OPINION: A changing world order

The recently concluded annual high-level meeting of the United Nations General Assembly in New York showcased American power in a changed international environment. A fractured international system did not find any substitute for U.S. leadership in identifying a shared view of the world’s ills nor a common vision for finding solutions. President Donald Trump’s pronouncement to the world: “Your countries are going to hell,” was certainly a departure from past presidential addresses. His address focused on the ills of illegal migration and the ongoing wars. Other leaders focused on ongoing wars and the need for resolution. Neither the possible role of the United Nations nor means of making that role an effective one were discussed.

Over the past eight decades, the international system evolved under U.S. leadership. American power was used in setting up multilateral institutions even as the rivalry with the former Soviet Union created the East-West divide. When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the U.S. was the sole hegemonic power with a series of allies who partnered in common enterprises. Presidents of both major parties referred to the U.S. as the “indispensable nation.” The burden of that position increased with time, and Washington, D.C., grew weary of its global responsibilities. The American electorate grew disenchanted with commitments and treasure committed to distant lands when domestic needs remained unfulfilled.

Trump made burden sharing by U.S. allies a rallying cry. “America first” meant that foreign entanglements were to be eschewed. Shared interests meant shared expenses. From NATO to bilateral relations, Washington made it clear that old assumptions of American burden-carrying would no longer apply, leading other nations to openly talk about a post-American world for multilateral relations.

In the Trump administration, the commitment to a powerful U.S. military remains firm, and the newly renamed Defense Department to the Department of War is meant to reflect war readiness and maintenance of U.S. military supremacy. The president will decide where and when American prowess will be employed. As the newly concluded agreement for Middle East peace demonstrates, other countries will likely carry the burden of military deployment to Gaza as a stabilization force. But all recognize that Trump’s oversight of events underpins any chance of success in bringing peace to the region.

Already, the cluster of nations present for the summit in Sharm al Sheikh on Oct. 13 is a departure from past peace processes. Attendees in the new effort at Israeli Palestinian peace represent some key Arab countries, such as Egypt and Jordan, major European nations, the oil rich Gulf states, Turkey and Pakistan. The table in 2025 is larger than that for the Madrid Peace Conference of 1991 or the Oslo Accords signed in 1993. Some of the Arab states of previous time — Syria, Lebanon — are absent at Sharm El Sheikh. Missing from the signing ceremony was Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, citing observance of a Jewish holiday as the reason.

It is worth noting that U.S. stewardship of the peace agreement and its expected implementation by several countries is occurring at the very time that traditional alliances have been downplayed by Washington. American troops are neither promised nor expected in the stabilization force to be deployed in Gaza. Presumably, neither is American treasure.

In changing the dynamic of the broader Middle East, the above model steps away from that prevailing in the aftermath of World War II where the Marshall Plan underwrote European recovery just as the presence of American troops in Europe and elsewhere provided security.

The task ahead for the U.S. president is ambitious and unique. He has stopped the fighting and offered a vision of a Gaza rising from the ashes! It is a huge endeavor and will likely require his involvement in cajoling the warring parties to a permanent solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a vexing problem for the past 70-plus years.

The advisory role of the U.S. should not be underestimated, even with no boots on the ground. In forging agreements for Israeli withdrawal and the disarming of Hamas, monitoring the implementation of agreements with a high level of confidence will be key. Only then will any peace agreement get traction on the ground.

Here, New Mexico’s Sandia National Labs Cooperative Monitoring Center can play an important role. With its decades of experience in confidence-building measures in the conflict-prone Middle East and between India and Pakistan, this unique Sandia institution can offer tested ideas for peacebuilding and needs to be brought to the attention of those relevant in Washington.