The 21st century is divided into three centers of power: The United States is committed to the pragmatic defense of its interests, sometimes consolidating democratic alliances, sometimes favoring unilateral strategies when necessary. China asserts its global presence by combining investment, diplomacy and technological innovation through initiatives such as Belt and Road, but going further by establishing its own standards in data, energy and industrial power.
And the European Union preserves the vocation of multilateralism and the values of democracy, human rights, the rule of law and sustainable development. But the EU today faces a double challenge. On the one hand, external pressure, with Washington and Beijing entering into dialogue when their interests converge, show that the time for multilateral certainties is behind us.
On the other hand, internal tensions between member states reveal a less cohesive Europe, where responses to the war in Ukraine, the migration crisis and technological challenges expose different priorities and strategies. Europe runs the risk of being gradually ignored, becoming secondary on a board dominated by strength, technology and innovation.
The geopolitics of interests, chips, data and natural resources over values has shifted the center of power and Brussels, which never dictated the rules but knew how to adapt to them, today lives in an environment in which pragmatism surpasses the norm and faces the dilemma of how to remain relevant when the multilateral system falls apart and moral authority is fragmented. The recent summit between Donald Trump and Xi Jinping, marked by an apparent diplomatic thaw and the promise of responsible management of the rivalry, showed that the two superpowers define among themselves the contours of the new global balance, with Europe watching from the sidelines.
The war in Ukraine, which, by ignoring international law and diplomacy, calls into question the foundations of European construction, revealed a Europe capable of mobilizing, but also of applying double standards depending on the proximity of conflicts and its interests. This ambivalence compromises European moral authority, especially in the Global South, in addition to the recurring error of treating regions such as Africa, Latin America or the Indo-Pacific as objects of aid policies and not as partners with their own voices and interests. Rebalancing this relationship is essential.
Cooperation cannot be confused with paternalism and listening implies deepening the partnership, creating real forums for joint decision-making and recognizing the reciprocity of shared challenges. The Global South is no longer a passive recipient and is now an indispensable partner, a protagonist in the dispute for raw materials, markets, energy and diplomatic power. Reconfiguring this relationship requires more than proclaiming values: it is necessary to build co-responsibility mechanisms, defined jointly and applied on the ground.
Recognizing limitations is the first step to rebuilding credibility. Europe no longer dictates agendas, but can shape consensus. She no longer leads alone, but can be a bridge and mediator. Its greatest strength lies in its ability to generate trust and predictability, if it has the courage to innovate in forms of cooperation and to incorporate diversity as a strategic value and not as a political obstacle. Portugal, with a humanist diplomatic tradition and experience in building bridges, has a lot to offer here, not out of nostalgia but as an example of leadership that transforms dialogue into action and diversity into the foundation of new partnerships.
It is up to Europe, in this time of disputes, to invest less in speeches focused on its own agenda and more in concrete proposals, remembering that only in this way will it be able to regain centrality in a world that is undergoing transformation and that needs voices that defend multilateralism