Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle has come to geopolitics, writes Celso Amorim, Brazil’s presidential adviser
Illustration: Dan Williams
Listen to this story
Your browser does not support the <audio> element.
A s explosions were heard in Caracas, the Venezuelan capital, in the early morning of January 3rd, something else was being shattered: the certainty that South America is, and will remain, a continent of peace. The sight of flames and military aircraft over a South American capital was both unfamiliar and tragically surreal.
The images of the forceful abduction of a sitting president are more evocative of the capture of Saddam Hussein, Iraq’s late leader, than of the coups d’état of the 1960s and 1970s in Latin America. Even the death of President Salvador Allende during Chile’s bloody coup of 1973 was surrounded by a halo of heroism, entirely absent in the present case.
For most people in the region, foreign military intervention seemed a thing of the past. Between the late 19th and early 20th centuries, powers from outside South America did, at times, resort to naval blockades or threats of force to protect private interests. That was before the major developments in international law of the 20th century. Such interventions were only possible—or so we thought—before the consolidation of legal instruments such as the Law of the Sea, mechanisms of arbitration and, of course, the United Nations Charter, which is based on the principle of sovereign equality of states and prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.
Even during the cold war, disputes over the boundaries of so-called spheres of influence in South America did not lead to overt violations of national borders. This restraint, however, did not preclude covert interventions by foreign intelligence agencies, including support for the overthrow of elected governments under the pretext of combating communism. Nevertheless, by the end of the 20th century the region was laying the foundations for economic integration, finally channelling decades of peace into development. That confidence has faded.
The intervention in Venezuela raises a larger question that increasingly defines international politics: how can we live in a world without rules? Pillars of international law designed to regulate collective security, discipline world trade and promote human rights are being undermined all at once. The erosion, once begun, is hard to reverse. As many have said, we find ourselves edging back towards a Hobbesian state, where military strength is the main determinant of a country’s de facto independence, and in which war is once again seen as a legitimate means of change.
When there is no law governing relations between countries, unpredictability itself becomes a formidable source of power and intimidation. The “uncertainty principle”, developed in the realm of quantum physics, appears to have found an echo in international affairs. Formulated by Werner Heisenberg, a German physicist, it holds that a particle’s position and momentum cannot be known simultaneously with precision. We can now say the same about the behaviour of states: anything can happen at any time.
It is a time in which countries everywhere are rethinking their national strategies. The current geopolitical landscape reinforces Brazil’s choice to open itself to co-operation with a wide range of partners, from Latin America to the bric s and beyond. For most countries, investing in the diversification of partnerships and in technological autonomy will remain the better course. So, too, will continued engagement with existing multilateral institutions, salvaging what can still be preserved of established norms and principles.
Respect for sovereignty and non-intervention should not be abandoned. We should learn from history. Even in the most challenging circumstances, foreign intervention—especially military intervention—is not the answer. The pursuit of peaceful solutions through dialogue must remain the priority.
Brazil has made an existential bet on peace. The use of nuclear energy exclusively for peaceful purposes is enshrined in our constitution, as are the peaceful settlement of disputes and the pursuit of regional integration. This is the path Brazil has chosen and intends to follow even in adverse circumstances.
The signing of the long-awaited trade agreement between Mercosur and the European Union—an accord that my good friend Durão Barroso (then foreign minister of Portugal) and I began dreaming of some 30 years ago—has added significance in this context. The outcome may not fully satisfy all of the 31 countries involved. It nonetheless shows that respectful negotiations, even when long and burdensome, are still the best way. Mercosur has also recently finalised trade deals with Singapore and the European Free Trade Association (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland).
We should continue to work for the reform of international institutions, particularly to address the relative lack of representation from the global south. International balance depends on all actors, including Europe, having an authentic and independent voice on the world stage and contributing to a positive and open multipolarity. Brazil will continue to work with Europe, China and others committed to multilateral institutions and the primacy of international law. Let us hope that together we will be able to prevent a further descent into violence and anarchy. ■
논증 분석
유형: diagnosis
핵심 주장
국제법 질서의 붕괴로 세계는 ‘규칙 없는 상태’로 회귀하고 있으며, 이에 대한 대응은 군사적 개입이 아닌 다자주의·대화·주권 존중에 기반한 외교여야 한다.
