For six days, representatives of member states of the United
Nations talked about their most pressing issues. One after one, they addressed
mostly an empty hall updating the General Assembly about their achievements and
reminding the world about the problems that must be solved. Leaders of the
Islamic world were present, although not all key players attended the yearly
event.
The kings of Saudi Arabia and Morocco for instance did not
attend. Turkey, too, elected to send the foreign minister instead of the prime
minister or the president. Syria’s embattled president, too, was understandably
unable to attend. But leaders who made it, expressed a wide range of concerns,
and most importantly, the new realities emerging as a result of the Arab
Spring. However, representatives of two Islamic countries received more
attention than the rest: Iran’s president and Egypt’s.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is serving his last year
in office, brought with him a huge entourage. He delivered the usual speech he
has been delivering for the past seven years and offered numerous interviews
where he faced the same questions about the nuclear program and real and
imagined human rights abuses. He offered his radical insight about solving the
Palestinian-Israeli conflict and sidestepped questions about the two-state solution.
Mohammed Morsi, Egypt’s new president, delivered a speech
highlighting the role his country could play in stabilizing the region. He,
too, emphasized the need to solve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict but was
short on specifics. He brought to the attention of the General Assembly his
attempt to end the Syrian crisis based on his vision that requires Assad to
step down without foreign intervention.
What was notable about these leaders (as is the case with
most Arab leaders), is that fact that it was impossible to distinguish personal
opinions from state policies. In the case of the Iranian president, given that
he was serving his last term in office, it would have been helpful if the
interviewers asked him to distinguish between his personal opinion from the
formal policy as established by the various institutions especially that of the
supreme leadership.
In the case of Morsi, given that there are currently no
other legitimate governing institutions, he is acting and speaking as if he has
the final say on all matters. In the absence of an elected parliament and a
ratified constitution, he is likely to continue the one-man rule and that must
remind the Egyptian people of an era they want to forget.
The other dramatic but not surprising event at the General Assembly
debate was Israel’s prime minister’s cartoonish cartoon explaining the threat
of a nuclear armed Iran. His emphasis on outside threats and his lack of
interest in solving the conflict with the Palestinians destroyed his
credibility. After all, even the Iranian president conceded that if the
Palestinians were to reach a just settlement with the Israelis, then he will
have to respect their decision, which would render the Iranian threat a moot
point.
In the end, the numerous speeches and long list of demands
only highlighted the impotence of the General Assembly. The UNSC remains the
organ of this organization most equipped to deal critical issues. But it, too,
suffers from structural deficiencies.
ISR45610041289
No comments:
Write commentsShare your thoughts...