UNGA and Muslim-Arab peacekeeping force

I have two key takeaways from the speeches of world leaders and the events unfolding on the sidelines of the ongoing United Nations General Assembly session. The first is on the subject of climate change, and the other on the possibility of the deployment of a Muslim-Arab peacekeeping force in Gaza. The UN General Assembly continues to bring together world leaders, some of whom represent the most powerful countries in the world. Their speeches, as we hear them, remind us of the current challenges that the world faces and how it may strategise to overcome them. Ironically, this gathering of the world leaders, as always, is dominated by a striking backdrop of great powers' competition, power struggles and material interests.

Tragic mistakes committed by some of the world leaders in the past continue to remind us that the idea of global history being shaped by dark episodes is unending. The General Assembly is the main organ of the United Nations, and its higher sense of purpose is to unite the world, which is not possible unless it builds and represents a global reality that is based on adherence to a consensus built around an uncompromising truth. Be it climate change or deployment of a peacekeeping force in Gaza, the moral obligation of all stakeholders is not to twist any reality but to try and develop a consensus on accurate aspects of a given reality.

First the climate change, and how the current session of the UN General Assembly clearly indicates that the world is more divided than united on the subject. In their address to the UN General Assembly, the leaders of two great powers, the United States and China, demonstrated how these two great powers hold absolutely divergent views on one of the greatest challenges the world faces.

President Xi Jinping of China, who did not travel to the UN and gave his speech via a video link, pledged for the first time to reduce increasing emissions by 7 to 10 % by 2035. Given that China is a major global polluter, this was a significant announcement made by President Xi. However, President Trump, in his speech, termed climate change 'the greatest con job' ever perpetrated on the world. Is the threat of climate change staged? A con job is considered deceitful and meant to benefit those who stage it, so by that definition, is the United States under President Trump, who is pushing for the revival of fossil fuel-based energy, perpetrating a con job, or President Xi of China, together with the rest of the world that is inclined to pursue green energy policies?

President Trump's anti-climate policies are based on the premise that climate change policies are economically harmful and act in ways that damage national economies. The American oil and gas industry (fossil fuel sector) supports 8% of the United States' GDP, and in terms of energy production, fossil fuels (petroleum, natural gas and coal) accounted for roughly 84% of the United States' primary energy production in 2023. So, it seems that the notion of 'America First' and the American national interest dominate the United States' anti-climate policies more than the global interest. So, if the world has to combat the increasing ill effects of climate change, then American climate policy must be framed based on the global concerns rather than its own national interests.

Deploying any peacekeeping force with a clear mandate is a dangerous business. Let me give two examples. American, French, Italian, and later British troops were deployed in Lebanon (1982-84) with a mandate to create stability in Lebanon after the Israeli invasion and the PLO's evacuation. A suicide bombing killed 241 US Marines and 53 French troops in 1983. The deployed force was seen as siding with one faction, and the mission became a target of another faction.

The second example is of Bosnia. In the Bosnian war, the UN deployed lightly armed peacekeepers who failed to prevent the massacre in Srebrenica, and it was only after NATO's intervention that relative stabilisation in Bosnia was achieved. The initially deployed peacekeeping force was neither non-combat, performing a humanitarian role, nor was it fully equipped to undertake a robust combat mission, and resultantly failed. Taking lead from these two examples, any Muslim-Arab peacekeeping force that may be deployed in Gaza should have a clear mandate and be carefully balanced to attain both Palestinian and Israeli acceptance.

People of Gaza have suffered massive civilian casualties, destruction and displacement. Any Muslim peacekeeping force that may be deployed is surely biased towards the Palestinian cause, as Israeli military action in Gaza is generally considered a genocide among the Muslim nations. Even if endorsed by the US, the UN, Arab League and OIC, the force may be more tolerable to the people of Gaza than Israel, and without Israel's cooperation in matters of shared intelligence, border access and airspace, the peacekeeping force may not be able to achieve the desired goals. Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad may also view such a force as an extension of the US-Israel joint attempt to eventually disarm, control and extinguish them as a potent force. But before all this, the main question is the likelihood of a ceasefire, the return of hostages and the right of return of the displaced Palestinians to the major part of the Gaza Strip that is now under Israeli occupation.

Nothing concrete came out about the discussions that took place during the meeting on the sidelines of the UN between President Trump and the leaders of Turkey, Jordan, the UAE, Qatar, Egypt, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. President Trump called the meeting successful, and President Erdogan termed it fruitful. If these Muslim countries expressed their willingness and readiness in contributing to the deployment of a Muslim-Arab peacekeeping force in Gaza, then, unlike this meeting behind closed doors, the entire matter of constituting such a force must be publicly debated and all eventualities considered before such an action is taken by the individual states.

The only bright part of the deployment of such a peacekeeping force is the buffer that this force may be able to create between the unarmed Palestinian people in Gaza and the invading Israeli army. People of Gaza may see this as a great hope and relief, but for the peacekeeping force itself, it may be a mission filled with high-risk possibilities.