Neutrality is a second-order phenomenon where actors maintain relationships with multiple parties in a conflict while avoiding direct involvement, rather than being a passive or moral position; this strategic positioning allows countries like China to pursue their interests without burning bridges, and neutrality typically benefits the weaker party more because stronger parties have more incentive to coerce neutrals into their side.
Installez notre extension pour rechercher instantanément dans n'importe quelle vidéo
Talking Neutrality with Pascal Lottaz & Benji SchoendorffAjouté :
[music] Welcome to a new episode of the Cycl series of the resistance is fertile podcast universe. Uh today I was hoping to be with my co-host Indica who might join us later on. It's very early for him, like 5:30 a.m. in uh Sri Lanka now.
And uh so we'll see if he shows up. But I'm absolutely delighted to welcome today Pascal L of this great channel, Neutrality Studies. So Pascal, welcome.
And I want to tell uh our audience a little bit how I first learned about you. My first very clear memory of you is going to the um what you call it the place where we take all the things to recycle nearby. It must have been three or four years ago. I don't know when you started a channel maybe uh about that time. It was a very new channel and you were a new voice and from the beginning I really like the way you approach your guests like both you everyite but very open to their ideas and very generous in your questions and it always made for really interesting conversations. Since then I've had a chance to follow you much closely. you've had the success that you've deserved. And uh I I was telling you earlier before we started recording that I think you bring the widest range of guests that I've seen, you know, in the the folks I follow on the internet. Of course, you bring the usual suspects, but also you bring folks who thought I probably never have would would have been made aware of if you hadn't brought them to your channel. So that's that's an absolute treasure. And of course you invited me uh for a conversation about my perspective on psychology on your channel which I was really happy with and I really loved our conversation and now you've agreed to come and have a live conversation with us. So welcome Pascal L. Well, thank you very much, Benji, for the kind invitation. And uh, you know, I'm I'm a very lucky guy because all I want to do is have is have good conversations with interesting people, as many of of them as I can. And turns out other people like listening in. I mean, I I didn't think that would be the case when I started it because honestly, the channel at the very beginning was just an excuse to write an email to people, hey, can I talk to you for an hour? And I have this channel, by the way. he can publish it and it's it amazed me um it amazed me that that coincidentally actually fills fills a gap.
>> Yeah. And uh actually this is the one thing that I love best about uh what I do is the chance to have absolutely amazing conversations with people who I mean literally broaden my perspective on so many things. So I'm glad that we have the same kind of uh experience doing this um doing this thing. And so you are uh if I'm not mistaken an assistant professor at one of Kyoto's universities if maybe there are several which is by the way >> yeah go ahead >> it doesn't really matter but just for the record I'm an associate professor at the University of >> the University of Kyoto. Oh, I thought Kyoto I've been to Kyoto twice actually to give workshops for psychotherapists and I thought there were as many universities in Kyoto as there are temples and as you know >> Kyto is this beautiful city and you can't walk I mean there's at least a temple per block >> and so it's a very nice place to live and you're from Switzerland I'm from Leon France which is like 150 kilometers from Geneva and u you happen to have a channel called Neutrality studies and of course to us French people Switzerland is the land of chocolate and neutrality.
Now neutrality is a very interesting concept as I've come to learn about uh European history.
I think my child's view of Swiss neutrality has evolved a little bit because when you look at the details of maybe second world war that neutrality was maybe as not as neutral as uh it might have been and recently over the past what 40 years it's hard to know exactly what remains of Swiss neutrality but I didn't really want to speak to you about you know Swiss neutrality in general But tell us a little bit about your concept of neutrality and what relevance do you think it has in uh today's anything but neutral world?
Well, well, thank you very much for your interest in what is actually my core topic and you know the um I'm building my entire um project here at Kyoto University and before that at I was at Vasada University in Tokyo and before that I wrote my dissertation about a connected topic. I wrote about uh Swiss, Swedish and Spanish neutrality during the Second World War and how that impacted their diplomacy with Japan. And that's when I more or less discovered that um I think a very important aspect of this of this topic is left out. And that's not just you know not just what do the permanent neutrals do but what does the pure act of distancing yourself from a conflict and saying no to uh joining alliances. What does that do and what does that enable or or how does that impact the entire system? Um because the biggest surprise to me was not the Swiss or the Swedish case. It was the Spanish case. You know, it was the fact that in the Second World War um the Spaniards had a constructive relationship with Japan, had a diplomatic relationship with Japan for the entire time of the war. And they could do more or less exactly the same thing as the Swiss and the Swedes. And actually the three of them built a network then of uh diplomatic relations for the belligerent uh for the Japanese for the Americans for the Germans and others and that u they organized exchange ships you know because every once in a while even during the high time of war belligerent still still have common interests for instance getting your diplomats back that get stranded in each other's countries and I I realized you know Switzerland is is is an interesting case but but Spain is even more fascinating And uh and Spain is of course not a traditional neutral. Spain just happened not to join the axis powers which they you know almost did already had kind of a handshake about that Franco with uh with Hitler but then uh by the time that came was supposed to happen Hitler was already on the losing side and Franco didn't and but that that that position remaining outside is what then still enabled a lot of things and actually you know Franco uh just like Portugal Salazar fascist dictatorships but They came out of the second world war alive.
They were not eradicated. [laughter] The the the fascists on the axis side who fought the war uh Hitler and Mussolini, they they were dead. Franco Salazar were not. Um so you know this kind of this idea that neutrality is always a democratic thing is actually kind of one of the not the myths but it's one of the things that is not the full picture. You also have these um dictatorial uh uh neutralities and even today we have those. One of the of the most um ardent neutralists neutral countries on earth that almost nobody knows about is Tormanistan. Tormen thanks to Tormenistan the 12th of December is now the official UN recognized day of neutrality. Nobody knows that but it is still back um since 17th of since December 2017. Why the 12th of December?
Because back in 95 that is when a UN resolution recognized Turkmanistan's neutrality and Turkmanistan inf famously uh ranges of course one um one rank below North Korea on the freedom house index. Turkmanistan is a is a North Korean style dictatorship uh by any by any standards but it is also a standup bearer and a convinced neutral country.
So there is a lot to actually explore when it comes to neutrality in IR. And I think the one thing that might also interest you also from the psychological aspect is what I'm working on to to kind of strip down the the discussion about what neutrality is and isn't and you alluded to it in in your introduction. I mean is it was it really neutral in the in the in the war? What what this what we need to figure out is what we what we mean by really. And my point and I would like to share this maybe here and you're already doing a screen share but let me try to >> try and do try and do it yourself if you can. Okay. I I loaded a picture and if you can can you show that picture on the stage?
>> I think I can. Here we are.
>> Here we are. Here we are. This is my base model that I'm working on and trying to um trying to tell people look when it comes to neutrality this is more or less what we should keep in mind about the different about these different actors. So um my argument at this point is that this represents what neutrality as a sociological phenomenon is the best B1 and B2 being belligerent one and belligerent two or you can think about it in everyday terms as party one and party two you know your friends friend one friend two and those two are are in a relationship with each other which is unfortunately one of conflict uh represented with the with the little flash right so um one of my main issues is that I would urge people also in international relations to to perceive international relations as inherently bilateral. Yes, we have a multilateral forums. Yes, we have big venues with yes, we have world wars where everybody is is with or against everybody. But um at the core of everything, the relationship between countries is bilateral. And it can be a good relationship, it can be a bad relationship, it can be a at war relationship just like the United States and uh and Iran or or Israel and Iran at the moment. But that's one of the main that's one of these main issues, right?
It's they they are at war. Now, the point for neutrals is that we often imagine them to be to being in the middle squeezed, right? or on a on a balance. But that's a very very unhelpful metaphor because it actually camouflages the main point of the relationship which is that also the neutral party A has a relationship with both belligerents. It's at peace with B1 and it's at peace with B2. If you are friends with two people who are who are in a fight with each other, then you're friends with both. And the the main problem arises from that that you would like to maintain a good relationship with this one and you would like to maintain a good relationship with that one. But unfortunately these two these two have beef with each other. Um and [clears throat] the the the one of my observations there is then that you know neutrality itself is actually a um a a second degree or a second order phenomenon because the A is of course not neutral to B1 and B2. A is neutral toward the conflict. The neutrality itself is directed toward the conflict.
