Always at Five
September 10, 2026

THE MAPS

This week, cartographic geography became a hot topic, thrusting itself into the center of the international debate.

Maps have always been a passion of mine. From a young age, I realized that they are much more than mere representations of portions of land surrounded by seas. Maps are geopolitical instruments designed to reflect power dynamics and cultural hegemonies, as well as symbols of inequality and of the constant historical, social, and economic disputes that shape our world.

I grew up, as almost everyone does at this latitude, studying the world map imposed by Western ethnocentrism: America on the left, Europe at the center, and Asia and Russia on the right. However, over the years, I learned that cartography is relative, depending on who holds the brush.

I became aware of this the first time I traveled to China, about 30 years ago, where I saw a map I did not recognize. At first, I thought it was wrong, because the center of the world was not Europe; it was the “Middle Kingdom”—China—with Europe on the left and America on the right. It looked like a map turned upside down.

In 1569, Gerardus Mercator created the first—and still the prevailing—projection of the Earth, originally intended to assist maritime navigation. His model produced a map that dramatically enlarged the northern regions and reduced the southern ones, both in relation to the Equator.

As a result, Greenland appears to be the same size as Africa, when in reality the African continent is fourteen times larger. Europe looks enormous despite being the second-smallest continent, while South America and, especially, Brazil suffer from such overwhelming cartographic shrinking that Africa is likewise condemned to appear as merely a fraction of its actual size.

According to numerous governments and academics from different parts of the world, maps do not do justice to reality.

On September 4, the United Nations General Assembly approved a Resolution on Equitable Cartographic Representation, with 164 votes in favor. The initiative, promoted by Togo, a small West African country, launched an audacious diplomatic effort based on the argument that **“A just world begins with a just map.” Its purpose was to reclaim Africa’s prominence and accurately represent its true size.

The resolution, more symbolic than practical, does not prohibit the use of Mercator maps and projections. However, it encourages schools and educational institutions to use maps that more accurately reflect the equitable proportions of the Earth. The resolution did not achieve unanimity: the United States and Israel abstained and voted against it, arguing for “freedom of pedagogical judgment.”

Three days later, on September 7, Donald Trump, also this week, published without explanation or comment on Truth Social a map generated by artificial intelligence. It depicted all of North America—including the United States, Canada, and Mexico—and added Greenland and Iceland beneath the Stars and Stripes, with the provocative label “United States of America.”

If we did not already know Trump, we might think it was a bad joke. But surely it is not.

Reactions therefore came quickly. Denmark described the image as “disturbing and inappropriate,” reminding everyone that Greenland is not a commodity for sale. Mexico’s President, Claudia Sheinbaum, responded that Mexico “is not and will never be a colony or protectorate of any foreign country.” Iceland issued a forceful diplomatic statement from Reykjavík, describing the image as an “unacceptable insult to the sovereignty of an independent nation.”

Meanwhile, Canada translated its indignation into concrete retaliation, escalating the trade tensions by imposing steep tariffs on emblematic American products such as dairy, steel, and aluminum.

What is Trump trying to accomplish? Why—and for what purpose—so many provocations? How far will his appetite for the resources of his neighbors and the islands that have become his obsession take him?

Analysts are predicting poor results for him in the elections in the coming months. Even so, why is he doing this, and what does he hope to achieve?

As if that were not enough, Marco Rubio is now traveling through South America, which will surely lead to the drawing of yet another new map—the map of strategic minerals that will shape the negotiations involving Venezuela.

I will address that subject next week.

Thank you very much,

Fernando

ÉVIAN WELCOMES THE G7

Évian-les-Bains, the small French town nestled on the shores of the majestic Lake Léman—better known as Lake Geneva—is world-renowned for the water that springs from its natural sources. The economy of this municipality depends almost entirely on Evian-branded water, owned by the Danone Group, which accounts for 100% of the physical goods it sells abroad. At its bottling plant, the largest in Europe, 1.5 billion liters are produced annually; more than 60% are exported to 140 countries, generating global revenues of €2.5 billion. This vital resource finances a substantial portion of the municipal budget.

