Egypt: Prisoner pardons should not fool anyone at the UN

Link

The international community must not be fooled by President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi’s veneer of reform and empty promises, said Amnesty International ahead of a speech at the UN General Assembly in New York later today.

The widely publicized prisoner pardons have yet to be implemented fully. While two Al Jazeera journalists, Mohamed Fahmy and Baher Mohamed, and several prominent activists were among those released on 23 September, seven activists remain in detention despite supposedly being pardoned last week.

“Most of those pardoned by President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi should never have been locked up in the first place because they were peacefully exercising their rights to freedom of expression and assembly. But given the authorities’ intolerance of peaceful dissent, the space vacated in prison cells by those freed in the pardon will be filled up again all too soon,” said Said Boumedouha, Deputy Middle East and North Africa Director at Amnesty International.

“The Egyptian authorities are effectively holding political prisoners like bargaining chips, releasing them only when politically expedient, or when they need to deflect international criticism of their appalling human rights record. The international community must not let al-Sisi and the Egyptian government off the hook because of the recent pardons.”

The prison authorities have been reluctant to release seven activists allegedly because they are facing pending charges in other cases. However, the pardon decree clearly states that all those pardoned should be released immediately unless they have been sentenced in other cases. The prison authorities also claim that some of them have appeals pending and should remain in detention until their appeal hearing- even though they have already been pardoned for these charges.

Two of the seven activists still behind bars includeMenat Alla Mostafa and Abrar Alaa Elenani, Mansoura University students who were sentenced to two years imprisonment in 2014 for taking part in a protest inside their university. Amnesty International considers both women to be prisoners of conscience detained solely for peacefully exercising their right to freedom of expression and assembly.

With some very noticeable omissions the list of those pardoned also spoke volumes about Egyptian government’s real commitment to the rule of law. Absent from the pardon were the well-known bloggers Alaa Abdel Fattah and Ahmed Douma, the 6th April youth activists Ahmed Maher and Mohamed Adel, as well as  human rights defender Mahienoor Elmasry. Also missing from the list were two other prisoners of conscience - photojournalist Mahmoud Abu Zeid, known as Shawkan, and detained student Mahmoud Hussein.

Amnesty International is aware of thousands more people across the country who have been languishing in Egyptian prisons under President al-Sisi’s rule including other journalists and activists.

“If the President wants to convince the UN General Assembly in his speech today that Egypt’s appalling human rights record is a thing of the past he will have to implement meaningful reforms including releasing the hundreds detained solely for exercising their rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly,” said Said Boumedouha.  

“States, including the USA and France, must halt the transfer to Egypt of small arms and ammunition and other policing equipment used to commit mass violations against protesters.”

Amnesty International has highlighted Egypt’s security forces’ frequent use of excessive lethal force against protesters and the judiciary’s sentencing of hundreds to death after blatantly unfair trials. Consequently it calls on all states to halt the transfer to Egypt of small arms and ammunition and other policing equipment used to commit mass violations against protesters.

Background:

Seven people who were imprisoned under a repressive protest law have been pardoned but remain in detention. They include:

• Menat Alla Mostafa and Abrar Alaa Elenani, who were imprisoned after protesting outside Mansoura University in 2014.
•  Nahed Sherif Abdel Hamid, and Momen Mohamed Ramadan Abdeltawab, who were imprisoned after protesting outside the president’s palace in Cairo in June 2014.
• Asmaa Abdelaziz Shehata, a former teacher from Giza who suffers from schizophrenia, who was imprisoned after protesting in Cairo.
• Mamdouh Gamal El Din and Mohamed Hossam El Din, who were imprisoned after protesting outside the Shura, one of the houses of parliament in Cairo. They remain in detention for committing a “misdemeanour” in prison.

Obama & Putin Spar at U.N.: Will Regime Change in Syria Further Destabilize War-Torn Nation?

Democracy Now!

