ICJ’s judgement on Israel

The International Court of Justice is an important part of the United Nations.  It adjudicates disputes between nations and provides legal advice on international law.  Its rulings and opinions on a case are binding on the parties involved.

On 26th January 2024 the ICJ ruled that Israel must prevent genocidal acts in Gaza.

On social media, many people are saying this is meaningless as the ICJ has no teeth.

I think it does have some effect.

In the workplace, when someone bullies another, one can either call it out or let it go. When someone objects to poor behaviour, we can support them or just say “toughen up” or “that’s just they way they are”.

Another outcome is to stand up and say “This is wrong. Do not behave that way.” That gives others the confidence to also stand up and say “We agree, that is wrong.”

That makes most other people think twice before also bulling people. They don’t want to be called out and embarrassed. We have said bullying is no longer normal behaviour.

The same thing really does apply on the world stage. When the ICJ says “This is wrong”, it might have little effect on Israel, but it does send out a message to diplomats, politicians and the media round the world that it is not acceptable. They can’t say “But Israel did it, so we can too”. People feel empowered to say to their leaders “I don’t think we should do that”.

Some see it as ironic that it is South Africa calling it out, given their history. It is not ironic, it was inevitable. They have been through the pain of apartheid, terrorism, revolution but then peace and reconciliation process. South Africa today is not the South Africa of 50 years ago. Change can be radical, and a bad example can become an exemplar.

It is one of the ways the world is very slowly becoming more humane.

Reflections on Diplomacy

I wrote this short essay on 4th September 2022 as part of my work on the University of London’s Coursera course Global Diplomacy – Diplomacy in the Modern World.

This essay argues that diplomacy is even more a key part of our world today than it was in the past.  This will be substantiated with claims that diplomacy occurs on more levels than before, that it is active locally and even within society both at home and abroad.  It uses arguments from Brown, Laffey and Rudin who say diplomats work ceaselessly, that their role has expended to include international development and that it has become more complicated.  It concludes by speculating about challenges for diplomacy in the future.

Diplomacy is, in part, discussions between states to form international agreements, such as the European Union, the International Labour Organisation and the United Nations.  These organisations are an increasing part of our world, so diplomatic interaction with them is ongoing.

Diplomacy has a mediation role, maintaining relations with other states whether an outcome is achieved or not.  As nation states continue to be the structure we have in the world, so diplomacy between states will continue to be needed.

Diplomacy occurs in multi-national organisations such as continents (African Union), regional (League of Arab States), global market (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries – OPEC), religious (Organisation of Islamic Cooperation), military (NATO), pacifist (Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons), research (International Space Station), health (World Health Organisation).  As we go from nation states interacting to these multiple layers of interaction, so the need for diplomacy is increasing.

In addition to international relations, diplomacy can produce and maintain global agreements such as the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), the Geneva Conventions, and the International Standard Book Number (ISBN).  It ensures USB plugs go into USB ports and that passports are recognised around the world.  It gives a means to negotiate the protection of endangered species, reductions in carbon dioxide production and the sharing of Covid-19 vaccines and other medication.  As greater awareness of issues arises in the public globally, so there is greater need for collaboration on these issues, thereby increasing the demand for diplomacy.

It is assumed that when violent conflict breaks out that diplomacy has failed.  What is rarely appreciated is that every conflict ends when the participants talk and listen to one another: every conflict ends in diplomacy.  As long as conflict continues, there is a need for diplomacy.  And since good diplomacy is invisible, just because it is not apparent does not mean it is not not happening.  So much current diplomacy is invisible while it is happening; it continues to be a key part of our world.

There are major conflicts going on in the world.  Some are violent such as that between Russia & Ukraine.  Others are cold but high risk, such as that regarding North and South Korea.  Diplomacy is vital in managing the situation around these encounters, either by stopping them getting worse or keeping a door open for talks.

One can also ask if diplomacy is a key part of our world today locally?  In the UK we have Brexit causing issues with the Northern Ireland Protocol and risking sectarian unrest and potentially either new outbreaks of The Troubles or serious problems with the relationship with the EU.  The UK is part of the united response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.  It has also recently hosted a convention regarding the international agreements to reduce CO2 before we kill all life on the planet.  Diplomacy is vital to the well-being of the UK in the near and long terms.

Dr Martin Brown refers to how, when communication with Iran was difficult, discussing sport such as weight-lifting and wrestling gave a way to allow the communication to continue.  It is important that diplomats keep open the lines of communication despite it appearing that there are irreconcilable differences between states.

We still have nation states which are concerned with their own agenda and these differ by nation.  As long as this situation continues, there will be a need for diplomacy.

