In a recent article published by the Financial Times, Alexander Stubb, the former Finnish foreign minister and prime minister, urged the West to learn from its mistakes if it wants to take a leading position in a new world order. Stubb viewed 2022 as the turning point marking the end of one world order and the beginning of another. He addressed a prevailing misconception in the West, stating that the assumption of unified global support for Ukraine is misguided.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram
To support his point, he highlighted that the majority of votes in the UN General Assembly were against Russia, falsely reassuring the West. He emphasized that 140 out of 193 countries condemned Russia's military operation in Ukraine, while 35 countries abstained from voting, representing over half of the world's population. Stubb further noted that only about 40 countries have imposed sanctions on Russia, with only two Asian countries and none from Africa or Latin America participating.
According to the author, the contours and power dynamics of the new world order will be determined by certain rules. There is a significant bloc that holds varying degrees of opposition to the existing US-led order. Leading countries like China, India, Russia, and influential regional powers in Asia and Africa will play crucial roles in shaping the values, principles, and structure of the new order.
The author also highlighted the leadership roles played by countries such as Saudi Arabia in their regional environment and their influence on the global economy through their significant position in OPEC+. These roles will ultimately contribute to directing the world towards a new system whose features are yet to fully emerge.
There is another model that showcases the West's failure to grasp the significance of the strategic partnerships it forms with Middle Eastern countries and other regions worldwide. This is apparent in the American foreign policy towards Syria. The US diplomacy lacks a clear vision for dealing with the crisis and also dismisses the viewpoints of its Arab partners in handling the situation. The US insists on isolating Syria and remains steadfast in its rejection of any Arab reconciliation with Damascus.
Officially resuming diplomatic relations with Syria, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the UAE took the lead as active Arab countries spearheading collective Arab efforts. On May 19, Syrian President Bashar Assad once again participated in the Arab summit in Jeddah following the Arab League's decision to reinstate Syria's membership. This marks the end of Riyadh's policy of severance it initiated over a decade ago with the Syrian regime.
In contrast to this "realistic" Arab approach to Syria, the American position remains frozen, with President Joe Biden recently deciding to extend sanctions on Syria for another year. The US State Department expressed its "dismay" regarding the Arab League's decision to restore Syria's membership. Ned Price, the spokesperson for the US State Department, stated, "We do not believe that Syria should be afforded re-entry into the Arab League.."
The Arab strategy of openness towards Syria, initiated by the UAE years ago, has no alternative in confronting the crises in the region, including Syria. The issue does not revolve around changing the Syrian regime's conduct, as waiting for a complete decade has yielded no results. It is more appropriate to explore alternatives that can incentivize Damascus to change its behavior, at least to preserve the progress made in its Arab relations and the associated economic and trade developments that Syria desperately needs to regain its natural role and activities.
One of the main flaws in the Western perspective and positions on Syria, for instance, is the lack of consideration for the divergence between them and their strategic partners in the Arab and Middle Eastern region. This creates a void that other international powers are either seeking or have already filled. The West only sees what it desires to see, as it does in Ukraine, Syria, or any other international issue.
Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!
This raises questions regarding the lack of alternative and consensus-based solutions for the crises in which the West is directly or indirectly engaged. It also raises questions about the whole point of this unbalanced Western perspective. Does it reflect a limited strategic view or an arrogance that only acknowledges what is directly in front of it and denies the capacity to succeed, make sound judgments, and demonstrate competence not just to its adversaries but also to its partners and allies?
