Performative Politics, the Demise of Experts and Navigating an Uncertain Global World Order: An Interview with Daniel Levin

You may listen to this interview from HERE. 

Daniel has spent the last thirty years working with governments and development institutions worldwide, focusing on economic development and political reform through financial literacy, political inclusion, and constitutional initiatives. He is also engaged in track 3 diplomacy and mediation efforts in war zones. He is currently a member of the board of the Liechtenstein Foundation for State Governance and the author of several books including his most recent, Proof of Life. More information on his books is available at his website.

Q1. Please introduce yourself and tell us about your current interests.

I am the executive director of the Liechtenstein Foundation for State Governance, which was founded by the Reigning and Hereditary Princes of Liechtenstein in 2009. The focus of our foundation is to identify, primarily in failed states and conflict zones, qualified next-generation candidates and prepare them for future leadership roles. As a result of our entrenched presence in these fraught countries and regions, we are increasingly asked to mediate between warring factions as well as between countries with a strategic stake in the particular region. Such mediations can range from cease-fire and de-escalation scenarios, hostage negotiations, to complex multi-party constellations involving conventional and nonconventional military threats.

Q2. Most of your work is outside of the public eye so it would be helpful to explain the type of situations where you might be engaged. How does a nation-to-nation, Track 3 relationship get established and how is it used in a practical sense? Are you ever concerned about the interests you’re serving in your Track 3 work?

The core of our efforts is centered around situations in or between countries in which the hostile, adversarial dynamics among the pertinent parties are hardwired into the political and military reality. In most cases, these countries or parties do not have the ability to engage directly with their adversaries, not only because those communication pathways have been destroyed, but also because any attempts to reach out to an adversary or enemy would be interpreted and exploited as weakness. This can mean that parties move towards an escalation without even being able communicate an interest in de-escalation or a willingness to explore the intentions and measure the temperature of their counterparts.

That’s where our foundation enters the picture or, rather, that’s where, as a result of our ties to multiple sides, we get asked to enter the picture and mediate. Our work is predicated upon our ability to remain inconspicuous and discreet, both in order to maintain each side’s full plausible deniability in the event the mediation efforts should fail, and also to allow the political and military leaders on each side to claim for themselves all the credit they unfailingly crave.

Examples might include countries in the Middle East and the Gulf that heighten the hostility to each other by parading their unwillingness to talk to their enemies. In such situations, our foundation is asked to maintain an informal line of communication, sometimes merely to clarify an unintended hostile act in order to avoid a preventative or reactive measure or escalation. We also engage in negotiations with hostile governments over citizens wrongfully detained, when the home government of the detained person cannot directly engage with the hostile government due to sanctions or terror list designations. Our work may also require hostage negotiations with terror groups and criminal organizations, when the home government of the hostage does not possess access to the representatives and patrons of these groups and organizations.

The foundation does not serve any outside party’s interests. It is in all respects neutral and independent. If any party demands that we abandon our neutrality or attempts to compromise our independence, we decline to get or remain involved.

Q3. Your work is very much dependent on earning the trust of parties with whom you may have little in common. How do you build and maintain these links, and is it difficult to manage the grifters or the incompetents who may be necessary for a particular situation?

There exists a common misconception that a mediator parachutes into a conflict zone and earns the antagonists’ trust by intellectual brilliance and winning personality. That image of a mediator is a caricature. In fact, the only relationships of trust that can be tapped into in moments of crisis are those that have preexisted well before they are needed. It matters little how much I might have in common with, or whether I am liked by, a person or party. What does matter is whether I have the assets and the leverage to facilitate or compel a compromise and reach an acceptable and compelling understanding. It certainly helps to share interests or even incidental areas of common taste in seemingly superficial matters such as food or music. But what will legitimize and protect my role as a mediator and negotiator is a lengthy track record of having delivered on what I promised in the past, and of never having betrayed a person, no matter how distasteful or abhorrent I may find that person to be.

The world of conflict zones and hostage negotiations is littered with grifters and incompetents, but no more so than the world of politics or finance. When used correctly, they can fulfill important functions ranging from enthusiastic sidekicks to unwitting messengers to useful idiots. It is important to identify and categorize such individuals early and accurately in order to maximize the value of their deployment. Managing them is very similar to managing agents and assets in clandestine operations, with the same incentive categories expressed by the MICE acronym: money, ideology, coercion, and ego.

Q4. What needs to occur for you to successfully change or modify an entrenched position or specific policy decision? In those instances in which you failed to change or impact a position or policy decision, what were the primary reasons for your failure?  

