 |
|
%26stroke%3Dnone%26strokeWidth%3D3.6){kind=small}
| ||
 |
Thank you for joining me today.
Thousands worldwide are avid readers and listeners of The Turbulent World. They make this column and podcast possible.
Join them in helping to maintain and expand the column and podcast by subscribing to The Turbulent World with James M. Dorsey.
Thank you for your support and loyalty.
Thanks for reading The Turbulent World with James M. Dorsey! This post is public so feel free to share it.
BFM 89.9 Guest: Dr James M. Dorsey, Adjunct Senior Fellow S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies
Over the past week, US President Donald Trump has floated a proposal he calls a Board of Peace, a new international body linked to Gaza that would sit outside the United Nations framework. Dr James M. Dorsey, Adjunct Senior Fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies tells BFM 89.9 if this is a workable plan.
Transcript
[Anchor Wong Shao Ning] BFM 89.9, The Business Station. Welcome back, you’re listening to The Morning Run. It’s 8.36, Tuesday the 20th of January. And joining me in the studio is Keith Kam and I’m Wong Shao Ning.
Let’s talk about Trump’s latest peace deal for Gaza.
Because over the past week, US President Donald Trump has floated a proposal he calls a border peace, which is a new international body linked to Gaza that would sit outside the United Nations framework. Details are still emerging. But what we do know is that participation will involve a small group of countries reportedly with significant financial commitment attached.
[Anchor Wong Shao Ning] So the idea here has already sparked debates about how peace efforts are being shaped, who gets a seat at the table and how such initiatives are read across the Middle East. All of this is also unfolding against a much wider regional backdrop. Gaza remains fragile.
Tensions involving Iran are rising and rhetoric between Washington and Tehran has also sharpened in recent days with warnings of serious consequences if red lines are crossed.
So, to help us make sense of all of this, we are joined by Dr James Dorsey, Adjunct Senior Fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies. Good morning, James.
Always good to speak to you. Now, can we talk about Trump’s proposed border peace, which like we say, would sit outside the UN. Based on what we know so far, what stands out to you about this proposal?
And what does it tell you about how Trump is approaching peace efforts in the first place?
[James M. Dorsey] Good morning. It’s always a pleasure to be on your show.
There are multiple issues with the border peace, and it’s hard to know where to start.
Conceptually, this is about much more than Gaza. The Charter essentially says that this is a potential model or an alternative to the United Nations peacekeeping missions. In addition to that, this is first and foremost U.S. President Donald Trump’s board of peace. According to the Charter, he chairs this board not as U.S. President, but as Donald Trump. In other words, he could be chairing this board if the board lasts that long past his own presidency. He can’t be unseated unless he’s incapacitated, and that is confirmed by unanimous vote of the board of peace.
In addition to the fact that it’s an attempt to create an alternative structure to the United Nations, it also essentially is a model of advocacy. Power is concentrated in the hands of Donald Trump, not in the hands of the executive, of the membership of the executive board as such. In addition to which, the proposed membership, as is being reported, raises questions.
Just to give two examples, reportedly Trump has invited Russian President Vladimir Putin to sit on the board, even though there’s an arrest warrant out for Putin issued by the International Criminal Court. The same is true for an alleged invitation to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In addition to which, whether or not Netanyahu has been invited, there is not a single Palestinian on that board.
The Palestinians are relegated to essentially an implementation mechanism that would run day-to-day affairs in those parts of Gaza that are not occupied by Israel at this point.
[Anchor Kieth Kam] James, there are concerns that the fact that the board of peace would sit outside the UN would eventually usurp the role of the United Nations.
[James M. Dorsey] Well, I don’t think that it can usurp the role of the United Nations. I mean, the United Nations is a body of, whatever it is, 193 countries. Virtually every country on earth is a member of the United Nations.
That’s not the case with the board of peace. First of all, we don’t know yet definitively who is on that board and who is not. A number of names have been published, including representatives of Turkey, of Qatar, of several other countries.
