For the leaders of many poor or small countries in the world, the annual trip to New York and participating in the meeting of world leaders may be tempting.
Kabul 24: Seeing the world’s largest metropolis and the capital of modernity is both an omen and a spectacle. Taking a souvenir photo in the Assembly of Nations and giving a speech in the General Assembly can be prestigious and memorable.
It is like the majority of presidents and prime ministers of 192 countries of the world go to a recreational camp for several days every September.
But the fact is that despite the extraordinary media coverage, New York and Sanblah and the General Assembly, the event is mostly ceremonial.
If it has any importance, it is in its margins; From meeting with world leaders to meeting representatives of media giants and using advertising tools!
The speeches given by the heads of the countries in turn in the UN General Assembly are actually something in the essence of the seven-minute speeches of the Iranian parliament members.
According to the law, MPs have the right to speak for seven minutes three times during four years.
Past experiences show that these 21 minutes are mainly spent on rhetoric, reading essays and attracting the attention of the media and the people of the constituency, and are devoid of practical features and specific objective strains.
The points of gravity of the Islamic Council are clear, and the center of power in Iran is even more obvious.
The story of the annual United Nations summit is often like this.
From Khrushchev’s shoe banging on the podium to the tearing of Gaddafi’s constitution and Castro’s and Ahmadinejad’s rants, all of them are not more than passing media shows.
The power of the United Nations is not in the General Assembly but in the Security Council and its beard and scissors are in the hands of others.
More importantly, there are more important power centers such as the Group of Seven industrialized countries as competitors of the United Nations, which, like the Iranian parliament, are not basically at the top of affairs.
In a somewhat similar comparison, the struggle of emerging powers to establish political and economic organizations such as Shanghai and the BRICS group is to achieve a kind of dual sovereignty in the world system.
Ironically, it is similar to the efforts of Iran’s reformists and reformists during their strong periods to reform the governance structure.
But the democratization of the world system and the overcoming of existing inequality and imbalances, like the dream of Iran’s reformists, is at least now crude and far-fetched.
The most brilliant appearance of an Iranian president in the United Nations is related to Mohammad Khatami.
When he showed an open and democratic face of the Iranian government and people and introduced the proposal of dialogue between civilizations into the UN documents.
But a short time later, Khatami’s words melted like snow against the sun of Tammuz with the famous speech “Axis of evil” by Bush son, which smelled of war!
The anti-Israeli words of the leaders of Brazil, Türkiye, Iran, Jordan, Qatar and… It is not without this rule and it does not leave the slightest change in the situation of Gaza and Lebanon.
But the key words such as the risk of spreading tension in the region and the aggravation of the current situation, which are repeatedly repeated in the speeches of Biden and Starmer, are important.
Key words that, ironically, the countries criticizing Israel’s policy also repeat regularly.
Western leaders, while turning a blind eye to Israel’s war machine and its destructive attacks, express their concern about the spread of tension, and practically call on the other side to exercise restraint.
The interpretation of this policy is the special freedom of Israel and subjecting the weaker party to the logic of force.
This situation is a reflection of the huge inequalities in the world and its division along certain geopolitical lines.
Whenever the western leaders changed their position about the Middle East crisis from expressing concern about the spread of the conflict to an honest and practical position about the need for a quick end to Israel’s occupation, it can be said that Keshtiban’s policy has arrived!
Saladin Khadio
