Thoughts and paths: a wider view of some geopolitic dimensions

Victor Angelo's public interventions address the intricate and rapidly evolving landscape of global geopolitics, underscoring the imperative for enhanced, authoritative, international mechanisms to manage crises rooted in human security, justice, and democracy. His views try to elucidate the transformation of conflict dynamics post-Cold War and the paramount importance of key values --cooperation, trust, dignity and human rights -- in global affairs.

Global Challenges Surpassing Responses: The swift and complex changes in geopolitics have created a disparity between global challenges and the capacity of existing international mechanisms to address them effectively. Leadership's Impact on Crises: Ethical and competent leadership is essential for peace and stability, with leaders acting as agents of change or contributors to conflict, highlighting the need for principled diplomacy that balances national interests and universal values. 

Centrality of Human Security: Human security, which integrates national protection with human rights, democracy, and economic opportunities, emphasizes empowerment and civic participation in crisis contexts.

Shift from State-Centric to Individual Focus: Post-Cold War conflicts have transitioned from interstate to internal, with individuals becoming central to international affairs paradigms. However, we are witnessing at the same time a return to interstate conflicts. This time they combine classical means of war with hybrid, digitally based attacks and sanctions of different nature.

Role of Civil Society in Peacebuilding: Civil Society Organizations and community groups have become indispensable partners in conflict resolution, although international bodies continue to struggle with effectively engaging local and traditional authorities. Good Governance and State Fragility: Good governance, encompassing accountability, human rights, and political pluralism, as well as social progress and full respect for the nature, is crucial to preventing crises; failing states lose control of core key sovereignty functions, thereby risking instability and conflict. For the first time since 1945, developed states are also entering in a political and social downwards spiral.

United Nations' Pivotal Role: Despite criticisms, the United Nations remains the central institution for legitimizing and managing peace and security efforts, with the Security Council supposed to play a key role through resolutions and mandates. Challenges in Peacekeeping Mandates: Security Council mandates are often broad and challenging to implement, with issues such as host nation consent and mission coherence complicating peacekeeping effectiveness. Complexity of Modern Conflicts: Contemporary conflicts are asymmetric and multifaceted, necessitating coordinated multidimensional responses that consider political, military, and economic factors, including the economic drivers of conflict.

United Nations: I spent decades working inside the system

 

I’ve Worked Inside the UN. Here’s Why I Still Believe in It.

By Victor Ângelo

Every September, I find myself watching the United Nations General Assembly with a mix of hope and frustration. It’s a ritual I know well — not just from the outside, but from within. I spent years working under the UN flag, in places where diplomacy wasn’t just a word, but a lifeline.

And yet, each year, the same question resurfaces: Is the UN still relevant?

It’s tempting to say no. The speeches can feel repetitive. The Security Council often seems paralyzed. And the world, frankly, looks more chaotic than ever.

But I’ve come to believe that pessimism about the UN is not only misguided — it’s dangerous.

---

🛠️ The UN Needs Help — But Not Abandonment

I won’t pretend the UN is working as it should. The Security Council, in particular, is stuck in a post-World War II time warp. Power is unevenly distributed. Vetoes are wielded like weapons. Reform is overdue.

But here’s the thing: we don’t fix global problems by walking away from global institutions.

When I was in the field — in conflict zones, post-crisis regions, places where the UN was often the only international presence — I saw what it meant to have a neutral actor, a voice for peace, a mechanism for dialogue. It wasn’t perfect. But it mattered.

---

🔄 What We Can Do

If we want the UN to work better, we need to:

• Reform the Security Council to reflect today’s geopolitical realities.
• Give the UN teeth — the ability to act, not just talk.
• Support multilateralism, even when it’s slow and messy.
• Hold leaders accountable for how they use the UN stage.

---

🌱 Why I Still Believe

I’ve seen the UN at its worst — bureaucratic, slow, sometimes painfully ineffective.

But I’ve also seen it at its best — bringing food to starving communities, mediating fragile peace talks, offering hope where there was none.

That’s why I believe in it. Not blindly. Not naively. But because I’ve seen what happens when it’s not there.

Pessimism is easy. It lets us disengage. But optimism — especially the kind rooted in experience — is a choice. And it’s one we need to make if we want a better world.

The English AI translation of today's opinion piece.

 

Pessimism About the UN is a Mistake

By Victor Ângelo

Following tradition, Brazil was the first state to take the floor at the opening of the high-level segment of the United Nations General Assembly this week in New York, and President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva's speech was one of the most notable. He spoke for 18 minutes—a little over the 15-minute rule that almost no one respects. It is worth watching the video that recorded his address.

