In 1945, the victors of WW2 (the old powers) dismantled their empires, freed the societies that they vanquished during WW2 and the societies that they were dominating, and then invited them back to carry out the obligation contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) to secure the goals enshrined in the UN Charter. Most importantly, the victors of WW2 announced to all the societies that they invited to participate in securing the postwar world order that they sketched its blueprint in the UDHR, that it would be controlled by the United States, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and China, and that the United States would be taking over the role of global policeman from Great Britain.

This year marks the 80th anniversary of the combined efforts of the victor, vanquished, and freed to accomplish the aims suggested in the UN Charter.

Interestingly, each year the societies that were regarded as victors during WW2 (the Allies), the societies that were vanquished (the Axis), and the societies that were freed (all the societies minus the Allies and the Axis) organize a general assembly in which they discuss international issues, make recommendations, and decide on matters covered in the UN Charter.

In this year’s gathering, it is noticeable in the presentations and discussions that heads of state are shifting from focusing on reporting the progress made by states in securing the standards suggested in the UN Charter to discussing how the international order should be organized and structured.

In the private sector, companies organize annual meetings so participants (shareholders, management, etc.) can elect directors, review financial performance, and vote on important corporate matters. In these annual meetings, company managers provide updates on operations and financial performance, rather than on how shareholders should organize the international order to achieve peace and security.

I don’t know if the WW2 victors (the old powers) dismantled their empires, freed the societies they conquered, and invited them back to advise on how to structure the international order or to fulfill the UDHR’s obligations so the UN Charter’s standards could be met. What I do know is that the declarations (or war aims) made by the victors of WW2 after defeating their adversaries during WW2 do not suggest anywhere that they dismantled their empires, freed the societies they vanquished, and dominated to transcend national boundaries and suggest to them how the international order should be organized and structured.

One of two scenarios could be motivating this overstepping of the heads of state’s job descriptions. The first is if the heirs of the old powers (the victors of WW2) believe that they are invincible. The second is if the heirs of the old powers are permitting too many cooks (individuals) to violate the UN Charter or the UDHR (i.e., their job description).

I do not know which scenario between the aforementioned two is preventing the critical thinkers and servants (governments and international institutions) of the heirs of the old powers from observing the work program legitimized in the UN Charter or the UDHR, forcing people across the globe to rely on their personal power and conscience to achieve their way despite the resistance of others. What I do know is that if the critical thinkers and servants (governments and international institutions) of the heirs of the old powers continue to be against aligning their actions with the work program legitimized in the UN Charter or the UDHR, it would not be possible for the heirs of the old powers to coerce them into surrendering freedom to them and staying with them without applying force. This situation is very serious and worrisome.

To put it differently, when a gardener finds that his plant is not reaching its full potential, he tries first to verify soil moisture, light exposure, container size/drainage, etc. If this procedure does not diagnose the issue, the gardener then applies a fertilizer and pesticide, prunes weak stems, and applies mulch to enhance the plant’s health and encourage better growth. However, when the gardener runs out of options, routine care methods, or learning opportunities to save a plant, he will have no other choice but to replace the dying or dead plant. In other words, the plan that the gardener follows to save his underperforming plant consists of forcing the plant to be healthy first, but when the plant’s health does not improve, he applies more force and uproots it from the soil.

The way gardeners act when they deem that a plant that they are trying to save is a “lost cause” is not any different from how most people reason and react when dealing with conditions that share comparable characteristics or features. For example, since 1945, whenever the heirs of the old powers are establishing that a government must be ousted to stop its members from posing a threat to the maintenance of their strength and security or to other neighboring societies, they are stripping the individuals involved of political power and appointing new people.

If the heirs of the old powers are using the same methods as gardeners to decide the fate of a plant that cannot be saved—specifically, uprooting the dead or unsalvageable plant and replacing it with a new, healthy one—to prevent its unhealthy signs from threatening other plants and to maintain a productive and attractive garden, then the insecurity that has spread worldwide in recent years may stem from two motives. The first motive is that the heirs of the old powers assume that removing individuals they perceive as threats to their strength and security will rejuvenate their power, similar to how the families and dynasties controlling the Roman Empire believed that killing Jesus, Socrates, and others would enhance their resilience, although we later learned that this was not true. The second is due to the heirs of the old powers refusing to appoint (select) new servants (kings, presidents, chiefs, judges, public officials, etc.) who are trustworthy and who hate dishonest gain.

