A Multipolar Solution to a Fractured World Order — A View from a Rising Power

Palliser Lecture: "A Multipolar Solution to a Fractured World Order — A View from a Rising Power” by Antonio de Aguiar Patriota

Aga Khan Centre, London | 22 April 2026

Ladies and gentlemen,

Good evening. It is a privilege to stand in this remarkable setting. Allow me to begin by expressing my sincere gratitude to Matt Reed, CEO of the Aga Khan Foundation UK, for his generous hospitality and gracious opening words, and to Peter Wilson-Smith, Chair of the 21st Century Trust, for making this event possible – together with his team, and in particular John Lotherington, Director of the Trust, who guided and supported the preparation of this lecture with great care and commitment.

I am grateful for this opportunity to share a few thoughts on the state of international affairs and on the role of diplomacy in addressing current challenges, from a Brazilian perspective. Let me start by expressing my respect and support for the work carried out by the Aga Khan Foundation, the 21st Century Trust and the Salzburg Global Seminar in the promotion of improved cooperation for peace and sustainability. I am honoured to be among you tonight.

I need not stress the complex and dangerous international scenario we are living through: inequality amidst abundance; global warming and environmental degradation; multiple conflicts, rising military budgets; disregard for international law and international humanitarian law; disruptions to trade; technological developments that are met with a mix of excitement and fear; erosion of democratic governance.

At the same time, it is worth noting that international cooperation, although subject to extreme turbulence, has not collapsed. As host to the G20 summit in 2024 and to a Climate Summit (COP30) in 2025, Brazil has been at the centre of diplomatic efforts that have revealed some scope for dialogue and multilateral coordination over the past two years – at a time when monologue, dissonance and breakdown in communication are on the rise.

As regards our relationship with the United Kingdom, I am pleased to announce that our foreign ministers recently signed a joint declaration establishing a strategic partnership that will expand our bilateral agenda and includes a strong commitment to international law and multilateralism. Let me clarify, however, that my remarks today will not refer directly to diplomatic relations between Brazil and the UK.

My presentation will be divided into three parts:

1. First, I shall share some comments on the present geopolitical landscape, which has become a frequent topic – subject to a variety of analyses – perhaps because it does not fit easily into existing analytical frameworks.
2. Beyond these comments, I will try to outline how inter-related crises in the spheres of sustainable development, peace and security, and international governance call for a new sense of “inter-generational responsibility”.
3. And finally, I shall argue in favour of a new “humanism” capable of providing a vision for the future, by referring to the need for a “coalition of the responsible”.

1. Current Geopolitical Landscape

Beginning with the current geopolitical landscape, the two last editions of the Munich Security Conference have provided some valuable material for an examination of where we stand. The 2025 report was called Multipolarization – an interesting word that brings together the notion of a transition towards multipolarity, in a context of political polarization within and among countries. Even as there are many reasons to question whether the world is already multipolar – or will ever become fully so – the report is of the view that today’s world is already shaped by multipolarization. I agree.

The creation of the G20, after the 2008 economic crisis, can be cited as an illustration of this trend. The US government under George W. Bush was quick to recognize that deliberations among the like-minded in a G7 (that temporarily incorporated Russia as G8) were no longer satisfactory to tackle economic and financial issues of global concern. I was Ambassador to the United States at the time, and vividly recall Secretary of the Treasury Hank Paulson expressing his support for a more inclusive and “multipolar” group, as he embraced the idea of a G20 to replace the G7.

But it is also fair to recognize that the world is not multipolarizing in all domains. In the military sphere, we seem to live under a tripolar reality – as the US, China and Russia possess the most robust capabilities by far, including as regards weapons of mass destruction. The economic weight and technological competitiveness of a rising China, in turn, often place it in a bipolar dynamics with the US.

A wider group of players, including a powerful European Union and emerging economies from the South, are economically relevant, as reflected in the G20 membership. If we look at diplomatic, or political influence, the field is even more widely open. Established actors, including the United Kingdom and France as Permanent members of the Security Council, retain their relevance. However, new entrants from the South are playing increasingly important roles. Alongside regional powers of global influence such as India, South Africa or Brazil, diplomatic influence is also at the hands of smaller countries with global networks such as Switzerland, Norway, Qatar or even the Vatican – which has no economy or military to speak of, but translates its moral and political resonance beyond Catholic circles. Let us not forget how small island States, as a group, have demonstrated their clout in environmental negotiations.

The sum total of this panorama is a world in transition, for which we have yet to develop adequate terminology and that could evolve in different directions. The Prime Minister of Canada, in a much-quoted speech at the annual World Economic Forum in Davos, suggested that “we are in the midst of rupture, not a transition.” Rupture may be another term for unbridled unilateralism, or disregard for the rule of law.

