Why is this moment significant? The downfall of the brutal dictatorship that has held Syria in an iron grip since 1971 — first under Hafez al-Assad, and later under his son, Bashar al-Assad — is a moment of triumph for millions of Syrians who have suffered under its rule. Over the past decade, more than 13 million Syrians, or roughly 60% of the population, have been displaced by the brutal repression and the civil war that ensued. Of these, 7 million have fled to neighboring countries or further abroad as refugees. With the Assad regime now toppled, these refugees may now dare to dream of returning to their homeland.

This turn of events also signals a strategic defeat for the “axis of resistance” led by Iran. The axis, which includes Hezbollah (a Shiite militant group based in Lebanon), has relied on a land bridge through Iraq and Syria to maintain its influence in the region. With the fall of Assad, this land corridor is severed, isolating Hezbollah from its Iranian backers and cutting off vital supply lines. This is a significant blow to Iranian and Hezbollah ambitions in the region.

Russia, too, finds itself on the losing side. Despite its military intervention in support of Bashar al-Assad in 2015, Russia has been unable to protect its ally. The fall of Assad puts Russia’s strategic interests at risk, including its naval bases on the Mediterranean coast of Syria, which have served as key outposts for Russian influence in the region.

In contrast, Turkey stands to emerge as the new central player in the region. Turkey has long opposed Assad and has supported various factions in the Syrian conflict, particularly in northern Syria. With the Assad regime weakened, Turkey’s role in shaping Syria’s future becomes all the more crucial. Israel, too, stands to gain from the fall of Assad, as it weakens two of its most formidable regional enemies — Syria and Hezbollah — while simultaneously diminishing Iran’s influence in the region.

Who are these people?

Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) is a movement that emerged from the remnants of al-Qaeda in Syria. It controls the northwestern region of Syria, along the Turkish border. Over the past few years, with significant assistance from Turkey and Western countries, HTS has made efforts to rebrand itself, trying to present a more palatable face to the international community. Despite these efforts, many Syrians, especially the country’s Christian minority (which makes up around 5-10% of the population), are deeply apprehensive about the possibility of HTS establishing a vengeful Islamist regime. These groups fear that under HTS’s control, they would be subjected to harsh treatment and persecution, given the group’s hardline interpretation of Islam.

However, HTS does not control all of Syria. There are at least three other major militias that hold significant territory. The Kurds of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), particularly the YPG (People’s Defense Units), are one of the most prominent. The YPG is closely linked to the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party), a Kurdish militant group that has been involved in an ongoing insurgency against Turkey. The United States has supported the YPG and its allies in the fight against ISIS, and the group controls northeastern Syria, including areas rich in oil resources.

Meanwhile, ISIS (Islamic State) continues to have a presence in central and eastern Syria, particularly in tribal areas. Despite being defeated as a territorial entity, ISIS remains active as a guerilla force, capable of launching insurgent attacks and destabilizing the region. This ongoing conflict between various militias complicates the situation in Syria, as different factions, often backed by external powers, vie for control of the country’s future.

To be continued…

The future of Syria remains uncertain: will it progress toward an orderly transition, or will it descend further into civil war? One of the key players in this evolving situation is Turkey, which has set its sights on creating a 30-kilometer buffer zone along its border with Syria. This zone would be cleared of Kurdish militias, particularly the YPG, which Turkey views as an extension of the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party), a group it considers a terrorist organization. Turkey’s objective of establishing this buffer zone is difficult to imagine being realized without significant military action and possible conflict with the Kurdish forces.

The role of the United States in the future of Syria is also a pressing question, especially with the potential return of Donald Trump to the presidency. During his first term, Trump advocated for the withdrawal of the small contingent of U.S. troops stationed in Syria alongside Kurdish forces, a position he reiterated recently. If Trump follows through on his desire for disengagement, the U.S. might reduce its involvement, which could shift the balance of power in Syria, leaving Kurdish groups more vulnerable to Turkish aggression and potentially influencing the broader regional dynamics.

Israel’s role in Syria is also evolving, with its military forces advancing into key areas of the country. Israeli forces have deployed to the east and north of the Golan Heights, a strategically important region, particularly around Mount Hermon, which is often referred to as the “water tower” of the region due to its significance in controlling water resources. Israeli forces are now positioned just about 20 kilometers from Damascus, Syria’s capital, raising the stakes and complicating the security situation in the area. Israel’s continued military presence in Syria suggests that it has strategic objectives in play, particularly concerning Iranian influence in the region and the threat posed by Hezbollah and other hostile groups.

