During the past weeks Europe and America witnessed the arrangement of important international conferences, which could on the one hand guarantee the peace and stability of the world, or could instead deteriorate the conditions. The conference in New York, which dealt with a ban on demand for light arms, and the Genoa Conference which had a much wider and extended agenda, had two common features between them. The first was that large and numerous bodies of dissidents were opposing the wishes and interests of a small but powerful group. The second feature was that both conferences ended without effective result, and the decisions taken and resolutions adopted there lacked conclusiveness and were not operational. The Bonn Conference however, which dealt with the global environment and examined the condition of world climate, could be appraised as an exception and a relative success. 
	
	
 After two weeks of discussion and exchange of views at the New York Conference, it was decided to pay heed to the resolute demands advanced by the majority of the participants, who emphatically insisted on the imposition of a ban on the sale of light weaponry. But paying heed was not tantamount to endorsement of the demand launched by those countries; rather, the final result came out as a compromise solution and a relative back up by the majority group. 
	
	
 The joint demand and stand by the majority of countries attending the conference was encountered by firm opposition by the United States [of America]. American delegates at the conference maintained that any restriction or ban on the sale, possession, and carrying of light armaments was practically the same as limiting the freedom of action [as published] of American citizens, and equal to reducing their margin of security. This is while possessing arms for self-defense is itself a factor that breeds insecurity. Critics of the meeting, on the margin of the conference, up held the view that the American government, instead of heeding the wishes of international community, and protecting the security of world nations, and above all the safety of its own citizens, has paid more attention to the interests of corporations and huge arms producers and military-industrial complexes that reap tremendous profits annually from the sale of such armaments. (It should be noted that the issues moved at the conference were declared unofficial and lacking validity [legal force] even for the participating countries.) [Sentences are as published] The most important of the three conferences, which subsequently gained even more prominence, was the conference in Genova; perhaps even more so for the results "not obtained" at the conference, and which led to the subsequent intense dissatisfaction and frustration of the leading industrial states attending the meeting. The governments attending the conference had a long and varied agenda, including: economic globalization, the anti-missile shield defense project, the Kyoto Protocol and environmental protection, the political and military crises in the Middle East, the Balkans, and Afghanistan, moratorium on the accumulated debt of the poor countries, and ... [as published] They meant to reach some form of agreement or understanding about those issues, but unexpected events left all that in limbo and uncertainty. The conference opened with fierce demonstrations by the opponents of economic globalization, who maintained that what is being concocted by globalization is in fact poverty. When Italian police intervened and roughly handled the demonstrations, things got out of hand; the already volatile situation reached boiling point, violent clashes broke out, and the killing of one protestor overshadowed all other issues. The whole incident was in fact unprecedented in the history of European democracies, and has prompted a whole range of controversies and debates. 
	
	
 It can safely be claimed that the events in Genoa have influenced [overshadowed] the very conferences in New York and Bonn; whereas, from the onset, the weak results of Genoa was foreseeable for most observers. Because, from the very start it could be predicted that on the subject of economic globalization, the developed and capitalist states were going to come across fierce opposition by dissident groups and the supporters of economic growth in poor countries. 
	
	
 Regarding the American proposed Anti-Missile Defense System too, neither Russia, China, Japan, nor even the European Union, had shown any enthusiasm; rather they had all expressed their reserves on the project. Concerning the environmental protection issue, the emission of toxic and greenhouse gases, and warming up of the planet earth's climate too, which was somehow related to the [agenda of] Bonn Conference, America had relentlessly demonstrated its paradoxical [as published] [controversial] position and particular stance opposed to that of other developed states by her previous abandonment of the Kyoto Protocol. Whereas, beforehand, it was anticipated and hoped that the agreements reached at Genoa would help bring about beneficial results for the Bonn conference as well. Even the eagerness for playing an intermediary role in the Middle East crisis has given rise to fierce competition between America, European Union, and Russia and China. And it is likely that until each party seeks its own particular interest in the conflict, and until the rivalry persists, the question would continue to remain unresolved. 
	
	
 What, however, was most remarkable in the conferences in New York and Genoa, was the fact that most decisions made, were based on interests and tastes of particular groups [lobbies]. Here are the views expressed by two of the prominent characters attending the Genoa Conference. Jacques Chirac, the French President, responding to the protests leveled by opponents of globalization, had said: "They have no right to present themselves as defenders of the world poor..." Similarly, Gerhard Schroeder, the German Chancellor, too had claimed that the participants at the summit meeting were the true, legitimate, and elected representatives of the people of their countries. In the remarks made by these political leaders, one point is interesting and calls for reflection: if these leaders reject the interference of others in the condition and destiny of the poor nations, while present themselves legitimate and competent to make far reaching decisions for them, then it must be said that they are only the elected [leaders] of their own nation [people], and this does not entitle them to act as representative or legal attorney of all people worldwide! [Exclamation mark as published] In view of the criticisms, which have been made, they could perhaps be also considered to be the representative of powerful corporations that have placed the whole "world economy" under their influence, and as a result of that they are also controlling the world of politics globally. 
	
	
 At the Bonn Conference too, the agenda was to tackle and discuss the most urgent and indispensable factors concerning the life of humankind. The remarkable feature of this conference was the joint resolution adopted by 180 countries worldwide --- in regard to protection of environment, and above all reducing the emission of greenhouse gases ---, which has isolated America in an undeniable way. It was due to this isolation that America, in spite of discrediting [undermining] the Kyoto Protocol and declining to comply with the Bonn Conference [resolution], was forced to at least make a promise to cooperate in preventing an increase in air pollution. 
	
	
 To recap, if there ever existed any possibility that at the conferences of New York and Genoa questions regarding: promotion of world security, improvement of economic conditions, defusing regional and global crises and conflicts, checking unleashed competition for rearmament, reduction of the gap between the mainstream and peripheral countries, and ... could be addressed and appropriate, serious, and worthy measures for their solution could be adopted, the opportunity was very easily lost and the meetings flopped completely. As regards the recent conference (Bonn Meeting), although the past gatherings like the Hague meeting and Kyoto conference have proved to be failed experiences, nevertheless as the climatic and atmospheric crises are growing more serious, one can be optimistic and hopeful about the success of such protocols and pacts, and implementation of the agreements, even though they are not protected by any sanctions. 
	
	
 ENDALL ARZK