Most of the world’s leaders are meeting at the UN headquarters. This will be the first General Assembly addressed by Donald Trump. In their opening speech, US presidents usually paint a comprehensive picture of international politics and the US’ aspirations for the future of the world in light of the principles of the international organisation.
However, this occasion also allowed for scheduled meetings related to regional conflicts and crises fought by the global superpowers through local proxies. This particularly applies to four internal-external wars in the Arab world, suffered by the people and states, as well as the Palestinian conflict. It also includes other crises and conflicts, most importantly and most dangerous of which is the current Gulf crisis. However, there are no bodies, such as the Arab League or the GCC, capable of mobilising such meetings at the international level.
The Syrian war has become a Russian matter, as it has used force to subjugate the people and its veto to ward off any condemnation or accountability for the regime. Russia is now preparing itself to impose military balances of power on the political solution in order to preserve the regime and its president. It believes that in doing so, it will reach an acceptable solution, even if it is an obvious recipe for perpetuating and renewing injustice and tyranny.
Since America left this issue to Russia, the latter no longer wants to resort back to the “international coordination groups” with regards to the Syrian matter. Therefore, it shot down a proposal by the French president, who tried to create a role for himself that would compensate for the American absence, and allow other countries to demand their share in the Syrian reconstruction projects.
This issue is a model or example to gauge international manipulation of various issues and matters. Perhaps the issue of combatting terrorism, an issue that the US took on between 2001 and 2017, is an example of failures and successes and reproducing the same violent phenomenon without achieving even one breakthrough that can be considered meaningful or fruitful and described as the beginning of the end of extremism.
Instead, it has become clearer now that every “War on Terror” contributes to the reproduction of terrorism and that the money spent on the genocide operations is much more than could have been allocated to growth and the development of education. Every time the war is on the verge of ending, it becomes apparent that its expensive price tag has left little to nothing for remedying the reasons for terrorism.
As usual, the military momentum is so intense that it clouds the intellectual, educational and developmental momentum, as neither America nor any other country can preach moderation and peace when killing and destruction are the predominant languages spoken.
The Yemeni, Iraqi, Libyan crises and wars, as well as the North Korea and perhaps the Gulf crises, will all be discussed in the UN halls by the leaders of the concerned countries. It will be said that there are solutions, but they require dialogue, negotiation and compromise, as has been said in previous conferences in various capitals.
But the reality is that these countries are keen on the division as much as the local parties are keen on the “privileges” they are gaining from their wars.
If America is keen to remedy the crises, how can it succeed, for example, in the Palestinian cause, as long as it remains a permanent opponent to the Palestinian people and a biased referee in favour of the occupying power and its seizure of land?
There is no doubt that the chaos of terrorism and intolerance sweeping the world can be attributed to the policies of the world’s superpowers. Many wars and conflicts in the Arab region are the result of their contention and enmity. As for the Korean crisis, it shows that nuclear war is possible as long as America, Russia and China are manipulating the standards of world peace.
This article first appeared in Arabic in the New Khaleej on 19 September 2017
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.