Reflecting about the new international rules: business and might

The New International Order: Business and Brute Force

By Victor Ângelo

I have many doubts about the footballing abilities—and others—of President Donald Trump, especially now that he has started the New Year with two own goals.

The first own goal was the intervention in Venezuela. It resulted in the deterioration of his country’s international image and handed points on a silver platter to Russia and China.

The UN Security Council meeting revealed the gravity of the American adventure in Venezuela. The Secretary-General, who out of prudence did not attend the meeting in person, had a statement read out which underlined that Venezuela’s sovereignty, political independence, and territorial integrity had been violated. In that communication, he referred to the US military operation as a “dangerous precedent”, which seemed strange to several governments and analysts, considering that the history of the Latin American region is littered with similar interventions—Harvard University historians have inventoried more than forty extraconstitutional ruptures organised with the support or at the instigation of Washington. The most famous occurred in 1973, when President Salvador Allende of Chile was assassinated thanks to the organisational skills of the CIA.

The great difference between the military intervention of a few days ago and previous ones lies in President Trump’s admission that the current one aimed at the usurpation of the oil resources of the attacked country. Past interferences were presented with another level of subtlety, without direct references to expropriations or looting.

I note an additional point regarding Guterres’ communication. Many at the United Nations compared the statement he made following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 with this one now, carried out by the USA. Guterres condemned Russia directly and was himself present at the Security Council meeting for that purpose. He addressed Vladimir Putin unambiguously, in the name of peace and political ethics. In the case of the USA, he used only generic arguments about the international order and the violation of the Charter, without mentioning Trump’s name. Let this be noted, and let it serve as an invitation to reflection.

The first own goal was favourable to the Russian Federation and China. The repeated references in Washington to the theory of spheres of influence made it more difficult to condemn the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Someone circulating in the corridors of the Kremlin sent me a provocative message, albeit with some wit and a touch of diplomacy in the style learned from old Soviet manuals. It said they were sure I would condemn, in this week’s chronicle, the unjustified aggression against the Venezuelan power and demand that the European Union impose sanctions against the mastermind of the kidnappings. A Putin's faithful joker. One might say that the Russian leaders feel happy and content with what happened in Venezuela.

As for China, which was in fact the most indirectly targeted country—Washington does not want China to gain a presence in the area of influence that the Americans consider their own—there was a kind of validation of its claims regarding Taiwan. This does not mean that Beijing is thinking of launching a military operation against Taipei in the very near future. China knows that such an offensive, should it happen, would carry high costs. But it has now received an indication from the Trump Administration that it can increase political-military pressure on the island. And use more bellicose language, which is indeed happening this week after a Taiwanese MP proposed an amendment to the “Act Governing the Relations between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area”, a law adopted by Taipei in 1992. According to the proposal, the statute would be renamed the “Act on Relations between Taiwan and the People's Republic of China”. The new name and content are seen by Beijing as yet another attempt to separate the two parts and promote Taiwan's independence—something that is absolutely unacceptable to the Chinese leadership.

The second own goal resulted from statements by Trump and those around him, such as Stephen Miller—a hawk who serves as the White House Deputy Chief of Staff—regarding Greenland. Trump is preparing to annex Greenland, which is a territory of the European space through its connection to Denmark. The reason invoked—to create a security barrier against Russia and China—makes no sense. The USA has a military base in Greenland and can count on full Danish cooperation. It should be noted that during the Cold War, the base housed around 10,000 American military personnel. Now, it has around 150. This evolution does not reveal great geopolitical fears on the part of the USA. Not forgetting that there are several treaties between the USA and Denmark that recognise Danish sovereignty regarding Greenland.

Trump has his eyes fixed on the territory’s natural riches, on the maritime corridors that climate change will make navigable the Arctic zone, on the airspace controlled by Greenland—which has enormous strategic value—and on History: he wants to see his name added to the list of presidents who augmented the American territorial area.

He should also think about the impact that the annexation will have on the future of NATO. But for him, NATO serves to buy weaponry from the American industry. And that will continue to happen for many years, whether there is NATO or not. The Europeans are captive customers. The new reality is evident: in our day, business and brute force are triumphing over diplomacy and the international order, thanks to Trump, Putin, and others alike.

Published in Portuguese language in today's edition (09/01/2026) of Diário de Notícias. 

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. 

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.