Constant adjustments to changed circumstances are an axiomatic condition for our success. In the midst of any negotiations, we are confronted with constantly changing positions and stipulations of the parties we are engaging with, and we have to deal with rapidly escalating demands that usually occur after detecting in the other side a willingness to compromise, which in turn gets misinterpreted as flailing and wavering. Political and military realities can shift, often radically, in the midst of a negotiation, and it is always safe to assume friendly fire when the stakes are the highest. All these circumstances can require modifications to a position, sometimes strategic and permanent (until the next modification), and sometimes purely tactical for the sake of presenting a new reality that is so unappealing to the parties that they will agree to revert to their prior stances.

Our failure to change or impact a position was usually the result of inadequate preparedness, including incomplete or incorrect information and leverage on all the relevant individuals involved, as well as incorrect timing in altering our approach. Too early can be no less devastating than too late, and sometimes harder to correct, because more time has passed, which has allowed the flawed sequencing to metastasize.

Q5. As someone who has worked for decades across many countries and interacted with a range of political systems, what feels different to you now? How do you think about the growing rise of populism, the war on experts, and the growing decline in international cooperation?

The farther we move away from the middle of the last century, when the world was reeling from the utter destruction and unspeakable horrors wrought by fascism, the less voters seem to value the blessings of democracy and the rule of law as well as an intact social contract that does not belittle empathy, rather than the current celebration of dog-eat-dog malice. While the trend towards autocracy is not new, its continued allure and the seductive appeal of imperious leaders bear some surprising elements, in particular considering the governance shortcomings of many autocratic regimes, as measured in the diminished quality and quantity of public services delivered to their citizens.

My sense is that political battles are no longer fought on policy issues, including conservative versus progressive economic or social policies, but rather on emotional cultural themes that tend to pit citizens against citizens, neighbors against neighbors, and family members at each other’s throats. These increasingly vicious disagreements often follow the delineations of racial, religious, and geographical identities, and are constantly fed and reinforced by social media that, in turn, thrives on spewing hate and acrimony.

In this environment, education and expertise are demeaned, and appeals to reason, understanding, and solidarity are disparaged as weak and “unmanly.” What started as nondescript blogs and podcasts proliferated through countless platforms to become predominant sources of information, especially for young voters, has replaced experts and professionals. Nothing exemplifies this dangerous trend more than the COVID-19 pandemic, during which individuals without a shred of expertise in epidemiology spouted their personal beliefs and recommendations on vital public health matters such as vaccines or medical treatment, causing excess loss of many lives and immeasurable damage to public health. One such individual serves today as United States Secretary of Health and Human Services.

The rise of populism has shrunk the appetite for international cooperation. Closing of borders, together with the vilification of immigrants, is presented as the panacea for all societal ills, and counterproductive policies are presented as feelgood solutions despite clear evidence to the contrary. Obvious examples include exorbitant tariffs that result in higher prices as a tax on domestic consumers, the very audience they were supposed to benefit and protect, or massive reductions and cancellations of work visas that result in an immediate loss of much needed skills and expertise. The US Administration’s mass revocation of visas for foreign-born boffins will have devastating consequences for systemically important industries such as technology, especially AI, medicine and vaccine innovation, biogenetics, and many more for years, even decades to come, depriving leading American institutions and Silicon Valley of critical talent. It is the fastest and most efficient way to squander success and surrender a global leadership position.

Q6. You’ve noted a growing gap between the performative politics on display in many countries and substantive, meaningful political engagement and policy making. Please expand on this issue and share why this is a problem people should be concerned about.

The coarsening of discourse that we are witnessing throughout society has had a devastating impact on the quality of political engagement and policy making. In past decades, our development work in areas of political literacy and inclusion was based on two primary pillars: access and education. Today, these concepts seem almost quaint. Meaningful political engagement has been replaced by entertainment, particularly of the negative, hate-fueling variety.

In the past it was a challenge to convince politicians to espouse necessary policies that would yield long-term benefits because the political dividends and benefits to these politicians’ careers may not have been immediate. In today’s political landscape it can be impossible to convince individuals in leadership positions to embrace policies that carry even short-term benefits, if those benefits don’t come with a high entertainment value and a potential to stir up negative emotions about opponents and critics.

