To be a neutral arbitrator of
a conflict between two other countries, a government cannot favor one of the
two; otherwise, the veneer of neutrality is undercut by the interest of preferring
one position over the other. The duty to act neutrally, which the role of arbitrator
includes or implies, can be exploited by the subterranean—or even explicit!—non-normative,
private-benefits interest to support one of the two sides. To put one’s own private
interest above a broader-benefitting interest, such as in entailed in a duty to
act neutrally, is to exploit a conflict of interest. Governments can exploit
conflicts of interest. With regard to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the E.U.’s
foreign minister (or de facto commissioner) disabused the public of any thoughts
that the E.U. could, and thus would, be a neutral arbitrator between Russia and
Ukraine. Such transparency lies in stark contrast to the illusory impression by
the U.S. that it was in any position to arbitrate between Israel and the
Palestinian Authority in Gaza, for the U.S. was firmly on the side of Israel.
The full essay is at "The E.U. as a Mediator between Russia and Ukraine."
