Dear reader, has the title confused you? The explanation is simple: The world has recently been embroiled in crises, especially since the coronavirus pandemic. Nonetheless, the most significant crisis is not the Russian war on Ukraine, but the manner in which this destructive war is being addressed.
Indeed, we are now faced with countries that can be described as “+,” as they are striving for development and stability and to ensure that their national project succeeds. They thereby contribute to promoting the growth and stability of the countries around them, and thus the international community as a whole. Other countries can be called “-” led by the United States, and politically, Israel as well, these countries take a short-sighted view of global events. Their approach has negative implications on the international community as a whole.
Why this introduction? Here is a simple example. US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen commented on OPEC+’s announcement that it cut output by saying it was a “counterproductive” decision that could exacerbate uncertainty about global growth projections and burden consumers with even higher inflation rates. The fact is that this statement applies more to Washington’s handling of the war in Ukraine than to the decision to cut production. It has been over a year since the eruption of the war in Ukraine, which has precipitated too many crises to count, not only in Ukraine but around the world.
In the introduction to a political discussion on its website, which begins with the quotes of the “the primary victims of real wars,” the World Bank Group says that the Russian invasion of Ukraine will have long-term repercussions for human welfare, first and foremost for Ukrainians, but “also for the world as a whole..”
It adds that determining the costs to human welfare that have accumulated since the war began is difficult because there is no reliable data and identifying its implications and indicators such as GDP are not very useful indicators.
Indeed, besides the humanitarian crisis it has created in Ukraine, this war has given rise to energy and food crises, and one is immune to the repercussions of this crisis. Despite all of this, Washington insists on defeating President Vladimir Putin and refuses to seek diplomatic solutions to resolve the crisis politically.
Thus, we have what could be called “+” countries, at the forefront of which are Saudi Arabia and the Arab Gulf states that are seeking development, stability, and citizen welfare. The direction they are heading in is clear, and their objectives can only be achieved through regional and international cooperation.
On the other hand, “-” countries want the international community to cater to their domestic issues and disregard those of “+” countries. For example, despite the Arab Peace Initiative and the Abraham Accords, Israel has never pursued regional peace in the region, squandering one opportunity after the other. Thus, we are facing “+” countries that are striving to enhance human welfare and stability as they pursue a clear vision. Meanwhile, the “-” countries seek to perpetuate crises. They have no strategy and have disregarded the threats, both to the Ukrainians themselves and the international community, presented by the Ukraine crisis.
The simplest example of this lack of a “clear vision” is that, despite the statements of the Treasury Secretary, US President Joe Biden claims the OPEC announcement “is not as bad as you think.” Ask me: Where is the contradiction? I respond: “No comment.”
