• home
• about
• new
• essays
• AI
• book

Frank Visser, graduated as a psychologist of culture and religion, founded IntegralWorld in 1997. He worked as production manager for various publishing houses and as service manager for various internet companies and lives in Amsterdam. Books: Ken Wilber: Thought as Passion (SUNY, 2003), and The Corona Conspiracy: Combatting Disinformation about the Coronavirus (Kindle, 2020).

Perspectives on Regional Conflicts

Frank Visser / ChatGPT-3.5

Me to ChatGPT:

• I want to compare partisan support for the war in Ukraine with the war in the Middle East between Israel and the Palestinians. How do these line up?

• A pro-West perspective would support both Ukraine and Israel. An anti-West perspective would support Russia and Gaza. Aa pro-underdog perspective supports Ukraine and Gaza. See what I mean? What logical perspectives are possible? Please list them one by one.
• This is interesting. I would like you to pursue this analysis. Apparently our choosing sides in wartimes is governed by deeper reasons. How would bothsidesism fit into this scheme?
• At least bothsidesism avoids black-and-white thinking, which is rampant in war propaganda, in which the opponent is all-bad and our own party is all-good, innocent and peaceful.
• If the moral perspective is crucial in these situations, how are we to argue for a moral choice?
• International relations are often a matter of superpowers protecting there spheres of influence. That goes for both the US, Russia and China. Does that not lead to "might-makes-right"?
• From a superpower perspective, Ukraine "belongs" to Russia as Taiwan "belongs" to China. But our modern world has different ideas about the self-determination of countries.
• Does the US, with its stated aim of global hegemony, violate international norms and laws?
• Just one example, the UN adopted a resolution this week that affirmed the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people (who don't even have a state yet). Only the US and Israel (and two micronesian island) voted against, the rest of the world was in favor. How to interpret this extreme voting pattern?
• Supporters of Israel are often quick to dismiss these resolutions as "antisemitic".

ChatGPT:

Partisan support for wars can vary widely, and opinions may shift over time. It's essential to consider specific contexts, geopolitical factors, and the timeframe you're examining. Additionally, public opinion is diverse, so it's challenging to generalize without specific data or polling information. If you have particular questions or aspects you'd like to explore, feel free to ask.

A pro-West perspective would support both Ukraine and Israel. An anti-West perspective would support Russia and Gaza. Aa pro-underdog perspective supports Ukraine and Gaza. See what I mean? What logical perspectives are possible? Please list them one by one.

Certainly, perspectives on conflicts can be diverse. Here are some logical perspectives one might consider:

Pro-West Perspective:

Supports Ukraine due to its alignment with Western values.

Supports Israel as a Western ally in the Middle East.

Anti-West Perspective:

Supports Russia in the context of the conflict in Ukraine, opposing perceived Western interference.

Supports the Palestinian cause against Israel, viewing it as a resistance to Western influence in the Middle East.

Pro-Underdog Perspective:

Supports Ukraine as an underdog in the conflict with Russia.

Supports Gaza and the Palestinian cause as an underdog against a more powerful adversary, Israel.

Realpolitik Perspective:

Supports Ukraine if it aligns with strategic interests or geopolitical considerations.

Supports Israel if its actions align with broader strategic goals or regional stability.

Humanitarian Perspective:

Supports Ukraine based on humanitarian concerns, such as protection of human rights and sovereignty.

Supports Palestinians in Gaza, emphasizing humanitarian issues and the right to self-determination.

Neutral or Non-Interventionist Perspective:

Advocates for non-interference and a neutral stance in conflicts, prioritizing domestic concerns over involvement in foreign affairs.

These perspectives can be shaped by political, ideological, ethical, or strategic considerations, and individuals may hold nuanced views that incorporate elements from multiple perspectives.

This is interesting. I would like you to pursue this analysis. Apparently our choosing sides in wartimes is governed by deeper reasons. How would bothsidesism fit into this scheme?

"Bothsidesism" refers to the tendency to present both sides of an argument as equally valid, often without considering the nuances, context, or power dynamics involved. In the context of conflicts like those in Ukraine and the Middle East, bothsidesism might manifest in an attempt to appear impartial or objective. Here's how it could fit into the aforementioned perspectives:

Bothsidesism as a Neutral Stance:

Someone adopting a bothsidesist perspective might refrain from taking a clear stance on the conflicts, emphasizing an equal consideration of all perspectives. This could be driven by a desire to appear unbiased or avoid controversy.