But Évian is also renowned for its efforts to recreate Paris's great art exhibitions, for its thermal spa treatments, and for its long-standing strategy of promoting peace diplomacy.

Well then, beginning June 15, this idyllic setting will host the 52nd G7 Summit.

Let me be clear: the G7 is not a group from the World Cup, which begins precisely today, but rather the club that dominated global politics and economics during the second half of the 20th century, until the emergence of China in the course of the 21st century.

Évian will welcome the leaders of Germany, France, Italy, the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Japan. These self-proclaimed “industrialized democracies” are gathering with the aim of offering a new opportunity to revive a weakened multilateralism and strengthen ties among those who, until recently, called themselves allies.

The host will be President Emmanuel Macron, who, drawing on the reputation of French haute couture, hopes the summit will serve to stitch together the deteriorating fabric that has sheltered the international order for more than sixty years. His main challenge will be to act as a buffer and mediator, balancing the policies imposed by Donald Trump.

Under the French presidency, the meeting will focus on multilateral governance, global security, health diplomacy, digital protection, and sustainable development. French diplomacy seeks to channel transatlantic tensions in an effort to prevent a collapse. This, incidentally, is the agenda favored by the European countries in the bloc. President Trump, however, has been presenting us with a very different vision.

Analyzing the prospects for cooperation from this forum requires a deep dose of realism and, why not, a touch of irony. The G7 insists on operating with the same aristocratic pomp of its golden years, frozen in a stage where seven leaders attempt to dictate the direction of the planet while posing for the official photograph against idyllic landscapes.

Yet the club no longer imposes global directives as it did beginning in the 1970s. Its relevance today lies not in its ability to legislate for the planet, but in its value as group therapy and as a space for strategic alignment among like-minded powers.

For France, the goal is to unify the language and speak with a single voice. If they fail to achieve this, the G7 will project the true image of what it has become: an aging and declining directorate living more on its past than on its present.

This nostalgic choreography contrasts radically with the stark pragmatism of the **Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum (APEC). While the G7 debates the morality of its borders, the APEC trade ministers' meeting, held on May 23 in Suzhou, China, concluded with a joint statement focused on cold, measurable results.

Without the need to share political values or sign declarations of ideological principles, economies as different as China and the United States agreed to work together on strengthening supply-chain resilience and accelerating the **Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific (FTAAP)**.

Interestingly, the declaration also addressed gender and digital empowerment, acknowledging in starkly practical terms that narrowing the technological gender gap is, above all, a highly profitable way to inject economic dynamism into the region.

The contrast could not be greater.

While the G7 is a closed political committee, trapped in the rigidity of Western conventions, APEC is a massive, fluid, and diverse platform that prefers to sidestep ethical debates in order to keep the channels of free trade open.

The former operates according to the logic of 20th-century governance; the latter is the real engine of the economic axis of the future: the **Indo-Pacific**.

Personally, I am very pro-European, but I am also very much in favor of the Asia-Pacific. For that reason, I would like the Évian Summit to contribute to calming the world order.

But I do not believe that Évian's mineral waters will be enough to soothe transatlantic tensions, nor to keep the tide moving in favor of a world that has changed oceans.

BRAZIL

Well, Fernando, we are right at the end of a week in which August 8 has come and gone. In many cultures, such as China, the number eight symbolizes prosperity, symmetry, and balance.

On the eighth day of the eighth month, several years ago, I graduated from law school. And on the eighth day of the eighth month, exactly eight years ago, Alberto Padilla launched this radio program in Costa Rica to share his geopolitical vision and economic rigor, contributing to the analysis offered to the vast audience of A las Cinco Siempre.

While regretting his absence, we celebrate what he created! Congratulations to you, your team, and, of course, your audience.

