The ICC and Western Hypocrisy: A Tale of Two Arrest Warrants.

M A Hossain, 

While the International Criminal Court (ICC) reportedly was established with the “noble aim” of ensuring justice and holding accountable the perpetrators of serious international crimes, its actions and the responses they garner often reveal a troubling pattern of double standards, hypocrisy and notoriously geopolitical bias. Recent events involving arrest warrants against high-profile political figures – particularly in the Global South highlights this divergence, particularly in how the United States and its allies selectively cheer or condemn the ICC’s decisions based on their own agendas.

When the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin, Western leaders, including those from the United States and Europe, were quick to celebrate this move as a accomplishment of “international justice”. President Putin's endeavors to safeguard Russia's sovereignty made him a prime target of the West. He is seen as a threat to blueprint of Western nations in destabilizing Russia and its neighbors through numerous attempts.

However, the reaction from the Western leaders was unambiguously different when the same ICC suggested an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by accusing of “committing a textbook genocide” and Palestinian militia Hamas. This militia entity is known for its deeper ties with Iranian regime as well as other anti-West groups including Lebanese Hezbollah.

Former US National Security Advisor Ambassador John Bolton fervidly condemned the ICC, calling it fundamentally illegitimate for targeting Israeli officials during wartime. US President Joe Biden also labeled the ICC’s attempt to arrest Netanyahu as "outrageous", and a group of Republican senators warned the ICC against pursuing such actions.

This blunt divergence in reactions reveals a clear double standard. While the West applauds the ICC's actions against adversaries like Vladimir Putin, it fiercely opposes any attempts to hold its allies, such as Israel, accountable. This selective application of justice undermines the credibility of the ICC and exposes the geopolitical motivations driving these responses.

The hypocrisy of the United States is further highlighted by its historical posture towards the ICC. When the ICC attempted to investigate alleged war crimes by US personnel in Afghanistan, the Trump administration responded with threats of sanctions against ICC officials, including prosecutor Fatou Bensouda. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced visa restrictions and economic sanctions to deter the ICC from pursuing these investigations.

This aggressive stance contrasts sharply with the US's support for the ICC’s actions against leaders of countries it considers contenders or foes. It clearly reveals that the US supports the ICC only when it serves its interests and undermines it when it does not, thus engaging in a form of dirty politics that manipulates international justice for political gain.

The US's selective application of sanctions is further evident in its handling of allegations against Israel. Despite evidence suggesting that Israel has been involved in selling spyware to various countries, the US has not imposed any significant sanctions on Israeli companies dealing in such items.

The lack of sanctions against Israel for its spyware sales underscores the preferential treatment it receives due to its strategic alliance with the United States. This selective enforcement of international norms further erodes the credibility of US foreign policy and its supposed commitment to human rights and justice.

Historically, the US has positioned itself as a global promoter for human rights, often justifying military and political actions worldwide under this banner. This principle of “human rights over sovereignty” has been a powerful tool in US diplomacy, enabling interventions deemed necessary by Washington. However, recent domestic actions, particularly the suppression of student protests, challenge this narrative. These students, critiquing US policies regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and calling for divestment from Israel, reflect a broader discontent with perceived hypocrisy in US foreign policy. 

The Biden administration’s response to these concerns could significantly impact its domestic and international standing. Aligning US actions with its professed values would reinforce its commitment to human rights and democracy, but current suppression risks alienating young Americans and discrediting the US’s global human rights agenda. This dilemma underscores a broader crisis in “human rights diplomacy”, where selective defense of rights compromises their universality and integrity. The challenge remains to genuinely commit to human rights principles, both domestically and internationally, transcending double standards.

In light of these double standards, it is imperative for countries like Russia or China to call out and challenge the hypocrisy of the United States and its allies. The Russian Foreign Ministry has criticized the ICC's actions as politically motivated and inconsistent with international law. It has pointed out that the ICC's warrants, especially against non-signatories of the Rome Statute like Russia, violate international legal principles and state sovereignty.

By highlighting these inconsistencies, Russia can mobilize international opinion against the selective justice practiced by the West. It can build alliances with other nations that have been similarly targeted or unfairly treated by the ICC and the geopolitical machinations of the US and its allies.

