Geopolitical Mediation & Peace Building

Contents:

  • The idea of Geopolitical Mediation.
  • Articles & Talks.
  • Research Bibliography.
  • Blogs [Scroll down to find].

–  ‘A Model of Multi-Dimensional Geopolitical Mediation?’ 

–  ‘Tensions with China?’

–  ‘Trump – Zelensky meeting at the White House 28.02.2025.’

–  ‘Diplomatic settlement a proxy conflict in a game of 4 Dimensional Geopolitical Chess (‘4DGC’)?’

– ‘The geopolitical flaw in what Trump said about sending Gazans to Egypt & Jordan.’ 

– ‘Foreign Policy Grand Strategy – Coperation v. Competition.’

–  ‘Are connectivity corridors the key to global peace?’

–  ‘Heads of State Level Meeting Between Trump & Putin – It is not a question of whether but of when.’

–  ‘The fall of Assad.’

–  ‘Geopolitical dialetheism.’ 

–  ‘Geopolitics of Dependence v. Interdependence.’

–   ‘Choking the supply of oil minerals & goods shipped up through the Red Sea & through the Suez Canal?’

–   ‘Peace requires the establishment of a new “Westphalian” world order.’  

–    ‘Is the dynamic root of the geopolitical contest between Global North v. Global South – “cultural”?’ 

–    ‘Emergence of a New World Order?’

–    ‘How possibly could the conflict between Israel & Palestine be resolved by engaging the Third Side?‘

–   ‘Negotiation Skills & Strategies.’

–  ‘If an expert of the calibre and experience of Professor Postol at MIT – who is an insider, is saying this about Biden, Macron and Sunak, then the problem is not just strategic incompetence. It is geo-political ignorance.’

–   ‘UN rights body demands Israel be held accountable for possible war crimes (05.04.2024).’

–  ‘On what legal basis does the Government believe that Israel has been, and is complying with International Humanitarian Law?’

–  ‘Amongst members of the UN (with the exception of Israel) – deliberately attacking diplomatic and consular premises is absolutely Taboo!’

–  ‘By attacking the sovereign territory of Iran has Israel crossed a National Security red-line?’

–  ‘Gaza – Thinking beyond the Endgame.’

–  ‘The geopolitical price of US support for Zionism and complicity in Genocide in Gaza.’

– ‘Is Geo-Political Mediation by Turkey the gateway to an eventual Diplomatic Rapprochement by the West with Russia under a Trump administration?

– ‘Could the election of Donald Trump result in peace in both Ukraine and Gaza? – Some food for thought for realists.’

–  ‘Religion is not a sustainable basis for nationalism.’ 

– ‘Schism between IDF & Netanyahu’s Government – Which side will the Israel Lobby take?’

– ‘Cultural Heritage Diplomacy/Mediation as a geopolitical tool of environmental protection.’

– ‘Concerted diplomacy is necessary to bring peace to Sudan.’

– ‘If a proxy war requires a proxy solution, then a proxy solution may also avoid a proxy war.’

– ‘Is the potential for “convergence” in MENA a geopolitical “pivot” upon which war can be avoided in the South China seas?’

– ‘Structuring as a tool of mediating peace?’

The Idea of Geopolitical Mediation

My thesis is that ‘Geopolitical Mediation’ is a facilitated dialogue between ‘stakeholders’ [‘S‘] to:

(i)  discuss the existence of shared/common interests; and

(ii) negotiate the accommodation of competing interests, by jointly developing and implementing, a strategy of ‘convergence’, built upon the foundation of common ground.

In other words, GM is a process through which S can engineer a new ‘political order’ that is: (i) mutually beneficial; and (ii) more productive to each S, than the individual pursuit of their own competing interests. This is achieved by transforming geo-political ‘competitors’ into ‘partners’.

Geopolitical Mediation precedes and facilitates the Negotiation of Political Order, see the ‘Negotiation of Political Order’ page of this website.

Where an independent Mediator [‘M‘] is appointed by a non-state actor (‘NSA‘) e.g. UNESCO or a corporation/consortium of multinational companies, then facilitation of GM is a form of ‘Track 2 Diplomacy.’

The premise underlying the idea of ‘Geopolitical Mediation’ [‘GM‘] , is that where a geopolitical conflict is primarily the result of a ‘clash’ of divergent values, the solution, i.e. peace, hinges upon evolving/engineering a method of ‘convergence‘ based upon shared/common interests.

For an example of potential ‘convergence’, see the blog below, ‘Is the potential for “convergence” in MENA a geopolitical “pivot” upon which war can be avoided in the South China seas?’ On 16 May 2023 Carl Islam put this question to Professor Anoush Ehteshami (Professor of International Relations in the School of Government and International Affairs, Durham University), following a talk he gave to the Centre for Geopolitics at Cambridge University about ‘The Geopolitics of China’s Belt & Road Initiative and Western Focus’.

To hear the full answer Professor Ehteshami gave, click on the link below and then fast forward to the Q&A at 58:02 to 1.11 using the progress bar underneath the video or on your smart TV search You Tube for ‘Anoush Ehteshami’ + ‘China’s Belt & Road’.

Where the potential exists for each S to maximize their individual strategic gains by working together instead of against each other, then foreign policy may conflict with domestic politics. Therefore, the leadership and political elite in each S must make a choice about which comes first, i.e. about their ‘priorities’.

Articles & Talks

Please note that links to Foreign Affairs articles are only available to view on my PC and are not accessible to visitors to the webiste. They are assembled here for my future research and writing.

Destroying Peace Since 1949. NATO: Anatomy of a Bad Idea | A. Lieven, J. Matlock & J. Mearsheimer (youtube.com)

U.S. Strategic Malpractice & Incompetence: Our Greatest Security Risk (youtube.com)

Erdogan’s new diplomatic turn: A rapprochement with the West unfolds | eKathimerini.com

How to Pave the Way for Diplomacy to End the War in Ukraine | Foreign Affairs

Michael Young discusses his role as facilitator in anti-apartheid negotiations – Harvard Law School | Harvard Law School

Middle Eastern and Eurasian Research Strand | Centre for Geopolitics (cam.ac.uk)

Talking to the Enemy: Track Two Diplomacy in the Middle East and South Asia (rand.org)

Track One and Track Two Diplomacy (un.org)

Track II Diplomacy: How Can It Be More Effective? (mecouncil.org)

Track II diplomacy – Wikipedia

A Primer on Multi-track Diplomacy: How Does it Work? | United States Institute of Peace (usip.org)

track two diplomacy – Bing video

Research Bibliography

Abelow, Benjamin (2022) How the West Brought War to Ukraine: Understanding How U.S. and NATO Policies Led to Crisis, War, and the Risk of Nuclear Catastrophe, Siland Press.

Achen, Christopher H. and Larry M. Bartels (2017) Democracy For Realists – Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government, Princeton University Press.

Aksenova, Marina (2019) Complicity in International Criminal Law, Hart Publishing.

Allison, Graham (2004) Nuclear Terrorism – The Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe, Henry Holt and Company LLC.

Allison, Graham (2018) Destined for War: can America and China escape Thucydides’ Trap?, Scribe UK.

Amerasinghe, Chittharanjan F. (2008) Diplomatic Protection, Oxford University Press.

Andrews, John (2016) The World In Conflict – Understanding The World’s Troublespots, The Economist Books.

Arendt, Hannah (1958) The Human Condition, The University of Chicago Press.

Aust, Anthony (2005) Handbook Of International Law, Second Edition, Cambridge University Press.

Aust, Anthony (2013) Modern Treaty Law and Practice, Third Edition, Cambridge University Press.

Bailliet, Cecilia M. (editor) (2020) Research Handbook on International Law and Peace, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.

Barston, R.P. (2013) Modern Diplomacy, Fourth Edition, Pearson.

Baud, Jacques (2024) The Russian Art Of War – How The West Led Ukraine To Defeat, Max Milo.

Baud, Jacques (2024) Operation Al-Aqsa Flood – The Defeat Of The Vanquisher, Max Milo.

Bayne, Nicholas and Stephen Woolcock (2011) The New Economic Diplomacy – Decision-Making and Negotiation in International Economic Relations, Third Edition, Ashgate.

Bell, Christine (2008) On The Law Of Peace, Oxford University Press.

Besong , Brian (2018) An Introduction to Ethics: A Natural Law Approach, Cascade Books.

Besson, Samantha & John Tasioulas (2013) The Philosophy of International Law, Oxford University Press.

Boas, Gideon (2012) Public International Law – Contemporary Principles and Perspectives, Edwar Elgar.

Boogaard, Jeroen van den (2023) Proportionality in International Humanitarian Law, Cambridge University Press.

Borg, James (2007) Persuasion – The art of influencing people, 2nd eidtion, Pearson Prentice Hall.

Bowen, Jeremy (2022) The Making of the Modern Middle East: A Personal History, Picador.

Bowling, Daniel (Editor) & David Hoffman (Editor) (2003), Bringing Peace Into the Room: How the Personal Qualities of the Mediator Impact the Process of Conflict Resolution, Jossey-Bass.

Blumenthal, Max (2020) The Management of Savagery: How America’s National Security State Fuelled the Rise of Al Qaeda, Isis, and Donald Trump. Verso Books.

Carstens, Anne-Marie & Elizabeth Varner (2020), Intersections In International Cultural Heritage Law, Oxford University Press.

Carter, Jennifer (2022). Human Rights Museums: Critical Tensions Between Memory and Justice, Routledge.

Carter, President Jimmy (2007) Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, Scribner.

Carty, Anthony (2017) Philosophy of International Law, Second Edition, Edinburgh University Press.

Chechi, Allesandro (2014) The Settlement Of International Cultural Heritage Disputes, Oxford University Press.

Chomsky, Noam (2011) How The World Works, Ha,ish Hamilton.

Chomsky, Noam (2016) Who Rules The World?, Penguin Books.

Cook, Stephen A. & Martin S. Indyk (2022) The Case for a New U.S.-Saudi Strategic Compact, Council on Foreign Relations.

Crooke, Alastair (2009) Resistance – The Essence Of The Islamist Revolution, Pluto Press.

Clack, Timothy & Mark Dunkley (2022) Cultural Heritage in Modern Conflict, Past, Propaganda, Parade, Routledge.

Clark, Christopher (2013) The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914, Penguin.

Cloke, Kenneth (2019) The Crossroads of Conflict – A Journey Into the Heart of Dispute Resolution,  Goodmedig Press.

Coleman, Stephen (2012) Military Ethics: An Introduction with Case Studies, OUP USA.

Cox, Michael (2022) Agonies of Empire – American Power from Clinton to Biden, Bristol University Press.

Criddle, Evan J. & Evan Fox-Decent (2016) Fiduciaries of Humanity – How International Law Constitutes Authority, Oxford University Press.

Criddle, J., Evan Fox-Decent, Andrew S. Gold, Sung Hui Kim & Paul B.Miller (2018), Fiduciary Government, Cambridge University Press.

Criddle, Evan J., Paul B. Miller and Robert H. Sitkoff (2019) The Oxford Handbook of Fiduciary Law, Oxford University Press.

Crisp, Roger (2015) The Oxford Handbook of The History Of Ethics, Oxford University Press.

Davis, Daniel, Lt.Col (2020) Eleventh Hour in 2020 America: How America’s foreign policy got jacked up – and how the next Administration can fix it, Independently published.

Dawkins, Richard (1995) River Out Of Eden, Weidenfeld & Nicolson.

Dawkins, Richard (1996) Climbing Mount Improbable, Penguin Books.

de Chazournes, Laurence Boisson, Marcello G. Kohen & Jorge E. Vinuales (2013) Diplomatic and Judicial Means of Dispute Settlement, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

de Mesquita, Bruce Bueno (1981), The War Trap, Yale University Press.

Denza, Eileen (2018) Diplomatic Law – Commentary on the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, Oxford University Press.

Diesen, Glenn (2024) The Ukraine War & The Eurasian World Order, Clarity Press Inc.

Djefal, Christian (2016) Static and Evolutive Treaty Interpretation, Cambridge University Press.

Drazewska, Berenika (2021) Military Necessity in International Cultural Heritage Law, Brill Nijhoff.

Dromgoole, Sarach (2014) Underwater Cultural Heritage and International Law, Cambridge University Press.

Durbach, Andrea and Lucas Lixinski (2019) Heritage, Culture And Rights – Challenging Legal Discourses, Hart.

Duke, Annie (2018) Thinking in Bets, Portfolio Penguin.

Erakat, Noura (2019) Justice For Some – Law and the Question of Palestine, Stanford University Press.

Escobar, Pepe (2024) Eurasia v. NATOstan, Nimble Books LLC

Espósito, Carlos and Kate Parlett, Editors (2023) The Cambridge Companion to the International Court of Justice, Cambridge University Press.

Esterhuyse, Willie (2012) Endgame: Secret Talks and the End of Apartheid, Tafelberg.

Failat, Yanal Abul (2022) Outer Space Law: Legal Policy and Practice 2nd ed, Globe Law and Business.

Feinstein, Andrew (2012) The Shadow World: Inside the Global Arms Trade, Penguin. 

Feltham, Ralph G. (1998) Diplomatic Handbook, Eight Edition, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

Fentiman, Richard (2010) International Commerical Litigation, Oxford University Press.

Ferguson, Niall (2012) Civilization – The Six Killer Apps of Western Power, Penguin Books.

Ferguson, Niall (2021) Doom – The Politics of Catastrophe, Allen Lane.

Finkelstein, Norman G. (2018), Gaza – An Inquest Into Its Martyrdom, University  of California Press.

Fisher, Roger & Scott Brown (1988) Getting Together – Building Relationships As We Negotiate, Penguin Books.

Fisher, Roger, Elizabeth Kopelman & Andrea Kuper Schneider (1994) Beyond Machiavelli – Tools For Coping With Conflict, Penguin Books.

Fisher, Roger & Daniel Shapiro (2007) Building Agreement – Using Emotions As You Negotiate, RH Business Books.

Fleck, Dieter, Editor (2021) The Handbook of International Humanitarian Law 4th ed, Oxford University Press.

Francioni, Francesco and Ana Filipa Vrdoljak, Editors (2020) The Oxford Handbook of International Cultural Heritage Law, Oxford University Press.

Freeman, Jr, Chas.W (2005) Arts Of Power Statecraft and Diplomcay, United States Institute of Peace Press Wsahington D.C.

Fox-Decent, Evan (2011) Sovereignty’s Promise – The State as Fiduciary, Oxford University Press.

Freedman, Sir Lawrence (2013) Strategy – A History, Oxford University Press.

Freedman, Sir Lawrence (2022) Command: The Politics of Military Operations from Korea to Ukraine,  Allen Lane.

Freeman, Chas W. (1997) Arts of Power: Statecraft and Diplomacy, United States Institute of Peace Press Washington D.C.

French, Duncan, Matthew Saul and Nigel D. White, Editors 2012) International Law and Dispute Settlement – New Problems and Techniques, Hart.

Fukuyama, Francis (2011) The Origins Of Political Order – From Prehuman Times to the French Revolution, Profile Books.

Fukuyama, Francis (2015) Political Order And Political Decay – From the Industrial Revolution to the Globalization of Democracy, Profile Books.

Fukuyama, Francis (2022) Liberalism And Its Discontents, Profile Books.

Fuller, Timothy (2024) Michael Oakeshott on the Human Condition: Essays by Timothy Fuller, Liberty Fund Inc.

Gardiner, Richard (2015) Treaty Interpretation, Oxford University Press.

Goold, Benjamin J. & Liora Lazarus (2019) Security And Human Rights, Hart Publishing.

Gozzi, Gustavo (2019) Rights and Civilizations – A History and Philosophy of International Law, Cambridge University Press.

Grant, Adam (2021) Think Again – The Power Of Knowing What You Don’t Know, Penguin Books.

Grando, Michelle T. (2009) Evidence, Proof, and Fact-Finding in WTO Dispute Settlement, Oxford University Press.

Grayling A.C. (2017) Democracy and Its Crisis, Oneworld.

Gurtov, Mel (2020) America in Retreat: Foreign Policy under Donald Trump (World Social Change), Rowman & Littlefield (23 Sept. 2020).

Sheehan, Neil (1998) A Bright Shining Lie: John Paul Vann and America in Vietnam, Pimlico.

Halberstam, David (1993) The Best and the Brightest, Ballantine Books.

Hansen Peo and Stefan Jonsson (2015) Eurafrica – The Untold History Of European Integration And Colonialsim, Bloomsbury.

Hazan, Pirre (2024) Negotiating with the Devil: Inside the World of Armed Conflict Mediation, C Hurst & Co Publishers Ltd.

Heather, Peter and John Rapley (2024) Why Empires Fall – Rome, America and the Future of the West, Penguin Books.

Herman, Alexander (2021) Restitution – The Return of Cultural Artefacts, Sotheby’s Institute of Art.

Herman, Alexander (2023) The Pathenon Marbles Dispute, Institute of Art & Law.

Herman, Edward S. and Noam Chomsky (1994) Manufacturing Consent, Vintage Books.