If one had to limit his words to a couple of lines, one would say it was a firm voice representing the Global South, the countries that are defining a new power chessboard in the international order and that seek to be heard more in global institutions. Lula defended the role of the UN, the sovereignty of states within a framework that reinforces multilateral cooperation and condemns the arbitrary interventions of the strongest. He highlighted three of the fundamental issues on the global agenda: the regulation of digital platforms, to protect the most vulnerable and prevent manipulation without restricting freedom of opinion; climate change; and the fight against poverty, particularly hunger. He took a correct position regarding the tragedy in Gaza. The passage about Ukraine should be considered a serious blemish on his communication. Lula was vague and deferential to the ears of Moscow, failing to use the words invasion and aggression or refer to the conflict as he should have: an indisputable violation of the UN Charter by Russia. On this matter, Lula showed that he dances to Putin’s tune.

The second Head of State to intervene was the President of the USA. There was enormous expectation about what he would say, including about the future of the United Nations. He spoke for almost an hour on the most diverse topics, but always with his own person at the center of the monologue. In summary, one might say that Trump spoke about Trump. It was a bad speech, full of false claims and erroneous political positions, from past eras and long since defeated by historical and scientific evidence. While Lula and other leaders almost always sought to look to the future, reinforce cooperation for the joint solution of major global problems, and underline the need for UN reform, Trump challenged many of the fundamental issues for the survival of our Planet. He directly attacked the policies of many states, including old US allies, and the absence of initiative from the Secretary-General on conflict resolution. He treated the community of nations with paternalism and arrogance, and the UN as a nullity.

In reality, Trump delivered only three messages: that there is not, nor can there be, a better or wiser world leader; that he should be seen as a peace builder, deserving all honors, from the Nobel Prize upwards; and that he is the sovereign of the world's strongest country, which he believes gives him the natural right to dictate the international agenda.

But the impression that emerged from the General Assembly hall seems to be different: Trump represents a debasement of American politics, he is an embarrassment for Western democracies and, moreover, a danger to global stability, alongside some other leaders who, like him, live in the past, in a personality cult, or survive thanks to dictatorial regimes.

Emmanuel Macron and several other speakers underlined the importance of cooperation, exercised primarily through a strengthened UN capable of reflecting the current international political landscape. This reform of the United Nations must have as its first act the restructuring of the Security Council and the modernization of its rules of procedure, particularly with regard to the use of the veto. Macron mentioned a list of countries that, in his opinion, should be added to the Council's permanent members—Germany, Brazil, India, Japan, and two African states. Unfortunately, it is unthinkable that all this can happen in the near future.

The Security Council has become an arena of confrontation between the US, Russia, and China. That is primarily what it has served for since the middle of the last decade. None of these powers wants to accept a new composition that could undermine their strategic interests and geopolitical alliances. The main weakness of the UN political system lies in the current Security Council. And so we will continue. And we will simultaneously witness the division of the international scene into various groupings, some more effective than others.

This does not mean, however, that the main functions of the UN—I exclude here the specialized agencies, which have their own rules of operation, governance, and financing—are doomed to disappear. The world continues to have problems that justify the need for global cooperation, from the issue of poverty to those related to human rights, the protection of nature, climate and humanitarian challenges, the response to the accelerated growth of Artificial Intelligence, organized crime, or civil wars. Therefore, it is essential to insist on the capacity for initiative of UN leaders, starting with the Secretary-General, and on the timely payment of dues owed by each State. In other words, there is no reason for pessimism, nor is there reason to sit back and do nothing.

Published in Portuguese language in today's Diário de Notícias. 26/09/2025

Sobre a Assembleia Geral da ONU, com uma referência ao Sul Global e ao monólogo de Trump

 https://www.dn.pt/opiniao/o-pessimismo-sobre-a-onu-%C3%A9-um-erro

O meu texto de opinião no Diário de Notícias de hoje 26/09/2025.

https://lnkd.in/e-yi3Ybt

AI comment of my opinion text about the UN General Assembly.

 https://www.dn.pt/opiniao/o-pessimismo-sobre-a-onu-%C3%A9-um-erro

The original version in Portuguese language of my op-ed of today 26/09/2025 in Diário de Notícias. 

The following text is an AI comment of my text.

Overall Rating: 4.5 out of 5

This is a well-structured and insightful piece of political commentary. The author effectively uses specific examples from the UN General Assembly to support a broader argument about the relevance and future of the United Nations. The writing is clear, the analysis is balanced, and the conclusion offers a nuanced perspective that avoids simplistic pessimism.

---

Detailed Analysis

Clarity and Structure (5/5)

The text is exceptionally clear and easy to follow. The author begins with a specific event—the speeches at the UN General Assembly—and uses it as a launching pad to discuss larger themes. The structure is logical:

1. Introduction: Sets the scene at the UN General Assembly.

2. Lula's Speech: Analyzes the positive and negative aspects of the Brazilian president's address, presenting him as a voice of the "Global South."