The ICC’s actions and the West’s responses reveal a disquieting pattern of selective justice and political manipulation. The institution, initially established to uphold international law and human rights, has become a tool for powerful nations to further their geopolitical agendas. The celebration of Russian President Vladmir Putin’s arrest warrant issued by ICC juxtaposed with the condemnation of attempts to hold Netanyahu accountable illustrates this double standard vividly.

For the ICC to regain its legitimacy, it must strive to apply justice uniformly and resist being swayed by powerful nations’ political interests. Likewise, nations like Russia must continue to expose and challenge these double standards, advocating for a truly impartial and just international legal system. Only through consistent and fair application of international law can the ICC hope to fulfill its foundational mission and restore its credibility on the global stage.

M A Hossain, political and defense analyst based in Bangladesh. He can be reached at: writetomahossain@gmail.com

      The article published at :

1. Daily Times, Pakistan : 24 May, 24

2. The Province, Pakistan : 24 May, 24

3. Muslim Times, BD : 24 May, 24

4. Weekly Blitz, BD : 23 May, 24

5. The Nation, Pak : 29 May, 24

6. Pakistan Today, Pak : 29 May, 24

Is A Coup in Myanmar Imminent?

M A Hossain, 

As Myanmar grapples with escalating turmoil and the specter of another military coup hangs ominously over the nation, the crisis reaches a critical juncture. The ongoing power struggle between the military, represented by Prime Minister Senior Gen. Min Aung Hlaing, and various insurgent factions, including the People’s Defense Force, underscores the fragility of the current junta’s hold on power. However, what is perhaps most alarming is the potential for any new coup leader to be even more oppressive and brutal than the current regime.

Over the past year, the people of Myanmar have displayed remarkable resilience and defiance in the face of escalating violence and egregious human rights abuses perpetrated by the military. Despite facing immense risks, they continue to demand democracy and justice. The emergence of the People’s Defense Force, comprised of civilians and disillusioned military personnel, has further complicated the situation for the junta, which finds itself increasingly isolated and on the defensive.

Amidst this chaos and uncertainty, the possibility of another military coup cannot be dismissed. The fracturing of the military establishment, evident through defections and dissent among senior officers, has created fertile ground for internal power struggles. Hlaing’s leadership has faced intense scrutiny due to growing disillusionment over his handling of the crisis and failure to quell the insurgency. This discontent within the ranks of the military could pave the way for a coup orchestrated by disaffected generals seeking to assert control.

However, the prospect of a new military regime seizing power is chilling, particularly considering the escalating brutality unleashed upon civilians by the current junta. There is genuine fear that any new leader emerging from a coup could resort to even harsher measures to suppress dissent and maintain control. The atrocities committed against peaceful protesters, including arbitrary arrests, torture, and extrajudicial killings, serve as stark reminders of the military’s ruthless tactics.

The international community must not underestimate the potential ramifications of another military coup in Myanmar. The crisis has already sparked a humanitarian catastrophe, with millions facing displacement, food insecurity, and persecution. A new wave of violence unleashed by a reinvigorated military regime could exacerbate the suffering of the civilian population and plunge the country into further turmoil.

It is imperative that the international community, particularly regional actors like the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), take proactive steps to prepare for such a scenario. ASEAN must play a central role in coordinating a concerted response to the crisis in Myanmar. While diplomatic engagement with the junta has yielded limited results, ASEAN must demonstrate firmness and unity in its approach to the situation.

First and foremost, ASEAN must reaffirm its commitment to democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. The bloc should unequivocally condemn any attempts to subvert the will of the people through military means and call for the restoration of civilian-led governance in Myanmar. ASEAN’s credibility as a regional arbiter hinges on its ability to uphold these fundamental values in the face of tyranny and oppression.

Moreover, ASEAN should explore diplomatic mediation and dialogue to facilitate a peaceful resolution to the crisis. This could involve convening talks between the junta, the civilian opposition, and other relevant stakeholders to negotiate a way forward. While the prospects for dialogue may seem bleak, sustained diplomatic pressure and incentives for cooperation could yield tangible results.

Additionally, ASEAN must be prepared to deploy humanitarian assistance to mitigate the suffering of the civilian population in the event of renewed violence. This includes providing essential aid such as food, shelter, and medical supplies to those affected by conflict and displacement. ASEAN member states should also be ready to offer refuge to those fleeing persecution in Myanmar, demonstrating solidarity and compassion in the face of adversity.

