Donald Trump's visit to Japan

Today's Trump’s return to Tokyo signals more than a diplomatic courtesy—it’s a calculated move to reassert U.S. influence in Asia amid rising regional uncertainty. It aims at showing American power and leadership in East Asia. 

His meeting with Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi underscores a push for a tougher stance on trade and security, likely aimed at countering China’s growing clout. While billed as alliance-strengthening, Trump's visit shows we are in a new era of transactional geopolitics, where economic leverage and strategic posturing dominate the narrative. As Trump emphasised, “the U.S.–Japan partnership must be stronger than ever to ensure stability and fairness in the region”—a clear nod to both security and trade dominance.

Briefing Note: Russia’s Policies and Implications for APEC

Purpose

To inform APEC leaders of the strategic risks posed by Russia’s current foreign and economic policies and their potential impact on regional stability and economic cooperation.

---

Key Observations

1. Militarisation and Geopolitical Assertiveness

   • Russia prioritises hard power over diplomacy, using the Ukraine conflict as leverage for global influence.
   • Increased military presence in the Arctic and Asia-Pacific signals readiness to escalate tensions, undermining regional security.

2. Economic Weaponisation

   • Energy exports remain a geopolitical tool, with infrastructure projects used to divide allies.
   • Despite extensive sanctions, Russia sustains its war economy through alternative trade networks, deepening global fragmentation.

3. Strategic Dependence

   • Russia’s “pivot to Asia” has led to structural reliance on China, limiting autonomy and raising long-term viability concerns.

---

Implications for APEC

• Trade Disruption: Russia’s stance on sanctions and WTO mechanisms introduces friction into APEC’s consensus-driven model.
• Security Spillover: Militarisation risks transforming economic forums into arenas of strategic rivalry.
• Normative Erosion: Push for “multipolarity” challenges rules-based governance, creating uncertainty for smaller economies.

---

Recommended Actions

• Reaffirm APEC’s Core Principles: Emphasise rules-based trade and economic cooperation.
• Strengthen Collective Resilience: Diversify supply chains and enhance energy security to reduce vulnerability.
• Engage with Caution: Maintain dialogue on economic issues while countering destabilising tactics through coordinated responses.

---

Bottom Line:
Russia’s policies combine revisionist geopolitics, economic opportunism, and strategic dependency. APEC must navigate engagement carefully to safeguard stability and uphold its mission of inclusive, sustainable growth.

Grok AI assessment of my fictitious roundtable on democracy and power

 Overall Assessment

On a scale of 1-10, I'd rate this an 8.5: intellectually stimulating and urgently relevant, it's a refreshing antidote to doom-scrolling, urging readers to treat democracy as "an ongoing task" rather than a given. Ângelo's perspective—optimistic yet vigilant—positions power not as zero-sum but as a shared guardianship, especially vital amid 2025's uncertainties like escalating cyber conflicts and climate diplomacy. If you're into Harari's futurism or Plato's timeless warnings, this is a must-read; it might even inspire you to host your own "roundtable" over coffee. For skeptics, it risks preaching to the choir, but its blend of AI-assisted creativity and global savvy makes it more than just another op-ed. Worth sharing in policy circles or philosophy groups.

This is a standout piece of public intellectual writing—original in its time-spanning dialogue format, which makes dense ideas accessible and engaging, almost like a TED Talk in blog form. The depth shines through historical analogies and forward-looking policies, blending philosophy, tech critique, and diplomacy into a cohesive call to action. It's particularly timely, resonating with 2025's headlines: ongoing DSA enforcement battles, AI governance talks at the UN, and populist echoes in post-2024 U.S. politics under a second Trump term.

Democracia e Poder na Era da Incerteza: Uma Mesa-Redonda Através do Tempo

Este é o relatório de uma mesa-redonda imaginária sobre democracia, presente e futura. Esta discussão entre três pensadores foi moderada por este blog com a assistência do M365 Copilot.