Diplomacy can also be applied be within society, as expressed by Omah Salha whose interest is the integration of Moslems into British society.

As Dr Mark Laffey says, “diplomacy’s about maintaining communications and contact in the midst of on-going disagreements”.  He says diplomacy is increasingly about trade and economics relations.  Indeed, in the UK, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (created in 1782 as the Foreign Office) has in 2020 been merged with the Department for International Development to become the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.  This is very relevant in the UK as it renegotiates trade deals with the rest of the world post-Brexit.

Public diplomacy is where a state tries to influence the view of people in another state; it is not dissimilar from propaganda.  As shown in the Middle East about the USA, the behaviour of a state on the world stage – how it implements its foreign policy – has a huge impact on how that state is perceived, despite efforts to give an impression to the contrary.

In 1956, an article by Harry R Rudin in Political Science Quarterly lists a number of reasons why diplomacy in the 20th century was far harder than in the 19th century.  In the 21st century technology is moving even faster, communication is faster, easier and far less controlled and there are multiple strata in the communication layers between people, groups, states and whatever cross-sections of society one might care to imagine.  Trade has become more globalised.  International corporations are more powerful and wealthy.  New factions have arisen in global society such as religious extremists using terrorism, a global drugs trade, ecoterrorism starting to appear and organised crime being able to use the Dark Web and cryptocurrencies to operate globally but beneath the radar.  Meanwhile demand for finite resources such as fossil fuels, cash crops, rare minerals for high tech good production, water and even land to live on mean increasing conflict between states and societies.  Diplomacy has become exponentially more complicated since the early Cold War years.

Not only is diplomacy as important now with regard to international relations as it was in the past, it now is more broad and deep in how societies interact, both within nations and at supranational levels.  It is a key part of our global economy, especially now as states are less self-reliant and more dependent upon trade with one another for their essential food, energy and goods.  The global impact of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine has made this clear with rising prices globally and the many negotiations being conducted internationally to manage food stocks and energy distribution.

As everything becomes more interconnected over time within nations and societies, the role of diplomacy can only increase in the foreseeable future.  Whether existing institutions such as the United Nations and trade cartels will be sufficient to provide the infrastructure for diplomats needs to be seen, and whether diplomacy needs to become a formal profession.

(1,150 words)

References omitted to hinder plagiarism.

Heroes among the civilians

In response to a cartoon about the Israeli response in the Gaza strip on GoComics, someone wrote:

Do not look for heroes in this conflict. There are victims and terrorists on both sides.

I felt compelled to reply.

There are heroes.

  • The war reporters. Over 80 dead and many imprisoned.
  • The aid workers. Over 100 UN aid workers dead.
  • The medics. Over 280 healthcare workers killed and at least 14 strikes on Doctors Without Borders medical facilities or vehicles.
  • Then the less glamorous ones who are trying to keep the sanitation working, digging people and bodies from buildings, burying corpses, trying to identify people’s remains.
  • And there will be countless incredible feats of courage by civilians that will never be known or recognised.

No medals for any of the above though. Medals are saved for the people with the armour and guns and creating the harm.

Christian Just War Theory

From a comment on a comic:

“Martin Luther explains that God and government are not constrained by the commandment not to kill, but that God has delegated his authority in punishing evildoers to the government. The prohibition of killing is forbidden to the individual in his relation to anyone else, and not to the government.”

My reply:

The Christian Just War Theory or Doctrine was produced and expanded upon by Saint Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Hugo Grotius and others. (I never came across Martin Luther as a proponent of war.) Between them they did a good job of saying “That there God geezer, yeah, didn’t say ‘not kill’, he said ‘not murder’, right? And it can’t be murder if it’s not illegal, can it? And how can it be illegal if the King or Pope said to do the killing? So it’s not murder and God’s perfectly fine with it. Stands to reason, doesn’t it?

Another argument is that killing non-believers who refuse to convert is doing them a favour by saving their souls. That was the excuse in Africa and other places where exploring and conquering was going on.

A third was that provided you are careful in your killing, then that’s reasonable. So kill people nicely and proportionately, and even Jesus would be OK with that. This argument is used by politicians today.

So, despite Holy Scripture from God, and prophets and the Son of God saying not to kill people, it is fine if a rich or powerful person tells some poor person to kill another person, because the rich and powerful said so. They know better than God, Jesus, Moses and that lot what God wants.

You’ll find the same pro-killing arguments in the Jewish and Moslem Just War arguments too.

Why are bullies attractive?