Bothsidesism and Moral Equivalence:

Critics of bothsidesism argue that it can lead to a false equivalency, treating actions by all parties as equally moral or immoral. This approach might undermine the recognition of power imbalances, human rights violations, or disproportionate use of force by one side.

Bothsidesism as a Cop-Out:

In some cases, bothsidesism may be seen as a way to avoid making a difficult moral or political judgment. This can be criticized for lacking a principled stand and failing to acknowledge the complexities of each conflict.

Bothsidesism and Media Coverage:

Media outlets practicing bothsidesism may present conflicting narratives without sufficient context, potentially leading to a skewed understanding of the root causes and consequences of the conflicts.

Bothsidesism and Public Opinion:

Individuals who adopt a bothsidesist stance may feel it is a pragmatic or diplomatic approach to complex geopolitical issues. However, critics argue that it can perpetuate a status quo that ignores injustices and prevents meaningful solutions.

It's important to note that the concept of bothsidesism is itself a subject of debate, with some arguing that it is a valid journalistic approach to impartiality, while others contend that it can perpetuate misinformation or contribute to a lack of accountability. In analyzing conflicts, a nuanced understanding that considers historical context, power dynamics, and human rights is crucial to avoid oversimplification.

At least bothsidesism avoids black-and-white thinking, which is rampant in war propaganda, in which the opponent is all-bad and our own party is all-good, innocent and peaceful.

You're correct in noting that bothsidesism can be seen as a reaction against black-and-white thinking, which tends to oversimplify complex issues by presenting one side as entirely good and the other as entirely bad. Bothsidesism aims to promote a more nuanced understanding by acknowledging the complexities and perspectives on both sides of a conflict. This approach seeks to avoid the pitfalls of overly simplistic narratives and encourages a more balanced and informed analysis.

However, it's important to strike a balance and recognize that while avoiding black-and-white thinking is crucial, it doesn't mean that all perspectives or actions in a conflict are equally valid or just. Bothsidesism should not lead to moral relativism, where all actions are considered equally acceptable or justifiable.

In the context of war propaganda, a critical and discerning approach is necessary to sift through information, consider various perspectives, and understand the underlying motivations and power dynamics at play. Striving for a more nuanced understanding while still holding parties accountable for violations of international law or human rights can contribute to a more informed and constructive discourse.

If the moral perspective is crucial in these situations, how are we to argue for a moral choice?

Arguing for a moral choice in the context of conflicts like those in Ukraine and the Middle East involves considering a range of ethical principles, international law, and human rights standards. Here are some key elements to include in an argument for a moral choice:

Human Rights and International Law:

Emphasize the importance of upholding international law and human rights standards. Highlight specific violations or adherence to these principles by the parties involved.

Just Cause and Proportionality:

Assess the justifiability of the cause for each side in the conflict. Consider whether the use of force is proportional to the threat faced and whether nonviolent means have been exhausted.

Protection of Civilians:

Evaluate the extent to which each party is taking measures to minimize harm to civilians. Consider actions that may lead to disproportionate civilian casualties or human suffering.

Right to Self-Determination:

Analyze whether the actions of a particular party respect the right to self-determination of the affected population. Consider the aspirations and rights of the people involved.

Dialogue and Diplomacy:

Advocate for the use of diplomatic and peaceful means to resolve the conflict. Highlight instances where dialogue has been successful or could be pursued to avoid further violence.

Responsibility to Protect (R2P):

Consider the responsibility of the international community to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. Evaluate whether the actions of the involved parties align with these principles.

Long-Term Stability and Peacebuilding:

Argue for solutions that contribute to long-term stability and peace rather than perpetuating cycles of violence. Consider the potential for diplomatic, political, and socioeconomic measures to address root causes.

Ethical Foreign Policy:

Assess the ethical implications of the foreign policies of nations involved. Consider whether their actions align with ethical principles, and whether they are contributing positively to global peace and stability.

It's important to approach the argument with a recognition of the complexities involved, avoiding oversimplification and acknowledging the diverse perspectives within the conflict. Utilizing a well-informed and morally grounded position can contribute to constructive dialogue and policy decisions that prioritize peace, justice, and human rights.

International relations are often a matter of superpowers protecting there spheres of influence. That goes for both the US, Russia and China. Does that not lead to "might-makes-right"?

The concept of "might makes right" suggests that those who have the power or strength to enforce their will are considered to be in the right. In international relations, the pursuit and protection of spheres of influence by major powers like the United States, Russia, and China can indeed raise concerns about the influence of power dynamics in shaping global affairs. Here are some considerations:

Power Imbalances:

The dominance of certain nations, often referred to as superpowers, can create significant power imbalances in international relations. This may lead to situations where the interests and preferences of powerful states are prioritized over those of weaker or less influential nations.