Simultaneously, the international community must send a clear message to the military junta that further escalation of violence will not be tolerated. This may entail imposing targeted sanctions on individuals and entities complicit in human rights abuses, as well as intensifying pressure through multilateral forums such as the UN. The junta must understand that there are consequences for its actions, and the world is closely monitoring the situation.

The possibility of another military coup in Myanmar is a stark reality that cannot be ignored. As the junta continues to lose ground to insurgent forces and faces internal dissent, the risk of a power grab by disaffected military officers looms large. However, the international community, particularly ASEAN, must be prepared to confront this scenario head-on. By reaffirming its commitment to democracy, human rights, and the rule of law, and by actively engaging with all stakeholders to seek a peaceful resolution to the crisis, ASEAN can help avert further bloodshed and suffering in Myanmar. The time to act is now.

M A Hossain, political and defense analyst based in Bangladesh. He can be reached at: writetomahossain@gmail.com

   This article published at :

1. Daily Observer, BD : 19 May '24

2. Daily Lead Pakistan, Pak : 19 May '24

3. Muslim Times, BD : 19 May '24

4. Weekly Blitz, BD : 17 May '24

5. The Nation, Pak : 21 May, 24

Westerners walkout from the cocoon of democracy.

M A Hossain,

After centuries of promoting democracy and echoing Abraham Lincoln's theory — "for the people, by the people, and of the people" - heavyweights in the Western political arena finally realize that what they have vigorously promoted is a failed theory. They also realize that China's unwillingness to embrace the mantle of democracy was correct. Consequently, they have now begun the transition from democracy to people's autocracy — a rule that may appear harsh or less refined but ultimately serves the interests of the people and the nation. They have also come to understand that democracy's true meaning often manifests as demonstrations, mob attacks, and various forms of anarchist acts.

Over the past decade, the West has been advocating for authoritarian regimes in South Asia. They disregard the will of the people and, instead of maintaining equilibrium, they engage in a 'choose and pick' process. The West is subtly dismantling democratic procedures. In the Indian subcontinent, Imran Khan, a genuinely pro-people and popular leader in Pakistan, faced political ruin when he went against Western interests. Similarly, promising Congress leader Rahul Gandhi in India has seen his political career tarnished by Western conspiracies. The world's largest democracy, India, is now under the authoritarian rule of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). In Bangladesh, the main opposition leader, Mr. Tareque Rahman, is being misled and enticed into making wrong political decisions by Western agents. The West does not wish to see Bangladesh as a democratic country because a democratic South Asia would limit their opportunities to pursue their core interests.

A closer examination of the democratic process in the West reveals that they have disregarded democratic values and are attempting to transform them into a people's autocratic system of governance. In the US, Donald Trump became the first president to disregard the people's mandate and displayed unfortunate anti-democratic behavior. His successor, incumbent President Joe Biden, has infringed upon freedom of expression and the right to non-violent protest. Recently, students, professors, and academic activists across the US came together to express solidarity with the Palestinians and demand an end to Israeli atrocities against Gaza residents. However, the Biden administration, with the assistance of university authorities, suppressed the peaceful protests and arrested thousands of students and professors.

Western taxpayers are ensnared in a conspiracy theory: for the nation's security, Western political leaders are allocating billions of dollars to the defense industry. While Western citizens do not desire war, their leaders impose it upon the nation. The West imposes war on Russia and utilizes Ukraine as a pawn to further their geopolitical interests against Russia. The Russia-Ukraine war is nothing but a manifestation of Western hegemony. The West uses Mr. Zelenskyy as their mercenary to undermine Russia's economic and military power, disregarding the unwavering suffering of the Ukrainian people. Conversely, Western leaders turn a blind eye to Israeli atrocities against Palestinians, supporting Israeli genocide in Gaza despite strong global condemnation.

In the current geopolitical landscape, it is evident that Western leaders do not respect the will of the majority of Western citizens. They are transitioning from democratic values to an authoritarian system. The ongoing wars serve not for the peace of any nation but for the benefit of the Western defense industrial complex, prioritizing the interests of a few over the rest of the nation, which contradicts democratic principles. Examining the USA reveals a political system that lacks opportunities for the younger generation, with invisible barriers preventing fresh faces in politics. Both the Democratic and Republican parties are dominated by figures like Donald Trump and Joe Biden, leaving little room for alternatives.