In this sense, he may be referring to rupture within the West or the global North. After threats by the US to annex Canada and incorporate Greenland, the West seems to be splitting into two distinct poles: a unilateralist superpower, on one hand, and a multilateralist majority, on the other. This unprecedented division in the global North is actually a new and surprising feature in a transition to a multipolarity which may come to include a non-monolithic West. After all, Ursula Von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, has declared that “the West as we knew it no longer exists.”

A more multipolar distribution of economic dynamism has opened pathways for new relationships. Brazil is among a small group of countries that enjoys diplomatic relations with every United Nations member State, as well as with the two UN observer States (the Holy See and Palestine), totalling 194 governments. A historic quantitative leap in our diplomatic network has taken place since the beginning of this century, placing Brazil among the 10 countries with the highest number of embassies around the world. Neither in Brazil, nor in most of the South, is there much nostalgia for the bipolar world of the Cold War, nor any interest in another unipolar moment.

In fact, among many countries, the trend towards multipolarity is not only welcomed as such, but also affirmed as a policy objective. In the case of Brazil, we are supporters of a multipolar world, ideally a post-hegemonic one that is free from so-called spheres of influence. Similar views are held in the developed world. The President of the Government of Spain, in a recent speech in Beijing, welcomed the “multiplication of poles of power and prosperity” as good news. In his view, multipolarity is not a “hypothesis or desired outcome”. It is a reality that should be embraced.

One of the key and novel characteristics of the 21st century has been the trade and investment flows made possible through globalization. Opportunities for communication, associated with the digital revolution and the internet, have favoured trans-regional relationships in ways that were inconceivable when I joined the Brazilian diplomatic corps, four decades ago.

In such a landscape, it would be unrealistic to imagine a re-edition of spheres of hegemony. To take Brazil as an example, China has been our number one trading partner for over 15 years; the European Union is number two; the US – in third place – represents 12% of our trade, while Latin America, Africa and the Middle East have become increasingly significant partners.

A platform such as BRICS is a telling example of coordination across regions, cultures and political systems that creates avenues for mutually beneficial exchanges, without necessarily involving alignment.

Renewed US interest in the so-called “Western Hemisphere” – a term that Brazilian diplomacy does not employ, by the way – as articulated in its National Security Strategy, will not automatically translate into enhanced regional leadership. On the contrary: if that interest is expressed through disregard for the sovereignty, territorial integrity and self-determination of the neighbouring countries, it will be met with distrust and resistance. Needless to say that constructive engagement on trade, security and sustainable development, anchored in international law and mutual respect, will be welcome from any well-intentioned partner, regardless of geography.

Rather than the clash of civilizations imagined by Samuel Huntington, we may be witnessing the emergence of affinities beyond and above civilizational traditions. A few days ago, the heads of government of Spain, South Africa, Brazil and Barbados (among others) met in Barcelona to advance a Global Progressive Mobilisation to strengthen international cooperation in yet another cross-regional assembly. I understand this is an open-ended rallying point among countries ready to stand up for a strengthened multilateralism. I would like to imagine that they constitute the embryo of a “coalition of the responsible”.

That being said, we must recognize that circumstances have become extremely adverse for those who uphold international law and multilateralism as the mainstays of cooperation. The specificity of our moment was captured by the 2026 Munich report entitled Under Destruction. Although circulated before the onslaught of the Iran war, it describes the behaviour of the unilateralists as “wrecking ball politics.” The risks for the international community at large are evident and cannot be underestimated.

The highly unpopular and illegal war in Iran, however, is fast becoming a vivid example of the chaos and instability bred by unilateralism. In that sense, it may be generating a healthy reaction even in conservative corners that tend to accept the notion that “might is right”. This is, of course, a blatantly mistaken notion – as any school principal who has had to deal with episodes of bullying in the school yard will attest. “Might is right” is wrong – the opposite of civilized behaviour. The problem is that unfettered “might” can be successful in its destructive impetus.

Beyond the human tragedy and material destruction wrought by the Iran war – not to speak of its multiple unintended impacts on energy and food security, or its inflationary side-effects –, the current debacle may, unintentionally, help to reinforce the hand of the multilateralists. It is also laying bare a perception that the world will not be made unipolar again. Steven Erlanger of the New York Times has described the Iran war as a “Suez moment” for its instigators. Time will tell.

2. Inter-generational Responsibility

Ladies and gentlemen,

What is already clear is that the geopolitical turbulence I have described does not unfold in a vacuum. It intersects - and compounds - a set of deeper, longer-term crises that place the wellbeing of future generations directly at stake. It is to these that I now turn.