You will say like look look I I like you I like you but I don't your fight with each other I have nothing to do with it and I will I will not take I will not have an opinion on that one or I will try to to have a distance from this while I try to be on on good on a good relationship with both of you and I will try to help you and I will try to help you but I will not do anything that somehow u you know will impact this beef that you have with each other. Um and from from this uh I would then I claim we we have the main problem which is of course the neutral actor A is neutral toward the conflict but it is part and parcel of the conflict constellation. It is still embedded within the social fact that the that the conflict creates. Um, and if that is not the case, if the neutral is actually not inside the conflict constellation, I would claim it makes no or very it makes no sense to talk about them as neutral actors. And my example here is the little man in the moon that I drew up there.
>> Yeah. [laughter] And and like just just no, just just >> of no conflict whatsoever. It's just swinging on the moon.
>> It's just it's just swinging there. My point is, and I I actually I wrote about that in an essay. It's just think about it. I mean, um, you know, I did philosophy as an undergrad, and in philosophy, we we take, uh, thought experiments very serious, because not because they're realistic, but because they they help us strip down a couple of concepts to their bare bones. Just imagine for one moment the the man in the moon existed. There is an there's a literal man living in the moon and he's it's he is living on the other side of the moon, the one that's facing away from Earth. The man in the moon has never heard of Earth because he's never seen it, right? never crossed his event horizon, right? Doesn't know about it.
Um, he never never heard of never heard of humans, never heard that humans organize themselves in groups or that some of these groups are called countries or that some of these countries can have conflicts with each other. So, it's the man in the moon has never heard of Ukraine or Russia.
Doesn't know that they're in a war with each other. The man in the moon is as completely agnostic and and unnowledgeable about the Russell Ukrainian war as as possible in any kind of imaginable universe. Would we call that man in the moon neutral when it comes to Russia and Ukraine? I would argue we wouldn't. It's it's weird because the man in the moon never took a decision, right? Never never never actually had anything any kind of relationship. I would say that the man in the moon then doesn't qualify to be called neutral. Whereas whereas let's say um uh who's a good neutral in that one? India. India took the decision that it will continue buying the oil but that it will not deliver weapons and that it that it does condemn the Russian aggression but that it doesn't put sanctions. India would in my in my in my view uh qualify as as a proper neutral because there was a decision about it about the conflict and then a distancing from the conflict while trying to maintain a relationship uh with both parties China as well and you know China famously still has diplomatic relations with with both with Ukraine and Russia.
Um and although western propaganda tries very much to portray this kind of you know uh trade relationship with Russia as an alliance with Russia, my my analysis would say like no no they they're simply keeping a a proper distance from this and actually you know um China did make peace proposals that were not outhand rejected by both by the Kremlin and by KF. Um so in in in what I try to build here is to say that no neutrality inherently means that you're taking a position and you're taking your position. You're the third side of a triangle and neutrality decreases if you if if you become more and more part of one of the two conflict parties and the way that they implement the conflict and it it increases if the the the distance is kind of kept. Although one of the points I also make in the paper where I wrote about this is that um political neutrality the way I've depicted here is never never outcome neutral and we must not conflate these two things. A political neutrality will always have an impact on the conflict constellation.
Usually it benefits the weaker party more. The stronger party has more interest to coers the neutrals into joining them or to to sabotage their relationship with the other belligerent.
And if the neutral maintains that then it usually helps disproportionately the weaker party more. This is why the US and Europe are so angry. China and India they are supporting evil. If they stop trading then Russia would be destroyed and the problem would be solved. Yeah.
Exactly. Precisely. Um [laughter] it would and that's why you're angry at them and so not supporting the good side is equal supporting the bad side. This is also a traditional one to happen because it's this this black and white thinking. But it's actually from the conflict dynamic. It's also not untrue.
If you eliminate the neutrals, you eliminate some um of the of the global support system for the other side. So the most natural thing to happen in these conflict constellations is that usually the stronger party puts starts putting immense pressure on the neutrals to seize all and any relationship and they call that dead trading with the enemy act.
>> Yeah. Yeah. either for us or for the terrorists. There is no middle ground, right?
>> Yeah. Precisely. Because at the end of the day, you you need to win the conflict, right? And you in the western concept, that means to vanquish and to eliminate and to literally destroy and eradicate the enemy. Other co other cultures have have other concepts of what uh winning a conflict means, but the Europeans, they and well, the Euroamericans, they mean to uh to completely destroy and and eradicate the enemy. Um yeah and then that that kind of this this view of the the neutral the the sociological um um developments of what's the what neutrality does and the the development of neutral relationships inside the conflict consolation downstream that's then what what um what interests me and how I try to approach these studies and also look at instances you know for for example uh in the second world war the most the most interesting The most fascinating neutrality to me is neither Switzerland, Spain, nor Sweden. It's actually the neutrality between uh the Soviet Union and Japan. They had literally a neutrality pact, not a non-aggression pact. They officially called it neutrality pact because in their the hierarchy that they had a non-aggression pact would be one step higher. Non-aggression would mean I also don't send any kind of support to your enemy. Neutrality means no, I can still send weapons to your enemy. um I just don't join in in the fighting. So the Soviets were only willing to give that because they still wanted to send weapons to Chunkaek. Um but they were willing to do that. In 1941 they signed this, you know, Matsuoka uh went to Berlin and then Moscow on the way on the way back home and Stalin and Molotov they signed that neutrality pact 41 that then lasted all the way to the 9th of August 1945, the day of the second atomic bomb that fell on that was that was that was thrown on uh Nagasaki until that day. The this neutrality or this peace relationship between the Soviet Union and Japan was maintained and it was not a happy peace. It was not a buddy buddy piece. Um, they still had they still of course were highly suspicious of each other, but they still had a trade relationship. It was still possible for Japanese or people from Japan to travel through the Soviet Union to Europe. Um, and they still have embassies in each other's uh capitals, including the Soviets. They they had they had a very quite large um embassy in Tokyo. And we, by the way, we still don't know what they did. Nobody has actually researched the Soviet embassy in in Tokyo, funnily enough. But um that point aside, what I want to say here is that this just shows that even belligerent neutrality. Even countries that are at war can still have an uh there can still be neutrality part of their foreign policy. Um because the neutrality always depends on what relationship you're talking about, right? and the the they did. So the Japan the Japanese maintained some form of what I call here neutrality toward the Soviets war against Germany and Italy and the the Soviets maintain some form of neutrality as in not joining the fighting uh toward the Japanese fighting with the um Americans and and the Brits and the French and so on. So you know it's it then gets very very nuanced in terms of how we can try to think about all of these the multilateral aspect of the bilateral relationships of the second world war. So, so let me you know as I'm listening to you so much is coming up for me and and I think the concept is fascinating and thank you very much for presenting it in such a detailed way that it's already changed my view of neutrality which I think was much more um caricatural in a way um but what came up for me is this question of proxies >> so you have today what to my mind is a proxy war in the Ukraine against Russia that has been provoked I believe by the US-based imperialists might call it right but in a strange sort of a way and we are seeing it more clearly you know through the rhetorical I don't know if their devices or lack of any rhetorical control of Donald Trump the proxy wars are very strange strange.
I I want to know how they fit because like it gives the US some stance of neutrality which is like it's it's actually playing with and you know pushing the war on to the Europeans and stuff and the Europeans also maintain some semblance of neutrality and the Russians on the other side say just just put one just put one real foot inside of Ukraine or you know send one missile from the EU into Russia. and see what happens. Right? So, >> I think everybody's dancing, everybody's dancing around neutrality, aren't they?
