world is it still possible to find a place for diplomacy in geo politics? today's very close thoughts. it's friday, the following. welcome to worlds of part, sir henry watson 17th century english diplomatic once described diplomacy as being about surviving until the next century. while paula takes about surviving until friday afternoon, with wars and cries is constantly raising the danger. all you manage just immediately lies. is there still a place for diplomacy in today's geo politics?

we'll discuss that. i'm now joined by john belt director and co founder of the consumer theaters guild. mr. val, it's great to talk to thank you very much for your time. now. your organization is dedicated to excellence in the craft of diplomacy and that's a rather high ambitions or aspiration given that we leave in an era when diplomacy, as a professional field is being called into question. diplomatic institutions are under intense political pressure, diplomatic tupper to no longer enjoy some unity and then you goal shooting process a such as open to value with if no demonized altogether onto worshipping a dad or dying. god. i think there's no doubt that diplomacy is having a hard time with the high speed of today's era and the nature of globalization where everything is intermixed with everything and things happen so quickly. so

there's no doubt that in that context it's very difficult to do the old style diplomacy, but i don't think it's impossible. number one, number 2, i think it's essential because what are we going to do if we don't have major countries talking to each other in order to find solutions? for number 3, and maybe most importantly, the 1st 2 it is may be a time to review how diplomacy is conducted. and this just aren't going to be easy because the old habits die hard for everybody, not just for diplomats. so in that sense, it's almost, i would suggest, ironically, despite your question, the time to almost go back to basics, i think any negotiating or diplomatic work presupposes that, uh, there are at least 2 sides who have divergent interest. and it's the recognition of those interest that allows ultimately for some mutually agreeable position to merge

that appears to be the classic view of diplomacy. but what we now have is essentially the west, instead of recognizing and putting forth its interest transparently. it always claims to have universal values in mind, which turns any disagreement into an archetype of battle between the forces of good and the forces of evil. how can you do any diplomacy within satcher confinements? looking 1st of all about diplomacy in the way diplomacy is always being what you described. someone like the end point of diplomacy. not always. unfortunately, the starting point. so diplomats work to get to the point where there's a mutually agreeable solution right? now the question is, how do you get there? and you're asking me about this environment. i'm here in moscow and i've just been listening to a day and a half worth of excellent discussions. and what i've heard,

whether people like it or not, is that many russians feel that they had to being an ard, continue to be dominated by a western system under this dominance, this on equal playing field to put it in the most kind of human language, just lack of respect is an exception to answer the lack of recognition because ultimately the west does not recognize that the russians such have their own interest or even their own values from that give birth to the those interest. right . so what i'm suggesting though, is that, that what i'm hearing here needs to be one piece of the beginning of diplomacy, is to recognize that it's that attitude mentality. the perception exists in russia . i think it would be very difficult for any diplomacy to occur with russia if that didn't happen. now, at the same time diplomacy is a 2 way street. it's not a one way street. so having said that, there are many things that russia, those,

that the west doesn't agree with, doesn't like the finds very, very difficult to deal with. at the same time, therefore, russia is going to have to be willing to open up to some of the western views regarding that. i think the dilemma here is that the west refuse us to recognize that's what it tries to advocate those, that interest its own strategic interest, not universal values. how would you deal with this substitution? all 5, you know, here we are in the west. we have our own position versus here we are, the champions of humanity as a whole. therefore if you argue with us, you are actually against the humanity as a whole. my look, i think there's a way to do with this might be a good beginning. it's worth a try, which is both russia and the west, and ukraine, actually not just rush on the west, have absolutely basic needs for security for recognition,

for status. these are absolute needs on all sides that need to be recognized. i and i think we're here in this conflict exactly because those needs were not recognized. and it's the same situation in israel, palestine. we can look at that later. so that would have to be the right starting point. now you're asking me, is the west willing to look at that? okay, i'm not an official from a western country. so whatever i say is not going to be definitive, but i don't think it is impossible. in the coming years for western senior western diplomats to be able to sincerely sit with the russians and say, okay, so what are russia's fundamental security interest? why does russian, i think that the playing field is not even globally due to globalization,

western driven, etc. have a more serious conversation at that level. is that impossible? i don't think so. i wanna ask is specifically about what he just mentioned that you know, they, they need security needs. a recognition needs a didn't to needs of all size need to be taken into account, understand how russia and ukraine are involved here. but what are the security needs or the recognition to continuance off of the west here? because the united states is very far away from this region. i mean, my opinion is look, the west has had and i'm using this tends intentionally, has had a rather successful model on certain levels. specifically technological material success. the west is very successful. and secondly, the west has certain aspects of governance models that also have degrees of success and benefit people. and i'm saying this for a reason, because the west has had, let's call it

