A Humanist Foreign Policy for a Multipolar World

Welcome keynote speech: "A Humanist Foreign Policy for a Multipolar World” by Antonio de Aguiar Patriota

King's College London's Brazil Week 2026 | 30 March 2026

Distinguished Dr Andreza Aruska de Souza Santos, Director of King's Brazil Institute and host of King's Brazil Week

Distinguished Professor Léo Heller, King’s College’s Rio Branco chair at the Brazil Institute and former UN Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights to Water and Sanitation

Distinguished Professor Cathy Mcllwaine

Distinguished Professor Gabriel Feltran

Dear Brazilian students and researchers

Ladies and gentlemen,

It is an honour to deliver the welcome address at the 7th edition of King's Brazil Week. This year's theme - New Challenges, Shared Futures: Governance, Insecurity, and the Future of Cooperation - invites us to examine the many dimensions of our shared circumstances, in all their complexity. It is with great pleasure, therefore, that I present a collection of reflections spanning a decade of diplomatic thinking - from 2014 to 2024 - on the defining tensions and prospects of the international order of our time.

The title I chose to bring these reflections together is: A Humanist Foreign Policy for a Multipolar World. Each of these words carries some weight and intention. So, allow me to dwell on multipolarity and humanism, in particular. Let us begin with multipolarity.

Most observers will agree that the clear bipolarity of the Cold War has come and gone, with the demise of the Soviet Union and the fall of the Berlin Wall. Most also agree that the "unipolar moment" lasted until about the end of the 1990s. And the Iraq war (2003), and the financial crisis of 2008 may have heralded a transition phase. The financial crisis gave birth to the G20, as a replacement to the G7 - so this could be considered as in indirect recognition that the world economy at least had become more multipolar. In fact, I was Ambassador in Washington at the time, and I recall the Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson - you may remember his name - at a dinner at the Brazilian Embassy, stating that we cannot only meet with the like-minded within the G7 context, we need to include the new actors that will be influential not only in looking at policy alternatives for us to tackle common economic challenges, but also to cooperate in implementing them afterwards. So, in recognition of some kind of multipolarity.

But I think that it is fair to say that militarily, the current situation can be described as tripolar - as Brzezinski, who was National Security Advisor points out, an inherently unstable tripod. I think many would agree that there are residual elements of unipolarity given the strength and power of the US in this regard. But economically, the G20 includes both established and emerging actors of relevance, in particular a powerful European Union, whose GDP lags only slightly behind that of the US. And then, as a diplomat, I like to look at the diplomatic front. I think it is fair to say that the panorama is more varied: established players such as the permanent five members of the Security Council; large European countries with their global network of embassies - Spain, Italy and some others - and regional powers of global relevance such as Brazil, India and South Africa. You also have regional powers of strictly regional relevance, and countries that are not regional powers but that too have global relevance. I like to give the example of Switzerland as a country with a network of embassies and the custodian of international humanitarian law. Another example I give is the Holy See, which does not have an economy, does not have a military, hardly has any territory, but has significant diplomatic influence. In fact, the declarations by the Pope, even yesterday, I think were quite impressive and important mentioning that no prayers should be directed at encouraging bellicosity.

So, my conclusion is that there is no single word to describe the situation we are in. It is perhaps a combination of unipolarity-bipolarity, if we look at the technological front between the US and China for example, tripolarity in the military sphere, and economic and diplomatic multipolarity of sorts.

For Brazilian diplomacy, however, the term multipolarity can be interpreted both as an analytical preference, but also as a statement of policy. We have no nostalgia for unipolarity or for bipolarity - and most of the Global South doesn't in that regard. Today, we have extended our network of diplomatic and trade contacts on a global scale for the first time in our history actually. We participate in transcontinental platforms such as BRICS that are perhaps united more by an aversion to a return to unipolarity than by any other common view. But this shouldn't be interpreted as anti-Western platform necessarily. It could rightly be considered anti-hegemonic.

Ladies and gentlemen,

Let me turn now to the word humanism - the other one of the title.

This is a term that has been frequently employed by President Lula. At one of his first General Assembly speeches, in 2004, he stated that "only humanist values, embraced with determination and clearsightedness, will save us from barbarism." A few years later, in 2006, he stated that "people's greatness lies not in bellicosity but in humanism, and there is no true humanism without respect for the other." More recently, in 2023, he called on the international community to "reclaim the best humanist traditions which are at the heart of the creation of the United Nations." And to give examples of leaders who embody such values, Lula noted at last year's UNGA opening speech that "the world has just lost two leaders who represented the best humanist values: Pope Francis and former Uruguayan President Pepe Mujica." But what, exactly, is humanism? What should we understand by humanism today?

