Susana Malcorra, former foreign minister and former chief of staff for the UN secretary general, says the world is going through “a time of transition in which what once was no longer is and what will be is still unknown.”
In an interview with Modo Fontevecchia, broadcast on Net TV and Radio Perfil (AM 1190), Malcorra defended multilateralism and defined the agreement between the European Union and Mercosur as “much more than a trade agreement.”
Malcorra, who served in ex-president Mauricio Macri’s government, was the first woman to head Argentina’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship. She spent 11 years at the UN, serving three years as chief-of-staff to then-secretary-general Ban Ki-moon.
She is the co-chair of the board of trustees of the International Crisis Group and a member of such organisations as the Atlantic Council and Inter-American Dialogue. She also presides over the global organisation Group of Women Leaders Voice for Change and Inclusion.
In her view, the weakening of the United Nations is in keeping with great powers abandoning the principle of self-control and commitment to international law.
“I believe the time has come for a woman to head the United Nations. I’m deeply convinced of that,” she pointed out.
I’d like you to assess the agreement between the European Union and Mercosur and how it’s experienced from there – with your outlook being closer from Europe, While you were foreign minister, we might say, you laid the foundations for the signing of the agreement, which took 25 years of comings and goings and now would seem to be definitely moving forward with its signing in Paraguay next Saturday.
Mercosur’s agreement with the European Union is much more than a trade agreement. And that’s why I insisted, in any way possible, from here in Spain, for Europe to understand its strategic importance. If both Europe and Latin America are in a situation where they are being given, or demanded, a choice between the United States and China, I believe it’s in the interest of both regions to keep all options open.
Having generated this opportunity to unite a market of the size of Europe and Mercosur, having understood that there is a strategic sense behind this, a sense of giving each other options in common, a sense of finding dialogue mechanisms … this has an implication which is much greater than the mere fact of the trade transaction which, of course, is in itself fundamental.
Do you attach any causality, albeit secondary, to the signing and its proximity to when the US bombed Venezuela?
Honestly, I don’t think so. Oftentimes when we make these analyses, we attach the third order evaluation and the impact it may have had on the decision. I believe this decision was very complex, especially because France opposed it till the very last minute and, in fact, it was Italy, via Prime Minister [Giorgia] Meloni, who tilted the decision towards yes. Because had Italy stayed on the other side, they would have achieved the veto they needed by percentage of European population, including Italy.
I don’t think it was that, though I must tell you, when analysing it from a more macro position, 30,000 feet above sea level, it’s more than timely to make this decision.
In the case of Meloni, she would seem to be closer to Milei than Lula, even if Lula was the most insistent – even during the previous administration of Alberto Fernández, who didn’t want to sign the agreement with Mercosur. It was always Lula who maintained it. One may guess, even correctly – and I have to ask – whether Meloni’s intervention had more to do with her relationship with Milei.
I believe Meloni’s intervention had a lot to do with an assessment made from Italy itself that is, there was strong pressure from certain sectors of Italian industry which were staunchly in favour of this being signed – and you know very well that Italian chambers are very strong when it comes to influencing government decision-making.
No doubt, affinities help, and I think the affinity between the Prime Minister and the President may have contributed here.
I think that what happened was that it was blown out of proportion from Europe – especially from France, but not just there – this farming matter within this agreement and it was given a weight which, at some point, Meloni agreed with.
What happened within Italy is that Meloni was explained what the relative opportunities are. Besides that, she already achieved some reinsurance from the European Union in favour of its farming sector and is satisfied with that, but without a doubt that leg of a relationship behind the scenes helps accept decisions.
You are the Argentine woman who served the highest position in the United Nations – the right hand of secretary-general Ban Ki-moon. There was an argument there about the effectiveness of the United Nations. Trump himself, in his last UN speech, almost mistreated it, said they solved nothing, that he was the only one who could ultimately solve problems. Now we have a candidate from Latin America and Argentina, Rafael Grossi, for secretary-general of the United Nations. I would like you, with your experience, to give us an assessment of the United Nations and what it could mean to have an Argentine secretary-general.
Firstly, I have to tell you that the United Nations today is going through a low point, without a doubt. The United Nations is many things, but among other fundamental things it’s the commitment by its member states in terms of the charter they signed – the Charter of the United Nations, and particularly the five governments of the five states with a right to veto: the United States, Russia, China, France and the United Kingdom.
When these powers decided that it was the foundational basis of the charter, the principle of self-control, the principle that on the basis of common good, what is good for everyone, we have to refrain from using force, and when they stop, the United Nations can only fare badly.
And this is clear in the example of Ukraine, it’s clear in the example of Israel and Gaza and it’s clear in the example of Venezuela. When the use of force, the use of power, including the objective of gaining territory, becomes naturalised, it’s very difficult for the United Nations to seem like a thriving and hopeful place.
I believe this must be reversed – we have to work on reversal – but again, it’s not just the structure of the United Nations that needs plenty of work, plenty of review. The United Nations was born with 50 or so members and today it has 193. This has made it very complex, very hard to handle. But I think the basic commitment to principles is what’s lacking and is serious.
As for the candidacy of an Argentine, I believe it’s very important for the country to commit. President Milei has been very critical of the United Nations, so I welcome his review and support for a candidate for secretary-general, because it means he’s changed his mind about the United Nations. I hope so.
I have a very strong personal perspective: I believe the time has come for there to be a woman at the head of the United Nations. I’m deeply convinced of that. I’m convinced this time needs it more than ever. When I say that, many people tell me: ‘No, it has to be based on merit.’ My answer is: it’s always been based on merit, I assume, when all men who’ve got to where they’ve got to did so on merit?
