Notes about the election of the new United Nations Secretary-General

 

The choice of the next Secretary-General could decide the UN’s fate

The Elders Foundation

38,221 followers

May 1, 2026

Dear friends,

More than two months since the US and Israel began their illegal attacks on Iran, the fallout continues to be felt globally. As peace talks continue to stall, maritime traffic remains blocked in the Strait of Hormuz, and global energy markets show no signs of stabilising. The United Nations Secretary-General might be expected to play a critical role in resolving such a conflict, yet the diminishing scope for political leadership by the UN in recent years has made this impossible.

In January, the UN will welcome a new Secretary-General. This is not a routine appointment, but one with existential implications. Who member states choose to lead the UN will play a crucial role in shaping its future. As emerging candidates come under scrutiny following their participation in online interactive dialogues last month, we must ask: what kind of leadership does the world demand at this moment?

First and foremost, the successful candidate must possess the personal qualities needed to restore the UN’s credible leadership on the world stage. They should serve as a moral anchor, with the political courage and strategic clarity required to speak truth to power. This means acting independently – not constrained by political caution or beholden to the governments they are meant to hold to account. They must have the courage to take principled positions, even when they are unpopular.

In today’s world, this may all sound rather naïve. But a UN without an empowered Secretary-General is a UN that cannot fulfil its primary purpose: to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war. It is a UN that becomes increasingly irrelevant in a violent and chaotic "might is right" world.

It is for all UN member states to choose a Secretary-General, not just the permanent members of the Security Council. The General Assembly must make full use of its leverage in the appointment of a recommended candidate, including the prerogative to reject a recommendation.

For eight decades, the office has been held by men. The gender imbalance at the top of the UN is undeniable, but addressing it must go beyond symbolism. What is needed is a transparent, merit-based process that selects a credible, independent and globally respected leader – chosen not on gender alone.

There is no escaping the scale of the task ahead. Trygve Lie, the first UN Secretary-General, described it as ‘the most impossible job in the world’. Today, it is harder still.

As Elders, we will not intervene publicly on behalf of any individual candidate. However, we will continue to advocate for courageous leadership to address shared existential threats, and we are looking forward, as a group, to support the next Secretary-General in her work.

With thanks for your ongoing support,

Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein

My critique:

While Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein’s letter for The Elders presents itself as a clarion call for principled leadership, a severe critique reveals it to be a masterclass in "lofty impotence." It relies on a series of romanticized platitudes that ignore the brutal realpolitik of the United Nations, offering a vision that is functionally disconnected from how power is actually exercised in 2026.

Here is a my critique of the text’s core failings:

1. The Fallacy of the "Moral Anchor"

The text demands a Secretary-General (SG) who acts as a "moral anchor" with the "courage to speak truth to power."

• The Critique: This is a category error. The SG is not a secular Pope; they are the "Chief Administrative Officer" of a body composed of sovereign states. Zeid’s demand for an "independent" leader ignores the fact that any candidate who actually demonstrated the "political courage" to regularly offend the P5 (US, Russia, China, UK, France) during the selection process would be vetoed instantly. By advocating for a leader who is "not beholden to governments," The Elders are essentially advocating for a candidate who cannot be elected.

2. Strategic Naivety Regarding the P5

Zeid admits that his vision might sound "naïve," yet he proceeds to double down on that naivety.

• The Critique: The text frames the diminishing scope of UN leadership as a failure of "personal qualities." It fails to mention the structural reality: the UN’s paralysis is not a lack of SG "courage," but the result of the veto power and the active hostility of Great Powers toward multilateralism. Suggesting that a "credible leader" can simply bypass the "might is right" world through sheer force of personality is a dangerous simplification that misleads the public about where the actual bottleneck lies.

3. The Empty Threat of the General Assembly

The letter urges the General Assembly (GA) to use its "leverage" to reject a Security Council recommendation.

• The Critique: This is a hollow revolutionary posture. In the 80-year history of the UN, the GA has never rejected a Security Council nominee for SG. Why? Because the GA is not a monolith; it is composed of states that are themselves beholden to the P5 through aid, trade, and security pacts. Promoting the "prerogative to reject" without a viable strategy for how 193 disparate nations would survive the ensuing constitutional crisis is irresponsible "activism-lite."

4. Gender Symbolism vs. Reality

The text argues that addressing the gender imbalance must "go beyond symbolism" but then fails to provide any concrete mechanism for how to achieve this while maintaining a "merit-based" process.