Today, I return to the reflections prompted by the United States Department of State and its eloquent interventions.

Two days ago, on August 11, the State Department posted on its social media a video entitled “The Monroe Doctrine has shaped U.S. foreign policy for over two centuries.” The video does not necessarily present any new information, but it is certainly revealing given the moment the region is experiencing, particularly with Brazil's upcoming presidential and congressional elections.

The video shows the American continent, but with some curious variations: Brazil and Canada disappear from the map. It also shows how the United States has carried out recent interventions, such as the capture of Nicolás Maduro.

Why does that map make Brazil disappear? And why?

Especially now, when Washington has imposed draconian tariffs on Brazil, hiding behind the tired excuse of alleged “unfair trade practices.”

The response was swift.

In a forceful interview with the Financial Times, President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva dismantled the American argument. Lula made it clear that these tariffs have no economic logic: the United States consistently enjoys a trade surplus with Brazil, while the measures arbitrarily penalize 18% of Brazilian exports.

Even more revealing is the map of the exemptions. The tariff increase affected almost the entire universe of Brazilian exports, with two curious—and highly convenient—exceptions: coffee and beef.

This exposes the power of lobbying in Washington, obsessed with protecting American importers and distributors of goods that their own consumers simply cannot stop buying.

After China, Brazil and Turkey have become the trading partners most heavily targeted by the arrogance of the White House.

Faced with this assault, Brasília has not stood idly by. It has activated its trade retaliation law and announced that it will take the dispute to the World Trade Organization (WTO).

Brazil has become the new obsession of Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who has taken diplomacy to the level of political bullying, going so far as to revoke the visa of the Brazilian ambassador to the United States.

This geopolitical comedy gained another grotesque chapter with Javier Milei's visit to Brazilian territory, where he launched a series of insults against Lula—an absurd diplomatic episode that forced Brazil to recall its ambassador from Buenos Aires.

Yet the shot appears to be backfiring on Washington.

It is being widely discussed in the region's foreign ministries that the sanctions are not commercially motivated, but rather driven by a clear electoral objective: pressuring the South American giant in order to favor the presidential candidacy of Flávio Bolsonaro, whom some have identified as the mastermind behind the so-called “tariflavios,” or new punitive tariffs against his own country.

But in politics, arrogance often collides with reality.

Washington's open aggression and the interference of its allies have produced an unprecedented boomerang effect. Today, the largest country in Latin America is rallying around its sovereignty, and Marco Rubio, without intending to, has become the most effective campaign manager for Lula as he forcefully embarks on his fourth presidential bid.

What a great paradox of American diplomacy: in its eagerness to resurrect the Monroe Doctrine and write manuals of continental hegemony, it ended up discovering that there is nothing that unites a nation more than the clumsiness of a neighboring empire.

However, the numbers also bring pain.

This past Monday, August 10, the earth shook violently, and a devastating earthquake struck our Colombia.

I cannot move forward with these lines without expressing my heartfelt solidarity with every family now suffering from the devastation caused by natural disasters.

The vulnerability of our people reminds us of how fragile life is—and of how human protection and solidarity should take priority over the petty concerns of geopolitics.

Absolutely. Here is a polished English translation, preserving the , and geopolitical tone of the original while correcting obvious spelling and grammatical issues in the Spanish source where the intended meaning is clear.

Thank you very much, Fernando. Greetings to you and to the entire audience of *A las Cinco Siempre* from the Carioca lands.

Today I return to issues on the China–U.S. agenda and reflect on:

ECONOMIC SECURITY

According to the most recent records from national statistical institutes in several Latin American countries and from ECLAC, China has consolidated its position as the leading trading partner of Brazil, Chile, and Peru, while ranking second for Argentina, Colombia, Panama, Costa Rica, Guatemala, and Ecuador.

From massive exports of soybeans, copper, and minerals to the supply of industrial inputs and technology, the Latin American economy is structurally interconnected with the Asian giant.

