Asking AI what is my position about sanctions against criminal States

 Based on available information from his public commentary and his background as a former UN official, Victor Ângelo's opinion on diplomatic sanctions is nuanced. He generally views diplomatic and economic sanctions as a legitimate tool to pressure "rogue states" and hold them accountable for their actions. However, he also recognizes their limitations and potential problems.

His perspective is shaped by his decades of experience in the UN, where sanctions were frequently used as a tool of international diplomacy.

The Nuance of Sanctions

• Targeted Sanctions are Preferred: Ângelo, like many in the international community, sees targeted sanctions as more effective than broad-based ones. For example, he has noted how the UN Security Council has imposed targeted sanctions, such as travel bans on key individuals, to make clear the political price of unacceptable actions. This approach is intended to pressure a regime without causing undue hardship to the general population.

• Symbolism and Geopolitical Impact: He has also pointed to the symbolic and strategic value of sanctions. Sanctions can be a way for the international community to signal its collective disapproval and to isolate a rogue state.

• Limitations of Sanctions: Ângelo understands that sanctions are not a guaranteed solution. He has recognized that states with significant resources, such as oil and natural gas, or those with strong emerging alliances, may be less vulnerable to financial pressure.

In his analysis, he often highlights the complexity of international relations, where a single tool like sanctions may not be enough. He advocates for a comprehensive approach that includes a mix of diplomacy, containment, and engagement with a country's neighbors to address the behavior of rogue states.

"Vivência e Reflexões Geopolíticas": a book that should be widely read

 Vivências e Reflexões Geopolíticas ("Experiences and Geopolitical Reflections") is a book by Victor Ângelo that offers a unique perspective on global affairs, blending his personal experiences with professional analysis. Rather than a formal academic text, it is a collection of reflections informed by his long and distinguished career.

Here's what you should know about the book and its author:

About the Author and His Perspective

Victor Ângelo is a highly respected Portuguese diplomat who spent over three decades working for the United Nations, including serving as Special Representative of the Secretary-General. This background is crucial, as the book is a product of his on-the-ground experience in various conflict zones and complex geopolitical environments, such as Sierra Leone and the Central African Republic.

His writing is described by critics as clear, direct, and non-academic. He is known for cutting through complex issues with a straightforward style that makes geopolitical topics accessible to a wider audience.

Main Ideas and Content

The book is a mix of memoir and geopolitical commentary. It uses Ângelo's personal "vivências" (experiences) as a foundation for his "reflexões" (reflections). Key themes include:

• The Role of the UN: He provides a first-hand account of the United Nations' role in managing and resolving conflicts, offering a candid view from inside the organization.

• Contemporary Conflicts: The book analyzes major international issues, including the war in Ukraine and the tensions between the West and China, drawing on his expertise to offer context and potential solutions.

• A Call for Reform: Ângelo is a strong advocate for the reform of the UN Security Council, an idea he has discussed in various public appearances. This theme is central to his work.

In essence, the book is valued for its unique blend of personal narrative and professional insight, providing a grounded, practical look at the challenges and complexities of modern international relations from the perspective of someone who has been in the room.

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.

Comparing Victor Ângelo's views with others regarding the relations between Europe and ASEAN

 

Let’s zoom out and see how Victor Ângelo’s views on EU–ASEAN relations stack up against other diplomatic perspectives:

🌐 Shared Themes Across Diplomats and Analysts

• Strategic Importance of ASEAN: Like Ângelo, many experts highlight ASEAN’s role as a key partner for Europe. The EU sees ASEAN as vital for supply-chain resilience and geopolitical balance.
• Multipolarity and Nonalignment: Analysts from the European Union Institute for Security Studies note that ASEAN countries are actively diversifying alliances, avoiding overdependence on any single power — a theme Ângelo echoes in his call for deeper EU engagement.
• Cultural Sensitivity and Pragmatism: While Ângelo stresses empathy and cultural understanding, other voices emphasize practical, results-driven diplomacy over ideological alignment.

