The Death Of Western Style Democracy | ADELAJA'S

SOTI

CANDICE ADELAJA

Co-Founder iGURU! Teaching Systems - Designer,

Technical -

& Archivist

ADE

ADELAJA

Co-Founder - Architect & Designer of iGURU! Teaching Systems -

& Archivist

Science Of The Immortals

TRUMP’S -

GLOBAL WORLD ORDER

TRUMP & HIS “ART OF THE DEAL”

ADELAJA’S - HYPOTHESIS

There is a fundamental distinction between “the world of business and commerce” and that of Global Politics, International Relations and World Affairs. This distinction can be summed up by two words – there is - (a) the “bargain” – which is the essence of business and commerce – or the “art of the deal” – and then there is (b) the “negotiation” – and whilst both terms are often used inter-changeably – in particular, that of “negotiation” – that term – when applied in the realm of Global Politics, International Relations and World Affairs – is so distinctly and fundamentally different – that it can be used as a term of “art” – in the realm of Global Politics, International Relations and World Affairs.

Following on from this and considering those two environments as distinct and separate – one can properly apply (a) “bargaining” – to the realm of business and commerce and - (b) “negotiations” – to the world of Global Politics, International Relations and World Affairs. If these distinctions are made and these two words treated as “terms of art” – for each discipline / environment – we can form “two axioms” - that relate to (a) and (b) –

AXIOM 1: “BARGAINING”

In “bargaining” – there is no requirement by either party – to ‘justify’ – an illogicality.

AXIOM 2: “NEGOTIATING”

In negotiating – there is every requirement by both parties to ‘justify’– an illogical position / statement.

LOGICALITY & NON-LOGICALITY

DISTINCTION

Why this distinction as set out in the “two axioms,” is important - is that, it sets out, in a very simple way - the differences between ‘private commercial practices’ and the inherently ‘public’ / ‘global’ nature of the “field of states.”

Focussing on illogicality (the axiom) - we can see that in a ‘private commercial transaction’ - the makings of a deal (at worst - illogicality may lead to a “bad deal”) - a “bad deal” - may have severe and even catastrophic consequences - for those ‘private actors,’ engaged in a transaction - but however, severe such a loss - this is incomparable to the potential losses, faced by Nation States.

Illogicality leads - potentially to “ambiguity” - “misunderstanding” and therefore, consequentially - “miscalculation” by a Nation State, could lead to the suffering of its people - war and even - the demise of the state itself.

Therefore, this focussing on illogicality as an axiom, to distinguish the realm of the world of business from the realm and sphere of Nation States, is justified.

CASE EXAMPLE (HYPOTHETICAL)

The following two hypothetical examples, although dealing with known contemporary individuals, is given to highlight these “two axioms.”

Hypothetical situation 1: Case Study “Bargaining” - Donald Trump sells Trump Towers in New York

Donald Trump contacts a fellow real estate magnate – and offers to sell Trump Towers for 100 million dollars on Monday. The offer is immediately refused – rejected by X.

On Tuesday Donald Trump contacts X and offers to sell Trump Towers for 10 million dollars.

X immediately accepts – and a deal is struck.

In accordance with Axiom 1 - Donald Trump does not have to give any explanation to X – “logical” or “illogical” – as his behaviour may seem to X. This is the essence of the business deal – or as it is often called - “the art of the deal.”

Donald Trump, may have his reasons for behaving “illogically” – in reducing his Trump Tower hotel, by 90 million dollars. As “illogical” as it may seem – he has no obligation to explain this to X. This is the nature of business and commercial contracts and agreements – Donald Trump has no requirement to explain anything to X.

X for his part – may want to ask out of interest – why the reduction? However, he would be advised of that old adage – “never look a gift horse in the mouth.” But whether he chose to listen to that advice or not – and decided to ask Donald Trump – “Why he reduced the price so dramatically?” – in accordance with Axiom 1 - Donald trump has no obligation to explain to him – why.

Hypothetical situation 2: Russia-Ukrainian War – Case Study: “Negotiations”

Vladimir Putin seizes 5 cities in Ukraine – A, B, C, D, E.

The parties meet to negotiate a peace agreement. Vladimir Putin (Russia) - demands to Volodymyr Zelensky (Ukraine) – “I will only agree to peace with you if I can keep the 5 cities” - (A, B, C, D, E.)

The President of Ukraine - rejects this offer of peace and demands that Russia return all 5 cities, before peace can be successfully negotiated – Vladimir Putin rejects – and the peace talks fail.

Over the next 7 days – Ukrainian forces successfully recapture 3 cities – A, B, C.

Negotiations – peace talks – resume. Vladimir Putin now says – to the President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky - “I will now accept peace on condition that I can keep the cities D and E.”

An agreement is reached between the parties – and a peace settlement reached.

In accordance with Axiom 2 – Vladimir Putin has to “justify” – the “logicality” – of his acceptance of this “new position” – that he has taken during the second round of peace talks.

The logic is obvious – he has lost the cities A, B, C – agreeing to peace on the basis, that he keeps the cities that he currently holds – is perfectly logical – (this is no comment as to the justifications of the war – these are hypothetical scenarios.) Whilst concerned primarily with Vladimir Putin – one could also argue that Volodymyr Zelensky, could “justify” “logically” - his position in accepting a peace agreement and conceding two towns, his military forces were unable to take.

To apply the axiom even further – both leaders could logically explain to their respective peoples – as to why the Peace Treaty was agreed and the second negotiating position – “accepted.” There is clear military and diplomatic logic – to the position of both parties – axiom 2 is satisfied.

CONCLUSION

Russia-Ukrainian War – Donald Trumps – Attempted Peace Negotiations

The American President Donald Trumps attempts at negotiating peace between Russia and Ukraine to date, have failed miserably. In a sentence, in addition to other possible criticisms of his handling of this matter – he has violated both axioms.

In his constant reference to “negotiating a deal” and the “art of the deal” – he has fundamentally – misunderstood the essence - nature and distinction between private – commercial and business contracts – and the nature of the state in International Law – and its operation in Global Politics, International Relations and World Affairs.

Numerous commentators who have grappled confusedly – with the tortuous “negotiating positions” – torture not just themselves and the general public, who listen to their commentaries – simply because they have failed to understand the nature of these “two axioms.” The peace process among Nation States – is not the same as business and commercial contracts – therefore the use of the term – “the art of the deal” – which often falls from the lips of these political commentators – is not only inappropriate and a misuse of the terms and concepts – “bargaining” and “negotiation” – as applied between these two distinctive areas of human affairs – but has also served to hamper the possible solution of this tragic conflict.

Oladipo Adegboyega Adelaja & Candice Adelaja,

SOTI Collected Works

Edited by Candice Adelaja

COMMENTARY, FOOTNOTES & INDEX

TRANSC-GEOPOLITICS