Humanism is a term that was first coined during the Italian Renaissance to describe a new breed of intellectuals and statesmen who shared at least two important characteristics worth retaining today: an attachment to science and evidence-based studies of history, as opposed to religious dogma; and a commitment to politics and dialogue, rather than a propensity to rely on military power and conflict to achieve political goals.

The Brazilian brand of humanism in 2026 might be summarised as a strong commitment to three pillars. First, democracy and social justice - as non-negotiable values, both domestically and internationally. Second, sustainability, along with respect for scientific evidence concerning climate change, global warming and the entire environmental agenda. Third, the promotion of diplomacy and multilateralism in the search for peace and stability, with respect for international law, rather than unilateralism. Another way of expressing this agenda is to describe it as one of inter-generational responsibility, because indeed, unless we protect the planet from global warming, unless we avoid conflicts - in particular with weapons of mass destruction -, and we allow democracy to slide back into autocracy, we will be bequeathing to the next generation a world much worse than the one that we are living in - certainly in our part of the world and in this part of the world as well.

Our motivation is to confer a contemporary dimension to humanism. To be truly universal in the twenty-first century, humanism must go beyond the European roots from which it stemmed. It must seek to establish a synthesis capable of drawing inspiration from all cultural and spiritual traditions - in particular non-Western ones - in line with a transition to multipolarity. To some degree, Brazil is a laboratory for such a humanism, as we incorporate, perhaps more easily than some others, indigenous, European, African and Eastern influences in our multicultural identity. In Brazil, names such as Caetano Veloso - who I am sure many of you are familiar with - is a very strong advocate for this civilisational aspiration.

A further argument that I develop in a recent article refers to the deconstruction of the notion that, were universal cooperation under UN auspices to break down or collapse, we could be facing a division of the world into regional spheres of influence. I believe that a key characteristic of today's world is precisely the trans-regional connectivity. Take the example of Brazil: China is the number one trading partner for Brazil, the EU as a block is number two. The US accounts for about 15% of our foreign trade, while markets in Latin America, the Arab world, Africa and Asia are acquiring increasing importance.

I believe that a Monroe Doctrine for the twenty-first century is a romantic phantasy. For one, international law was completely inexistent in the age of James Monroe, and it remains in force today. It outlaws the imposition through force of hegemonic spheres. Disrespect for territorial integrity, sovereignty and the identity and aspirations of your neighbourhood can, at a certain level, contribute to the emergence of something else: "spheres of fear", and indirectly encourage the vicinity of self-proclaimed regional hegemons to seek support - including military support - elsewhere. What, then, does this all of this leave us with?

Let me to refer briefly to the new conference document produced by Munich Security Conference. It speaks of the "destruction", this year, of our current international system. Very sombre diagnosis - and there are reasons to take it seriously - especially when we witness what is happening today in Iran and the Middle East. But there other dynamics at play as well that I would like to point out.

As host to COP30, Brazil demonstrated that cooperation on climate persists in spite of US withdrawal for the second time from the Paris Agreement. The system is under stress but it has not collapsed. It has become clear that the US cannot single-handedly destroy it.

When it comes to peace and security, human rights and cooperation for development - where are we heading? The UK, as host to the G20 in 2027, may have a key role in its hands in this regard. And today I hosted a lunch at the Brazilian Ambassador's Residence precisely with a group of government and non-government personalities looking at how preserve the G20 and to navigate the very challenging year of 2026. A multilateralist Europe can help to sustain what I call a "coalition of the responsible." The role of China will be fundamental.

Brazil, for its part, will continue to stand up for justice and the rule of law, domestically and internationally. It will continue to embrace democracy and inter-generational responsibility when it comes to the environmental agenda as well as the promotion of peace and security. And it will continue to be convinced that war is not inevitable.

In an article published today in The Guardian, President Lula underscores that unchecked violations of international law and an unaccountable UN Security Council are fueling global chaos, making urgent UN reform and stronger multilateralism - more urgent that ever. He states that "Excessive power and instability go hand in hand. A world without rules is an insecure world, where anyone can be the next victim. Violence cannot replace dialogue, nor can force prevail over diplomacy". 

President Lula also underlines that we are witnessing the highest number of armed conflicts since the Second World War, and that it is no coincidence that this is happening at a time when democracy stands at a crossroads. The 2026 edition of the V-Dem Institute's Democracy Report - this is a non-governmental institute headquartered in Sweden - paints a deeply concerning picture of the global state of democracy. I encourage you to read the report and to verify for yourselves how Brazil and others in the South provide some encouraging notes, often in contrast with a few the Global North.