Hitchens, Christopher (2016) And Yet … Essays, Atlantic Books London.

Hollis, Duncan B. (2012) The Oxford Guide to Treaties, Oxford University Press.

Hughes-Wilson, Colonel John (2023) Military Intelligence Blunders, JB.

Indyk, Martin (2021) Master of the Game: Henry Kissinger and the Art of Middle East Diplomacy, Knopf Books for Young Readers.

Iverson, Jens (2021) Jus Post Bellum: The Rediscovery, Foundations, and Future of the Law of Transforming War into Peace, Brill Nijhoff.

Jackson, Miles (2015) Complicity in International Law, Oxford University Press.

Jackson, Robert and George Sorensen (2013) Introduction To Interntional Relations, Fifth Edition, Oxford University Press.

Jackson, Robert, George Sorensen and Jorgen Moller (2019) Introduction to Interntional Realations theories and approaches, Oxford University Press.

Jervis, Robert (2017) Perception and Misperception in International Politics. Princeton University Press.

Jervis, Robert (2017) How Statesmen Think – The Psychology of International Politics, Princeton University Press.

Jones, Emily (2013) Negotiating Against The Odds – A Guide For Trade Negotiators From Developing Countries, palgrave Macmillan.

Kahneman, Daniel (2011) Thinking Fast And Slow, Allen Lane.

Kapuściński, Ryszard (2019) Imperium, Third Edition, Granta.

Karmi, Ghada (2023) One State – The Only Democratic Future for Palestine-Israel, Pluto Press.

Kennan, George.F (2012) American Diplomacy, The University of Chicago Press.

Kennedy, Robert F. Thirteen Days – A Memoir of the Cuban Missile Crisis, W.W. Norton & Company.

Khalidi, Rashid (2020) The Hundred Years’ War On Palestine – A History of Settler Colonial Conquest and Resistance, Profile Books.

Kim, Jihon (2022) Non-State Actors in the Protection of Cultural Heritage: An Analysis on Their Rights, Obligations, and Roles, Springer-Verlag.

Kissinger, Henry (1957), (2013 update) A World Restored – Metternich, Castlereagh and the Problems of Peace 1812-22, Echo Point Books & Media LLC.

Kissinger, Henry (2022) Leadership: Six Studies in World Strategy, Allen Lane.

Koffler, Rebekah (2022) Putin’s Playbook: Russia’s Secret Plan to Defeat America, Regnery Gateway.

Kolb, Robert (2016) Theory of International Law, Bloomsbury.

Kolb, Robert (2017) Peremptory International Law Jus Cogens – A General Inventory, Bloomsbury.

Kolb, Robert (2017) The Law Of Treaties, Edward Elgar.

Koopmans, Sven M.G. (2008) Diplomatic Dispute Settlement – The Use of Inter-State Conciliation, T.M.C Asser Press.

Koopmans, Sven M.G. (2018) Negotiating Peace – A Guide To The Practice, Politics, And Law Of international Mediation, Oxford University Press.

Laderman, Charlie and Brendan Simms (2017) Donald Trump – The Making Of A World View, I.B. Tauris.

Lafollette, Hugh (2010) The Oxford Handbook of Practical Ethics, Oxford University Press.

Lammy, David (2020) Tribes: A Search for Belonging in a Divided Society, Constable.

Lane, David (2024) Global Neoliberal Capitalism And The Alternatives – From Social Democracy To State Capitalisms, Bristol University Press.

Lanovov, Victor (2019) Complicity and its Limits in the Law of International Responsibility, Hart Publishing.

Lefebvre, Alexandre and Melanie White (editors) (2012) Bergson, Politics, And Religion, Duke University Press.

Leroux-Martin (2014) Diplomatic Counterinsurgency – Lessons from Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cambridge University Press.

Levinger, Matthew (2013) Conflict Analysis – Understanding Causes, Unlocking Solutions, United States Institute of Peace.

Lewis, Michael (2018) The Fifth Risk, Allen Lane.

Luttwak, Edward N (2016) Coup d’État: A Practical Handbook, Revised Edition, Harvard University Press; 2nd edition (8 April 2016).

MacGregor, Douglas (2023) Margin of Victory: Five Battles that Changed the Face of Modern War, Naval Institute Press.

MacIntyre, Alasdair (2001) Whose Justice? Which Rationality?, Duckworth.

MacIntyre, Alasdair (2022) After Virtue, Bloosmbury.

Mackinder, Sir Halford (2020) The Geographical Pivot of History, Cosimo Classics.

Mair, Peter (2013) Ruling The Void – The Hollowing Of Western Democracy, Verso.

Malhotra, Deepak & Max H. Bazerman (2008) Negotiation Genius, Harvard Business School, Bantam Books.

Malhotra, Deepak (2016) Negotiating The Impossible – How To Break Deadlocks And Resolve Ugly Conflcts (Without Money or Muscle), Harvard Business School, Berrett-Kohler Publishers, Inc.

Malik, Kenan (2014) The Quest for a Moral Compass: A Global History of Ethics, Atlantic Books.

Malik, Kenan (2023) Not So Black and White: A History of Race from White Supremacy to Identity Politics, Hurst Publishers.

Martin, Mike (2018) Why We Fight, C Hurst & Co Publishers Ltd.

Martinez, Raoul (2017) Creating Freedom – Power Control And The Fight For Our Future, Canongate.

Masalha, Nur (2022) Palestine: A Four Thousand Year History, I.B. Tauris.

May, Larry (208) The Cambridge Handbook of the Just War, Cambridge University Press.

Mearsheimer, John J. and Stephen M. Walt (2008) The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Mearsheimer, John J. (2014) The Tragedy Of Great Power Politics (Updated Edition), Norton.

Mearsheimer, John J. (2019) The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities (Henry L. Stimson Letures),Yale University Press.

Mearsheimer, John J. (2023) & Sebastian Rosato How States Think: The Rationality of Foreign Policy, Yale University Press.

Merrill, John and Eric De Brabandere (2022) Merrill’s International Dispute Settlement, Cambridge University Press.

Meyer, Thomas, Jose de Sales Marques & Marion Telo (2021) Towards a New Multilateralism – Cultural Divergence and Political Convergence?, Routledge.

Milton, Patrick, Michael Axworthy and Brendan Simms (2018) Towards A Westphalia for the Middle East,C Hurst & Co Publishers Ltd.

Mitchell J. George & Alon Sachar (2016) A Path To Peace – A Brief History of Israeli-Palestinian Negotiations and a Way Forward in the Middle East, Simon & Schuster.

Monbiot, George and Peter Hutchinson (2024) The Invisible Doctrine – The Secret History of neoliberalism (& How It Came to Control Your Life), Allen Lane.

Napolitano, Andrew P. (2023) Freedom’s Anchor: An Introduction To Natural Law Jurisprudence In American Constitutional History, Academica Press Washington-London.

Natziger, James A.R., and Robert Kirkwood Paterson (2014) Handbook on the Law of Cultural Heritage and International Trade, Edward Elgar.

Oakeshott, Michael (1991) Rationalism in Politics and Other Essays, Liberty Fund Inc; 2nd edition.

Oakeshott, Michael (2007) Lectures in the History of Political Thought (Michael Oakeshott Selected Writings), Imprint Academic.

Obama, Barack (2020) A Promised Land, Viking.

Odon, Daniel Ovo (2023) Armed Conflict and Human Rights Law: Protecting Civilians and International Humanitarian Law, Routledge.

Osthagen, Andreas (2022) Ocean Geopolitics: Marine Resources, Maritime Boundary Disputes and the Law of the Sea, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.

Omand, David (2020) How Spies Think – Ten Lessons in Intelligence, Penguin Viking.

Omand, David (2023) How To Survive A Crisis – Lessons in Resilience and Avoiding Disaster, Penguin Viking.

O’Keefe, Patrick J. (2014) Shipwrecked heritage – A Commentary On The UNESCO Convention On Underwater Cultural Heritage, Second Edition, Institute of Art & Law.

O’Keefe, Patrick J. (2017) Protecting Cultural Objects: Before And After 1970, Institute of Art & Law.

Olsaretti, Serena, Editor (2018) The Oxford Handbook of Distributive Justice, Oxford University Press.

Pappe, Ilan (2007) The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, Oneworld Publications.

Pappe, Ilan (2017) Ten Myths About Israel, Verso.

Pappe, Ilan (2024) Lobbying for Zionism on Both Sides of the Atlantic, Oneworld Publications.

Parampil, Anya (2024) Corporate Coup – Venezuella And The End Of US Empire, 

Parsi,Triti (2017) Losing an Enemy: Obama, Iran, and the Triumph of Diplomacy, Yale University Press.

Peak, Thomas (2021) Westphalia From Below: Humanitarian Intervention and the Myth of 1648, C Hurst & Co Publishers Ltd.

Peled, Miko (2016) The General’s Son: Journey of an Israeli in Palestine, Just World Books; Second edition.

Petric, Ernest (2013) Foreign Policy – From Conception to Diplomatic Practice, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

Phillips, Christopher (2024) Battleground: 10 Conflicts that Explain the New Middle East, Yale University Press.

Pirie, Fernanda (2021), The Rule of Laws: A 4000-year Quest to Order the World, Profile Books.

Powell, Jonathan (2011) The New Machiavelli – How to Wield Power in the Modern World, Vintage.

Powell, Jonathan (2014) Talking To Terrorists – How to end armed conflicts, Vintage.

Ramsbotham, Oliver, Tom Woodhouse & Hugh Miall (2021) Contemporary Conflict Resolution, Fourth Edition, Polity.

Randolph, Paul (2016) The Psychology of Conflict, Bloomsbury.

Retter, Mark and Andrea Varga (editors) (2021) International Law and Peace Settlements, Cambridge University Press.

Reus-Smit, Christian & Duncan Snidal (2008) The Oxford Handbook of International Relations, Oxford University Press.

Rice, Condoleezza and Amy Zeggart (2018) Political Risk – How Businesses and Organisations Can Anticipate Global Insecurity, Weidenfeld & Nicolson.

Richmond, Oliver P. (2022)  The Grand Design: The Evolution of the International Peace Architecture, Oxford University Press USA.

Roberts, Sir Ivor (2018) Satow’s Diplomatic Practice, Seventh Edition, Oxford University Press.

Roodt, Christa (2015) Private International Law, Art and Cultural Heritage, Edward Elgar.

Ross, Dennis (2004) The Missing Peace: The Inside Story of the Fight for Middle East Peace,St Martin’s Press.

Rudd, Kevin (2022) The Avoidable War: The Dangers of a Catastrophic Conflict between the US and Xi Jinping’s China, Public Affairs.

Ruys, Tom and Nicolas Angelet with Luco Ferro, Editors (2019) The Cambridge Handbook of Immunites And International Law, Cambridge University Press.

Ryzov, Igor (2019) The Kremlin School Of Negotiation, Canongate.

Sachs, Jeffrey D. (2013) To Move The World: JFK’s Quest for Peace, Bodley Head.

Sachs, Jeffrey D. (2020)  A New Foreign Policy – Beyond American Exceptionalism, Columbia Uinversity Press.

Sachs, Jeffrey D. (2020)  The Ages of Globalization – Geography, Technology and Institutions, Columbia Uinversity Press.

Sakwa, Richard (2023) The Lost Peace – How the West Failed to Prevent a Second Cold War, Yale University Press.

Saul, Ben & Dapo Akande (2020) The Oxford Guide To International Humanitarian Law, Oxford University Press.

Schopenhauer, Arthur and A.C. Grayling (2017) The Art Of Always being Right -The Subtle 38 Ways Of Persuasion, Gibson Square.

Shafer-Landau, Russ (2013) Ethical Theory – An Anthology, Wiley-Blackwell.

Shapiro, Daniel (2017) Negotiating the Non-negotiable, Penguin Books.

Shirk, Susan L (2022) Overreach: How China Derailed Its Peaceful Rise, OUP USA.

Shlaim, Avi (2014) The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World, Penguin.

Simms, Brendan and D.J.B Trim 2011) Humanitarian Intervention, Cambridge University Press.

Singer, Peter (1993) A Companion To Ethics, Blackwell Publishing.

Slobodian, Quinn (2018) Globalists – The End Of Empire And The Birth Of Neoliberalism, Harvard University Press.

Smith, Retired General Sir Rupert (2005) The Utility of Force – The Art of War in the Modern World, Penguin Books.

Stewart, Rory & Gerald Knaus (2012) Can Intervention Work?, W.W. Norton & Company.

Stone, Douglas, Bruce Patton & Sheila Heen (2000) Difficult Conversations, Penguin Books.

Strasser, Freddie & Paul Randolph (2004), Mediation – A Psychological Insight into Conflict Resolution, Contunuum.

Sumption, Jonathan (2019) Trials Of The State – Law And The Decline Of Politics, Profile Books.

Talbot, David (2016) The Devil’s Chessboard – Allen Dulles, The CIA, And The Rise Of America’s Secret Government, William Collins.

Tams, Christian J. & Antonios Tzanakopoulos (2012), Basic Documents on The Settlement Of International Disputes, Hart Publishing.

Tan, Floris (2023) The Duty to Investigate in Situations of Armed Conflict: An Examination under International Humanitarian Law, International Human Rights Law, and their Interplay, Brill Nijhoff.

Thouless R.H. & C.R. Thouless (1930) Straight & Crooked Thinking, Hodder Education.

Torremans, Paul and James J. Fawcett, Editors (2017) Cheshire, North & Fawcett – Private International Law, Fifteenth Edition, Oxford University Press.

Tsagourias, Nicholas and Alasdair Morrison (2023) International Humanitarian Law – Cases, Materials And Commentary, Cambridge University Press.

Turner, Catherine (Editor) & Mark Wahlisch (Editor) (2021) Rethinking Peace Mediation: Challenges of Contemporary Peacemaking Practice, Bristol University Press.

Urban, Mark (2016) The Edge – Is The Military Dominance Of The West Coming To An End?, Abacus.

Ury, William (1985) Beyond The Hotline – How We Can Prevent the Crisis that Might Bring On a Nuclear War, Houghton Mifflin Company.

Ury, William (1993) Getting Past No – Negotiating In Difficult Situations, Bantam Books.

Ury, William (1999) The Third Side – Why We Fight And How We Can Stop, Penguin Books.

Ury, William (2008) The Power Of A Positive No – How To Say No & Still Get To Yes, Hodder Mobius.

Ury, William (2015) Getting To Yes With Yourself, HarperOne.

Ury, William (2024) Possible – How We Survive (and Thrive) in an Age of Conflict, Harper Business.

Vincent, John and Sifu Julian Hitch (2019) Winninbg Not Fighting – Why you need to rethink success and how you achieve it with the Ancient Art of Wing Tsun, Penguin Business.

Vivet, Emmanuel (2019) Landmark Negotiations from Around the World: Lessons for Modern Diplomacy, Intersentia Publishers.

Voss, Chris with Tahl Raz (2016) Never Split The Difference – Negotiating as if your life depended on it, RH Business Books.

Ward, Alexander (2024) The Internationalists: The Fight to Restore American Foreign Policy After Trump, Portfolio. 

Walker, Stephen (2021) Mediation Behaviour – Why We Act Like We do, Bloomsbury Professional.

Walker, Stephen (2024) Digital Mediation, Bloomsbury Professional.

Weatherall, Thomas (2015) Jus Cogens – Interntional Law and Social Contract, Cambridge University Press.

Welsh, Jennifer (2016) The Return Of History – Conflict, Migration, and Geopolitics in the Twenty-First Century, Anansi.

Wilde, Ralph (2014) International Territorial Administration – How Trusteeship and the Civilizing Mission Never Went Away, Oxford University Press.

Wilson, Martin (2022) Art Law And Business Of Art, Second Edition, Edward Elgar Publishing.

Yarwood, Lisa (2012) State Accountability under International Law – Holding states accountable for a breach of jus cogens norms, Routledge.

Zhong, Hui (2018) China, Cultural Heritage And International Law, Routledge.

Zwier, Paul.J. (2013) Principled Negotiation And Mediation In The International Arena, Cambridge University Press.

Blogs

‘A Model of Multi-Dimensional Geopolitical Mediation?’ 

Imagine a ‘geopolitical dispute’ in which there are two principal parties i.e.
‘Hegemons’ / ‘Aspiring Hegemons’ [‘H.1’ & ‘H.2’], and two internal camps
within each Hegemon [i.e. ‘H.1.C.1’ v. ‘H.1.C.2’ on one side & ‘H.2.C.1′ v. H.2.C.2’ on the other side].

H.1 & H.2 are de facto, or actually at war, with each other.

So, both Hegemons have already stepped onto the ‘escalatory dominance ladder.’

Each Hegemon believes that it must maintain ‘escalatory dominance’ in order to survive, i.e. that it must dominate the other.

That is a mutually ‘existential’ belief, because at the top of the escalation
dominance ladder is nuclear war.

Neither Hegemon is willing to step off the ladder.

There is disagreement not only between H.1 & H.2, but also internally between:

(i) H.1.C.1 & ‘H.1.C.2’; and
(ii) H.2.C.1 & H.2.C.2.

