International Responsibility to Save Humanity from Hell... Before it's Too Late

The United Nations logo is seen on a window in an empty hallway at United Nations headquarters during the 75th annual UN General Assembly high-level debate in New York, US, September 21, 2020. REUTERS/Mike Segar
The United Nations logo is seen on a window in an empty hallway at United Nations headquarters during the 75th annual UN General Assembly high-level debate in New York, US, September 21, 2020. REUTERS/Mike Segar
TT

International Responsibility to Save Humanity from Hell... Before it's Too Late

The United Nations logo is seen on a window in an empty hallway at United Nations headquarters during the 75th annual UN General Assembly high-level debate in New York, US, September 21, 2020. REUTERS/Mike Segar
The United Nations logo is seen on a window in an empty hallway at United Nations headquarters during the 75th annual UN General Assembly high-level debate in New York, US, September 21, 2020. REUTERS/Mike Segar

“The United Nations was not created to take mankind to heaven, but to save humanity from hell”. A quote famously said by Dag Hammarskjöld, a former secretary general of the United Nations, who gave his life in 1961 while on UN duty. It is one of the truest statements that summarize the role of the United Nations as an international organization that does everything in its power to bring countries and peoples together, promoting peace and fraternity among them to avoid the tragedies and the scourge of war, and to work for peaceful solutions that end armed conflicts.

This phrase also shows that the United Nations does not possess a magic wand. It cannot resolve all the persistent crises, if Member States do not respond to its calls for collective endeavor.

The hell that threatens our world today is these recent global crises that cast heavy shadows on the international community. Today, our planet is more threatened than ever, not only by the serious socio-economic consequences caused in particular by the Covid pandemic’s outbreak in the past two years, but especially by the repercussions of Russia's war in Ukraine. The war threatens to undermine the Charter of the United Nations, when Russia annexed the territory of an independent State in a flagrant violation of the Charter, and therefore, violated the respect for the sovereignty of States.

Major dangers

Since February 24, the world has seen Russia, a permanent member of the Security Council, occupying another independent country, and annexing parts of its land by force, in a clear breach of international law.

The ongoing war in Ukraine poses dangers that jeopardize the United Nations’ Charter, and might potentially lead to the complete collapse of the principle of the territorial integrity of States, and lead to the return to the era of colonialism and conquests.

Furthermore, a greater danger is looming over all of us. That is of a nuclear annihilation. The repeated threat of using nuclear weapons is now a trend we have been hearing from senior Russian leaders since the start of the war in Ukraine, and which, if it becomes true, will bring devastation never seen before, while not sparing the launchers of the first missile themselves.

Specter of the League of Nations

Past experiences of the League of Nations - the international organization that arose after the end of the First World War - proved that the predominance of the logic of applying military force to occupy and annex States, was the main reason responsible for the failure of the League's effort to protect world peace, and for the entry into a second world war.

The failure of the League of Nations to stop the Japanese invasion of Chinese Manchuria, and the Italian invasion of Ethiopia in the 1930s, was an incentive for the expansionist countries, led by Nazi Germany, to take advantage of the deteriorating collective security prestige, to achieve its expansion projects.

However, the reaction of the major Member States in the League was feeble. In particular, France and Britain, whose reactions were not sufficient to deter the venture of the Japanese and Italian expansion at the expense of two independent countries - China and Ethiopia - that were members of the League of Nations. Many reasons can explain their weak responses, but the most noticeable are their interior preoccupations with combating the repercussions of the global economic crisis.

This logic of expansion whet the appetite for Nazi, as well as Soviet expansion in neighboring countries. In the German case, despite the policy of appeasement pursued by Britain and France towards the Nazis, especially at the Munich Conference in 1938 - a strategic political victory for Nazi Germany - the Nazis took advantage later to wipe neighboring Czechoslovakia off the map. Czechoslovakia was also a member of the League of Nations. The expansion contradicted Nazi Germany’s promises at the Munich Conference to preserve the integrity of Czechoslovakia. Then the German expansion continued, which eventually led to the eruption of the Second World War, resulting in horrors on an unimaginable scale.

Today, the complete collapse of collective security, if it occurs, will lead to major and regional countries racing to impose their military hegemony and annex their neighbors. Remarkably this time, an imminent nuclear war, will threaten the very existence of human life.

