Seeking solutions within the system

20/09/2026

By Suphi Aksoy | Member of the Presidential Committee of the Bethnahrin National Council

Any power that has risen to a prominent position on the global stage has long sought to formulate and implement a new project to establish the foundations of its authority and transform it into an institutionalized system of power. However, all political systems designed along these lines have faced turmoil and challenges. While some implemented systems have made progress, others have led to major catastrophes.

In the late 1980s, as the Soviet Union and its satellite states began to disintegrate one after another, the search began for alternative solutions that came to be known as the “New World Order.” In this context, the United States developed comprehensive plans to assume global leadership.

Political and ideological divisions emerged among supporters of this US-centered new order. While some called for a more centralized form of governance, others, along with Europe, prioritized a liberal approach and democratic reforms.

Democratic politicians in the United Kingdom, Germany, France and the United States viewed the 21st century as an era that would bring an end to wars and extremist movements. However, the September 11 attacks dealt a major blow to all initiatives promoting liberal, democratic, humanitarian and peaceful values, as well as women’s rights. In the aftermath, a period of US-led interventions in numerous countries around the world began in September 2001.

As a result, the project concerning North Africa and the Middle East became one of the most controversial issues of the era. Governments in Afghanistan were toppled in 2002 and Iraq in 2003. While many expected other countries to be next, military interventions led by major powers came to a halt.

In late 2010, a new process known as the “Arab Spring” began, creating conditions for peoples to rise up against dictators.

These developments led to civil wars in several countries and the collapse of some dictatorial regimes. As plans were set in motion to dismantle extremist regimes — along with the structures associated with them, based on religious, sectarian and racist ideologies, hopes for democracy and freedom among the peoples began to grow.

Peoples seeking to build their own national entities, who had suffered repression and been denied self-rule as a result of the erasure of their ethnic and religious identities, supported the planned changes in the Middle East through the policies pursued by US-led forces. In this context, ethnic and religious minorities, including the Kurds, Syriacs and others, began mobilizing and organizing themselves.

While peoples whose rights had been stripped away and who had been subjected to genocidal policies looked toward a democratic, federal or even confederal Middle East, a return to centralization took place following the collapse of the Baath regime in Syria. Efforts are currently underway to apply this model of a centralized state in Lebanon, Iraq and other countries as well. At the same time, a project of integration and unification, reportedly prepared in Turkey over a period of roughly two years, is being imposed across the region.

Although new centralized state administrations have been established to replace the old dictatorial regimes, there has been no tangible change in terms of anti-democratic practices, a mentality of denial, or the strategy of a “dominant nation” that imposes a uniform model. The continuation of this mentality and the old system is attributed, in part, to the United States pursuing a new project in the Far East targeting the People’s Republic of China. China’s development and rise across various sectors have significantly intensified the existing competition between China and the United States.

The United States views devoting time and resources to small- and medium-sized states and groups as detrimental to its interests. By contrast, bringing major powers and states under its control and neutralizing them constitutes what is described as the United States’ new global policy.

The views expressed in this op-ed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of SyriacPress.