So, before a peaceful settlement of the conflict can be mediated between H.1 & H.2, there must be a willingness within each Hegemon’s own ‘internal’ camp, to ‘do a deal’, whereby the Hegemons can both step off the escalatory dominance ladder, and agree a framework of principles for peaceful co-existence.

Thereby ending the war, and ensuring that there is no re-occurrence of armed conflict.

Is there a model of Multi-Dimensional ‘Geopolitical Conflict Resolution Mediation’, whereby a Mediator and Co-Mediator, can work together in order to facilitate:

1st – An informed, coherent, and rational dialogue between the principal
‘stakeholders’, ‘Political Elites’, and Policy Decision Makers, within each Hegemon’s own ‘internal camp’, in order to arrive at an ‘internal policy consensus’ and ‘agreement’ about resolving the conflict either through Mediation or War? – I.E. an ‘internal’ or ‘sub-mediation’ process between:

(i) H.1.C.1 & ‘H.1.C.2’ on one side; and
(ii) H.2.C.1 & H.2.C.2 on the other side;

and

2nd – Peaceful resolution of the conflict between H.1 & H.2, i.e. provided a ‘consensus’ has been arrived at first, in all four ‘internal camps’, about the resolution of the conflict between H.1 & H.2 through Geopolitical Mediation?

The conflict resolution ‘logic’ or ‘pathway’, is that at the level of H.1 & H.2, conflict cannot be resolved by Mediation, until the internal ‘policy’ division between:

(i) H.1.C.1 & ‘H.1.C.2’; and
(ii) H.2.C.1 & H.2.C.2,

has been resolved, i.e. at the level below the level of the conflict between H.1 & H.2.

So, how could a ‘multi-dimensional Geopolitical Mediation’ be structured and carried out?

Any ideas and precedents?

As an independent i.e. truly neutral Geopolitical Conflict Resolution Mediator, you need to drill down to the beliefs underlying the dynamics driving the conflict.

At an overly simplistic level, when distilled, this may = Maximising gains through either a ‘Competitive’ Strategy (i.e. armed conflict) or a ‘Collaborative’ Strategy – see ‘The idea of Geopolitical Mediation’ and my idea of ‘Convergence’ on the ‘Geopolitical Mediation’ page at www.diplomaticlawguide.com & ‘The Rivalry Peril: How Great-Power Competition Threatens Peace and Weakens Democracy’ (2025) by Van Jackson & Michael Brenes: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Rivalry-Peril-Great-Power-Competition-Threatens/dp/0300272898/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0

See also my Blog – ‘Foreign Policy Grand Strategy – Cooperation v. Competition’ on the ‘Geopolitical Mediation’ page at www.diplomaticlawguide.com.

So, when analysing the Policy Decision Making Process, you need to understand who is manipulating whom (on whose behalf), how (‘Carrot’/’Stick’) and why.

A simple Mediator Question to ask is – ‘Qui Bono?’

To discover the answer to that question you may have to follow the ‘big’ money!

‘We do not summarily reject zero-sum policies, nor do we deny that some democratic political developments can occur within a competitive geopolitical framework. … But the unrealistic view of the Cold War now shaping US foreign policy – or the hyperbolic claim that China today is more threatening than the Soviet Union [was during the Cold War] – is unbalanced. To the extent that US-Soviet competition generated positive outcomes for American democracy, they came at a great cost in the United States and the Global South. The historical memories of policymakers do not account for all this it took to wage the Cold War. Rivalry has as much to do with maladies in the body politic as it does with ”wargames” on sprawling maps. Politicians, bureaucrats, and hangers on of all sorts amplify great power competition to secure personal advancement, stymie democratic change, concentrate political power, and pillory opponents and dissidents the short term gain. China rivalry is a policy framework that favours demagogues and jingo’s in domestic politics even as it perverts US grand strategic thinking. The public, as well as future policymakers, must understand that rivalry makes international relations and domestic politics more combustible , more dangerous. Rivalry narrows the relevance of diplomacy: it militarise its foreign policy options: it sacrifices liberty by mobilising societies against external enemies at the expense of political and economic equality at home and abroad and it encourages tunnel vision rather than long-term foresight. The same damaging political forces unleashed during the Cold War are with us today..’

[‘The Rivalry Peril: How Great-Power Competition Threatens Peace and Weakens Democracy’ (2025) by Van Jackson & Michael Brenes p.8].

Note also the observations the authors make and their conclusions about Donald Trump’s aggressive stance toward China on pages 87 and 96.

See also:

‘Tensions with China?’

‘Trump – Zelensky meeting at the White House 28.02.2025’

‘Diplomatic settlement a proxy conflict in a game of 4 Dimensional Geopolitical Chess (‘4DGC’)?’

· Wearing my hat as a Political Science graduate, I posit that a ‘proxy’ conflict will either end or continue, depending upon the ‘sphere of influence’ of the Hegemon (‘H’), in which it is geographically situate (‘H.1’).
· Thus, the ‘endgame’ is dictated by the interests of that regional H.1
· Where the interests of competing H’s (e.g. H.1, H.2 & H.3) potentially converge, then a dialogue between statesmen can be facilitated, see the ‘Idea of Geopolitical Mediation’, on the ‘Geopolitical Mediation’ page at www.diplomaticlawguide.com.
· The state itself in which the proxy conflict is taking place, never has a place at the negotiating table, until an ‘overarching’ strategic deal has been agreed between the statesmen of each H that is a stakeholder (i.e. H.1, H2 & H.3) – at Level 4 (see below).
· 4DGC – what are the levels in this geopolitical game?:
Level 4 – Negotiation of spheres of influence.
Level 3 –  Geopolitical survival of each H.
Level 2 –  Survival as rulers, policy makers and power-brokers of key stakeholders within each H, e.g. family dynasties, and powerful interests represented by lobby groups (‘LG’).
Level 1 –  Victory in the internal ‘ideological’ battle within each H’s own political elite – e.g. the clash in the West between ‘Neo-Liberalism’ v. rising ‘Fascism’.
· Looked at through the prism of a game of 4DGC, what the leader of an H says may only make sense, after you can clearly see what they have done, e.g. (i) the downfall of the leaders of global Neo-Liberalism in: Canada (Trudeau); Germany (Schultz), France (Macron), and next in Britain (Starmer); NATO (see https://lnkd.in/e78wkWYA) & the EU (Van Der Leyen); and (ii) dismantling of the infrastructure of the neo-liberal ‘deep state’ – see https://lnkd.in/eJSRnmDw,

in order to create a vacuum which they can fill.

·    So what signs indicate activity at Level 4, that can escalate quickly upwards to Level 1?
·  When I was a teenage political science undergraduate at University, I was taught that ‘the more institutions there are, then the more stable society is’.
·    In order for fascism to displace democracy, institutions must first crumble.
· That is a slow and gradual process.
· Mussolini compared accumulating power to ‘plucking a chicken one feather at a time, go slowly and no one notices’.
·    As the late Madeleine Albright argues in ‘Fascism: A Warning’ (2019), Fascism in pre-World War II Europe did not happen all of a sudden. It was incremental. Step-by-step democracy was undermined by eroding liberty. There was no overt overthrow. It can begin with the dehumanising of vulnerable people.

In their book, ‘How Democracies Die – What History Reveals About Our Future’ (2018), Professors of Government at Harvard University, Stephens Levitsky & David Ziblatt argue, ‘Democracies may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders – presidents or prime ministers who subvert the very process that brought them to power … More often … Democracies erode slowly, in barely visible steps. … Many government efforts to subvert democracy are legal, in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy – making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process. … People do not immediately realise what is happening. Many continue to believe they are living under a democracy. … Because there is no single moment- no coup, declaration of martial law, or suspension of the constitution – in which the regime obviously crosses the line into dictatorship, nothing may set off society’s alarm bells. …

Those who denounce government abuse may be dismissed as exaggerating or crying wolf. Democracy’s erosion is, for many, almost imperceptible. … The tragic paradox of the electoral route to authoritarianism is that democracy’s assassins use the very institutions of democracy – gradually, subtly, and even legally – to kill it.’

The professors developed a set of 4 behavioural warning signs which can help us to recognise an authoritarian when we see one – ‘we should worry when a politician (1) rejects in words or actions, the democratic rules of the game, (2) denies the legitimacy of opponents, (3) tolerates or encourages violence, or (4) indicates a willingness to curtail the civil liberties of opponents. … A politician who meets even one of these criteria is cause for concern.’

So one day, and without realising what has been happening over a period of years, you may wake up and find that you are living in an autocracy. That is why speaking out is critical to the resilience of democracy and safeguarding the rule of law so that politicians who are not above the law are held to account for their rhetoric and actions which are destructive of the institutions that bind society together in a democracy.

See also:

‘The geopolitical flaw in what Trump said about sending Gazans to Egypt & Jordan‘

The Suez Canal (‘SC’) & Red Sea are vital connectivity corridors.

Egypt, which is a member of BRICS, controls the SC.

Egypt & Jordan both have a coastline on the Red Sea.

Yemen controls the southern entrance to the Red Sea.

If Egypt & Jordan are forced to take in Gazans, their regimes may collapse.

Then the Red Sea (including) the southern entrance to the SC may become active conflict, i.e. ‘war zones’.

In which case, how will commercial shipping obtain insurance to travel through the Red Sea & SC at competitive prices which can be passed on to customers?

If transit through the Red Sea & SC ceases, & shipping to & from Europe takes an alternative route, i.e. around the Cape of Good Hope instead, what impact will that have on prices, & the world economy – including Gulf oil prices?

Turkey has acquired strategic property near Alexandria – ‘Egypt recently took an important step towards alleviating its financial burdens given the difficulty it is facing due to the foreign exchange crisis. This step is the sale of the Ras El-Hikma area, located approximately 350 kilometres north-west of the capital, Cairo, to the UAE for $22 billion. Now, would Egypt sell Alexandria, which has great historical and cultural significance, to Turkiye, which has been searching for a centre for shipping and supply to Africa for many years?’ (https://lnkd.in/eh3sHCFv).

Turkey has also applied to join BRICS.

The flaw in what Trump has said is that BRICS will never allow the SC to be seized by force by Israel with the involvement on the ground, and at sea, of Western forces, entering from the northern end of the canal or from the Sinai.

Turkey (which appears to be ‘de facto’ in control of the northern entrance to the canal), may also have the military ability to close the northern end of the canal to all traffic?

In December, US aircraft carriers had to withdraw from proximity to a potential attack by the Houthis using hypersonic missiles, see also an earlier incident: https://lnkd.in/eB-Cd9Sj.

Since there is no defence to an attack using hypersonic missiles, Trump is not likely to redeploy US Carriers within striking distance of such a potential attack by the Houthis.

If he did, and a US Carrier was sunk, then the public outrage, i.e. because such an event was entirely avoidable, could bring his adminsitration down barely after it had begun.

That would be the end of MAGA – which might suit US neo-cons, therefore Trump is not likely to walk straight into such a trap.

So, what can Trump & Netanyahu agree upon tomorrow about the future of Gaza?

One thing that they obviously cannot agree upon, is the collapsing of the regimes in Egypt and Jordan, as that could bring down the Trump administration itself, i.e. it would be an act of political suicide by Trump.

Therefore the Gazans cannot be forcibly removed and sent to live in those states.

So, what is going to happen next?

Although I have not yet thought this through fully, it occurs to me as a mediator, that there is an opportunity for Trump, to enter into a dialogue with Putin, not only about ending the war in Ukraine, but also about the future of Gaza and the Palestinians, i.e. by discussing and eventually agreeing upon, an overall ‘geopolitical’ framework, within which, the US & leading BRICS, can co-exist in peace, and each economically benefit through cooperation instead of competition. That will first require the bringing about of a ‘paradigm shift’ by the US foreign policy establishment, which today may be outside of Trump’s power, and of the imagination of his top advisors and the deep state in the US.

See also:

  • The following books:

–  ‘The Return of Great Power Rivalry: Democracy versus Autocracy from the Ancient World to the U.S. and China’ (2020) by Matthew Kroenig – my copy arrives in two weeks time.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0190080248?ref=ppx_yo2ov_dt_b_fed_asin_title
–     ‘The Rivalry Peril: How Great-Power Competition Threatens Peace and Weakens Democracy’ (2025) – my copy is scheduled to arrive on 2 April.
:https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0300272898?ref=ppx_yo2ov_dt_b_fed_asin_title

Which of these apparently contradictory International Relations theories is valid?

On the face of it, they cannot both be right – or can they?

This is a subject that I will return to in future posts, as depending upon which of these therories the US foreign policy establishment believes in and adheres to, will determine whether Trump’s foreign policy will be a success or a failure. Which side will Trump and his advisors pick?

  • Alastair Crooke : Can Trump Save Gaza and Ukraine?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhkhKBgsQW8.His intellIgence sources have been stated by other commentors on Judge Napolitano’s YouTube Channel – ‘Judging Freedom’, to be impeccable. He is also reputed to be an expert on MENA. Listening carefully to what he says, the signals I pick up are:
    – Trump’s worldview is that the US is a top tier hegemon in a ‘multi-polar’ world, i.e. Trump understands what Biden did not – that the ‘unipolar’ moment has passed – squandered under the administrations of Clinton, Bush & Obama.
    – Trump & his key advisors want now to pivot to China, i.e. away from Ukraine & Gaza – which are not primary US national security priorities.
    – Trump does not want to throw good money after bad in Ukraine. It appears that around $183 billion sent by Biden’s administration to Ukraine was not received according to Zelenski. So, where did this money go? Trump is carrying out an audit.
    – Netanyahu will present Trump with a dillema. Either save me, by attacking Iran, or Israel must re-enter Gaza & continue with the mass killing of Palestians, as Netanyahu promised that to extreme religious right wing members of his government as the price of the ceasefire.
  • TARIFF WARS – MOATS with George Galloway – EP 418: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIYqK5Hbc5A

For a discussion of the connectivity corridor to the Indian Ocean Russia & Iran are collaborating to develop, scroll forward to 1 hour & 10 mins. Upon completion of this infrastructure project, while these states will no longer be dependent upon access to the Suez Canal, i.e. through the Red Sea, Saudi Arbia & the Gulf Oil producing states who do not belong to or join BRICS, will continue to be dependent upon on the Suez Canal. So if the Suez Canal & Red Sea become active war zones because of what George Galloway describes as ‘Trump’s Israel First policy’, then this may force Saudi Arabia & the Gulf States into the arms of BRICS. If this analysis turns out to be correct, then by putting Israel’s interests ahead of those of the United States, Trump will have weakened America & not made ‘America Great Again’. In other words he will have broken his word to the people who voted for him. If he makes this momentous and irreversible geopolitical mistake, then I predict that this blunder, will mark the beginning of the end of MAGA under his leadership, i.e. of his administration and planned line of succession. So, let’s see what he does & how things turn out for the US.

‘Foreign Policy Grand Strategy – Coperation v. Competition’

In an article published 28 January 2025, in Foreign Affairs – ‘Trump and the New Age of Nationalism – A Dangerous Combination for America and the World’, Michael Brenes and Van Jackson concluded:

‘Unfortunately, Trump is likely to reinvigorate a nationalist foreign policy. His administration is primed to view the crisis in the Middle East as a civilizational conflict to be dealt with through military force rather than diplomacy. Alliances in East Asia will function as useful proxies for constraining Beijing’s influence. Washington will see competition with China as an existential struggle that heightens anti-immigrant sentiment at home, potentially leading to hate crimes and greater violence against Asian Americans, as occurred during Trump’s first term. And with respect to Latin America, Trump will remain myopically fixated on securitizing the U.S.-Mexico border, forgoing the opportunity to collaborate on issues of mutual concern, such as transnational crime and climate change.

But if the United States is to address the world’s problems in a meaningful way, U.S. grand strategy must break free from the age of nationalism. A broader internationalist vision that works to the betterment of the global South, or the global majority, is a far better foundation for world order than competition with China, which will benefit only a few. Rather than treating African and Asian nations as pawns in a great-power competition with Beijing, Washington must come to terms with how the marginalization of lower-income countries inhibits growth that can further the interests of the United States and its allies. Working with the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, the United States can bring debt relief to African nations and restructure struggling economies to minimize corruption and further democratic rights. Instead of allowing the BRICS to operate as a counter to the West, Washington must recognize the validity of their concerns and welcome new approaches that prioritize Africa and Asian nations. A stronger global South will also rein in ethnonationalism and anti-immigrant politics, because resilient economies make it hard to sustain the argument that immigrants are “stealing” jobs and draining state resources.

It is time for the United States to move past the obsolete zero-sum logic of great-power competition. Instead of squandering more resources in the counterproductive pursuit of primacy, Washington should renew its commitment to strengthening economies and advancing human rights around the world. The national interest does not reside in outmaneuvering China in every domain—it resides in an internationalist vision that emphasizes cooperation over competition.’