Throughout history, force failed to break the will of the people but proved that for every action, there is always an equal and opposed reaction. The families/dynasties that were controlling and commanding the Roman Empire were converted to a simpler form because they perceived that the reaction that people were demonstrating to the bias, injustice, corruption, brutality, and oppression that they were permitting was not destabilizing their power or strengthening the steadfastness, attachments to principles, endurance, etc., of citizens.

Could the insecurity that swept the Middle East in recent years be due to the failure of the heirs of the old powers to completely remove, tear down, or destroy the regimes that they appointed in the aftermath of WW2 in this territory but have since permitted them to regard themselves as exempt from observing the appeals suggested in the UN Charter or the UDHR? Could the refusal of the heirs of the old powers to appoint trustworthy new leaders (such as kings, presidents, chiefs, judges, and public officials) who oppose dishonest gain be worsening the current situation or contributing to the chaos that people are witnessing in this region? What effect could such upheaval have on the power, wealth, and status of the heirs of the old powers?

To put it differently, people use demarcation to determine the boundary or limit of something. Demarcation offers control and security, serving as the initial line of defense. For instance, the human skin serves as the primary barrier, preventing pathogens from infiltrating the body and causing infection. Politically, the Middle East has consistently served as a buffer between Western and Eastern doctrines and cultures, akin to the interaction between two tectonic plates or the intersection of fresh and salt water.

The unwillingness of the old powers (the victors of WW2) and later their heirs to appoint critical thinkers and servants (kings, presidents, rulers, the political class, judges, etc.) who are prepared to observe the work program suggested in constitutions, religious books, the UN Charter, the UDHR, etc., prevents the heirs of the old powers from keeping the western and eastern cultures that are constantly in motion and repelling each other from establishing balance in the Middle East, in the same way water engineers create balance where fresh and salt water meet to prevent the rise of seawater levels from intruding inland into freshwater aquifers.

Accordingly, the constant crises (conflicts, wars, etc.) that the Middle East has known since 1945 due to the heirs of the old powers (the victors of WW2) initially and later their heirs refusing to appoint qualified men who are trustworthy and who hate dishonest gain to secure the work program suggested in the UDHR and the UN Charter, including replacing those servants (kings, presidents, political class, judges, etc.) that they uproot with servants who are worse, require that the heirs of the powers be constantly diagnosing and treating the underperformance of the servants that they appoint in the same way a gardener treats an underperforming plant. This signifies that if the kings, presidents, etc. that the heirs of the old powers depend on to maintain peace and security in the Middle East continue to be unprepared to observe the standards suggested in the UN Charter or the UDHR, then the heirs of the old powers have no other choice but to replace the families/dynasties that are deputizing for them in those societies in the same way a gardener replaces a plant when he fails to revive it or consider it to be a “lost cause.”

Indeed, the series of pro-democracy anti-government protests, uprisings, and armed rebellions that began spreading across much of the Arab world since the early 2010s, culminating in the Israeli-Hamas war (Gaza war) that erupted on October 7, 2023, could be part of a covert plan taken by the heirs of the old powers to remove and replace the families/dynasties that were deputizing for them in the Middle East with new ones.

At the same time, the inability of the new servants (kings, presidents, political class, judges, etc.) whom the heirs of the old powers are appointing to control the societies that they tore down from their corrupt leaders, rulers, etc. in the Middle East hints at a much bigger problem.

To put it differently, if the new servants (kings, presidents, political class, judges, etc.) whom the heirs of the old powers are appointing to control the societies that they tore down—its corrupt leaders, rulers, etc.—in the Middle East are incapable of reducing confusion, corruption, prejudice, and hate, this signifies that the societies involved are afflicted with levels of hardships that are incurable. Throughout history, all the societies, kingdoms, and empires whose citizens refused to speak the same language and were ill with the curse of truth were either destroyed or incorporated by another growing power. This situation is very serious and worrisome.