UN: Partial success, hard work

The United Nations is aware of these looming dangers, and it is making all possible efforts to end the Ukraine war in a manner consistent with the territorial integrity of the Member States of the organization.

I also saw during my stay at the United Nations as part of the Dag Hammarskjöld Fellowship for Young Journalists, and over the course of more than two months, the great efforts made by the United Nations with all its capabilities, to alleviate the humanitarian crisis caused by the war in Ukraine. It succeeded in securing humanitarian aid significantly, but was unable to put an end to this war, especially since Russia, a permanent member of the Security Council and the pivotal party in the war, has constantly resorted to its veto power at the Council to block any draft resolution to end it.

Diplomacy subject to consensus of warring nations

Even with the obstruction of the resolution to end the war, the United Nations’ role remains important and very urgent. The UN has the option of diplomatic initiatives, a mechanism that might be very effective to put an end to the war in Ukraine. The UN is a reliable diplomat and would be a guarantor of any upcoming peace.

To mediate, the UN will have to reach an agreement with the main warring nations. But are the belligerent nations ready to end hostilities and negotiate peace? Let us have a look at the main players in the current conflict. The main powers are three: Russia (the aggressor) and Ukraine (the defender in a life-or-death battle), the two countries involved in the direct conflict. The third major player, is the United States, which is by far, the first provider of military and economic aid to Ukraine, and the main factor for the Ukrainians’ success in launching the large-scale counter-attack against the Russian army.

We have just recently seen the result of this support: the Ukrainians have just retaken the city of Kherson. In addition to these major players, other countries remain. Some may play an important role, but they are less influential than the aforementioned three main countries in determining the course of the war.

There is no indication that the three major players will agree to reach a solution that ends the crisis soon. Therefore, the United Nations’ diplomatic activity, will remain the best intermediary so far. UN officials must increase their efforts to urge the largest number of countries to vote on draft resolutions transferred from the Security Council (after the use of the veto in the Security Council) to the General Assembly, to end the war in Ukraine.

This would guarantee the preservation of Ukrainian territorial integrity. Here emerges the responsibility of Member States to propose such resolutions, and vote to protect the Charter in any upcoming vote at the General Assembly. The adopted resolutions, although not legally binding, would morally compel the international community to take bold economic and political measures to press towards ending the war, while ensuring the protection of the UN Charter.

COP27 climate summit

In this context, the COP27 climate summit, which is currently being held in Egypt, is a great opportunity to mobilize international consensus under the umbrella of the UN, press for an end to the war, and save the human race from hell, as Dag Hammarskjöld said. The Member States of the UN are invited to link the existential danger that climate change poses to human life, with the same menace that a long-term conflict in Ukraine may lead to. They must seek out to devise effective solutions to address the two major crises, as soon as possible, before it is too late.



Israel Faces New Era of Sinking US Support After Election

Republican presidential nominee and former US President Donald Trump appears on a congratulatory billboard for the 2024 US Presidential Election, in Tel Aviv, Israel, November 6, 2024. (Reuters)
Republican presidential nominee and former US President Donald Trump appears on a congratulatory billboard for the 2024 US Presidential Election, in Tel Aviv, Israel, November 6, 2024. (Reuters)
TT

Israel Faces New Era of Sinking US Support After Election

Republican presidential nominee and former US President Donald Trump appears on a congratulatory billboard for the 2024 US Presidential Election, in Tel Aviv, Israel, November 6, 2024. (Reuters)
Republican presidential nominee and former US President Donald Trump appears on a congratulatory billboard for the 2024 US Presidential Election, in Tel Aviv, Israel, November 6, 2024. (Reuters)

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's brash campaign posters are still up on Israeli public buses -- images of him, US President Donald Trump and soaring warjets that laud the two leaders attacking Iran together.

Neither is now advertising the state of the two countries' alliance.

A week after an inconclusive election for Netanyahu, Americans overwhelmingly rejected Trump and chose a Congress led by Democrats who want a tougher approach to Israel, whether on Iran, Gaza or settler violence in the occupied West Bank.

The back-to-back elections look to many observers like a turning point, with Israel no longer able to take for granted the cover of the world's most powerful country.

"This is a new era. The confluence of the Gaza war and the war with Iran have really changed how mainstream Americans -- not people particularly concerned with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict -- see Israel," said Yael Sternhell, an expert on the United States at Tel Aviv University.