Syria’s roadmap for a peaceful transition, which was agreed upon by the permanent members of the UN Security Council and Syria’s neighboring states, dates back to June 30, 2012. At the time, the international community seemed committed to finding a peaceful resolution to the conflict, with Didier Burkhalter, the Swiss Foreign Minister at the time, playing a key role in the conference. Yet, over a decade later, this plan seems increasingly distant, as the situation in Syria has devolved into an ongoing war with no clear path toward peace.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Uncertain Transition in Syria After the Surprise End of Assad appeared first on Fair Observer.

“Soldiers,” the general insisted, “we must emerge from this fight not only victorious but also beyond reproach. It must be said of you: They fought valiantly when necessary, but they showed themselves everywhere to be humane and generous.” He then detailed the categories of people to be protected: women, children, the elderly, members of the clergy and, even less obviously according to the customs of the time, prisoners and the wounded, who “deserve your consideration and compassion all the more since you often found yourselves with them in the same camps.”

Here, in embryo, we have the international humanitarian law that, following World War II, would be enshrined in the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their additional protocols of 1977. This is what is called jus in bello, literally, law in war. Belligerents have the obligation to protect civilians and combatants who are wounded or taken prisoner. These obligations are legally binding on all states and on all armed groups, both state and non-state. For example, the use of force is prohibited if the number of civilian victims is disproportionate to the military objective sought.

Jus in bello and jus ad bellum

The right to war (jus ad bellum), or the right of a state to resort to armed force, is governed by the United Nations Charter. It authorizes the use of force only in two cases: self-defense and express authorization by the United Nations Security Council. The right of a non-state actor such as Hamas to armed resistance is only mentioned in resolutions of the General Assembly, which do not have the same legal value as those decided by the Security Council.

Until the early 1990s, the international system lacked a mechanism to punish violations of the rules governing the use of force. Following the ethnic cleansing of Bosnian Muslims and others in Yugoslavia in and the genocide of the Tutsi by the Hutus in Rwanda, the international community laid the groundwork for an international criminal justice system by establishing the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia (1993) and for Rwanda (1994).

The advent of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2002 established a general mechanism for repressing violations of international humanitarian law. The ICC statute defines four categories of crimes: war crimes, crimes against humanity, the crime of genocide and the crime of aggression. War crimes are serious violations of the Geneva Conventions. Crimes against humanity are essentially the same, but carried out systematically against the civilian population. The crime of genocide is defined as acts of murder and other acts committed with the intent to destroy in whole or in part a population group. The crime of aggression consists in acts of war carried out by a state without the legal right to do so.

How does this apply to Israel?

A consensus exists within the international community to recognize Israel’s right to defend itself after the deadly attack on its soil by Hamas and other Palestinian groups on October 7, 2023. But Israel is required to respect the jus in bello in the conduct of hostilities. Both sides are accused of crimes punishable by the ICC.

The high number of civilian casualties would indicate that Israel is not seeking to protect civilians or that it is deliberately targeting them. According to the UN, 70% of the approximately 44,000 people who have died in Gaza since October 7, 2023, are women and children. Israel defends itself by saying that it warns the population before strikes and that military objectives justify attacks on civilian facilities because Hamas operates from inside them.

Israel has also been accused of blocking or limiting humanitarian aid to Gaza, which has an impact on the food and health situation of Gazans, and of mistreating prisoners. According to the UN, 53 Palestinian detainees died in prison between October 7, 2023 and July 15, 2024. There are also documented cases of sexual violence.

Accusations against Hamas and other Palestinian factions focus primarily on the October 7 massacres in neighboring Gaza kibbutzim that killed 1,205 Israelis. According to Israeli social security, there were 695 civilians among the victims, including 36 children. In addition, 251 people were kidnapped, though the proportion of civilian to military hostages has not been determined. There are said to be less than a hundred alive today. Palestinian militias have also been accused of sexual violence, including rape, as well as using the civilian population as human shields.

Accusations of genocide are flying in both directions. Hamas is accused of wanting to eliminate any Jewish presence between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River. The 1988 founding charter of the Islamist movement cites a verse from the Koran calling for the murder of Jews. A 2017 document issued by Hamas is much more moderate and can be read as compatible with the two-state solution. However, the original charter has never been denounced by the movement.

