A reflection on Trump's tour and Arab Summit
Last week two parallel scenes were seen in the shifting political landscape of the Middle East. On one side, US President Donald Trump toured three Gulf states, emerging with massive investment, industrial, and defence agreements reportedly worth trillions of dollars - described by some as 'historic.' On the other, an Arab Summit was held in Baghdad to reaffirm long-standing positions on the Palestinian cause, though it failed to move beyond rhetorical declarations into any concrete response to the atrocities unfolding in Gaza.
Meanwhile, the massacre in Gaza continued unabated - on a scale that even Israel's traditional backers in the West struggled to defend. Entire neighbourhoods have been flattened, famine is deepening, and medical aid is practically non-existent. Despite this humanitarian catastrophe, Gaza found no mention in Trump's transactional itinerary -neither in the deals nor on the diplomatic margins. There wasn't even a symbolic statement of concern. This silence alone illustrates where the Palestinian cause stands, even in the very forums most closely tied to the region's future.
The prioritisation of deals over diplomacy is hardly novel in American foreign policy, but under Trump it has taken on an overt bluntness. His current approach fuses politics and profit with unapologetic clarity. His Gulf tour resulted in sweeping contracts covering everything from energy to artificial intelligence and missile systems - casting the US-Gulf relationship in unmistakably commercial terms, what could be called 'political capitalism.'
From a strategic viewpoint, this framework reproduces an old formula: security guarantees in exchange for capital and influence. But behind its polished facade lies a troubling imbalance. While Washington secures economic and technological leverage, regional actors appear increasingly bound to the dictates of an external security architecture - one that turns a blind eye to war crimes when convenient. In this context, even genocide in Gaza elicits no meaningful response.
The Arab Summit in Baghdad, meanwhile, was meant to embody Arab unity during a time of extreme urgency. Yet its final statement was little more than a repetition of familiar slogans - calling for international action, support for Palestinian rights, and mere condemnations. No concrete measures were offered. No diplomatic initiative was announced. No collective financial commitment was made. In effect, the summit failed to offer even the most basic response to the systematic destruction of Gaza - a catastrophe widely described by human rights groups as genocide.
This failure speaks not only of the emptiness of the summit's communique but to a deeper paralysis within the Arab political order. Chronic divisions, misaligned priorities, and weak collective resolve have reduced such gatherings to ceremonial displays rather than mechanisms of action. And while time is of the essence, and Gaza's crisis worsens by the hour, Arab diplomacy remains suspended in abstractions.
On the ground in Gaza, death continues at an unbearable pace. Bombardments do not cease. Starvation grows. Clean water and medicine have disappeared. Yet the Israeli campaign shows no defined political objective - only the cold efficiency of annihilation. Every aspect of Palestinian life has been rendered a 'security threat' - including infants buried beneath the rubble of maternity wards.
Perhaps most disturbing is the near-total absence of international deterrence. The global community is distracted. Human rights organisations lack real enforcement tools. The International Criminal Court stands paralysed by geopolitics and vetoes. Even the principles that underpinned modern democracy - dignity, liberty, and the sanctity of life - appear hollow when the victim is a Palestinian. The sight of fathers gathering the limbs of their children in plastic bags has become both a symbol of tragedy and a searing indictment of international hypocrisy.
Unless a serious reckoning takes place - one that asks what purpose these summits and multi-billion-dollar deals serve if they cannot acknowledge Gaza - the gap between Arab governments and their people will grow wider. How can states proclaim a commitment to justice while refusing to leverage their political and economic clout to halt a genocide? How can they speak of 'shared values' while children die of hunger under the ruins of their homes?
To abandon the Palestinian cause is not merely a moral failure - it is a strategic error. As the political vacuum grows, it will inevitably be filled with more radical voices and unpredictable consequences. Every deal inked without a moral clause deepens complicity. Every summit that fails to act feeds the impression that Arab diplomacy has become disconnected from both its people and its principles.