a century of such success that may be on the verge of changing by the way. but let's, let's take that as a given. that means that westerners are imbued with a sense of momentum about their successful project is their dignity, is their status. i would even say built into that. absolutely. the ability to have succeeded, makes westerners naturally wants to safeguard what they consider to be a good project. now that's, i think, all people trying to use russians, anybody needs to also accept that. that's the way that's how rush west vendors are coming out. now that doesn't mean that the western project is complete. the which term project is not deficient and lacking and not only logging is sometimes completely blind. it is also all those things. now, i can understand the frustration of other countries that westerners don't treat

them at the same level playing field that they are western. it's can be due to the momentum that i just described, literally blind to the effect they're having on other societies. i'm having difficulty understanding how you can even frame it in terms of success. because if i look at the crime rate, if i look at the be basic social uh, and parameters in many western societies from the eastern position, it's very hard to describe that a success. why should be, why is that? but putting that aside, why should that success be pushed on on to us? sure, so as i said, 1st of all, the west has deep and perfection. so i'm not trying to suggest it's in any way a perfect model. and the west is actually right now, meeting some serious challenges domestically. never mind dealing with other nations . okay. but i think unfortunately, the nature of human beings is that once they devise a model and the model works to whatever degree they keep going with it. and that i

use the word momentum, i think that's what that is. this is a kind of built in human tendency. now, i think a more important question is, can the west franklin can russia, can every single society that has models that are successful that have input this can be learned to use the accelerator and the break at the same time. and when you drive your car, you have to use both, you know, one could see it that after the after 1989 during the 19 ninety's, the west may have had the foot on the accelerator a bit too strongly. you know, such as nato expansion. so i think one could easily see that those aspects of western behavior could have had a few more breaks on. but i think the idea of, we're not there yet, globally, where either the west or russia or china, or the e. u is wise enough to manage its affairs with other nations perfectly. there are

profound imperfections and we both, we all know that. but i do think that today, given the crisis we have in front of us. and this goes back to your initial question. it's actually exactly incumbent to use that kind of management of carrots and sticks of moving forward and using brakes and a much more intelligent fashion. but it has to be in my view, um, based upon a keen awareness of the absolute fundamental interest of the other side. if that's not there, i very much doubt i would agree with you. then the classical diplomacy will result in almost nothing actually. well, mr. bell, we have to use our bill, which is to uh, use the brakes for the time being. we need to take a short one, but we will be back in just a few moments station. the,

[000:00:00;00] the, the, the welcome back towards a party of john bell, director and co founder of the a conciliator scale mr. bell before the break regarding to your discussion about

recognizing the validity of all sides in the you know, giving each side degree and more to come of respect done. and i saw was sympathized with you. and i said, the gross, perhaps all of your own personal history, because you were born in lebanon, you grew up, and the candidate you served in the can add in a canadian diplomatic corpse. and then the went on to serve the united nations. and for starters, i wanna ask you a, how did inform your own guess, personal net morality? where do you encourage yourself in terms of your personal cultural code? well, that's a, let's, let's call it that was a very dynamic process because as you said, my early life was rooted in, in, let's call it the east and 11 on. so i was in viewed with a lot of eastern culture,

middle eastern culture. but then most of my life, i grew up in canada and was imbued with that. now to be frank, i did not really feel a tremendous contradiction between these things. and my personal life had a lot of lebanese qualities to it. my professional life was more western that was going to the initial splits, and i that didn't really cause many schisms. it's when i went back to the middle east as a canadian diplomats. and then as you went to plant that i began to see the differences more clearly. i saw a tremendous strength in the middle east that the west didn't have to the level of social integrity, the ability of people to deal with each other purely socially without necessarily intervention of laws and institutions. to this day, by the way i was just at 11 on last summer is of a very high degree and it's something that i actually respect because it's a more seamless way of operating and getting things done and managing human affairs