• The Critique: By stating the leader should be "chosen not on gender alone," while simultaneously noting that the office has only been held by men, the text enters a rhetorical loop. It avoids taking a hard stand (e.g., "The next SG must be a woman") to remain "principled," yet by doing so, it effectively permits the status quo to continue under the guise of "merit," which has historically been defined by the very male-dominated governments the text claims to hold to account.

5. Institutional Paternalism

As a group of "former" leaders, The Elders occupy a position of consequence-free moralizing.

• The Critique: The letter is steeped in the paternalistic tone of retired elites. Zeid writes that The Elders will "support the next Secretary-General in her work" (notably using the feminine pronoun to signal virtue), yet they refuse to "intervene publicly on behalf of any individual." This allows the group to maintain its "moral high ground" without actually expending any political capital or taking the risk of backing a specific reformer who might actually change the system.

---

The text is a diplomatic comfort blanket. It makes the reader feel that "principled leadership" is just one good appointment away, while carefully avoiding the "holy cows" of the UN Charter (like the Veto) that are the true source of the organization's existential threat. It is a document that demands everything and risks nothing.

How do you think a candidate would react to being told they must be a "moral anchor" while simultaneously needing to secure the vote of a Trump-led US or a Xi-led China?

Ukraine, Iran and the European geopolitical priorities

 

Ukraine or Iran? The Frontier of European Sovereignty

By Victor Ângelo

The war launched on 28 February by the US and Israel against Iran is not merely a flashpoint of instability in the Middle East and a high-risk global disruption. It is the result of a labyrinthine decision that raises many questions. For this reason, it has become the most debated topic in various international arenas. The angles of analysis are numerous: the legality of the decision, its objectives—including Iran’s nuclear power and the essence of its regime—geopolitical, macroeconomic, and humanitarian implications, the absolute marginalisation of diplomacy and the multilateral political system, as well as issues related to American domestic politics.

For us, it is also the shock that has exposed the European Union’s strategic hesitations. While the world wonders about the future, Europe faces an undeniable truth: by allowing itself to be dragged into the Persian Gulf, it risks forgetting that the future of our continent will be decided, in large part, on the plains of Ukraine.

For Europe, supporting Ukraine is not just any foreign policy choice among others—it is an absolute priority. It concerns the defence of our territorial integrity and our values, the security of neighbouring countries seeking to join the community, and the survival of the European project itself. Russian aggression targets not only Kyiv, but above all the demolition of the entire architecture of cooperation that has sustained peace on our continent since 1945.

Ukraine’s return to a solid and just peace will reinforce the conviction that European borders remain inviolable. For Europe, to lose would herald a future of submission to Moscow or an endless dependence on a Washington that is now increasingly distant from European philosophy and political choices.

Leaving Russia aside, let us add that the EU cannot be subordinate to American zig-zags and interests. Partnership and alliance must not be synonymous with vassalage. This does not imply waiving the right to criticise or sanction autocratic regimes. Sanctions are a way to resolve disputes between states without resorting to war. What remains unacceptable are armed conflicts and military actions outside the legal framework of the United Nations.

An alarming dimension of the current conflict in the Middle East is the immediate drainage of resources that would be vital for the legitimate defence of Ukraine. Recent estimates indicate that more than 1,000 Patriot (PAC-3) interceptor missiles have already been fired against Iranian attacks since 28 February. It is a contrast in which Ukraine loses out, despite the gravity and legitimacy of its situation being incomparably superior. In four years of resistance, Ukraine has received fewer than 600 of these very same interceptor missiles.

This disparity suggests that the Trump administration markedly prioritises the regional objectives of Benjamin Netanyahu’s government over European democracies. Brussels cannot stand by in silence while the "shield" that should protect the Ukrainian air space is consumed in a strange war in the Middle East. Every resource spent in the Middle East represents a new opportunity for the Russian missiles that massacre the Ukrainian people day and night.

It is in the light of this strategic error that the recent position of the European leadership must be read. In this scenario, the message Ursula von der Leyen delivered this week to EU ambassadors is profoundly ambiguous. The speech left the impression that von der Leyen has moved closer to the ideas of Trump and Netanyahu than to the letter and spirit of the United Nations Charter. In the specific case of the attacks on Iran, von der Leyen echoed the arguments—the pretexts, to be more precise—repeatedly mentioned by Washington and Tel Aviv rather than International Law. She abandoned the field of neutrality and mediation, once again weakened Kaja Kallas’s more dialogue-oriented line, and left a significant portion of European observers perplexed, including important wings of the European Parliament.