Violation of Sovereignty:

The protection of spheres of influence may involve actions that are perceived as violating the sovereignty of other nations. This can include military interventions, economic coercion, or political interference.

International Law and Norms:

Ideally, the international community relies on a framework of international law and norms to govern relations between states. The principle of "might makes right" challenges this framework, as it implies that the use of force or coercion can override legal and normative considerations.

Alternative Perspectives:

Critics argue that a system where power dictates right undermines principles such as justice, fairness, and equality. They advocate for a more inclusive and cooperative approach that considers the interests of all nations, regardless of their power status.

Global Governance and Multilateralism:

Some argue that strengthening global governance institutions and promoting multilateralism can help mitigate the negative effects of "might makes right." A rules-based international order, where states agree to abide by common principles, can contribute to a more just and stable world.

Soft Power and Influence:

In addition to military and economic might, soft power—based on attraction and persuasion—can also play a role in shaping international relations. Cultural influence, diplomatic initiatives, and global leadership in addressing common challenges are aspects of soft power.

It's important to recognize that the international system is complex, and the motivations of states are multifaceted. While power dynamics are a reality, there are ongoing efforts to promote a more cooperative and inclusive global order that considers the rights and interests of all nations, not just the most powerful ones. The challenge lies in finding a balance between the pursuit of national interests and the promotion of a more just and equitable world order.

From a superpower perspective, Ukraine "belongs" to Russia as Taiwan "belongs" to China. But our modern world has different ideas about the self-determination of countries.

The concepts of territorial claims, self-determination, and sovereignty have evolved over time, and differing perspectives on these issues often arise in international relations. The situations of Ukraine and Taiwan illustrate these complexities.

Ukraine and Russia:

Russia has historical and cultural ties to Ukraine, and there are arguments from a geopolitical and historical perspective that suggest a connection between the two nations. However, the international community generally upholds the principle of national sovereignty and the right of nations to determine their own political future. The annexation of Crimea by Russia in 2014, following Ukraine's decision not to join the Eurasian Economic Union and pursue closer ties with the European Union, was widely condemned as a violation of Ukraine's sovereignty.

Taiwan and China:

The situation with Taiwan is similarly complex. China considers Taiwan a part of its territory and has long-standing historical claims to the island. However, Taiwan operates as a separate and self-governing entity, with its own government, military, and borders. The international community, while acknowledging the "One-China" policy, also recognizes the de facto existence and autonomy of Taiwan. The question of Taiwan's status remains a sensitive and contentious issue in international relations.

In the contemporary world, the principle of self-determination is generally valued and enshrined in international law. The United Nations Charter emphasizes the right of all peoples to self-determination, and this principle has been applied to various decolonization efforts and the recognition of new states.

However, the application of these principles can be complex and contentious when historical, cultural, and geopolitical factors come into play. The international community often faces challenges in balancing the respect for national sovereignty with the rights of individuals and groups within a country to determine their political status.

In summary, while historical and cultural ties may influence perspectives on territorial claims, the global norm has shifted towards recognizing the self-determination of nations and the importance of respecting the sovereignty of states. Disputes over territorial claims continue to be significant challenges in international relations, and finding diplomatic solutions that respect the rights and aspirations of all parties involved remains a complex and ongoing process.

Does the US, with its stated aim of global hegemony, violate international norms and laws?

The assertion that the United States aims for global hegemony is a matter of debate and interpretation. The U.S. has been a major player in international affairs, and its foreign policy goals have evolved over time. It's important to note that the U.S. government, like any other government, frames its actions within the context of its national interests and security concerns. Whether these actions are perceived as violating international norms and laws can vary based on specific situations and perspectives. Here are some aspects to consider:

Military Interventions:

Critics argue that some U.S. military interventions, such as the Iraq War in 2003, were not authorized by the United Nations Security Council and were viewed by many as violations of international law. The concept of preemptive or preventive war has been controversial in international relations.

Use of Drones and Targeted Killings:

The use of drones for targeted killings in countries like Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia has raised legal and ethical concerns. Critics argue that these actions may violate the sovereignty of other nations and international human rights standards.

Global Surveillance Programs:

Revelations about extensive global surveillance by U.S. intelligence agencies, as revealed by Edward Snowden, led to concerns about privacy rights and were seen by some as a violation of international norms.

Withdrawal from International Agreements:

The U.S. withdrawal from certain international agreements, such as the Paris Agreement on climate change and the Iran Nuclear Deal, has been criticized for undermining global efforts to address pressing issues through diplomatic means.