“Tough guys have always had their hangers on. And no, they don’t have to be physically tough. They just have throw their weight around and generally act like a bully. That’s what Trump does so well. The real question for me is … WHY is that attractive to so many people?”

I think it is three-fold, based on evolutionary psychology, ignorant fear and social psychology.

Firstly, evolutionary psychology: the herd mentality. Go where the majority goes, or seems to be heading. Some head off for a different corner of the field, follow them because they must have seen something worth having. And if you really want to benefit from what is there, run and get there first, go further than the others, become an extremist.

Second, superstition and religion. If we try harder than anyone else to follow the will of the god(s) or not upset the demons / volcano / weather then we will have better harvests and more good luck and less disease. So we look to the priests and wise men for ideas. And we sacrifice our children, flagellate ourselves or hand over our possessions to appease the gods through the priests. So when a leader implies they have divine wisdom, we so want that to come true, we will do anything.

Third we see the person is a competent leader because they have followers. People like following winners because it makes them feel safe, that will be on the winning side at the end. It is easier than making decisions for themselves. So we form gangs and tribes and armies and political parties. Hence people switch their political allegiance to best suit themselves. Even politicians who swear they are totally aligned to one set of values, will change sides if it suits their career. Alliances change between nations: so leaders will send their people to fight and die to support X against Y, then later send them to die for Y against X. So who was right, X or Y, or is it down to the leader’s whims and because they have power? So we will go and kill and die just because someone says so, and without really knowing why.

We think we’re clever. We’re just stupid sheep who think we’re smart.

Conflict in the Middle East

Some highlights since the start of the millennium:

2001 iPod launched.  First self-contained artificial heart. First  space tourist.  The Segway launched.

2002 Launch of the Euro. Formation of the International Criminal Court.

2003 Human genome completed.

2004 Facebook. Union of South American Nations formed.

2005 Kyoto Protocol. Hurricane Katrina. Germany’s first woman chancellor. First face transplant.

2006 Nintendo Wii.

2007 First female Speaker of the US House of Representatives. The iPhone.

2008 Large Hadron Collider completed. Global financial crisis.

2009 Bitcoin launched. USA got a black president.

2010 The iPad and Instagram. First African World Cup. First woman Prime Minister of Australia.

2011 Arab Spring. Minecraft. Snapchat. World population reaches 7 billion. NASA missions to Mars and Jupiter.

2012 Higgs Boson discovered.

2013 Edward Snowden revelations.

2014 Rosetta lands a probe on a comet.

2015 Water found on Mars. China and Taiwan leaders meet. USA and Cuba establish diplomatic relations.

2016 Detection of gravitational waves. Tunnel completed under the Alps. Paris Agreement on climate change. First female President of Taiwan. Panama Canal capacity extended. TikTok.

2017 Five million women marched for human rights.

2018 Leaders of USA and DPRK meet.

2019 Dark side landing on the Moon. First all-female spacewalk.

2020 Covid-19 pandemic. First commercial human space launch. Touchdown on an asteroid. 15 Asia-Pacific countries form the world’s largest free-trade bloc.

2021 The African Continental Free Trade Area formed. First arm and shoulder transplant. First woman, first African American and first Asian American vice president. International agreement to ban nuclear weapons. First flight on another planet. Theory of General Relativity confirmed. Leaded petrol phased out globally. 1st malaria vaccine.

2022 All permanent Security Council members state “A nuclear war must never be fought”. World population at 8 billion. ChatGPT. First fusion ignition.

And conflict in the Middle East throughout.

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même

Fear created by the media to make profits

Someone asked: “It’s weird that people have to stop feeling safe anymore.

The media drives that. “If it bleeds, it leads” has always been their mantra. it gives an impression of a world that in a state of violence. That’s actually not true for almost all people almost all of the time.

The media also requires people to keep coming back, because they are funded by advertising. Telling happy stories does not do that, whereas keeping readers in a perpetual state of anxiety and fear does. Hence all the fear-mongering they produce.

And now we can have videos of violence and pictures of bleeding women and blown-up babies and dismembered perpetrators, that has made it all much worse for us. We did not evolve to be constantly bombarded with images of dismembered people, but as social animals living in family groups working together collaboratively.

We are being conditioned to fear. And it is totally unrealistic compared to the statistical reality.

For example, more Americans get shot by other Americans in America every few months than all the Americans ever killed by terrorism by any method in the entire world ever put together. So what is the real threat – terrorists or other Americans with guns?

A list of events. Just not negative ones.