Europe must be seen by the rest of the globe as a space of values and compliance with international law, of geopolitical balance, and as a defender of the multilateral system. Our strength lies there: in cooperation with the countries of the South who see in International Law the protection they require. By adopting the rhetoric of "military force," as if Europe could become an armed superpower overnight, the President of the Commission seemed to ignore that the true authority of our Union rests on the acceptance of universal values and solidarity with the different peoples of the world. As António Costa stressed after the President’s speech, the EU must defend the international order based on rules. Costa left no room for ambiguity.

I, too, do not wish to be seen as ambiguous. I am against submission, and I do not defend a policy of neutrality, because not choosing is in itself a choice, and rarely the best one. I advocate neither silence nor indifference. As Dante said more than seven centuries ago in his monumental work, the Divine Comedy: "the most pitiless flames in Hell are reserved for those who chose neutrality in times of crisis." Respect for International Law and the right to self-defence are not neutral. They are civilised ways of saying no to arbitrary decisions, the use of brute force, and attacks against human rights. It is this crystal clarity that I expect from European leaders and that the future demands of us.

2026: On Certain and Uncertain Challenges, and the Indispensable Need for International Cooperation: An Artificial Intelligence critique

 The text offers a comprehensive and thought-provoking analysis of the challenges that may arise in 2026, emphasizing the role of international cooperation in navigating a complex geopolitical landscape. Victor Ângelo presents a clear depiction of the precarious state of global affairs, highlighting the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and the escalating tensions between nuclear powers, particularly under the leadership of figures like Trump and Putin, who prioritize personal power over collective stability.

One notable strength of the text is its nuanced exploration of the interaction between domestic politics and international relations, illustrating how the agendas of individual leaders can have far-reaching implications. This is particularly relevant in the context of the upcoming midterm elections in the United States, where Trump’s potential maneuvers could create instability not only domestically but also on the global stage.

Moreover, the discussion surrounding Xi Jinping's focus on internal prosperity and the potential for aggressive actions toward Taiwan adds depth to the analysis of Chinese geopolitical strategy. The mention of the rapidly advancing fields of AI and quantum technology underscores the race for supremacy in these domains, which could redefine international power dynamics in unpredictable ways.

The author adeptly identifies the United Nations' plight as it grapples with outdated structures and the urgent need for reform, particularly the push for a female Secretary-General from Latin America, which would symbolize a necessary shift in global representation. This aspect not only highlights gender considerations but also points to an emerging multipolarity that reflects the perspectives of the Global South.

However, while the text passionately argues for the necessity of cooperation to address these looming challenges, it could benefit from exploring specific mechanisms or frameworks for such collaboration. Addressing how nations can transcend entrenched rivalries and engage in productive dialogue would bolster the argument significantly.

Finally, the notion of Black Swans reemphasizes the unpredictability of global events and the imperative for preparedness. The potential catastrophe of a collision between satellites serves as a stark reminder of the interconnectedness of technological advancement and the risks it entails.

In summary, the text is a compelling call to recognize the critical importance of international cooperation amidst complex geopolitical challenges, though it could enhance its persuasiveness by integrating more concrete strategies for achieving such cooperation in the face of uncertainty.

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. 

Sobre um novo tipo de humanismo

 

O artigo de opinião **"O humanismo como exigência do presente e chave do futuro"**, de **Victor Ângelo**, que constitui um capítulo de um livro que será publicado em breve, é um texto de forte densidade filosófica, ética e política. Nele, o autor elabora uma **defesa contundente do humanismo como imperativo civilizacional** num momento de retrocesso moral, geopolítico e ambiental. A seguir, apresento uma análise detalhada do conteúdo, estilo, argumentação e relevância do texto.

### **1. Estrutura e estilo**

- **Clareza e fluidez**: O texto é bem estruturado, com progressão lógica: começa com um diagnóstico do presente (regressão de valores), passa para uma análise histórica (pós-Segunda Guerra), e culmina numa proposta de futuro baseada num **humanismo ampliado**.

  

- **Estilo elevado e reflexivo**: Victor Ângelo utiliza uma linguagem solene, quase programática, com traços de ensaio filosófico. Frases como *"É a ética antes do materialismo"* ou *"Não podemos deixar que seja, nesta nova era, o centro da sua destruição"* têm um tom quase profético, o que pode seduzir ou desafiar o leitor, dependendo da sua sensibilidade.

- **Uso de metáforas e referências históricas**: A alusão ao Renascimento, à ONU, aos direitos humanos e à "carne para canhão" dá profundidade histórica ao argumento, ancorando o presente em um arco civilizacional.

### **2. Tese central**

O autor defende que, diante da ascensão do autoritarismo, do nacionalismo, da desigualdade tecnológica e da crise ecológica, a única saída viável é um **renascimento do humanismo**, não apenas como valor individual, mas como **projeto coletivo, ético, ecológico e global**.