"President Barack Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin held their first formal meeting in two years on Monday in New York to discuss Syria and Ukraine. During the 90-minute meeting, Obama and Putin agreed that their armed forces should hold talks to avoid coming into conflict in Syria, where fighting has killed more than 200,000 people and displaced millions. Both leaders addressed the United Nations Monday, with Putin defending Russia’s support for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, and Obama expressing willingness to work with Russia to resolve the crisis in Syria. According to reports, however, the United States ignored a Russian offer in 2012 to have Assad step aside at some point after peace talks had started between the regime and the opposition. And former Finnish president and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Martti Ahtisaari has said Western powers failed to seize on the 2012 proposal because the United States, Britain and France were convinced that the Syrian dictator was about to fall. Since then, tens of thousands more have been killed, and militants from ISIL have seized swaths of Syria. We talk about the crisis in Syria and the Obama-Putin meeting with Vijay Prashad, professor of international studies at Trinity College and columnist for the Indian magazine Frontline. He also is the author of several books, including "Arab Spring, Libyan Winter."...."

On the new, misguided, international approach to Syria

By: Burhan Ghalioun

Link

Comment: The international community is betraying the Syrian people by accepting the Russian-led bid to rehabilitate Bashar al-Assad in the name of fighting terrorism, argues former SNC head Burhan Ghalioun

With Russian forces deploying heavily to the Syrian coast, the Syrian war has entered a new phase.

The discussion is no longer about how Assad should step down, nor about the political solution and the impossibility of a military solution. It is now about how Assad can be rehabilitated, for how long - and about which powers he should retain in the interim.

This is a complete U-turn of the international position. 

In 2011, diplomatic efforts were focused on fulfilling the demands of the Syrian people, who rose up against a bloody and vicious regime, which immediately responded with violence to peaceful protests.

Since then, the regime has committed countless acts that international organisations have said amount to war crimes, crimes against humanity and even genocide against its own people.

There has been a complete U-turn in the international position on Syria

As a result, more than 100 nations came together under the Friends of Syria framework, and voted in favour of several UN General Assembly and Security Council resolutions condemning Assad and stressing his regime's loss of legitimacy, while recognising the Syrian opposition as the legitimate representative of the Syrian people.

International efforts thus focused, in the beginning, on affirming the legitimacy of the demands of the Syrian people, which were endorsed by most of the world's countries, emphasising the need for full political transition towards democracy. 

Shift towards the war on terror
Moscow's repeated vetoes at the Security Council obstructed international condemnation of the Syrian regime, but they did not dissuade the world from calling for Assad to step down, in the pursuance of political change in Syria and an end to the regime's mass murder of Syrian civilians.

At the time, the regime was still on the defensive, and most of its allies were too embarrassed to declare their support for Assad, who was under intense political, legal, ethical and even military pressure. 

Moscow justified its position by citing the failures of the Iraq and Libya interventions and the so-called legitimacy of the Syrian government.

However, since the collapse of the Geneva process - thanks to Russian and Iranian non-cooperation - the international diplomatic climate gradually started considering the idea of power-sharing between the regime and the opposition, even when the Syrian regime was refusing to acknowledge the existence of the opposition.

The Assad regime and its allies circumvented the central idea of the Geneva process, namely having a transitional governing body with full powers take over in Syria, to undermine the negotiations and buy time in the hope of achieving a military victory and routing the opposition.

The international community gradually accepted the idea of power-sharing between regime and opposition

Meanwhile, Moscow, Tehran and Cairo sought to undermine the Syrian National Coalition of Opposition Forces by facilitating alternative gatherings and meetings.

At the same time, these capitals overemphasised if not enabled the expansion of extremist forces, led by the Islamic State group, into the areas controlled by the opposition.

Soon thereafter, what Assad and his allies long dreamed of became a reality: the international community was left with two choices, either start dealing with the Assad regime or accept IS and its ilk.

In the past several months, this approach made significant progress. Many European countries have since subscribed to Russia's pretexts, showing increased apprehension vis-a-vis the expansion of terrorism at the price of increasingly ignoring the rights and future of the Syrian people.

Some Western powers no longer see Assad from the perspective of his serious human rights violations, but from the perspective of what he can offer in the war on terror, regardless of his crimes against his people.

This has only worsened because of the dismal failure of the US strategy in Syria, and the rising concerns regarding the imminent collapse of the regime in Damascus - following which Islamist groups could overrun the Syrian capital.

Russian intervention
Direct Russian military intervention is an attempt to take advantage of this floundering Western strategy in Syria. Russia wants to impose a new reality that was unthinkable at the start of the revolution.