The USA and its allies support the Saudi monarchy or Egyptian authoritarian regime while criticizing democratic governments in countries like Bangladesh, Pakistan, and India, showcasing a double standard in their politics. The 2024 Parliamentary Election in Bangladesh exposed the controversial stance of the US and its allies, indirectly threatening Bangladesh with punitive actions to coerce compliance. However, the people of Bangladesh refused to surrender their sovereignty to any illegal demands, exposing the West's dirty politics to the world. Bangladesh now stands proud, having confronted and rejected Western interference with dignity and honor.

In conclusion, every nation has the right to choose its governing system. Any prescribed ruling system may not work for the nation in question. The democratic system has become a complete mess in the Arab world where leading proponents of democracy are abandoning it for themselves. Ultimately, whatever the ruling system, it must prioritize justice and improvement for the nation. In the future, a pro-people governing system will likely lead the world, as evidenced by emerging trends such as the Global South, BRICS, and a multipolar world system.

This article published at :

1. Weekly Blitz, BD : 14 May'24

2. Daily Lead Pakistan, Pak : 15 May 24

4. Pakistan Today, Pak : 25 May, 24

Western Media's Bias on South Asian Perspectives.

M A Hossain, 

South Asian nations, bursting with diversity and contradictions, have long been a captivating subject for global journalism. Yet, despite their increasing importance on the world stage, Western media often miss the mark when it comes to accurately portraying these multifaceted and culturally rich countries. This discrepancy in coverage not only reflects a lack of understanding of the region's complexities but also raises concerns about journalistic integrity and political interference. 

Recent scandals and exposés have brought into question the motivations of foreign journalists covering South Asia, particularly India and Bangladesh. India’s External Affairs Minister, S. Jaishankar, has pointed out that criticism from Western press isn't merely due to a lack of information but rather a belief that they are political players in Indian elections. This perception challenges the credibility of foreign media coverage and raises concerns about political neutrality. Moreover, Western media's active involvement in Bangladesh's national election seemed to aim at destabilizing the country’s internal political atmosphere, highlighting a pattern of interference in domestic affairs.

One glaring example of the disparity between foreign and Indian journalism emerged during a panel discussion on BBC's News night, where Amana Begam Ansari, a journalist for The Print, challenged the portrayal of Muslims and minorities facing genocidal threats. Ansari emphasized the importance of data in dispelling misconceptions, highlighting that India has never been safer for minorities. However, her remarks left the program's anchor visibly perplexed, showcasing the gap in understanding between Western and Indian perspectives.

India's vibrant democracy, cultural richness, and economic dynamism are always attractive to the global context. However, delving into the complexities of Indian society requires more than surface-level reporting. Western journalists often struggle with cultural nuances, traditional subtleties, regional disparities, and the wide span of the country. Instances such as ABC News Australia’s Avani Dias's false claim of being forced to leave India further erode trust between foreign journalists and Indian society, raising questions about journalistic integrity.

Western media sometimes prioritizing narratives with biased coverage that align with cheap popularity or geopolitical agendas. Recent instances of biased reporting, such as The Guardian’s editorial on India’s general election, undermine the work of foreign press in India and hinder a balanced portrayal of the country. Chris Blackburn, an expert on media wrote an opinion piece in Daily Express, UK about inaccurate coverage regarding India, "One challenge is the tendency to view India through a narrow lens, shaped by preconceived notions or sensationalized narratives. This can lead to oversimplification and distortion of issues, perpetuating stereotypes."

Access and privilege significantly complicate the landscape of media coverage, especially for Western journalists. Their struggle to effectively connect with grassroots communities and fully comprehend the daily realities faced by ordinary South Asian deepens the divide. As a consequence, this gap in understanding frequently leads to a distorted depiction of socio-economic issues. In this skewed portrayal, the voices and experiences of marginalized individuals are often overlooked, further exacerbating societal disparities and hindering progress towards more inclusive and accurate representation in the media. It was more evident when the incumbent Prime Minister in Pakistan was ousted, and his tenure in office was depicted as a severe threat to Western nations.

