GLOBAL POLITICAL-CULTURE HOMOGENISATION: drawback to achieve global peace
Mar Introini, PhD
Founder/Political Analyst thesustainabilityreader.com/Global Chair G100 Global Networking
Like the photo, even if all Nations look the same when time to influencing them to stop armed conflicts, all are placed in different positions, sometimes closer one to the other, but intrinsically diverse. Only one culture that gets lost when get exposure into a global political agenda that unsuccessfully search to become one. The idea that globalization is about a big global political-culture- alliance is simply wrong.
Several conflicts in the last decade, expose the failure on searching for solutions based in one centered power, instead of a multilateral scenario within tailored-made solutions, having peace, Diplomacy, and solid negotiations as the main goal, and tool. Is not what we are being witnessed as NATO focused only on expansion, and the European Union in furthering a war –“as long as it takes”-, that not even belong to them, and is exclusively part of a regional -extremely complex- conflict.
Unresolved regional conflicts as Gaza or Ukraine-Russia exposed the need to make a creative global system at the service of peace, and not resources and institutions -as European Union, UN, WHO, etc.- at the service of globalization.
There is nothing wrong to search for commercial ambitious goals, however freedom goes along with rules, and is it the latest that are being loosen for the sake of a new global order that is proven to be at the service of other interests rather than building sustainable negotiation processes.
Pretending that there is possible to get one global alliance against pre-determined categories of “victims”, and “aggressors” in long lasting frictions is not only unfair, but ineffective to gain reliability and confidence. As recently pointed out by NATO “ to gain trust and solidarity”. Once you are part of one side, instead of a catalyzer, trust is gone. We are dealing with Nations and different cultures, not simply general categories from extremist groups
“the growing sophistication and prominence of Eurasian far-right movements has serious implications for democratic development in the region”*
“The war in the East has provided newfound social legitimacy to far-right groups, bringing with it unprecedent levels of funding, recruitment and organizational capacity”
ª2014 Amnesty International : “… urged the Ukrainian government to stop abuses and war crimes by volunteer battalions operating alongside regular Ukrainian armed forces”.“The Ukrainian authorities must not replicate the lawlessness and abuses that have prevailed in areas previously held by separatists…”
Azov Battalion: “after speaking with dozens of its fighters and embedding on several missions during the past week in and around the strategic port city of Mariupol, the Guardian found many of them to have disturbing political views, and almost all to be intent on "bringing the fight to Kiev" when the war in the east is over”.
In recent declarations Prime Minister Poland, Donald Tusk said that we are in “a pre-war era”, and is certainly a fact if we see it under the steady provocations done from the last 8 years from NATO, and then joining with the European Union. If there is something that Russia has been crystal clear is that the expansion from NATO as well as interference against their struggle with former Soviet regions like Crimea, will be submitted to a violent response.
Is a matter of Diplomacy to make sure that beyond a military mission is a peace keeping mission the one that prevails. No matter how many times Pres. Putin made it clear: “Russia has no aggressive intentions towards Europe”, appointing that that there is no agenda beyond the main challenge: the threat against Russian citizens because of a far-right action in Ukraine.
One of the main reasons of the escalation is because the lack of awareness from the culture inside the confrontation. Each conflict embraces their own features that make it different from any others. Peace comes when there is an acceptance of the historical, and political reasons. The fact that Russia invaded Ukraine makes forget the true reasons that are based on that decision, very much aligned with the ones that lead into Crimea annexation. Russian citizens were under attack, and willing for an annexation with Russia. In fact, the referendum from March 2014 was clear: 97% allegedly voted to join Russia. Some 60 percent were ethnic Russians, and many might have concluded their economic situation would be better as a part Russia”*
An illegal referendum yes, but no doubts a democratic one that exposes the real situation from Russian citizens in the region threaten by the determined and violent agenda from Azov regime, that surprisingly become fully merged with the National Army Forces.
An unprecedent move from the EU to "support" Ukraine turning European foreign affairs into a non-democratic path that is certainly not part of the real goals from the European Union, also analyzing under the shortage of financial resources after the pandemics. On the 6th February of this year the overall amount of the Facility for the period of 2024-2027 is €50 billion.
Humanitarian aid, diplomacy, negotiation are those resources from entering into a war that is not supposed to be in the agenda -not at least as a priority-. However, the arm industry shines some light in the financial side of this move.
Surprisingly the growth of the arm industry is directed linked with the conflict for whom Poland represents the 13% in selling arms to Ukraine “ At least 30 countries have delivered arms from the beginning of the conflict on February 2022. USA 39 %, main supplier, Germany 14 % and Poland 13 %.
If there is something that has been crystal clear from the Russian block, -including all those countries that support them-, is that the advances from NATO will be considered a threat and will be armed responses. If we add the increasing growth of the far right, corruption, and foreign financial interests the scenario becomes even more complex than just “the Russia invasion to Ukraine”.