This makes intelligent, responsible, and solution-based policies in areas that require nuance and widespread societal buy-in virtually impossible, as evidenced by the dumbed-down discourse on sustainable social safety nets, retirement age, affordable healthcare, tax policy, or climate change. Instead, opportunistic and unqualified politicians who excel at capturing shrill headlines are celebrating a professional bonanza, which will only end when the dire consequences of their populist ignorance will have inflicted immense, irreversible pain on their voters.

Q7. There are many long-term, complex issues that require global cooperation and coordination, such as climate/weather, AI, nuclear proliferation, etc. No one country can address these on its own, but with the US pulling back from global engagement, who is stepping into the breach? Who is handling the important stuff?

There is no simple, linear answer to that question, as each issue has its own complex dynamics. What is common across all areas is that the absence of responsible leadership and meaningful governance in many countries has opened the door to alternative platforms and players, often of the shadowy variety. In certain scientific areas, in which no single country possesses the scale and scientific resources necessary for significant advancement, there exist some successful and valuable cooperative organizations and associations, such as CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, which operates the world’s largest particle physics laboratory. Some of these organizations have also provided venues for scientists to cooperate throughout periods of armed conflict, for example by providing safe havens for Russian scientists to collaborate with their international colleagues despite Ukraine-related sanctions, or for Israeli and Iranian epidemiologists to exchange pandemic data despite the hostilities between their countries.

These informal methods of collaboration are often coordinated in discreet, usually secretive “track 3” frameworks, hosted or chaperoned by organizations dedicated to filling the void in a world of declining global cooperation. The same is taking place in the field of responsible AI, in which quiet, off-the-record collaborations yield more tangible deliverables, such as implementable AI governance commitments and modules, than most of the globally proliferating digital collaboration conferences and initiatives. These tend to resemble large networking gatherings in the vein of the annual World Economic Forum in Davos, rather than solution-focused initiatives that tackle these challenges with the urgency they deserve.

There do remain, however, vast problem areas that cannot be addressed without meaningful and sincere cooperation among the largest state actors, starting with the United States and China. The dispiritingly poor exchange of information and solutions in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic made an already terrible situation much worse. It can no longer come as a surprise that germs do travel, and the nationalist, often xenophobic hysteria unleashed by irresponsible politicians and media celebrities turned what might have been contained as an epidemic, or series of epidemics, into a devastating pandemic.

Q8. Every country and political system has its own pathologies. Many observers around the world are confused by what is happening in the US. Please talk through what you see are the unique pathologies of the US system and how this is manifested in the current administration.

So much has been said and written about the pathologies of the US system, from the paralyzing duopoly of just two political parties, when in fact the largest voter group remains independent and unregistered, to the gerrymandering of safe districts, resulting in the true elections taking place during the primaries of each political party, in which the loudest, most crass and extreme candidates appeal to the most visceral, base instincts of the parties’ base.

Or take the undemocratic marvel of the electoral college that at some point in American history manifested the injustice of slavery and the so-called three-fifths compromise, which allowed Southern states to count three-fifths of their enslaved population for the purpose of apportioning seats in the House of Representatives, resulting in greater political power in presidential elections than they would have had with a system based purely on free white citizens.

All these pathologies have metastasized into the current political realities, in which the leadership castes – elected officials as well as business leaders in technology and finance – no longer possess the incentive, and in many instances the ability, to act in the interest and for the benefit of the larger society. This lamentable atrophy of political ethics, evidenced by a seemingly insurmountable gap between the public good and individual ambition, can only be reversed through meaningful investment in education at all levels as well as the extraction of uninhibited money in politics, which would require a reversal of the disastrous “Citizens United” Supreme Court decision in 2010. The political will to take such action requires a rewiring of the minds and hearts of current gatekeepers, which is a catch-22, because their very careers depend on the perpetuation and deepening of these pathologies.

None of this is unique to the current administration; it merely represents a crescendo into its most extreme manifestation. But the country may have, for the first time since the Civil War in the 1860s, reached an inflection point, when the social contract seems broken and tribal hatred could cause the country to break from within.

Q9. The role of technology has never been more important, if only for the massive amounts of spending, trillion-dollar market caps and oversized expectations placed on the shoulders of the AI dream. What do you see as the role of tech giants in governance, particularly in the US, especially if political leaders are focused on performative displays over thoughtful policy?

Technology companies in many areas, not just AI, have immense power and influence by virtue of their impactful platforms and products that penetrate and shape all facets of society. In recent years, the exponential growth of their clout has reached dangerous levels of supremacy as all barriers of access to, and sway over, the highest echelons of political power have been removed, not only because of the elimination of any limitations of money in politics, as noted in response to the last question, but also because of technology’s role in delivering information and shaping, influencing, and manipulating opinions. The analogy between the grave societal threat that results from combining technology with political power and the danger of merging religion with political power is as obvious as it should be alarming.