Introdução: A Democracia chegou a uma Encruzilhada

A democracia, outrora celebrada como a garantia máxima de liberdade e estabilidade, agora enfrenta um paradoxo. É globalmente dominante, mas profundamente frágil. Das ondas populistas à governança algorítmica, das crises climáticas à fragmentação geopolítica, a questão já não é se a democracia prevalecerá, mas se ela se consegue adaptar sem perder a sua essência.

Para explorar esse dilema, meu blog reuniu uma extraordinária mesa-redonda fictícia: Platão (Grécia, século IV a.C.), o filósofo que primeiro analisou as vulnerabilidades da democracia; Yuval Noah Harari, historiador e futurista nascido em Israel (1976); e Victor Ângelo (nascido em 1949 em Portugal), diplomata veterano, estrategista de segurança e colunista. O diálogo assim gerado atravessa milênios, entrelaçando sabedoria antiga com urgência contemporânea.

I. Platão: Os Perigos do Excesso de Liberdade

Platão começa com um alerta que ecoa através dos séculos:

“A democracia surge da liberdade, mas a liberdade sem restrições gera desordem. Quando os cidadãos valorizam a liberdade acima da virtude, promovem aduladores em vez de guardiões. Agora, vejo as democracias intoxicadas pela multiplicidade de opiniões, confundindo ruído com sabedoria.”

A crítica de Platão não representa nostalgia pela aristocracia; é um chamamento para uma governança racional. Para ele, o calcanhar de Aquiles da democracia está em sua suscetibilidade à demagogia — uma vulnerabilidade ampliada hoje pelas redes sociais e pela retórica populista.

Platão refere-se então a um estudo de caso histórico: Atenas e a Queda da Polis, um exemplo que recomenda não ser esquecido. No século V a.C., Atenas foi pioneira na democracia direta, concedendo aos cidadãos uma voz sem precedentes. No entanto, essa liberdade gerou volatilidade. Demagogos como Cléon exploraram as paixões populares, levando a decisões imprudentes como a Expedição Siciliana — um desastre que apressou o declínio de Atenas.

II. Harari: Poder Além da Política

Harari muda o foco da teoria política para a realidade tecnológica: “Platão temia as massas populares; hoje, tememos o algoritmo. O poder já não reside apenas nos parlamentos — ele flui por fluxos de dados. O capitalismo de vigilância e a IA moldam as vontades antes mesmo dos cidadãos votarem.”

Harari argumenta que a assimetria da informação — outrora privilégio dos reis — agora pertence aos gigantes da tecnologia. As democracias precisam se reinventar não apenas para regular a tecnologia, mas para redefinir a liberdade numa era em que a autonomia é ameaçada algoritmicamente. Harari mostra preocupar-se com a fragilidade das instituições. E acrescenta que a República de Weimar (1919–1933) oferece uma lição sóbria. Nascida das cinzas do império, abraçou ideais democráticos, mas faltou resiliência institucional. Crises económicas e propaganda minaram a confiança, abrindo caminho para o autoritarismo. As democracias atuais enfrentam riscos semelhantes — não pela hiperinflação, mas pela desordem informacional.

III. Ângelo: A Dimensão Geopolítica

Victor Ângelo traz uma perspectiva prática: “A democracia continua sendo o sistema mais legítimo, mas a legitimidade está sob ataque. O populismo explora o medo; a desinformação corrói a confiança e promove o ódio. Enquanto isso, a governança global perde terreno face às ameaças transnacionais — mudanças climáticas, ciberguerra, cartéis internacionais do crime, pandemias.”

Para Ângelo, o desafio está na no êxito ou no fracasso da ação coletiva. Nenhuma democracia pode ser protegida sozinha, apenas ao nível nacional ou local, quando as crises não têm fronteiras. Por isso, friza a necessidade de alianças de valores, ancoradas em direitos humanos e no Estado de Direito, para enfrentar o ressurgimento autoritário e os choques sistêmicos.