Vice President JD Vance, assessing why his Republicans fared poorly, listed four ways to bring voters back, including ending the Iran war and changing "our relationship with Israel".

Trump did not disagree. Just as voting was underway Tuesday, Trump said he had agreed with Netanyahu to end the $3.8 billion in annual US military aid to Israel by the end of this year, explicitly tying the decision to the US political mood.

Netanyahu, Israel's longest-serving prime minister who has served on and off for nearly two decades, had eagerly sought Trump's endorsement but also acknowledged his country's growing isolation.

In the final days of the campaign, he suggested Israel turn to cryptocurrencies to circumvent international sanctions he expected would intensify.

Netanyahu has not commented on the US election or Trump's aid remarks.

Amit Segal, a journalist known for his proximity to Netanyahu, posted that the political situation in the United States marked a "catastrophe" for Israel.

- Can Eisenkot restore the alliance? -

Opposition contender Gadi Eisenkot, who is trying to cobble together a coalition to oust Netanyahu, has cast himself as capable of repairing relations.

In an English-language statement, the former military chief said he believed in "liberal values" and also wanted to work "closely and constructively" with Trump.

Yair Golan, the main left-wing leader inside Eisenkot's bloc, called for Israel to restore a bipartisan approach destroyed by Netanyahu who he said promoted a "destructive Israeli narrative of eternal war and authoritarian rule".

Netanyahu boasted in his campaign about standing up to Democratic presidents including Barack Obama, who remains a hero for many Democrats. Netanyahu openly aligned with Republicans a decade ago to attack Obama's diplomacy on Iran.

"Netanyahu certainly rubs Democrats the wrong way and has made every effort to alienate them," Sternhell said.

"But Eisenkot can't just be a nicer man to receive a softer approach from this new Congress," she added. "He's going to need new policies."

She said Eisenkot would likely enjoy Israeli public support for cracking down on extremist settlers, who have attacked Palestinians in the West Bank with virtual impunity.

But Israel has shifted to the right, with wide initial support for the Gaza war.

- Broadening criticism of Israel -

The new Congress will include progressive Democrats such as Abdul El-Sayed, the first Muslim elected to the Senate, who describe the devastation in Gaza as genocide, an assertion rejected by Israel.

Netanyahu "made a bet not only on the Republicans but almost personally on Trump", said Eli Kowaz, senior policy director of the Economic Cooperation Foundation, an Israeli think tank that backs a two-state solution with the Palestinians.

"These results show that bet had an expiry date," Kowaz said. "Also, for the first time, really, I think there's a realization that it isn't only about the Democrats. It's a problem with the relationship with America."

Without US assistance, Israel still has its own major arms industry and retains a clear edge fighting non-state actors such as Hamas and Hezbollah, said Ehud Eilam, a former researcher for the Israeli defense ministry.

But he said Israel would need to rely more on cheaper artillery or non-sophisticated bombs, further increasing risks of civilian casualties that have enraged international opinion.

"Israel can adjust to a new strategic reality of losing much and even all US military aid, but it will be tough for Israel. It will require Israel to consider hard choices such as taking huge loans or raising taxes," Eilam said.

Kowaz said that Eisenkot, aware of politics in Washington, was trying to show he is interested in regional stability and strategic agreements and not just "an indefinite state of war".

"He is definitely laying out a different vision for Israel's relationship with the United States."


Trump Could Woo North Korea After Midterm Setback, but Kim May Not Respond

US President Donald Trump meets with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un at the demilitarized zone separating the two Koreas, in Panmunjom, South Korea, June 30, 2019. (Reuters)
US President Donald Trump meets with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un at the demilitarized zone separating the two Koreas, in Panmunjom, South Korea, June 30, 2019. (Reuters)
TT

Trump Could Woo North Korea After Midterm Setback, but Kim May Not Respond

US President Donald Trump meets with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un at the demilitarized zone separating the two Koreas, in Panmunjom, South Korea, June 30, 2019. (Reuters)
US President Donald Trump meets with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un at the demilitarized zone separating the two Koreas, in Panmunjom, South Korea, June 30, 2019. (Reuters)

The rebuke President Donald Trump suffered in the US midterm elections could prompt him to step up efforts to re-engage North Korea, but any willingness to make major concessions risks creating friction with regional allies.

