Digest 35: “Neighbour”

I’m presently having lots of interesting conversations on plans for a new diplomatic-journalistic outlet, Listening to the Other Side: https://lttos.org/start/ 

I will do a summary of best feedback and critique (anonymised) in weeks to come.

The first thing we intend to take on: evergreen chronologies. Meaning: a single article, per conflict, that’s continually kept up to date. And accompanying Strategic Options Memo with conceivable routes forward decision-makers have to aid their thinking.

Think: a “Wirecutter for geopolitics”.

With this, I begin today’s digest by sharing our intended framework for diplomacy.

If you’ve thoughts/feedback on this, please do send. We’ll shortly be putting together a first prototype.

Framework for productive discussions

0) Principles:
Include a primer that encourages resolution. Define the scope of what you’re attempting to resolve, and what you’re not. E.g. Edward Heath (British Prime Minister 1970–1974) on Jean Monnet, one of the founding fathers of the European Union: “Go for the essentials in a problem. The essence.”

1) One side’s stated wants:
Ultra high-level recap. Max three bullet-points. What do they want? What are they trying to achieve?

2) The other side’s stated wants:
Same for the other side: What do they want? What are they trying to achieve?

3) Any common ground and points of shared interest:
Reconcile 1 and 2.

4) One side’s chronology:
An “executive chronology”. A brief, bullet-point overview of what has led to the dispute/tension. Make the argument boldly and forcefully from this side’s perspective. Put forward their best case. Each assertion ought to be hyperlinked to a source – preferably primary.

5) The other side’s chronology:
Ditto.

6) “Inversion”:
The late Charlie Munger proposed the concept of “inversion”; to help give clarity to a problem, invert it. If the opposite thing had happened, what would it look like? Considering this can sometimes enhance empathy. What would the opposite of the present scenario be?

7) Conspiracy:
We don’t advocate these views, but they’re sufficiently interesting and thought-provoking, we don’t wish to dismiss them. Very brief inclusion. No chronology should be considered complete without at least mention of alleged surrounding conspiracy.

8) Solution menu:
What are all of the conceivable ways this could be reconciled? An exhaustive list ought to be compiled. Include a full spectrum of options, including near unconscionable paths forward. Why? Without doing so, conflicts tend to veer to the unconscionable – in an unintended way. Decision-makers ought to beware that by rejecting moderate (though unpalatable) options, they are often choosing unconscionable routes, unwittingly.

Include “dumb” suggestions. In foreign policy, there are not nearly enough naïve ideas put forward – which in any other creative arena are known to be the kindling of great ideas.

Encouraged in advance:

• Listen to the penultimate chapter of Good Strategy/Bad Strategy – how we wish to prime participant thinking for this.

• And look at this Strategic Options Memo format from Professor Graham Allison: https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/contest-do-you-have-grand-strategy-meet-china-challenge#toc-5 – it makes a lot of good points.

By no means are unconscionable or “dumb” paths being advocated. But make a full list. It’s only by pushing the bounds of thinking, and compiling a genuinely exhaustive list, that we free ourselves to think. Pushing to be exhaustive allows for the sparking of as-yet unrecognised ways forward, and the formulation of atypical, creative solutions.

9) Proposed solution:
Of all options, which is preferable? Make a short case for it. Keep in mind: the solution can be a person. Who is best-placed, if sufficiently empowered, to help resolve this?

10) Loose ends:
Details still to be figured out – but that can be, after mutually agreeing the core path.

11) Conclusion:
A final recap.

*
This is the structure in which we consider intelligent foreign policy discussion ought to be conducted.

---

I’ll keep the rest of today’s digest short…

RFK Jr’s campaign video

If you haven’t yet watched it, I strongly recommend. One of the best campaign videos I’ve seen.

I continue to think RFK Jr will be a key variable in Biden v Trump II.

The Pope’s calls for diplomacy

Despite subsequent backlash, this felt like a significant juncture:

“The word ‘negotiate’ is a courageous word.

If you go on, how many dead will there be? And it will end worse.

Find a country that can be a mediator.”

Turkey’s inflation

From The Economist:

Turkey’s central bank had hoped that one of the most aggressive tightening cycles in the country’s history, which raised interest rates by 36.5 percentage points in eight months, would have tamed inflation by now. It has not. The country’s base interest rate is now 45%. Annual inflation increased to a hair-raising 67.1% in February, according to data released earlier today, up from 64.9% in the preceding month.

It’s notable that Turkey has still done a lot on the world stage in terms of diplomacy, and has created a feeling of global “status” for itself, in spite of this. It’s still arguably in the best position, of any country, to fulfil the role of mediator between Ukraine and Russia.

“Neighbour”

I found this one-minute clip on the word “neighbour”, from Mohammed Dajani Daoudi, moving.

*

Thanks for reading!