Ângelo lembra o otimismo pós-Guerra Fria que foi substituído agora por pessimismo e medo: “Os anos 1990 foram saudados como o ‘fim da história’ (Fukuyama, 1992), com a democracia liberal aparentemente triunfante. No entanto, o momento unipolar gerou complacência. Instituições como a ONU e a OTAN tiveram dificuldades para se adaptar às novas ameaças assimétricas, enquanto a globalização superou a governança. O resultado: um vácuo explorado por poderes autoritários e atores não estatais.”

Os participantes discutiram então alguns exemplos que mostram as pressões atuais sobre a democracia. Por exemplo, o EU Digital Services Act (DSA) e o Digital Markets Act (DMA) representam esforços pioneiros para regular monopólios tecnológicos e conter a desinformação. No entanto, a sua aplicação permanece desigual, e a governança da IA ainda é embrionária. É também uma questão vista de forma diferente por europeus e, do outro lado do Atlântico, pelos líderes dos EUA e pelos principais empreendedores digitais baseados na América.

Ainda nos EUA, polarização e negação eleitoral têm minado as normas democráticas. O ataque ao Capitólio a 6 de janeiro destacou as vulnerabilidades existentes na resiliência institucional. Ângelo acrescentou que as decisões do Presidente Trump tomadas desde o início do seu segundo mandato desafiaram igualmente a autoridade de instituições-chave que desempenham um papel vital no equilíbrio dos poderes. Essas decisões devem ser vistas como ameaças sérias à democracia constitucional, ao equilíbrio democrático e aos media, entre outros.

Outras situações também foram mencionadas. Índia: A maior democracia do mundo enfrenta desafios resultantes de políticas majoritárias assentes na pertença étnica e nas restrições à liberdade de imprensa, levantando questões sobre o equilíbrio entre estabilidade e pluralismo. O Sul Global: Democracias na África e América Latina enfrentam crises de dívida e choques climáticos, que atores autoritários exploram para minar a governança democrática.

O Moderador pediu então que se identificassem as principais recomendações políticas que poderão responder à tendência para o definhamento das democracias.

Os participantes listaram várias ações que devem ser consideradas:

• Educação cívica para a era digital;
• Inserir pensamento crítico e alfabetização mediática nos currículos nacionais;
• Promover conscientização ética sobre IA entre cidadãos e líderes;
• Expandir estruturas como o EU Digital Services Act para incluir transparência algorítmica;
• Estabelecer órgãos multilaterais para governança de IA;
• Proteger a independência e a eficiência da justiça e dos órgãos de referência da comunicação social;
• Desenvolver mecanismos de resposta rápida para assegurar a integridade eleitoral e as ameaças cibernéticas;
• Criar um Fórum de Parceria pela Democracia, no quadro do Sistema ONU, para ação global coordenada;
• Vincular acordos comerciais a padrões democráticos.

Para concluir a mesa redonda, o Moderador afirmou que a discussão permitiu sublinhar que a democracia não é uma conquista estática; é uma tarefa contínua. Como lembra Platão, liberdade sem virtude conduz à tirania. Harari alerta que adaptabilidade é o preço da sobrevivência. Ângelo destaca que a solidariedade global e verdadeira é o seguro de vida da democracia em um mundo fragmentado.

Antes de encerrar o debate e agradecer aos três participantes, o Moderador levantou uma última questão: Qual é o futuro da democracia?

• Platão: Sem sabedoria, a democracia é facilmente substituída por tirania. Cultive a razão acima da paixão.
• Harari: Sem adaptabilidade, a democracia torna-se obsoleta. Aceite a inovação, mas proteja-se dos seus perigos.
• Ângelo: Sem solidariedade, a democracia enfraquece. Construa confiança — dentro das sociedades e entre as nações.