I have pre-ordered a copy of their book – ‘The Rivalry Peril: How Great-Power Competition Threatens Peace and Weakens Democracy’ (2025), along with a counter-thesis – ‘Return of Great Power Rivalry: Democracy versus Autocracy from the Ancient World to the U.S. and China’ (2020), by Matthew Kroenig, and will be returning to the idea of ‘cooperation v. competition’ in international relations, in future posts. Philosophically, I consider ‘cooperation v. competition’, to be one of the most important debates in international relations and global order today. That is because the idea of a transactional ‘convergence’ of ‘geopolitical interests’ between competitors, thereby potentially optimising the desired outcome for each, is pivotal to the avoidance of conflict/war between hegemons and aspiring hegemons, in the emerging multi-polar/nodal world.

‘Are Connectivity Corridors the key to global peace?’
Resolution of the conflicts in Ukraine & Gaza is linked with the BRICS ‘connectivity corridors.’

These corridors are the arteries for economic growth within BRICS, & an economic bridge to both Europe & the US.

That ‘global’ infrastructure is being built by China, Russia, India & Iran &
not by the US, UK, Germany, France & Israel.

In other words, the collective West (‘W’), by spending scarce tax-payers’ money on conflicts in Ukraine & MENA (including Syria), has ended-up being on the outside of the development of the BRICS ‘connectivity corridors’ – & so have their multi-national companies.

This impacts jobs & wealth in W.

Add that to the black hole in the UK economy caused by wasting billions on conflicts, which instead of resulting in any military success, have ended up in the hands of corrupt officials, so this failed strategy by Western leaders will ultimately bring about their downfall at the polls & that of their parties.

Trump has a chance to avoid this fate, as an ‘overarching’ agreement with the leaders of BRICS about these ‘connectivity corridors’, is a dynamic in shaping a new global world order, which should be high up in the list of geopolitical priorities of any rational world leader.

However, Trump’s appointee to head the Pentagon does not even know what ASEAN is!

In other words, he would fail an International Relations 101 exam for 18 year old students, see: https://lnkd.in/eJq6EAy5 (scroll forward to 18m).

Trump himself does not even appear to understand elementary economics, see: https://lnkd.in/eJz4W838 (scroll forward to 24m).

The stick wielded toward Russia is economic sanctions.

Since the only major trading activity between the US & Russia is the supply to the US of uranium (which the US needs for its power stations), Trump has already publicly shot himself in the foot in the eyes of Putin & Xi Jinping.

That was not a good start.

It appears that Trump was given bad advice (except by Tulsi Gabbard who is not yet in place), i.e. his foreign policy & international relations ‘strategy’ team, appears to be both ignorant and incompetent.

All of this leads me to conclude that it will not be the US which ends the wars in Ukraine & Gaza, but BRICS.

I also think that if the US turns a blind-eye to Israel re-occupying Gaza (& they have not entirely withdrawn), & to the continuation & intensification by Israel of the killing of Palestinians in Gaza & the Left Bank, that the brief moment Trump enjoyed in the aftermath of the ceasefire, will pass, and there will be a global move away from the collective West, toward BRICS.

Economically this momentum will frustrate anything Trump does to ‘make America great again’ & likewise anything Starmer does to make the UK a global economic superpower.

So, BREXIT will have failed in its primary objective, as the UK will end up being economically isolated & on the fringes of geopolitical influence & power.

What then?

See aslo:

‘The Eastern Maritime Corridor (EMC), which connects major logistics hubs in Russia’s Far East with India’s southeastern coast, has become operational, Indian Minister of Ports, Shipping and Waterways Sarbananda Sonowal announced on Monday. The maritime link is expected to serve as a cheaper and faster alternative for shipping vital commodities, including oil and coal.

“The Eastern Maritime Corridor between Vladivostok and Chennai is operational now. Container ships carrying crude oil, metal, and textiles have started coming to Indian ports,” Sonowal said, according to PTI news agency.

The minister described the new corridor as “not just a trade route” but also a symbol of the “growing partnership” between the two countries.’

‘Heads of State Level Meeting Between Trump & Putin – It is not a question of whether but of when’

See – The Peace Agreement to End the Ukraine War – w/ George Beebe, former CIA Director of Russia Analysis: https://lnkd.in/eRdMezqb

& scroll forward to around 42m:

– ‘Priorities’ (i.e. needs e.g. a mutually satisfactory European security architecture).
– ‘Wants’.
– ‘What can we concede’.

This is classic Mediation.

George Bebe is Director of Grand Strategy at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft: https://lnkd.in/ettT4NnD.

See also ‘The idea of Geopolitical Mediation’ on the ‘Geopolitical Mediation & Peace Building’ page at www.diplomaticlawguide.com.

The diplomatic and geopolitical challenge for these leaders (and for China) is to develop a new world order in which:

– The West (i.e. the ‘Globalists’ & ‘Neo-Liberals’); and
– BRICS,

can co-exist and each prosper, together in peace.

That will not happen overnight.

It starts with a conversation.

There was no conversation i.e. diplomacy, under Biden.

My prediction, is that President Trump will direct that a conversation begins. That will lead eventually to a Heads of State meeting behind closed doors. This will be preceded by many diplomatic meetings conducted out of view of the public eye, to discuss, define and agree upon: (a) the issues in dispute; and (b) underlying ‘interests’ of each hegemon, in order to jointly develop a ‘road-map’, i.e. ‘process’, for overall diplomatic resolution.

That is the path toward a lasting and sustainable global peace between hegemons, in what is an anarchical, and multi-polar world.

If that vision can be achieved, then President Trump will deserve a Nobel Peace Prize.

Let’s see if the political elites which surround each world leader, will allow this to happen, and let’s not forget what happened to John F. Kennedy, when he attempted to start this conversation, see: ‘To Move The World: JFK’s Quest for Peace’ (2013): https://lnkd.in/e8vZE7ym and https://lnkd.in/eN6xqEhs.

Negotiating peace is a hazardous business. It requires great personal courage, conviction and character. We shall now see whether President Trump is possessed of all of these qualities. Fortune favours the brave. So, even though neither he nor anybody in his administration will ever read this post, I wish him good health and success in his Presidency as a Global Peace-Maker. That is both the ‘opportunity’ (i.e. for his legacy), and ‘challenge’, that providence has conferred upon him – the ‘mantle’, i.e. role of which, he did not need to assume and take on. So, let’s see what he now does.

See also:

Dialogue Works on YouTube – Col. Larry Wilkerson: Is the US Rethinking Its Global Strategy?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_mISzmQTdc

The Duran’s Alexander Mercouris NATO Preparing for WAR w RUSSIA: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pi3fvArYI8E

https://quincyinst.org/research/trump-2-0-restraint-foreign-policy-recommendations-for-trumps-second-term/#h-the-war-in-ukraine

‘The fall of Assad’ 

I am not in any way condoling the vile regime of Assad and the suffering he has inflicted on the Syrian people. However, If a strategic aim of the architects of the fall of Assad was to weaken Russia & Iran by drawing them into an endless and futile war in which they would expend blood and treasure, that objective has failed. If the fall of Assad was planned before the firing of the first Oreshnik the architects may not have factored into their planning, the strategic implications of Russia being able to use the weapon to attack targets anywhere in MENA. They may also not have foreseen and factored in Russia signing a comprehensive partnership agreement with Iran. If the Biden administration were amongst the architects, and if Netanyahu can persuade Trump to attack Iran on the premise that Iran is weak, then they have also set a trap for Trump that is designed to wreck his Presidency, and thereby kill the MAGA project, i.e. to prevent Vance/Trump’s successor, from becoming the next MAGA President. So, Trump will have to think this through.

Instead of weakening Russia:

(i) Russia (i.e. a leading BRIC’s member) is in the process of establishing military bases and a port in North Africa, i.e. Libya. So, BRICS members (and aspiring members) will now in effect control all of the strategic seaways around the continent of Africa, and have a military presence (including air bases), from North (i.e. Libya) to South (i.e. South Africa).

(ii) Those who broke Syria now own it, and the occupiers i.e. Turkey, Israel and Hayat Tahrir Al-Sham, will have to expend blood and treasure in holding land that they have taken and are occupying, as Syria is a powder-keg of tribal rivalry, and by invading and bombing Syria, Israel has lit the fuse.

As for Lebanon, if refugees can flood in, then logically, so can arms. In other words, instead of cutting off a pipeline, have the architects in fact created an opportunity for enterprising arms dealers to get arms into Lebanon by using/developing covert routes?

Therefore, have the architects made a series of strategic miscalculations and mistakes which over time will weaken them, whilst strengthening their competitors, including China, i.e. if Trump attacks Iran at Netanyahu’s bidding? That is because it will be the military resources of the US which will be divided by overstretch, and not those of Russia and China. I am left wondering just how naive and stupid the architects in fact are – or am I missing something?

‘Geopolitical dialetheism’ 

I comment as a graduate of one of the UK’s top 3 schools of Political Science (see https://lnkd.in/eVUn8Vm3), with an ongoing interest in the theory of ‘Geopolitical Mediation’ – which is a term I coined and have been writing about on this website since 2014.

I think that the first geopolitical challenge which President-Elect Trump must wrestle with before he announces any strategic foreign policy and defence appointees is not only an ethical one, but counter-intuitively, an internal and structural one, i.e. a challenge that is entirely within his control.

At the heart of the challenge is an ‘existential contradiction’ within MAGA. If as I am sure they do, the NEOCONS, Neo-Liberals & Zionists have joined-up the dots and spotted this ‘Achilles heel’, then they may already have laid elephant sized traps for Trump in both Ukraine & MENA, in order to create and then widen a schism between Trump & his supporters.

1st the contradiction – The two sides are:

(i)          America cannot be great if its resources are consumed by a ‘vortex of war’ in Ukraine & MENA. So, to fulfil his mandate to the American people, Trump must bring both conflicts to an end. In MENA, this requires the creation of a Palestinian state.
(ii)        The survival of neo-liberalism depends upon US (and by extension Israeli) hegemony and wars. This also fuels arms contracts which is linked to jobs and votes. So, both conflicts must escalate.
2nd – the NEOCON traps. Before inauguration day Biden my further involve the US in both conflicts, e.g. if:
(a)    Iran launches a retaliatory attack against Israel, or vice-versa, Israel strikes Iran first; and
(b)    a false flag operation is carried out and results in authorisation of the use of long range missiles to fire deep inside Russia.

Trump cannot do (i) unless he can either avoid the ‘vortex of war’ or quell the ‘flame’ within it by removing the oxygen, i.e. US support.

The 2 sides of the contradiction do not appear to be capable of reconciliation. That is because those with a vested and deeply-embedded interest/investment in neoliberalism perceive MAGA to be an existential threat. I disagree, see my comment below.

‘Geopolitical dialetheism’ – The survival of MAGA (& thus of the Trump political dynasty/legacy), Ukraine, Israel, Jordan & the Gulf monarchies, are all linked to de-escalation & a negotiated resolution of the conflicts in both Ukraine & MENA. If the conflict in MENA expands, Israel will end up fighting simultaneously on 8 separate fronts: (i) Gaza & the West Bank (Hamas); (ii) Lebanon (Hezbollah); Syria; Egypt, Yemen; Iran (and ultimately Russia & China). If Turkey ends its support for Israel i.e by shutting off the supply of oil to Israel, that will become 9. Nobody will emerge victorious. Everybody will lose something. In the case of Israel, it is the very existence of Israel as a functioning and stable state capable of co-habiting with its neighbours – which is linked to attracting inward investment. So, can Trump with the diplomatic support of the leaders of BRICS (i.e. in the background), engineer peace in both Ukraine & MENA. If he can then he can fulfil his promise of making America great again, thereby ensuring a MAGA victory at the polls for the next 10 years plus, i.e. a minimum of 15 years of MAGA (his term of office + 2 potential terms by JD Vance). Let’s see what he does.

Note the influence behind the scenes of Professor William Ury, on Trump’s decision to open up a dialogue with Kim Yong Un, by meeting him in a face to face bi-lateral in Panmunjom. See ‘Possible – How We Survive (and Thrive) in an Age of Conflict’ (2024). No doubt Keir Starmer & David Lammy have both read this book cover to cover, as I did earlier in the year. If not, I recommend that they do so. Quickly! The idea of a ‘win/win/win solution’ is the thesis of this book. Recently, in a talk I gave online about Mediation Advocacy (SCMA / ADR Group Seminar), I spoke about how adopting a ‘collaborative negotiating strategy’ can enable a party in dispute/conflict, to ‘maximise their gains’ by ‘minimising their losses.’ In the context of geopolitics, global collaboration on managing climate change is just one example of how states can maximise their gains by minimising their losses. This is a win/win/win strategy. War of course harms the environment, and results in resources being applied to conflict instead of the managing/solving existential shared global challenges.

See also:

‘What lessons can the architects of BRICS derive from the ancient world about geopolitical convergence through international trade?’

My Question for Dr Taco Terpstra who is presenting an online webinar tomorrow at the Cambridge Centre for Geopolitics, about ‘Trade and Economic Growth in the Ancient World’ is:

‘You are the author of “Trade in the Ancient Mediterranean: Private Order and Public Institutions” and “Trading Communities in the Roman World.”
The subject of your books reveals that people from different religions and cultures can co-exist in peace through international trade, provided there is a sophisticated and stable underlying political infrastructure/world order/network. Today international law and institutions are in tatters. The liberal world order is nearing collapse. However, a new “multi-polar” world order is emerging amongst members of the Global South – BRICS. So, what can history teach us about “Geopolitical convergence through international trade” and what lessons can the architects of BRICS derive from the ancient world about geopolitical convergence?’

Preface to my question:

International trade and finance engenders trust and co-operation between trading partners in different states. That is because interests converge through participation in a common commercial venture which has risks that must be shared and allocated between those who can benefit. This requires the creation of a financial infrastructure. For example, later in history, in medieval long-distance trade – whether it traversed international boundaries or whether it moved within the vast expanse of the medieval Islamic domain, required substantial investments of capital to cover the cost of acquiring goods at distant points, and of transporting them and caring for them until they were disposed of. The perilous conditions of both sea and land travel, the arbitrariness of political and military authorities and the unpredictable market conditions exposed such investments to grave risks. In Islam, it was the partnership and commenda contracts which were the two basic legal instruments through which the economic functions of the provision of capital resources for the formation of commercial investments, and the sharing of the risks of commercial ventures could be accomplished. However, we possess no documents or actual contracts of commenda and partnership arrangements for the first three Islamic centuries.

For information about the webinar see:

https://lnkd.in/eUJxrYhv

‘In this webinar, Taco Terpstra will speak on trade in the ancient world. He will further discuss premodern economic growth, and how to measure and achieve it, distinguishing between Smithian and Schumpeterian theories. His talk will address Roman innovation in the production process, including the role that slavery might have played. Taco will be joined by the Centre’s deputy Director, Professor Bill Hurst, who is convener of the Ancient Geopolitics series.’

The webinar was fascinating. The reply to my question can be heard at around 0.57m (i.e. by fast forwarding to that time). The key point is that not only are ‘trading networks’ based upon ‘trust’, but that ‘trust’ in a ‘society’ is the glue that holds it together. Today we are losing that, i.e. trust in our institutions, government, the media, and our neighbours. This is very dangerous. So, how can the international community/BRICS reverse the decline, i.e. restore ‘trust’ in the ‘system’ that binds it together? That in a sense is the million dollar question/challenge that we now all face. The answer & I am not sure that there is a simple one, perhaps lies in some form of economic productivity that is linked to innovation. I think this requires collaboration. If the tap-root of the challenge is ‘balance of power politics’, then instead of states making their regional competitors fear them, i.e. so that they can dominate their neighbours, they must learn to collaborate with each other, in order to build trust between them.

This idea of ‘co-operation’ lies at the heart of my theory of ‘Geopolitical Mediation’. In other words, ‘Trust’ is the engine of ‘convergence.’ That is because states, while each possessed of unique endowments and resources, through synergy, have the capacity together, to create in a way that far surpasses what each could ever do on their own.

‘Geopolitics of Dependence v. Interdependence.’

‘Globalism’ is based upon a relationship of ‘Dependence.’ A ‘multi-nodal’ global order is based upon a relationship of ‘Interdependence.’ China has mediated a ‘national unity’ agreement aimed at maintaining Palestinian control over Gaza once Israel’s war on the enclave ends. The deal was finalised on Tuesday in China after 3 days of intensive talks. It lays the foundation for an ‘interim national reconciliation government’ to rule post-war Gaza. The agreement was signed by long-term rivals Hamas & Fatah, +12 other Palestinian groups.’ Meanwhile, in Moscow, Russia is mediating a reconciliation between Turkey & Syria. ‘Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has stepped up his efforts to normalize relations with Syrian counterpart Bashar al-Assad whom he labelled as a “terrorist” at the onset of the Syrian civil war in 2011. Now, Erdogan desperately seeks a rapprochement with Assad. ‘ (Google – ‘What does an Erdogan-Assad rapprochement mean for Syrian Kurds?’). Whereas, BRICS diplomacy is based upon ‘interdependence’, the diplomacy of Globalists in the US (Biden administration) & UK (Starmer) is based upon dependence. So, if Trump – who is not a globalist is elected, will the UK will be isolated? I heard no mention of these seismic geopolitical events at the1st PMQ’s in Parliament today. I wonder if any member of the new cohort of MP’s is conscious of the sands of geopolitics that are shifting before their eyes? Google – ‘Russia’s strike on Odessa killed many British and French soldiers — Pedro Bagnos.’

