- Israel/Gaza
- Ukraine/Russia
- Myanmar Civil War
By Shashi P.B.B. Malla
Israel-Hamas War: US vetoes UN Security Council Resolution calling for Gaza Ceasefire
UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres has spoken about the “serious risk to the maintenance of international peace and security” in the Gaza conflict, citing the spillover of hostilities in “the occupied West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen” (BBC, Dec. 9).
He triggered Article 99 of the UN Charter, prompting a UN Security Council (UNSC) emergency meeting and vote on Friday, because he believes this is a very urgent matter which must be brought to the attention of the Council.
The Israeli government detests the UN and also the secretary general.
The Israelis rejected his description, claiming Guterres is in fact the threat to world peace because he is pandering to Hamas by trying to end the fighting now, before their mission to destroy the terrorist group has been concluded.
That ill-feeling will not have improved after the secretary general also mentioned that one of the risks is that the situation in Gaza could get so bad that there would be a mass displacement over the border into Egypt – which is also of huge concern to the Egyptian government.
There was, Guterres said, a high risk of the “total collapse of the humanitarian support system in Gaza.” And the Palestinians say that is exactly what Israel wants because it desires to get all Palestinians out of Gaza.
By all the measures one can think of, the situation in Gaza for civilians is absolutely catastrophic, as they are subjected to a remorseless military campaign.
Israel says they are doing what they can to save civilian lives but insists Hamas holds responsibility for using them as human shields.
As expected, at the UNSC, the US duly vetoed this resolution calling for a ceasefire.
The Americans claim the Israelis are saying they will observe the rules of war and avoid unnecessary civilian deaths. At the same time, they admit, there is a gap between what Israel says and what it does.
The strategy behind the secretary general’s decision to force a vote – which he knew would probably get vetoed – was to hasten the inevitable moment when the Americans will say to Israel: ‘Enough is enough, you’ve had adequate time and killed ample people and it’s time for a ceasefire’ (BBC).
Some diplomats give the Israelis another month. Guterres’ strategy is to try and shorten that time period, partly by increasing international pressure and also partly by shaming the Americans into thinking that they cannot continue to hold this position as it becomes less and less tenable.
Israel’s military operation in Gaza thus far has resulted in:
- Israel seems to have degraded Hamas’s military capacity to a limited extent.
According to a spokesman of the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF), several thousand Hamas fighters have keen killed, which might amount to about 10 % percent of the Hamas force.
- Hamas has gained popularity and credibility in the occupied West Bank.
- Israeli hostages have been placed at risk and reportedly killed.
- The initial global outpouring of support for Israel has been replaced by a flood of sympathy for Palestinians.
- Hamas has succeeded in one of its aims, putting the Palestinian Question back on the global agenda.
- Revulsion at the Palestinian loss of life has jeopardized the stability of neighbours like Jordan and Egypt and put off any hope for now of an accord between Israel and Saudi Arabia.
- The risks of an uprising in the West Bank have increased, along with those of a wider war with Hezbollah/Lebanon.
Russian-Ukraine War: The West Dithers & the Future of the World Order is in the Balance
When the Russian army invaded Ukraine in February 2022, there was an international consensus that Vladimir Putin had made a colossal blunder.
Instead of reversing the verdict of the Cold War, the Kremlin dictator seemed to have isolated his country and inadvertently unified the entire Western world against Russia.
However, after nearly two years, the picture is now far more complex and significantly darker (Peter Dickinson: UkraineAlert/Atlantic Council, Dec. 7).
Western unity is increasingly in question, with US support for Ukraine becoming hostage to domestic political infighting and pro-Russian forces gaining ground in the European Union (EU).
Commitment of new aid from Ukraine’s partners have fallen to their lowest levels since the start of the war.
Western vacillation has fueled a growing sense of elation in Moscow, where many feel vindicated that any Western resolve to counter the Kremlin would prove short-lived.
Putin is now more confident than ever that he can outlast the West in Ukraine. Despite catastrophic losses in men and materiel, he is determined to continue with the invasion, and is preparing Russia for a long war.
Russia’s end-game remains the so-called “denazification” of Ukraine, meaning the eradication of Ukrainian national identity and the return of the country to Kremlin control, either via direct annexation or through the installation of a puppet regime in Kyiv.
It would be a grave miscalculation to assume Putin’s revisionist ambitions are limited to the reconquest of Ukraine alone. On the contrary, if he succeeds in subjugating Ukraine, it is clear from Putin’s own words and actions that he will go even further. The Baltic states and Moldova have already been targeted.
On the domestic front, Putin has succeeded in transforming Russia into a highly militarized dictatorship, while preaching an ideological crusade against the Western world that can only be sustained through perpetual conflict.