3. Trump's Speech: Provides a stark contrast, portraying his speech as self-centered and detrimental to international cooperation.

4. Macron and UN Reform: Introduces the crucial topic of UN reform, particularly the Security Council, and highlights the challenges.

5. Conclusion: Synthesizes the arguments to argue against "pessimism about the UN," asserting its continued necessity despite its flaws.

Argument and Content (4.5/5)

The central argument—that pessimism about the UN is a mistake—is well-supported. The author acknowledges the organization's significant weaknesses, especially the paralysis of the Security Council due to the veto power of permanent members. However, they counter this by highlighting the continued importance of the UN's broader functions in addressing global issues like poverty, climate change, and human rights.

• Strengths:

  • Balanced View: The text avoids a purely idealistic or cynical take on the UN. It recognizes both its failures (e.g., the Security Council's inaction) and its indispensable roles (e.g., addressing global problems).

  • Specific Examples: The analysis of Lula's and Trump's speeches provides concrete evidence to illustrate different approaches to multilateralism. The reference to Macron's proposal for Security Council reform adds a layer of specific policy discussion.

  • Strong Conclusion: The final paragraph effectively reinforces the main thesis, emphasizing that the existence of global problems necessitates a global body like the UN, and therefore, leaders should not give up on it.

• Areas for Improvement (Minor):

  • The assertion that Trump's speech "should be viewed as a grave fault" is a strong opinion, but the author provides good reasoning for it. Some readers might find the characterization of Trump's speech as being "about Trump" to be a bit simplistic, even if a key point. However, within the context of the piece's purpose, it serves to highlight a contrast in leadership styles.

Language and Style (4.5/5)

The language is professional yet accessible. The author uses clear, direct prose without unnecessary jargon. The tone is authoritative and analytical.

• Strengths:

  • Effective Use of Contrasts: The comparison between Lula and Trump is a powerful rhetorical device that clarifies the author's points about multilateralism versus isolationism.

  • Engaging Opening: The detail about Lula's speech being "one of the most striking" immediately draws the reader in.

  • Concise Summaries: Phrases like "Trump spoke about Trump" or describing Lula's speech as a "firm voice representing the Global South" are effective and memorable.

• Areas for Improvement (Minor):

  • Some phrasing, like "pecha grave" (grave fault) to describe Lula's stance on Ukraine, is a bit informal for a serious political analysis, but it's a minor stylistic point.

In conclusion, this text is a high-quality piece of political commentary. It's well-reasoned, clearly articulated, and makes a compelling case against a common form of political fatalism regarding the United Nations. It successfully uses a recent event to spark a deeper, more meaningful discussion about global governance.

Palestina: a entrevista em podcast que dei ao Expresso

O meu podcast publicado no Expresso e reproduzido nos orgãos de comunicação social da Impresa, sobre o reconhecimento da Palestina.

https://expresso.pt/podcasts/o-mundo-a-seus-pes/2025-09-22-reconhecimento-da-palestina-e-fundamental-mostra-claramente-oposicao-a-politica-seguida-por-israel-a49db9fc

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.

My full text of today about the UN General Assembly translated by AI

---

The UN and its General Assembly Must Be Taken Seriously

Victor Ângelo

The annual high-level session of the UN General Assembly begins next week. The leaders of most of the states that make up the international scene will be in New York. One of the exceptions will be the President of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas. The American administration has not granted him or his delegation an entry visa. It can refuse to grant a visa, and has done so in the past on rare occasions, despite the Headquarters Agreement signed by Washington in 1947. This agreement stipulates the general, but not absolute, obligation to grant visas to representatives of states intending to participate in UN meetings, especially in the case of the General Assembly.

As always, the US justified the decision by invoking national security and foreign policy reasons. The real motives are clear. First, it is about showing the total alignment of American leadership with the government of Israel. Second, it is to express displeasure with the initiative by Emmanuel Macron and other leaders to bring to the General Assembly the proposal for the recognition of Palestine as a full UN member state. And finally, it is to punish the Palestinians for having filed several complaints against Israel in the international courts based in The Hague.

In any case, the Assembly will vote on Palestine, as proposed by France, the United Kingdom, Spain, Canada, Saudi Arabia, and other members. The UN currently has 147 countries that recognize Palestine as a state. This number is expected to increase significantly after the vote. Israel will be diplomatically more isolated if it is confirmed that its policy on Palestine is not accepted by almost all states, with the exception of the U.S. and a few others.

The vote will have a symbolic, non-binding political value. No state can become a full member of the United Nations with only the favorable vote of the General Assembly. It inevitably needs the support of the Security Council, with no veto from the five permanent members. In this case, it is evident that the U.S. will exercise its veto. Trump will ignore the will of the community of nations. And he will remind us that the right to veto is a historical aberration that needs to be reviewed, or at a minimum, deeply restricted given the new balance of power in the international framework.