Because like when Putin and Trump talk, Putin knows full well that you know even the targeting of many uh Ukrainian missiles is done uh with US satellites and US personnel uh do preparing everything and just you know they they call some Ukrainian guy to press the button or something probably is what they do. But at the same time is would you call you know I hesitate to say it because I wouldn't call the US neutral in in the uh Ukraine war and yet I'm sensing that maybe in some sense of your definition they are and that is an advantage for well it's an advantage for world peace because you can't have the US and Russia you know fighting it out on the battlefield directly. So how do you how do you factor in the proxy wars into your >> your framework?
>> You're absolutely right and I in in the paper um that I wrote I I I tried to explain that I mean here it depends what level of the conflict we're looking at.
I mean the the Ukraine war can be analyzed in at least at least on at least three levels, right? You can look at the at the basically I mean for the lack of a better word at the um civil war inside Ukraine that is fought out mainly between the central power in Kief and the Donbas uh republics right and that that that conflict had been going on on since 2014 at least right that's the civil war aspect and the civil I mean all of these wars then intermix with each other right and of course the Russians started started intervening >> like Russian dolls if Yeah, I mean the Russians start intervening and NATO already sends troops and the US puts up CIA bases and blah blah blah. I mean nothing is isolated but but at the core we have a civil war uh in Ukraine. Then on the second level, we now have since 20 at least 2022, also already earlier, but 20 at least since 2022, since the full-scale invasion as they usually call it, we have a interstate conflict, right? An interstate war um or as it's called in international humanitarian law, an armed conflict, right? That's the that's the jargon uh IHL uses. And that that one is in that one you have the two combatant sides the the Russian forces and the Ukrainian forces and those are the two militaries that fight against each other. Um, plus then on the ground the the the the the uh the civil war in Ukraine is then embedded in that one and you have forces that support each other and and wear batches and so on and you under international law you can make sense of that but that's then the the official uh armed conflict and then on top of that you've got the proxy war you've got the fact that the United States provides anything and everything including the targeting and the CIA and so on and has also political control over KF and uses this as we know from Lindsey Graham and others who said like as a wonderful investment right we complete right the Russians haha all of this stuff and of course and the Russians know that yes they understand it and that's the whole motivation for the armed conflict is to stop that level and to stop NATO advancing right and all of those levels they they're on top of each other but they integrate with each other and depending on what we talk about we have then um this picture for the for the neutrality actually changes and the United States of course plays with that. So the neutrality that they claim at the moment is a is a neutrality toward the classic um inter international armed conflict where you only have the armies of the Russians and the army of the of the Ukrainians pitted against each other and said, "Oh no, our army is not fighting there. People with our American um batches, they're not on the battlefield. Therefore, we are neutral." Um, and the Russians, interestingly enough, go along with some of that narrative when it comes to the negotiations. I still don't complete completely comprehend why they do that, but they do when they, for instance, Vladimir Putin accepts that Donald Trump announces a ceasefire. It's like, oh, we the United States brokered a three-day ceasefire over um, you know, victory day and whatnot. Um, fine. But I mean, the matter of the fact is they do. Now um again the US then plays on that level on the mid level the the kind of neutral while on the high level it is the puppeteer the puppet master of the entire conflict and it's not neutral at all. Um but that's maybe in in in an answer to this. We need to take apart the conflict and understand um in in in on which level we are applying this this type of analysis and then you have uh for instance uh India and China which say that also in the proxy war they do take a a neutral stance because on the one hand they uh they do not they still um buy oil and so on and have a productive relationship with Russia. On the other hand, they also still try to have a productive relationship with the United States. And India is maybe an even better example because India has on even more levels a very intricate relationship because it also is kind of part of the Quad and the the Indopacific kind of strategy of the United States because it wants to counterbalance a little bit China but maybe not too much.
But you see how they try to have a multi- vector foreign policy. And the reason why a lot of people then don't perceive that or call that a neutrality in my sense is because to them neutrality means just to stand to just be passive and not to do anything and not have any kind of relationship and just say like no no no I don't want to hear it. I'm not I'm not going to >> I'm going to the other side of the moon tomorrow by the way and I won't be >> exactly >> and there is no Starink terminal there so don't try and reach me.
>> Yeah. Exactly. No. And the um the so the point the the point is that if you analyze any kind of neutrality in history, especially also the ones under international law, what you will always find is this. And you will always find that the neutrals are always always busy um defending their position toward both sides because usually both sides tell them, "Dude, why are you helping my enemy?" And he's like, "No, I'm not helping the guy. I mean, I I just I just continue doing what I do with them as I did before. You bastards started fighting. Why would your fight determined my relationship with the other guy? I mean, just the audacity of these people. And you know, at the moment, the audacity is mostly coming from the from the side of the Americans and the Europeans because they are used to be the center of the universe. So, everybody naturally needs to look to the sun and the sun king and Louis the 14th, right? I mean, Donald Trump is is kind of in that tradition of a European mindset um of everybody then needing to to uh uh to to just do as they as they are told. Uh and a naturally a neutrality doesn't do that. That's why a proper neutrality actually um um must have must go hand in hand with a proper sovereignity. The ability to say no and just just also explain your point that uh your fight is your fight but not mine. And I will um uh I will try to be nice to you. I will also try to be nice to the other one. And by the way, by the way, and that's the most constructive thing neutrals can do. If you need me to help you with the guy, tell me. I will not break burn my bridges, but if there's ever something that you would like to talk to the guy to, you know, I still have a good relationship, so let me know. And that's what what reasonable neutrals do. That's why Oman is actually playing a quite good hand at the moment in the Iran war. That's why Pakistan is trying to fill to fill that place not because they are permanent neutrals like Switzerland but because they they understand how in this conflict they can actually try to help without uh or with by even and even increase their own um foreign political cloud and and and get something out of it.
>> Right. Um, I want to do someone in the comments thought I was in Japan and I met you at the recycle center, Gi Recycle Center.
No, I was listening to Pascal's [laughter] podcast as I was going to my local recycling center here in Canada. Okay.
Uh so you've clearly expanded my horizons about what neutrality is and I'm sensing it actually as a central role if we want a world of peace right and if we want a a properly functioning multipolar world but I'll I'll go back to my previous view of neutrality and I see many people in the chat you know hold this totally legitimate view which is as you which is kind of man in the moon. It's did you see it's a C by the way. So you have A B and C in the moon. [laughter] It's a kind of I didn't even notice.
>> Yeah. somebody I think somebody in the chat so it's some mathematically minded um viewer and I used to sit a little bit like this and I remember actually my first sense of view in those conversations must have been two three years ago three and a half years ago was really as a very neutral observer but lately as I listen especially to um you know conversations you have about genocide died in uh turned into my eyes into a you know active holocaust in in Palestine in Gaza and the aggression against Iran. Parti goes oh Pascal is losing a bit of his Swiss neutrality there you know he's getting a little bit hot under the collar with all that efery that uh what we call on this podcast white empire is um is getting up to. But I didn't really understand neutrality, did I?
>> No. No, you did. Um, and what you're telling me is what a lot of people tell me, but that's what I when I tell them that, you know, >> you're losing your neutrality. You never they'll never let you back into Switzerland now.
>> No, no, no, no. You know, I am I am the sneaky one because I call my podcast and actually what I do here at Ky University, I call that neutrality studies.
And I know that then naturally you would assume that I have to be neutral. But let me just tell you as a researcher I mean there are there is cancer studies.
Did you ever meet a cancer studies person who studies cancer who's himself a cancer? Did you ever meet a biologist who's a plant [laughter] you know I I claim to study the thing like I study it metaphorically speaking.
>> I am I am not I'm well yeah >> some of them are CIA plants as you might know. Yeah. Yeah. But no, the point is I studied a thing. I am not that and I never claimed that I'm neutral.
Actually, I I for myself I claim that I'm a neutralist.
>> I am trying to sell neutrality as a concept of conflict uh management not avoidance not not resolution as a way to manage conflict. So I view myself as a neutralist. Um and that difference is is is is quite important because it doesn't mean that you have to be completely again agnostic about the the situation of the world in my view. On the contrary, you need actually to understand the world and have a position within it as like this one here in order to um impact the the entire the entire system. So again um I named my my um endeavor neutrality studies knowing full well that people will then perceive me as neutral. Um although I myself never claimed that but you know everything comes with upsides and downsides and I'm going to live with the one that people going to have like intuitively a positive impression oh a neutral perspective when in fact that's not what I'm delivering. Um but I also say that I never claim to be neutral. I claim to study the things. I never claim to be neutral. So the interpretation on the other side I I say like okay guys not my responsibility but I'm aware that yeah I I will have to explain exactly that point. Yeah that's a great point.
