Lose, lose?

On February 19, the 60th edition of the Munich Security Conference (MSC) ended, attended by more than 50 heads of state and government and in which statements of all kinds were produced, from climate change to that of President Gustavo Petro of Colombia, to those of the offensive neorealism of German President Scholz, the high representative of the European Union Josep Borrell, or the president of the Commission Úrsula Von der Leyen. Inevitably, the hottest topics were the wars between Ukraine and Russia and, in the Middle East, between Israel and the Hamas terrorist movement.

The conclusions of that conference under a title as hopeless as “lose, lose?” They sought to transcend the threshold of the most visible current conflicts (although there are other active ones in the world), focusing on four focal points:

1) The geopolitical and economic optimism of the post-Cold War era, that “end of history” of Francis Fukuyama, has faded. The evident progress in wealth, development and security has not been distributed equitably, leading to a questioning of the established order and growing dissatisfaction between the winners and losers of globalization.

2) In the current environment of growing geopolitical tensions and economic concerns, the main actors of the “Western” democracies, the most relevant autocracies and the so-called “global south”, are increasingly focused on “their” relative losses and gains, trying to limit the risk of their international relations, that is, limiting their capacity for commitment.

3) Countries are sovereign in the development of their policies. Their rulers consider them legitimate and appropriate to the unstable and changing geopolitical environment in which we live, but they are policies that tend towards protectionism and contain a seed of dissolution of the greatest achievements achieved for global cooperation in economic matters, such as the GATT tariff treaty. , precursor of the current and questioned World Trade Organization.

4) Lastly, the unavoidable search for balance between competition for one's own immediate benefits and cooperation to obtain long-term gains shared by the majority. This does not mean giving up on the principles of reciprocity, trust and security of democratic models, the ultimate guarantee of their survival, but rather, seeking areas of shared prosperity with other models of the exercise of power that allow progressive approaches and the creation of spaces for common and shared progress.

Transferring the above to the two scenarios mentioned at the beginning, the question is: who can lead this process? and how can you do it? If we use the response to the four key points stated as a guide, a possible solution seems more acceptable, at least in the case of the Ukrainian war.. In the case of the Middle East, there are factors of such a subjective and antagonistic nature that make it much more difficult to venture a possible answer to the question.

Firstly, and after more than two years of conflict, an attempt would be made to facilitate a ceasefire through a direct approach and an agreement between those who support Ukraine economically and militarily, Ukraine itself, and the Russian Federation, taking into account the What a human drain it represents for both – the casualty figures cited do not seem likely – and that, since December 2022, only 0.4% of Ukraine's territory has changed hands.

Secondly, a political negotiation should be initiated that would contemplate an indirect rapprochement between Ukraine and Russia facilitated by third parties and that would guarantee the security of both at the current time, without prejudice to subsequent rectifications based on the development of the situation.. Constructive realism must prevail over profit maximization.

A political negotiation should begin that contemplates an indirect rapprochement between Ukraine and Russia facilitated by third parties and that guarantees the security of both.

Thirdly, it would be about providing viability and legal and economic security to Ukraine, without direct harm to the Russian Federation being deduced from this.. The most urgent task is the reconstruction of Ukraine and facilitating the return of its refugees and displaced people.. Both have to perceive that there is more to gain than lose in the agreement.

Lastly, it would be about stabilizing in the long term a situation that, if not addressed, threatens to become a problem entrenched over time and that will prevent both the development of Ukraine and the normalization of the situation in an environment that is increasingly It will be more demanding in terms of cooperation and unity of effort for Europe.

In the case of the Middle East – the Gaza war – it is enough to mention three factors that make a solution unapproachable for the moment.. The extreme polarization of both Palestinian and Israeli society, which do not want to hear in any case about cession by negotiation, one or two states, or the closure and transfer of settlements. The shared capital of Jerusalem with the ceding of control of the Temple Mount (Al-Haram Ash Sharif for “believers”). And, lastly, the return of refugees (according to UNWRA, more than six million).

What we can and should aspire to at this moment is to stop Israel's military actions while disarming Hamas and preventing the resurgence of the conflict and the release of the kidnapped, otherwise another scenario of violence will be generated. impossible management and certain escalation depending on time.