TTo put it differently, if the new leaders (including kings, presidents, the political class, judges, etc.) appointed by the heirs of the old powers to control the societies they are dismantling—who are their corrupt leaders and rulers in the Middle East—continue to be unprepared to prioritize truth, then it will be impossible to maintain a stable interface or line of defense between Western and Eastern cultures and to prevent these societies from descending into political tribalism. When truth and trust diminish and law and order become a theater, the world becomes less safe.

When people become pessimistic, divided, depressed, concerned, and hopeless, they cannot prevent their distinctive identities (race, color, sex, religion, and political affiliation) from superseding their local identity. For instance, Jews, Scientologists, and Mormons are powerful in America because they are well-connected and support each other, not because they follow the US Constitution, the UN Charter, or the UDHR. The heirs of the old powers cannot maintain their strength and security when people build tribal islands within societies and embed within tribal doctrines or cultures, but they can when such a number shrinks and begins to let governance be based on egalitarian standards or norms. That is to say, the old powers (the victors of WW2) did not dismantle their empires in 1945, free the societies that they vanquished during WW2 and the societies that they were dominating, and then invite them back to set up tribal islands that they use to get their way despite the resistance of others, but rather to assimilate and carry out the obligation contained in the UDHR to secure the goals enshrined in the UN Charter. For example, America does not become great again by citizens calling themselves Jewish American, Italian American, Muslim American, Chinese American, etc., but by calling themselves Americans.

Could the heirs of the old powers (the victors of WW2) maintain their strength and stability after dismantling their empires and allowing advances in communications and transportation to lead their critical thinkers and servants (governments and international institutions) to prioritize their interests over those of their masters (i.e., the heirs of the old powers) and the people who remain loyal to them, thereby granting them more power than others?

Once again, I cannot know how the heirs of the old powers plan to maintain their political control, so the drawbacks their predecessors dealt with when they permitted their critical thinkers and servants (governments and international organizations) to regard themselves as exempt from observing the standards they were legitimizing and enforcing do not recur. What I do know is that their future approach cannot involve teaching the societies that they vanquished during WW2 and the societies that they were dominating with the colonial method after they freed them and then allowed them to swim against the tide (i.e., struggle against the global nature of capitalism, which is no longer contained within a society or state). Therefore if the heirs of the old powers can only regain power by having popular movements topple current regimes in hopes of turning outlaws into lawmen who will establish order, protect them, or reset the clock, can they make people accept their return to power after they dismantled their empires and allowed the curse of truth to spread worldwide?

Throughout history, many outlaws and warlords have abandoned their past, “put on a badge,” and then embraced the role of lawman after they realized how much such a transition (reinvention) could offer them the same relevance or power base. Indeed, the decision of the heirs of the old powers to fill the power vacuum that the toppling of standing regimes creates with outlaws and warlords turned lawmen is essential to reset the international order so its command and control start to respond to today’s reality. And yes, it is a lot easier to have Ahmad al-Sharaa, the new president of Syria, hand over to them (the heirs of the old powers) command and control of the national institutions in the country so such apparatuses can be refitted or upgraded so artificial intelligence can exercise control over such mechanisms than if Bashar al-Assad stayed doing it, as he would be expecting to have a share in the power and profit. But the question that begs answers is simple and straightforward. The phrase “a fish rots from the head down” conveys the idea that problems or fundamental issues are often the responsibility of high-ranking officials or leaders. Can the heirs of the old powers prevent their influence from diminishing after they transformed the annual meetings they organize with their critical thinkers and servants (governments and international institutions) at the UN from being a review of their performance to insisting on achieving outcomes that ensure equal rights?

In conclusion, the Bible suggests that after Jesus was crucified, the people who were threatened by his movement and teaching followed his twelve principal disciples, and whoever was caught was assassinated or crucified. However, history books indicate that no political or social force could halt the growth of the Christian movement, which continued to gain power over time, ultimately challenging the families and dynasties that controlled the Roman Empire and reducing their influence to a more basic form. Could the heirs of the old powers ensure people honor them after they let their critical thinkers and servants (governments and international institutions) portray their defeat as inevitable to increase public happiness?