International Laws and the Common: A Study Case of the UN Roles in the Middle East Conflicts

Abstract

The paper in hands attempts to explore the effectiveness of International Laws and policies as well as the roles of the United Nations in regulating the conflicts in the Middle East and their benefits for the people. The question the paper attempts to answer is whether such rules, resolutions , and policies are as objective as they are assumed to be. It does so by reviewing the interventions of the world superpowers on the one hand, and the UN on the other, in the conflicts prevailing in the Middle East. Such interventions, the paper postulates, were not as effective and objective as supposed to be. Instead, they were part of the problems and fueled the chaos in the Middle East. The resolutions made for the sake of peace, the attitudes towards the conflicts, the support lent to particular sides, the labels attributed to the events and groups and the efforts made to control the crises are motivated and politically, regionally and economically interested. Examples are taken from the Western attitudes towards the conflicting parties in Yemen, Syria, Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, The Gulf, Palestine, and Iraq. The Yemeni crisis is essential in this argument as it includes a broader circle of conflicting interests. The intervention of two of the wealthiest countries in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, from one side and Iran and Qatar from the other, has laid bare the real United Nations’ loyalties. In between, the common peoples’ hopes and aspirations of a good and peaceful life are crushed. The paper concludes that the laws and policies that are assumed to be meant for the welfare of the people regardless of their region, race or any other affiliations other than being humans, are compromised on several grounds. They, the examples have revealed, are rather tailored to serve some nations and political leaders than to maintain the well-being and dignity of the masses.