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. 

Again about Europe and Asean

 

Victor Ângelo’s recent column in Diário de Notícias, titled É vital dar mais atenção à cooperação entre a UE e a ASEAN, offers a compelling and timely reflection on the evolving geopolitical dynamics between Europe and Southeast Asia. Here's how we might assess its worth:

🌍 Strategic Relevance

• Ângelo emphasizes the growing importance of ASEAN as a political and economic partner for the EU, especially in light of shifting global alliances and China's expanding influence.
• He argues that Europe must diversify its diplomatic ties and engage more deeply with ASEAN to remain a stabilizing force in global affairs.

🧠 Analytical Depth

• The piece is rich in geopolitical insight, referencing Macron’s symbolic invitation to Indonesian troops in Paris and the China-ASEAN free trade agreement as indicators of shifting power balances.
• Ângelo critiques both Washington’s unpredictability and Beijing’s assertiveness, positioning the EU as a potential counterweight.

🤝 Cultural and Diplomatic Nuance

• He highlights the need for cultural understanding between Europe and Southeast Asia, arguing that diplomacy must begin with empathy and mutual respect.
• The article calls out the lack of emphasis on cultural exchange in the EU’s current ASEAN strategy, suggesting this is a missed opportunity.

📣 Call to Action

• Ângelo urges the EU to strengthen its presence and influence in Southeast Asia through strategic partnerships, cultural diplomacy, and support for multilateral institutions.

In short, the column is not just a commentary—it’s a strategic roadmap. It’s worth reading if you’re interested in how Europe can recalibrate its global role through meaningful engagement with ASEAN. 

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

Europe and ASEAN

 Europe must prioritize strengthening ties with ASEAN, recognizing its political and economic significance and the region's rapid development and future-oriented investments. This strategic focus is essential in the evolving global geopolitical landscape.

Indonesia's symbolic military presence: Indonesia's exclusive invitation to the Bastille Day parade in Paris highlights its importance as a major Muslim-majority country and a key ASEAN member, reflecting France's and the EU's recognition of ASEAN's growing influence.
ASEAN as a strategic partner: The EU should view ASEAN as a vital ally, given the region's economic progress and investment in sectors like healthcare and retirement living, which offer opportunities for European engagement.
Competition with China: Europe faces direct competition from China, which is deepening its economic and digital cooperation with ASEAN, despite maritime disputes involving some ASEAN members and China's expanding influence in the region.
EU as a balancing force: The EU can serve as a stabilizing influence between China’s growing dominance and the unpredictability of U.S. policy, emphasizing support for multilateralism and cultural exchange to overcome geopolitical and cultural barriers.

AI summary of my opinion piece in today's Diário de Notícia (Lisboa), 18 July 2025.

Humanism: what does it mean?

 Bring back a humanist approach

Modern global relations are increasingly marked by force and extremism, echoing past nationalist conflicts that marginalized citizens and prioritized elite interests. Despite progress made since World War II in human rights and international law, these values are now under threat, replaced by instability, selfishness, and disregard for cooperation. A renewed humanism, emphasizing solidarity, dignity, and respect for all life, including nature and future generations, is essential to address these challenges. This humanism also calls for ethical use of technology and education fostering critical and ethical thinking to ensure a balanced and sustainable future.

Resurgence of force and extremism: Current international and national politics show a return to aggressive nationalism and elite-driven conflicts, sidelining citizens' rights and dignity.

Erosion of post-war human rights progress: The advances made through the UN and international law in the last eight decades are increasingly ignored, leading to instability and selfish interests dominating global relations.

New humanism for the future: This approach extends beyond human freedom and progress to include respect for all living beings, environmental protection, ethical resource use, and responsible AI application.

Multilateral cooperation and ethical education: Strengthening international organizations, promoting universal ethical values, and fostering critical, ethical education are vital to prevent civilizational decline and ensure sustainable coexistence.

Might or right?

My professional travels through the world of multilateral organizations, and through dozens of countries with diverse political cultures, have taught me to look at international relations with caution. This does not mean that I do not believe in respecting the values ​​and principles approved over time, particularly since the signing of the United Nations Charter. This has happened with most states. But, contrary to what many people think, there have been many conflicts since 1945. It must have been a time of peace in Europe, except in the Balkans, but not in other parts of the world. Therefore, common sense recommends caution, as rivalries between countries and between big men persist. 