Russia’s strike on Odessa killed many British and French soldiers — Pedro Bagnos — EADaily, July 22nd, 2024 — Military, Russia

‘So, the Russians carried out a strike on Odessa, which killed 18 members of the British Special Air Service, and another 25 were injured. And they tell me that French soldiers have died,” the colonel said. He stressed that we are not talking about mercenaries who are French, but specifically about soldiers of the French army. “They were killed in large numbers, I was told that the number is higher than in Algeria. These are frightening figures, because we are talking about NATO countries,” the expert said. He suggested that most likely the dead were part of the special operations forces, which are always the first to go to war zones. These specialists not only conduct reconnaissance and direct missiles and drones, but often directly participate in military operations. Earlier, EADaily reported that last week the Russian Aerospace Forces struck Odessa, as a result of which an entire unit of British SAS special forces fighters was destroyed — “underwater saboteurs, the elite of the British sabotage community.” …’ This was not mentioned either! Do our MP’s know? What I did hear was Sunak pledge support for a strike against an undisclosed enemy, without first consulting Parliament. Is Starmer now poised to take the UK at any time, into a hot war with Russia? MP’s appear to be blind/oblivious to the profound implications of Sunak’s comments when you join up the dots about what happened 2 days ago in Odessa.

I warned months ago that if France sent troops to Odessa as Macron had pledged to do, that Russia would kill them. I warned about this because that is what Russia said it would do & Russia does not bluff! Now they have. So within weeks of his election Starmer’s policy toward Ukraine has cost the lives of 18 elite British soldiers. To lose one of these men & women is a serious loss. To lose 18 with 25 injured & possibly unable to ever fight again, is a military disaster. Starmer should have taken these troops out of Ukraine on the 1st day of his administration. If he had done that then these elite soldiers would be alive instead of returning to Hereford in body bags. This was a serious mistake & shows a lack of foresight & judgement. I question whether Starmer fully understands the risk of his incompetence & where his policy over Ukraine is taking the UK. i.e. into a direct ‘hot’ war with Russia in Europe. This is idiotic because on all of the key military metrics experts have warned that this is a war the UK & NATO cannot win. So is Starmer not only dangerously incompetent in international relations, but also geopolitically deluded?

See also:

Ukraine DOOMED by their Arrogance w/fmr CIA Intel Analyst Larry Johnson (youtube.com)

Larry C. Johnson on Ukraine’s Collapse: Is Hope Lost? – Is Israel Facing a Catastrophic Downfall? (youtube.com)

DAYS OF RAGE – MOATS with George Galloway Ep 363 (youtube.com)

Amb. Craig Murray : On the Verge of Provoking Nuclear War (youtube.com)

Battle for Donbass coming to an end (youtube.com)

Blinken talks escalation with Iran (youtube.com)

‘Choking the supply of oil minerals & goods shipped up through the Red Sea & through the Suez Canal?’ –

It is a basic principle of Geopolitical Strategy that in order to choke you must 1st control. That is the ‘Geo’ bit in the word ‘Geopolitics.’ I wonder if either the PM, the Foreign Secretary, the Labour Cabinet, the EU & NATO have joined up the following dots:
·       Yemen can interfere with shipping transiting to the Mediterranean through the Red Sea.
·       US/UK cannot prevent this.
·       If Russia retaliates asymmetrically to the use of a UK/US supplied missile fired from Ukraine into Russia by providing missiles & training to the Houthis’, to sink strategic components of a US Carrier Strike Group floating as ‘sitting ducks’ on the Indian Ocean, then because of US military overreach, the US will have to sail its vessels away from the southern entrance of the Red Sea. If that happens, the US will have lost ‘control’ of this strategic ‘choke’ point. Google ‘BRICS News on X + Russia is considering arming Yemen’s Houthis with advanced anti-ship missiles in response to the United States arming Ukraine.’
·       Yemen is likely to become a member of BRICS – ‘We have been working close to BRICS for 10 years in Yemen, because we believe in this vision, if we have a chance to become a member. … We want to work with BRICS. We now have a golden opportunity.’ See – The Yemen–Russia riddle (thecradle.co)
·       Now, if Turkey leaves NATO & joins BRICS, then because of its strategic acquisitions in Alexandria, it can in effect control what passes in & out of the Suez Canal at the northern entrance.
·       If both Turkey & Yemen eventually become members of the SCO this will result in a new security architecture in MENA & not just in the Persian Gulf. Furthermore, the US & UK will have ceded strategic control of MENA.
·       Saudi Arabia joined BRCIS in January –  Brics: What is the group and which countries have joined? – BBC News
·       Has anybody in the labour Government woken up to what is happening or have they been blinded by Zelensky?
·       Ukraine is not a UK national security priority. The Suez Canal, Red Sea, Persian Gulf & MENA are. Perhaps influential board members of UK PLC’s will explain this better than I can. The sight of Zelensky dictating terms to Starmer at the centre of the Cabinet Table, challenging him to ‘show leadership’ & implying that he is a ‘wimp’ if he does not put Zelensky’s survival ahead of the British national Interest, was an unedifying sight. It reveals immaturity & lack of judgment – Starmer allowed Zelensky to ‘box’ him in. Instead of ‘leading’ & being seen to ‘lead’, Starmer has himself been led into an embarrassing trap. So, if he authorises a UK missile to be fired from Ukraine into Russia, I predict that he will reap the geopolitical whirlwind, because Russia will retaliate asymmetrically. Starmer has not only boxed himself & his Government in, but also us. That was not smart!

If my analysis is correct, i.e. if BRICS + SCO can establish a ‘stranglehold’ over the Red Sea + Suez Canal, then they can control what goes in & out of Israel to & from the Red Sea. In other words, Israel will only be able to import fuel & food etc from its Mediterranean ports. So, if Israel invades Lebanon, & Hezbollah destroy these ports e.g. Haifa, with precision guided ballistic & possibly Russian supplied ‘hypersonic’ missiles, then how is the population of Israel going to obtain food & fuel? What impact will this have on the Israeli economy? Will Zionist sellers decide in large numbers, to migrate back to the countries form where they came e.g. Poland, UK, Australia & US? Of far more concern to the UK national interest, is will we have to send men & women to fight on the ground & in the air in Israel & in MENA to prevent this from happening i.e. to wrestle back geopolitical control? Axiomatically, will this lead to conscription? Has anybody in Labour thought this through?

See – The Attritional Art of War: Lessons from the Russian War on Ukraine | Royal United Services Institute (rusi.org)

‘The second phase can commence after one side has met the following conditions. Newly mobilised forces have completed their training and gained sufficient experience to make them combat-effective formations, capable of rapidly integrating all their assets in a cohesive manner. The enemy’s strategic reserve is exhausted, leaving it unable to reinforce the threatened sector. Fires and reconnaissance superiority are achieved, allowing the attacker to effectively mass fires on a key sector while denying the enemy the same. The enemy’s industrial sector is degraded to the point where it is unable to replace battlefield losses. In the case of fighting against a coalition of countries, their industrial resources must also be exhausted or at least accounted for. Only after meeting these criteria should offensive operations commence. They should be launched across a broad front, seeking to overwhelm the enemy at multiple points with shallow attacks.’ In Ukraine when will these conditions be met? i.e. when will Russia commence the 2nd phase? Over the summer? If the Ukrainian army collapses, there will be a rout. They should settle now.

Now take into account the depletion of US/UK/NATO military stockpiles as a result of the ongoing conflicts in Ukraine & Gaza. If Russia is getting stronger & we are getting weaker, then the neocon play of using Ukraine as a ‘battering ram’ to destabilise Russia has utterly failed. It is the other way around, Russia, perhaps to its surprise is discovering that while it is getting stronger, NATO is getting weaker because NATO’s stockpiles are being emptied faster than they can be resupplied. Enter Trump. If he ends the war in Ukraine, then counter-intuitively he will also have saved NATO. So, UK, France & Germany share a common ‘geopolitical’ interest with the US in bringing to an end the war in Ukraine. The mystery is why Starmer is leading the UK into a ‘hot’ war with Russia. If Trump is elected, which appears to be almost certain, then why can’t Starmer see that he is sailing the UK ship around in circles between two towering waves that will converge after November: (i) a hegemon – the US lead by Trump & (ii) the emerging ‘multi-nodal’ giant geopolitical entity of BRICS + SCO? Under Starmer’s leadership we are now in the middle, with no friends on either side. Has he thought this through and does he understand the ‘geopolitical’ dynamics or is he badly advised?

Notes added:

Who benefits from conflict – Cui bono? Answer – Those who profit from war i.e. warmongers.

Warmongers Getting More Detached from Reality on Ukraine Russia War – YouTube

Scott Ritter on Ukraine Collapsing on All Fronts and NATO’s Strategy Being Completely Defeated (youtube.com)

According to Scott Ritter’s analysis – see the Link in my previous comment, the death exchange rate = 500 Russians v. 2.5 – 3K Ukrainians/day = 15K Russians/month v. 75,000 – 90,000 Ukrainians/month. So, between now & January 2025 maximum number of Ukrainian deaths = 90K x 6 = 540,000. Scott Ritter concludes that because:
(i) Russia is recruiting over 30K soldiers/month; &
(ii) Ukraine is suffering from an acute manpower shortage i.e. notwithstanding forced conscription on the streets & although around 500K Ukrainian men of fighting age living abroad & are not returning to be sent to the front,
that this is not sustainable for Ukraine. That is because Ukraine cannot replace its losses with sufficient manpower. If Scott Ritter’s military ‘metrics’ & analysis, which has also been articulated by other expert commentators including Professor John Mearsheimer (a graduate of West Point) & Colonel Douglas McGregor, is factually accurate & robust, then why and for what are these young & old Ukrainian men & women being sacrificed? Trump, who is not a warmonger, has pledged to end the war. Why then are Starmer & his ‘neoliberal’/’globalist’ government encouraging & supporting this slaughter? Who benefits? Who is pulling the strings?

🔴LIVE: ICJ Delivers Opinion On Israel’s Occupation Of Palestinian Territories | Dawn News English (youtube.com)

Summary of the Advisory Opinion of 19 July 2024 | INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE (icj-cij.org)

186-20240719-sum-01-00-en.pdf (icj-cij.org)

‘Peace requires the establishment of a new “Westphalian” world order.’  

The following is from ‘The Ukraine War & The Eurasian World Order’ (2024) by Glen Diesen, Professor at the University of South-Eastern Norway. His research focus is Russia’s transition from the Greater European Initiative to the Greater Eurasion Partnership.

‘The proxy war in Ukraine revealed the fatal dysfunction of the hegemonic world order that has accelerated the transition to a multipolar world order. While the Westphalian world order seeks a balance of power to avoid conflicts, the unipolar order necessitates perpetual conflicts to ensure allies are dependent and rivals are weakened. The Ukraine war could easily have been prevented if the Westphalian principles had been followed. … [The] West knew that converting Ukraine from a bridge to a Bastian against Russia would likely spark a civil war and a Russian invasion. … After Russia invaded, the pending settlement between Russia and Ukraine was sabotaged primarily by the U.S. and UK. Diplomacy was again rejected as the West viewed defeating Russia on the battlefield and the destruction of its economy as required to restore its hegemony as the foundation for peace and the so-called rules-based international order. … Not a single major Western leader advocated for diplomacy as negotiations became a naughty word used by fifth columnists. … Liberal hegemony glorifies the dominance of one centre of power, but this narrative has collapsed. … [The] Ukraine war was in actuality the direct consequence of the West’s efforts to undermine the Westphalian world order and advance a hegemonic world order. … NATO countries converted Ukraine from a neutral state to a frontline against Russia by marginalising the domestic opposition in Ukraine, demonising Russia, curtailing the democratic rights of its own Russian speaking population, building a large army, and preventing any peace settlement and reproachment with Russia. The proxy war in Ukraine represents a conflict between two competing world orders – the West’s liberal hegemony and what can be conceptualised as a multipolar Eurasian-Westphalian world order. The high stakes in what is now an all or nothing game reveal the reason why both NATO and Russia have been prepared to take such unprecedented risks, including the possibility of nuclear war.’

So, the war in Ukraine in the result of a collapsing world order, i.e. the unipolar moment. While the Ukraine war has ended liberal hegemony, a multipolar Westphalian system has not yet asserted itself. So, the world is entering into a turbulent period which may endure for more than 10 years.

‘Ukraine became a pawn on the European chessboard between 1991 and 2014. Ukraine was destined to become the centre of a proxy conflict between the liberal hegemony and the West’s failing world order as Ukraine is a divided country in a divided Europe.’

So, logically, peace requires the establishment of a new ‘Westphalian’ world order.

‘Liberal hegemony replaced international law with the rules-based international order and reinvented diplomacy as a subject-object civilising mission.’ So, If ‘liberal hegemony’ (i.e the ‘old world order’) is inseparable from ‘white-settlor supremacy’ & ‘colonialism’, then the impulse driving the war in Ukraine is the same as that driving the war v. the Palestinian people in Gaza – a ‘Master – Subject’ relationship. Geopolitically, these conflicts are joined at the hip. If I am right, then Egypt, Jordan, Oman, Saudi Arabia & the Gulf states have come to a geopolitical fork in the road. They can either survive and endure by becoming a member of a new ‘Westphalian world’ order, of which BRICS is a manifestation, or they can continue to support the liberal hegemony of the US & the collective West in MENA. They cannot do both. If the rulers of these Arab states pick the ‘losing’ side, then I wonder if politically, their regimes will survive. See also my next comment.

if the conflicts in Ukraine & Gaza are ‘joined at the hip’, because they are both driven by a political theory requiring the dominance of ‘liberal hegemony’ as the organising principle of a uni-polar ‘world order’, then what are the links between: (i) the institutions of ‘liberal hegemony’; (ii) ‘Zionism’; (iii) the US neo-cons; and (iv) the Israel Lobby in the US & UK? Are these interests working together, collectively, the taproot of both conflicts?

‘Is the dynamic root of the geopolitical contest between Global North v. Global South – “cultural”?’ 

What do these phrases mean? – ‘Global North and Global South are terms that denote a method of grouping countries based on their defining characteristics with regard to socioeconomics and politics. According to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), the Global South broadly comprises Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, Asia excluding Israel, Japan, and South Korea, and Oceania excluding Australia and New Zealand. … Opposite to the Global South is the Global North, which the UNCTAD describes as broadly comprising Northern America and Europe, Israel, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand. As such, the two terms do not refer to the Northern Hemisphere or the Southern Hemisphere, as many of the Global South’s countries are geographically located in the former and, similarly, a number of the Global North’s countries are geographically located in the latter. … Countries of the Global South have also been described as being newly industrialized or in the process of industrializing, many of them are current or former subjects of colonialism.’ (Global North and Global South – Wikipedia).

Which states belong to the Global South?, See – OWSD 138 Countries – Global South.pdf

Russia which is a member of BRICS is not included. China, Iran & India are. So is Saudi Arabia, which has applied to join BRICS.

Perhaps a sharper dichotomy exists between: (i) former ‘colonial’ powers (all in the Global North); and (ii) former colonised populations (all in the Global South)? Looked at through the geopolitical lense of ‘balance of power politics’, a distinction can also be made between (i) the hegemony of the US + the collective ‘West’ = the ‘old world order’ (i.e. the ‘Global North [‘GN’]); and (ii) the emergence since 2019 of a ‘new’ multi-polar world order (i.e. BRICS + The Global South [‘GS’]).

If I am right, then arguably the dynamic root of the contest between GN & GS is ‘cultural’. So, the existential choice confronting political leaders on both sides is: (i) Do we fight each other?; or (ii) Do we work together? My theory of ‘Convergence’ (see below) is that states need to transform their relationship with each other from being ‘competitors’ to becoming ‘partners.’

‘Emergence of a New World Order?’

A new world order is emerging before our eyes under the stewardship of BRICS. This week the security pact entered into between Russia & North Korea (‘NK’) signalled that BRICS are in effect establishing a Eurasian ‘NATO.’ I predict that NK will join BRICS. I also predict that Türkiye may leave NATO and join BRICS, See: Col. Lawrence Wilkerson : Turkey to Leave NATO and Join … (youtube.com) & Why Turkey wants to join Brics | Middle East Eye

A regional war in MENA appears not only to be inevitable, but imminent. See: Col Douglas Macgregor: Israel Prepares for All Out War in Lebanon (youtube.com)

That is because Israel has lost in Gaza, and as a consequence, has strategically decided to draw the US into a wider war by attacking Lebanon. These are not my words. They are those of Colonel Macgregor. Listening to military experts, my understanding is that if Israel does this, that large parts of Israel, including the cities of Haifa & Tel Aviv will be attacked, using precision-guided ballistic missiles which cannot be intercepted. So, I further predict that a large number of civilians will leave Israel. In the case of settlers (i.e. all Israelis who are not indigenous to MENA), some I suppose will return to the countries from which they emigrated, including: Poland; US, UK & Australia. There will in effect be a reverse exodus. Emigration of Zionists from Israel could reach an existential ‘tipping-point’. My understanding is that Israel’s ‘existential’ military doctrine is ‘escalation dominance.’ If that is correct, then it must follow that there is a ‘real likelihood’ that Israel will use a nuclear weapon against its Arab neighbours. I predict that if a nuclear weapon is used, that Israel will not only trigger an ‘existential’ regional war in MENA, but also a world war in which Russia, North Korea, China and possibly other members of BRICS become directly involved. This will be a geopolitical contest between the ‘Global North v. the ‘Global South.’ It will be a war of missiles. Millions of people around the globe will be incinerated in seconds.