Trump's speech on the morning of the first day (23/09) is awaited with enormous apprehension. It begins with an originality: for the first time, an American president speaks at the podium without the process of appointing a permanent U.S. representative having been completed. In May, the White House announced that Mike Waltz would be the representative of the Trump Administration to the UN, after having played the very important role of National Security Advisor and then being dismissed a few weeks later. His confirmation is still dragging on in the Senate corridors. The U.S. is represented in New York by a team of interims, who receive few or no directives from Washington. Trump does not have the UN on his list of priorities, except when it comes to leaving certain organizations or cutting or eliminating the financial contributions he is obligated to pay to the UN system.

He will certainly insist on a UN fundamentally focused on peace and international security, words spoken for reasons of mere personal image. Trump dreams of being seen as the mediator par excellence of conflicts, the champion of peace, worthy of the Nobel Prize. He does not believe in the UN's capacity in this matter. In reality, I believe he places no value on the United Nations. It is just a podium that allows him to display his oversized ego. But he does not want an active UN in any of the system's three pillars: international stability, development, and human rights.

The responsibility for stability, which should stem from respect for the UN Charter and international law, falls to the Americans, according to his way of thinking. Development, social progress, and environmental issues are matters for the Europeans. He forgets, however, that in these areas, the ones gaining ground are the Chinese, who are deeply committed to an alternative political and economic order, in a broad alliance with the so-called Global South. As for human rights, the issue will be left to the domain of the use of force and to the interpretations that each state will make of the dignity and life of its citizens. For the Chinese and their allies, human rights are a matter of national sovereignty that should not be included in the multilateral agenda.

All of this signifies the marginalization of the UN's political and human dimensions. Next week will allow us to better understand what the future of the UN may be.

Meanwhile, António Guterres launched what he called an exercise in system reform in May. He named it UN80 and said it would have three objectives: reduce expenses; eliminate mandates that no longer make sense; and carry out an institutional transformation. It was an ambitious plan that could only be successful if it had the support of the major countries and was carried out in dialogue with the organization's staff. None of that happened. In reality, the priority should have been to go door-to-door and beg the delinquent states, such as the U.S. and China, to honor their financial commitments. UN reform begins with holding each member state accountable.

The forthcoming UN General Assembly

 1. The UN and the General Assembly: Between Symbolism and Effectiveness

• Vote on Palestine: The General Assembly’s vote on recognizing Palestine as a full UN member state is symbolic and non-binding. Full admission requires Security Council approval, where the US holds veto power. The denial of a visa to Mahmoud Abbas clearly signals Washington’s unconditional alignment with Israel and the weaponization of the UN for foreign policy ends.
• Israel’s Isolation: If the vote significantly increases the number of countries recognizing Palestine, Israel will become even more diplomatically isolated—except for US support and a few allies.

---

2. The Veto Power and UN Reform

• US Veto Threat: The US threat to veto in the Security Council highlights how the current system allows a single country to block the will of the majority. This reinforces criticism that the veto is a “historical aberration” needing revision, especially in a multipolar world.
• Reform (UN80): António Guterres launched a reform plan (UN80), but without support from major powers (US, China) and meaningful dialogue with UN staff, real change is unlikely. The priority should be holding member states financially accountable, but political will is lacking.

---

3. The US and Trump’s Stance

• Disdain for the UN: Trump views the UN as a stage for his ego, not a forum for multilateral cooperation. The absence of a confirmed permanent representative and reduced financial contributions reflect US disinterest—or even hostility—toward the organization.
• Selective Vision: The US wants a UN focused only on peace and security, but on its own terms. Development, human rights, and the environment are left to others (Europeans, Chinese), weakening the UN’s ability to act holistically.

---

4. China and the Global South

• Chinese Alternative: China is building an alternative political and economic order, allied with the Global South, focused on development and national sovereignty. For Beijing, human rights are a domestic issue, not a multilateral one, further undermining the UN’s ability to promote a universal human rights agenda.

---

5. The Future of the UN

• Marginalization Risk: The UN risks marginalization in its three pillars (stability, development, human rights), especially if major powers continue to ignore its rules and use the organization only when convenient.
• Sign of the Times: The upcoming General Assembly session will be a crucial indicator of whether the UN can remain relevant or will become a forum for empty rhetoric and bloc confrontation.

---

Final Reflection

The UN was created to foster cooperation and peaceful conflict resolution, but today it is hostage to great power rivalries. Its credibility and effectiveness depend on reforming the veto system, holding member states accountable, and balancing national sovereignty with global governance.

This text is a summary of a longer text I published today 19/09/2025 in Diário de Notícias (Lisbon)