Prudence means, above all, two things: on the one hand, never underestimating the adversary and, on the other, unambiguously cultivating relations with allies, based on mutual interests and a common political vision.

It is a very serious mistake to consider that the enemy can be easily defeated. This was, in fact, Vladimir Putin's original miscalculation, as he thought it possible to destroy Ukrainian sovereignty in three days, when the gigantic military column he sent against Kiev would reach the Mariinsky Palace, the official residence of President Volodymyr Zelensky. The “Special Operation” was exactly that, in the Russian dictator’s view: a quick incursion, capable of subjugating the neighboring country in a matter of days. It wouldn't even be a war. He underestimated Ukraine, which three years later continues to resist the  aggression.

It is equally a mistake not to invest in a close and interdependent diplomatic relationship with the countries with which we maintain a defense alliance and strategic cooperation. And that consider, like us, that individual freedom and human rights are priority issues. This investment involves, in particular, a balance of forces between allies, in which each one brings something truly essential to the collective effort. And it must be based on a similar understanding of the international context. When there are imbalances or a different reading of the external risks, the alliance will end up transforming into subordination, or will end in rupture. Its continuity will be an illusion.

A pact between unequals ceases to work when a major crisis arises. This is the reality that Europe now faces. In terms of defense and cutting-edge technologies, especially in the areas of Artificial Intelligence and the collection of strategic information, Europe's fragility in relation to the USA is immeasurable.

Despite the political promises of the main European Heads of State and Government and the billions announced by the President of the European Commission, the gap between the two sides of the Atlantic is insurmountable in the coming years. And this will continue during Trump's term, which means that Europe will be at the mercy of the American president's decisions throughout this period.

The Europeans will thus pay for the imprudence of having considered, especially since the end of the Cold War, that Washington was a safe and reliable protective shield, and that its political class continued to maintain an unquestionable cultural and sentimental connection with the countries of the European continent. In today's America, that bond is a thing of the past.

With Trump in power, the context became even clearer. He and his followers see Europe as a consumer market with money and resources that are crucial to reinforcing US global hegemony: rare earths from Ukraine, minerals from Greenland, the Norwegian archipelago of Svalbard, which is essential for controlling navigation in the Arctic, and the link between the North Atlantic and the Sea of ​​Japan.

Europe is seen as a captured continent, held hostage, destined to respond to the demands of the new America, the America that looks at the world with arrogance, except if it is China or Russia.

This is the context in which Europe finds itself. A Europe of Defence, prudent and capable of taking care of its own security, will indeed have to be built, something that will take at least ten to fifteen years to gain strength. It is, for now, a wish., an undefined plan.

I recognize that it is worth having plans of this kind. They provide encouragement, define an objective that can be shared and consolidate convergence. The generation that is now reaching political adulthood will have the challenge of transforming this demand into reality.

Do you trust Donald Trump?

 The international system must be protected and respected

 Victor Ângelo 

There can be no doubt: the international values ​​and standards, built over the last few decades, remain valid and must be fully respected. Political leaders and henchmen who fail to do so engage in illegal, often criminal, behavior and as such need to be confronted. The notion of a Western or less Western world, that doesn't count for anything. What matters are the rules that regulate the universal framework. When voting in the same direction as North Korea, something that should be unthinkable, the important thing is to remember which side of the conventions is right.

There were great moments that allowed these principles to advance and consolidate. It would be cowardice, or at least a mistake, not to remember them and not to insist on their scrupulous fulfillment. I will now mention a particularly clear list regarding the progressive regulation of international relations since the end of the Second World War – the United Nations Charter(1945), the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the dozens of decolonisation and national independence processes in the post-war years and decades, the Vietnam War, the Helsinki Final Act (1975), which defined the rules of cooperation and security in Europe, including in the USA and Canada, the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols of 1949 and 1977 on humanitarian issues and the laws of conflict, the end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Soviet Union (1991), the approval of the Rome Statute of 1998, which established the International Criminal Court (ICC), and also the Paris Agreement on Climate Change of 2015. Symptomatically, during all these years it has not been possible to reach a common platform on the fight against terrorism, a complex and highly politically sensitive issue.

Among political criminals there are unfortunately too many names that can be highlighted. This week, on the third anniversary of the start of Vladimir Putin's aggression against Ukraine, his criminal responsibility deserves special mention. Not forgetting, either, his most recent ally, Kim Jong-un, the villain who crushes the population of North Korea every day and threatens half the world and the other with his missiles. When we talk about these individuals and it is noted that the current US administration voted in the United Nations along these criminals, a terrifying question inevitably arises: what kind of world do they want to push us into?

