In pursuit of a humane world order

During the United States-Israel war with Iran, the African Union, where all the fifty countries of Africa are gathered to promote cooperation and economic integration within their continent, asked for deescalation of the conflict and dialogue. The complex relationships African countries have with the US, Iran, Israel, and the Gulf states are behind this diplomatic stance. African states have responded differently in their individual capacities: Kenya and Ethiopia, which have close ties to the Gulf countries, criticised Iranian strikes against them, whereas Tunisia, which has a strained relationship with the UAE, has not objected to them.

Geographically distant from West Asia and lacking direct stakes in the conflict, Latin American countries generally called for de-escalation. Bolivia, Cuba, and Venezuela condemned US-Israeli military action, whereas Argentina supported it. Central American countries, which have extensive trade relations with the US, neither endorsed nor objected to the war.

At a remove from the central dynamics of the conflict, like Latin America, Oceania aligned diplomatically with the US. Australia officially endorsed the US aim of preventing Iran from possessing a nuclear weapon. New Zealand, too.

By staying away from direct military involvement and placing the NATO arrangement under greater strain, European Union member states failed to present a unified stance. The United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Italy recognised that the US and Israel violated international law, but none of them formally condemned it. The UK came around to offering its airbases for the use of the US Air Force. Poland and the Czech Republic expressed political support to the US’s military action. Spain stood out globally for being the lone principled objector to war and its refusal to allow the US access to its airbases. Norway extended support to it. Opposing the US-Israeli attacks on Iran, Russia avoided direct military involvement while providing intelligence and possibly limited military-technical assistance to Iran.

Whereas ASEAN issued a general call for all the parties to resolve the conflict peacefully, its member states with large Muslim populations, like Malaysia and Brunei, condemned the US-Israel actions. As a member of Donald Trump’s Board of Peace initiative, Indonesia, another Muslim-majority ASEAN country, did not condemn US actions even as it expressed sympathy for Iran. The Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam issued generic calls for ending the conflict without antagonising the US. China sought to facilitate a ceasefire without military involvement, while continuing to offer tacit support to Iran. I presume India’s and Pakistan’s stances are already familiar to readers.

Various countries now look set to reconsider their long-term energy strategies, including diversifying their global energy security sources and increasing investments in renewable and nuclear energy.

The responses to this tragic, utterly avoidable war lay bare a predictable pattern of self-interested conduct among nations. The Spanish Prime Minister, Pedro Sánchez, stands out for his firm opposition to the war and his insistence on upholding international law. His principled stand did not waver in the face of Trump’s threat of sanctions against Spain.

A multilateral democratic world order, essential for addressing shared problems, cannot rest on the worship of narrow national self-interest. The failure to mount a determined effort to halt Russia’s war in Ukraine and Israel’s military aggression against Palestine further exposes the hollowness of the latter political ideal: it leaves no room for a politics of hope, for a politics committed to creating an international order in which war has no place.

From time to time, anti-war protest rallies and peace meetings, large and small, have served to keep alive the dream of a cooperative, non-violent world. The dream needs to grow into a cultural force. Compassionate artists, filmmakers, musicians, religious leaders, journalists, teachers, academics, and others can help cultivate broader visions of community, justice, and humanity in the public imagination. Their efforts can breathe new life into ethical debates and revitalise the diminished moral conscience in contemporary times.

The writer is a Vidyashilp Professor who looks for new ways of looking

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.