When United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres visited the Egyptian side of the Rafah crossing and gave his speech, it became clearer than ever to strategists and observers of international relations that the region and the international order are fragile.
International organizations are constrained, and there are very few viable paths to ending the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The UN Secretary-General recognizes the limits of what he and the United Nations as a whole can aspire to achieve. That is why he only demanded that aid enter the Strip as soon as possible.
The UN Secretary-General understands that the region is boiling. Its wars are never-ending, and its exacerbating crises are intractable. It is home to many militias, apprehensive armies, and drones that cut across borders. This state of affairs has left many countries unstable because of fluctuating dynamics. Accurate analysis suggests that the requisites for a solution have yet to mature if they have emerged at all.
An examination of the historical, social, economic, political, regional, and international factors at play forces us to acknowledge that this is an extremely profound crisis and that the turmoil cannot be contained. On the one hand, the traditional geopolitical maps have changed significantly. The widespread nostalgia for the old world and its conventional conflicts contained by territorial, political, or strategic rationale is misguided.
The world has become dynamic and fluid. It is shaped by elements that cut across the borders of sovereign states, and these elements are continuously reshaped by social movements and are determined by shifting attitudes on how to deal with challenges that are predominantly socio-economic.
Guterres also understands that the United Nations has a structural problem and that reforming it is a difficult or perhaps even impossible task. The five major countries have the power to veto any decision. They do so at will to serve their perceived strategic interests or even their diplomatic whims.
After the end of World War II, enough geostrategic developments to fill thousands of pages of books on international relations unfolded without any reform being undertaken. The UN was not updated in accordance with these developments, nor were any amendments made to its charter.
Mr. Guterres is aware of the need to reform the UN, but such reforms can only be made by three major countries: the United States of America, Russia, and China.
Every Secretary-General of the UN knows that they cannot cross the red lines drawn by the international powers in reforming the role of the Secretary-General and the UN as a whole... Reforming it is difficult and the dramatic events taking place in Palestine, and indeed across the globe, are addressed by the great powers without the input of the UN. This is the truth.
However, it is difficult for our students of international relations to understand this. We teach university students the ABCs of international humanitarian law, which sets rules to contain armed conflicts and protects noncombatants or former combatants. These laws are built on several international treaties, most notably the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols, as well as a series of other conventions and protocols that cover more precise cases and instances. The students become shocked and confused when they see that the facts, statements, and double standards of international relations have contradicted international humanitarian law for decades.
The convictions of both novices and experts in international relations are reinforced by reading this paragraph in the book of former US President Jimmy Carter (Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid): “Two other interrelated factors have contributed to the perpetuation of violence and regional upheaval: the condoning of illegal Israeli actions from a submissive White House and US Congress during recent years and the deference with which other international leaders permit this unofficial US policy in the Middle East to prevail. There are constant and vehement political and media debates in Israel concerning its policies in the West Bank, but because of powerful political, economic, and religious forces in the United States, Israeli government decisions are rarely questioned or condemned, voices from Jerusalem dominate in our media, and most American citizens are unaware of circumstances in the occupied territories. At the same time, political leaders and news media in Europe are highly critical of Israeli policies, affecting public attitudes. Americans were surprised and angered by an opinion poll, published by the International Herald Tribune in October 2003, of 7,500 citizens in fifteen European nations, indicating that Israel was considered to be the top threat to world peace, ahead of North Korea, Iran, or Afghanistan.”
The 39th president of the United States then calls, at the end of his book, for respecting international law and implementing Security Council Resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973). That is, he advocates a return to the 1967 borders. After discussing the Palestinian question throughout the book, Carter denounces the logic of apartheid, which prevents the Palestinians from developing economically, makes it impossible for them to lead normal lives, takes away their land, destroys the hallmarks of their civilization and development, and obstructs their development.
In the latest column he wrote for this newspaper, Mr. Amr Moussa argues that “the Western smile does not appeal to anyone anymore. It has become clear that the Western community is not ready to develop its concepts, which is among the main reasons that the multilateral system has lost credibility, especially with regard to maintaining international peace and security. I am referring to double standards. The opposite of the ideal that was defended in the Ukraine is being defended in Israel-Palestine.”
We saw these double standards reflected in the speeches of Western countries’ representatives at the Cairo conference, which, by the way, even frustrated some political groups in their countries. They have begun to fear the massive protests in their capitals. No Western country could stop them, including France, forcing the French president to soften his trip to Tel Aviv with a visit to Ramallah.