So as you've been talking I've really been you know my mind has been going towards the role of China especially in the conflict in West Asia. You know I remember the beginning of the structural genocide uh veering into active holocaust in Gaza.
some I think Chinese representative at the UN of at some in some international body very firmly reaffirmed the legitimate right of armed resistance of peoples under occupation and therefore China's support for the legitimate right of armed resistance under international law of uh the Palestinian people and at the same time they stayed neutral. You know, they continued trading with the Zionist entity. Even they have some construction contracts in disgust me to say it, but in the um in in the settlements in uh you know uh the occupied West Bank and they of course still have um diplomatic relations with everybody and in part it angers me because uh you know I want everybody and their brother to take a a fork, a pitchfork, whatever, and go and get rid of the Zionist entity.
But at the same time, when I think about conflict in the way you're showing it, and when I think about conflict as a clinical psychologist, we do this thing that we call holding space, right? Where we want to hold space for a different way of being, a different way of relating. doesn't mean that we are neutral in the sense that you know if I'm helping someone in a abusive relationship.
I'm not going to go fight their battles for themselves because that's not what I do. But I'm holding space for a different way of relating which might include at some point uh delivering justice on a perpetrator all the rest of it. But if I got involved in the conflict first therapeutically it would never work. I you know there would be more of a chance that a victim and perpetrator alied against me but also it drags you into the dynamics of the conflict when in fact you know and that's insu as well a war is not about the conflict it's about what comes after the conflict and the way China is doing things know I'm I'm a bit of a China glazer but at the same time I noticed emotionally thinking they're too too neutral. But at some higher level, noticing the wisdom of saying, okay, there is a possibility of a world in which everybody can interact with everybody else on a win-win basis without needing to impose anything on anybody, but we still need rules and those rules need to be enforced fairly, which of course is not the case today with the UN.
>> Yeah. And you know, you're of course like within you and also within me, we wish that more countries and more places took the side of uh Palestine, right?
And actually started helping uh liberating these these people been now genocided not just not just since uh October 7th, but have been genocided ever since 48 and even before that.
Right? the the the level of violence against the the Palestinians and against the a large part of the Arabian uh uh population is is is is insane, right? On the on in in the entire on the entire territory what that once used to be part or part of or close to the Ottoman Empire is like it's it's it's insane the level of violence that these people had to had to had to and still have to suffer. And in in on that sense you and I we closely empathize with their position which then leads us to exactly that we would like that side to win. Um so it it it then it that's why this position of neutrality then becomes kind of you know the the it starts looking like the neutrality of Switzerland toward Germany during Nazi Nazi Germany in the second world war. Why would you not uh be on on the side of decency?
right of of of what of the of the moral thing. But that's then that's what then also ultimately leads to the to the collapse and of of neutrality, right? If you then are sucked into the conflict and you take a side and then then there you go, it's gone. So neutrality does neutrality in and of itself is no is nothing that is either morally good nor virtuous nor anything. um it's it's just a a a matter of fact, right, that you have that kind of position and it usually usually arises out of the desire to maintain your own position. So for China to say like yes, on the one hand we remember our own struggle against the the the white colonizing West and we reaffirm the right to struggle against it. On the other hand, um we have important interests uh with Iran, with the Gulf States, even with with Israel, and um it would just make very little sense for us to burn all of these bridges, which are also bridges that were built over many decades or centuries. um in order now to to get um hands-on involved in this conflict because if we did want to get hands-on involved, we would send our uh our navy and we would send troops and we would declare war, right? But again, that that's that's not the interest of China.
So, um you know, in this sense, what I'm what I'm what I'm saying here is not that we should think of neutrality as an inherent as an inherent good. Neutrality can do good in the right time at the right place if if it's if it is played right. It can also um it can also inhibit good to happen like you know when you actually do need we the idea of the United Nations of everybody coming collectively together and spelling out the rules of the game and then also building a infrastructure of like monopolized violence that can then be a policeman of the world. That idea is in and of itself also useful and if it worked it would bring us top down peace.
It unfortunately doesn't. Um neutrality is kind of the opposite. It's kind of the approach to to to um bottom up peace to say like look um we the the genocide against the Palestinians if everybody joined the fighting it would be a world war. So like that's what happened in the first world war, right? More and more and more joined and in the end we had a first world war out of a um out of a European European stupidity. Now the genocide is of course that's going on is is is a different thing and we wanted we wanted it to end but um the the the thing could grow into something much much larger and much more even more horrible and even more Palestinians might be dying. So um the the thing that is happening and keeping keeping some places neutral and keeping also space for uh for negotiations can also be a a virtue. And I'm not I'm not saying um people should maintain neutrality. Actually I think when it comes to uh to the genocide Gaza gets the Palestinians we should think of it very much the way that we thought of of apartheid Africa even on a on a just on a much higher uh more violent scale. And there should be international condemnation in order to to force an end to this for to this kind of um systematic violence against one one group by the other. Um however again like this kind of what I'm presenting here is more of a statement of fact of how countries position themselves uh or actors tend to position themselves in a in a world of 8 billion people. um you will it will be very very hard to find a moment when really um when everybody has the same perception of everybody else and we get to to complete harmony. So the question to me is how to how to manage disharmony and as horrible as it is but even the even the genocide in in in Gaza and so on is in is is part and parcel of the process of of humanity trying to somehow manage itself. It is a very very very horrible way of managing but it is one and it is you know the the genocide is actually the way that the Euroamericans have been managing their affairs for the last 500 years at least right genocide is just one part one tool in the toolkit of the genocidal west one that they implemented in North America in South America in Australia and they're are trying to implement it again right through various very very um sneaky mechanisms but Um, and I'm not saying that neutrality then is the right medicine against it, but I'm saying that it is it is a matter of fact. the Chinese kind of de facto neutrality toward it. And we better try to factor it in to our understanding of how stuff works in order to actually get to a point where we have a a an idea of the politically possible and the politically impossible and then affect the situation in the best way available.
>> Right. Um it's interesting I think because in the past you know neutrality was a kind of a white man's game.
>> Mhm.
>> But now it's shifting clearly. Uh you know when China is China is being neutral. I think that's what you know we could we could fairly say that it doesn't mean it's not pursuing its interests. It's, you know, even in terms of the of the occupied Palestine situation, they do things the Chinese way, like they've been taken to court by many uh settlers because they are re they are not fulfilling their contracts, claiming security issues and all the rest of it.
You know they have this the Chinese are master bureaucrats and they have this ways of saying no without ever saying no to your face but you know like they have this also for the exports of rare earth they haven't really said no but you have to go to this office fill this paper it takes three months and then you need to take it to the other office takes another three months and then the other office and the other office and you know soon enough you're running very low on supplies but it's still neutral because and I think we're seeing it like did did you see today that the Iran accepted the four points plan of China >> based so I don't know if you have the details somewhere but I I'd love it to bring it you know to >> the conversation to the here now and if you could a little bit give us an analysis of that four points plan in terms of uh of neutrality you know because of course when I see this four points plan my blood boils. Um I don't think there was the first world war, second world war or you know danger of a third world war. I think there's been one imperialist war that can only finish with the defeat of imperialist capitalism and the sooner the better of course but it's easy for me in the comfort of my uh settler colonial home in Quebec to say it when you know I'm not doing the dying my son is not doing the dying. My family is not doing the dying. My community is not being uh pulverized. My universities aren't being bombed. my schools aren't being destroyed, my hospitals aren't being eradicated and all the rest of it.
Right? So I I'd love to to hear a little bit your if you think the neutrality perspective, neutrality studies lens tells us something about those four points. If you don't have them, I could maybe find them somewhere.