The answer is anything but simple. But we must continue to insist on the normative dimension. International rules exist, and they must be followed. It is, however, worrying to see the G20 or the G7, and some dimensions of the United Nations system, which have functioned as pillars of international democracy and cooperation between peoples, being disrespected by traditional dictatorships together with the ruffians who are now emerging in the public square.

The international political architecture is at risk of collapsing. It is already in ruins in Palestine, for the dramatic reasons that are known. It could soon collapse during negotiations on Ukraine's sovereignty. It is practically impossible to believe in a just peace, when one thinks of the protagonists who have now entered the scene. They are on Putin's side, for incomprehensible reasons, perhaps personal, perhaps linked to past accounts, and with the – chimerical – pretext of obtaining a divorce between Russia and China. A part of the international defense system will also be at risk when the next NATO summit, scheduled for June 24-26, takes place in The Hague. And the most significant outcome will happen on September 22 and 23, when the General Assembly will meet to discuss the future of the United Nations. We will then see what proposals will be put on the table, at a time when the UN is a fragile target, disrespected by people like Netanyahu and little understood by the rich of this world.

I cannot fail to mention Emmanuel Macron's recent trip to Washington. He would have tried to give the Americans the impression that a good deal of the decision-making power is in his hands when it comes to the EU. I'm not sure he managed to convinced them, for three reasons. First, because Washington knows that Macron is struggling in France with a very serious national crisis. Macron is closer to the past than the future. Second, because the United Kingdom and Georgia Meloni, the Italian Prime Minister, have greater support in the White House. The new British ambassador to Washington, Peter Mandelson, a shrewd Labourite like his boss Tony Blair was years ago, will do everything he can to turn Donald Trump around. On the other hand, Trump has a special liking for Meloni. And she doesn't die of love for Macron. And third, and most crucially, because Trump hates the EU, as it became clear days after Macron's visit.

The Great Leader and his inconsistencies

Dear friend, peace is a very serious matter!

Victor Angelo

Anyone who reads or pays attention to what I say knows that I have an indescribable admiration for President Donald Trump. Once again this week the President did not disappoint me. Between two golf swings, at his extravagant estate in Florida, where Louis XIV would equally feel like the Sun King, and after a few hours in front of a giant television screen, he reminded us that according to his calculations, Volodymyr Zelensky's popularity among Ukrainian public opinion would be no more than 4%. This percentage dwarfs the 57% that the prestigious Kyiv International Institute of Sociology published on the same day. Trump did not mention the source of his data, nor does he need to.

Vladimir Putin would certainly agree with the percentage, as the source of such a lie. He, who has already stolen several elections, over more than two decades in power, in addition to his almost 16 years of training in the KGB, needs an affirmation like Trump's, which makes him forget his misdeeds. And if his lies are amplified by the US President, they will have a unique weight among the Russian public opinion.

At the same press conference, President Trump took as his own the conditions and the red lines that Putin has been repeating for the past three years. No to Ukraine's accession to NATO. Yes to the usurpation of Ukrainian territory by Russia. Replacing President Zelensky with a leader subordinate to the Kremlin, thus transforming the country into a vassal state of Moscow, in the style of Belarus. Reform of the defense architecture of democratic Europe in order to transform NATO into a disoriented, fearful mongrel incapable of opposing the imperialist ambitions of the Russian bear. Recognize that Eastern and Central Europe are part of the geopolitical zone of influence of the Russian Federation. End of the sanctions, to put Russia back in the economic position of a major supplier of raw materials, a sort of luxury Congo that enriches those who control the extractive sectors and allows them to subsidize vodka for the rest of the population and corrupt the armed forces. And to put the cherry on the cake, Trump just repeated what the fugitive Putin has been saying repeatedly: that Zelensky is a dictator, a president without an electoral mandate.

If it weren't for my foolish admiration for the indescribable, I would say that Trump's words are an earthquake followed by a tsunami. How can one hope to hold free and fair elections in Ukraine, the victim of a terrible war of aggression, when the troublemaker next door is sending hundreds of bombs and troops day and night with the aim of destroying the neighboring country?

The great leader is very good at echoing Putin. Likewise, when the intention is to confuse or intervene in the home of allies. He calls the acceptance of the main conditions imposed by the enemy a peace plan. This is what happened in the deal with the Taliban terrorists in 2020, when everything was negotiated by Trump's team without the participation of the Kabul government and the allies who fought for years in Afghanistan alongside the Americans.

