On Saturday 28 February, as the world was following the launch of US and Israeli missiles over Tehran and the confirmation of the death of Iran’s supreme leader, I wondered if my work for the United Nations on global disarmament still makes sense.
Operation Epic Fury and Operation Roaring Lion, as the US and Israel have named their respective joint military campaigns in Iran, and Operation True Promise IV, Iran’s counteroffensive, have already left hundreds dead in Iran – including 165 children and teachers at a girls’ school, according to Iranian authorities – killed American soldiers and Israeli civilians, and spread to Lebanon, Iraq, and countries across the Gulf.
This is just one of multiple wars multiplying across multiple continents. We are navigating an era of fragile multilateralism, with territorial invasions that challenge the international order, and a bellicose rhetoric that normalises conflict. Discussing trust at this point may seem like an exercise in anachronistic optimism. The UN itself, created after World War II to be the forum for dialogue and peace, sees its authority and efficacy questioned daily as an inevitable question arises: why insist on speaking about trust and transparency, particularly regarding global disarmament?
The answer is simply that there is no viable alternative.
It is precisely when multilateralism is most weakened that its existence proves vital. The UN Security Council held an emergency session over the US and Israeli attacks on Iran. World leaders are calling for a ceasefire. Even if its effectiveness may seem limited, international law remains the only common language available when weapons roar.
Without spaces for mediation and international law, what mechanism will remain to contain the escalation of conflicts, regulate the arms trade, or establish minimum standards of collective security? Returning to a system based purely on power alliances and military deterrence would lead us to an even more unstable, unequal, and violent world, where the most vulnerable would suffer the most. Disarmament, therefore, ceases to be an idealistic agenda and becomes a pragmatic necessity for survival, collective security, and the maintenance of global order.
President Donald Trump views the United Nations as a costly and bureaucratic body, which is trapped in a postwar mindset, ineffective at addressing contemporary challenges and presents an obstacle to direct competition between nations. From his perspective, the US bears an unfair financial burden for the UN with no equivalent return, within a multilateral structure that dilutes national sovereignty in exchange for slow and insubstantial consensus. He advocates instead for bilateral relations and the primacy of force.
But this stance disregards the transnational nature of problems such as pandemics, climate change, regional security issues and illicit financial flows, which necessarily demand coordinated and collective solutions.
The events of the past few days reveal that the logic of force without mediation does not lead to lasting security, but escalation, retaliation, and the expansion of the conflict to countries that were outside the original dispute. The explosions at American bases in the Gulf are a clear demonstration that, in a globalised and interconnected world, war is never truly local.
Brazil, with its diplomatic tradition of peaceful dispute resolution and its concrete experience in confronting domestic armed violence, is uniquely positioned to lead this agenda, particularly within the Global South.
Latin America, marked by illegal flows of small arms and light weapons and the sophistication of transnational organised crime, is a critical laboratory for transparency measures that actually work. In this complex context, the Brazilian experience, more specifically, the expertise developed at the intersection of civil society and the state, is a valuable asset.
Over the course of more than two decades, we at the Instituto Sou da Paz (meaning I Am for Peace, in English) in São Paulo have learned that effective public policies, especially in the sensitive area of security, do not arise from unilateral decrees, but rather from the patient cultivation of trust and respectful dialogue among the parties involved.
We have developed methodologies that begin with actively listening to the demands of public managers, police officers, and community members. We then combine their priorities with technical evidence, research, and data to build concrete proposals together. Using this approach, we have helped to develop structured state programs to reduce homicides, municipal prevention policies, and specialised police units for arms control. The core of this process is translating a common objective – the protection of life – into coordinated action, overcoming historical distrust and broadening strategic visions.
A month or so before the US and Israeli joint operation in Tehran, I had travelled to Geneva to begin my second term as a counsellor on the United Nations’ Advisory Board on Disarmament Matters. While there, I had reflected on the theme that will guide our work for the next two years, ‘Transparency and Confidence-Building Measures’ – a theme that is both technical and profoundly symbolic.
Taking my learnings from the Instituto Sou da Paz to the global multilateral stage is my main ambition in this new term. Building trust between nations, just as between national actors, is not an act of faith, but a technical and feasible process. It involves sharing data transparently (as in firearm tracing), establishing verifiable protocols, and, above all, creating spaces where security concerns can be expressed and addressed cooperatively.
Organised civil society plays an irreplaceable role in this architecture. We act as bridges, translators and guardians of the public agenda. We remind states that people's security must be at the center of any discussion on armaments. While world leaders perpetuate narratives of division, we, global civil society activists, can advocate for ‘improbable dialogues’ that bring seemingly antagonistic groups together for a greater purpose.
The path ahead is narrow and full of obstacles. The shadows of current conflicts are dense, and the temptation of isolation and militarism is strong. But history shows that periods of greatest crisis are precisely those that demand greater investment in institutions and cooperative processes.
In a distrustful world, building confidence is not an act of naivety, but of political courage and commitment to technical rigor. The only real hope for a future where security is measured by the strength of the rule of law and cooperation among nations lies in this construction, dialogue after dialogue.
Today, I continue to work from Geneva to the most vulnerable territories in Brazil. I am convinced that other possible scenarios for the world will not come from isolation. Rather, they will come from the commitment of everyone positioned to work together, even during the most difficult times.
Carolina Ricardo is the executive director of the Instituto Sou da Paz and a second-term counsellor on the United Nations Advisory Board on Disarmament Matters.
