Nihilism or optimism: the global disorder

 The International Disorder: Nihilism or Optimism?

Victor Ângelo

“God is dead,” proclaimed the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche at the close of the nineteenth century. Fundamentally, this phrase signified that religion—particularly Christianity—had ceased to serve as the principal source of traditional values, and that a new era demanded a different moral framework. Nietzsche’s intent was to draw attention to the necessity of transcending the phase of disorientation that invariably accompanies a paradigm shift, and to encourage reflection upon the future.

Were Nietzsche alive today, he might well have his protagonist declare, “the international order is dead.” Such a statement would imply that the global legal and institutional architecture, which fell into a coma in February 2022, has now, at the dawn of this year, finally expired following recent events and proclamations that have shaken the international stage.

Following this line of thought, one might assert that we are presently living through a period of political and moral nihilism. That is to say, the fundamental norms governing relations between states—such as the inviolable sovereignty of all, the prohibition of force in resolving disputes, and non-intervention in the internal affairs of others—are being openly flouted by global powers. As was recently remarked in an interview with the New York Times, the only moral framework that appears to prevail is that defined by those who wield power. This is the essence of nihilism. Institutions and conventions are regarded as obsolete, ineffective, and thus to be disregarded. Such is the case, among others, with the United Nations system, which has been progressively marginalised by the leaders of the major powers.

It is within this confused and uncertain context that this year’s Davos gathering will take place, from 19 to 23 January. Hundreds of leaders from across the globe, representing government, business, and civil society, will convene in the Swiss town in a “spirit of dialogue”—the event’s guiding theme. It is heartening to speak of dialogue at a time when it is so sorely needed. Above all, it is vital to resist fatigue and cynicism in the face of the complexity of new realities. The current challenges demand courage, candour, and greater diplomatic skill. Dialogue, indeed.

For the first time, a large-scale participation from the Global South is anticipated. This reminds us that the future must take into account the interests and concerns of those countries excluded from the old, developed West. The Global South also seeks to remind us of the need to reconstruct the multilateral system, integrate emerging economies into a balanced framework of global trade, and address issues of development, excessive sovereign debt, health, and climate.

The President of the United States will be present in Davos. It is expected that there will be a meeting with President Zelensky and those European leaders willing to support the implementation of the peace plan for Ukraine. This is an important development, although I remain convinced that we are still far from seeing Vladimir Putin accept the plan in its current form. In recent times, Putin has intensified his aggression and war crimes against Ukraine, thereby signalling his reliance above all on war and the violence of force. For him, the international order that has been law for decades is, in fact, dead.

Europeans must prepare to confront the consequences of this new paradigm, and in particular, the threat now emanating from the Kremlin and other sources. Thus, beyond discussing Europe’s contribution to the execution of a possible, albeit distant, peace plan, it is essential to accelerate cooperation among European states and invest in a coordinated manner in the autonomy of defence within our geopolitical space. In doing so, we demonstrate our understanding that the world has changed and is, for now, a perilous place in which to live.

Simultaneously, Europe should, in alliance with the democracies of the Global South, play a more active role in reforming the multilateral system, especially the United Nations. This is a task that will enable us to face the future with renewed optimism and to build bridges with other regions of the globe. The message here is clear: Europe believes in the importance of international law and stands ready to contribute to a fairer rebalancing of relations between states.

The signing of the EU–Mercosur Trade Agreement, which will take place tomorrow in the Paraguayan capital, illustrates the path that ought to be followed. The presence of Ursula von der Leyen and António Costa in Asunción to sign an agreement that has taken decades to reach fruition largely contradicts the thesis that the international order is dead. I hope that Davos will also reveal that, in these uncertain times, there remains space for imagination and the will to approach the future with optimism.

_________________________________________________________

https://www.dn.pt/opiniao/a-desordem-internacional-niilismo-ou-otimismo

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

Reforming the United Nations in the high technological era

The new core United Nations, a reformed one, must focus on security, human rights and development. To achieve results in these areas it must reorganise itself, taking into consideration we are in an different era. Mechanisms like the UN Security Council, with the current composition and rules, are instruments of the past. We need organs that have the global representative of the world of today and make use of the most advanced technology. For instance, the new UN should put in place a Permanent Neutrality Monitoring Infrastructure. This would mean shared sensor arrays and and a system of satellite verification centers.

Peacekeeping, and this is just another example, should include a Multilateral Enforcement Clause. The challenge is to define the rules of such Clause, but member States should work on that definition. 

In my opinion, a Multilateral Enforcement Clause would be a specialized legal and strategic UN Security Council-approved tech-based mechanism within a peacebuilding/keeping treaty designed to ensure compliance through collective action. An enforcement clause would permit pre-authorized consequences and automaticity.

Its primary goal is to solve the "Security Dilemma"—where one party is afraid to comply because they fear the other side will cheat—by creating a credible, high-cost penalty for violations. The clause must explicitly define what constitutes a violation severe enough to activate enforcement. The violations could be of three types: qualitative, quantitative and procedural. A simple "denial of access" to monitors could be classified a de facto breach, a "red line violation". 

A key aspect of the reform is to remove the Veto power of the UN Security Council permanent members. That can be done through indirect means. For instance, sanctions would automatically return unless the Council votes unanimously to keep them lifted. This means a single power cannot protect a violator. Or, by referring the possible violation to a neutral body (like the International Court of Justice or a specialized panel of experts) so that the determination of a breach is objective rather than political.

Basically, I am stressing two points in this text: the UN reform, its political role, is a matter of great urgency; and it can be done if we move out of traditional approaches and old fashioned ways of looking at international affairs. 

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.