On the other hand, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and some of his ministers, in particular Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben Gvir, have made potentially incriminating statements. The former referred to a passage from the Bible relating to Amalek, considered the archetypal enemy of Israel. God, according to a passage from the Bible, orders the Israelites to exterminate the Amalekites, including women and children. Other potential evidence of genocidal intent on the part of the Israeli government may include the systematic destruction of infrastructure such as roads, water supply facilities, schools, universities, hospitals, mosques and churches. The scale of civilian casualties, as well as population displacements, completes the picture.

Legal proceedings

Two proceedings are underway, one before the International Court of Justice, the other before the ICC. The first, tasked by the UN Charter with settling disputes between states, established in January 2024 that there was a plausible risk of genocide and ordered measures, including improved humanitarian access to Gaza. On July 19, the same court issued an advisory opinion declaring that Israel’s occupation of Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem was illegal. As for the ICC, its prosecutor requested in May 2024 that the Court issue arrest warrants for 3 Palestinian leaders and 2 Israelis accused of crimes against humanity and war crimes. The three Palestinian suspects have since been eliminated by Israel, although doubts remain over the fate of the head of the military branch, Mohammed Deïf.

On November 21, 2024, the ICC, a chamber composed of three judges, one French, one Beninese and one Slovenian, confirmed the indictments proposed by the prosecutor and issued arrest warrants for the accused Netanyahu, Gallant and Deïf. As expected, the reactions were apoplectic in Israel and Washington.

It is necessary to correct two criticisms Netanyahu’s administration has systematically and virulently leveled against the Court by pointing out that:

• The Court says nothing about the legality or otherwise of the military operation in Gaza. It states that there are reasons to believe that crimes were committed during the war. But it does not say that the war is illegal. Israel’s right to self-defense is not called into question.
• The Court has not indicted either the State of Israel or Hamas. Its mandate, which it has respected to the letter, is to prosecute individuals, not institutions. So it is individual citizens Netanyahu, Gallant and Deïf who are now wanted for war crimes and crimes against humanity. The state of Israel has neither been attacked nor prosecuted before the ICC.

Risks for the survival of the system

It is in the interest of Europe and the world that these cases follow their judicial course. After the tragedies of the first half of the twentieth century, the international community sought to create a system of global governance where law prevails over force rather than the other way around. The ICC is the keystone of the system. 125 countries from all continents are parties to the Rome Statute that created it.

Furthermore, only the ICC is capable of establishing the facts and their legal determination in an impartial manner. Thus, as the UN Tribunal in the former Yugoslavia did for the Balkan wars of the 1990s, its judgments, based on what really happened, will discredit the propaganda that today dominates on all sides.

There is a significant risk that the pressure on international judicial personnel will become so great that ongoing cases will be dropped. International prosecutors and judges have reason to fear smear campaigns, visa denials aimed at themselves or their families, as well as financial sanctions intended to prevent them, for example, from carrying out banking transactions. 

Pro-Israel lobbies, supported by the US government, are likely to exert pressure on European governments to refrain from executing ICC arrest warrants in the event that one of the accused shows up on their soil. Washington, Jerusalem and their allies in Europe may well seek to convince national parliaments to cut funding to the ICC. We should recall that, under US President George W. Bush, the US Congress gave the president the authority to use all means to prevent American citizens or those of allied countries — including Israel — from being brought to justice before the ICC. Following the publication of the arrest warrants targeting Israeli leaders, US Senator Tom Cotton penned a tweet reminding the public of this Bush-era law, known informally as the “Hague Invasion Act.”

Yielding to this pressure would be throwing away one of the most useful investments ever made by European countries, which finance the bulk of the ICC’s budget, to put an end to the impunity of the powerful, promoting peace and an international order based on law. It has been a worthwhile and inexpensive investment. Its budget of €200 million ($212 million) is 4,000 times less than the American defense budget. And no one can seriously claim that the American military has contributed much to peace in recent decades.

At the opening of the trial of former Serbian President Slobodan Milošević in 2002, Prosecutor Carla Del Ponte stated the principle in these terms: “No one is above the law, or beyond the reach of international justice.” The ICC has just proven that these strong words can still hold true. Every honest leader should post that quotation on the wall of their office.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Law and War: The Middle East, Laboratory of the Future World Order appeared first on Fair Observer.

Thirteen among the more than thirty countries that have formally expressed their interest in membership are now associated with BRICS+: four Southeast Asian countries (Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam), two Latin American countries (Cuba and Bolivia), three African countries (Algeria, Nigeria, Uganda), two Central Asian countries (Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan) and two European countries (Belarus and NATO member Turkey). They were given the status of “partner states” in Kazan.