What last week's events have laid bare is a region reordering its priorities in ways that defy its own ethical charter. While billions are committed to building the industries of the future, Gaza's children are left to die unacknowledged.
If there is one truth to take from this moment, it is that genuine regional stability cannot be built upon the graves of its people. No prosperity worth having can be founded on rubble soaked in blood. (Translated by Badr al Dhafari and the original version of the article appeared in Arabic in Oman newspaper's print version on May 18)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Observer
2 hours ago
- Observer
Trump Tariffs: What's the latest on the trade war?
Since reentering the office, President Donald Trump has announced a barrage of tariffs to try to rewire the global economy. The trade actions have taken effect in fits and starts, resulting in wild swings in markets and fresh tension among some of America's closest trading partners. What's the latest? A legal back-and-forth has ensued over Trump's tariffs. On Wednesday, a federal judicial panel ruled that many of the large-scale tariffs were issued illegally, including those targeting China, Canada, and Mexico. The next day, a federal appeals court temporarily preserved many of the levies. Wednesday's ruling would have forced a wind-down of tariffs Trump had enacted under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a 1977 law. Thursday's appellate decision, however, is temporary and does not end the legal matter. Instead, it allows the panel's judges to consider the government's request for a longer delay. A defeat in court could severely undercut the Trump administration's capacity to wage a global trade war. Who has been targeted? In April, Trump rolled out punishing tariffs on nearly 60 U.S. trading partners before abruptly reversing course for 90 days for every country except China to give governments time to make deals. On May 12, he temporarily paused the China tariffs. On Friday, he appeared to revive his global trade war by threatening steeper tariffs on the European Union; by Sunday, he had backed down. European Union: On Sunday, Trump said he would delay a 50% tariff on goods from the European Union until July 9. A couple of days earlier, he said that discussions with the European Union were 'going nowhere' and that steep tariffs would take effect in a week. The climb-down came after a weekend call with Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, who said that trade talks would advance 'swiftly and decisively.' Apple: Trump also targeted the CEO of Apple, Tim Cook, on Friday. He said he had told Cook he expected iPhones sold in the United States to be 'manufactured and built in the United States, not India or anyplace else,' or face a 25% tariff. China: The United States and China, on May 12, said they had reached an agreement to reduce the tariffs they have imposed on each other for 90 days while they try to negotiate a trade deal. The announcement came after a weekend of high-stakes negotiations between officials from the two countries in Switzerland. Many Chinese imports entering the United States had been subject to at least a 145% tariff — essentially a tax equal to 1 1/2 times the cost of the product itself. That will now be 30%. For its part, China agreed to lower the tariffs it had put on imports from the United States to 10%, from 125%. Separately, Trump eliminated a long-standing exception that allowed many relatively inexpensive goods from China to enter the country duty-free. Such imports now face a 54% tariff or a $100 flat fee. Britain: Last month, Trump imposed the same 10% tariff on Britain that he put on other countries. Cars shipped to the United States from Britain face a 27.5% tariff, and British steel is subjected to an import duty of 25%. In early May, Trump unveiled a preliminary agreement with Britain that would pare back these tariffs. Under the terms of the deal, Britain would be allowed to send 100,000 vehicles to the United States under a tariff of 10%, and U.S. tariffs on steel would fall to zero. The 10% levy in place for all British exports would remain in place, though the British government said it was still pushing to bring it down. Although Britain is not one of America's biggest trading partners, Trump said the agreement would be the first of many. U.S. officials have also been negotiating with India, Israel, Japan, South Korea, and Vietnam, among other trading partners. Why is Trump using tariffs? Trump's point of view appears to be that any trade deficit — the value of goods the United States imports from a country, minus what it sends as exports — is bad. He has long described bilateral trade deficits as examples of America being 'ripped off' or 'subsidizing' other countries. The president and his advisers say their goal is to make the tariffs so painful that they force companies to make their products in the United States. They argue that this will create more American jobs and push up wages. But Trump has also described tariffs as an all-purpose tool that will force Canada, Mexico, and China to crack down on the flow of drugs and migrants coming into the United States. The president also maintains that tariffs will rake in huge sums of revenue that the government can use to pay for domestic tax cuts. Economists say that tariffs cannot simultaneously achieve all of the goals that Trump has set. Many of his aims contradict one another. The same tariffs that are supposed to increase U.S. manufacturing are also making life painful for U.S. manufacturers by disrupting their supply chains and raising the cost of their raw materials. 