We are in a period of great confusion. So, don't be surprised when I write that I also have a  great admiration for Volodymyr Zelensky. Three years after the start of the criminal Russian aggression, and despite the limited means at his disposal, he continues to enjoy the support of his fellow citizens and a rare international prestige. He has shown exemplary determination, foresight and courage. He reminds us that Ukraine is resisting with patriotism and cunning against the violence of a much stronger neighbor, which has been violating for years the basic rules of international law: respect for Ukraine's sovereignty, territorial integrity and the prohibition of the use of force.

My admiration for the Ucranian leader also comes from the truth that President Zelensky imprints on each of his words. He emphasizes that there will be no peace without the agreement of the Ukrainians. That he can say no to Trump who wants an absurd compensation: 500 billion dollars in rare minerals to compensate for the military and other budgetary aid that, so far, does not exceed a small part of that value, only about 20%: what a great deal! And to have the courage to affirm that his country relies on Europe, whose aid already amounts to 132 billion euros, much of it spent on purchasing American military equipment. A much higher volume of cooperation coming from Europe, but with the US corporations benefiting from it, in the arms and ammunition trade.

Next week, Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron will travel to Washington. I believe it will be a well-intentioned, diplomatically understandable, but useless move. It can even be humiliating for both of them. The future of Europe belongs to the Europeans. In the current context, we must play on this side of the ocean and without delay. And those who don't have a dog, hunt with a cat.

Europe must behave as a geopolitical block

 Europe has to believe in itself

Victor Angelo

I have had to repeat a thousand times, over the decades, that the legitimacy and authority obtained as a result of an electoral victory have limits. Democracy, no matter how clean the elections are and no matter how high the percentage of votes obtained by the winners, must be exercised within a framework of ethical values ​​and an institutional system clearly defined by the country's Constitution. Winning means assuming responsibility for protecting the dignity of all citizens, promoting equity and progress, respecting the rule of law and the fundamental law, and credibly representing the country in the field of external cooperation. The leader who does not see his or her role from this perspective, who tries to sell the idea that victory allows him to do anything and everything, placing himself/herself  above the law, immediately behaves like a dictator. If such leader is the president of a great power, he/she is also a frankly worrying threat to stability and peace between nations.

Democracy cannot serve as a gateway to an autocratic regime. There are those who say, however, that the world has changed in recent weeks. This is an ambiguous statement, if one keeps in mind the question of values. The rules and principles that have been consolidated over the last eight decades, or even in the shorter period that began with the end of the Cold War, remain valid. And they must be defended. What is new is the emergence of leaders who do not give a cent for these values ​​and who look at international relations in an imperial way, as being a question of strength, of domination and also of conflict and competition.

We are now faced, however, with two determining realities.

On the one hand, the American leadership controls the most powerful economy on our planet and shows a willingness to make use of this economic power. It is a mistake to think that allies are not needed and that international law does not carry much weight.

On the other hand, the media that counts in our part of the world revolves around the White House agenda, leaving limited space for the Middle East or Ukraine. And even when it mentions them, it does so almost exclusively from the Washington perspective. There are few references to the human suffering and the political crimes that occur daily in Sudan, in the Sahel, on the border of the Democratic Republic of Congo with Rwanda, a country friendly to Western democracies. And, at the same time, a mortal enemy of the poor Congolese citizens, who have the misfortune of living on lands that are theirs and are extremely rich in rare and precious minerals. Paul Kagame, who has led Rwanda since 1994 and transformed the country into a showcase for development, is organizing the looting and mass destruction of Congolese border areas, and is received in Europe, the United States, China and the rest of Africa as an exemplary leader.

I could mention other misfortunes, all of them ignored by the news and the screens that feed us daily, always with the same themes. There now seems to be no world beyond Trump. When was the last time you, the reader, had any information regarding the torment of the Rohingya people, the repression of the Uighurs in China, the violation of the rights of women and girls in Afghanistan, the violence against Afghan refugees in Pakistan, the crimes against the indigenous people of the Amazon, and so on?

The great ones of this world make the headlines. None of this is particularly new, except with regard to international organizations and European geopolitics.