I mention this as an author, because I predict that in the aftermath of a nuclear holocaust, a new world order (‘NWO’) will emerge. The architects of the NWO will have to design new supra-national institutions for global governance. If this is of academic interest to you, I have fully updated the ‘Research Bibliography’ on the ‘Cultural heritage Law & International Dispute Settlement’ page at www.carlislam.co,uk. On the reading list (which I have assembled in my library) is, Diesen, Glenn (2024) The Ukraine War & The Eurasian World Order, Clarity Press Inc. I am reading this over the next 14 days. I plan to steadily read all of the books on the list starting in August. This will take around 2 years before I can put pen to paper as an author. However, I have already read over 1/3rd of the books listed in the current Bibliography, including nearly all of the books about negotiation & mediation – which incidentally is the subject of my online talk to members of the SCMA worldwide in October.

See also:

Can BRICS create a new world order? | Politics | Al Jazeera

Jews are leaving Israel in disillusion. They’ve been leaving for a long time | Middle East Eye

‘How possibly could the conflict between Israel & Palestine be resolved by engaging the Third Side?’

See my blog about ‘Negotiation Skills’ below &  listen to: Alastair Crooke : Israel and Reality (youtube.com)

A recent poll shows that 74% of Israeli citizens are opposed to a ‘two-state solution.’

So, applying ‘realism’, that is not going to happen voluntarily, unless and until 74% drops below 50%.

As I wrote in my blog below – ‘Thinking beyond the Endgame’:

‘Even if a single state solution can be imposed by the UN & parking the “building block” issues which include restoration of land stolen by Zionist settlers to the Palestinians, Professor Noura Erakat identifies two residual obstacles to enduring peace:

(i)        Jewish children in Israel are more ‘conservative’ than their religiously zealous ‘Zionist’ parents. So, the ingrained cultural belief, that as ‘White Colonial Settlers’ they are superior to the Palestinians & neighbouring Arab peoples will still exist. [‘Zionism’].

(ii)          Even if the US ceases to be Israel’s patron by ceasing to supply arms i.e. following a decision by the ICJ that Israel has committed Genocide, then another state may take their place. [‘Arms’].

See: https://lnkd.in/eHWDV58s & go to 36 M.’

So, how can this conflict be transformed into peace by engaging the ‘Third Side’, i.e. what ‘shared’ vision is needed, in order to to create & build a single state/2 states, in which the children of Palestine and Israel, can co-exist & live side by side, in safety & peace – as equals in the eyes of each other?

The following is intended to provide some food for thought and discussion:

1st – There must be a permanent ceasefire. Then talks i.e. negotiation about how to constructively resolve differences can begin.

2nd – There must be an urgent/immediate humanitarian intervention to save Palestinian lives & to prevent resumption of armed conflict.

3rd – Israel must agree to becoming a ‘normal‘ i.e. ‘secular’ state, and to being treated by UN member states as being a ‘normal’ state that is no different from any other.

4th – Both sides must be disarmed & become ‘neutral’, i.e. either as a single or  two ‘neutral’ states, with security guarantees being provided by a coalition of e.g.: China; Egypt; Gulf States; Iran; Jordan; Turkey; US & Russia.

[The thinking behind mutual disarmament, is that neither could become a future military threat to each other, or to any other state in the region. In other words, to survive and thrive, each would have to maintain good relations with all of their neighbours throughout the region. Instead of relying upon escalatory dominance, in order to survive, Israel would have to become an integral economic, social & diplomatic piece of the MENA jigsaw, of which it could one day become a leading member, through diplomacy and trade, instead of war. That may also prove to be in the best long term interests of the United States, which as a result of the conflict in Gaza, has become increasingly diplomatically isolated in MENA, as key states in the region, including Saudi Arabia, are either moving toward, or have applied to join BRICS].

5th – A bespoke constitutional framework for peaceful co-existence must be imagined, developed & agreed.

6th – So that land can somehow be re-distributed between Palestinians & Israelis, illegal Israeli settlors must be forcibly removed from designated Palestinian land.

7th – Then a healing process can begin , i.e. through a process of ‘truth & reconciliation’ (cf South Africa). In parallel, conditions can be created and guaranteed on the ground, so that the reconstruction of Gaza can begin, and investment can be attracted for development.

Obviously the issues of ‘transitional justice’ & ‘accountability’ – which I do not mention above, also need to be addressed.

‘Negotiation Skills & Strategies.’

Over June & July 2024, in my free time, I am researching & writing an article for publication in an academic journal about commercial negotiation skills & strategies. This exercise is a foundation & prelude for a 1 hour online talk I am presenting at 4pm GMT on Thursday 24 October 2024, to members of the SCMA worldwide (https://scmastandards.com/). The talk is about ‘Mediation Advocacy in Trust & Estate Disputes.’ This is also a rare opportunity to update my negotiation skill set by innovating new negotiation techniques for use in settling probate disputes. Today I am completing the reading of the latest book by William Ury – ‘Possible.’ One of the key negotiation concepts and techniques discussed in the book, is how to ‘Engage the Third side.’ The idea at the centre of this technique is to think ‘Win-Win-Win.’ As Professor Ury writes on p.216 of his book, ‘[We] need to take a big step beyond our previous thinking about “win-win”. From “win-win” we need to move to “win-win-win”. We need to think in terms of a third win – a win for a larger community, for the future, for our children. This third win catalyses and sustains the efforts of the third side over the long term.’ I agree. In a probate dispute a ‘win-win-win’ scenario is not only: (i) preservation and expansion of the capital value of the estate, through tax-efficient and retrospective post-death estate planning within the available time window; but also (ii) the survival and continuation of a family owned business. That requires the preservation of relationships, networks, and maintenance of liquidity, which in turn requires competent professional governance. William Ury has mediated every kind of dispute from probate/business succession disputes to ceasefires, and was the imaginative ‘brain’ behind the meeting which eventually took place between President Trump and Kim Jong Un, in Singapore, following which the risk of a nuclear conflict occurring between the US and North Korea dropped from 50% to less than 1% (see p.199 of the book). I have today also reposted two posts I wrote on Sunday about mediation advocacy i.e. negotiation. The negotiation techniques each post illustrates are explained in my comments below. I will expand upon these techniques in the article and talk.

‘If an expert of the calibre and experience of Professor Postol at MIT – who is an insider, is saying this about Biden, Macron and Sunak, then the problem is not just strategic incompetence. It is geo-political ignorance.’

‘The Russians are the only adults in the field right now. I would call the current leadership in the United States and Western Europe – strategic indolence. [Indolence means ‘Lazy’. It’s synonyms include: ‘lackadaisical’ i.e. lacking enthusiasm and thoroughness; ‘inert’, ‘negligent’ and ‘feckless’ – NB not my word choice but that of Professor Postol]. It is like they seem to be unable to understand what is happening in front of them. The latest NATO meeting was like a Monty Python skit. People coming up with ideas that show they don’t have the foggiest idea about what the actual situation is. … It tends to confirm and re-confirm that the political leadership in Europe is completely without the most basic understanding of what is going on.’
See: Putin & China Drop Bombshell on U.S. Military Strategy as Ukraine Collapsing | MIT Prof. Ted Postol (youtube.com)
(Theodore Postol is Professor of Science, Technology and National Security Policy in the Program in Science, Technology, and Society at MIT. He did his undergraduate work in physics and his graduate work in nuclear engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. After receiving his Ph.D., Dr. Postol joined the staff of Argonne National Laboratory, where he studied the microscopic dynamics and structure of liquids and disordered solids using neutron, x-ray and light scattering, along with computer molecular dynamics techniques. Subsequently he went to the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment to study methods of basing the MX Missile, and later worked as a scientific adviser to the Chief of Naval Operations. After leaving the Pentagon, Dr. Postol helped to build a program at Stanford University to train mid-career scientists to study developments in weapons technology of relevance to defense and arms control policy. In 1990 Dr. Postol was awarded the Leo Szilard Prize from the American Physical Society. In 1995 he received the Hilliard Roderick Prize from the American Association for the Advancement of Science and in 2001 he received the Norbert Wiener Award from Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility for uncovering numerous and important false claims about missile defenses).
So, if an expert of the calibre and experience of Professor Postol at MIT – an insider, is saying this about Biden, Macron & Sunak, then the problem is not just ‘strategic incompetence’. It is ‘geo-political ignorance’. I wonder if Starmer will be any different?

See also:

‘UN rights body demands Israel be held accountable for possible war crimes (05.04.2024).’

‘GENEVA, April 5 (Reuters) – The United Nations Human Rights Council on Friday adopted a resolution calling for Israel to be held accountable for possible war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Gaza Strip, although Israel dismissed it as a “distorted text”. Twenty-eight countries voted in favour, 13 abstained and six opposed the resolution, including the United States and Germany. The adoption prompted several representatives to the Council to cheer and clap. The resolution stressed “the need to ensure accountability for all violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law in order to end impunity”. It also expressed “grave concern at reports of serious human rights violations and grave breaches of international humanitarian law, including of possible war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Occupied Palestinian Territory”. Meirav Eilon Shahar, Israel’s permanent representative to the United Nations in Geneva, accused the Council of having “long abandoned the Israeli people and long defended Hamas”. “According to the resolution before you today, Israel has no right to protect its people, while Hamas has every right to murder and torture innocent Israelis,” she said ahead of the vote. “A vote ‘Yes’ is a vote for Hamas.” The United States had pledged to vote against the resolution because it did not contain a specific condemnation of Hamas for the Oct. 7 attacks, nor “any reference to the terrorist nature of those actions”.
It did, however, said that its ally Israel had not done enough to mitigate harm to civilians. “The United States has repeatedly urged Israel to de-conflict military operations against Hamas with humanitarian operations, in order to avoid civilian casualties and to ensure humanitarian actors can carry out their essential mission in safety,” said Michèle Taylor, U.S. permanent representative to the Council. “That has not happened and, in just six months, more humanitarians have been killed in this conflict than in any war of the modern era.” The U.N. Human Rights Council, which meets several times a year, is the only intergovernmental body designed to protect human rights worldwide. It can increase scrutiny of countries’ human rights records and authorise investigations.’

See:

Is international pressure mounting for a War Crimes Tribunal to be set up to prosecute anybody who has been directly involved in, or complicit in any war crimes committed by Israel in Gaza and the West Bank?

See also my blogs on the ‘Understanding Conflict & Mediating Settlement’ page:
–        ‘Execution of unarmed civilians by the IDF.’
–        ‘Israeli troops massacre unarmed civilians collecting food in Gaza – 29.02.2024.’
–        ‘War Crime of execution – Rome Statute of the ICC.’
–        ‘Complicity In International Law.’
–        ‘South Africa’s case is legally watertight.’
–        ‘Following the ICJ ruling will Rishi Sunak confirm that future arms sales to Israel have been suspended?’
–       ‘International Humanitarian Law prohibits the starvation of civilians as a method of warfare.’
–      – ‘Intentional destruction of cultural heritage is not only a war crime it is also prima facie evidence of genocide.’
–        ‘For a war crimes suspect nowhere is safe.’

‘Speaking to BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Alicia Kearns said the government must suspend arms sales to Israel and claimed ministers were no longer saying that Israel was complying with international humanitarian law, merely that it had the capacity to do so.
“I believe we have no choice but to suspend arms sales and it is important that the public understands this is not a political decision as some people want to present it as,” she said.’ – Google – ‘Guardian + Middle East crisis live: UN rights body adopts resolution for Israel to be held accountable for possible war crimes in Gaza.’

Devastating it took aid worker deaths for Israel to change approach, says senior Tory | Foreign policy | The Guardian

‘The UN Human Rights Council on Friday demanded a halt in all arms sales to Israel, highlighting warnings of “genocide” in its war in Gaza, which has killed more than 33,000 people.’

Gaza: Human Rights Council resolution urges arms embargo on Israel | UN News

‘All war crimes are crimes for which there is universal jurisdiction. The most authoritative & convenient list of war crimes committed in international or internal armed conflicts is now to be found in the ICC statute. The defence that an accused was acting under the order of a superior is available only in very limited circumstances.’ Handbook of International Law, by Anthony Aust (formerly legal advisor to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office). For a war crimes suspect nowhere is safe, because all war crimes are crimes for which there is universal jurisdiction. Therefore, any State can prosecute them, i.e. they can be prosecuted anywhere and everywhere. Once the ICC has issued an arrest warrant against a person [‘P‘] suspected of war crimes, the rhetorical question that those who belong to the same political elite or who associate with P need to ask themselves is – ‘Will I be next?’ States retain the primary responsibility in the prosecution of international crimes. Under the Geneva Conventions & Additional Protocol I of 1977, States must prosecute people accused of war crimes before their own national courts or extradite them for trial elsewhere.

Has the UN human Rights Council set this process irreversibly in motion?

Although the ICC is the only permanent international tribunal set up to prosecute war crimes, other international courts including the International Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights can hear cases related to alleged violations.

Under U.S. law, I wonder if the families of American victims of Israel will bring claims for compensation against Israel in the U.S. courts?

See also my blog –  ‘A violation of International Humanitarian Law can give rise to a private law remedy actionable in the English Court’ on the ‘Understanding Conflict & Mediating Settlement’ page in which I wrote:

‘Law Debenture Trust Corp Plc v. Ukraine [2023]UKSC 11 – Can a threat by one foreign state [‘S.1’] to use physical violence against civilians of another foreign state [‘S.2’] and a threat to damage property in S.2 constitute duress under English Law?’

So, if: (i) Israel owed a ‘fiduciary’ duty’ to aid workers under IHL, (ii) the English court has jurisdiction; (iii) the existence of the ‘fiduciary’ duty is recognised by the court; and (iv) the court finds that Israel has breached that duty, then it appears to follow from what Professor Enonchong says in his book – ‘Duress, Undue Influence And Unconscionable Dealing’ at para 28-064, that a court of equity has the power to award ‘equitable compensation’ against Israel, because equitable compensation ‘is a remedy by which the court of equity award substantial compensation for loss which the complainant has suffered as a result of the defendant’s equitable wrong’ i.e. breach of ‘fiduciary duty.’

Israel says aid workers were ‘misidentified.’ I have just heard a reporter on Sky say – We must take the IDF at its word. Why? This does not make any sense.

‘The chief executive of the Australian Council for International Development, Marc Purcell, told Guardian Australia it would be “extraordinary if the IDF” hadn’t known the “identities” of the workers “because they were there with the full awareness of the IDF”. Purcell said “intense coordination and negotiation” routinely occurred with the IDF about “the movement of aid and who would be travelling”.
The communications director for the United Nations aid agency Unrwa, Juliette Touma, also shed light on the “intense” coordination that routinely occurred with Israeli authorities prior to aid deliveries. The process is known as “deconfliction”.
“Only when they give us the approval do we move. … We include the names and nationalities of the team that is travelling on the convoy, the content of the convoy, the number of vehicles that we are sending on that convoy, the route of that convoy including GPS coordinates with the Israeli authorities.” …’

Israeli military likely knew identities of aid workers killed in charity convoy, humanitarian groups say | Israel-Gaza war | The Guardian

See also:

‘Israeli intelligence sources reveal … Israeli military officials permitted large numbers of Palestinian civilians to be killed. … Israel’s use of powerful AI systems in its war on Hamas has entered uncharted territory for advanced warfare, raising a host of legal and moral questions, and transforming the relationship between military personnel and machines.
“The machine did it coldly. And that made it easier.” …“I would invest 20 seconds for each target at this stage, and do dozens of them every day. I had zero added-value as a human, apart from being a stamp of approval. It saved a lot of time.” …
Lavender listed as many as 37,000 Palestinian men who had been linked by the AI system to Hamas or PIJ. …
Because of the system, the targets never end.”…
[If] Israel has been using dumb bombs to flatten the homes of thousands of Palestinians who were linked, with the assistance of AI, to militant groups in Gaza, that could help explain the shockingly high death toll in the war. …
UN data shows that in the first month of the war alone, 1,340 families suffered multiple losses, with 312 families losing more than 10 members.’