But the board is still being formed. And what is clear already is, for example, that many of the West Europeans, with the exception of Germany, are not members and have already sort of more or less indicated that they are not going to participate. The Europeans that are participating are the likes of Hungary and Belarus, Poland potentially being an exception.
[Anchor Wong Shao Ning] James, the other thing that’s caught everyone’s eye is the membership fees, a billion US dollars each. How odd is this? And how does it then shape who has influence in this kind of peace mechanism?
[James M. Dorsey] Well, first of all, the phrasing of that contribution raises questions too. It’s $1 billion for a permanent seat on the board. The board, as a matter of principle, is not supposed to be permanent.
It is supposed to be a transitionary mechanism that leads ultimately to Palestinian governance, Palestinian control of Gaza. So that raises questions. On top of which, of course, to be fair, the United Nations operates and can only operate on the basis of contributions of its members.
So, you could look at that $1 billion contribution as such. But it’s not clear how that whatever billions of dollars would be collected, what they’re going to be used for. Are they going to be used for reconstruction?
Are they going to be used for the operations of the Board of Peace? It’s not clear.
[Anchor Kieth Kam] Earlier, you mentioned that Palestinians would be excluded from the board itself. What does that actually mean politically and for buy-in as well as compliance?
[James M. Dorsey] Well, I think that in terms of Palestinian attitudes towards the Board of Peace, attitudes are mixed. Palestinians obviously would like to see a withdrawal of Israeli forces. Again, it’s not clear that we’re going to get a full withdrawal of Israeli forces.
At this point, the Israelis occupy more than 50% of Gaza. And the prospect at this point is that Gaza is going to be split into two. An area that is controlled by Israeli forces, that would presumably be the area in which the Board of Peace and whatever forces may or may not be introduced would operate.
And an area that is controlled by Hamas. I mean, the purpose of this exercise is to replace the Israeli occupation. So, Palestinians look at this on the one hand, with a degree of hope, anything that furthers a return to normalcy that promotes reconstruction of what is a wasteland as a result of the war in Gaza is something that Palestinians broadly would favour.
On the other hand, Palestinians are very sceptical. And they have not given up on their national aspirations.
[Anchor Wong Shao Ning] James, if you could turn to what’s happening in Iran. I mean, we have some very worrying numbers. Nearly 3,500 people have been killed so far.
Almost 25,000 people have also been arrested. Now, the top Iranian officials, according to Bloomberg, have called for leniency and compassion. So, there’s been a softening of rhetoric.
But really, what’s happening on the ground? Is this protest ending anytime soon?
[James M. Dorsey] his protest may very well end, given the harsh crackdown that we’ve seen. But this is not the end of the crisis. For all practical purposes, the Iranian Supreme Leader, the government are in a catch-22.
There are going to be new rounds of demonstrations, like there already have been various rounds of protests over the years. To avert that and to stabilise the situation, the government has to structurally address Iran’s severe economic problems. To do so, it has to find some sort of arrangement with the Trump administration at this point, because it needs sanctions relief.
The leniency that some Iranian leaders are advocating towards alleged rioters during the protests is potentially an indication that we may see some sort of discussion, talks with the United States, and potentially an arrangement. The problem with that is that the US conditions are such, or at least some of those conditions for talks with the Iranians and what those talks would be about, are conditions that no Iranian government, whether that’s an Islamic revolutionary government or a post-revolutionary government, would be able to accept. The other part of this is that, yes, there are the numerous deaths, whether it’s in the hundreds or the thousands of protesters that were killed during the protests.
It’s remarkable that also 100 or more than 100 security personnel were killed.
[Anchor Wong Shao Ning] All right. Thank you so much for your time. That was Dr James Dorsey, Adjunct Senior Fellow at the S. Rajaram School of International Studies, ending the conversation as to what could happen on the ground in Iran.
It’s a catch-22, because reforms do really need to take place. Protests might have quietened down, but the economic situation is such that it needs to be improved upon.
Livelihoods are really impacted, and the Iranian currency has depreciated so much that it’s really been a challenge for people to just afford ordinary things. I think that also contributed to the number of people on the street. Anyway, we’re heading into a quick break, but first a message
No comments:
Post a Comment