Many years ago on the ‘Geopolitical Mediation’ page at www.diplomaticlawguide.com I wrote:
‘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…
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 the ‘clash of divergent values’, Google ‘Dialogue Works + Alex Krainer + Is Ukraine Doomed to War Forever? – Is Israel on the Brink of War with Iran? + YouTube.’
It occurs to me that in the context of Mediating Peace in a proxy war, that common ground may exist in the prevention of a Failed State emerging from the conflict which could spill over into the territory of the Principals (and their satellites), i.e. if the Proxy becomes a Failed State.
Therefore, where an opportunity exists for the Principals i.e. in the case of Ukraine – the US and Russia, to work together to prevent the Proxy i.e. Ukraine, from becoming a Failed State, by focussing on the development of a new overarching security architecture which enables investment in the sustainable economic redevelopment of Ukraine, then that opportunity = common ground between the Principals and the Proxy.
So, what can Trump negotiate?
Bearing in mind that the process of dialogue is only just beginning, let’s wait and see.
Of course, nobody except the Principals actually know what is discussed behind closed doors.
That is part of the Magic of Mediation.
So, I would not dwell on hype, narratives and misdirection, or speculate, because nobody knows what the outcome of the talks that will take place tomorrow in Alaska will actually be.
I am not expecting an agreement.
I am hoping that this is the start of a process of engagement through dialogue.
Bearing in mind that the process of dialogue is only just
beginning, let’s wait and see.
Of course, nobody except the Principals actually know what is discussed behind
closed doors.
That is part of the Magic of Mediation.
So, I would not dwell on hype, narratives, and misdirection or speculate,
because nobody knows what the outcome of the talks that will take place
tomorrow in Alaska will actually be.
I am not expecting an agreement.
I am hoping that this is the start of a process of engagement through dialogue.
In my experience as both a Mediator and as a Mediation Advocate (i.e. a ‘Negotiator’), if the will to do a deal exists on all sides (and at all Stakeholder levels), then a deal can be done. However, in order to actually do a deal, the Stakeholders – which in this case are the Principals and not the Proxy nor the Principals’ allies and satellites, must first calculate the price of doing a deal, in order to move away from their existing positions toward ‘Convergence.’ That is the breakthrough moment.
For this form of high stakes negotiation I am reminded of the immortal words sung in the original Off-Broadway Cast recording from the Musical Godspell – ‘Day by Day!’ https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=original+Off-Broadway+Cast+recording+from+the+Musical+Godspell+-+%27Day+by+Day+youtube&&mid=E354BBBE8774E8DCDAC5E354BBBE8774E8DCDAC5&FORM=VAMGZC
Studio Recording by the Broadway Cast – “Godspell” Cast Takes It “Day By Day” in the Recording Studio
I asked Google AI – ‘In mediating the settlement of a Proxy War could common ground exist in preventing the Proxy from becoming a failed state?’
AI replied –
‘Yes, preventing the proxy from becoming a failed state can be a significant area of common ground in mediating a proxy war settlement. By addressing the underlying factors that contribute to state failure, such as lack of governance, economic instability, and security threats, mediators can find shared interests among warring parties and external sponsors. This approach can create a more sustainable and lasting peace than simply ending the fighting alone.’
For the full answer see the blog of the same title as this Post on the ‘Negotiating Political Order’ page at www.diplomaticlawguide.com
Here’s why and how:
Why it’s a potential area of common ground:
- Shared interest in stability:
While the proxy may be a tool for external powers, both the sponsoring powers and the local factions involved often have a vested interest in a stable state that can function and provide some level of order.
- Reduced risk of escalation:
A failed state is more likely to be a source of instability and potential future conflict, including the possibility of the conflict spilling over into neighboring countries or attracting new external actors, making it undesirable for all parties involved.
- Potential for economic benefits:
A functioning state can offer opportunities for economic development, trade, and resource extraction, which can be attractive to both the proxy and its sponsors.
- Reduced burden on sponsors:
A failed state may require continued and costly support from its sponsors, while a stable state can potentially become more self-sufficient and less reliant on external aid.
How it can be addressed in mediation:
Mediation efforts can focus on establishing inclusive governance structures, strengthening the rule of law, and promoting human rights, which are crucial for state-building and preventing state failure.
Mediation can include provisions for economic recovery, job creation, and the development of key sectors, which can address the root causes of conflict and provide incentives for peace.
Reforming the security forces, establishing a professional police force, and addressing issues of impunity can help to build trust and reduce violence, creating a more secure environment for all.
Mediation can also involve the establishment of international mechanisms for providing humanitarian aid, development assistance, and technical support to the newly stabilized state.
Challenges and Considerations:
- Divergent interests:
While there may be areas of common ground, sponsors and proxies may still have conflicting interests and priorities that need to be carefully managed during the mediation process.
Sometimes, elite bargains or power-sharing arrangements can be necessary to stabilize a situation, but they can also create new forms of inequality and exclusion, which can undermine long-term stability.
Sponsors may have difficulty controlling their proxies, and proxies may pursue their own agendas, which can complicate the mediation process.
Even after a settlement is reached, external actors may continue to interfere in the internal affairs of the proxy state, undermining the peace process.’