‘In 2021, a book titled “The Human-Machine Team: How to Create Synergy Between Human and Artificial Intelligence That Will Revolutionize Our World” … the author … makes the case for designing a special machine that could rapidly process massive amounts of data to generate thousands of potential “targets” for military strikes in the heat of a war. [To] resolve … a “human bottleneck for both locating the new targets and decision-making to approve the targets.” Such a machine, it turns out, actually exists. A new investigation by +972 Magazine and Local Call reveals that the Israeli army has developed an AI-based program known as “Lavender,” unveiled here for the first time. According to six Israeli intelligence officers … [the IDF] essentially treated the outputs of the AI machine “as if it were a human decision.” …’

The selection of targets by Lavender entirely lays to waste any morality underlying the so-called ‘human shield’ argument used to justify mass murder of civilians in Gaza.

‘[S]ources told +972 & Local Call that, during the first weeks of the war, the army almost completely relied on Lavender, which clocked as many as 37,000 Palestinians as suspected militants — and their homes — for possible air strikes.’

Let’s assume each target was living with 3 other family members. Then, 37K becomes 37K x 4 = 148K. These targets are being killed as I write. ‘Selection’ of targets is unlimited. So, if using Lavender Israel kills 148K civilians/16 months, the AI machine will select more targets. At that rate, excluding those who die of starvation, disease & from lack of any medical care, it is statistically possible that Israel will have murdered the entire civilian population of Gaza within 8.1 months of that milestone, i.e. before or shortly after 1 January 2026. This is organised mass murder carried out by a modern army against unarmed civilians who have no food, shelter, water and electricity – and no means of escape.

‘On what legal basis does the Government believe that Israel has been, and is complying with International Humanitarian Law?’

See  – Israel Assault On Rafah Means “Annihilation”: w/. Unicef’s James Elder, Live From Gaza – YouTube

My question for any MP to ask the Prime Minister when the House returns from a two week holiday on April 15th is – ‘Based upon the eye-witness testimony of James Elder of UNICEF reported in the Guardian (Israel Assault On Rafah Means “Annihilation”: w/. Unicef’s James Elder, Live From Gaza – YouTube‘) and on YouTube (see above) – On what legal basis does the Government believe that Israel has been, and is complying with International Humanitarian Law?’

See also:

‘Amongst members of the UN (with the exception of Israel) – deliberately attacking diplomatic and consular premises is absolutely Taboo!’

As far as I am aware, such an attack is unprecedented in the history of the UN.

See my article the ‘Inviolability of Diplomatic and Consular Premises’ cited in Wikipedia (Footnote 6): Diplomatic law – Wikipedia and ‘https://lnkd.in/exxhdDSA‘ which states – ‘Back in 1988, Carl Islam explained, with some rigour, the basis of immunity afforded to diplomatic and consular premises. … Islam begins with the principle of inviolability. “Inviolability guarantees the sanctity of diplomatic and consular premises.” …’ (There is a link to the text of my article on the Home page at www.diplomaticlawguide.com).

I wrote the article shortly after leaving University while training to be a solicitor with an international law firm in London.

See also:

(2 April 2024) which records:

‘Iran transmitted a letter to the Secretary-General and the Security Council stating that Israel has attacked its diplomatic premises in Damascus by missile strikes, killing at least five Iranian personnel, including senior military advisors and injuring others.  According to media reports, the death toll has risen to 13 — seven Iranian personnel and six Syrian citizens.  Reiterating the Secretary-General’s condemnation of the attack, he declared that the inviolability of diplomatic and consular premises and personnel must be respected in all cases and the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Member States must be respected under international law.

“The rules-based international order is essential for international peace and security, which this Council is mandated to maintain,” he said, noting that  Geir O. Pedersen, United Nations Special Envoy for Syria, has kept the Council apprised of the unrelenting violence on the ground, where six foreign armies are operating on its territory, impacting the lives of civilians and moving a peaceful resolution of the conflict farther out of reach.  Lethal attacks on Iran-linked targets in Syria have been increasingly attributed to Israel, especially since the current conflict with Hamas in Gaza began on 7 October.  While Israel has rarely claimed responsibility for any of these incidents, its officials have repeatedly acknowledged its military operations in Syria and have suggested that more such operations will occur in the future. 

He then appealed to the Council to continue to actively engage all concerned parties to prevent further escalation, reiterating the Secretary-General’s calls on all concerned parties to exercise utmost restraint and avoid further escalation.  “Any miscalculation could lead to broader conflict in an already volatile region, with devastating consequences for civilians who are already seeing unprecedented suffering in Syria, Lebanon, the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and the broader Middle East,” he warned.’

So, this is not just an attack on Iran. It is also an attack against the integrity of the international rules-based order. In that context, it is arguably an attack against the entire UN System, its institutions, and its members – who all strive to uphold the international rules-based order. A state which does such an act, is therefore a ‘Rogue State’. That raises the question – ‘Is such a state fit to belong as a full member of the United Nations?’ By choosing to become a Rogue State, Israel has become an outcast in the eyes of the international community. So, political leaders and states who associate themselves with Israel, need to take care, that they will not be judged by history as being tarnished by the same brush. In this sense, what Israel has done is to weaken not only itself, but also its key allies in the Global North. In other words, Israel has now become an intolerable strategic burden to the US, UK, Germany and France.

‘By attacking the sovereign territory of Iran has Israel crossed a National Security red-line?’

See:

Interestingly – ‘[Israel is also] liable to pay reparations [to Iran] … Following the US bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade during the NATO campaign in 1999 against Serbia for the liberation of Kosovo, the United States paid the Chinese government US $28 million for the damage to its premises as well as US $4.5 million in compensation for those killed or injured in the attack.’ (Diplomatic Law – Commentary on the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, Fourth edition, by Eileen Denza, p137).

So, Iran if it chooses to do so, can instead of military retaliation, issue proceedings in the ICJ v. Israel for the payment of reparations. Extrapolating from that principle, then logically, if a reprisal attack by a terrorist organisation is made against the mission of any other state anywhere in the world [‘OS’], e.g. against a mission of the US/UK/Germany/France, and their diplomatic agents, then OS can also bring proceedings in the ICJ against Israel for the payment of reparations. That is because Israel has endangered the security of OS by attacking the sovereign territory of Iran.

This begs as bigger question – ‘Is Zionism a National Security Threat to the US, UK, Germany & France?’ – who all currently supply arms to Israel, some of which, may possibly have been used in the attack by Israel v. Iran without the prior knowledge and approval of the US, UK, Germany & France.

In other words, by attacking Iran, has Israel become a strategic liability of the US, UK, Germany & France?

‘Gaza – Thinking beyond the Endgame’

Even if a single state solution can be imposed by the UN & parking the ‘building block’ issues which include restoration of land stolen by Zionist settlers to the Palestinians, Professor Noura Erakat identifies two residual obstacles to enduring peace:

(i)        Jewish children in Israel are more ‘conservative’ than their religiously zealous ‘Zionist’ parents. So, the ingrained cultural belief, that as ‘White Colonial Settlers’ they are superior to the Palestinians & neighbouring Arab peoples will still exist. [‘Zionism’].

(ii)          Even if the US ceases to be Israel’s patron by ceasing to supply arms i.e. following a decision by the ICJ that Israel has committed Genocide, then another state will take their place e.g. China. [‘Arms’].

See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgQDChu-jXo & go to 36 M.

The following thoughts occur to me, which I note here for my planned book ‘Understanding Conflict & Mediating Settlement’:

1st – ‘Zionism’:

·        Could Zionist prejudices against Palestinians & Arabs be transformed through a mediated process of ‘truth & reconciliation’ whereby ‘secularism’ eventually displaces ‘zealotry’?

2nd- ‘Arms’:

·       If ‘Zionism’ as ‘White Settler Colonialism & Supremacy’ is the root cause of conflict between Jews & Palestinians in Israel, then in designing a single state in which both Israelis and Palestinians can live in peace with equal rights, the resurgence of Zionism as a military force for imposing political will, must be prevented.
·       A strategy for prevention might include:
(i)         Demilitarising that single state, whatever it is called [‘S’].
(ii)        A total UN prohibition on the supply of arms to S.
(iii)       Geopolitical Mediation between key regional stakeholders [‘KS’] including: Iran, China, Russia, the US – and their proxies, whereby in exchange for each KS acting as a security guarantor of peace in S, Iran agrees to open its doors to the other KS’s for business. See my blog below – ‘Could the election of Donald Trump result in peace in both Ukraine and Gaza? – Some food for thought for realists’.

‘The geopolitical price of US support for Zionism and complicity in Genocide in Gaza.’

See:

‘Is Geo-Political Mediation by Turkey the gateway to a Diplomatic Rapprochement by the West with Russia under a Trump Administration?’

See:

‘Could the election of Donald Trump result in peace in both Ukraine and Gaza? – Some food for thought for realists?’

Watching – John Mearsheimer – U.S. Blind Support of Ukraine / The West: Collective Suicide (youtube.com) (Scroll forward to 40m), the following counter-intuitive scenario occurred to me when I woke up this morning:

Assume the following:

  • The West has no further arms to supply to Ukraine, i.e. the shelf is nearly empty.
  • Money which will be approved by the US Congress for the supply of more arms to Ukraine will mostly fund US arms manufacturers, i.e. the US Industrial-Military Complex, and cannot result in the supply of arms to Ukraine which do not exist as they have not yet been manufactured, and that it will take around two years to fulfil orders.
  • Ukraine continues to suffer heavy losses on the battlefield.
  • Members of the Ukraine officer corps conclude that they are fighting a proxy war to further US interests, i.e. that their men are dying for America and not for Ukraine, see: Under Secretary of State Victoria Nuland: The Two-Year Anniversary of Russia’s Full-Scale Invasion of Ukraine (csis.org) – ‘By every measure Ukraine’s bravery and strength, its resilience, has made the United States safer, too.’
  • There are deepening schisms within the government of Ukraine.
  • That disaffected members of Ukraine’s army attribute responsibility for the death of a substantial number of their fallen comrades to former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, whom they consider to have blood on his hands, because they believe he applied pressure on President Zelensksy to refuse a deal with Russia early on in the conflict, i.e. that these men and women have died needlessly in a lost cause that could have been avoided – see: Official: Johnson Forced Kyiv To Refuse Russian Peace Deal ━ The European Conservative
  • Russia is poised to take more land.
  • Donald Trump is elected as President of the United States in November.
  • Between the date of his election and inauguration, the Ukrainian army disintegrates, because heavy, relentless and ongoing losses on the battlefield have reached a ‘tipping-point’, beyond which carrying on the fight is suicidal, as  logistically, Ukraine has lost the war of attrition, and no longer has the manpower and arms to continue the fight. In other words, it is a death sentence.
  • There is a coup d’état by the Ukrainian military led by disaffected officers who were recently removed by President Zelensksy.
  • Heavy casualties have been inflicted on both the IDF and Israeli civilians by Hezbollah following an invasion by Israel of Lebanon.
  • Palestinian factions have coalesced around a unified leadership structure.
  • The Global South led by Russia is seeking to engineer a peace process and settlement of the conflict in Gaza.
  • By January 2025, almost 1/3 of the population of Gaza have been killed by the IDF, and Israeli settlers have started to build illegal settlements in the north of Gaza. A US boycott in the UN Security Council to protect Israel, would at that point cause an irreversible fissure between the Global South and the Global North, placing American hegemony in MENA in jeopardy, which would be a foreign policy distaster for the US and its allies in the Gulf States. The US will not only look weak, i.e. like a ‘patsy’, it would have failed to seize the moment to salvage whatever US moral authority remains following Biden’s unqualified support for Israel’s war crimes, and the complicity of his administration in those crimes. From the start of his administration, it will also constrain Trump’s diplomatic influence and leverage with Russia and China, because in the eyes of the Global South, the US is tarnished by the same brush as Israel – Genocide, which is the subject of ongoing proceedings in the ICJ, along with the illegality under International Law of Israel’s occupation of Palestinian lands.
  • That while Donald Trump’s foreign policy team will be influenced by the Israel lobby led by Evangelical Christian Zionists in the US, Trump himself has no personal loyalty to Netanyahu, and in fact has some animosity. In other words, Trump will not be sorry to see the back of Netanyahu, and does not want to be seen by Russia and China as being Netanyahu’s poodle.
  • That Donald Trump’s foreign policy priority is containment of China.

Then, could Donald Trump liberate US military resources to focus on the Pacific by killing two birds with one stone as follows:

  • By directing NATO to agree to a diplomatic settlement of the war in Ukraine under the terms of which:

(i)  Ukraine becomes a neutral country.

(ii)  Russia agrees not to take more land.

(iii) Both sides agree to the cessation of all military operations.

(iv) Russia agrees to free elections in the surviving rump state of Ukraine.

(v) The US, UK and France et al, are allowed to remove any forces who are operating covertly in Ukraine – by which time, some of whom, may be inside prison if captured; and agree to the permanent dismantlement of any secret bases in Ukraine.

  • By blaming the expanding war in MENA on Netanyahu and his Neocon supporters in Washington under his predecessor Joe Biden, thereby breaking the pipeline between:

(i) Evangelical Christian Zionists (i.e. a key constituency of US voters) – whose vote Donald Trump will no longer need in order to be elected, as he will already have been elected.

(ii) The Israel lobby (i.e. key financial donors).

(iii) Neocon hawks in the US foreign policy establishment (i.e. foreign policy decision-makers).

  • By then, working together with a caucus of the Global South lead by e.g. Russia:

(i) To ensure through a ‘convergence’ of interests, that the US remains the Hegemon in the region – see ‘The Idea of Geopolitical Mediation’ on the ‘Geopolitical Mediation and Peace Building’ page at diplomaticlawguide,com.

(ii) In their joint interests, to initiate a mediated dialogue between all key stakeholders in the region, whereby conditions for investment and reconstruction can be established through a peace process and agreement between: (a) the parties in conflict; (b) the US and its allies in the Global North; (c) Russia, China and Iran, and all of their respective proxies.

(iii) To facilitate an acknowledgment and agreement between all key stakeholders, that a sustainable peace in MENA, can only be achieved if Israel is transformed from being a Zionist state into a normal secular state, i.e. a single-state solution.

(iv) To facilitate normalisation of diplomatic relations between key stakeholders and Israel, after Netanyahu and his right wing government have been replaced by a moderate political leadership who are not ideological Zionists, i.e. following elections in Israel – see my blog below, the ‘Schism between IDF & Netanyahu’s Government – Which side will the Israel Lobby take?’

(v) To then open the door to trade with Iran – which was described by Professor Ehteshami in his talk above ‘The Geopolitics of China’s Belt & Road Initiative and Western Focus’, as being the last ‘El Dorado.’

To his credit, Donald Trump is not a warmonger, and he is not tainted by the man-made distasters in Ukraine and Gaza, both of which occurred under the watch of his predecessor, Joe Biden – who is also responsible for America’s humiliating flight from Afghanistan and the resulting mess left behind. Nor does he appear to be  interested in geo-politics and strategy. However, thinking as a business tycoon, if his geo-economic instincts and beliefs can prevail over opposition from hawks within his own foreign policy team, and this outcome is achieved, then:

  • he will not only be free to focus on China;
  • he will also be praised as being the primary architect of peace in both Ukraine and Gaza,

while remaining blameless in the eyes of right-wing Evangeligal Christian Zionists in the US, because his fingerprints will not be on the removal of both Zelensksy and Netanyahu – as they wil have been removed from power by their own people.

Since it is highly unlikely that Donald Trump and any of his advisers will ever read this blog,  what occurred to me this morning will remain in the realm of speculation. However, I hope that it does provide some food for thought for realists, as bringing about peace in both Ukraine and Gaza will not only save hundreds of thousands of lives, it may also prevent further outbreaks of conflict, by creating a geo-political energy, i.e. a form of centifugal economic and political stability which can permeate and spread outwards from the central axis of conflict in MENA – i.e. the conflict in Palestine, to reach neighbouring states in the region, and to resonate far beyond in a wave effect, into Africa in the West, and into Central Asia in the East. That wave effect is the opposite of a regional war which then becomes a global conflict between hegemons and their proxies. Political leaders who can achieve that, will be lauded by future generations, as having saved the world from existential catastrophe at a time of great peril. That is the zenith of statesmanship and world leadership. If Trump can achieve that, he will have truly made America great again.

See also:

My blog on the ‘Negotating Political Order’ page – ‘Understanding Conflict & Mediation.’

My blog on the ‘Negotating Political Order’ page – ’14th Principle of Negotiating Political Order – Balancing realism with morality in the design of a political structure.’

Victoria Nuland RESIGNS, Glenn Greenwald EVISCERATES Leading Neocon: Interview (youtube.com)

Biden’s Weakness in the Middle East Putting U.S. Security at RISK (youtube.com)

Israel May Lose this War w/fmr US Ambassador Chas Freeman (youtube.com)

The most important video on Ukraine | Prof. John Mearsheimer (youtube.com)

Morality in International Relations | Professor Michael Brenner (youtube.com)

Unraveling the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: The Idea of Israel – Michael Brenner (youtube.com)

Neocons Have Lost Ukraine And They Will Continue Anyhow | Dr. Michael Brenner (youtube.com)

Ukraine Doomed by their own and US Leaders Living out ‘Unicorns & Rainbows’ Fantasies (youtube.com)

The Underlying Causes of Stability and Instability in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) Region (csis.org)

Jewish Historian Explodes Israel’s Myths – w/. Zach Foster (youtube.com)

Why Israel Can’t Win: War Expert Prof. Paul Roger’s Devastating Interview (youtube.com)

Prof. Jeffrey Sachs: US Misunderstands Russia (youtube.com)

Prof. Jeffrey Sachs: US Thinks Russia is Still USSR (youtube.com)

Prof. Jeffrey Sachs: Does The CIA Destabilize the World? (youtube.com)

Judging Freedom — Interviews & Media — Jeffrey D. Sachs (jeffsachs.org)

Ukraine crisis: Transcript of leaked Nuland-Pyatt call – BBC News [2014]

How peace in Ukraine might be negotiated | Chatham House – International Affairs Think Tank

‘Religion is not a sustainable basis for nationalism.’ 

