The UN in Its Labyrinth
Published in El Comercio
(Ecuador) on not listed
by José Ayala Lasso (link to original)
(Ecuador) on not listed
by José Ayala Lasso (link to original)
Translated from
by Miriam Rosen.
Edited by Emily France.
On September 23, President Obama announced that, with the support of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Qatar and various European countries, he had formed an international coalition to fight against the Islamic State, whose forces have been spreading terror through the Middle East. Soon after, the coalition carried out various attacks on the Islamic State group's military strongholds and financial centers.
The current U.N. General Assembly is the setting in which member countries present their point of view on the issue. The Security Council, in a heads of state-level meeting, unanimously approved a binding resolution condemning terrorism, which demands all countries to take measures to prevent their citizens from joining the ranks of Islamic fanaticism.
One year ago, an atmosphere of moderate optimism characterized the work of the U.N. General Assembly. Today, the religious rivalries and politics in the Middle East, together with other crises in Europe, Asia and Africa, have cast a shadow over the world. Yesterday there was speculation about the joint construction of a lasting peace. Now the planet is in flames and Obama, whose inertia was harshly criticized, has resolved to act and to lead a coalition to fight against terrorism. Yesterday's critics are now applauding his decision to attack the Islamic State group not only in Iraq, but also in Syria, with the concealed complacency of Assad.
However you analyze the situation, you can't hide the dramatic reality: that the real and potential dangers of terrorist activities hidden beneath fanatical religious interpretations threaten to bring us back to the dark times of intolerance and cruelty of the medieval era.
In this sense, Obama is right when he affirms that the fight is not between the United States and the Islamic State, but rather between all of humanity and a reign of terror. He's already had his first success in getting the participation of five Arab states of Sunni affiliation, which are willing to fight against the extremism of other Sunnis. The crisis has also shown that, in moments of chaos, the U.N. is the right environment for conversations and debates, and that the universal conscience tends to look to the United States when seeking action.
While the whole world rejects the terrorism of the Islamic State group, the solitary Ecuadorian chancellor has made public his disapproval of the "United States' offensive on Syrian territory that constitutes a violation of the state's sovereignty and a threat to its territorial integrity" without realizing that the most thankful for the actions of the coalition might be Assad, the tyrant, who is besieged by the Islamic State. The extreme to which ideological fanaticism drives people is abhorrent!
The current U.N. General Assembly is the setting in which member countries present their point of view on the issue. The Security Council, in a heads of state-level meeting, unanimously approved a binding resolution condemning terrorism, which demands all countries to take measures to prevent their citizens from joining the ranks of Islamic fanaticism.
One year ago, an atmosphere of moderate optimism characterized the work of the U.N. General Assembly. Today, the religious rivalries and politics in the Middle East, together with other crises in Europe, Asia and Africa, have cast a shadow over the world. Yesterday there was speculation about the joint construction of a lasting peace. Now the planet is in flames and Obama, whose inertia was harshly criticized, has resolved to act and to lead a coalition to fight against terrorism. Yesterday's critics are now applauding his decision to attack the Islamic State group not only in Iraq, but also in Syria, with the concealed complacency of Assad.
However you analyze the situation, you can't hide the dramatic reality: that the real and potential dangers of terrorist activities hidden beneath fanatical religious interpretations threaten to bring us back to the dark times of intolerance and cruelty of the medieval era.
In this sense, Obama is right when he affirms that the fight is not between the United States and the Islamic State, but rather between all of humanity and a reign of terror. He's already had his first success in getting the participation of five Arab states of Sunni affiliation, which are willing to fight against the extremism of other Sunnis. The crisis has also shown that, in moments of chaos, the U.N. is the right environment for conversations and debates, and that the universal conscience tends to look to the United States when seeking action.
While the whole world rejects the terrorism of the Islamic State group, the solitary Ecuadorian chancellor has made public his disapproval of the "United States' offensive on Syrian territory that constitutes a violation of the state's sovereignty and a threat to its territorial integrity" without realizing that the most thankful for the actions of the coalition might be Assad, the tyrant, who is besieged by the Islamic State. The extreme to which ideological fanaticism drives people is abhorrent!