This is not merely a matter of trade interdependence, but rather a complex web of relationships that extends into financial markets, infrastructure development, and, of course, technological exchange.

China has penetrated the region's productive fabric through high-impact strategic investments, generating concern among U.S. authorities because this rise represents the displacement of American companies from major projects.

Examples include the Vaca Muerta energy deposit in Argentina, where the use of Huawei technology was prioritized; the controversial operation of the Chancay mega-port, where, under pressure from the United States, the Chinese company Cosco Shipping was removed from the assignment and has now filed a lawsuit against the Peruvian state; and the development of the yuan-denominated bond market and direct settlement mechanisms in Brazil.

Chile, for its part, has announced that it will renegotiate the second phase of its Free Trade Agreement with China.

For most of these countries in the region, abandoning their economic relationship with China is neither technically nor financially viable without putting their own economic stability at risk.

It is precisely against this deep gravitational pull that Washington has deployed its counteroffensive.

What began at the start of the century as China's triumphant integration into the World Trade Organization has evolved into an explicit doctrine of containment, initiated during the Obama administration and deepened by subsequent administrations, ultimately positioning China as the United States' greatest systemic rival on the global stage.

Against this backdrop, the administration of Donald Trump reshaped the concept of **“national security”** to encompass economic matters, creating the notion of **“economic security”**: a defensive strategy in which trade policy complements military maneuvers and transforms domestic and “external”—yes, external—customs borders into the new geopolitical battlefield.

To materialize this encirclement, Washington developed a legal and administrative framework that it has continued to adapt after suffering serious setbacks in its own courts. The Supreme Court declared the reciprocal tariffs based on the IEEPA unconstitutional.

The White House then implemented its “Plan B”: imposing a permanent baseline tariff under the argument of combating “forced labor.”

The underlying purpose of this segmentation is not the protection of labor rights, but rather strict control over the transshipment and diversion of Chinese manufactured goods through third countries.

Thus, additional tariffs were established for 60 countries in two tiers: **10% for nations that signed the Reciprocal Trade Agreements (RTAs), and 12.5% for the others.

Far from being symmetrical and binding free-trade agreements, these RTAs function as instruments of asymmetric coercion.

Through commitments undertaken by countries such as Japan, members of the European Union, Argentina, Ecuador, and Guatemala, Washington demands guarantees for the “economic security” of the United States, requiring its counterparts to screen Chinese foreign direct investment (FDI), monitor anticompetitive practices, and close any avenue for commercial transshipment.

This also includes scrutiny of acquisitions of major brands by Chinese companies.

Latin America Caught Between Two Powers

Caught between Washington's restrictions and pressure on one side and the enormous volume of business conducted with China on the other, Latin American diplomacy faces a geopolitical dilemma.

Its northern neighbor is unwilling to surrender any more ground to China and seeks to take back what China has gained within what Washington considers its sphere of influence.

The truth is that economic security, as a concept applied in this way, complicates life for companies and governments alike. They are now expected to help ensure that the United States does not lose markets that Washington believes should belong to it—or, at the very least, markets it does not want to share with China.

We will see how some countries manage to escape this vision, and also how others gradually begin removing China from their foreign-policy agenda.

THE ECONOMIC SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES

According to the most recent records from national statistical institutes in several Latin American countries and from ECLAC, China has consolidated its position as the leading trading partner of Brazil, Chile, and Peru, while ranking second for Argentina, Colombia, Panama, Costa Rica, Guatemala, and Ecuador.

From massive exports of soybeans, copper, and minerals to the supply of industrial inputs and technology, the Latin American economy is structurally interconnected with the Asian giant.

This is not merely a matter of trade interdependence, but rather a complex web of relationships that extends into financial markets, infrastructure development, and, of course, technological exchange.

