Words like ‘peace’, ‘ceasefire’, ‘deal’, ‘solution’, ‘freedom’, ‘human rights’, ‘sovereignty’, and ‘self-determination’ pervade today’s news headlines and are routinely invoked by world leaders. But what do they really mean?
Obviously, they mean something to the speakers but are almost always misunderstood by the audience, unsuspecting of being duped.
Detecting verbal manipulation and false promises is not easy. Firstly, we should remain alert and remember not only what politicians say, but what they thereafter do. Secondly, we should analyze politicians’ words and compare them with the context. Contradictions and doublespeak would then become easier to spot and expose.
In this article I will briefly examine two frequently bandied words, in a straightforward Occam’s Razor manner.
PEACE
Peace is the absence of discord. Discord is born of dissatisfaction with the status quo, and the more acute the dissatisfaction, the more the relations between opposing parties deteriorate—sometimes ending in economic, diplomatic, or even military conflicts.
Another form of sustainable peace is when one party opts to eliminate its adversary through genocide or enslavement. History is littered with examples of such ugly peace, and almost all empires and great civilizations have, at one time or other, used it as the cornerstone of their policies.
Lastly, there is pseudo-peace, when one party unilaterally attempts to either gain an advantage or end military/economic pressure against itself, without submitting and agreeing to mutually fair accords with its adversaries. Its modus operandi is to propose vague terms laced with insincere promises and undertakings that are impractical and ignore the legitimate rights of others. Such pseudo-peace is unsustainable.
DEALS
Deals are agreements that predominantly apply to business transactions or small interpersonal accords. Such agreements often pursue win-lose (zero-sum) ends rather than win-win solutions. Deals are typically not applied to long-term arrangements between countries. Nations conclude treaties, not deals, and they negotiate rather than bargain. Their interests are broader, seeking stability and durable solutions rather than short-term gains.
By their very nature, deals are specific and limited in scope and terms. Business deals are meant to buy/sell something today at an agreed price and conditions. Tomorrow the market may impose new prices, and the dealers may opt to transact elsewhere on more convenient terms. This pushes deals into short-time frames with minimal commitments.
Long-term agreements, even those of business nature, require profound thought, diligence, and the ability to see the matter through into the future. This is especially critical for treaties between countries. Therefore, replacing treaties with ‘cavalier’ short-term deals is a sure way to pseudo-peace.
In business, it would be suicide for a company to strike a deal for an indefinite period, at today’s price and specifications, without including price escalation and Force Majeure clauses. A fail-safe agreement requires identification, extensive study and assessment of possible risks. Skipping such critical steps renders it potentially a raw deal and thus worthless.
A raw deal occurs when an agreement contains ill-defined or fraudulent commitments with no intention of fulfilling them. Signing such deals can only happen by coercion, in despair, through ignorance, and occasionally at misplaced goodwill. Slapdash agreements and ensuing raw deals are more likely to appear when they are fast-tracked and rushed without proper consideration. This becomes even more dangerous when applied to peace negotiations—ergo, pseudo-peace.
In peace talks, such skewed agreements are those that call for a ceasefire while disregarding the primary tenet of ceasefire—the freezing of all activities, including rearming and redeployment, until peace treaty mediations are fully negotiated and concluded. Other such agreements demand that one warring party disarm unilaterally without providing ironclad guarantees for its safety, addressing the root causes of the conflict, and including a provision that the peace treaty will be internationally recognized.
CONCLUSION
While there are many more words that politicians use in their verbal manipulative strategies and that are worthy of analysis, ‘peace’ and ‘deal’ explain well enough one compelling reason for the dire circumstances the world is in today. The concepts of ‘peace’ and ‘deal’ are key to diffusing and scaling down present heightened global tensions, provided that sufficient time is allowed to think matters through, followed by careful and sincere negotiations towards mutually acceptable treaties.
Deals do not address solutions; treaties do! Deals ensure that ‘the can will continue to be kicked down the road’ with no hope of lasting peace.
Remember: ‘Negotiate in haste, repent at leisure!’