I referred briefly to COP30, the conference of the parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which Brazil hosted last November in the Amazon city of Belém. Climate change and global warming have been placed at the top of international diplomatic agendas and seem destined to remain there. This is a comparatively recent development, that has yet to be fully understood and mainstreamed into governmental programmes at the national level. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been warning us of rising temperatures beyond which certain “tipping points” will compromise the sustainability of human presence in our planet. It is true that the situation would have been much more dire had we not assumed a parcel of responsibility in the last ten years. But the truth is we are not doing enough.

By the year 2015, it seemed like the world had assumed a responsible reaction to environmental challenges, with the adoption of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change and the Sustainable Development Goals. The SDGs, as they became known, were ground-breaking in their association of economic growth, social progress and the environmental variable into a new “sustainability consensus.” Five years away from the target date set by the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, however, that consensus has fractured. We are witnessing rises in inequality, food insecurity and gender-based violence in blatant opposition to the goals. In Belém, we met under new evidence that the 1.5 degrees Celsius warning set out in Paris had already been reached. In other words, we are off course, and unless there is a concrete change in direction, future generations will be paying the price for this negligence.

Sustainability is the first of the three areas which call for a deeper individual and collective awareness of inter-generational responsibility, at the governmental and non-governmental level. It is incumbent upon the generations in power to improve the livelihood of the widest possible segments of society, and not pass on to our children a scorched Earth.

There are two other inter-related areas that cannot be ignored in this context: namely the promotion of peace – and the avoidance of the wars that undermine it – and what I would term governance responsibility.

A few words on war and peace. We are experiencing the steepest rise in military expenditure since the end of World War II. The Doomsday Clock created in the 1950s by a group of scientists and philosophers – including Albert Einstein and Bertrand Russell – has never been as close to midnight. In other words, the risks of resort to weapons of mass destruction today may be more acute than at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Conflicts have multiplied in flagrant disrespect for the Geneva Conventions and the UN Charter. Diplomacy is failing; multilateralism is paralyzed. For the vast majority, war is not only a human tragedy, but also a waste of material resources which brings desolation to the many, while being lucrative for the few.

Less discussed, but not irrelevant, is the negative environmental impact of militarism. A report by a group based in the UK known as Scientists for Global Responsibility estimates that the military carbon footprint could account for 5.5% of global GHG emissions. That is a higher emissions level than that of Brazil and the UK combined. Moreover, a recent UN report entitled The Security We Need argues convincingly that heightened military expenditure does not necessarily lead to greater peace or stability. It also points out that inflated military budgets today are crowding out resources essential for social investment, poverty reduction, education, health and environmental protection. Is this responsible?

I would add that recent attempts to shape political outcomes through the use of force have, more often than not, backfired. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Sudan are graphic examples. The jury is perhaps out on Ukraine, Gaza and Iran. But I am convinced that in the 21st century, the Clausewitz aphorism – according to which war might be regarded as the continuation of politics by other means – has been proven to be misleading, if not irrational. One need not enumerate all the wars that have been producing more unintended consequences than deliberately designed outcomes to highlight this point.

Notwithstanding this picture, and even as activists from a variety of sources pressure governments to decarbonize and accelerate energy transitions, we have yet to observe a meaningful movement to ensure future generations are bequeathed a functional inter-state system – under multilateral supervision – to promote peace and security. This governance challenge is a third and fundamental issue involving inter-generational responsibility that diplomats and politicians cannot ignore. In this respect, we must be wary of approaching a “systemic tipping point”. It would be disastrous for all of us if the Security Council or the World Trade Organisation remained persistently inoperative. Just as it would be irresponsible to allow temperatures to rise beyond dangerous tipping points, it would be highly unwise to allow for a meltdown in multilateral cooperation, especially in the vital area of peace and security.

As early as 2014, in his book World Order, Henry Kissinger stated that “a reconstruction of the international system is the ultimate challenge to statesmanship in our time.” The encouraging news is that a growing number of individuals, civil society groups and governments are pressing for a return to reason, and are demonstrating a commitment to inter-generational responsibility.  The Welsh parliament – the Senedd – adopted legislation on “the well-being of future generations”, which fully incorporates the UN Sustainable Development Agenda. In spite of its imperfections, the existing multilateral system can be strengthened through reform and adjusted to the requirements of a new era. A Pact was adopted at the Summit of the Future, convened by the UN Secretary-General in 2024, which stands as a helpful blueprint. As President Lula has declared: “the solution to the crisis of multilateralism is not to abandon it, but to rebuild it on fairer and more inclusive foundations.”