>> Um, if you could find them, that would be helpful. I read about them just this morning on on Twitter. Um, I I I I suppose that I read the thing that that that it actually is, but it it always bears like I just >> the you know >> I just found it from a really really dodgy account. Please, that's not somebody I follow. I just saw >> I mean, we need we need to check our sources. Um, >> yeah.
>> So, >> no, I've seen them I've seen them from Iranian sources. So, I think the the points themselves are actually legit. If you can read them.
>> No, I can read them. I just want to say like the way that I'm I'm pitching neutrality here or what I study and how I approach this is the analytical sense of the world the word the analytical sense of of how we can use neutrality as a concept in order to analyze um conflicts interpersonal and international ones and that is an kind of an abstract concept that's not how countries talk about themselves that's not not how the Chinese present themselves um that's only how a few places present themselves and um you know we can maybe talk about the Gulf States the Gulf states are an even better example for what I was what I'm talking about or what what I do. But when we look at at this here um and I think it's it's entire paragraphs that they pitched in like a one one piece paper um peaceful coexistence um respect for national sovereignity. Um actually what the Chinese are doing here is to um just go a level higher or even two level highers and say like look in terms of first principles what is it that both sides should actually agree to and the the the reason the Iranians are saying yes to this is because this actually if it if it if it goes if it goes further down if we go then to the concrete things that they want actually affirms what they want right peaceful coexistence as in no no use of weapons in in in international relations.
They've always subscribed to that. They were not the ones who attacked the others. They were the ones who were attacked, right? Um and the the the peaceful coexistence actually also doesn't doesn't negate the um the right of resistance because that's actually what comes in in point number two res or which one is it? Um here point number three adherence to international rule of law. the international rule of law, the UN charter recognizes the right to resist even the right to bear to to for armed resistance. So actually number one and um doesn't doesn't negate the right for the Palestinians and so on to defend themselves. What it just means is no direct attacks between the the national forces of Iran versus the national forces of versus the the IDF. And yes, we can we can debate whether that's good good or bad, but it doesn't negate the right to resist. Um, number two, respect of national sovereignity. Again, that's that's exactly what Iran wants, right?
Stop these stop these goddamn attacks.
And the this um respect for national sovereignity doesn't mean that Iran has to recognize Israel. It doesn't because that's still up to each country individually. Um there is no rule under international law that says Israel must be recognized. No, the way that it works is that um that under international law if recognition is given then uh existence is a fact. Um the the Monte Vido treaty uh of the 1930s uh no sorry the the I I forgot I forgot the precise year of the the 50s or 60s that that that spells out you know um under what how countries exist, nations exist under international law and the recognition of others is the prerequisite for that. So it doesn't actually mandate anything. Um adherence to international rule of law. The um just just one second please. Sorry.
Uh sorry. [clears throat] The um the where was I? Adherence to to the international rule of law. That's what the um that's of course what what Iran wants. And if if the Americans say yes to this, you know, we have something called the non-prololiferation treaty.
Uh the most important treaty that still governs international uh uh the the the use of nuclear materials and uh nuclear uh uh uh research and so on. And they want that. That's the point. They don't want a weapon. The Iranians always said we want the the right to have to enrich uranium, which are the NPT they have if they keep to the other part, which is not to to develop a bomb. They said we don't want to develop a pump. Dad of current um what's his name? Mustabi Mustava Must the father Ali he put a fatwa on developing a bomb. But that's not a fatwa on nuclear research. That's not a fatwa on enriched uranium. Um you need enriched uranium in order to have a um you know uh electrical power plants um and nuclear power plants. you need it in order to to for radiation therapy for medical purposes and so on. And what we have seen in the past is that the they said like okay fine we're not going to build a bomb and then in return we're going to uh we're going to have access to these materials that we need for our peaceful program. And then what did the west do? They made it they made it impossible for that kind of uranium to actually reach Iran in controvention in breach of the NPT. So number three actually would empower Iran to get what it has the right to get and it doesn't actually want more which is again why they why they agree to it and it would mean of course curtailing the ability of the United States and the West to prevent them from having what international law actually says they should have. So what what China is doing here is in a very smart way affirming all of the rights Iran has um without phrasing it the same way that Iran does and the United States actually I'm I'm pretty sure I'm absolutely sure they know that because the US is the one who's trying to breach all of this and try to sell it as a responsibility. Um yes >> and it also means it also means an end to all you know this raft of illegal sanctions in many ways.
>> Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. And point four is really about and point four says, okay, let's get around the table and talk about the real stuff, right?
balancing, coordinating, development and security, which of course for the um Iranians mean reparation means the effective nationalization of the home strait probably in cooperation with Oman and it means uh you know reparations and it means an end to the sanctions.
>> Yeah. Yeah. It's it's it's it's really quite simple. By China saying that, you know, international law must be our guiding star toward resolving the conflict, what they're doing is taking basically taking the side of Iran without saying so by saying like look the the if you follow the rules of international law, then Iran will get like 80% if not 90% of the things that they that they currently claim that they want. The one thing they wouldn't get is the control over the Hormus straight, right? because that one is governed by UNLOS and UNL has pretty clear um um uh uh provisions of how that should go. But again, this is something that Iran didn't want. I mean, Iran only took that thing because they had to because the war was imposed on them and now they're using that that as a bargaining chip.
But that's also why I think that is actually the most negotiable point. All booth system um uh is is the most negotiable point again because they didn't want that from that was not one of the points that they were after uh from the start. So in my view, China made here a very smart thing by actually um you know using a different jargon and a higher level rhetoric in order to establish what are the principles that this that this thing should be based upon. And the fact that Iran agrees to that means that to me they're they're in agreement on what this principle actually means. And it's pretty clear to me that the United States will just ignore it because they also understand [laughter] that if they followed international law, you know, we wouldn't have this uh this thing and we wouldn't we wouldn't have the genocide if international law was followed.
>> We wouldn't have the rules based order if international law was followed. So I know your conversations on your on your channel are one hour long. on our channel we tend to ramble more so we can go up to 90 minutes but you also have an actual uh live to go to so I can I just check how much longer you've got for this conversation Pascal >> it's okay I I don't know what that was somebody wanted maybe to change something uh some fixtures but it's we can do 90 minutes if you like >> oh okay perfect um so I'm trying to so I'm trying to get my head around I China could only do this can only do this by being neutral.
Right? If China was a party or well, let me get that straight.
Neutrality also implies a kind of public moderation in your language, right? Because you you have uh let's go back to the example where you have two friends fighting, right?
uh and you want to keep an okay relationship with both, but that doesn't mean that you think they're uh equally culpable or that one isn't, you know, more of a cause, a chaos agent than the other one or that one isn't weaker than the other one, maybe needs a bit of support. It doesn't mean any of this.
But still, if you want to be effectively neutral and that your neutrality, as you say, a neutral party is actually a party to the conflict. But that your neutrality moves towards your own interest in the conflict, which if you want to stay friends with both, is that some kind of resolution is found that you know keeps the constellation going a bit longer publicly. You can't say well I think you know this person was actually absolutely disgusting to the other one and they are it's all their fault and they should stop now.
>> So so you have to go.
>> I see your point. It is true that you have the right to defend yourself and that you know because you're weak you also have the right to get support and I understand that you are angry and uh you want this resolved and >> but but you you kind of have to you know walk a fairly tight rope don't you?
>> Of course you do. Of course, it's like um the hotter the conflict is fought, the more difficult it usually is for neutral parties to actually maintain maintain this position because the pressure on them will be increased um from one or from both sides. Um so, and again, I'm not saying neutrality is something that should be maintained at all costs. What I'm what I mean is that um we just find this thing, we find this constellation time and time and time again. It's not not something that is actually abstract or that rests upon like um you know very contient principles blah blah blah. No, it's just something that happens again and again and again. We find it in every conflict and that's >> it's dirty. It's messy like human life.
>> It's messy and it's not it's not clearcut, right? But we find this constellation, this triangle constellation whenever we find conflict.
