Sr. Ahmed Mostafa ✍️
No labor pains of a new world order without loss and damage
The concept of a new world order is often associated with optimism and pessimism, but it also involves labor pains and loss. This transition is a phase of reorientation and recalibration, marked by shifts in power dynamics, economic reforms, cultural shifts, and political realignments. Loss and damage can be seen as both literal and figurative, indicating the loss of jobs, industries, values, traditions, and power. However, every loss in labor pain represents a potential for gain, signaling significant change and moving forward. Damage can be equated to the necessary chaos that paves the way for significant change, like the cracks in a shell before a bird’s birth. Once the dust settles, the world may find itself in a new era of peace, prosperity, and cooperation. The birth of a new world order does not come without labor pain, but the potential for rebirth and renewal exists. By acknowledging and overcoming these losses, we can usher in a new world order positively. This new order is realized through the collective efforts of the global community, through its pain, perseverance, and hope.
It is acceptable and normal from Western Media to support Israeli narrative, however some Arab media channels to support Israel and not Hezbollah and the Reluctance it is a big shame and unacceptable
In today’s media landscape, the perception and portrayal of international conflicts often depend on one’s geographical and political perspective. When it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a pronounced divide in narrative approach can be observed between Western and Arab media sources. From one viewpoint, it is not only normal but often accepted for Western media outlets to align with the Israeli narrative, highlighting the state’s security concerns and often portraying it in a more sympathetic light. This can be attributed to shared geopolitical interests and historical alliances, as well as the influence of pro-Israel lobbying in Western political spheres.
Contrastingly, when Arab media channels lean toward an Israeli standpoint or shy away from supporting Hezbollah, a political and military group in Lebanon that is considered a terrorist organization by some Western countries but is widely perceived as a resistance force in the Arab world, this stance is met with intense backlash. The general sentiment in the Arab world perceives this as a colossal betrayal and an unacceptable stance. The historical and cultural ties between Arab nations, combined with a collective sense of solidarity with Palestinians, contribute to this view. Here, media outlets are expected to champion Palestinian rights and to stand united against what is perceived as Israeli aggression. Any deviation from this narrative is often seen as a shameful departure from Arab values and solidarity.
This dichotomy not only reflects the varied political and cultural landscapes that shape public discourse but also underscores the complexities and challenges in presenting unbiased reporting in a conflict as deeply intertwined with global politics as this one. It illuminates the societal expectations that media outlets in different regions carry and the potential consequences of not adhering to these perceived norms. Ultimately, it raises important questions about media freedom, objectivity, and the role of global and regional politics in shaping narratives surrounding international conflicts.
Three global battles towards the new world order, Russia versus NATO in Ukraine, China in China sea versus Indo-Pacific Alliance and Arab and Islamic Reluctance versus Israel
The three global battles shaping the discourse towards the new world order are intense and multifaceted, affecting geopolitics, international relations, and global stability in numerous ways. The first battle is the fight between Russia and NATO in Ukraine, which has come to symbolize the resurgence of Cold War-like tensions in the international arena. This battle involves strategic power plays, political maneuvering, and military stand-offs that have the potential to disrupt international peace. Ukraine has become the battleground where the contest for influence and the shaping of a new world order is being waged between Russia, which seeks to establish a sphere of influence in its backyard, and NATO, which is trying to contain Russia’s expansionist ambitions from their viewpoint.
The second battle is between China and the Indo-Pacific Alliance (comprising countries like the United States, Japan, India, and Australia) in the South China Sea. This is a territorial dispute that not only affects maritime trade but also tests the power dynamics in the Asia-Pacific region. At its heart, this conflict revolves around China’s expansionist policies and its assertiveness in asserting control over the South China Sea. The Indo-Pacific Alliance, on the other hand, is pursuing a strategy of deterrence to allegedly maintain a free and open Indo-Pacific region that upholds international rules and norms.
The third battle is the ongoing conflict between Arab and Islamic states and Israel. This is a complex confluence of religious, cultural, political, and territorial disputes deeply rooted in the history of the region. This battle tends to flare up periodically and is characterized by issues such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, regional instability, and the interference of external powers. The reluctance of Arab and Muslim countries to fully recognize Israel has led to a prolonged state of unease in the Middle East, impacting economic and political stability in the region, and hindering the progress towards peace.