Economic Sanctions:

The U.S. has often used economic sanctions as a tool of foreign policy. Critics argue that such sanctions, particularly when unilateral and without broad international support, can have adverse humanitarian impacts and may violate the principles of international cooperation.

It's important to recognize that opinions on whether the U.S. violates international norms and laws can vary, and different perspectives exist within the international community. The U.S. government often frames its actions as necessary for national security or as responses to perceived threats.

International relations are complex, and governments navigate a range of challenges, balancing their interests with international norms. Assessing the conformity of U.S. actions with international law involves considering the specific context of each situation and the interpretation of relevant legal principles. International organizations, scholars, and civil society organizations often play a role in scrutinizing and critiquing the actions of states to ensure accountability and adherence to international norms.

Just one example, the UN adopted a resolution this week that affirmed the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people (who don't even have a state yet). Only the US and Israel (and two micronesian island) voted against, the rest of the world was in favor. How to interpret this extreme voting pattern?

The voting pattern you described at the United Nations regarding the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people reflects the complex and longstanding nature of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The interpretation of such voting patterns can vary based on the perspectives of the countries involved. Here are some ways to interpret this particular voting pattern:

Global Consensus on Palestinian Self-Determination:

The overwhelming support for the resolution by the international community, with the exception of the United States and Israel, suggests a global consensus in favor of recognizing the right to self-determination for the Palestinian people. This may be seen as an expression of solidarity with the Palestinian cause.

Israeli and U.S. Perspectives:

Israel and the United States voting against the resolution may reflect their respective positions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Israel has historically expressed concerns about resolutions it perceives as one-sided, while the U.S. has been a strong ally of Israel and has often used its veto power in the UN Security Council to block resolutions critical of Israel.

Unresolved Conflict and Two-State Solution:

The voting pattern may highlight the ongoing challenges and lack of resolution in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The call for self-determination may be tied to the broader goal of achieving a two-state solution, and the voting pattern could underscore the international community's desire for a just and lasting resolution to the conflict.

Implications for Diplomacy:

The voting pattern can influence diplomatic relations and the perception of various nations on the global stage. It may impact future negotiations and efforts to address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through diplomatic means.

Multilateral Diplomacy and UN Resolutions:

The vote underscores the role of multilateral diplomacy and the United Nations in addressing conflicts and promoting international norms. UN resolutions serve as a platform for expressing the views of the global community on key issues.

Interpreting such voting patterns requires considering the broader geopolitical context, historical factors, and the positions of the parties involved. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a deeply entrenched and sensitive issue, and international resolutions and voting patterns at the UN are reflections of the ongoing efforts to address this complex challenge through diplomatic means.

Supporters of Israel are often quick to dismiss these resolutions as "antisemitic".

The characterization of resolutions critical of Israel as "antisemitic" is a contentious claim, and it is important to approach this issue with nuance and careful consideration. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a deeply rooted and sensitive geopolitical matter, and discussions surrounding it often involve complex historical, political, and cultural dimensions.

Here are some perspectives on the use of the term "antisemitic" in this context:

Criticism of Israeli Policies vs. Antisemitism:

It's crucial to distinguish between criticism of specific policies or actions of the Israeli government and true antisemitism, which is the discrimination or prejudice against Jewish people based on their religion or ethnicity. Not all criticism of Israel or its policies is inherently antisemitic, and conflating the two can hinder constructive dialogue.

Instrumentalization of Antisemitism Accusations:

Accusations of antisemitism can be used as a political tool to deflect criticism or discourage discussions about Israeli government policies. It's essential to critically examine whether the term is applied genuinely to address discriminatory attitudes or strategically to silence dissent.

Diverse Jewish Perspectives:

It's important to recognize the diversity of perspectives within the Jewish community itself. While some individuals and groups may strongly support Israeli government policies, others may critique them, and still, others may advocate for a variety of political solutions.

International Consensus vs. Accusations of Bias:

Some critics argue that certain international forums, including the United Nations, may disproportionately focus on Israel compared to other geopolitical issues. Accusations of bias can arise, and discussions about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should be approached with a commitment to fairness and an examination of the broader geopolitical context.

Promoting Constructive Dialogue:

Encouraging open and respectful dialogue that allows for diverse perspectives is essential in addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Constructive conversations can contribute to a better understanding of the complexities involved and foster avenues for peaceful resolution.

It's important to approach discussions about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with sensitivity and a commitment to understanding the diverse perspectives and experiences of those involved. The use of terms like "antisemitic" should be applied judiciously and in a manner that fosters constructive dialogue rather than stifles it.