China has penetrated the region's productive fabric through high-impact strategic investments, generating concern among U.S. authorities because this rise represents the displacement of American companies from major projects, such as the Vaca Muerta energy field in Argentina, where the use of Huawei technology was prioritized; the controversial operation of the Chancay mega-port, where, under pressure from the United States, the Chinese company Cosco Shipping was removed from the assignment and subsequently sued the Peruvian state; and the development of the yuan-denominated bond market and its direct settlement mechanism in Brazil.

Chile, for its part, has announced that it will renegotiate the second phase of its Free Trade Agreement with China.

For most of these countries in the region, abandoning their economic relationship with China is neither technically nor financially viable without putting their own economic stability at risk.

It is precisely against this deep gravitational pull that Washington has deployed its counteroffensive.

What began at the start of the century as China's triumphant integration into the World Trade Organization has evolved into an explicit doctrine of containment, initiated during the Obama administration and deepened by subsequent administrations, ultimately positioning China as the United States' greatest systemic rival on the global stage.

Against this backdrop, the administration of Donald Trump reshaped the concept of **“national security”** to encompass economic matters, creating the notion of **“economic security”**: a defensive strategy in which trade policy complements military maneuvers and transforms domestic and “external”—yes, external—customs borders into the new geopolitical battlefield.

To materialize this encirclement, Washington developed a legal and administrative framework that it has continued to adapt after suffering serious setbacks in its own courts, as the Supreme Court declared the reciprocal tariffs based on the IEEPA unconstitutional.

The White House then implemented its **“Plan B”**: imposing a permanent baseline tariff under the argument of combating “forced labor.”

The underlying purpose of this segmentation is not the protection of labor rights, but rather strict control over the transshipment and diversion of Chinese manufactured goods through third countries.

Thus, additional tariffs were established for 60 countries in two tiers: **10% for nations that signed the Reciprocal Trade Agreements (RTAs), and 12.5% for the others.**

Far from being symmetrical and binding free-trade agreements, these RTAs function as instruments of asymmetric coercion.

Through commitments undertaken by countries such as Japan, members of the European Union, Argentina, Ecuador, and Guatemala, Washington demands guarantees for the **“economic security”** of the United States, requiring its counterparts to screen Chinese foreign direct investment (FDI), monitor anticompetitive practices, and close any avenue for commercial transshipment.

This also includes scrutiny of acquisitions of major brands by Chinese companies.

Latin America Caught Between Two Powers

Caught between Washington's restrictions and pressure on one side and the enormous volume of business conducted with China on the other, Latin American diplomacy faces a geopolitical dilemma.

Its northern neighbor is unwilling to surrender any more ground to China and seeks to take back what China has gained within what Washington considers its sphere of influence.

The truth is that **economic security**, as a concept applied in this way, complicates life for companies and governments alike. They are now expected to help ensure that the United States does not lose markets that Washington believes should belong to it—or, at the very least, markets it does not want to share with China.

We will see how some countries manage to escape this vision, and also how others gradually begin removing China from their foreign-policy agenda.

Column read on August 20, 2026.

CHINA'S VISION OF GLOBAL GOVERNANCE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

In Shanghai, China, on July 17, 2026, 29 countries from Asia, Africa, and Latin America, together with UN Secretary-General António Guterres, and without the presence of the United States or the European Union or its member states, endorsed the creation of the World Artificial Intelligence Cooperation Organization (WAICO). Among them were China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Laos, Belarus, Serbia, Brazil, Cuba, Venezuela, and ten African countries.

The summit, entitled Global Governance of Artificial Intelligence, concluded with the creation of WAICO, whose objective is to promote international cooperation and global AI governance under the principles of the UN Charter. The initiative seeks to close the digital and technological gap between developed and developing countries, responding particularly to the demands of the Global South.

More than 1,400 guests and 1,100 exhibitors attended the event, which featured 140 forums, making it one of the world's largest events devoted to artificial intelligence.

That day, Chinese President Xi Jinping opened the World Artificial Intelligence Conference and the High-Level Meeting on Global AI Governance with a speech entitled  "Joining Hands to Build a Fair and Reasonable Global AI Governance System.”