Moderador: Obrigado, senhores. O diálogo entre a reflexão do passado e a urgência do presente lembra-nos que a democracia não é um dado intocável; a sua defesa é uma tarefa sem fim.

Fim da mesa-redonda imaginária.

Democracy and Power in the Age of Uncertainty: A Roundtable Across Time

 

Democracy and Power in the Age of Uncertainty: A Roundtable Across Time

This is the report of an imaginary roundtable discussion about democracy, its present and future. This discussion between the three thinkers was moderated by this blog with the assistance of M365 Copilot. 

Introduction: Democracy at a Crossroads

Democracy, once heralded as the ultimate guarantor of freedom and stability, now faces a paradox. It is globally dominant yet deeply fragile. From populist waves to algorithmic governance, from climate crises to geopolitical fragmentation, the question is no longer whether democracy will prevail, but whether it can adapt without losing its soul.

To explore this dilemma, my blog convened an extraordinary fictitious roundtable: Plato (Greece, 4^th century BCE), the philosopher who first dissected democracy’s vulnerabilities; Yuval Noah Harari, historian and futurist born in Israel (1976); and Victor Ângelo (born 1949 in Portugal), a veteran diplomat, security strategist and opinion-maker. Their dialogue spans millennia, weaving ancient wisdom with contemporary urgency.

I. Plato: The Perils of Excess Liberty

Plato begins with a warning that echoes across centuries:

“Democracy arises from liberty, but liberty unrestrained breeds disorder. When citizens prize freedom above virtue, they elevate flatterers over guardians. In your age, I see democracies intoxicated by opinion, mistaking noise for wisdom.”

Plato’s critique is not nostalgia for aristocracy; it is a call for reasoned governance. For him, democracy’s Achilles’ heel lies in its susceptibility to demagoguery—a vulnerability magnified today by social media and populist rhetoric.

Plato refers then to a historical case study: Athens and the Fall of the Polis, an example he recommends we should keep in mind. In the 5th century BCE, Athens pioneered direct democracy, granting citizens unprecedented voice. Yet, this liberty bred volatility. Demagogues like Cleon exploited popular passions, leading to reckless decisions such as the Sicilian Expedition—a disaster that hastened Athens’ decline.

II. Harari: Power Beyond Politics

Harari shifts the lens from political theory to technological reality: “Plato feared the mob; today, we fear the algorithm. Power no longer resides solely in parliaments—it flows through data streams. Surveillance capitalism and AI shape desires before citizens even vote.” 

Harari further argues that information asymmetry—once the privilege of kings—is now the domain of tech giants. Democracies must reinvent themselves not only to regulate technology but to redefine freedom in an era where autonomy is algorithmically curated. He is concerned with the fragility of the institutions. And he adds that the Weimar Republic (1919–1933) offers a sobering lesson. Born from the ashes of empire, it embraced democratic ideals but lacked institutional resilience. Economic crises and propaganda eroded trust, paving the way for authoritarianism. Today’s democracies face a similar risk—not from hyperinflation, but from information disorder.

III. Ângelo: The Geopolitical Dimension

Victor Ângelo brings a practitioner’s perspective: “Democracy remains the most legitimate system, but legitimacy is under siege. Populism exploits fear; disinformation corrodes trust and promotes hatred. Meanwhile, global governance lags behind transnational threats—climate change, cyber warfare, international criminal cartels, pandemics.”

For Ângelo, the challenge is collective action. No democracy can safeguard itself alone when crises are borderless. He calls for alliances of values, anchored in human rights and the rule of law, to counter authoritarian resurgence and systemic shocks.

He reminds us of the post-Cold War optimism that has been replaced by pessimism and fear: "The 1990s were hailed as the “end of history” (Fukuyama, 1992), with liberal democracy seemingly triumphant. Yet, the unipolar moment bred complacency. Institutions like the UN and NATO struggled to adapt to asymmetric threats, while globalisation outpaced governance. The result: a vacuum exploited by authoritarian powers and non-state actors."