Many European countries have subscribed to Russia's pretexts after the expansion of 'terrorism'

The Russian leader Vladimir Putin, by shoring up the Assad regime and forcing the Syrian people to accept this by force, wants to turn the tables against the Western nations and retake the initiative internationally.

His purpose: to force the United States and Europe to undo the sanctions on Moscow and recognise Russia's interests in Ukraine and elsewhere.

Saving the Assad regime is Russia's trump card to restore Russia's position in the international arena, and raise it to become on par with the United States - which no one dares second-guess or impose sanctions upon.

Arguably, this has been Russia's plan from the get-go. To Russia, Syria is little more than an opportunity to settle scores with the West and thwart Western global domination.

The same applies to Iran's strategy in Syria, which to Tehran was the gateway to regional expansion and international recognition, by supporting Assad and his regime.

The Russians did not come to Syria to fight IS and other terrorist organisations. They came to book their seat in any upcoming settlement, just like the Iranians sought to do before them, to force the international community to seek their help.

In truth, the Assad regime initiated this strategy of baiting terrorism, when it released al-Qaeda-affiliated and other radical detainees. The aim has been to blackmail the Syrians and the international community, and resist any negotiations and compromises regarding its grip over Syria.

Today, we are living what is perhaps the worst moment in the history of the Syrian question. Betrayals and bargains here and there have turned the political and diplomatic situation upside down.

Now, preserving and strengthening the Assad regime to stop the tide of terrorism - which it had itself unleashed - has become the goal of international efforts to end the conflict in Syria, rather than saving the Syrian people from their bloody ordeal and fulfilling their aspirations and rights.

The Russians did not come to Syria to fight IS but to book a seat in any upcoming settlement

The consolation prize will probably be a measly "national unity" government, meaning a government shared between the regime and opportunistic opposition figures.

The cause of the Syrian people has therefore been reduced to the humanitarian issue of the refugees.

In the meantime, the rehabilitation of the collapsing Assad regime has become the top priority of the greatest international political summit at the UN General Assembly.

The fate of the Russian intervention may not be better than that of the Iranian intervention.

Yet if the Russian-Iranian scheme for Syria were to succeed in saving Assad - instead of sending him to the ICC for being the world's worst mass-murderer in recent times - this will expose the fact that there is no longer any difference between international politics and organised crime.

It would mean that there is no longer any difference between governing and running international affairs, and running a mafia and its criminal interests.

This is the world that Putin's Russia wants us to live in.


Burhan Ghalioun is a Syrian professor of sociology, and the first chairman of the Syrian opposition Transitional National Council.

This is an edited translation from our Arabic edition.

في العمق- الثورة السورية بين التدخل الروسي والصمت الغربي

A VERY GOOD PROGRAM!

Emad Hajjaj's Cartoon: The West's Hypocrisy Concerning Assad

الغرب وبقاء الاسد !

المعارضة السورية تسيطر على سرية طرنجة بالقنيطرة

Journalism is Not a Crime: Freed Al Jazeera Reporter Peter Greste Seeks Pardon from Egypt

Democracy Now!

"Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi granted pardons to 100 people on Wednesday, including two jailed journalists from Al Jazeera—Mohamed Fahmy and Baher Mohamed. The two were initially arrested along with Australian journalist Peter Greste as part of a crackdown on Al Jazeera following the ouster of democratically elected President Mohamed Morsi in 2013 and served more than a year in prison. In a statement, Amnesty International said, "While these pardons come as a great relief, it is ludicrous that some of these people were even behind bars in the first place." Fahmy, Mohamed and Greste were initially sentenced to between seven and 10 years in prison for terrorism charges including "spreading false news" in support of the Muslim Brotherhood, deemed a "terrorist group" by the Egyptian government. While Fahmy and Mohamed have been pardoned, no pardon has been issued yet for Peter Greste, who has traveled to New York to lobby for a presidential pardon while el-Sisi is attending the United Nations General Assembly. We speak with Greste about the pardons of his colleagues as he continues to seek a pardon for himself...."

400 Days Locked Up: Journalist Peter Greste on Surviving Egyptian Prison Term

Democracy Now!