CONTEXT – steadily ignored-
“Since 2014, over 1.1 million people from Ukraine have moved to Russia. The regions of Belgorod, Lipetsk, Voronezh and Volgograd are among those hosting the largest numbers of displaced people.”*
“Since May 2017, the IFRC and the Russian Red Cross Society have provided humanitarian assistance to more than 10,000 displaced people from Ukraine”
Facts that showcase perfectly on how on the last decade the conflict was getting worse in a silent way in Media terms, however in an evident way on the ground reported by different humanitarian organizations. War abuses made by Ukraine´s Governments represented by extremist Azov Battalion, exposes the threat of a wider war that finally erupted “like a volcano” with Crimea.
Not matter political analyses the fact of having displaced people to Russia in large numbers evidence the cruel reality lived by their citizens in more than a decade.
It was foreseeable that a war was coming, and a violent response was expected. Only an empathetic international community, global political leaders that think creative and compassionate, along with institutions and alliances committed to peace may stopped it. Like the agreement Partnership for Peace (PFP 1994*) with NATO, and non-members are the kind of creative instrument to build peace and is imperative to become facilitators. Russia is part of it along with others former Soviet Union countries.
A NATO expansion was on the table, instead of Negotiation and Diplomacy that is why this powerful agreement become “dead letter”.
Europe is taking the decision to support war “as long as it takes” however without considering that Ukraine has decided not to negotiate because of a determined political agenda against Russia and furthering by more than a decade by Azov violent Neo-nazi action reported by tops recognized Media outlets (like the Guardian, BBC etc.). The capacity to support this war is limited and turn to become contradictory to keep the spirit and philosophy of Europe as a peacemaker.
CONCLUSION
Several elements are determined to conclude that the goal to get into a global political-culture homogenization is not delivering results:
· Macro alliances like NATO- EU
· Unresolved regional conflicts (Gaza, Ukraine-Russia, etc.)
· Global Economic power at stake
Recommended by LinkedIn
· A wrong idea of a global political leadership
By definition CULTURE “is a is a way of life of a group of people--the behaviors, beliefs, values, and symbols that they accept, generally without thinking about them, and that are passed along by communication and imitation from one generation to the next” Is it precisely the capacity to accept war “without thinking about them”, about solutions and reasons to get into war that makes the global community believe in the need to be in war, rather than negotiate an agreement. If the global political-culture would be around peace, instead of war, the conflict would not take 3 years. Is precisely the global military action that is delivering a mistaken idea of how to proceed, out from historical context, and certainly with no intention to reduce tensions with Russia.
The same as in the stock market culture business, the suspicious and demonization of Russia is successfully -and sadly- building a “threat” for the whole Europe, when is it only about a regional conflict from countries that were not even part of Europe. Is it here that we perceive the real threat, when there are provocations instead of dialogue, attacks instead of negotiations, developing of arms industry, instead of putting pressure on Ukraine to settle their differences and get into a solution, even if it supposes going against the current agenda.
Advancing a global agenda without considering cultural issues at the local, historical, and political level, or what is more, imposing rules in how to engage externally, are all elements that do not help to settle the confrontation.
The capacity to be neutral is the key driver to building peace. Is indeed, a matter of cultural issues that are true challenging to interpreted by foreign “authorities” like NATO or the European Commission.
The idea from the European Union that Russia is a “threat” is only based in the steady construction of that “threat” with no intention of negotiation or simply to look back, and explore the relationship Europe- Russia, that was based in conciliation, and some influence in the historical- regional conflict between Russia and the former-Soviet region. The escalation come also because of Europe- NATO alliance that is doing precisely what for decades was made it clear by Russia: expansion to Russia borders.
If the idea is to eliminate a competitor in the geopolitical map, and increase the power by military alliances to build a center of power, then the strategy is correct, if instead the idea is to end the war, and bring peace, attending Putin´s demands along with Russian citizens in the region, then is an imperative to stop the war. Therefore Ukraine´s ambitious goal to retake Crimea -than is the only logics that justify a no settlement of the conflict after 3 years-.
Feeding the conflict as Europe currently does gives contradictory signs about genuine intentions towards a strategy in peacebuilding, that after Crimea was only about peace-keeping.
There is no better way to end an armed conflict that listen to each side and analyze -at least- the past decade before the outbreak of the hostilities.
Let ´s build peace at any price, not war “as long as it takes” …
Mar Introini. “Ukraine-Russia war: when being anti-war is not a popular position”
ª Far rights groups in Ukraine
LinkedIn Top Voice Executive Coaching & Emotional Intelligence I Founder & CVO at ARETA new perspectives for leaders | Certified Int. Leadership & Business Coach | Coaching in 🇬🇧🇩🇪🇮🇹 I Author of 6 Leadership Skills
8moExcellent reflections, Mar. Introini, PhD!