For this to change, tech giants will need to recognize that their interests are aligned with the long-term health of society, rather than resist all forms of thoughtful governance and regulation as detrimental to their bottom line. Based on my interactions with many responsible tech entrepreneurs, I don’t believe we have reached a point of no return, but the exponentially increasing, almost ubiquitous presence of AI may signal that we are approaching a tipping point when we no longer will possess the ability to alter, let alone reverse this trajectory.

Q10. It is impossible to talk about technology or geopolitics without considering the growing role of China. You’ve been involved with the country for many years and have watched the US/China relationship evolve over time. How has trust ebbed and flowed over the years, and where do you see the situation at present?

The ebbs and flows of US-China dynamics over the past decades have usually taken place within an overarching path of tighter relations, with individual setbacks triggered by particular events such as the global financial crisis of 2008 that was perceived in China as having been caused by the US and the recklessness of its financial system, with a dangerous global contagion effect in its wake. Similarly, the origins of the Covid-19 pandemic had negative effects on widespread American perception of China, resulting in a deterioration of relations in times when deepened coordination and cooperation would have been essential to contain the exponentially growing fallout. In the past, these periods of distancing and distrust were followed by periods of rapprochement, because there are too many areas of aligned interest between these two powers in an increasingly intertwined global economy.

As I said earlier, one of the lamentable manifestations of current American pathologies is the unwillingness and, eventually, the inability to act in the nation’s own interest. Isolationist and nationalistic politics have vilified international cooperation and global trade, all for the misleading purpose of protecting American wellbeing. The combination of these policies, amplified with culture wars that aim to incite against “the other,” have resulted in a toxic brew of hatred and xenophobia, and what was sold initially as a defensive measure against countries “who take advantage of the US” ends up harming not only other countries, including historical allies, but also Americans themselves.

Examples abound, from trade tariffs that result in a tax burden to American consumers, discourage investment and stunt economic growth, to misguided visa policies that keep away the very people a thriving country needs, from agriculture to academia to science and technology. The most qualified of those rebuffed will certainly have alternative, more welcoming places to take their talents, and the devastating effects of these foolhardy policies will be felt for generations. Trust is not a light switch that can be turned off and on depending on the mood of a political leader, and the lack of predictability of current policies emanating out of Washington will result in geopolitical realignments that will end up marginalizing the US. America currently seems like a huge ship with a broken rudder.

Q11. As a contrast to the US system, what do you think are the unique pathologies of the Chinese system? Where are its strengths and weaknesses and how do you see the country positioned in the years ahead?

China has completed its transition to a global economic superpower and, despite repeated rounds of purges in the ranks of senior officers, is also emerging as a military superpower. The crisis in what used to be known as Western liberal democracies has led in some quarters to increased hubris based on a presumed sense of superiority of the Chinese political model. While the current US Administration is making this conclusion appear self-evident by weakening American democratic institutions and eviscerating established norms of clean governance and sound economic policies, there continue to exist deep and structural challenges in China’s political, economic, and social reality that are not going to be tackled and resolved by chest-beating and condescension.

The current leadership crisis in Washington should be an opportunity for Beijing to build alliances and expand a sense of goodwill towards responsible global stewardship, rather than double down on a transactional approach to trade and diplomacy. Washington’s evisceration of the transatlantic alliance with Europe, both militarily, as evidenced by its abandonment of Ukraine, and economically, as evidenced by a constant stream of exorbitant tariffs, should have presented Beijing with a golden opportunity to step into the breach.

On the domestic front, the fault lines in the Chinese economy and society are likely to persist. For example, it is not sufficient for the leadership to issue a fiat ordering an increase in domestic consumption, when Chinese households remain deeply anxious about the future and are reluctant to spend to the degree desired by senior officials, as young adults lack the trust in government competence and feel the need to save for future hardship that might await them. Hence also the continued birthrate decline – a demographic timebomb that cannot be defused by top-down edicts. At the level of local governments, the structural problems – stratospheric debt and low revenues – persist, creating a treacherous business environment and disincentivizing much needed investment.

Finally, China is not immune to the wealth gap increase that is afflicting the US. Much of China’s scientific and technological accomplishments are disproportionately benefitting the wealthiest, most successful urban population segments rather than the bottom half of the population – a trend that will continue and intensify with the increased promotion of the tech-driven economy.

