A scientist on the brink of the abyss – Dr. Abdullah bin Musa Al -Tayer
Dr. Abdullah bin Musa Al -Tayer
In conjunction with the hope that US President Donald Trump preached, promising peace coming to the region, the British Prime Minister’s statement the next day said that “the extreme uncertainty makes peace out of reach” waves of global anxiety. The statement came from Britain, which I consider the mastermind of global politics, compared to America, which is often more like implementation muscles.
The British permit, even if its goal is to market a deal to buy combat aircraft from America to local public opinion, his reading in the context of the moment warns of a comprehensive ruin.
NATO (NATO) unanimously agreed to increase military spending to 5 % of the gross domestic product, and this increase does not go to the budget of the alliance but rather to build military capabilities at the level of each member state, and America decided to deploy 700 F-35 fighter aircraft in Europe, and the British deal to buy American fighters capable of carrying nuclear warheads, combined to a world that is preparing for conflict Armed.
The legitimate question and this case is: Did the world witness this level of uncertainty before, and why does the scene seem to be risky?
The feeling of uncertainty restores to human memory historical moments in which the world forces stood on the brink of the disaster.
In the early twentieth century, and before the First World War, the arms race created a state of lack of confidence between the influential international powers, and reached the stage of congestion that needed an explosion, and that was only the assassination of Austria’s Austria Franz Ferdinand in 1914 AD, which made the spark of war. The assassination incident could have passed peacefully like any other accidents if the state of suspicion, anticipation and anxiety had not reached its climax.
Likewise, the period between the two world wars in the 1930s witnessed an economic collapse, the return of nationalism to the fore, and the encouragement of the policies of appealed to aggressive systems, to reach its peak in World War II.
In both times, uncertainty arose in the absence of active diplomatic channels, and due to mutual and growing doubt, and in the belief that military power can achieve permanent peace.
Today, the challenges are related to each other, and geopolitical tensions instead of making a multi -polar world, one power cannot be dictated, conditions for one international actor, imposing its conditions on everyone, and they must hear and obey.
On the other hand, the economic fragility that was exacerbated by inflation, the interruptions of supply chains, and energy crises, fed local turmoil and populist movements that pressure international cooperation frameworks.
Climate change, migration and resource scarcity add a degree of ambiguity and inability to predict the future. At the same time, technological developments in armaments are surpassed internationally compatible frameworks for controlling it, leaving the strong states in a permanent state of madness.
The cold war can be referred to in the context of the precedent, as the competition between the United States and the Soviet Union was characterized by ideological polarization and the policy of the nuclear abyss, but the bipolar framework enjoyed a predictive rules where the principle of mutual deterrence without a direct conflict between the western and eastern powers has occurred, and institutions such as the United Nations provided forums for dialogue between the two parties.
Today, the mechanisms of deterrence and dialogue are almost broken, as the spread of actors from non -states, hybrid war, and disintegration campaigns, obscuring the lines separating peace and conflict, and contrary to the structure that prevailed during the Cold War, the current scene seems chaotic, in the absence of a common understanding of red lines or the mechanisms of reducing escalation, which makes the spark that the explosion requires is available and cheap.
What increases this ambiguity and the horror of erosion of confidence in multilateral institutions, and internal polarization in Western democracies, which weakened their ability to show a unified position, in addition to the speed of transmission of information that increases the anxiety of the masses, which makes the responses of the countries studied challenges more difficult, sympathetic to these introductions, the British Prime Minister’s statement threatens to escalate this session of fear and reactions.
So that we do not cross the bridge before its arrival, nor do we increase the souls, because history offers, along with the dark approaches, a ray of hope as well. Crises such as the Cuban missile crisis in 1962 AD showed that even on the brink of the abyss, diplomacy can win when the leaders give priority to dialogue at the expense of dignity and personal pride.