In the international arena, Putin has burned his bridges with the West, reoriented the Russian economy away from Europe, and is busy building an international axis of anti-Western authoritarians together with China, Iran and North Korea.
His invasion of Ukraine has been part and parcel of a far broader historic vision to end the era of Western dominance. He has repeatedly trumpeted the dawning of a new “multipolar world order”, and has sought to position Russia as the leader of a global “anti-colonial movement”.
It is downright ridiculous when Putin portrays himself as an enemy of imperialism while waging one of the most openly imperialistic wars in modern history!
Nevertheless, his anti-Western messaging resonates with many throughout the Global South, especially in Africa.
While China has been reluctant to defend the invasion of Ukraine, Beijing has enthusiastically echoed Putin’s calls for a fundamental reset in international relations.
Other rising nations such as India, Brazil, and the Gulf states have expressed similar sentiments while refusing to condemn Moscow or join Western sanctions.
If Putin is permitted to realize his dream of a turbulent new world order, the Russian invasion of Ukraine will provide inspiration for authoritarians around the globe and serve as a template for acts of aggression on every continent.
This unravelling of the existing order is already evident everywhere from the Caucasus to South America. In recent months, it could be witnessed in Azerbaijan’s lightning seizure of Nagorno-Karabakh, the unprecedented Hamas attack from Gaza on Israel, and Venezuela’s saber-rattling against neighbouring Guyana.
If the current geopolitical trajectory continues, it is only a matter of time before today’s escalating instability penetrates the borders of the European Union and the NATO Alliance. With Western leaders demoralized and discredited by the (possible) fall of Ukraine, it is far from strength to survive (Dickenson/Atlantic Council).
Even if a major war between the great powers (US-Russia over Ukraine or US-China over Taiwan) could be avoided, Western governments would find themselves obliged to prioritize military spending and dramatically increase defence budgets. The days of dispute over a few billion dollars to arm Ukraine would soon seem a peccadillo in comparison.
International trade would also suffer as the global peace dividend of the past three decades evaporated in a climate of mounting distrust and hybrid hostilities.
Consequently, the years from 1991 to 2024 may very well soon be considered as the lost golden age of comparative tranquility.
But none of this is inevitable. The right decisions have to be made, in the right time, by the right leaders.
Clearly the world is changing with new centres of power emerging. For one, the collective West still has more than enough economic, military and diplomatic weight to shape the future for decades to come. “The real question is whether the leaders of the democratic world are prepared to match the soft power they have long taken for granted with the kind of hard power necessary to thwart Russia’s destructive agenda”(Dickinson).
Unfortunately, too many people in the West seem far more afraid of defeating the autocrat Putin than of actually stopping him.
They continue to ignore the scale of the civilizational challenge posed by Putin and continue to harbor the comforting delusion that some kind of compromise can return the world to the prewar status quo.
The undeniable hard fact is that the West’s confrontation with Putin’s Russia can no longer be avoided, it can only be won or lost. The comfortable fact (for the West) is that this showdown is not direct. The Ukrainians have been fighting this war, not only for themselves, but for the West, and in an extended sense for the world at large. The Ukrainians are more than capable of winning, but they require the tools to deliver. The West can no longer hesitate to supply the necessary arms and ammunition – in quantity and quality – to avoid a geopolitical catastrophe and consolidate what the UN Charter aspires to, namely
“to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war” –Preamble;
And what US president Woodrow Wilson said in conjunction with crushing Nazi Germany:
“The world must be made safe for democracy”
Myanmar Junta Chief Calls for Political Solution
Myanmar’s junta chief General Min Aung Hliang has called on ethnic armed groups battling the ruling military across the country to find a political solution, state media reported.
The junta is reeling from coordinated offensives near the borders with China, India and Thailand, in what analysts say is the biggest threat to its rule since it seized power in 2021.
Hliang ‘warned that if armed orgaisations keep on being foolish, residents of the relevant regions will suffer bad impacts’, according to the Global New Light of Myanmar.
“So, it is necessary to consider the lives of the people and those organisations need to solve their problems politically,” he said (Agence France Presse/AFP).
Myanmar has more than a dozen ethnic minority armed groups, many of which hold territory in the country’s border regions and have battled the military since independence from Britain in 1948.
In late October three groups launched a joint offensive across northern Shan state, capturing towns and seizing vital trade hubs on the Chinese border.
More than 250 civilians, including children, are feared to have died since the launch of the offensive in October, according to United Nations field reports.
Galvanised by the offensive, the “People’s Defence Forces” (PDF) formed after the putsch that ousted Aung San Suu Kyi’s government have launched renewed attacks on the military in the north and east.
Last week PDF fighters told AFP they controlled parts of the capital of eastern Kayah state and were battling to dislodge junta troops from the city.
The writer can be reached at: shashipbmalla@hotmail
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect People’s Review’s editorial stance.
Login to add a comment