Analysts and officials in Asia expect Trump to focus on foreign policy as he seeks to build his legacy in the final two years of his term. With efforts to resolve the wars in Ukraine and Iran yet to produce breakthroughs, he is likely to turn to Asia, where he believes he has room to maneuver.

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, with whom Trump has been eager to restart talks, is likely to be a key part of that effort, they say.

"Trump is likely to devote significant effort to achieving foreign policy successes, especially if he faces greater constraints on the domestic front," said Ban Kil-joo, international relations professor at the Korea National Diplomatic Academy in Seoul.

"Given Trump would want a successor to win in 2028, there is a strong possibility that engagement with North Korea would be part of that agenda," he ‌said.

But there is ‌little incentive at the moment for Kim to respond, analysts say.

Asked about Trump's plans for diplomacy with North ‌Korea, the White ⁠House said Trump ⁠has restored American strength on the global stage and strengthened ties with world leaders.

"His foreign policy decisions have never been motivated by politics," White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said in emailed comments to Reuters.

"The Commander-in-Chief will always act in the best interest of the American people and our national security."

Trump met Kim three times during his first term after a war of words that raised fears of military conflict.

But their 2019 summit ended without agreement after they failed to reach a deal on North Korea's nuclear weapons program and sanctions relief.

Seven years later, the stakes are higher. North Korea has expanded its nuclear and missile arsenal, while Pyongyang's ties with Russia and China are the best in years, giving Kim less incentive to negotiate and potentially increasing pressure on Trump to offer concessions.

TRUMP CALLS KIM 'GREAT GUY'

Trump has touted his relationship with Kim, ⁠calling him a "great guy" and saying that they "get along very well."

Nonetheless, US and South Korean officials see ‌fading chances of a meeting this year, with Washington receiving no response from Pyongyang ahead of a regional ‌summit in China this month where they might have met.

Kim's influential sister, Kim Yo Jong, has said dialogue remains a path to peace, but Pyongyang sees no need ‌for talks now. She denounced what she called Washington's "hostile policy" while denying US accusations that North Korea stole more than $6 billion in virtual assets from Binance ‌last week.

Her brother has previously said he was open to talks if Washington stopped insisting his country give up nuclear weapons. Regional allies South Korea and Japan are opposed to any such concession.

"A summit that shelves denuclearization would undermine deterrence and create policy friction among Washington, Seoul and Tokyo," said Leif-Eric Easley, professor of international studies at Ewha Womans University in Seoul.

Officials in Japan and South Korea are concerned they could be "cut out of the loop" if Trump deals directly with Kim, with the quiet blessing of Beijing and Moscow, a ‌senior Japanese official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

"(Japanese officials) are concerned about the lengths he will go to get a summit with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un, such as dropping the issue of denuclearization."

'BIGGEST CHANGE ⁠SINCE WORLD WAR TWO'

Trump has referred ⁠to North Korea as a nuclear power, a status that allies in the region and the West have refused to recognize despite the dozens of nuclear warheads Pyongyang is believed to have built and its stockpile of fissile material.

"If US-North Korea talks lead Washington to accept North Korea's nuclear status, the security environment in Asia would change dramatically," said Professor Kazuhiro Maeshima at Sophia University in Japan.

"The biggest change since World War Two could occur in the remaining two years of the Trump administration. It is a serious situation."

Kim now has a vastly more advanced arsenal than at the time of the 2018-2019 summits, including more weapons and missiles, hypersonic glide vehicles, a growing fleet of modern warships and submarines, and improved drone capabilities.

If Trump were to bring Kim back to the table, he might need to offer more than partial sanctions relief.

Such concessions could face hurdles at home from a Democratic-controlled Congress and Trump's limited time in office, said Moon Chung-in, a Yonsei University Professor in Seoul who served as a presidential adviser on national security.

"And what is important is North Korea's perception and calculation; if North Korea thinks that Trump has entered a lame-duck period and he cannot get the support from Congress... there's no reason for Kim Jong Un to come to dialogue," he said.

Former US Deputy Secretary of State Stephen Biegun, who led US negotiations with North Korea during Trump's first term, also said there were few incentives for Pyongyang currently.

"The North Koreans, I think, have very little upside to a meeting like this right now, and potentially some downside."


Is the MAGA Era Over?