The situation is not limited to India or Pakistan alone but extends to Bangladesh as well. Western media's interference in Bangladesh's domestic affairs and national elections has been a recurring issue, raising concerns about sovereignty and political meddling. The 2024 national election in Bangladesh witnessed a flurry of biased reporting and sensationalized narratives from Western outlets, reflecting a lack of understanding of the country's political landscape and internal dynamics. Such interference undermines the democratic process and fosters mistrust among the Bangladeshi populace towards foreign media.

Despite the myriad challenges faced by Western journalists in accurately covering South Asia, maintaining journalistic integrity is non-negotiable. This entails a rigorous commitment to fact-checking, corroborating information from diverse sources, and actively challenging inherent biases. Only by adhering to these fundamental principles can journalists hope to offer a portrayal of South Asia that is both comprehensive and unbiased.

Fact-checking serves as the cornerstone of responsible journalism, particularly in a region as complex and dynamic as South Asia. With misinformation and propaganda often rampant, journalists must meticulously verify every piece of information they intend to publish. This not only safeguards the credibility of their reporting but also ensures that readers are presented with accurate and reliable information.

Furthermore, embracing a multiplicity of perspectives is imperative in capturing the true essence of South Asia. This entails going beyond mainstream narratives and actively seeking voices from diverse backgrounds, communities, and viewpoints. By amplifying these often marginalized perspectives, journalists can offer a more nuanced understanding of the region's socio-political dynamics, thereby enriching the discourse and fostering greater empathy and understanding among audiences.

Challenging biases, both conscious and unconscious, is another critical aspect of responsible journalism. Western journalists must interrogate their own preconceived notions and prejudices about South Asia, recognizing that their cultural, social, and political backgrounds may influence their perceptions and interpretations of events. By cultivating a self-awareness of these biases and actively working to counteract them, journalists can strive towards a more equitable and balanced portrayal of the region.

Ultimately, the responsibility lies with Western journalists to transcend the limitations and pitfalls inherent in covering South Asia. By upholding the principles of journalistic integrity, fact-checking, embracing diversity, and challenging biases, they can contribute to a more informed and nuanced understanding of the region on the global stage, thereby fulfilling their crucial role as mediators of truth and knowledge.

In conclusion, accurately capturing South Asia’s essence requires humility, empathy, and a commitment to uncovering the truth. By addressing biases, challenging preconceptions, and prioritizing factual accuracy, Western media can bridge the gap and offer a more comprehensive understanding of the region’s vibrant landscape while respecting the sovereignty and internal dynamics of each nation.

M A Hossain, political and defense analyst based in Bangladesh. He can be reached at: writetomahossain@gmail.com

This article published at :

1. Good Morning Kashmir, India : 12 May'24

2. The Arabian Post, UAE : 11 May'24

3. Weekly Blitz, BD : 11 May '24

4. The North Lines, India : 13 May '24

5. Indian Defence Review, New Delhi: 14 May

6. South Asia Monitor, India : 17 May'24

7. Daily Excelsior, J&K&L: 15 May 24

Student Power Unleashed.

M A Hossain,

Bangladesh Chhatra League (BCL), student front of ruling Awami League in Bangladesh – world’s third-largest Muslim nation has expressed solidarity with the ongoing global pro-Palestine student movement by organizing processions across the country and demanding the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. This movement by BCL activists has been wholeheartedly welcomed by the people of Bangladesh. The program includes raising the flag of Palestine in every educational institution throughout the country, processions, and student gatherings. Thousands of members of BCL joined the program.

At Dhaka University, the solidarity event centered around the Raju Sculpture, where the Chhatra League’s central unit president and general secretary delivered speeches. Students across the campus carried placards and banners with messages such as “Free Palestine, stop the genocide”, amplifying their call for action.

Chhatra League president Saddam Hussain in his speech said, the masks of those who identify themselves as the custodians of democracy have been exposed. He said, “we want an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. In the United States, I have seen Jewish students also speak out for the freedom of Palestine. I want to put a question to the people of the world, after the death of how many people you will call it a genocide?”

Saddam Hussain said, “when America vetoed the independence of Palestine, the students of that country were speaking for Palestine”.

Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, Bangladesh’s father of the nation, was the first as head of Bangladeshi government to recognize the Palestinian struggle for independence and showed solidarity against Israeli atrocities and illegal occupations. With the legacy of Bangabandhu, to this day, no government of Bangladesh has recognized Israel as a country. Presently, Bangabandhu’s daughter, Sheikh Hasina, who has been in power since 2009 has been extremely vocal against Israel’s atrocities in Gaza. A large number of political observers in the world are already saying, by taking a firm stand against Israeli atrocities on Palestinians, Sheikh Hasina has emerged into a powerful voice in the Muslim world.