And I work with that also with um a friend of mine who who does um uh anthropology uh who looks at tribes and how tribes interact and how third party tribes then um sometimes take over not only mediating position but also the position of judges and so on. Um that then is accepted might or might not be accepted by others. But you know this this kind of this kind of thing where you where you have more than two usually when you have a conflict you have third parties and these third parties are systematically understudied in what their impact is on conflicts and when I when I say you know my concept of neutral is much much much larger than how other colleagues would use it but I'm that's why I'm saying it's like in the analytical sense those parties the third party actors that that try to maintain a relationship with both it happens that that parties then decide to to abandon that, right? And to just join the fight and now we're um all um all for one one for all. Um the the question about what was it China and so on is yeah if you if you do then want to maintain a relationship what you need to do is um on the one hand you need to show empathy for both sides toward them and usually what you do is you uh you also show that you have much less empathy for the other one. Whether that is true or not, we don't know. But that's the that's the game that you're playing. Um and you will still try to actually sell your value in the neutral position. I mean, that's what the Swiss during the the World Wars were doing the whole time. They were telling um both parties, look, we are more valuable to you not being part of the we are as part of it. Yeah. Because you must imagine like um the Germans at some point said no more trade with the UK, Switzerland because I mean you're landlocked, right?
So you have to stop all trade. And then the Swiss said, "Look, we are manufacturing for you, right? Don't we?" Um, we are manufacturing for the for the Brits. If [laughter] we continue doing that, then then, you know, the Brits get something out of us.
Um, so they we can tell them why we still manufacturing for you. If we stop giving the >> And plus, we're stashing some of that Jewish money in our banks. [laughter] >> Yeah. If we become a a satellite of yours, if we are a production facility for you, for you only, and if if our production capacity is only supporting your war effort, you know what the Brits will do? They'll bomb it. They'll bomb the manufacturing sites in Switzerland that are going to supply you. And you know what? You didn't have nothing. So, what would you rather have? Um, a bit of production stuff from us >> and the Brits or nothing at all. What's more valuable to you, dear Germany? And you know what they said? Okay, fine.
Fine. We're going to make a treaty Nazi Germany with Switzerland that you can um bring stuff via the Ryan River to the UK, which we are at war with. But we we have an agreement that yeah, okay, fine.
Switzerland, you can trade with the Brits. Okay, good. That kind of stuff.
And this is not a moral position.
>> It's not. It's just a matter of the fact of how these um actors then then try to position themselves and what neutrals want. The ne neutrals usually don't want what's best for B1 and B2. They want what's best for them because duh.
>> I just want to say, you know, on on on the Brits weren't bombing German industrial sites. They were bombing cities to terrorize. They even bombed Dresden, which had absolutely not a single factory for the war machine.
>> Just just one one one little piece of information, you know, there was one city, one Swiss city that got burned um by bombing during the Second World War.
>> Oh, right.
>> Shafausen. And it was not from the Nazis. It was the Americans who burned Shuffousen officially because they mistook it for a German city. And yes, it is on the border. So let's let's let's say that's true. But I just the point is in that war both sides were dangerous to Swiss and usually in a in a hot war both sides are dangerous to the neutral. And that's also something we need to factor in you know that that that both sides maintain the ability to hurt the neutral either physically or through trade or whatnot.
>> Yeah. Yeah, I mean both sides were gen genocidal just in different ways like carpet bombing civilians like they did the Americans did it in France in Normandy like they killed 15,000 people in LA or something and >> uh the Germans did it by hand if you like or in factories but >> um there's a there's a nice little uh thinking experiment in the in the chat here. Do you see it? Mhm.
>> So you want to be neutral. You have two friends, one in Gaza and one in Israel.
I feel the question first if that's okay.
>> I don't have friends in Israel anymore.
I I I almost no I had but I don't anymore. And if they contact me, I'd say something like, "What are you doing staying squatting on occupied land anymore?" But I'm not neutral. I'm not neutral. Like I have not no ambition to be neutral in this conflict. And in some ways, you know, like I'm really happy I'm not in charge of the world because I wouldn't be neutral. And I'm not sure it would be the best thing because bringing down this empire, you know, I see it as one long imperialist war. The problem we've had since 1945 is those guys have atomic weapons and they're actually willing to use them. You know, the other side has never used them, but they're willing to use them. So this has got to be managed at a very high level very carefully and it's a not not a science but basically uh my answer to this is why don't I have friends on occupied land when there's an active holocaust going on? No, that's that's not me. How about you Pascan?
Um, you know, I I um I used to think about the the Palestinian Israelian the Palestinian Israeli conflict in before like three years ago in quite naive terms of like two groups and so on and and and and then the long-lasting feud.
And that's not what it is. It's of course what you just described. It is the uh it is a a hundred year um more than 100 years. It's it's it's it's it's a several hundred year project to replace one people with another and uh colonial dominance and western dominance and the and so on. The one thing I would say by now from everything I've studied and from the conversations I've had, I would argue that actually also the the the Jews of Arabia and the Jews of Palestine and the Jewish population worldwide is actually also one of the victims of Zionism. Um, so if you give me if you made the the the the statement that no Jew living in occupied Palestine can be a friend, then I would disagree with that. I would say that there are people there who very much who who who have their heart on the on the right spot and who also speak out about that who also want to change that who wants to you know in this sense abolish the Zionist entity and replace it with something um that can actually integrate not the the settler colonial aspect of Israel but who can that can integrate the the Jews who have who were living there before Israel, the Jews who were part of the of the historic land of Palestine and you know take into consideration that unfortunately just the the the facts of the last 70 80 years now led to a situation where you have many people who connect even though it's historically untrue but who connect this um the the relationship to this land with their home and my hope would be that a um a political solution will in the end emerge that will you know in a utilitarian sense lead to the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people and that would include the the Jews of Israel.
>> Yeah.
>> Um so that would be my hope and in this in with this in this sense then I wouldn't say that we should be neutral toward the genocide. Not at all. that must stop and and be ended and the and and a a retribution and and and restitution and and justice um uh and healing healing very very importantly healing needs to be needs to be fostered and at the moment we're still like light years away from that but in this sense then >> that kind of friend in Israel I would I would try to maintain a relationship as much as I can and with that with a friend in Palestine I would would try to do exactly the same and I would actually try to figure out how to work with them.
But that presupposes of course that the one in Israel would actually have a similar framing and we know that in Israel people do. I mean we have the publishers of Harets. We have the um we have Gideon Levy there. We have um we have um uh uh what's his name? Um offer Kasif there. the the parliament even um Knesset member but but but a Jewish Knesset member for the Palestinians and so on. So we have people who have a radically different idea for the future of the people who are living on this land and I think that's that that deserves a support.
>> Right. Um I'm going to try to not derail the conversation. I'll I'll say one last thing about it and then you can you know say say your piece at a super say abstract level. You could say that Jews are the victims of Zionism. Like I have this idea that in a way uh the Holocaust got rid of the Jewish working class to the benefit of the Jewish ruling class being the Zionists. And then they went on this imperialist project that was fostered by the UK for at least since 1848, but even before that to occupy Palestine on behalf of imperial interests. And they've been, you know, hitching their wagon to the British Empire and then to the French and then of course to the dominant empire being the US.
Uh and yes, you can say Jewish identity is probably the victim of Zanism in the sense that I truly believe that after this Holocaust, Jewish identity will disappear. Because today you have 98% of all Jewish institutions and synagogues the world over that are Zionists. And Zionism basically is a racial supremacist genocidal ideology. There is no uh you know there is no in my view um overcoming that and the inhumanity of asking even dreaming that Palestinians should now live in peace with the folks who again if you look at the opinion PS inside the Zionist entity have been enthusiastically from the left all the way to the right supporting their extermination is the most inhuman thing I can think of and for any white person to advocate this seems to me to be an absolute insult to humanity.
So I would really step out of this and say it's not my problem. Uh I think Jewish identity will not survive this.