To say that the Americans are not enthusiastic about the appeal of this new global club would be an understatement. Should the success of the summit in Kazan be interpreted as a sign of the failure of their strategy to isolate Russia? Worse still, are we witnessing the beginning of the end of the American century?

In addition to the nine member states and thirteen partners, the summit was also attended by some representatives of countries whose presence was rather unexpected, such as the Serbian Deputy Prime Minister, the very Russophilic Alexander Vulin. However, it was the presence of UN Secretary-General Antonio Gutierres that caused outraged reactions, especially in Ukraine. “The UN Secretary-General declined Ukraine’s invitation to the first global peace summit in Switzerland. However, he has accepted the invitation of the war criminal Putin to Kazan,” hammered the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry.

It is true that Gutierres boycotted the Bürgenstock meeting this spring. It is also legitimate to wonder whether a UN Secretary-General should shake hands with a person accused of war crimes, even if he is the president of a permanent member of the UN Security Council. The International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin on March 17, 2023.

This juicy skewer of participants is notable for its heterogeneity. There are dictatorships and democracies, Muslim, Christian and secular countries, economic superpowers and failed nations; some have been characterized as rogue states. Are what we are witnessing merely an updated reiteration of that elastic non-aligned movement launched in the 1960s by Yugoslavia’s Prime Minister Josip Tito and Indian Jawaharlal Nehru, which encompassed two-thirds of the world but never achieved any real global influence? No, something else is happening here. In the space of sixty years, the balance of global power has clearly changed.

A motley but (almost) global group with growing influence

Antonio Gutierres is a realist. He understands how historically significant the bubbling events within the BRICS states are. He was in Kazan because it is important. To underline that point, consider a few figures. The nine countries now called BRICS+ account for more than half of the world’s population. Their combined gross national product is already greater than that of their rivals in the G7, the Western directorate comprising the US, Canada, Japan, Germany, France, Italy and the UK. The gap is likely to widen in the coming years, since the BRICS+ growth rate is around 5%, while Western economies are stagnating at 1–2% — and some, like Germany’s, are officially in a recession.

Related Reading

Is the German Economy Now Destined to Decline?

Despite these new geo-economic realities, the international order established by the West after the World War II has been resistant to change. The UN Security Council will remain secure in the hands of its five permanent members — three Western states plus China and Russia — for a long time to come. However, the BRICS states are not seeking to change the United Nations Charter or create a parallel system to the United Nations. Rather, they are focusing on the economic and financial governance of the world.

Parallel to the founding of the United Nations, the victorious Western powers, at the Bretton Woods conference in 1945, created institutions designed to regulate world finance. The dollar became the world’s reserve currency, making every country vulnerable to US sanctions. The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, which provide financial assistance to countries in difficulty, are run like shareholder meetings, in which the US holds a decisive vote. Together with the other Western nations, they possess an absolute majority. It is these two pillars of Western power in the world that the BRICS states hope to compete with. But how?

It would be literally impossible to reform the international financial institutions in such a way as to reduce Western influence in them. However, they cannot prevent the creation of parallel systems of payment. The BRICS countries are thus working on three main tasks:

• A mechanism for processing international payments independent of SWIFT — from which Russia was excluded after its invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
• An intensification of trade that is invoiced in local currencies instead of dollars, in order to accelerate the “de-dollarization of the world.”
• A development bank that competes with the World Bank and finances infrastructure projects. There are currently 96 projects underway with a total volume of $32 billion.

Critics of the BRICS states doubt that they are able to really compete with the dollar. Despite a steady erosion, the greenback still accounts for 55% of the reserves of the national banks. And when it is replaced by other currencies, these tend to be Western currencies, with the notable exception of the Chinese renminbi. Nevertheless, the trend is clear and the potential of BRICS+ is there. The formation of alternative transportation corridors is part of the same strategy to break free from Western, i.e., American dependency.

Land routes vs. sea routes

In a globalized and interdependent world, the transport of goods represents a strategic dimension. From cars to cell phones, hardly any industrial activity exists that does not include and depend on an accumulation of natural resources and semi-finished products from all corners of the world. Over the last hundred years, goods have primarily been transported by sea. Today, sea freight accounts for 70% of world trade. You only have to look at a map of the 128 US naval bases around the world to realize how important the sea lanes are to Washington’s power strategy. From the Sea of Japan to Malacca, the Persian Gulf, the Red Sea, Cyprus, Gibraltar, Panama, Rotterdam and New York, Washington’s ambition — sometimes supported by its British ally — to dominate the seas is obvious.

