One war with different arms. The past is a foreign country and we are in a new dispensation
Listening and assessing the UN High Level week: My initial question was why does the leadership of Russia and the leadership of China say that we still need the UN? And that question is answered. BRICS is too small. The UN is still the only organization in the world that brings the world together, although at times one wanted to put a fist through the screen.
It was both a bloodbath, as well as a time to get a renewed look at who is who in the world, what they understand, and what they want for the future.
The Chinese Foreign Minister, Wang Yi answered that. He stated that the world needs security and safety in order to continue a path of growth.
The two most interesting gatherings were the G20 and then the emergency Security Council (SC) meeting on the Middle East on Friday. With certainty the G20 swims in the BRICS pond and functions multilaterally. In international relations, the term multilateralism refer to an alliance of multiple countries pursuing a common goal. Some of the G20 members will form the nodes in the principles of multipolarity. They function with inclusivity, equality, and cooperation, and aim to foster a more peaceful, prosperous, and sustainable world although their focus is mainly economic. The G7 certainly is the scourge of our world currently and will die out over time as new and fresh organizations take over.
It is a joy to see Mr Lavrov and Mr Yi function in these high-level meetings and it makes for a welcome change from the General Assembly (GA) speeches. Their words are , to the point, incisive, and are not above stating their positions in strong terms.
The GA was either a bloodbath, or a real cry for help from most of the world.
Here are the words most often used:
We saw genocidaire Netanyahu speaking to an empty hall, and so for Zelensky. This was heartening. In this manner, one can assess that the west is not as strong as it thinks. Yet, there are clever and intelligent country leaders that still fall for the term ‘rules-based-international-order’. I believe there is a gross misunderstanding in that some think these rules are the UN Charter, and do not understand that those are western rules, made up as they like.
Generally, there was a cry for reform, not only for the Security Council but for the world order. Some delegates believed that the Pact for the Future would bring reform. They were rudely awakened by speakers such as Lavrov and Yi, and even India’s foreign minister, Jaishankar. Special kudos go to Mia Mottley, Prime Minister of Barbedos, who said: What is with this warring? The planet cannot afford war. And what is with struggling countries? Just give them a liquidity injection and help them stand up again! With the liquidity injection, my mind went to Michael Hudson and I mumbled: Yes, and forgive them their debts!
The General Assembly can be divided into a 70/30 % grouping. The 70% grouping do not know what they are talking about, they are confused on what the key problems in the world are and they are boring to listen to. The 30% are impressive, no matter which side of the divide they stand on.
Yet, they are all in one voice begging for a world that is more sustainable and more fair. The major problems of the world were defined by the speakers as climate crisis, inequality, financing for development and impact of new technologies which we know can be utilized for bad or good. Everyone agrees that instead of what they consider right, the world is becoming more unsustainable, more unequal, and more unpredictable and they sit in the UN and beg for cooperation for ‘the good of humanity’ and plead for consensus from the ‘international community’. But very few understand how.
We again received an answer from Wang Yi, this time in the Security Council meeting and it was classic. He simply gave instructions, because he knows how. IMF, you need to reform your practices by mid-next year. World Bank, stop your shenanigans and start fulfilling your function fairly and honestly in a balanced manner. Israel, you need to cease-fire, and China stands for the Palestinians. Short direct sentences, and for how he delivered his address, his words hit the sweet spot in every case.
At the emergency SC meeting, Mr Lavrov accused the US directly of not wanting this war to end: “There are some here that do not want the war to end” and addressed the US delegate to her face and told her it was the US that is stopping the Security Council from doing its work. The Security Council has the ability, legally and politically, to force Netanyahu to cease, but the US calls their veto.
In the SC, even France is now calling for an immediate cease-fire. The Europeans are scared. They heard the world, probably 90+% of the General Assembly calling for a cease-fire and directly accusing the Security Council of not doing its work. They also know that there is a reformation of the Security Council high on the agenda, and they do not want to lose their status. So, grudgingly they are now making the right calls, but still insisting that diplomacy is the way forward. Yet, they were told at the previous meeting by Nebenzia of Russia that the so-called peace negotiations are a sham and only serve to strengthen the genocidaire in his actions. We all know that those supposed US peace talks and ceasefire talks simply served to give a ‘beard’ to the genocidaire to continue. They were not serious and it is a crying shame! They served to give the Anglo-Saxxon members an out so that a decision could not be taken.
Mexico, in the GA today, suggested a manner in which the veto in the SC can be overcome. Their foreign minister suggested that the veto can be used but not in cases of Genocide and War. This was the first sensible proposal that I heard. Nobody knows what to do. In those cases, a simple majority vote must be taken, similar to the GA but binding. We all know and Mr Lavrov states that the SC is top-heavy with Europeans and he has a much less flattering word for it, Anglo-Saxons. He does not mince words.
Stepping back to the genocidaire’s address to the world: It is clear that when he was shouting peace from the podium to an empty hall, the decision had already been taken to attack Lebanon. Today, the final speeches all condemned the action. In general, zionist israel was solidly condemned by the world of the leaders at the UN, around 90+%.
I am glad to have taken the time to listen to all of this. Only the issue of a world standing together against israel, was worth it. We still need the UN, even if only as a high-level school for world leaders. Currently, they can only learn from legends like Lavrov and Wang Yi, who know how to do it. The overall assessment is that the west is losing. Lavrov talks about an observable historical reality. As is usual, he puts his finger on the pulse.
Here is Mr Lavrov’s final press conference. Please note, he does not speak to an empty hall.