President Donald Trump gestures while boarding Air Force One at Morristown Airport, Monday, Sept. 7, 2026, in Morristown, N.J. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson)
President Donald Trump gestures while boarding Air Force One at Morristown Airport, Monday, Sept. 7, 2026, in Morristown, N.J. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson)
TT

Is the MAGA Era Over?

President Donald Trump gestures while boarding Air Force One at Morristown Airport, Monday, Sept. 7, 2026, in Morristown, N.J. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson)
President Donald Trump gestures while boarding Air Force One at Morristown Airport, Monday, Sept. 7, 2026, in Morristown, N.J. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson)

Has MAGA fever finally begun to fade? Will the American right abandon the Make America Great Again slogan and Donald Trump's populist ideology in favor of a more traditional brand of conservatism?

Following a crushing defeat in midterm elections that revolved almost entirely around one man, many Republicans have begun questioning the party's future and what role, if any, Trump should play in shaping it.

The Wall Street Journal, whose editorial pages have long represented the establishment right, called for "soul-searching" and urged Republicans to move away from the ultranationalist, identity-driven rhetoric that helped return the 80-year-old Trump to power.

In an editorial titled "The Trump Reckoning Arrives," the newspaper argued that tariffs and mass deportations were no substitute for higher real incomes.

It added: "Playing to the bro MAGA base is no substitute for persuading Hispanics, independents and suburban swing voters who abandoned the party on Tuesday."

"Still Your President"

The White House, however, appeared far less inclined toward introspection.

Its first post on X on Wednesday featured a stern-looking Trump accompanied by the words "Trump is still your president," a reminder that he will remain in office until January 2029.

But the American political calendar never stands still. Wednesday also effectively marked the beginning of the 2028 presidential campaign, which will culminate in the election of Trump's successor.

The US Constitution bars Trump from seeking a third term.

There was no realistic scenario in which Trump could have emerged from the midterm elections in a stronger political position.

The scale of the Republican defeat on Tuesday night, which exceeded even some of the Democrats' most optimistic expectations, has accelerated the erosion of his political influence.

Eyes on 2028

Vice President JD Vance, widely regarded as a potential contender for the White House in 2028, was careful not to confront his boss directly.

In a lengthy, essay-like post on X on Wednesday, Vance wrote: "The reason we lost is the war."

He immediately added: "The president himself said so last night."

That was not entirely accurate. Trump had attributed the defeat partly to the war in the Middle East, while also arguing that Republicans had fielded weak candidates.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis described the outcome as an "extinction-level event" for the Republican Party, suggesting Republicans might have to wait until 2032 to regain control of Congress.

Republican lawmaker Don Bacon wrote on X that the party "needs to reclaim our Reagan principles."

He added: "Voters rejected populism, chaos, Putin and tariffs."

Former congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, a far-right figure who has turned against Trump, went further.

"If the GOP wants any chance in the future, it will have to kick Donald Trump out of the party," she said.

Matthew Boyle, a prominent figure at the far-right news outlet Breitbart, wrote on X that "Republicans need to get back to basics."

"No more endless wars," he said.

On the economy, which he identified as the top issue, Boyle called for policies that benefit ordinary Americans rather than special interests.

He also urged Republicans to "be sane with immigration enforcement."

Criticism Without Naming Trump

For now, however, criticism remains relatively muted. Only a handful of conservative figures, whether moderates or hardliners, have been willing to attack Trump by name.

After all, the Republican Party has tied its political fortunes almost entirely to Trump since 2016.

"The big question is, are some of these Republican leaders in the House and Senate going to distance themselves from Trump?" Amy Dacey, a former Democratic official who is now an expert at American University, told AFP.

The same question applies to far-right influencers whose prominence and financial success have been closely linked to Trump's popularity.

Dacey said a devastating electoral defeat could diminish their influence, but it would by no means eliminate those associated with the MAGA movement.

Some of MAGA's online supporters have already attempted to shift the blame elsewhere.

"Great work, neocons," Jack Posobiec wrote sarcastically on X, referring to the neoconservative wing of the Republican Party, known for its interventionist foreign policy and hawkish stance toward Iran.

Nevertheless, it may only be a matter of time before the divisions become more pronounced.

Former congressman Bob Good wrote on the same platform: "Gotta start by acknowledging that Trump was and is the problem. Quietly whispering it won't do it."