Fernando, this would be an excellent opportunity to recommend reading this speech.

Xi recalled that 70 years ago, at the Dartmouth Conference, the concept of artificial intelligence was first coined. Since then, AI has evolved from a futuristic idea into a driving force behind economic and social transformation.

The Chinese president compared this moment with milestones such as the steam engine, electricity, and the internet, emphasizing that each technological revolution has redefined the way we work and live. Now, AI is emerging as the **fourth great technological revolution**.

Xi made it clear that those who fail to embrace the age of artificial intelligence will be left behind.

How should we relate to machines that “think”? How can we guarantee safety when algorithms make decisions? How should we confront ethical dilemmas and the growing digital divide?

Xi rejects the idea of artificial intelligence becoming a monopoly of a single country. His speech sounds somewhat paternalistic, suggesting that AI has arrived to give humanity a respite. In that spirit, he proposes that:

1. AI should be a driver of global growth.

China proposes promoting open-source technology, cooperation, and the broad application of AI across both traditional and emerging sectors. The idea is for all countries and businesses to benefit from this transformation.

2. AI must be trustworthy and remain under human supervision—not the other way around.

Xi advocates legal frameworks, technical monitoring, and early-warning mechanisms while rejecting abusive or malicious uses of AI. At the same time, he criticized the tendency of some countries to overemphasize “national security”in this area.

3. The development of AI must not erode cultural diversity.

China proposes aligning AI values with the common values of humanity while promoting mutual learning among civilizations.

4. Xi defended multilateralism and the role of the United Nations.

He proposed a global governance framework based on consensus. He emphasized the need to support the Global South in closing the digital divide and preventing new forms of historical injustice.

According to Xi, the value of key industries within the intelligent economy has already surpassed one trillion yuan, while smart manufacturing has become a calling card” of Chinese modernization.

On the international front, China announced the creation of the World Artificial Intelligence Cooperation Organization (WAICO), headquartered in Shanghai, along with a commitment to provide 5,000 AI training opportunities to developing countries over the next five years.

China also announced plans to establish international cooperation centers with **ASEAN, the Arab League, the African Union, CELAC, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and BRICS.

The message regarding AI is that it should not be a “solo performance,” but rather a symphony of international cooperation.

Xi used metaphors such as: “A single string cannot make music, and a single tree cannot make a forest.”

The underlying proposition is that AI should become a global public good, guided by international consensus and directed toward the well-being of humanity.

Xi Jinping's speech reflects both China's technological ambitions and its diplomatic strategy. By positioning itself as a leader in global AI governance, China seeks to project an image of responsibility and openness while simultaneously strengthening its influence across the Global South.

However, this approach also raises important challenges:

How can innovation be balanced with security? How can we ensure that global governance does not become another arena for geopolitical competition? How can we prevent the digital divide from widening?

Artificial intelligence is advancing at astonishing speed. The challenge, as Xi pointed out, is to ensure that its development is “for what is positive, for the good, and for humanity.”

The real test will be whether countries can transform these words into concrete actions and effective consensus.

Along that path, AI can become a force that drives the progress of human civilization—or a source of division and risk.

The decision is in our hands.

China and the United States: Two Visions of AI

While China emphasizes international cooperation and cultural inclusion, the United States has adopted an approach centered on national security.

The National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM-11) emphasizes that AI will be one of the most transformative technologies for the country's defense and establishes four pillars: rapid adoption, adaptation of commercial technologies, ensuring reliability and human control, and democratic accountability.

The document insists that AI must protect combat personnel, ensure operational precision, and maintain technological superiority over adversaries, always operating within the chain of command and respecting civil liberties.

This contrast reveals two fundamentally different approaches.

While China seeks to present artificial intelligence as a global public good, Washington views it primarily as a strategic instrument for preserving its military and technological advantage.