The mechanical staircase was found when Trump and Melania were going to be transferred to the UN General Assembly Hall. He described the “accident” as a metaphor of the institution: dysfunctional, obsolete, hostile. In truth, he only showed his geopolitical nihilism, a simple and brutal philosophy: if the world is a struggle for power, we do not pretend that we act for universal principles. But there is something that our European nostalgia prevents us from seeing. Trump is not inconsistent or irresponsible, implements a transition strategy towards unilateral hegemony: destroying the institutions that do not control to impose direct power. Hard power. Forget that power without legitimation devours itself. By eliminating institutions that, such as the UN, made the most acceptable American domain, accelerates the multipolarity that claims to fight, because naked power generates more resistance than legitimacy. But while Trump dynamited multilateralism from within, the same podium welcomed the perfect antithesis.
: “The 21st century will be increasingly multipolar. To remain peaceful, it can only register in a multilateral logic.” For decades, the United States was the single director of the World Orchestra, decided what was played and how. But China, India or Brazil have grown so much that they also want to direct the score. Lula recalled that the world no longer has a single boss, but if everyone touchs their own song without coordinating, the result is pure noise. Trump only loves the American band, although there is not enough audience, but in front of the weather, instead of Washington deciding alone, other capitals will sit at the table as equals to look for solutions. It was a relentless diagnosis: “International Humanitarian Law and the myth of the ethical superiority of the West are buried under tons of debris.” Lula, as one of the spokesmen of the Global South and the more than 140 countries that have recognized Palestine, showed that their legitimacy does not come from force. Where Trump sees zero sum competition, Lula proposes multipolar cooperation, even if he makes it involved in a contradiction. When denouncing the genocide in Gaza, stating that “authoritarianism is not inevitable,” Lula’s multilateralism continues to depend on universal normative criteria. Your problem is not a technical but philosophical: who defines the rules in a truly multipolar world? There is no multilateralism without normative hegemony.
Between them, the image of a was the perfect metaphor of the paralysis of European liberalism. France recognized the Palestinian state, criticized Israel a bit and avoided any real sanction. He spoke of a “path to peace” while Gaza is still under bombs, exemplifying the moral collapse disguised as sophisticated diplomacy: universalism without power is mere rhetoric. The global crisis is summarized in three impossibility: pure power devours itself; Multilateralism without normative hegemony is unfeasible; Universalism without power is mere chatter. They cannot work, and perhaps that is why we witness the exhaustion of the political categories that ordered the world since 1945. But perhaps that is what we need: to understand the world once to start imagining a new one.