But at this point, I would not call a Jewish person a victim of Zionism because that's almost an insult to the actual phys. It's not almost to me it's an insult to the actual victim of of Zionism. So, you know, the last two years it I've made it impossible to hold this position. Then you you let the Palestinians do what they will. But the the truth of the matter is a lot of this to my mind and I'll finish on this is white protection. Like you know I go back to the example of the glorious Algerian struggle against colonization by my own people the French who I think were the most depraved colonizers ever. I mean they killed in the colonization of Algeria. 1.5 million at least another 1.5 million during the war of liberation and in between another three million in 132 years of occupation like we are really serious genocideers right behind our liberty equality fraternity BS.
But what happened is on the day of liberation literally the Algerians turned to those folks who had enthusiastically supported their extermination and said okay will you stay and build an independent Alger Algeria with us and literally 98% >> of the French settlers says with you as equals are you crazy >> we'd rather be equals with dogs and they went back to France so you you know that we have these debates is really weird because actually the society is so baked in racist that they would never and not even the leftists you know to step >> no you're you're right about that I just my point is that I would argue that one of the most important things we need to do is to make to a very very high tall and and well understood firewall between Zionism and the Jews those two are those two concepts are not equal and actually the Zionists are trying to make it equal because because it serves their purpose so much. These two these two are very very separate and I would never argue that the Palestinians should live with the Zionist. No, the Zionists are the ones when push comes to shove and when the when the Palestinian when Palestine takes back Palestine and and when when they give the choice, do you want to live here with us as equals um or not?
Those are the ones who will immediately leave to America, to Poland, to uh to wherever they came from, to Russia. They will leave. They will they will go they will go by themselves if that's the only choice they have. They they they will they will go away. But then there's also people who will say like uh yes, I want and those are not the Zionists.
[laughter] The actually the the the most ardent opposition to Zionism from within the Jewish community comes actually from the uh from believing Jews, right? that because Zionism also kind of tries to undo the Jewish soul which is which which is which is rooted um for the last 3,000 years or at least 2,000 years in actually quite a lot of pacifism there it's a very pacifist religion you know the um >> it was it was >> yeah yeah no but it that's the thing the real religion still is the Zionists are not but the Zionists gave it up they they they eradicated they fought against that part of Jewishness as much as they fought as the fight against the Palestinians to eradicate ated and to make it non-existent. I mean, so they they fight against both. And my point is then that there are currently people Jews in Israel who belong to that group and that group is small, but it does exist. Which is why I wouldn't categorically I mean I will never argue that all Jews and then whatever comes later. As much as I will never do all Palestinians or all Arabs or all Afghans or all Chinese, it's just it's it's untenable. But that's why I would then um well that's how I would qualify that statement. But I I agree with you when we use the term Zionist and the people who subscribe to the political ideology, the racist uh genocidal ideology of Zionism, those people are utterly 100% incompatible with um a with a with with a a a a moral state the way that it should be. So, let let me get the the conversation back on uh neutrality.
[laughter] And it's actually interesting to see, you know, when things get really hot and very, at least to me, black and white, neutrality is a pretty difficult stance to to keep and a very honorable one. Now um I would like to move the conversation to how do you see the role of neutrality in what I believe we both hope uh this emerging multipolar world right or or something like that because again I can see the I can see the interest of it like I'm you know following this conversation I'm thinking of China as a neutral a power that takes a neutral stance. It's very interesting because we might move into a situation where the strongest power is actually neutral which will be very very new because uh you know white empire we've never had the dominant power being neutral. I would argue today China is the dominant power on most measures in most domains right economically there is uh it's clear but is it possible to be in your view to be a neutral uh well you're not dominant but you're the biggest power and yet you're neutral maybe that's the way to [sighs and gasps] uh you know to to run um to run an international society what's your view that >> it is. No, and it's it's it's actually a very likely outcome. And you know, we've had that before. [laughter] It's um the most important the two most important books to read on this are Steven Nef's um history of neutrality um written in 2000 um Steven Nef and the second one um that I highly recommend uh Martia Abus and Age of Neutrals. And Martia Abahus uses so many historical cases. I mean it's >> Marta what? Martia Martia Aban Abahus um abb h i s abahoo house. She's um well um origin her name goes back to the Netherlands but she's a she's a New Zealander uh uh um historian and her whole thesis and she >> what's the name of the book?
>> Um an an age of neutrals.
>> Okay. 185 until 19 19 1914 and so on. I mean she she very convincingly makes the case that no without neutrality the entire balance of power system of the 19th century wouldn't have worked. Uh and it's not that that that countries chose that um you know out of a plan. It's just what emerged from more or less the balance of power. And you know neutrality is never something that that exists permanently.
um the the it's it's not something forever. It's not something that the country decides today and then thousand years in the future it will still maintain that. No, it's always context dependent upon what kind of conflicts we're talking about. And we've had between the 1870s, yeah, 1870s to the early 1900s, um the largest and most important maritime neutral power was the UK, Britain. They because they ruled they ruled the high sea and they didn't really take the side of any of the of the occasional wars of of its partners they kind of maintained an arms length distance. especially the 1880s and 1890s um the British Empire was for all intents and purposes it was using even the rules of neutrality and the it's not a coincidence that the international law of neutrality the two most important um multilateral treaties we have the hake conventions the ones of 1899 and the ones of 1907 that they came about at that time they were the end point the culmination of um at least two centuries of neutrality development in in which the powers bargained with each other um and where everybody once in a while was neutral while the others were at war with each other and they actually had a common interest in codifying what that meant and that's why the h conventions um spell that out they are not made for small neutrals like Switzerland um or Belgium they're made for the large ones um and the other very very important um uh neutral power of the 19th century is the United States the US had officially neutrality policy dating back to 1793 when George Washington declared it in the war of France against against Britain, [laughter] right? They're like, "Wow, we're not going to take excited this one. I mean, we're going to stay out of it." And they they maintained that. Um, basically, even the first world war was kind of just a break from that from that position of neutrality toward the Europeans. it was always geared toward the European continent saying like we are not going to join either Napoleon um nor are we going to join the Prussians or the French when they had their qualms and quables and whatnot and it was not a peaceful neutrality not at all because it also went hand in hand with the Monroe doctrine right which said we hedgemony over South America and whatnot and and the Europeans cannot come in here and they gobbled up of course Hawaii I mean and they did the genocide on their own land is not it doesn't mean that they were peaceful it just meant that when it comes to the conflict of the Europeans the Americans took the conscious decision, the political decision to maintain neutrality. Um, and there was always geared towards certain certain conflicts, but it was very important because had they not done so, world history would have developed differently. Um, had the Americans joined the Napoleonic Wars, things would might have turned out differently. Had the Americans joined the the FrancoRussian War in the in the 1870s, it might might have joinh turned out differently, right? Had they not joined the First World War, it it would have turned out differently. I'm not saying better. I'm just saying different, which is why I I I I make the point, you know, neutrality is in and of itself neither good nor bad. It just it's a fact and it then has an impact of how how the system develops forward. And if you if you go with my analysis and and that of others, then you would um come to the conclusion that a multipolar world naturally is one that will again be more conducive to neutrality. The most unconducive system is uniolarity. Bipolarity opens a bit of space and we saw that with the non-aligned movement during the during the cold war. Um, multipolarity opens the most space and actually some of the space is constructive with with states that will choose to be neutral and choose to have a kind of an a positive stabilizing impact. Some of it will be destructive, not destructive. It will come out of destruction. Look at the Gulf States. The Gulf States are being neutralized as in forced to be neutral as we speak.
But right now they're still allies of the United States and Iran said, "No, we win the war." This >> Saudi Saudi is making some mutual noises, right?
>> It is. It is. Saudi is learning the lesson. It's learning the lesson that if I open my territory and airspace and give the United States bases and if the United States then abuses that and attacks Iran, which is not in my interest, then Iran will fire at my bases. And that's actually what we have cu codified in in the H conventions. The number one thing is you cannot open your space, your physical space to any of the belligerents because if you do that, you know what? The other one's going to attack it. It's that simple. It's not uh it's not rocket science. They knew it under two.