. in other words, let's call it to a degree of still a relevance of, of everyday culture. and so i will walk to that. so i also a walk through the fact that politically the, the west had habits of not putting enough weight on some of the symbolic and emotional aspects of them, at least politics. which frankly, are probably the core to the whole thing over there. and yet the west dealt with the middle eastern issues as being problems on maps, problems to be resolved through legal means, or purely through material incentive. so my identity, my dual identity, may be able to see that variety, the diversity of, of perspectives, that the east had certain strengths and the west that certain strength and they needed both needed to be involved in the right doses at the right time. i think one

way or some politicians like to frame those tensions here talking about is as a historical context between democracies and a talk. chris is between the individualist strand and all of us the collective values, and that supposedly somehow justifies western imposition. this tendency is which we had talked about earlier, rather than joining your into a political argument. i want to ask you somebody who has a deep fascination and knowledge of culture and cultural evolution. do you think that the i'm vision in and of itself to remain the world and one's own image? is it realistic and let's think about the cost of even trying that out. um, i think it's a great question actually because i think the west, the west project on the level that you described. let's call it, let's use the terms you used, which are one to give them

a pre eminence to the individual versus the collective and be the democratic model, whatever that may be, because that's a, that's just a bunch of words we can discuss what that means. i think it is peaked then possibly more than peaked. and um, there were certainly degrees of arrogance in its flourish, in the last century, especially in probably in the 19th century as well. but i think more importantly than the fact that the model that whole model went forward chief certain things, which i think are good for humanity by the way, there, i don't think we should just throw them out either. so it's not about either or thing. we are talking about is leaving and letting leave for which is the bone of contention assertion. we can i be myself and allow you to be going south. that's the, that's the core of it right there. and i, i think it's, it's not just me who believes that the western model has absolutely hit its peak if

not gone beyond its peak. the over emphasis on the individual, the particularize ation of looking at things politically in such narrow, specific bounds. this is the, the loss of the collective and cultural issues. and uh, there corrosion and even i would go one step further. i would even say the loss of weight to the implicit, everything has to be explicit. the west is become kind of maniacal, actually, and wanting to make everything explicit. and i think there's a loss to that because actually most, as i just said earlier about my time and loving on when i was young. and even when i just went back, most of the grades, the pleasures and joys i had were actually impulses. you could never pin them down with exact words. maybe you could talk to them in the photo, etc. so has the west lost some of that?

absolutely. and is the west going to continue to strive to put forward the model and loosely again, without a break? i hope not. and i'm one of those people that would say that the west definitely has to calm down a bit and, and listen to others much more carefully as we started in the 1st 2nd. now, uh, speaking about the implicit, because culture is always a reflection of even a political culture. it's always a reflection of, uh, of deep collective psyche or what the ancient greek with coal sold. and whenever we, we deal with the soul, whether indeed general or collective. it's never mckenna stick, it does not comply the deadlines, it cannot be wilt to certain outcomes. and i think it's pretty clear to most scientists at this point that the, there's something irrational within all of us that unites us as

a people and yet can never be fully under human control. and i wonder if most of the crisis we're dealing with some, some of them as a special crisis. that's good, you know, bring about the demise of humanity. is there ultimately a rooted in this intention to take that implicit rational under the control of why one big national eagle? i would say you're on to something i might say it and slightly different language. i think it's true that deep historical collective movements which define any country. i think it's important to know that all of them also, it has to be somewhat open ended. in other words, cultures and countries develop certain cultural habits and then they stick to them mondays often become very attached to them. but they also need to evolve. and so there's that aspect of things which i'm just trying to emphasize may be of the that

happens naturally. i mean, once a culture encounters a certain difficulty, it will be forced into changing. i mean that it's impossible to. i agree. i think you're quite right. i think that's the adaptive mechanism that's built into human beings. but more to your point, i do agree that there is a what i describe as a mechanistic culture where things are resolved and incredibly sequential, institutionalized, purely logical and extremely fast amount or people want to answer is extremely immediately including a diplomacy. and that is in some ways, yeah, it's over running the world. unfortunately, it's in better than our technology is involved and better than the logic of our technology and the ease of technology and the comforts that technology gives us, doesn't help our situation. and that this technology is spread globally. now it's really not just the west, but,

and this i think was more to your point. it did starts in the west. the west was the genesis of a lot of that technology. and in that sense, the west has some degree of responsibility for it spread and i do think absolutely that that's highly mechanistic. reduction is outlook of looking at anything is one aspect of life, but actually a secondary one. so are we, are we at risk globally because of that? yes, i would have to agree that that is the case, but there's no reason why we can't um, reawaken our more metaphorical side are more aware of side. one does can see larger context than just the mechanical efforts of, of a algorithm or a phone and to go by to some of the ideas we said earlier and to see things and many perspectives and to see that they all have validity. i don't think that's impossible and that these 2 aspects of ourselves absolutely have to work together. there's really no choice. i think some of your criticism of the west system is