'All of these tariffs are internally inconsistent with each other,' said Chad Bown, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, a Washington think tank. 'So what is the real priority? Because you can't have all those things happen at once.' Who pays for tariffs, and where does the money go? A tariff is a government surcharge on products imported from other countries. Tariffs are paid by the companies that import the goods. The revenue from U.S. tariffs is paid by U.S. importers to the U.S. Treasury Department. For example, if Walmart imports a $100 shoe from Vietnam, which faces a 46% tariff, Walmart will owe $46.00 in tariffs to the U.S. government. What happens next? — Walmart could try to force the cost onto the Vietnamese shoe manufacturer by telling it that Walmart will pay less for the product. — Walmart could cut into its profit margins and absorb the cost of the tariff. — Walmart could raise the price of the shoes at its stores. — Or some combination of the above. Earlier in May, Walmart's CEO cautioned that tariffs would push the company to start raising prices soon, and refrained from projecting profits for its current quarter. Trump, in turn, scolded the retailer on social media, telling it to 'EAT THE TARIFFS' and keep prices down. How have companies responded? One way to understand how companies are reacting to the tariffs is to think about Christmas. The production of toys, Christmas trees, and decorations is usually in full swing by now. It takes four to five months to manufacture, package, and ship products to the United States. And factories in China produce nearly 80% of all toys and 90% of Christmas goods sold in America. Toy makers, children's shops, and specialty retailers have recently begun pausing orders for the winter holidays as the import taxes cascade through supply chains. 'If we don't start production soon, there's a high probability of a toy shortage this holiday season,' said Greg Ahearn, CEO of the Toy Association, a U.S. industry group representing 850 toy manufacturers. Mattel, the U.S. toy company and maker of Barbies, recently said it would raise prices on U.S. toys because of Trump's tariffs on imports from China. How could tariffs affect consumer prices? It's hard to imagine an American home without Chinese products. Many essentials are imported almost entirely from China, and with new tariffs, they're likely to become more expensive. The New York Times analyzed import data to show where Americans may see product shortages, fewer choices, and price increases. What happens if shelves are emptier? Sacrifice for your country, the president says. 'You know, somebody said, 'Oh, the shelves are going to be open,'' Trump recently said. 'Well, maybe the children will have two dolls instead of 30 dolls, you know? And maybe the two dolls will cost a couple of bucks more than they would normally.' Trump's tariffs target countries that supply a wide variety of goods to the United States. In some cases, prices have already started to go up. But for American families, the full effect of the new policies is still to come, but they are likely to result in higher prices at grocery stores, car dealerships, electronics retailers, and clothing outlets. This article originally appeared in
Times of Oman
10 hours ago
- Times of Oman
"Going very well": Piyush Goyal on negotiations between India, US to double bilateral trade
New Delhi: Indian Union Commerce and Industry Minister Piyush Goyal on Thursday said that the negotiations to double bilateral trade between India and the United States (US) to 500 billion dollars were going "very well." "During their meeting in February, PM Narendra Modi and President Donald Trump decided on a good bilateral trade agreement, in the best interest of both countries, which enables bilateral trade to reach $500 billion. We will work to make it negotiations are going on very well," Goyal told reporters here. The Union Minister further stated that India never interferes with the internal affairs of other countries and intends to have good economic ties with developed countries to create new opportunities for the youth and farmers. "India never interferes with the internal matters of other wants good economic ties with the developed countries so that new opportunities are developed for our youth, farmers, and employed classes," Goyal said. He said that the centre was working towards creating additional opportunities for startups and skilled manpower, including doctors and nurses. "We are dedicated to creating more opportunities for our startups, skilled manpower, doctors, and nurses by making good and balanced agreements with the developed countries of the world, like the free trade agreement and mobility agreements," Goyal added. Meanwhile, Goyal asserted that Operation Sindoor brought the entire nation together and also became a symbol of Aatmnirbhar Bharat (self-reliant India). He said it became a defining moment for the country's defence manufacturing capabilities under the major India program, showcasing India's capabilities before the world. "Operation Sindoor not only brought the whole nation together but also became a symbol of Aatmanirbhar Bharat. It became a defining moment for our defence manufacturing capabilities under the major India programme, showing the world what India can do, and also demonstrated to the world that India is a responsible nation," Goyal said.
