What is an experimentation?

An experiment is:

  • either an applied study
  • a practical attempt to advance a conflict or political issue one step further; or

Predictions made in application of the known elements of the Clock of the Unconscious, whether from the “Theory of Return” or the “War Cycle” are considered as an experiment.

Participation in achieving a ceasefire can be considered an experiment.

What subjects and conflicts can be experimented on?

Naej DRANER usually acts as the architect of a solution. He can indicate what needs to be done to reach a given goal. The fact of taking up the analysis made by the architect of the solution and applying the indicated recommendations leads to an experimentation.
There is no structure capable of negotiating directly with the stakeholders in a conflict. There is just the minimum to get a proposal back and try to have it implemented and verify the result obtained.

For the architect to be able to work, it is necessary:

  • have information available in French or English, either directly or indirectly. This information must make it possible to follow the evolution of the conflict situation in a precise manner,
  • have a means of transmitting the result of the architect’s analysis to the actors concerned and of getting them to apply it, either partially or completely, if possible after a joint review. A partial application without consulting the architect on the applied part is tantamount to emptying the experiment of all its substance: we do not know what is being experimented with,
  • that there is a local negotiator(s) or actor(s) capable of using the architect’s proposals and working with him or her to converge and achieve the desired goal.

In principle, one could experiment on any conflict and subject, since one can always create networks to gather the necessary information and one can create a network capable of reaching the necessary actors (e. g. the organizations in charge of conflict resolution, teams of diplomats or the countries directly concerned by the conflict).

In practice, the budget aspect limits experiments to subjects for which information is already available.

What is the point of multiplying experiments?

The main interest is to be able to test them, to promote them and to capitalize on the acquired experience, which becomes available to other actors.

Is it realistic to pretend to experiment?

But there’s a catch. Diplomats are not scientists and are more concerned with posture and role than with the accuracy of ideas verified by experiments.

As a result, we have no witnesses who clearly say what was proposed to be experimented with, until we confirm that the proposals for experimentation did indeed reach the actors in the conflict, and we have no account or confirmation of what was done.

If, by chance, a desired experiment succeeds, it will be invisible and it will be impossible to put it forward without credible testimony. Just asking a diplomat or local actor to write down what he did and why he did it is very complicated: he is almost outraged by it. Appearances are usually more important than reality: this is the everyday world of diplomacy.

There is no institutionalized organization, just a few people who can relay a few ideas but are unable (or unwilling) to follow up and provide reliable evidence of what has actually been done.

As a result, the credibility of the experiments is weak, not to say that they are simply imaginary (we must not deny it, denial has multiple forms that are almost institutionalized: rigor is not part of the hiring criteria for diplomats).

For the moment, we have at best a few coincidences which are not even presented in a credible form for lack of testimonies of those who would have allowed their transmission and realization.

What should an experiment involve in order to be usable?

It should include:

  • the starting hypotheses
  • the participants
  • a review of assumptions
  • what had to be done (text explaining what had to be done)
  • what was actually done (at least a brief account from the participants)
  • an objective result of the evolution of the situation
  • a balance sheet and its availability
  • a contradictory debate on experimentation or an external evaluation

To this day, there has never been anything resembling a complete experiment.

Is it necessary to have the power to experiment?

Most people are likely to answer in the affirmative. Making war or peace is considered a sign of power. When we look at the facts, those who have power are not able to make peace. If they knew how to do it, it could help them. If they don’t know, their power is insufficient to achieve a result.

If we had a real method to achieve peace, presenting and using a method does not necessarily require power.

If someone knew how to make peace, the fact that he is considered a “method” advisor might be enough to experiment.

But it’s not that simple: everyone likes to pretend that the advice he uses is his own brand and refuses to let the advisor have a life of his own. Showing and demonstrating a method will be seen as a form of power or challenging a power that has failed to solve anything, but it could also be seen as a method and achieved without initially having any power. On the other hand, the method will in any case have to be accepted by the different interlocutors for it to succeed, which means that it will have to be done with the consent of the different powers in place. At the very least, the method will have to be tolerated, but if the method is never officially presented and confirmed, it will never be recognized and used as a method.

Thus, there is ambiguity and rivalry with the powers that be that can prevent the facts from coming to fruition or being recognized.

If the experiment was successful, would it be recognized?

Probably NO. An existing power, whatever it is, does not tolerate that a councillor appears as THE decision-maker. The powers will accept that the councillor will act if he is so discreet that he does not exist and does not overshadow anyone. The recognition of what has been done will be complicated and he could go crazy or be presented as crazy if he succeeds in something.

An example?

An example is under construction, both as a study and as a potential subject for experimentation: see Conflict Ukraine

31 Octobre 2020