a little bit similar is your how the chinese view and vickers, they have long described western model as a beauty pageant, or more recent, they will be like a freak show that's sort of aimed at getting the votes, but not really leaning towards governing and not leaning towards policy because the chinese, the russians, and many people in these many governments, these, they don't do not as to modern technology. they do not us true institutions, but they actually uh to put a higher emphasis on the practice and across those governing rather than winning elections. i wonder if there's something there in, if i think the certainly something there on that i would almost have no debate would. meaning that the electoral cycle of many western nations is a, but it is a circus. yes. i know i, i have 0 debate on that. on the other hand, i don't have an s fast answer for you as to how do you express the will of the

people and the needs of the people through a system without elections. i don't have an answer to that, but at the same time i see how elections have become. by the way, i don't think they were actually, i mean, we already getting into the sort of western style of the argument of is required to provide are you required to provide an answer to that? the culture has provided is and there are many various models around the world. why do we have to pass a judgment on that? a moral judgment on that at this very moment. and then pull some of a system simply because we have ruled out that the, you know, the system is not working to our liking. i was actually passing a judgment on the west and not on the how other countries are developing their own systems. number one, but there's another point, i think it's very important to make the problem and the west is not just the electrical cycles and the circus that results with them. the problem, the west is like all things in life. it's previous strength which was institutional

. the west had very good institutions and i would make the case that today, western institutions are in overshoot. their overdoing themselves. they are too involved in too many things and putting too many detailed regulatory madness, as frankly on to things that could happen in life and, and much more simple organic way. yes, within perfections and failures. so it's not just the electrical electoral cycle. it is the institutional, the capacities of the west are overgrown. i actually think that's the biggest problem. you could even just determine bureaucratic, actually the, the west is a massive institutional bureaucracy. getting anything done in the west is incredibly complicated. now doesn't end up meg. the conflict, the ex, essential conflict between the east, the more collective east and the more individual is to west inevitable because ultimately what you're talking about the in place and the ability here to find your

own ways of dealing with things on the human level. because ultimately, collective values are human values and the very core, it's trusting that the individuals will find our own way of dealing with one another. and on the west and dedication, there was some dedication to institutions. it's ultimate. they both control. it's about setting one room for all. isn't that, isn't that making the war in the inevitable bits in it? there may be in and availability to the conflict. i'm not sure the inevitable. it is due to exactly what you've identified, which has this clash between an over controlling western institutional system and the more organic collective east. i'm not sure about that. actually. i think it's worth examining. i'm not convinced completely. i think it has a lot more to do with what we said right at the beginning. it has to do with a sense of deep sense among the leaders in many eastern countries. let's call them eastern countries of

a lack of respect from the other side. and why am i mentioning this? because again, i repeat what it comes to read the beginning, if you don't help, but any human being collective or individual with a pathway to having their most basic needs met status, a sense of identity in a sense of meaning security place in the middle east applies russia applies in the west. if you don't do that, you will have conflict to me, that's almost the law unfortunately. and that to me is the main driver. i think the others are secondary. that's my view, but it's worth looking at it and more due to the ultimate said, don't comes down to the golden rule, treat the others as you and yourself want to be treated rather than treating yourself as a super sitting. yes, and to do the over others, and to do that properly,

you have to know yourself. it's been amazing talking to you and pleasure, very much for that. thank you very much. thank you. thank you for listening. hope to see her again for the world's a part of the, [000:00:00;00] the

the, the, [000:00:00;00] the on the job rally her my little story. okay. the model girl that i got you. no problem seem to them out of the know nothing 30 minutes us out in the drive i showed my brother through he was cited to help people for a lo so now i never looked at searches as being the same. well, i guess i lost my list. that's the outcome of the

chicago police. it'd be gang chicago is like, you get a photo that police, you really think your life as another crime, say another one could have been a doctor. a nurse could have been the next president. we can't keep losing people out here. the medicine is very scarce. now. almost nonexistent. i desperately need swords and medications. i could die without us the report. a death soul in gaza surpasses. 17 and a half 1000 people. besides to be in place previously considered a safe zone comes on to renew this really bombardment showing signs of physical abuse, palestinians who have been detained by the idea. describe the interrogation methods used on the front cover. allegedly they took us to my cousin's house,