I also encourage you to look at a recent UN report entitled "The Security We Need: Rebalancing Military Spending for a Sustainable and Peaceful Future". Rises in military budgets beyond a certain point only stir rivalry, mistrust and uncontrolled arms races - this is something I am quoting out of the report. We are at a dangerous and complex moment - a moment when responsible players, including civil society, academia, think tanks and individuals, must rally together to avoid a downward spiral into what the US historian Barbara Tuchman called "a march of folly": when leaders, through vanity, rigidity or fear, ignore the warnings and march toward the abyss. 

Before I conclude, I would like to add a few remarks on topics that will be debated throughout Brazil Week.

The first concerns a matter that speaks directly to Brazil's sense of inter-generational responsibility in fact. Climate change has played a significant role in the global spread of the Aedes aegypti mosquito, a well-known vector of arboviral diseases - with rising temperatures, shifting rainfall patterns, and accelerating urbanisation creating ever more favourable conditions for its proliferation. In this regard, I would underscore that Brazil has taken a leading role in G20 initiatives to mitigate the public health impacts of climate change. During Brazil's G20 presidency in 2024, the country brought to the fore the urgency of addressing climate-driven public health threats, stressing the need for coordinated action to curb the spread of this vector. 

At the domestic level, the Ministry of Health has been implementing innovative strategies to combat the mosquito, while Brazil has become a reference for countries seeking to understand the dynamics of these diseases. International cooperation has been central to this effort - enabling the sharing of knowledge and the development of effective approaches to vector control. 

The second matter I wish to raise is one that has gained growing regional and international visibility, namely public security and the international fight against organised crime.

In international relations, the notion of sovereignty has been with us since at least 1648 with the Westphalian accords. I think that European countries are much more aware of this than many in Latin America. Sovereignty is a guiding principle of the Brazilian Constitution, finding expression in two further commitments: non-intervention and the promotion of peace. I think that in international relations I might add even a third thought. Very often, when you do not know how to make a situation better, be sure you do not to make it worse. It is like the medical principle of "first, do no harm". The attempt to equate organised crime with terrorism finds no basis in existing law, nor in any rigorous conceptual framework. The designation of criminal factions as terrorist organisations carry many negative implications both from legal and political standpoints.

The Brazilian Government rejects this framing as unwarranted, illegal, unwise, indeed counterproductive. The criminal groups operating in Brazil are driven by profit, not by ideology. What we face is a criminal phenomenon that requires public policy and domestic strategies. I think it is fair to look at the aspects in which Brazil has not been successful, and the fact that this has become a growing concern, but been very careful not to prescribe the wrong medicine for this challenge. I believe the position in Brazil that I have just outlined is shared by both the Executive and the Legislative: the Brazilian Congress declined, in recent debates, to equate criminal organisations with terrorist organisations.

This position does not in any way - or should not be interpreted in many ways as a sign that the threat posed by transnational organised crime should be underestimated. International cooperation through respect for sovereignty is welcome to tackle money laundering, capital flight, trafficking, and international financial networks. We are working constructively with the UK on those fronts in fact. Brazil has also been in dialogue with the United States on how to deepen cooperation in this area. In a recent conversation between our Minister of Foreign Affairs Mauro Vieira, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, it was made clear that the Brazilian Government does not accept a classification that could affect businesses, banks, and economic flows, while also creating scope for external measures with direct implications for national sovereignty.

Ladies and gentlemen,

Let me conclude again by quoting Barbara Tuchman's "a march of folly". I am convinced - and I can speak for my country, Brazil, in this respect - that a march of reason can revert the troubling signs that we are witnessing. For that to be the case, we must demonstrate responsible behavior when it comes to the climate change, the transnational crime agenda, and other agendas that I mentioned, in particular peace and security. We must invest in diplomacy in tackling peace and security, and security challenges. We must support cooperation and multilateralism, even as we recognize its imperfections and embrace the idea of reform of the existing mechanisms. Above all, we cannot afford to ignore international law, as if the absence of legal constraints would create a better world. It will not. The Iran quagmire is a good illustration thereof. It spells chaos. As Umberto Eco - one of my favourite philosophers as I was Ambassador in Italy after all, so I have a soft spot for him - as he would encourage us to do, let us start to view war and militarism as we have started to view crime: a deviation from civilized, responsible, behavior - an avoidable evil. Let us establish a coalition of the responsible to ensure reason prevails.

It is my sincere hope that the debates of this Brazil Week will be fruitful - and may they leave us all with a renewed sense of inter-generational responsibility in upholding democracy, sustainability, peace and international cooperation through a revitalized multilateralism.

Thank you very much for your attention!