"Al Jazeera journalist Peter Greste remembers his time in prison in Egypt, where the government held him for broadcasting false news. "Prison anywhere is pretty tough experience. And Egyptian prisons are never the easiest. I was in two police cells before we actually entered the prison system. And I think the police cells were probably some of the toughest experiences of my life. One cell was a box about eight-foot square, and it had a toilet in one corner and a sink in the other and a door and a tiny little exhaust fan in the corner. There were 16 guys in that box. It was unbelievably crowded. It was impossibly, impossibly crowded. And there were a couple of guys who had been in there for about six months, with almost no time out of that at all. It was quite shocking."...."

Journalist Peter Greste Calls on Australia to End Secrecy over Offshore Asylum Detention Centers

Democracy Now!

"Before his own imprisonment by the Egyptian government, Al Jazeera journalist Peter Greste had reported on the refugee crisis around the world. He criticized his own Australian government for refusing press access to detention centers where refugees are being held. "They keep [asylum seekers] on islands away from the press. The press have been denied access to those areas. And I felt very, very strongly about this, that we’re not being denied access on national security grounds. It’s impossible, I think, to justify denying access to journalists to those detention centers, because in a democracy the government acts in our name, the government works for us, as voters, as taxpayers. And so, unless there is a very clear, very specific reason for denying us access on national security grounds—and I simply can’t see why there would be in the case of asylum seekers—then we need to know what is being done in our name.”..."

Obama at the UN: He Does What he is Best at: Flip-Flopping

Before we negotiate with Assad, he has to stop the atrocities against Syrian civilians

Ending Assad’s systematic attacks on his people is imperative – and key to any realistic strategy for containing Isis

AN EXCELLENT, EXCELLENT COMMENT!

Kenneth Roth
(Executive director of Human Rights Watch)

The Guardian

 ‘The result of Assad’s actions has been the utter devastation of broad swaths of Ghouta (pictured), Aleppo, Idlib, Daraa and other areas held by the opposition.’ Photograph: Bassam Khabieh/Reuters

Link

The need to negotiate with leaders as unsavoury as Syria’s Bashar al-Assad is an unfortunate reality of diplomacy. But western leaders should be careful not to confuse that necessity with the idea promoted by Russiathat the Syrian crisis can be resolved only if Assad stays in power. Nor should they believe that Assad’s ongoing rule is the only way to prevent the collapse of the Syrian state and protect Syria’s diverse communities.

Vladimir Putin has long sought to portray Assad as a bulwark against the self-declared Islamic State. But far from a stabilising factor or a solution to the Isis threat to basic rights, Assad is a major reason for the rise of extremist groups in Syria. In the early days of Syria’s uprising, between July and October 2011, Assad released from prison a number of jihadists who had fought in Iraq, many of whom went on to play leading roles in militant Islamist groups. These releases were part of broader amnesties, but Assad kept in prison those who backed the peaceful uprising.

 Cameron must include Assad in any strategy to defeat Isis in Syria

Avi Shlaim

Read more

These releases helped to change the complexion of the Syrian rebellion from one with largely democratic aims, to one dominated by jihadists. That transformation has enabled Assad to refocus the narrative from his vicious rule to his claimed indispensability in the fight against Isis.

Once Isis became a significant force following its takeover of Raqqa in 2013, Assad’s military largely avoided confronting it. Conflict between the two has increased since the summer of 2014, but for many critical months, Assad largely left Isis alone, allowing it to consolidate its “caliphate”. Instead, Assad focused his firepower on other elements of the armed opposition.

Ending Assad’s systematic attacks on civilians is key to any realistic strategy for containing Isis

Most important, Assad’s atrocities have been a recruitment bonanza for Isis and other extremist groups. The Syrian war has been so extraordinarily ugly because Assad has chosen to fight it not by simply targeting opposing combatants – the essence of wars fought in compliance with the Geneva Conventions – but by conducting indiscriminate attacks against civilians in opposition-held territory. His tools have ranged from denying civilians food and medical care to his notorious barrel bombs. The result has been the utter devastation of broad swaths of Ghouta, Aleppo, Idlib, Daraa and other areas held by the opposition. This warfare against civilians is a central reason for the flight of Syrian refugees, since it means that many can find no safe place within their country.