With its “Belt and Road” initiative, China has been trying for several years to develop land routes to, compete or at least complement the existing sea routes. It is therefore very revealing that one of the flagship projects highlighted in Kazan was the North–South Corridor, which will ultimately connect St. Petersburg with India, without passing through any Western-controlled areas. Is it worth remembering that India has become the largest importer of Russian oil products, despite the very audible gnashing of teeth in Washington?

What is Switzerland doing?

Between soft power and economic impact, the BRICS+ are redrawing the geopolitical map. Is Switzerland even aware of this probably irreversible development? Has it sought an invitation to Kazan?

The answer is yes, Swiss companies are well aware of the underlying forces shaping the world of tomorrow. This is why some, for example in the trade sector, are moving to Dubai. Yes, Switzerland’s State Secretariat for Economic Affairs is well aware of this. It wants to update our free trade agreement with China. Switzerland is the only European country apart from Iceland to have concluded such an agreement. That is an advantage.

Unfortunately, the options chosen by the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs and the Federal Department of Defence, Civil Protection and Sport have not been helpful. By running after the Americans, who have been losing all their wars for twenty years, weFO° Exclusive: Make Sense of BRICS Summit in Russia
have turned Russia against us and made China doubt our reliability. Moreover, for three quarters of the world Gaza has become a symbol of the moral bankruptcy of the West, including Switzerland. Is there still time to restore our credibility? Is this even possible with the current political cast running our affairs? These are the questions that every Swiss citizen must rightly ask themselves.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Has Anyone Noticed What BRICS+ Is Telling Us About a New World Order? appeared first on Fair Observer.

So is the Republican candidate, former US President Trump, the only option to stop the violence? Trump has prominently campaigned on his strong support for Israel. Whether this is for tactical or genuine purposes is unclear. In his first term, his government took the most pro-Israel approach of any administration. He took the initiative to relocate the US embassy to Jerusalem. Furthermore, he provided financial incentives to Morocco, the United Arab Emirates and other nations to normalize their relations with Israel. 

However, future developments in regard to Trump’s Israel policy are difficult to predict. Rumors even suggest that Trump and Netanyahu have a strained relationship. If this is true, Trump’s unpredictability might lead him to exert tough pressure on the Israeli government in order to reshape himself into a peacemaker. Conversely, Biden has shown a reluctance to invest significant political capital in applying serious pressure on Israel. 

Israel also suffers from the West’s inaction

Lack of a firm US policy may not bode well for Israelis and Palestinians. Following the October 7, 2023 attack on Israel, there was a global consensus that a two-state solution was the only political perspective imaginable. For various reasons, a one-state solution appears highly undesirable — and a solution involving ethnic cleansing, of course, would be even less desirable. Thus, the least problematic solution is a two-state solution. 

A few problems arise here, primarily the question of what must be done with Israeli settlers in Palestine. In a recent study, settlers were asked under what conditions they would be willing to leave their homes, which are considered illegal under international law. Approximately 80% of settlers indicated that they would have no issue relocating to the other side. They only stay for economic reasons. Among the approximately 20% who did not agree, only a small proportion expressed a willingness to resort to unlawful means, such as violence, to defend their communities.

If the Israeli leaders understood this issue, they would do the opposite of what they appear to be doing: arming the settlers. Thus, the true intentions of the Israeli government in Gaza and in the West Bank are being questioned. Is the objective to liberate the hostages and destroy Hamas? Or is there a more sinister intent? These are important questions to answer, especially as Israel faces serious, existential consequences as a result of the war. 

Recently, the Population and Immigration Authority released statistics indicating that approximately 550,000 individuals have left Israel since October 7. The majority of these individuals appear to be high-tech entrepreneurs who may have sought safer environments such as California or Berlin for their operations. Because of this, there has been a dramatic economic impact on Israel with a 20–25% loss in GDP. It would be in Israel’s interest to end the bloodshed promptly and to facilitate the restart of the economy.

Uncertainty has become the world order

It is in the interest of the West and Israel to find a solution. However, the West is currently suffering from a lack of the ability to apply and enforce serious measures against violations of international law. In discussions about a rules-based international order and the primacy of international law, the US appears inconsistent. The US criticizes other actors for breaching international laws and imposes stringent sanctions. Why not Israel?