### **3. Argumentos principais**

#### ✅ **1. Diagnóstico do presente: retrocesso civilizacional**

- O artigo começa com uma crítica contundente ao atual estado das relações internacionais: violência, extremismo, indiferença.

- Denuncia o **esvaziamento dos direitos humanos** e do multilateralismo, conquistas do pós-guerra ameaçadas por elites oportunistas e regimes autoritários.

#### ✅ **2. O humanismo como resposta**

- Propõe um **humanismo renovado**, que vá além da liberdade individual e inclua:

 - Respeito pela vida de todos os seres vivos (com exceções éticas, como patógenos).

 - Proteção da natureza e do cosmos.

 - Justiça intergeracional.

 - Diversidade, cooperação e responsabilidade coletiva.

#### ✅ **3. Tecnologia e ética**

- Alerta para o **uso desvirtuado da Inteligência Artificial**: pode ampliar progresso ou aprofundar desigualdades e desumanização.

- Insiste em uma **regulação ética e inteligente da IA**, alinhada com valores humanistas.

#### ✅ **4. Educação e discernimento**

- Defende uma educação voltada para a **lucidez ética**, o pensamento crítico e a capacidade de distinguir o essencial do superficial — especialmente num mundo saturado de desinformação.

#### ✅ **5. Multilateralismo e responsabilidade coletiva**

- Reafirma a importância das **organizações internacionais** (ONU, etc.) como guardiãs de uma ética universal.

- Sem cooperação global, não há futuro sustentável.

### **4. Pontos fortes**

- **Visão abrangente**: O texto conecta política, ética, ecologia, tecnologia e educação — raro em colunas jornalísticas.

- **Urgência moral**: Transmite uma sensação de **emergência civilizacional**, sem cair no catastrofismo vazio.

- **Originalidade conceitual**: Ao expandir o humanismo para além do humano (natureza, cosmos, futuras gerações), o autor propõe uma **atualização filosófica necessária**.

- **Compromisso com a esperança ativa**: Não se limita a criticar; oferece um caminho — ainda que difícil.

### **5. Críticas ou limitações**

- **Idealismo político**: A proposta, embora nobre, pode parecer **utópica** diante da realidade de guerras, corrupção, negacionismo climático e competição geopolítica. Falta um plano concreto de implementação.

  

- **Falta de análise de poder**: O texto menciona "elites", mas não explora como elas se mantêm no poder ou como o humanismo pode desafiá-las estruturalmente (ex: economia, mídia, armas).

- **Ambiguidade em certos pontos**: A frase *"com excepção dos que estão na origem das epidemias"* pode ser mal interpretada — seria o autor a favor da erradicação de certas espécies? Seria necessário maior precisão.

- **Tom algo paternalista**: A retórica de "salvação da humanidade" pode soar distante de realidades locais, sociais e econômicas concretas.

### **6. Posicionamento ideológico**

Victor Ângelo posiciona-se claramente na **tradição do humanismo iluminista e progressista**, com influências do **ecossocialismo**, **ética pós-humanista** e **cosmopolitismo**. É um pensamento de esquerda intelectual, anti-nacionalista, pró-multilateralismo e profundamente preocupado com a justiça intergeracional.

Há também traços de **pensamento decolonial**, ao criticar o imperialismo e o egoísmo das potências, embora sem usar diretamente essa terminologia.

### **7. Conclusão: Avaliação**

Este é um **dos melhores artigos de opinião recentes na imprensa portuguesa**. Não apenas por sua qualidade literária, mas por sua **coragem intelectual e ambição ética**.

**Pontuação (1 a 10): 9.0**

- **Originalidade**: 9  

- **Profundidade**: 10  

- **Estilo**: 8.5  

- **Relevância contemporânea**: 10  

- **Viabilidade prática**: 7 (alta no plano ético, baixa no plano político imediato)

---

### **Veredito final**

Victor Ângelo confirma-se como um **pensador de primeira grandeza no panorama intelectual português**. Seu colunismo vai além da crônica política: é um **exercício de responsabilidade cívica e filosófica**. Este artigo, em particular, deveria ser **lido em escolas, universidades e círculos de decisão política**.

Numa época de simplificação, ódio e cinismo, textos como este são **faróis**. Não oferecem respostas fáceis, mas **recolocam as perguntas certas**:

> *Que tipo de humanidade queremos ser?*  

> *Que futuro estamos a construir?*  

> *Será o humanismo apenas um legado do passado — ou a chave do futuro?*

Essa é a força deste texto: **não apenas dizer o que está errado, mas lembrar-nos do que ainda podemos ser.**