The evident rationale behind Assad’s strategy of war crimes has been to depopulate opposition-held areas, and to signal to other Syrians that they too will be attacked if the opposition prevails in their neighbourhoods. The chaos and vacuum left behind made it easier for Isis and other extremist groups to recruit fighters by arguing that they alone are actively opposing these mass atrocities. The hatred for Assad was evident in the difficulty the United States had trying to recruit people to fight only Isis.

 The four questions we need to answer before bombing Isis or Assad

Paul Mason

Read more

Indeed, the rage generated by Assad’s method of fighting the war is probably the greatest threat to the Syrian state. The governing structures of the state are distinct from the Assad regime that now controls them, but the longer Assad and his cohorts use state power to slaughter civilians, the fewer the people who will make that distinction. The collapse of the state, as opposed to an orderly transition of the ruling regime, would be catastrophic.

Ending Assad’s systematic attacks on civilians is key to any realistic strategy for containing Isis, rebuilding the social fabric that is essential to countering extremism and preserving a functioning Syrian state. Given the animosity that these attacks generate, curbing them is probably also a prerequisite to any successful peace talks.

Unfortunately, Russia and Iran, the principal proponents of engaging with Assad, have generated no visible pressure to stop this slaughter. On the contrary, Russia has opposed stepped-up efforts at the UN security council to curb Assad’s use of barrel bombs.

It is time to stop closing our eyes to these horrific crimes. Halting Assad’s atrocities, as well as those by other groups, should be the first item on the agenda for any negotiation.

Flower Power From Volkswagen

احتلال تجب مقاومته

A GOOD PIECE

ميشيل كيلو

Link

أرسلت روسيا قوات إلى سورية، حيث شرعت تبني قواعد عسكرية جوية وبرية وبحرية خاصة بها، بدءاً بالساحل، وسط تصريحات تؤكد أن وجودها ليس عارضاً أو عابراً، وأن جيش روسيا سيبقى في بلادنا فترة طويلة، ويريد لحضوره العسكري أن يبدل الواقع السياسي السوري، ويؤسس واقعاً بديلاً لن نلبث أن نتعرف، خلال فترة قريبة، على ملامحه الأولى، ومنعكساته السياسية الملموسة. بالمناسبة، تشير كثافة القواعد وسرعة بنائها إلى أن بقاء الروس في سورية يتخطى وضعها الراهن، وأنهم يبنون وجوداً دائماً وثابتاً لهم، يتجاوز النظام نفسه، ويجعل منهم جزءاً تكوينياً من واقعها، سواء تم أم لم يتم الوصول إلى حل دولي، يسوّي مشكلاتها، وينهي صراعاتها المحلية والإقليمية والدولية. 
لا يرتبط الوجود الروسي بوجود النظام، وإنْ تذرع بالحفاظ عليه، كي يقيم عندنا وضعاً استعمارياً بامتياز، ينتجه قرار أحادي الجانب أخذ في موسكو، أدى إلى احتلال جزء من بلادنا بالقوة، من دون أي غطاء من أية جهة سورية، تتمتع بشرعية دستورية أو شعبية، ومن دون موافقة أي طرف سوري مفوّض باستدعائها. إذا كان وجود الروس العسكري في بلادنا غير مرتبط بإرادتنا أو بقرار اتخذناه، وكان يترجم إرادة أجنبية قرّرت غزو واحتلال الساحل ومناطق سورية أخرى، ألا يكون وجوداً استعمارياً مخالفاً للقانون الدولي، ولقرارات الأمم المتحدة حول تصفية الاستعمار؟ ألا يندرج، أيضاً، في سياق احتلالي استهدف مشرقنا العربي، بدأ بفلسطين، وانخرطت فيه إيران البارحة، واليوم روسيا؟