🧭 Diverging Priorities and Challenges

• Security vs. Trade Focus: Carnegie Europe points out that despite rising tensions in the Indo-Pacific, security hasn’t featured heavily on the EU–ASEAN agenda — a gap Ângelo seems keen to address.
• Democracy and Human Rights: The EU often struggles with how to engage ASEAN on normative issues like democracy and human rights, given ASEAN’s diverse political systems. Ângelo’s writing suggests a more constructive and reform-oriented approach, rather than confrontation.

📚 Intellectual and Institutional Voices

• The European Union and ASEAN official partnership documents emphasize multilateralism, sustainable development, and connectivity — aligning with Ângelo’s call for long-term strategic cooperation.
• Think tanks like Clingendael and Carnegie Endowment advocate for co-authored policy frameworks that reflect both European and Asian perspectives — a method that resonates with Ângelo’s emphasis on mutual respect and shared interests.

In essence, Victor Ângelo’s voice is part of a broader chorus calling for smarter, more empathetic diplomacy — but he adds a personal touch rooted in decades of field experience. 

Victor Ângelo's opinion columns

 Victor Ângelo is a regular opinion columnist for Diário de Notícias, contributing thoughtful pieces on international relations, diplomacy, and global affairs. While the exact number of weekly readers his articles reach isn’t publicly disclosed, Diário de Notícias is one of Portugal’s most prominent newspapers, with a substantial national and international readership. Given the visibility of the platform and the relevance of his topics, it’s safe to say his work engages a wide and influential audience

2022 political rentrée: the complexities ahead

A very complex rentrée: now what?

Victor Ângelo

 

We are back after the August break. It is the so-called political rentrée, at the international level always marked by the opening of a new annual cycle of the United Nations General Assembly. The Assembly will start next week, with world leaders putting the finishing touches to the speeches they will deliver. The Secretary-General would like them to talk mainly about peace, the food crisis afflicting various regions of the globe, climate change, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the poorest countries and youth education. But this is a very special rentrée, with a war taking place in the "first world" - something unthinkable a few months ago, when conflict was associated with lack of development, that is, when we were all deluded with theories that wars were the province of poor people living in distant horizons.

This has been a summer without a truce of any kind. Crises and uncertainties have increased and at the same time have shown us that the leaders who weigh on the international scene are unable to present reasonable and convincing proposals. The confusion caused by Vladimir Putin's adventurous and illegal policy is a case in point. We will go to the General Assembly after almost seven months of armed aggression against a sovereign state, our neighbour in Europe, and it will be almost certain that we will not hear any proposal that can respond to this immense challenge. The main European leaders, starting with Emmanuel Macron, are wandering in a political labyrinth. They know that the Kremlin cannot be allowed to win this war. That would be like giving a prize to autocrats and outlaw rulers, and an invitation to further violations of the international order. They also know that assistance to Ukraine may not be enough, however much they repeat the contrary in their public interventions, and that without such support there will be no Ukraine. But they do not draw the necessary conclusion: it is crucial to move to a higher stage, to an even more complete response, leading to an end to the aggression and a change in Russia's foreign policy.

In this context, which is not seen as worrying only by those who are playing political make-believe or preparing the next holiday, the group of former UN officials who wrote an open letter to António Guterres in April has now prepared a second public appeal. On the eve of the General Assembly, the group, of which I am one, is once again insisting on the need to propose political initiatives that will freeze hostilities and make it possible to start a process leading to peace. The agreements on the export of cereals and the inspection of the Zaporijia nuclear power station must be explored politically. The proposal now submitted by Guterres to the Security Council concerning the demilitarisation of the Zaporijia plant is a good starting point and should be strongly supported.

I recognise that such an appeal is very much inspired by an idealistic vision of international relations. It would, however, be a mistake to set idealism and principles aside. But the new position is also based on a very realistic observation: in a war, in these times of global interdependence and high technology, everyone loses, and a lot. Even more so when the threat comes from a superpower and therefore generates large-scale responses from rival powers. The authors of the Charter of the United Nations already thought so in 1945. And our planet is far more fragile today than it was 77 years ago.

