The fervor with which the geostrategic race is intensifying takes on a new dimension every day. The idea of ​​challenging the unipolar world has its own operationalization like never before. The latter is for now in words, less in practice. In addition to the main triggers that we constantly talk about in this context and on this forum, a group of states that were somehow loyal, but somehow kept on the sidelines, seemed to line up in order to challenge the unipolar liberal-democratic dominance. Although we cannot say that they have a radical approach as part of the leaders of the challenge, for example Russia, which is ready to challenge the unipolar world not only through information and diplomacy but also in the sphere of the economy and worst of all with the use of force.

In this context, just to recall, official Moscow and Beijing accuse the West of trying to impose universalism on values, perceptions and attitudes. In the ranks of such a challenge, for the time being through an emphasized narrative, is the Arab world which, after the withdrawal first of the United States, and then of the coalition of countries that supported them in the efforts against global terrorism from Afghanistan, somehow lost the primacy in information from the "mainstream" media. . This is perhaps understandable because of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the strained relations in the Pacific. But the importance of the Arab world does not come only because of the war on terror. This world is still important not only because of the energy power, but also because of the "factorization" that began to be done at the height of the promotion of globalization as a necessary good.

Just remember how, parallel to the promotion of Euro-Atlantic values, some of the countries of the Gulf began to have their influence in the region as a wedge. The United Arab Emirates (UAE), the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia-SA, and even Qatar are the most dominant countries that somehow spontaneously and in the style of "doo-nat rock da bol - mood" got by with a series of investments in the past years and it appears here and there in some reports on the influence of authoritarian regimes in the region. Just to illustrate, the UAE and SA are mentioned in several reports as regimes that participate in stimulating local corruption, especially defense corruption. If you remember, some of the NATO and EU countries, but also the countries of the Partnership for Peace, like Serbia, were involved in scandals of circumventing the EU criteria for the delivery of weapons and the EU directives on how and where they can be delivered. . In that context, Croatia, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Serbia, Bosnia, and even Montenegro appeared as countries where certificates and end users of arms deliveries were changed and in which a significant corruption scheme related to the local authorities of these countries was exposed. However, all that was somehow neglected under the guise of other priorities. Perhaps very similar, as the EU leaders' attempt to show determination in ending energy dependence on Russia due to the illegal invasion of Ukraine, which flew from one authoritarian regime into the arms of another - Qatar. When they were asked for the sake of transparency and accountability, by independent journalists about the supplier difference, somehow the answers were forgotten or spilled into the series of problems and scandals also related to lobbying for some of these regimes. The point of the conversation is that in the race with the main leaders of the challenge of liberal-democratic dominance, these players (from the Arab world) should be forgotten, and they are also crucial for four reasons. First, while the push for renewable energy sources is as healthy and serious as ever, there are growing reports that the alternative to traditional energy sources is not so promising (more on this in the next issue). If you add to this the Western "consumerism" that is the main mantra sold in the promotion of the liberal-democratic world (such as conveniences, technological progress and superiority), then there is a serious problem about freedom, creativity, but also when choosing alternatives for partnerships (referring to Russia's energy power and China's labor and manufacturing supply line, at its mildest). Second, the feeling in the Arab world, without going into the justification, that the West wants them as partners only because of the privileged access to energy, although in reality it despises them.

While there are those who will provide a range of examples of alternative political maneuvers or statements, just look at the latest interview of Arab News Editor-in-Chief Faisal Abbas on the geopolitical show Going Underground. He speaks very openly about the defiance towards the Western world. To be honest, on several occasions the man emphasized that Western friends are important, but in the whole interview there is a prevailing defiance and an emphasized need for autonomy in making decisions regarding Al-Assad's return to the Arab League, the transformative changes that are taking place in Saudi Arabia and in the entire region, the China-brokered peace deal between Saudi Arabia and Iran, coverage of Saudi Arabia in the US and Europe, how Saudi Arabia's "Vision 2030" will boost transparency and press freedom in the country, and why it prefers to be a journalist in Saudi Arabia instead of the UK. Third, more abstractly, we would say that, according to some views, the approach to building the state, the way of organizing, but also the management of the state is incompatible with liberal values. Thus, for example, critics point out that there is a growing gap between Islamic and Western understandings of what constitutes sacred religious rights and freedom of expression, which is increasingly articulated. In practice, such a gap has turned out to be a serious problem for liberal democracy itself in the countries that are considered the cradles of the liberal-democratic world. In the case of Erika Lopez Prater v. the administration of Hamline University in Minnesota, for example, the United States faces a conflict similar to that of the cartoon crisis in Denmark. Erika Lopez Prater, a professor at Hamline University, displayed a fourteenth-century painting of the Prophet Muhammad in a lecture on Islamic art, and was fired because the university deemed her behavior "Islamophobic." While Hamline management admitted that the procedure may have been a "misstep," Lopez Prater filed a lawsuit in January of this year alleging religious discrimination and defamation. Taken as a whole, it seems that there is confusion in the liberal-democratic discourse about what constitutes Islamophobia and what constitutes criticism of political Islam.

In this context, we have already underlined that there are also differences in the perception of respect for human rights. More precisely, we pointed out that according to a number of liberal authors, in terms of freedom of expression there is an open conflict between Islamic and Western viewpoints. The Islamic definition, according to the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam (1990), restricts expression of opinion in a way that would be contrary to Sharia – Islamic law based on the Koran. These analysts were generally ignored when they pointed out that this provision was incompatible with the UN Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Oops! Maybe someone will be surprised. Yes, my dear, this is one of those compromises that Western liberal politics has made and through which due to the greed that now returns to it as a boomerang and the interpretation of double standards when the leadership wants to criticize for respecting basic human rights there are violent reactions and resistance in this (Arab) part of the world. Fourth, in the defiance that Russia and China are doing, the Arab world can have, or we would say is likely to have, a decisive role. The attempt at de-dollarization, according to some views, is secretly desired by some of the leadership in the Arab world, in order to get away from the hypocritical friendship of the West. Financial Times writings about KSA negotiating to join BRICS also go to this account. On the diplomatic level, as we have already pointed out, the Arab world for some time after the KSA's public refusal to participate in the work of the UN Security Council, demanding reforms angry at Washington, began to demonstrate diplomatic autonomy in making key decisions without the West. Militarily, we would argue that although there is plenty of finance and technology, it is not clear how much and how these capacities can be valorized in fulfilling the ultimate goals of this instrument of political power – simply because there is very little practice through which they could neutrally let's evaluate. However, anger over the removal of the Houthi extremist group in Yemen from the list of terrorist organizations, regardless of the spirit of goodwill, for KSA and the UAE is hypocrisy.

Regardless of perceptions and whether this anger is justified or not, what matters is that outright revisionist China and Russia have potential partners with whom, if they cannot agree on some issues, they will likely find themselves in effecting defiance of the liberal-democratic world. At the same time, criticism of and around Ukraine is deepening – furrows that outline the trench positions of division in the Western ranks. If it is to preserve its superiority, the liberal-democratic world will have to take a more serious approach and commitment to overcoming challenges and disagreements, closing ranks and unification.

(The author is a university professor, associate professor at Arizona State University, USA)

THE LANGUAGE IN WHICH THEY ARE WRITTEN, AS WELL AS THE VIEWS EXPRESSED IN THE COLUMNS, DO NOT ALWAYS REFLECT THE EDITORIAL POLICY OF "FREE PRESS"