2002 Launch of the Euro. Formation of the International Criminal Court.

2003 Human genome completed.

2004 Facebook. Union of South American Nations formed. Boxing Day Tsunami.

2005 The Kyoto Protocol. Hurricane Katrina. Germany’s first woman chancellor. First face transplant.

2006 Nintendo Wii.

2007 First female Speaker of the US House of Representatives. The iPhone.

2008 Large Hadron Collider completed.

2009 Bitcoin launched. USA got a black president.

2010 The iPad and Instagram. First African World Cup. First woman Prime Minister of Australia.

2011 Arab Spring. Minecraft. Snapchat. World population reaches 7 billion. NASA mission to Mars and Jupiter.

2012 Higgs Boson discovered.

2013 Edward Snowden revelations.

2014 Rosetta lands a probe on a comet.

2015 Water found on Mars. China and Taiwan leaders meet. USA and Cuba establish diplomatic relations.

2016 Detection of gravitational waves. Tunnel completed under the Alps. Paris Agreement on climate change. First female President of Taiwan. Panama Canal capacity extended. TikTok.

2017 Five million women marched for human rights.

2018 Leaders of USA and DPRK meet.

2019 Dark side landing on the Moon. First all-female spacewalk.

2020 Covid-19 pandemic. First commercial human space launch. Touchdown on an asteroid. 15 Asia-Pacific countries form the world’s largest free-trade bloc.

2021 The African Continental Free Trade Area formed. First arm and shoulder transplant. First woman, first African American and first Asian American vice president. International agreement to ban nuclear weapons. First flight on another planet. Theory of General Relativity confirmed. Leaded petrol phased out globally. 1st malaria vaccine.

2022 All permanent Security Council members state “A nuclear war must never be fought”. World population at 8 billion. ChatGPT. First fusion ignition.

What would happen if we stayed home today?

What would happen if we stayed home today?

If the armourers stayed home and played with their boys.
If the snipers stayed home and helped the girls with their toys.

If the airmen stayed home and steam-cleaned their cars.
While sailors wrote letters to their Mas and their Pas.

If the soldiers stayed in barracks and polished their boots
And officers sewed medals on their Remembrance Day suits.

If the generals stayed abed with their mistresses
And the admirals spent the day just playing Battleships.

And the politicians stayed home and counted their bribes
And not spreading hate, so everyone survives.

While military planners daydream of their secretaries
There’s no-one needed to cut new graves in cemeteries.

And orphans stayed home and counted lost lives.
And we just stayed home and loved our husbands and wives.

What if we all just stayed home today?
Would the world end?
Or the pain go away?

Security & Safety Challenges in a Globalised World

I have just completed and passed Leiden University’s Security & Safety Challenges in a Globalied World course on Coursera.  I started it on 17th April 2023.  I got 98.5% 🙂

A simple Mindmap of the content (click to expand):

Mindmap of the course contentComplex security challenges can be global in impact or reach (e.g. nuclear reactor meltdown or refugees from a war) or global in scale (e.g. climate change).  ‘Glocal’ = local and global.  Examples of problems that are local in scale but global in impact or reach are terrorism, war, conflict and cybersecurity risks.

Societal problems, which includes complex security challenges, are often ‘wicked‘ problems. You cannot try lots of things to see what happens. The rules are not clear. Opinions differ on societal issues. Gaining agreement on a solution is difficult.

Safety’ and ‘security’ have different meanings around the world and both are ‘contested concepts’.

Safety is related to things of value being harmed by flaws or mistakes.  It can be about protection from accidental harm, such as lightning.  It is protection from undesirable outcomes caused unintentionally.

Security – relates to things of value being harmed intentionally by people. Deliberate actions by a person or group comprise a security threat.  Security is protection from harm by people.

Both safety and security are about potential or actual harms.  The difference lies in the nature of the threat: unintentional versus intentional.

Securitisation: labelling challenges, issues or subjects as security issues.  This politicises them, meaning they get priority and prominence.  It also legitimises measures to address them, which may exceed ordinary measures.  Because they have been politicised and given precedence, they than shape how safety and security are defined through a process called ‘mutual shaping’.

Because what we value changes with time and culture, so what we consider risks, threats and vulnerabilities can change.

That was just the introduction.  It then got into integrative perspectives on security and safety.  Then the multi-level perspective.  Risk management and the risk continuum.  Multi-actor responses, how we live in a risk society and risk management.  Risk identification, assessment and mitigation.  Objectivity and quantifiable risks and risk as a social construct.

The Explore / Understand / Do approach was used to analyse a number of events to determine to what extent they were safety or security issues or both.  This is a very useful tool that encourages one to use a multi-actor perspective and move away from traditional national or single-sector views.

The relevance of this was to (a) prove to myself I can still study and (b) better understand globalisation and its relevance to understanding conflict.