لن يزول الحضور العسكري الروسي في بلادنا بزوال النظام، لو كان مرتبطاً به لما بدأ ببناء سلسلة قواعد من طبيعة استراتيجية ودائمة، تخالف إقامتها معارضة موسكو المعلنة للتدخل الأجنبي في البلدان الأخرى، واستخدامها حق النقض (الفيتو) ثلاث مرات في مجلس الأمن الدولي ضد احتمال، أو شبهة، تدخل غربي مزعوم، وتباهيها بحماية سورية من تدخلٍ كهذا. ما الذي جعل الكرملين ينقلب على سياساته، ويرسل جيشه إلى بلد عارض باستماتة تدخل الخارج فيه؟ وهل يعقل أن يكون قد فعل ذلك كي يؤسس وجوداً عسكرياً قصير، أو محدود، المدة، فيه؟ وهل نصدّق مزاعمه عن جدية سعيه إلى حل سياسي، سيرفع الغطاء عن وجوده عندنا، ويدفع السوريين إلى مطالبته بالرحيل عن بلادهم، لأن وجوده لم يعد ضرورياً فيها، بعد توقف القتال واستتباب الأمن؟ جاء الروس ليغيّروا قواعد اللعبة بين المعارضة والنظام، وخصوصاً منها التي مكّنت الجيش الحر من التغلب على جيش الأسد وإيران ومخابراتهما ومرتزقتهما. يريد الروس لجيشهم أن يفرض على المتصارعين مشروعاً يخرج النظام من هزائمه، ويُدرجه في نسق استراتيجي جديد، يحوّل دوره داخله إلى جهةٍ، لا يستغنى عنها ضمن تحالف دولي، يشركه في الحرب ضد الإرهاب، أي ضد معظم فصائل المعارضة، باعتبارها إرهابية. 
ماذا يبقى من أمل في حل سياسي روسي، يلبي مطالب الشعب السوري في مجتمع حر، ودولة مستقلة وسيدة، إذا كان النظام سيخرج من ورطته طرفاً يرفضه شعبه، وكانت نجاته من هزيمة وشيكة شرطاً لازماً لعدم خروج الروس من بلادنا؟ ماذا يبقى لنا، في هذه الحال، غير اعتبار الوجود الروسي حالاً استعمارية، ترفض التعايش أو التكيف معها لأيِّ سبب كان؟ أليس من المنطقي أن نواجه غزواً احتلالياً، يريد كسر إرادة الحرية في نفوسنا، وتضييع ما قدّمناه من تضحيات غالية في سبيل كرامتنا، بمقاومة وطنية شاملة، سبق أن واجهنا بما يماثلها كل من دخل بلادنا غازياً أو مستعمراً؟ 

لا بد من إطلاق المقاومة ضد الوجود الروسي، إلا إذا أعلن الروس التزامهم بتنفيذ قرار مجلس الأمن رقم 2118 ، ووثيقة "جنيف 1"، وتعهدوا بمغادرة بلادنا، وبأخذ بشار"هم" وحاشيته معهم إلى روسيا، خلال فترة ثلاثة أشهر. عندئذ، سيضع مقاومونا أيديهم على زناد بنادقهم، بانتظار تنفيذ الالتزام المزدوج. بما أنهم لن يفعلوا ذلك، لا يبقى أمامنا من خيار غير طردهم مع بشار"هم" من وطننا، وإنهاء معركتنا من أجل الحرية والاستقلال. 

حديث الثورة.. الحل بسوريا بين المبادرة الأميركية والتدخل الروسي

ما وراء الخبر- التنسيق بين السيسي وعباس بشأن غزة

WHAT DO YOU EXPECT FROM.......

عرب جرب

State of the world: In search of leadership

There are many world leaders, but why is there no leadership?

By Marwan Bishara

Link

Here they go again. And here I am: once again in New York as world leaders pose for photographers and deliver lofty speeches at the UN's "new year" party gathering. 

Judging from the attendance, the opening of the 70th session of the UN General Assembly promises to be no less of a tedious ritual than previous years.

And in the absence of the likes of Chavez, Gaddafi, and Ahmadinejad, it will even lack the political entertainment those populist leaders brought to the podium.

But dullness is nothing new and, considering our world's complex and urgent challenges, it's the least of its/our problems.

The problem as I see it as I look around: There are many world leaders, but no leadership.

Inside Story Americas - The US-China storm over Chen

Spiteful and pathetic

Instead of leading by example among the "Family of Nations", world leaders are acting like toxic in-laws. They come into town to preach that which they don’t practise, cause tensions, and create more problems than they solve.

The way I heard it, US President Barack Obama at first didn't want to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin on the sideline of the UNGA session, but then a meeting was set up hastily as both sides distanced themselves from asking for it. (Meanwhile, Putin declined a meeting with British Prime Minister David Cameron but accepted to meet with the British singer Elton John, who had asked for a meeting following Putin's inflammatory statement about homosexuality).