The following visit was announced today, see:

The visitor is Benny Gantz.

In my blog below – ‘Schism between IDF & Netanyahu’s Government – Which side will the Israel Lobby take?’, I mentioned that in a recent article published in Foreign Affairs, Ehud Barak (Prime Minister and Minister of Defense of Israel from 1999 to 2001 and 2007 to 2013), wrote:

‘Netanyahu has already lost the trust of most voters. … Around three out of four want him to resign. … The time has come for the people of Israel to stand up and bring about a change of course. Eisenkot, Gantz, and Lapid should lead this effort and demand general elections so that the Israeli people can decide where we are heading and who will lead us there. This is a crucial moment. It calls for leadership and action, before it is too late.’

The United States is Israel’s Patron Hegemon, so what is going on?

Another schism is that between:

(i) Secular Jews; and
(ii) Zionists,

because Judaism is not Zionism.

I recommend that you read Pappe, Ilan (2017) Ten Myths About Israel, Verso, and watch:

Ilan Pape, who is a Jewish historian, advocates the replacement of the Zionist state by a single secular state for both Jews and Palestinians. As a distinguished History Professor he points out that there is not a single religious state in history which has survived, i.e. that ‘religion’ is not a sustainable basis for ‘nationalism’.

Understanding that is key to the design of a new political model for Israel. In his view, until that has been done there can never be peace.

The question is who will the Israel Lobby back – Gantz (who was a Holocaust survivor, is a former alternate prime minister, and served as the 20th Chief of General Staff of the Israel Defense Forces from 2011 to 2015), or Netanyahu?

If they back Gantz et al – can that lead to a ceasefire, dialogue, and eventually to the transformation of Israel from being a Zionist state into a normal secular state in which Jews and Palestinians have equal rights, a vote, and can eventually both live side by side in peace?

‘Schism between IDF & Netanyahu’s Government – Which side will the Israel Lobby take?’

If you are interested in how regime change can be, and has in the past, been engineered, I recommend that you read – ‘Coup D’Etat: A Practical Handbook’ by Edward Luttwak. When I was a Political Science undergraduate, I argued that in order to engineer a coup d’etat you had first to build support amongst key elites, and above all the armed forces. So if a respected military figure, or better still a former political and military leader is the figurehead of the plot, then the process of bringing about a coup d’etat will have credibility and gradually gather momentum. When it reaches it’s crescendo, the irresistible massive rolling ball will then topple the target regime [‘TR’] – well that was my simplistic adolescent theory! I further postulated that when a plot is launched, there is a dynamic parallel effect as the TR will turn in on itself, because the leader of TR will not know whom to trust (the ‘Paranoia Effect’).

A coup cannot be done without the support and blessing of clandestine services both inside the TR and of the TR’s patron hegemon [‘PH’] – think of PH as being Machiavelli’s Prince.

Now, a coup can take place in many ways, and if the architect is really clever, without the public even noticing until regime change has occurred. A real artist will make it look like the will of the people.

Writing in Foreign Affairs on 1 March, in an article – ‘Israel Must Decide Where It’s Going—and Who Should Lead It There The Case for Early Elections’, Ehud Barak (Prime Minister and Minister of Defense of Israel from 1999 to 2001 and 2007 to 2013), wrote:

‘Netanyahu has already lost the trust of most voters. … Around three out of four want him to resign. … The time has come for the people of Israel to stand up and bring about a change of course. Eisenkot, Gantz, and Lapid should lead this effort and demand general elections so that the Israeli people can decide where we are heading and who will lead us there. This is a crucial moment. It calls for leadership and action, before it is too late.’

So, there appears to be a public schism between the IDF and the Netanyahu government.

If there is a plot and the ‘Paranoia Effect’ is happening, then logically Netanyahu’s government is an existential threat to Israel.

While members of the Israel Lobby do not all speak with the same voice, they share a single raison d’etre.

So, which side will they take?

If I had become a diplomat, then as a realist, I might have pointed out to my government that if the leadership of a TR has a vested interest in continuing and expanding a war that harms British interests in the region, and into which British forces could get drawn, it makes strategic sense to back a political leader who can rescue the situation.

Furthermore, if a war has no moral justification, then there is a tipping point at which TR is no longer an asset because it has become a strategic liability.

‘It is expected that the end of the war will see Netanyahu’s long political career end – giving him a potential personal interest in prolonging the war, something that newcomers to the coalition shouldn’t support. Israel’s judges and the pro-democracy protestors have defended its democracy. But if a Unity Party-led government is the most likely outcome of a new election, Israel’s political system is unlikely to develop new approaches to meet the urgent, severe threats to security that the Hamas attacks exposed. Israel needs to explore new political realignments, incorporating fresh talent from different walks of life that could take it back on a more democratic path at home, and towards a pragmatic policy on its future relationship with Palestinians and the region.
But for that to happen the country needs to do some profound soul-searching, and to question how it has arrived at this low point in its history.’ https://www.chathamhouse.org/2024/01/when-netanyahu-falls-israels-democracy-will-need-new-political-realignments

Another schism is that between:

(i) ‘Secular’ Jews; and

(ii) ‘Zionists’.

See:

‘Cultural Heritage Diplomacy/Mediation as a geopolitical tool of environmental protection’

There is a relationship between the human environment, development and culture. The commentary to the preamble to the Draft International Covenant on Environment  and Development (5th edition, IUCN Switzerland 2015) states:

‘All civilisations spring from and are shaped by the quality of their surrounding natural elements [and that] the histories of different peoples are inseparable from the natural conditions in which they have lived for millennia. … Art, literature and science cannot be understood, or even imagined, without acknowledging the influence of nature and its components. Thus, cultural diversity, like biological diversity, emerges from the various ecosystems.’ Since the Declaration of the UN Conference on the Human Environment, Stockholm, June 1972  (the ‘1972 Stockholm Declaration’) stated that ‘Man has a special responsibility to safeguard and wisely manage the heritage of wildlife and its habitat which are now gravely imperilled …’, and this ‘special responsibility’ includes a duty to restore and maintain the integrity of the environment, the existence of fiduciary duties in relation to cultural heritage is linked to wider: environmental; strategic; security; legal; and policy issues, i.e. international law applying to activities on the high seas and on the continental shelf. In my essay ‘Transforming Conflict Through Humanitarian Mediation & Cultural Heritage Diplomacy’ on the Geopolitical Challenges page of this website I argue that ‘Universally recognised fiduciary principles for the protection and preservation of Cultural Heritage [including the environment] exist under International Humanitarian Law [‘IHL’] … [and] that these fiduciary principles can cohere as an ethical foundation for … the development of an integrated strategic framework for the protection of Cultural Heritage [including the environment].’

I conclude that ‘universal ethical values’  which are the foundation of IHL can be applied through Mediation to reduce divergence by demonstrating compatibility. With some creative thinking, IHL can therefore be used to create a road-map for the negotiation of peace in order to protect and preserve the environment. In other words, Cultural Heritage Diplomacy/Mediation is a universal geopolitical tool of environmental protection.

Why is encouraging ‘convergence’ through ‘Cultural Heritage Diplomacy’ not a pillar of British Foreign Policy under the Conservative Government, or as a future foreign policy initiative, an election manifesto pledge of the Labour Party?

‘Concerted diplomacy is necessary to bring peace to Sudan’

It appears that another opportunity for ‘convergence’ is the ongoing conflict in Sudan. Today in their article published in Foreign Affairs – ‘Sudan and the New Age of Conflict How Regional Power Politics are Fuelling Deadly Wars’, the authors, Comfort Ero and Richard Attwod argue: ‘There is, perhaps, a sliver of hope in the geopolitics of Sudan’s crisis. The mood in Arab capitals is more measured than it was a few years ago. Riyadh, in particular, has recalibrated, turning the page on its 2017 spat with Qatar and even seeking to re-establish diplomatic relations with Iran, including through a deal brokered by China in March. Moreover, the regional powers most involved in Sudan—Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Egypt—belong to what has traditionally been the same bloc. The Saudis, whose development plans hinge on stability around the Red Sea, have especially strong motives to halt the fighting. Riyadh’s influence with both Burhan and Hemedti and its close ties to the UAE and Egypt probably give it the best shot of reining in the warring parties, particularly with U.S. support. … The array of actors with influence and competing interests makes coordination among Arab, African, and Western actors crucial. Critically, as efforts to stop the fighting continue, more concerted diplomacy, including from the United States, is necessary to avert a proxy free-for-all among outside powers that would stifle all hope of a settlement anytime soon. No one should underestimate how disastrous a slide toward a protracted, all-out conflict in Sudan would be—primarily for the Sudanese but also more broadly. At a time when other crises are stretching the world’s humanitarian system to the breaking point and many capitals are consumed by the conflict in Ukraine or its knock-on effects, the world can ill afford another catastrophic war.’
See also: https://lnkd.in/enUueT7f – ‘Despite the above reservations, China retains clear strategic advantages and wherewithal in Sudan. It possesses strong political capital to work cohesively with the African Union, which has been fundamentally more responsive to Beijing than Washington over the past decade. When fully employed, Beijing’s long-term engagement, and active on-the-ground presence in Sudan can make a significant difference to the country’s desperate search for stability and transitional justice. The ball is now in China’s court to deliver upon its oft-touted vision of peace-making diplomacy.’
‘Is the potential for “convergence” in MENA a geopolitical “pivot” upon which war can be avoided in the South China seas?’

In my draft essay –  ‘Transforming Conflict Through Humanitarian Mediation & Cultural Heritage Diplomacy’ (see ‘Humanitarian Mediation’ page of this website) I wrote, ‘Where a conflict is primarily the result of a “clash” of divergent values, the solution, i.e. peace, hinges upon evolving a method of convergence.’ On Tuesday, Professor Jonathan Fulton, gave a talk to the Centre for Geopolitics at Cambridge University about the ‘Geopolitical Challenges of China’s Growing Influence in the Gulf.’ During the talk, I wondered whether an opportunity exists for ‘convergence’ between US and Chinese interests in MENA, as a diplomatic tool (along with the participation of regional partners), for engineering stability and peace in the region? In his article, ‘China is trying to create a wedge between the US and Gulf allies. Washington should take note.’ (See the link above), Professor Fulton observes that ‘recent events indicate that leaders in Beijing are no longer satisfied with the logic of strategic hedging and are pursuing a more muscular approach to the Gulf’. On 9 May, Tong Zhao wrote an article in ‘Foreign Affairs’ – ‘How China’s Echo Chamber Threatens Taiwan,’ warning that, ‘the main factor that will determine whether Washington and Beijing come to blows over Taiwan is not necessarily Xi’s strategy for unification but the idiosyncrasies of China’s political system. The dynamics among China’s political leadership, its policy elite, and the broader public have generated an internal feedback loop that is not entirely within Xi’s comprehension or control. This could result in China’s being fully mobilized for war even without Xi deciding to attack Taiwan.’ (See link above). For ‘homoeostasis’ to re-assert itself and supplant the internal ‘feedback loop’ about Taiwan in ‘domestic’ and international policy making, is it possible to diplomatically engineer ‘convergence’ in MENA to: (i) bring about a re-orientation of China’s strategy in the region (i.e. so that US preponderance in MENA is not threatened); and (ii) generate economic and cultural benefits for China (i.e. through increased trade and cultural exchange with Europe and MENA) that will outweigh/’trump’ domestic political imperatives about reunification with Taiwan in the psychology of China’s political elite, i.e. because China can either prosper through Belt & Road or risk war? That is a question I will put at the forthcoming talk about ‘The Geopolitics of China’s Belt & Road Initiative and Western Focus’ on 16 May by Anoush Ehteshami (Professor of International Relations in the School of Government and International Affairs, Durham University): https://lnkd.in/e4bTe_Vz

The question I put at the talk was – ‘Is the potential for a strategic “convergence” of US and China’s competing interests in MENA – linked to Belt & Road, a geopolitical “pivot” upon which war can be avoided in the South China seas, i.e. because China can either prosper through Belt & Road or risk war in the South China Seas?’ For the answer listen to the answer to the second question in the Q&Q session in the recording – which I will post here when I receive it. In short, the US and China do have common strategic interests in MENA, which could be explored in a constructive dialogue e.g. about how to resurrect the JPOA and open the door to infrastructure investment in Iran, which is sitting on approximately 29.6 trillion cubic meters of proven gas reserves which accounts for 16% of the world’s total reserves. This places Iran behind Russia with the second largest gas reserves worldwide. Iran also has more mineral deposits than Russia, which could be mined and exported. Iran is also uniquely situated at the confluence of Europe, MENA, Central Asia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Therefore, if my Theory about ‘Convergence’ is intellectually robust, a ‘convergence’ of US and Chineese interests in MENA could:

  • avoid war in the South China Seas/Taiwan, by enabling China’s economic expansion through BRI in MENA, i.e. if economic expansion can thereby overtake China’s domestic politics of reunification in the psychology of China’s leadership and political elite – as it did under Deng (which is why the West did not fear China’s rise);
  • restore US-Iran relations, by opening the door to business through e.g. US/European/Chineese/Iranian commercial joint-venture infrastructure projects;
  • bring peace, affluence, and stability througout the MENA region (and eventually throughout the continent of Africa?); and
  • thereby curb migration i.e. if economic migrants from MENA/Africa, seek jobs where the money is in MENA, instead of migrating to Europe.

Note added 31.05.2023:

To hear the full answer given by Anoush Ehteshami (Professor of International Relations in the School of Government and International Affairs, Durham University) to my question – ‘Is the potential for a strategic “convergence” of US and China’s competing interests in MENA – linked to Belt & Road, a geopolitical “pivot” upon which war can be avoided in the South China seas, i.e. because China can either prosper through Belt & Road or risk war in the South China Seas?’ , click on the link to his talk on the ‘Geopolitical Challenges’ page under ‘Articles & Talks’ at the top. Then fast forward to the Q&A at 57:56 using the bar underneath the video.

See also:

The BRI and Its Rivals: The Building and Rebuilding of Eurasia in the 21st Century > National Defense University Press > News Article View (ndu.edu)

Middle East/North Africa (MENA) | United States Trade Representative (ustr.gov)

‘Structuring as a tool of mediating peace?’

‘A common thread links many of our contemporary anxieties about the future, from authoritarian backsliding in Russia to corruption in India, to failed states in the developing world, to entrenched interest groups in contemporary American politics. It concerns the difficulties of creating and maintaining effective political institutions, governments that are simultaneously, powerful, rule-bound, and accountable. This might seem like an obvious point that any fourth grader would acknowledge, and yet on further reflection it is a truth that many intelligent people fail to understand . … There is in fact a curious blindness to the importance of political institutions that has affected many people over the years, people who dream about a world in which we will somehow transcend politics.’ (‘The Origins Of Political Order’, by Francis Fukuyama volume 1 (2011), pages 10 and 11. If this analysis is correct, then it follows that an instrument/tool for creating political order out of anarchy is institution building. ‘Liberal democracy is more than majority voting in elections: it is a complex set of institutions that restrain and regularise the exercise of power through law and a system of checks and balances. In many countries, official acceptance of democratic legitimacy was accompanied by the systematic removal of checks on executive power and the erosion of the rule of law. … There had been a broad assumption in the years following the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 that virtually all countries were transitioning to democracy and that failures of democratic practice will be overcome with the simple passage of time. Carothers pointed out that this “transition paradigm” was an unwarranted assumption and that many authoritarian elites had no interest in implementing democratic institutions that would dilute their power.’ (Fukuyama, page 4). If a proxy war requires a proxy solution, then a challenge for mediators in a contemporary ‘Westphalian’ process, is to facilitate the design/structuring/engineering of a new ‘political order’, that results in a sustainable peace, which is secured/guaranteed by the ‘key stakeholders’ with the participation and consent of their ‘proxies’. In other words, in their ‘toolkit’ mediators need the ability to facilitate ‘structural’ thinking about institution building – which like any form of structuring, requires ‘imagination’. Democratic institutions cannot be parachuted onto a tribal society. While countries are not trapped by their pasts, in many cases things happened hundreds or even thousands of years ago which continue to exert a major influence on the nature of local politics. Therefore, in seeking to understand the functioning of contemporary institutions, a mediator needs to look at their origins and to understand the often accidental/contingent forces that brought them into being. See also – https://digitalcommons.lasalle.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1146&context=the_histories