Each of these battles carries significant weight in determining the course of the future world order. They are likely to have an impact on international relations, economic policies, and security paradigms, as nations navigate the complexities of these conflicts and seek to position themselves for geopolitical advantage. Moreover, they present challenges to existing international institutions such as the UN and ASEAN, as they strive to control, mediate, and resolve these disputes. The resolution of these conflicts will have a bearing on the stability and prosperity of not just the regions directly affected, but the entire world. These conflicts demand diplomatic, political, and military strategies that prioritize dialogue, respect for sovereignty, and rules-based international order, in order to prevent potential escalation into wider conflicts.
The war that is taking place currently is mainly between the neo-liberalism headed by the AngloSaxon with their colonial tarnished history and neo-communism headed by China, Russia and Iran
The contemporary geopolitical landscape presents a complex narrative that is often simplified into a binary of neo-liberalism, led by historical Anglo-Saxon powers, and neo-communism, championed by influential actors like China, Russia, and Iran. This ideological divide has morphed into a new form of Cold War, albeit with differing characteristics that reflect the 21st-century global order.
On one side of the spectrum, neo-liberalism, as typified by the United States and its Western allies, advocates for free-market principles, individual liberties, and democratic governance. Anchored in a history marred by colonialism and imperialism, these nations grapple with the legacy of past conquests while asserting leadership through economic dominance and military superiority. Their narrative is often framed around the promotion of democracy and human rights, but is also seen as a veiled continuation of historical power dynamics.
Opposed to this, the ‘neo-communist’ bloc, comprising China, Russia, and Iran, promotes state intervention in the economy and society. This stance represents a reaction to the discontents of neoliberal globalization, resonating with nations seeking to preserve their sovereignty against Western-imposed norms. China, in particular, advances an alternative model of development, termed ‘socialism with Chinese characteristics,’ offering a blueprint for growth without the need to embrace Western-style democracy. Russia, with its vast energy resources and military might, not only counters Western hegemony but also seeks to reclaim a sphere of influence reminiscent of the Soviet era. Iran, meanwhile, leverages its strategic positioning and religious influence to resist what it perceives as the encroachment of Western values into the Islamic world.
This ongoing war, fought primarily through economic sanctions, cyber espionage, ideological propaganda, and sometimes military posturing, is reshaping world politics. It poses challenges to international cooperation on issues like climate change, global health, and economic equity. The potential for conflict escalation, both in cyberspace and on traditional battlefields, looms large, as both blocs vie for allies and strategic advantages.
Navigating this new Cold War-esque era requires a nuanced understanding of the ideological underpinnings and historical contexts that inform the strategies and actions of these global powers. It also underscores the urgent need for renewed diplomatic efforts and multilateral frameworks that can mitigate tensions and foster a more stable and equitable international order.
the ordinary people think that Russia and China are away from the war in Gaza, however they are doing their role via the international legal entities and hidden support via supplying some weapons and information to the reluctance stream whether to Houthi or to Hezbollah
The perception amongst ordinary people that Russia and China are distant spectators to the conflict in Gaza is somewhat of a mystification. This view, while reflective of the general understanding that neither country is directly involved on the ground, does not fully capture the complex role both nations play in the wider context of the conflict. This is because their influence is much more subtle and indirect, working primarily through the mechanisms of international law and strategic support.
Both Russia and China make use of their positions within international legal entities to influence the political landscape surrounding the Gaza conflict. Their diplomatic maneuvers at forums such as the United Nations can impact the nature and intensity of the conflict, particularly through the control of resolutions, sanctions, and peacekeeping efforts. By selecting their moments to veto or support certain measures, they can sway international attitudes and the resources directed towards or away from the conflict.
In addition to this indirect diplomatic influence, China and Russia are also alleged to provide more direct support to resistance groups. They do this not overtly, but through channels that are often disguised or denied. The support may take the form of weapons and information, channeled to groups like the Houthis in Yemen, or Hezbollah in Lebanon. These groups, though not directly involved in the Gaza conflict, still play an important role in regional tensions and can indirectly impact the region’s stability. This ‘role through proxy’ is a well-used strategy in geopolitical contestation, and allows Russia and China to exert their influence without the risks and visibility attached to direct military engagement.
Overall, the role of Russia and China in the Gaza conflict is a nuanced one. There are complex and multilayered strategies at play, which defy simplistic depictions of involvement or neutrality. Their actions have serious implications on the dynamics of the conflict, and the broader geopolitics of the region. Thus, the reality of the situation requires a deeper understanding of how global and regional powers interact and exercise their influence. This is a reminder that in the geopolitical arena, the motivations and methods of major powers are often less direct than they initially appear.