Obama and Putin will talk about Syria and Ukraine, but I doubt they will listen.

Such is the poor state of affairs among the UN in-laws. Political and diplomatic expediency dictate their communication, just as narrow interests hamper their cooperation.

Greetings, toasting and playing national anthems are as - or perhaps more - important than dealing with dying Syrians, or persecuted Rohingya.

When they do meet, as in last week's US-China summit, much of the preparation is centred on protocol, which apparently prompts other important or meaningful issues. Greetings, toasting, and playing national anthems are as - or perhaps more - important than dealing with dying Syrians or persecuted Rohingya.

What does the G-2 stand for?

Presidents Obama and Xi seemed to have decided, out of domestic concerns, that they can't or won't do much for each other, and, therefore, ensured that their summit included all the trappings of success but without any concrete achievements.

The Washington Post reported that the White House state dinner featured lavish dresses, tech titans, and Hollywood heavyweights - but there was little or no progress to report on currency manipulation and cyber espionage, etc, let alone Asian security and world poverty. (The silver lining: Michelle Obama wore a dress by Chinese-American designer Vera Wang).

All of which dampens the hopes (wrongly) pinned on the new dynamics between G-2 powers - US and China - to responsibly manage the global economy, especially following the last international financial crisis.

Alas, they proved that they couldn't even act responsibly in Southeast Asia, where they're further complicating the security and economic landscape instead of improving it.

---

Also read: Can anyone stop the killing in Syria?

---

And while the US, Russia, and China fail the test of leadership, those in their shadows are incapable of coordinating among themselves or making the leap towards more meaningful roles.

US President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama await the arrival of Chinese President Xi Jinping for a State Dinner at the White House [REUTERS]

Even Europe, which is presumably more capable than the rest to act globally, has been either terribly divided or playing catch-up with the US and Russia.

When was the last time you heard of Japan, India or the UK taking an international initiative of any sort? How effective is the group of G-20 when the leading G-2 fail to lead? 

Brazil, India, and Germany might seek a permanent seat at the UN Security Council, but how will that lead to better world governance?

Ever since the world moved away from bipolarity of the Cold War, it's been torn between the unipolarity of US leadership, the new bipolarity of the US and China, and multipolarity of various world powers and groupings.

In other words: The old world order is no more, but there's no new world order either.

The confusion allows all to blame all, and in the process, everyone escapes accountability for their lack of international responsibility.

Lessons in leadership

For all practical purposes, world leaders have set themselves up to be lectured like amateurs on the rights and wrongs of leadership by an unlikely mentor.

---

Also read: The pontiff should highlight Palestine

---

Pope Francis, the head of the Catholic Church, lectured his audience at the UN with clarity, boldness, and conviction that is lacking in great power politics.

Among other reprimands, the pope rebuked world leaders for failing to put an end to the many conflicts in the world, particularly in the Middle East, and for putting partisan interests above real human beings (notwithstanding, his neglect to talk about Palestine).

The pontiff even scolded the global financial institutions that subject countries to oppressive lending systems and subject people to mechanisms, which generate "greater poverty, exclusion, and dependence".

The secretary-general for Amnesty International, Salil Shetty, also accused the powerful leaders of hypocrisy as they lecture about peace while being the world's largest manufacturers of arms, and how they rail against corruption while allowing corporations to use financial and tax loopholes.

Tower of Babel?

None of these leadership failures or shortcomings diminishes the importance of the UN and its role in the global scene.

There is no escape from the verbal diarrhoea at the UN headquarters in the coming few days. But babble doesn't mean transforming the UN into the Tower of Babel.

The world is better off with a UN than without one. The UN remains an indispensable world forum to coordinate policies, voice grievances, and even take collective action.

But the effectiveness of the world body is determined only by the efficacy of the leaders of its member states, notably those permanent residents of the UN Security Council - the world's government.

One could only hope that beyond their wooden speeches, their formal or informal meetings on the sidelines of the assembly will produce more than just frowns and yawns.

Yes, the world is better off when leaders act in their nations' best interests. But civilisation is best served when leaders also act in the best interest of their region and that of the community of nations.

That requires leadership.

Marwan Bishara is the senior political analyst at Al Jazeera.