One additional word regarding artificial intelligence and the technological developments that are generating significant economic and political repercussions in our societies. The British Astrophysicist Stephen Hawking, in a 2018 essay, issued a warning: “our future is a race between the growing power of technology and the wisdom with which we use it.” And his advice was: “let us make sure that wisdom prevails.” President Lula, at a recent AI summit in New Delhi, was equally direct: unregulated AI risks deepening historic inequalities, and “when a small number of individuals are in control of algorithms and digital infrastructure, we cease to be speaking of innovation – we are being threatened with domination”. A robust and inclusive governance framework is therefore indispensable. Pope Francis, shortly before passing, issued his own warning: “we risk falling into the spiral of a technological dictatorship; by proposing to overcome every limit through technology, in an obsessive desire to control everything, we risk losing control over ourselves.” When a brilliant scientist, an experienced politician and a spiritual voice converge, only the ill-advised pay no heed.

3. A New Humanism

Dear friends,

As we try to navigate a difficult geopolitical environment and are confronted with the challenge of presenting future generations with a liveable world, does it suffice to proceed on the basis of narrow self-interest? Multipolarization presents us with an opportunity for new patterns of cross-fertilization among different traditions on a global scale. Technological advances can be placed at the service of reducing social inequality and bridging gaps between north, south, east and west. If diplomacy is to become an effective vehicle for enhanced inter-generational responsibility on the core items I have outlined – the environment, peace and security, governance and technology – it will greatly benefit from casting a wide net over a variety of cultural, spiritual and institutional sources of inspiration to articulate a humanist vision.

I am particularly pleased to have been invited to speak at this venue, where I identify among the sponsors a wide overlap of common aspirations of a humanist nature. Let me refer briefly to my personal attachment to the term humanism. I recently published a compilation of essays in English entitled A Humanist Foreign Policy for a Multipolar World, in which I elaborate at greater length on some of the thoughts shared with you tonight. I would not have chosen this title were it not for the fact that President Lula, in many of his speeches – since his first address to the UN General Assembly in 2003 – has employed the word humanism.

What do we mean by humanism? Briefly, humanism for Brazil today is a combination of commitment to democratic governance, social progress, sustainable development and the promotion of peace.

In the history of ideas, humanism owes its emergence to the Italian Renaissance and its intellectual effervescence. Several aspects associated with the civilizational rebirth embodied by the original humanists resonate today, such as an attachment to evidence-based rationality, as well as the investment in interactive politics. This being said, it is clear that a humanism for the 21st century will only achieve global outreach if it derives wisdom from all quarters.

Several in the Aga Khan lineage are presented as humanist Muslim leaders, through their emphasis on pluralism, international cooperation for development, education and the advancement of women. Sadruddin Aga Khan, whom I had the honour to have met briefly as a teenager, was a champion for multilateralism and a strong advocate for diplomacy. A stark example of a muslim humanist.

Let me add a word on behalf of artists, musicians, poets and creators who express civilisation through cultural achievement. Humanism will not thrive and inspire in their absence.

[A word in tribute to great cities of the world I was born in one, Rio de Janeiro, and now have the privilege of living in another. Cities are not only the locus for business and politics. They set the stage for exchanges of views, ideas, perceptions. One of the most admirable features of the great cosmopolitan city that is London is its vocation to welcome arguments, opinions, agendas and art from a plurality of sources.]

A new humanism may seem like an unrealistic utopia in 2026. And yet it is hard to imagine a majority of the world’s population foregoing efforts to combat hunger, poverty, disease, illiteracy or environmental degradation to take up weapons, fight avoidable wars and succumb to climate denial and irrationality.

I conclude with the idea that a humanism for the 21st century should focus on the least favoured segments of society, embrace pluralism, and assume the highest level of responsibility towards future generations. French philosopher Edgar Morin, who will soon turn 105, wrote after surviving the coronavirus that “awareness of our common destiny on Earth should be the defining event of our century.” In the same vein, the President of Brazil has stated that: “there is no humanism without respect for the other; we must recuperate the best humanist traditions that inspired the creation of the United Nations; only humanist values, expressed with determination and clear-sightedness, will detain barbarism.”

A coalition of the responsible has begun to take shape. As a member of the group Leaders for Peace, under the leadership of former French Prime Minister Jean Pierre Raffarin, I just hosted a meeting in London last week that networked with the Elders group, chaired by former Colombian President and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Juan Manuel Santos, as well as the United Nations Association of the United Kingdom.

Civil society, academia, private sector and philanthropy can align in a humanist spirit. I am certain that the Aga Khan Foundation, the 21st Century Trust and the Salzburg Global Seminar are on a similar wavelength. Governments from left, right and centre must choose between negligence or responsibility.

Our common destiny is at stake.

Thank you. Obrigado.