논리구조
- 전제: 2026년 1월 3일 Venezuela 수도 Caracas에서 발생한 외국의 군사적 개입(현직 대통령 강제 납치)은 남미가 평화 대륙이라는 신뢰를 산산조각 냈다.
- 진단: 20세기에 구축된 UN Charter, 해양법, 중재 메커니즘 등 국제법 기반 질서는 주권 평등과 무력 사용 금지를 보장했으나, 이 질서가 동시다발적으로 침식되고 있다.
- 진단: 규칙이 사라진 세계에서 ‘예측 불가능성’ 자체가 강력한 권력 수단이 되며, Werner Heisenberg의 불확정성 원리처럼 국가 행동을 동시에 예측하는 것이 불가능해졌다.
- 진단: 국제법이 부재한 홉스적 상태로의 회귀는 군사력이 국가의 실질적 독립을 결정하고, 전쟁이 다시 정당한 변화 수단으로 여겨지는 세계를 의미한다.
- 처방: 각국은 다양한 파트너십 다각화와 기술 자율성 확보에 투자하고, 기존 다자 기구에 계속 참여하여 확립된 규범과 원칙의 가능한 부분을 보전해야 한다.
- 처방: 주권 존중과 불간섭 원칙을 포기해서는 안 되며, 아무리 어려운 상황에서도 군사적 개입은 해답이 아니고 대화를 통한 평화적 해결이 우선되어야 한다.
- 논거: Brazil은 헌법에 핵에너지의 평화적 이용, 분쟁의 평화적 해결, 지역 통합 추구를 명시하며 평화에 실존적 선택을 걸고 있다.
- 논거: Mercosur와 European Union 간 무역협정 체결, Singapore 및 European Free Trade Association과의 협정은 길고 힘든 협상이라도 상호 존중에 기반한 협상이 최선임을 증명한다.
- 처방: 국제 기구의 개혁(글로벌 사우스 대표성 강화)을 지속 추진하고, Europe, China 등 다자주의와 국제법 우위에 헌신하는 국가들과 협력하여 폭력과 무질서로의 추가 전락을 막아야 한다.
- 반론: (암묵적) 냉전 시대에도 남미에서 외국 정보기관의 은밀한 개입(선출 정부 전복 지원)은 존재했으나, 그조차도 현재처럼 노골적인 국경 침범에 이르지는 않았다는 점에서 현재 상황은 전례 없이 심각하다.
결론
규칙 없는 세계에서 Brazil을 비롯한 중견국들은 다자주의, 주권 존중, 대화 외교를 견지하고 유럽·중국 등과 연대함으로써 국제 질서의 추가 붕괴를 막아야 한다.
Celso Amorim is chief international adviser to President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil. He was the country’s foreign minister from 1993 to 1994 and from 2003 to 2010, and its defence minister from 2011 to 2014.
Explore more
→See the latest from topics you follow
A plan for Europe’s tech fightback
Britain and the EU can avoid being left in the dust if they work together, argues Sir Nick Clegg
John Maynard Keynes saved capitalism from itself
But America’s past economic success is no guarantee of its future, writes Joseph Stiglitz
Franklin Roosevelt: Brilliant commander-in-chief, terrible chief executive
His arbitrariness and anti-business tilt prolonged the Great Depression, writes Amity Shlaes
Hungary must seize its chance to oust Viktor Orban
Zsuzsanna Szelenyi, a former ally, on why she wants to see the back of him
The IT department: Where AI goes to die
Ethan Mollick on why employers should treat AI as what it is: weird
How the young use AI matters more than for how long
That undermines the case for blanket bans or time limits, writes Sema Sgaier