The multilateral system is undergoing profound changes. We are moving towards the proliferation of sub-regional organizations, with a very limited capacity for intervention, apart from the advantage of allowing some rapprochement between neighboring countries. This trend, if not coordinated with the UN regional commissions, will contribute to the weakening and perhaps even the death of the UN political system. Not to mention the Security Council, which has become a diplomatic illusion. Or NATO, where the American presence will visibly diminish, as was clear from this week's statements. Those in charge in Washington today view NATO from afar, as an essentially European institution, which should therefore be funded by Europeans.

European geopolitics doesn't seem to count, especially in Trump and Putin's plans. Their long conversation on Wednesday about Ukraine's future ignored European fears and Ukrainian interests. Europe would be left with the role of the rich aunt who, supported by a cane, her only weapon, would serve only to lament the damage from the stands, and then pay for the repairs. It's time to say no, to resist, to take care of our own defense. And to respond to every autocrat firmly.

https://www.dn.pt/opiniao/a-europa-tem-de-acreditar-em-si-pr%C3%B3pria
Portuguese language version. 

Gaza and the international law

The future of Gaza is called Palestine

Victor Angelo

I understand all the concerns and questions about the future of Gaza. I also realize that, in recent days, some confusion has arisen about the new format of its government, once the current situation of destruction and massacres has ended. I have been receiving a flood of calls and inquiries on this matter. But the answer is simple, from the point of view of international practice and the right that each people has to decide on their independence and their form of governance, as long as they respect the Charter of the United Nations and all other norms that regulate international relations.

The territory, even in the state of destruction in which it finds itself, after around fifteen months of systematic bombings, war crimes and a condemnable humanitarian siege, is an integral part of Palestine. International law is very clear on the matter. And there cannot be a so-called “two-state” solution, one Israeli and one Palestinian, if the Gaza Strip is not integrated into Palestinian sovereignty. It is not easy to achieve, we are still very far from a peaceful solution, but there is no room for doubt on the issue. The community of nations has stated on several occasions that the future will only be possible if it manages to establish a Palestinian country that can live in peace with Israel and that is viable.

The population of the Strip has its family and historical roots in the territory. They cannot be forced to abandon Gaza and go live on the periphery of the lives of neighboring peoples, be they Egyptians or Jordanians. Or any others. This is what happened to multitudes of Palestinians in 1948 and from then on until today. It did nothing to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Furthermore, it transferred a whole series of challenges, difficulties and situations of misery to neighboring countries. One of the nations that has suffered most from successive waves of expulsions of Palestinians from their ancestral lands has been Lebanon. In the mid-20th century it was referred to as the “Riviera of the Middle East”, to use an expression that was in vogue this week. Now, Lebanon is a country in deep crisis, both internally and in its relations with Israel and many Palestinian refugees.

Europe and states that respect international norms must be more assertive when it comes to the Middle East. Starting with the question of Palestine. Anyone who takes these things seriously, without fear and with dignity, knows what it means to be more assertive. Furthermore, we must move away from a logic of hostility and conflict between the peoples of the region. And to enforce the decisions of the UN Security Council, the International Court of Justice and respect the mandates of the International Criminal Court. This is the world we aspire to, and it must first apply to Palestine, including the Gaza Strip. We do not want to return to the Middle Ages or resurrect Hitler or Stalin.

Maintaining and enforcing the current ceasefire is the first step. Unfortunately, I don't think it will last, hearing the comments in Washington from Benjamin Netanyahu. But let's hope so. Therefore, to establish real and lasting peace, it will be necessary to design a plan that allows Gaza to be reconstructed, compensate its population and integrate it into a Palestinian state. The Palestinian Authority must be encouraged to seriously reform and strengthen itself. It has to become an administration capable of managing a State, far beyond an amalgamation of militants. Illegal settlements must be expropriated and transferred to Palestinian ownership. The order and creation of a legitimate central authority recognized by the Palestinians and the United Nations are fundamental and urgent issues. We need a plan that is acceptable to everyone. It is up to the international community, and not just the European Union or one or another State, to encourage, help and work in this direction. And we should draw on the expertise of UNRWA, the UN’s trusted and highly specialized programme.

This has been, for eight decades, the greatest challenge for the United Nations Security Council. The Council must agree on a solution. Otherwise, the political pillar of the UN will not be able to safeguard what little remains of its reputation and will eventually cease to have any reason to exist. In other words, the Council is about to become just a formal body, powerless in an increasingly complicated, divided and chaotic world. A world given over to the excesses of those in charge of two or three superpowers.