It is time to be frank and direct. The ongoing aggression presents us with three options and requires a firm and clear decision. A solution inspired by the bain-marie technique will not work. In fact, over time, it ends up encouraging the offender and others with similar intentions. Here, either we light the fire to the maximum - in the conviction that in the end we will be on the side of the winners and the survivors - or we look for an alternative recipe, a political path. That is the decisive choice that our leaders must make.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 9 September 2022)

 

 

 

Russia and the rest

Five theses around the crisis with Russia

Victor Angelo

 

1. It is not acceptable to make political gains based on violating international law. Vladimir Putin and the Russian regime have attacked the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine by starting a war, in flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter. Therefore, they have no authority to impose conditions on the country that is the victim of this violence. In today's world, force cannot be a source of rights. Therefore, following the condemnation by the United Nations General Assembly on 2 March, the immediate withdrawal of invading troops from all Ukrainian territory must be demanded. And to insist on this, even when recognising the reality on the ground and the need to negotiate with the invaders. I should add, given the seriousness of the aggression and the possibility of future threats, that the best solution for guaranteeing peace, now and in the future, involves the political defeat of Putin. Here, sanctions count for a lot. They must be as focused on political impact as possible. The EU cannot continue to transfer nearly 700 million euros to Russia every day in payment for gas and oil imports. European leaders must be able to explain to their fellow citizens that tomorrow's peace and tranquillity require sacrifices in the present.  

2. The protection of civilian populations in a situation of armed conflict is an absolute priority. International humanitarian and human rights rules, generally referred to as the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, are clear: all parties have an unconditional duty to safeguard the integrity of civilian populations and property. This includes hospitals, humanitarian convoys, cultural assets, and residential areas. The first guarantor of this duty is the UN Security Council. In the specific case of Ukraine, a draft resolution on this matter, proposed by a member other than Russia, should be put to a vote in the Council. It is obvious that Russia would use its veto. But the draft would also have the merit of putting pressure on China.

3. No-fly zone: the imposition of a no-fly zone contributes effectively to the protection of civilians. Under normal conditions, a decision of this kind should be taken by the Security Council, as part of the motion on the security of populations. If it is decided by a coalition of states alone, outside the Council, it will always be seen as a declaration of war by the country targeted by the ban. Thus, if the decision were to come from NATO, we would immediately enter into a direct conflict between our side and the Russian side. That is why NATO decided to respond with a categorical no to this request, made insistently by President Zelensky and repeated daily by some European political personalities, who seem to ignore the consequences of the issue. It is true that a small group of countries could declare, without going through NATO, the exclusion from Ukrainian airspace. But this is not a viable option. 

4. China must get out of its ambiguity and false neutrality and translate its grand declarations of principles into action. Communication with the Chinese leadership must be maintained. The US National Security Advisor, Jake Sullivan, had a long meeting in Rome with the Chinese top foreign affairs official, Yang Jiechi. There was much disagreement, but both sides recognised the importance of keeping the lines of contact open. Europe's leaders should do likewise and be in continuous liaison with President Xi Jinping. The alliance between Xi and Putin must be weakened. This is possible. It is essential to strike a very sensitive chord in China, that of territorial integrity and respect for the sovereignty of each State. And to insist on the defence of multilateral institutions, an area where China wants to be a champion, at a time when the Kremlin is undermining the credibility of the UN. But, above all, it would be a question of combating the idea that prevails today in Beijing and which believes that the defeat of Putin would weaken Xi's power, in the year in which the 20th congress of the Chinese Communist Party is being prepared. Rather, it must be shown that Putin's continuation damages the international image of his main ally and adversely affects the economic prosperity of all. China holds one of the keys to solving the Russian crisis.

5. The geostrategic paradigm has changed. It is no longer relevant to look at international relations on the basis of the framework of analysis constructed in the last thirty years, in the period following the Cold War. Geostrategy now has a strong human dimension. It is no longer just about defending the state, the regime and securing zones of influence. People, their individual and collective security, their physical and spiritual integrity, have become part of the equation. Alliances between states must be based on ethical principles and values that respect citizens and allow them to be free and to live in peace, without fear or blackmail of war, and without hypocrisy.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 18 March 2022)