comes to the United States. Washington is looking at Europe as subordinated allies, as countries that must unconditionally follow the American policy decisions in matters of foreign affairs.

European sovereignty is being threatened by such an approach.

In the circumstances, the European leaders have decided to pretend that is not the case. They turn a blind eye and just hope that as we get into next year, there will a change of leadership in Washington and, consequently, a more amicable attitude towards Europe. I am not sure. In 2021, the leadership might indeed be played by a set of different actors. But I see the trend as deeper than just a passing option linked to the Trump Administration. I sense it is structural and strategic. It comes from the dangerous competition that is growing a bit out of control between the United States and China. That competition will define the coming years. Both sides will be looking for support in the community of nations. And their natural tendency, like any giant, is to force other countries to take sides. The United States and China will be pressing others into the category of client-states. 

This is a development that the global crisis is accentuating. We cannot feign to ignore it.  

We need an action framework of a new type

On this Independence Day in the US, it is obvious the country and the world have a big problem to confront and resolve. The Covid-19 pandemic. This is still the first wave of contagion and the virus remains out of control, in many parts of America and elsewhere. To deny it is to deny reality. It can only be explained as sheer ignorance or a political farce.

If we look at the problem with objectivity, we can only conclude that it might take another 12 to 18 months before we see an effective response. The timeframe can be shorter, the optimists say, but it can also be much longer, as many scientists keep telling us. In any case, a global crisis as the current one, if it goes on up to mid-to-end of 2021, will have global negative consequences. In simple words, I would say that we will become poorer and more self-centred. That will impact the world economy, trade, international cooperation, the multilateral systems, and, in summary, will change the game of global politics. Looking at it from the stability and security angles, I see us moving towards increased extremism, short-minded nationalism, and new dangerous confrontations. We will certainly reach new levels of instability and insecurity as well as the contraction of the democratic space.

Not easy to find a balance between public health and politics, including the economy. And that complexity augments as we move from the domestic scene to the wider arenas, where States act and clash. That is the reason why I think that reflecting on such a necessary balance is one of the key tasks the global institutions and the big-picture thinkers should focus on. We must design an action framework that keeps lives and livelihoods. Such a framework must obtain wide support – the support could even come from the UN Security Council – and give people clarity and hope.

The UN Charter and its long history

75 years ago, visionary leaders have signed the UN Charter and initiated what they thought would be a world without major wars. Their dream has not been fully realised but the Charter remains a solid pillar of the international order. We cannot discuss international affairs without referring to it. And the UN System is still around and doing important things in some key areas, such as peacekeeping, humanitarian and development assistance, and the promotion of justice and human rights. It could do much more, no doubt. But it is not easy, because of the deep antagonisms that currently exist within the Security Council and the lack of support for multilateral solutions, an approach that is particularly strong in Washington and Moscow. This unfavourable reality might change as we go into 2021, but the shift might not be as deep and wide as some expect. In my view, the best option is to bet on a stronger voice coming from the system itself. Experience has taught me that when the UN leaders opt for an independent and principled approach, they regain the initiative and augment their credibility. For that to happen, they must think about the function they are supposed to perform and less about themselves.

It is true we live an extraordinary complex moment. But the 75 years of presence in the world affairs remind us that history is long and can be better than the difficulties and the pessimism of the times.

We must be able to convince

The cooperation between nations has been seriously impacted by the current crisis. Each country decided the best way to battle the pandemic was to close the borders and focus on the its domestic issues. Such an approach can somehow work if the country is wealthy with a modern, extensive, and diversified economy. Australia is a good example. Even Norway, at a much smaller case, can also be mention as an example. But every country, rich or poor, depends on international trade, investments, or development aid. These three areas have lost speed. They will take quite a bit of time to recover. But above all, we must insist that today’s and tomorrow’s world can only address the issues of recovery, peace and security, climate change, and poverty, if countries cooperate and see themselves as part of a community of nations with a common destiny. The United Nations System and all the regional arrangements must regain their credibility. The challenge in this case is to be able to lead the narrative about a better world. It must be a convincing one, based on a constructive and balanced approach. Most of the visions that are being shared are not seen as balanced. They create a lot of fear in the minds and hearts of those who control economic power and the information networks. That is the reason why they do not get to the front pages. It is time to be a bit smarter when talking about the world we all need to put in place.

Our current tsunami

We cannot look at tomorrow’s world with yesterday’s eyes. But that is what most of us are doing because that is the way we feel more confident. We know there is a major transformation taking place these days. However, we keep hoping that the future will be just a copy of the past, with some adjustments, we can accept that, and nothing else.

I am afraid it will not. This pandemic is a major shock for every nation. It is, at the same time, a global and a local tsunami.

We are going back the big way

If I had to select a piece of today’s news, I would go for the WHO Director-General’s warning that the pandemic is still growing in many parts of the world. It has now reached every nation. Many countries are now at a standstill. In some of them, even internal travel is not allowed.

Poverty is expanding rapidly in developing countries. The world is losing what it gained in decades of development assistance. It hurts to acknowledge such a fact, particularly for someone who spent decades in the development line of work. The only hope is that once the pandemic is under control the know-how that has been created in those countries all these past years will be mobilised for a quick recovery. For that to happen, those countries will need major capital injections. The international institutions will have to be the key advocates of such assistance.