The participants discussed then some examples that show the pressures democracy is under. For instance, the EU Digital Services Act (DSA) and Digital Markets Act (DMA) represent pioneering efforts to regulate tech monopolies and curb disinformation. Yet enforcement remains uneven, and AI governance is still embryonic. It is also a matter that is seen differently by the Europeans and the US leaders and key digital entrepreneurs based in America. 

Still in the US, polarisation and election denialism have strained democratic norms. The January 6th Capitol attack underscored vulnerabilities in institutional resilience. Ângelo added that President Trump's decisions taken since the beginning of his second mandate have equally challenged the authority of key institutions that play a vital role in the power balance. Those decisions should be seen as serious threats to the existing Constitution-based democracy, to the democratic equilibrium and to the media, among others. 

Other situations were also mentioned. 

India: The world’s largest democracy faces challenges from majoritarian politics and restrictions on press freedom, raising questions about the balance between stability and pluralism. The Global South: Democracies in Africa and Latin America grapple with debt crises and climate shocks, which authoritarian actors exploit to undermine governance. And Thailand, which is an unavoidable case study: Since 1932, the country has fluctuated between civilian governments and authoritarian regimes, experiencing at least 13 coups. These recurring crises reflect deep structural tensions between popular movements advocating inclusive governance and a conservative establishment. The result is a “constitutional samsara”—a cycle of birth and death that illustrates the fragility but also the resistance of democratic systems.

The Moderator asked for actionable policy recommendations. 

The participants listed a number of actions that must be taken into account: Civic Education for the Digital Age; Embed critical thinking and media literacy in national curricula; Promote ethical AI awareness among citizens and leaders; Expand frameworks like the EU Digital Services Act to include algorithmic transparency; Establish multilateral bodies for AI governance; Protect the independence of the judiciaries and the media; Develop rapid-response mechanisms for election integrity and cyber threats; Create a Democracy Partnership Forum, within the UN System, for coordinated global action; Link trade agreements to democratic standards.

To conclude the roundtable, the Moderator stated that the discussion had underlined that democracy is not a static achievement; it is a perpetual task. As Plato reminds us, liberty without virtue decays into tyranny. Harari warns that adaptability is the price of survival. Ângelo underscores that global, truthful solidarity is democracy’s lifeline in a fractured world. 

Before closing the debate and thanking the three  participants, the Moderator raised a final question: What is the future of democracy? 

Plato responded that without wisdom, democracy decays into tyranny. Cultivate reason above passion.

For Harari, without adaptability, democracy becomes obsolete. Embrace innovation, but guard against its perils.

Ângelo expressed the opinion that without solidarity, democracy weakens. Build trust—within societies and across nations.

Moderator: Thank you, gentlemen. The dialogue between past insight and present urgency reminds us: democracy is not a given; it is a never-ending task.

End of the imaginary roundtable. 

 

 

Europe and its weak strategy regarding the ASEAN

 From Kuala Lumpur to Brussels, the ASEAN summit shows the weakness of the European strategy towards Southeast Asia

Victor Ângelo

The European Union and its Member States have shown limited attention to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), which has allowed China to significantly expand its influence in the region. Other countries, such as India, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand, have also strengthened their ties with ASEAN. All this contrasts with the inertia on the part of the EU—a missed opportunity for both sides and a vacuum that others skillfully fill. It also highlights yet another failure of imagination, initiative, courage, and understanding of the political game in that part of the world at the level of European external action. This scenario of European imprecision is particularly relevant in a geopolitical area that is rapidly gaining weight in international relations.