>> It is rocket science on the part of the Saudis are relearning that and the Qataris are relearning that and the Bahanians are relearning that because the the security umbrella that the Americans said they will give them is is it was an illusion. It's not working. So when Iran is now actively demilitarizing them and neutralizing them, not in the sense of eradicating them, not in the sense of genociding them because if they wanted to genocide them, they would just fire at the desalination plans. But that's not the point. That's not what the Iranians want. They just want to make sure that no threat will emanate from these territories. And so the my prediction is that either all or most UAE I'm not sure but the other four they will in the end even if they don't declare neutrality themselves they will end up in a position which is exactly what I showed with my with my little diagram saying that they will not have a military uh uh military alliance anymore with the United States and they will close their airspace. They will close their ports to any uh outside military force that could be in one shape or form perceived as a threat to any of the other ones, especially Iran. They will never do an alliance with Iran. I don't think they would. They're just too far down the the political road. But they will they will then do the only thing that's left, which is not be on anyone's side on your side only. So this is a neutralization that's going on right now. And it's not a peaceful one. if they want to survive, if they want, you know, those artificial sax pico borders to still exist by the end of this conflict, that is probably their last their last best hope. Uh just by mentioning that uh the genocidal British Empire and then the genocidal US empire were neutral, you certainly made neutrality much less attractive to me, I have to say.
>> No, no, it's neutrality is not a good It's not a good or a bad thing. It's just a fact of the international life and some of it some of it can be good. Uh some of it is bad.
>> I'm trying like you know I'm a Marxist.
I believe in uh the hope of a uh future without exploitation.
I think we need to bring down imperialism to get there. I don't believe China is an imperialist nation.
Nor is Iran. Nor is Russia. though it has many problems and I'm trying to prefigure the world and I'm trying to understand the the deep philosophical wisdom of China's approach which I I also think of it in my you know psychologists way which is it's really as I say holding space for people to relate in a different way because we all have to share this planet at the end the day and genociding white people is probably it might be a solution, but I'm not sure it wouldn't have some, you know, side effects down the line. So, you have to find a way to bring this what Putin calls the golden billion back into humanity's fold and to, you know, deillusion them that every conflict is solved by genociding, right? and [snorts] that you have a god-given or whatever culture given or whatever you know it can take all sorts of forms a right to impose your way on others and if they don't play ball you have a right to kill them China is not in that game not in my analysis and they are the biggest power and they are not going to come out of this much weakened right and so if the empire is brought to its senses are even better to its knees, then we'll emerge, I believe, a multipolar world. I don't see China going, "Oh, now the empire's gone. We're the boss here." But they still be the strongest. They won't be genocidal. They will not, you know, be an extractive imperialist power. They have not shown any sign of this. They will not go at uh be at war with their neighbors or others. So they will be neutral in my understanding of the definition right I'm very new at this so I you know I I defer to your better judgment but it will be a new form of neutrality in which they might be in a position to play a positive role in conflicts that are inevitable between you know individuals between groups between whatever nations even civilizations at times. So do you do you see a way forward like in this uh multipolar world coming? I hope it won't be a multipolarity of genociders, but it might be a multiplarity of a what do they call it? A common future for humanity, common prosperity for and if so, how do you see it? And we can finish on this maybe.
>> That that that's what we want, right?
And that's that's that's the that's the hope that we will live in a multipolar world that is that is overall peaceful overall conducive for for our the development of our aspirations and dreams and that it is a humanistic multipolarity right one that puts the human in the center and then and then allows for human flourishment right that that that that's what we want um neutrality within that is and I I encourage you to think of it as that it's a tool it's a possible tool in the toolbox and but it is a tool among others. I mean and in this sense genocide is a tool, war is a tool. Um and the the these tools are being used unfortunately by by countries some of them for good, some of them for bad. I mean there's no there's no way of using genocide for good. I mean sorry about that but uh but it is a tool. You know genocide is not the end in in and of itself. Genocide is what the United States uh used in order to get rid of the people it didn't want on the North American continent. It used it as a tool, right, and implementation. So the the problem is empire and the imperial drive of these states. Um and that they then also use um tools like neutrality or diplomacy or negotiations in order to get to that. That's not the problem of the tool, right? We wouldn't want to get rid of a of knives from society just because somebody uses a knife to murder somebody else. I mean we use knives for a lot a lot of very very important things including of course operations and uh and so on and saving people's lives right so we wouldn't want to get rid of the tool what we want to get rid of is the underlying motivation to abuse these tools to do bad things that hurt people um so my my um my playa at the end is to look at neutrality as a fact of uh social life that emerges and that we can analyze and study and it helps us to shed a light on third party uh politics towards towards conflict. And on the other hand, as a tool that if we use it correctly and if we use it wisely will help us to get to a humanistic future in which uh in which we all can have the good life and not just the golden billion that has been has been doing that with uh with violence and and and and very very dark motivations for the last 500 years.
>> Wow. What a beautiful conclusion. and you got to just 9:30.
That's beautiful. And in the future, someone in the chat said earlier that they were hoping for more collaborations between us two and uh I certainly I for one second that uh sentiment from the chat. Thank you very much, Pascal. as you said, you know, you started this to have conversations uh with people that broaden your horizons and this conversation with you today was just such a conversation for myself. So, you know, I express my full gratitude to you for this. I hope also our audience uh got a chance to get a much more um precise view of what neutrality means.
Uh things got a little bit uh hot under the collar when I did the stupid thought experiment about a friend in Palestine and uh a friend in the Zionist entity.
So it's all my fault. Sorry guys if I started a fist fight in the chat [laughter] but thankfully we managed to keep it civilized up here. Uh thank you very much Pascal Lo. So if uh you uh I think many of our viewers already know uh neutrality studies but please go to neutrality studies subscribe to Pascal's substack and ours as well because Pascal was banned from YouTube. We were banned from YouTube and we only managed to get back through um Indica's channel, but actually uh Reef is still banned from YouTube, but we, you know, we didn't have uh who was it Jeff Saxs writing to YouTube to get us unbanned.
Also, we're we're much more forthright in our denunciations of um you know what I call the Zionist Inquisition, which is this imperial tri imposition of Zionism on everybody, not for the benefits of Zionism, by the way, but just as a disciplining tool that can unite the West in uh elevating this at the end of the day, white-on-white racism, you know, Jew, white supremacist against Jews as a way to shield uh the empire from their real genocidal racism, which is not of course directed at Jews, not at this point in history and probably never again, but at uh people in well pretty much all over the world, but at this moment very much in West Asia and also in Eastern Europe where to the empire they don't care if two million uh Ukrainians die because you know there are those um un vice people the slaves we know are not really white you know you can get rid of them doesn't really matter so they don't care so you see I'm not neutral but uh and neither are you Pascal which is very nice to hear but neutrality has a very important role to play in human affairs be them affairs between uh friends and communities and societies and of course between nations and I'm very happy that I got to learn more about neutrality from you, Pascan.
>> Thank you very much for the invitation and happy to talk again in the near future.
>> Oh yeah, we'll certainly arrange that.
Take care.
>> Thank you.
Vidéos Similaires
Guess Which Country Trump Is Threatening To Bomb Next! w/ Chris Hedges
thejimmydoreshow
5K views•2026-05-30
Russia Clashes With Romania, U.S. And EU At Security Council Meeting | DWS News | AC1F
dwsofficial
344 views•2026-06-02
Independence Calendar (Episode #25) - With Cory Morgan & Keith Wilson
JohnBoltonAB
3K views•2026-05-31
BREAKING: TRUMP ADMITS HE LIED ON CIA
DarrenMonroePolitics
10K views•2026-06-01
Why Reynosa Is Burning Now: The Truth Explained
THEFACTFACTORYF
560 views•2026-05-30
भिंत #rohitpawar#sharadpawar#ajitpawar#supriyasule#baramati #supriyasulefc#baramatikar#ncp#ncpsp
Aapla_Maharashtraa
9K views•2026-06-02
Bengal News | Another TMC MP Attacked In Bengal A Day After Assault On Abhishek Banerjee
NDTV
80K views•2026-05-31
Karnataka's Biggest Leadership Shift! What Changes Under DK Shivakumar? | South Central | ET Now
ETNow
205 views•2026-06-01
