Watching Latin American leaders at this year’s UN General Assembly, one thing stood out to me. We are looking at many o…

Watching Latin American leaders at this year’s UN General Assembly, one thing stood out to me. We are looking at many of the same problems, but through very different political lenses.

Brazil’s Lula focused on sovereignty, multilateralism, inequality and resistance to foreign interference. Argentina’s Javier Milei, Chile’s José Antonio Kast, Ecuador’s Daniel Noboa, Peru’s Keiko Fujimori and Paraguay’s Santiago Peña placed more emphasis on security, organized crime, national control, trade and the limits of international institutions. Milei was particularly critical of the UN, while Lula defended stronger multilateral cooperation and reform. (Reuters⁠)

The coverage from Reuters, Associated Press and the Financial Times reflected the same divide. Reuters focused heavily on security, sovereignty and the growing debate over the role of the United States in the region. AP described a broader world struggling with geopolitical fragmentation and weakening consensus. The Financial Times emphasized the tension between those questioning global institutions and those arguing that multilateralism is more necessary precisely because the world is becoming more divided. (Reuters⁠)

What stayed with me is how polarized the conversation has become. Democracy. Freedom. Sovereignty. Security. Cooperation. Everyone uses the same words, but increasingly they mean very different things.

Maybe that is exactly why the UN still matters. It was created around a simple idea: that despite political differences, countries should still be able to come together around peace, human dignity and fundamental rights. Those rights should not belong to the left or the right, to one religion, or to one country. They should belong to every human being.