In contrast, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islam, known as pro-Islamist parties, are maintaining stone-cold silence regarding solidarity towards Palestine. All wings of the BNP-led alliance are refraining from any activity against Israel’s atrocities and Western leaders’ anger, especially that of Joe Biden. It is now clear to the Bangladeshi people that BNP and its allies are seeking to return to power by appeasing Joe Biden and Western leaders. Angry Bangladeshi citizens are saying, BNP’s acting chairman Tarique Rahman, who has been residing in London since 2007 is looking to return to power through an unconstitutional process by licking the foot of Joe Biden. Silence of BNP and Jamaat has already drawn criticism in Bangladesh, while most of the people are branding these parties as “club of hypocrites and Western mercenaries” and “Satan’s secret weapons”.

Today, all Muslim countries of the world are united against Israeli forces’ genocide against Palestine. However, the BNP and its allies have taken a stance against Muslims. The hypocrisy of their past love for Islam has become evident to the people of Bangladesh today. It is now clear that BNP and Jamaat-e-Islam are sycophants of anti-Islamic Westerners and have utilized Islam as a tool to regain power.

BCL, as an organization deeply intertwined with the sacrifices of our nation’s freedom struggle, bears the legacy of the fight for independence. That’s why it expresses unwavering support for the independent Palestine movement. BCL’s movement strives for the recognition of Palestine’s sovereignty, upholding justice, and vehemently opposing the genocide, breaches of international law, and crimes against humanity perpetrated by Israel.

Condemning the atrocities, massacres, and ongoing human rights violations against innocent Palestinian civilians spanning over eight decades, BCL pledges unwavering support to those advocating for peace in the region. However, instead of holding Israeli oppressors accountable, President Joe Biden’s administration is assisting Israeli forces in continuing their killing of innocent Palestinians. It’s a complete double standard stance of Biden’s controversial agendas.

The Western leaders led by US President Joe Biden are bluffing the Global  South leaders. They preach human rights, freedom of expression, the right to self-determination, and the right to religion, which they never practice themselves. Now, the world has witnessed that President Biden does not believe in freedom of expression or even human rights like the right to non-violent movement. The Biden administration and Western State leaders do not hesitate to assault on student non-violent movements in solidarity with Palestine. By continuing cruel repression of pro-Palestine and pro-peace movements in the United States and other Western countries, Western leaders have already turned into abettors of atrocities and genocide as well as crime against humanity.

In Bangladesh, student organizations remind us that they have always been at the forefront of humanity and justice in the history of politics. The Bangladesh Chhatra League (BCL) has made tremendous contributions to Bangladesh’s Liberation War and mass movements against repression. Now, they have stood against so-called superpowers like the United States, which already is branded by many as Banana Republic and “Third World”

M A Hossain, political and defense analyst based in Bangladesh. He can be reached at: writetomahossain@gmail.com

This article published at :

1. The Nation, Pak : 08 May'24

2. Daily Times, Peshawar,Pak: 07 May'24

3. The Province, Pak : 07 May '24

4. Weekly Blitz, BD : 06 May '24

5. The Asian Age, BD : 10 May'24

6. South Asia Monitor, India : 10 May'24

The Middle Eastern Fault Lines.

M A Hossain,

In the vibrant heart of Riyadh, amidst its soaring skyline and lively thoroughfares, a momentous gathering of global leaders, policymakers, and influential business figures recently unfolded. The occasion? The World Economic Forum’s Special Meeting in the Kingdom-an event of profound significance, highlighting Saudi Arabia’s escalating prominence on the international platform and marking a pivotal juncture in the region’s course. As delegates from every corner of the globe converged, the conversations transcended mere economic discourse, delving deeply into the intricate realms of geopolitics, ideological currents, and the very future trajectory of the Middle East.

At the heart of these discussions lies Saudi Arabia’s ambitious Vision 2030-a holistic strategy for economic diversification, social transformation, and national revitalization. After eight years of implementation, the Kingdom’s visionary agenda is yielding tangible results, ushering in a period of advancement, creativity, and societal integration. Against this dynamic backdrop, the World Economic Forum provided a stage to highlight Saudi Arabia’s evolving role-a symbol of promise and potential in a region historically marred by unrest and unpredictability.

