The state of continuous belligerence that exists in some geographical areas of the Middle East calls for deep reflection, especially at framework of the political and popular debates on the "invasion" of Europe by people fleeing war.

While it is true that not all migrants come from a state at war, the diplomatic and political behavior of the United States - first and foremost - and Europe is not only setting the stage for a new migratory dynamic, but also demonstrates once again the inconsistencies of a democratic system in crisis, especially in the political arena. instructions -and Europe is not only setting the stage for a new migratory dynamic, but also demonstrates once again the inconsistencies of a democratic system in crisis, especially in the political arena.

Since the Cold War (1945-1989), it is a common internship practice to leave countries committed to US foreign policy to their fate. This is exactly what happened in South Vietnam after the US defeat against the communist North; and in Iraq, after the 1990-1991 war, when the promise to liberate Kurds and Shiites from Saddam Hussein's dictatorship was not kept and the no-fly zone was created, which did not prevent the regime from massacring both insurgent groups.

Over the past week, the US military's advance from Syrian Kurdistan has given Erdogan's Turkey carte blanche to intervene militarily against YPG forces and now against Bashar el-Assad's Syrians. This behavior is not only detrimental for the reasons that have brought foreign forces into the Syrian conflict, the defeat of the Islamic State: Islamist paramilitary forces are fighting on the Turkish side against those Kurds who defeated them previously. This negatively affects the stabilization of an area that has known only war and destruction in the last eight years.

The internship of Western countries to intervene militarily in a place and then abandon it, causing the collapse of institutions and security deficiencies, dates back to the colonial past. In the final phase of British colonialism in India and Palestine, Britain abandoned both countries after provoking their national and religious fragmentation, with consequent wars and divisions (1947-1948). However, its responsibility is rarely mentioned in history books.

In 2003, the US and Britain left Iraq without explaining in a way that was valid under international law the reasons for their invasion - the argument of the presence of weapons of mass destruction had already been proven to be false. Their passage led to the destruction of the Iraqi security system and caused the death of at least 250,000 civilians in the following years by terrorist actions.

The only Arab state that has persisted on the democratic path since the Arab Spring of 2011 is Tunisia, although it remains a prisoner of poverty, underdevelopment and a low GDP per capita of $3500. Thus, the absence of democratic states in the Middle East is a stumbling block for development in the region, but it is not the only obstacle: the West's foreign policy is also highly incoherent.

From the end of the Cold War (1989) to the present day, some Eastern European countries (such as Hungary, Slovakia and Bulgaria) continue to receive funds from Brussels, despite their anti-European and sovereigntist policies. Tunisia, on the other hand, is suffering from economic difficulties despite its political efforts to remain on the democratic path for almost a decade.

This scenario jeopardizes the future of the European Union: it is neither capable of integrating all its member countries in the same way, nor can it offer financial aid beyond its borders to those who strive to change its past.

The lack of ability to maintain the US pact with Iran -rejected by Trump- sample the total absence of minimum political and institutional ethics. This lack of morality is totally destroying confidence in the democratic system.

Arab and Islamic narratives (Ali Shariati, Yusuf al-Qaradawi etc.) already identified the democratic state historically as being associated with inconsistency and moral superiority.

At the end of the First World War (1918), the democratic President W. Wilson proposed the creation of a Kurdish state in eastern Turkey as the fourteenth goal , but no other country victorious in the conflict supported it.

In turn, the King-Crane Near East report (1919), prepared after the defeat of the Ottomans (1918) to understand the dynamics of the conflict after the capitulation of Istanbul, identified that Franco-British colonialism, as well as London's policy of increasing the Jewish presence in the Holy Land, made it difficult to live together in inter-religious and multi-ethnic places.

The results of this report were not taken into account in any of President Wilson's articles. Today, after a century, the Middle East is still far from enjoying political stability.