I take it for granted that we’ll have women candidates who can compete on an equal footing, the same level of equality, based on merit. I wish Argentina the best, I wish Grossi the best, but I have to acknowledge my personal position.
Your position then would be for Michelle Bachelet or one of the Mexican candidates?
There are several candidates, this is just getting started. Michelle is a possibility, Rebeca Ginsburg, from Costa Rica, is another one. There is talk of the possibility of the Prime Minister of Barbados [Mia Mottley] running. The field is still very much at the starting point. I think it’s important to have options to compete, without a doubt.
The other thing I want to tell you is that it’s not a sure thing that it will be a candidate from Latin America. This could be wider. You know it’s not a rule to have geographic rotation, it’s a practice, and since rules have been broken, you imagine so can practices.
I hope it’s someone from the region, because Latin America is a region which I think can make a contribution right now in the United Nations. And I hope it’s the best candidate, from the best possible capabilities.
I’d like to go back to the topic that Europe is forced to make the same choice as Latin America, between China and the United States, but at the same time it feels threatened. In the case of Europe, by Russia; in the case of Latin America, threatened by the military, I mean. One thing is the trade alliance between China or the United States, and another one is the military threat – in the case of Russia for Europe and in the case of Latin America with the US.
Another perspective, a geographic perspective of Trump’s, is that there are hemispheres: where the American hemisphere is with Greenland, Southeast Asia is for China, Eurasia for Russia and Africa as a place for dispute. It’s different with China with the global south, which is actually not a geographic area but a concept. How do you see – from a geopolitical standpoint, post-globalisation, if one could call it that – how will the world be put back together? If it’s actually by hemispheres, by cultural empathy, in which Latin America and Europe probably have more elements, more so now with the UK outside the European Union. How do you imagine that world of the future?
What’s clear is that the world we’ve known is disappearing. We have to acknowledge that and we are at that moment of transition between what once was and what will be still unknown. Those are the moments when one has to pay the most attention.
Behind all this there is a huge power struggle between the United States and China, in which Russia plays the role of the one making noise in the middle. When one looks at Russia from the point of view of its specific weight, Russia is smaller in its gross domestic product than Italy itself. So, what Russia is doing is to very skilfully position itself on the basis of opportunities and opportunism, with a vision very much of historical reflection of establishing the great empire. So, that’s Russia.
I’d focus more on the US and China, which are in competition. China is the coming power, and the US, in some way, one might say, the waning power. Always in history when these changes have taken place there have been very complicated situations generally speaking, with war conclusions. What I hope is that a coalition can be formed of many returning to the principles of respect for order, respect for institutionality and respect for international law. If this were accomplished, there could be affinities that have more to do with principles and culture than with geographic alignment or of any other kind.
It’s not easy because there are multiple pressures. Just now you said that Russia has pressure over Europe and the United States over Latin America. I’d say the United States has it over Europe too, with its interest in Greenland. So, it’s a time when nothing of what we knew or how we knew it, none of the forms we used, apply, and the only visible thing is the use of force, in different ways, but the use of force as the method to carry out ideas. I believe it’s very risky, that if things come apart without establishing some mechanisms of transition, risks, for example of obtaining nuclear weapons by some, are very high and that, of course, leads us to a very serious situation.
Now, which will be the model exactly? Many say that spheres of influence are installed. In general, spheres of influence are installed by persuasion, not by force, and what we’re seeing is that part of that is happening on the basis of force. So, I’m not sure that spheres of influence are here to stay, but it’s also true that there must be an alternative to be able to generate consensus and unions. I go back once again to your question about the agreement between Europe and Mercosur. I think it’s precisely an opportunity for that. That had the context you’ve just asked about. Because obviously the Russian threat is the consequence of the United States withdrawing from NATO and even the threat of annexing Greenland. That is, with the United States and NATO operating, Russia was no threat or was a much smaller threat for Europe.
That’s why I suggested whether ultimately this concert of many is not coincidentally Europe and Latin America, which are the many left in that contest, at least as large areas or large markets, outside China and the US. I mean, the Mercosur-European Union agreement can be much bigger than we’re seeing and strike a balance in this world which is now bipolar between China and the US.
Well, that’s my aspiration. This agreement is much more than a trade agreement, this agreement is strategic. Specifically, I find this agreement can be the backbone for a reading of the world in common which helps a lot. I must say, there is much more beyond just Europe and Latin America. Africa has a very important role and [we have] to be able to incorporate, at least, part of Africa in any action. There are sectors in Asia which are really very important, which must also be added, but from a common vision, shared between Latin America and Europe, I think it can make a huge difference.
That is my hope based on this announcement. Obviously, these things do not happen by magic, they don’t happen immediately. As I said before, there are still hurdles to overcome. But if we look at what’s happening with a strategic vision, I think it’s actually a golden opportunity which goes far beyond what those of us taking part at times in negotiations for the agreement at some point thought.
There are intellectuals who think the US is leaving the democratic system, that the Trump presidency is transforming the United States into something different to what it once was or, at least, not such a full democracy, as in Europe and part of Latin America. What’s your own opinion of what’s happening in the US with Trump and the democratic system in general?
It’s obvious that the US is no longer the beacon of democracy we saw in the past. The democracy in the US has a series of deficiencies it has to overcome somehow. For example, representation, the scheme of representation through an indirect presidential election, is a model which causes a disassociation between the popular vote and those who elect presidents.
That is, I find it a serious problem, because there is an increasing encouragement for redistricting for representation to align more towards one side or the other.