Within the esteemed confines of the forum, what unfolded transcended traditional rhetoric and dialogue, encapsulating a profound shift in the geopolitical paradigm-a shift defined by the rise of a new catalyst for positive change, prosperity, and regional cohesion. As eloquently articulated by a participant, this phenomenon signals the Middle East’s “1989 moment”-an analogy drawn to the pivotal events that redefined the global landscape three decades prior. Thus, the discussions and interactions at the forum symbolized not just discourse, but a pivotal moment in the ongoing narrative of regional and global transformation.

Just as the fall of the Berlin Wall and the demise of communism in Eastern Europe marked the onset of a transformative era, the developments transpiring in Riyadh signify a monumental shift in the Middle Eastern landscape. The era of entrenched authoritarian rule and ideological steadfastness is waning, making way for a fresh ethos characterized by pragmatism, collaboration, and forward-thinking strategies. It’s a time where the region is embracing a new dawn of possibilities and progress.

The recent statements by US Secretary of State Antony Blinken emphasized the significant decision confronting the region: the choice between a trajectory marked by discord and turmoil or one defined by unity, security, and peace. As a crucial player in the region, the United States has unequivocally stated its position-a dedication to nurturing enhanced collaboration and stability that transcends historical rifts and ideological differences. This commitment signals a pivotal step towards fostering a more harmonious and secure future for all involved.

Central to this equation is the evolving relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia-a relationship marked by a convergence of interests and a shared vision for the future. Despite initial skepticism and geopolitical complexities, recent overtures signal a renewed sense of partnership and collaboration, extending beyond conventional security concerns to encompass a broad spectrum of mutual interests, from economic cooperation to technological innovation.

However, despite these diplomatic maneuvers and tactical adjustments, formidable obstacles persist. Foremost among them is the persistent Israeli-Palestinian conflict-a perennial source of tension that remains resistant to resolution. Saudi Arabia’s willingness to endorse Israel’s inclusion in the Arab and Muslim spheres is contingent upon a genuine dedication to pursuing a viable two-state resolution-a proposition entangled with intricate complexities and deep-rooted historical grievances. Addressing this issue remains a critical challenge in the pursuit of regional stability and harmony.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stands at a crucial juncture, torn between the demands of peace and the complexities of domestic politics. His decision not only shapes Israel’s trajectory but also resonates throughout the region, holding significant implications for lasting peace and stability.

Similarly, Hamas, entangled in a deadly conflict with Israel, faces the harsh realities of war juxtaposed with the necessity for peace. The pressing nature of the situation, compounded by humanitarian crises and regional dynamics, accentuates the need for prompt and resolute action. Both Netanyahu’s choices and Hamas’s responses are pivotal in determining the course of events, with far-reaching consequences for the prospects of peace and stability in the region.

Meanwhile, the specter of Iran looms large, casting a shadow over regional dynamics and geopolitical calculations. The Saudi-Iranian détente of March 2023 marked a significant milestone-a testament to the potential for rapprochement and cooperation in a region long characterized by animosity and mistrust. However, underlying tensions persist, underscoring the fragility of the regional equilibrium and the complexities of navigating geopolitical fault lines.

At this pivotal moment, the Middle East finds itself at a decisive crossroads-a point in history marked by choices whose consequences will echo for generations. As key players navigate the intricate terrain of geopolitics and the urgent need for peace, the road ahead appears both uncertain and pregnant with potential. Within the corridors of power and the arenas of diplomacy, the destiny of nations teeters on the edge-a poignant reminder of the enduring significance of visionary leadership, boldness, and diplomatic acumen in shaping not only the region’s fate but also the broader global landscape.

M A Hossain, political and defense analyst based in Bangladesh. He can be reached at: writetomahossain@gmail.com

   This article published at :

1. The Nation, Pak : 05 May'24

2. Pakistan Today, Pak : 06 May'24

3. The North Lines, India : 06 May'24

4. Asian Age, BD : 06 May'24

5. The Arabian Post, UAE : 04 May'24

6. Weekly Blitz, BD : 03 May '24

7. Indian Defence Review, India: 06 May'24

8. Daily Excelsior, J&K&L: 08May'24

9. Koshursamachar.com: India: 08 May'24