This inconsistency provides a rationale for authoritarian regimes and non-democratic governments to justify their own human rights violations. Iranians point out that the Israeli bombing of their embassy in Damascus has gone without condemnation from Western countries. They argue that if Iran had bombed an Israeli embassy anywhere in the world, the international reaction would have been severe. 

It would be in the interest of the West to join forces and develop a comprehensible strategy for the future. Yet, following the latest NATO Summit, it appears that the US aims to create conflict with the BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa). This stance seems contrary to the interests of Germany and other European nations that have dynamic economic and trade relationships with China. It is contrary to US interests as well. Such a move indicates the need for a reassessment of the global role of the US.

However, international measures are also falling short of solutions. The EU, like the US, is facing uncertainty after elections. France’s elections in particular have shown that people are not ready to accept every policy that filters down from the top. It seems like government committees, rather than the people, are making all the serious decisions. There is a clash between the personalities running governments and the common people. Uncertainty has become reality.

In this period of uncertainty, it is highly unlikely that significant decisions will be made. The recent BRICS summit — which will be followed by another in October — indicates that, at least until the US election, other regions of the world are reorganizing at a pace faster than anticipated. The US must tackle its foreign policy issues if it wishes to stay at the top of the world order.

[Tanisha Desai wrote the first draft of this piece.]

[Cheyenne Torres edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post FO° Talks: Can the US Handle an International System Under Enormous Strain? appeared first on Fair Observer.

Traditionally, the role of the diplomat has been to promote peace by keeping political leaders informed. Diplomats serve not only as their government’s voice but as its eyes and ears in world capitals. They speak with important leaders, assess the mood and motivations of their host country and relay their assessments back home. These assessments are vital for giving political leaders the options they need to best manage relations and avoid or end war.

In the era of modern warfare, however, things have changed. The West is involved in two ongoing wars in Ukraine and Gaza. In these conflicts, governments increasingly rely on intelligence services and military intelligence to provide assessments and recommend policy options. This trend has reached a tipping point that has now endowed intelligence services with greater influence in defining policy than diplomats. Political leaders have largely sidelined diplomats, relegating them to the role of mouthpieces who announce decisions they have already made in consultation with intelligence.

This is a dangerous trend. An intelligence analyst is not a substitute for a diplomat. Diplomats bring a unique and invaluable perspective to the table. They seek to comprehend not only their nation’s interests but also the complex web of interests of all actors involved. Effective diplomats develop an acute understanding of the concept of indivisible security, which is to say, the security and interests of all of the actors involved. While intelligence and the military focus on security alone, diplomats have the task of bringing into the equation essential political, historical, cultural and religious aspects, making their role pivotal in shaping policy options.

The legacy of Cold War tensions

The issues in Israel have become a diplomat’s nightmare. Diplomats have been crying for a two-state solution between Israel and Palestine, but nothing has come of their repeated attempts. Part of the issue with a two-state solution is that no major political capital has been willing to invest in finding and implementing a solution.

Russia is the other major problem that diplomats must now deal with. Ruch maintains that the war in Ukraine could potentially have been avoided, well before the Russian invasion. When Vladimir Putin became president in 2000, US President Bill Clinton was finishing up his second term. Putin met with Clinton and suggested the idea of Russia joining NATO. Clinton appeared favorable to the suggestion, but later that same day, when the two met again, Clinton explained that his people told him Russia’s joining NATO was not possible.

Europeans have debated the question of pan-European security for decades. Moscow advocated but never implemented ot. French President Macron at various times before, and even after the Russian invasion he was favorable to a solution based on this principle, but to no effect. 

The issues with Russia have always been present, and this is because the mentality of the Cold War never disappeared. The West perceived the Soviets as a threat to the West because they came with a totally different model of society. After the Cold War, the US and the Soviets needed to reach some kind of mutual understanding, if only to prevent a nuclear holocaust, which the world came close to experiencing during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. The most important of these agreements was the ABM Treaty of 1972. George W. Bush scrapped this treaty in the early 2000s at the same time he was launching new wars in the Middle East.

Since those events, mistrust has become a dominant factor in the relationship between Washington and Moscow.

[Jean-Daniel Ruch’s latest book, Crimes, Hate, Tremors: From One Cold War to the Other, in Pursuit of Peace and Justice, is now available on Amazon.]

[Liam Roman wrote the first draft of this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post FO° Talks: The Evolving Role of Diplomats in a New World Order appeared first on Fair Observer.