The Hegemon’s Peace: the refusals
Let’s redefine. Donald Trump’s peace is not by definition the end of war. The declarations of peace agreements do not indicate that there will be no war, but he …
demonstrates that the hegemon has taken that area, all of those eight or so ‘peace agreements’, back into hegemonic control.
Of course, most discuss the details of the so-called peace agreements, but few realize what their conceptual meaning is. For this, it is not necessary to have lasting, well-crafted peace agreements, because the redefinition of ‘peace’ only means control, not the absence of conflict. It is the ‘strength’ portion of Peace through Strength. It is ownership, it is a statement of new colonialism, it indicates new slavery. This is the depths of the applied methodology of the ‘rules-based international order. It is a new definition of who the slaves are, and it is much more critical to understand than our jokes about the eight new peace agreements. It is abuse and manipulation. It is brainwashing, gaslighting, and deception.
Just as democracy has been refined in application, and terrorists now are whoever we want to call a terrorist, the word peace is redefined.
I want to remind you of Trump’s inauguration speech, where he said, ‘We are an empire now, and empires grow and get bigger.’ So, this piece of gaslight indicates the areas that they consider are now back in their neo-colonial control. In reality, only India saw it and said the US had nothing to do with the agreement between India and Pakistan, thereby refusing to become a new colony and neo-slaves.
We saw two more refusals just recently. The refusal is, of course, of critical importance, but so is the understanding.
The first is the UNSC agreement on Trump’s ‘peace plan’, which we should now understand is a ‘slavery plan to grow the empire ‘, and the subsequent abstention of China and Russia, instead of what many expected, a veto. There is much misunderstanding about what happened and why.
The second is the Trump summit with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud yesterday. This is a half-refusal because, despite showering money on the Trump administration, which is to be expected, MbS refused to accept the Abraham Accords, saying that Palestine needs to have sovereignty. Despite this, Trump went off into paroxysms of how ‘peaceful’ the ‘Middle-East’ is now and how everyone will be happy and how the Palestinians love him. The more Trump is deprived of his ‘peace,’ which is slavery, the more marketing he spouts.
Let’s look at what happened at the UNSC, and this time, we won’t choose Russia, but China, as their reasons for the abstention were very clearly stated. The US went to the UNSC to supply cover for its evil. China and Russia made it impossible. Instead of the US being able to say that the ‘world community’ is in agreement, it is now clear that a whole large section of the world community is not. The US lost its cover. There is much bitterness among the cadres who think Russia or China owes them something, but let’s ignore them. They are just looking for a lollipop, and if they don’t get their lollipop, we see oodles of China Bad, Russia Bad from those that are bitter because the world is not giving them what they expect to be handed. We are in a very harsh phase, and if we do not understand what the new peace means, we will continue calling it wrong and misunderstand the reality of multipolarity. So, a summary from China: https://un.china-mission.gov.cn/eng/hyyfy/202511/t20251119_11755683.htm
China supports the Security Council in taking all necessary actions to achieve a lasting ceasefire, relieve the humanitarian disaster, and launch post-war reconstruction to rekindle the hope of peace and development for the people in Gaza. Regrettably, the draft resolution that was just voted on is lacking in many respects and is deeply worrisome.
First, the draft resolution is vague and unclear on many critical elements.
Second, the draft resolution does not demonstrate the fundamental principle of Palestinians governing Palestine. Gaza belongs to the Palestinian people, not to anyone else.
Third, the draft resolution does not ensure the effective participation of the UN and its Security Council. The draft resolution requests the Council to authorize the BOP to assume full responsibility for the civil and secure arrangements in Gaza, but it stipulates no oversight or review mechanism beyond the annual written reports.
Fourth, the draft resolution is not a product of full consultations among Council members. Less than two weeks after introducing the draft resolution, the penholder rushed the Council into making a critical decision on the future and destiny of Gaza. Council members responsibly engaged in the consultations, raising a lot of constructive questions and suggestions, but most of them were not taken on board. While there remained major concerns and serious differences among members, the penholder forced the Council to take actions on the draft resolution. We are deeply disappointed with such an approach, which is disrespectful to Council members and hurts the Council’s solidarity.
The Palestinian question lies at the heart of the Middle East issues. It is a matter about international equity and justice. The international community must steadfastly advance the two-State solution and pursue the political settlement of the Palestinian question. It means establishing an independent Palestinian state with full sovereignty on the basis of the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital, therefore realizing the Palestinian people’s right to statehood and survival. And return.
The US was not seeking legality from the UNSC. It was seeking cover. It only wanted to use ‘the international community’ because, as we know, legality means nothing. It tried to continue with the scam of refusal to acknowledge the genocide. It did not need to go to the UNSC, and the scam failed. Now, the cover of the ‘international community stands with us” has been ripped off this piece of the neo-slavery scam. Many write that Russia and China wanted to maintain their relationships with the Palestinian authority, but this is so small. Think Big Picture Analysts! If they had vetoed, the US would blame them for sinking a peace agreement. Russia and China did the right thing, because now the world knows that this is just another scam, and the manipulation stands naked.
To summarize:
Peace in Trump’s terms means neo-colonialism and slavery.
Russia and China tore away the ability to quote the ‘international community’ as part of the Greater Israel effort – no more and no less – and they restated the rights of Palestine.
MbS in his summit with Trump gave us half a victory, strangely enough, despite much money changing hands and a new agreement on non-NATO friends forever.
Sony Thang, answering some questions, got it right out of the box!
You are confusing legal form with political function. And in the Security Council, those two things are not the same. Let me explain this in the simplest possible terms:
1. A resolution passing does not equal legitimacy for U.S. action. If that were true, Iraq 2003 would have been legal. It was not. The U.S. acted anyway. The U.S. does not seek legality in the legal sense. It seeks cover in the narrative sense. Those are not the same concept.
2. The U.S. wanted a resolution that it could claim represented international consensus. It did not get one. A resolution that passes without yes votes from major powers and with explicit objections written into their explanations is not interpreted as consensus. Everyone in diplomacy knows this.
3. A resolution that passes with abstentions from China and Russia does not give Washington the legitimacy it wanted. It gives Washington a text, but not the political authority to claim the UN endorsed its plan. That is why the difference matters.
4. You keep repeating “legally binding” as if the U.S. follows binding resolutions. It does not. It ignores them whenever they contradict its interests. Israel does too, with full U.S. protection. So tell me: What is the value of a “legally binding” resolution when the party you are talking about ignores legal binding altogether?
5. The only real leverage the UN has over the U.S. is narrative legitimacy, not enforcement power. China and Russia denied that legitimacy. A veto would have handed the U.S. the perfect excuse: “We tried peace. They blocked it.”
6. You are treating the UN like a court. It is not a court. It is a political theater where states signal, posture, deny, and legitimize. And in political theater, abstention is not neutrality. It is a refusal to bless the script.
7. So yes, the resolution passed. But the mandate did not. The consensus did not. The legitimacy the U.S. came for did not. You are looking at the procedure on paper. I am looking at the power in practice. A resolution passing is not legitimacy. Legitimacy is who stands behind it. And China and Russia refused to stand behind it.