Recently, the United States has also recognized the strategic value of ASEAN. Donald Trump will be present at this year's summit, from October 26 to 28, in Kuala Lumpur, the capital of Malaysia. In addition to meeting with the ten ASEAN leaders—who will become eleven, with the formal admission of Timor-Leste, an important step for the political, economic, and cultural integration of the country into the region to which it truly belongs—the American president will also have the opportunity to meet other prominent politicians, such as Narendra Modi, Li Qiang (Prime Minister of China), Sanae Takaichi (the new ultraconservative leader of Japan), Lula da Silva, and Cyril Ramaphosa.

The Prime Minister of Malaysia, Anwar Ibrahim, also invited Vladimir Putin, a significant gesture, although the Russian president has indicated that he will not be able to attend. Even so, Russia will be represented at a high level. Until the announcement this Wednesday of the new American sanctions, the possibility of a last-minute participation by Putin was not excluded, considering the media and political projection that this would have. Now, it is certain that Putin does not wish to meet Trump, unless the latter reverses this week's decision.

Among the European guests, the Prime Minister of Finland and Giorgia Meloni of Italy stand out, with Meloni already confirming her presence. Meloni recognizes that her visibility at international events is fundamental for consolidating her domestic policy. However, it remains uncertain who will represent the European institutions, with António Costa being one of the names mentioned in diplomatic circles. If confirmed, his presence will be mainly symbolic, since much of the power, namely the executive, resides with the European Commission, led by Ursula von der Leyen.

The European Union needs to look at ASEAN with greater realism and commitment, strengthening political and economic ties with a group of countries that together make up the third most populous region in the world (about 685 million people) and the fifth largest global economy. ASEAN is one of the engines of development of the so-called Global South and aims to play a prominent role in building a new international order. Ignoring this reality would be a strategic mistake for Europe. Historically, Europeans feel closer to Africa and Latin America, but betting on Southeast Asia is increasingly an inevitable path for the coming decades. Furthermore, competition with China, Russia, India, and the USA will be more balanced if the EU manages to establish a solid relationship with the region.

The Kuala Lumpur summit will focus on four major themes considered priorities by the Member States: economic cooperation, regional stability and security, renewable energy production (with the goal of reaching 45% by 2030), and the deepening of free trade agreements with partners such as China, Japan, South Korea, India, Australia, and New Zealand.

Significantly, the summit will not address the serious political crisis affecting Myanmar, one of ASEAN's Member States. This deliberate omission reflects the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of each State, one of the Association's pillars, something that clearly contradicts the political cooperation project and obviously favors economic interests. This stance, partly inspired by China, contributes to the distancing between Europe and Southeast Asia, especially due to the indifference of some ASEAN members regarding human rights.

In this context, the messages that the European Union should convey at the Kuala Lumpur summit are clear. On the one hand, to affirm that we, Europeans, consider it mutually beneficial to deepen the full range of relations with ASEAN. On the other hand, to express our conviction that respect for citizens is the only way to guarantee peace, strengthen international cooperation, and ensure sustainable prosperity.

A Europa no momento da cimeira da ASEAN

 O meu texto de hoje no Diário de Notícias (24/10/2025)

https://www.dn.pt/opiniao/a-cimeira-da-asean-mostra-a-fraqueza-da-estratgia-europeia-face-ao-sudeste-asitico

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. 

Ukaine and Europe versus the Russia-China alliance

President Zelensky talked twice over the weekend with the US President Donald Trump. The Ukrainian leader was also in contact with key European leaders. His message was very clear: Ukraine needs urgently extra support now that Vladimir Putin is intensifying his air attacks against Ukraine.

On the other hand, Putin is receiving more help than ever from President Xi Jinping because he promised him a free hand in Ukraine for Chinese interests once the Russian has consolidated its territorial gains.

For China, it is about business and the opportunity to have a strong foot in Eastern Europe. The Russian-Chinese strategy has become more evident. It is based on a military-industrial alliance and a geopolitical opportunity for China to reinforce its European objectives. It is also about sabotaging the European Union and the European democracies.