Times of Oman
10 hours ago
- Times of Oman
White House vows Supreme Court fight over Trump tariff ruling
Washington, DC: The Trump administration has threatened to escalate its tariffs dispute to the Supreme Court after a court ruling overturned many of the president's new import duties. The administration is demanding that the decision be suspended. White House Press Secretary Karine Leavitt declared, "We will win this battle in court", in a press briefing and said the administration is working to "tackle rogue judges." When asked why other countries would continue trade negotiations amid the legal uncertainty, she said the U.S. trade ambassador had heard from countries that morning confirming their intention to continue working with the United States. During a Thursday briefing, Leavitt also informed reporters that U.S. President Donald Trump and Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba spoke by phone on Thursday, exchanging views on tariff-related issues. The press secretary added that members of the president's cabinet--Secretary Lutnick, Secretary Bessent, and Ambassador Jamieson Greer--have been in contact with their counterparts worldwide to signal that the United States remains committed to negotiations. "Countries around the world have faith in the negotiator in chief, President Donald J. Trump. And they also probably see how ridiculous this ruling is, and they understand the administration is going to win," Leavitt said. "And we intend to win. We already filed an emergency appeal, and we expect to fight this battle all the way to the Supreme Court," the press secretary asserted. White House lawyers petitioned the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Thursday to halt Wednesday's decision from taking effect. The move followed a second court ruling that found President Trump had exceeded his authority in implementing the tariffs. The rulings represent significant victories for small businesses and states that have mounted legal challenges to the measures, striking at policies central to Trump's economic and foreign policy agenda. Leavitt also criticised the court's tariff ruling as an example of "judicial overreach." She argued that Trump's tariffs were introduced to address U.S. trade deficits with other nations and described the taxes as "legally sound" and "long overdue." Meanwhile, a US team is scheduled to visit India on June 5-6 for the next round of negotiations on a Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA) between the two countries. The India-US trade deal would mark a significant milestone in economic relations between the two big economies, potentially opening new avenues for bilateral commerce and investment. Additionally, Ray Vickery, Former United States Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Trade Development, said that the trade agreement between India and the US can't happen with Washington's "bullying approach." "In Trump, 1.0, there was a negotiation that came close to getting a freer trade, not a free trade arrangement between the United States and India. One hopes that that would happen, but it's not going to happen with this bullying approach, which the Trump administration has indicated," Ray Vickery told ANI. President Donald Trump has made repeated claims that the US mediated the cessation of hostilities between India and Pakistan and offered them "a lot of trade." However, India has emphasised that the two nations' militaries negotiated directly and resolved the conflict through an agreement and understanding for a cessation of fire and military action. The cessation of hostilities was agreed upon following a call from Pakistan's Director General of Military Operations (DGMO) to his Indian counterpart, Lieutenant General Rajiv Ghai, after India destroyed nine terror infrastructure sites in Pakistan and Pakistan occupied Jammu and Kashmir under Operation Sindoor. Additionally, Vikrey said that the Trump administration has a "misunderstanding" regarding trade deficits, due to which the US is determined to impose tariffs on other countries. "The Trump administration has a misunderstanding in regard to trade deficits. Trade deficits are not necessarily something imposed just by unfair trade practices by another country, but they have to do with the United States' own saving and spending habits, he said.