Q12. Looking at Europe, how do you assess its internal issues and are you confident the EU or its leading countries will find a cohesive voice and act collectively in a positive way? If so, on which issues could it potentially take a leadership position? Is the idea of the EU as a counterweight between the US and China credible in your view?

The past years have revealed a disappointing inability of European states to unite and coalesce around common policies as the continent faces significant crises, both security-wise in the Ukraine and economically with Washington’s imposition of punitive tariffs. This lack of unity and synchronization is neither new nor surprising, and while the reluctance towards collective military action can be understood in light of last century’s painful history, it is still surprising that Europe as a bloc is engaging with economic superpowers – China on trade imbalances and the US on tariffs – without the confidence that the aggregate European economic power would suggest.

The challenges facing Europe in the past year, in particular the significant weakening by the Trump administration of the transatlantic military alliance and economic cooperation, often accompanied by insults at perceived European freeloading under the American security umbrella, as hurled by Vice President Vance at a European audience during the Munich Security Conference in February 2025, should be an overdue wake-up call. Europe, both as a bloc and as individual states working closely together, needs to find its assertiveness without reverting to individual pockets of self-interest and cannibalizing nationalism. Unless and until that happens, the EU and Europe as a whole cannot expect to be treated as an equal by the US and China, or to play a meaningful role as a counterweight between these two economic and geopolitical superpowers.

Recent events, including the removal of Venezuelan President Maduro by US troops, should have made it abundantly clear even to the most dewy-eyed European politician that we have entered an era in which Washington has joined Moscow and Beijing in dividing the world into spheres of influence. This is a world in which American foreign policy is no longer guided by an amalgamation of common interests and common values, and instead driven solely by US interests, however narrowly defined. Should this finally bring about a shift towards European solidarity and meaningful cooperation, rather than continued bickering over migration, budgets, and EU overreach, the current US Administration might have done Europe a huge favor.

Q13. Terms like values and standards are highly subjective and it is not often helpful to frame issues along these lines. However, there is a sense that basic norms of political behavior and the quality of people serving in high office have deteriorated. Is this a fair assessment and is this unique to specific political systems or this period in time?

I prefer to assess standards of political behavior as a reflection of societal norms, rather than in a vacuum. In democracies with somewhat free elections, the quality of the political class is directly correlated to the preferences and values, or lack thereof, prevailing in society. Comparisons with other eras are only meaningful if we focus on a sufficiently long trajectory and measure the changes not just by subjective parameters, such as the “character” or “quality” of leaders, but by changes in the factors that lead to societal vicissitudes. These include diminished investment in the education system and the resulting decline in education standards, which in turn creates societal and political fractures that we are witnessing today between rural populations and urban “elites” or, in the American context, between red and blue states.

These fissures are being constantly widened through an increasingly testy stream of grievance and resentment politics, which tend to cater to the lowest human instincts. With this trajectory, irresponsible behavior and diminished quality of governance among the political class turns into a race to the bottom. The only way to reverse it and prevent a societal and political collapse from becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy is not by endlessly lamenting the uncouth discourse that is dominating the airwaves, but rather by addressing the root causes of the rot, such as the decline in teaching and learning standards. The role of institutional religions is not insignificant in this regard, not only in a theoretical sense as a different, possibly higher yet regressive source of political authority, but also very tangibly with their harmful impact on school curricula.

One of the dangers in remaining in a downward trajectory for a sustained period of time is that alternative, less democratic and more autocratic political systems become more appealing, as the contrast to their quality of state governance grows. In this era, the statement attributed to Churchill, according to which “democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others” seems to have run its course, and it will be of little consolation that future generations will one day say the same thing – if they are allowed to – about those other forms of government.

It is a fallacy to equate diminished political leadership with a power vacuum. Power does not just disappear or evaporate. It migrates, and where it migrates to might perhaps be the most important question. At the risk of appearing conspiratorial, there are several groups and individuals, often with immense resources, who willingly assume certain roles associated with executive power, which in healthier political times are carried out by elected officials or legislators who have to withstand public scrutiny in elections and at the hands of a free press. The emergence of influential players with commanding, yet often unregulated positions in fields such as technology, media and communication, energy, or finance at a time of diminished competence and governance in traditional political institutions presents challenges that require responsible, long-term commitments to societal health and wellbeing, rather than obdurate striving for market dominance and the worship of individual status and profit.

Q14. In light of what we have discussed so far, how have you personally adjusted your own activities and behavior in this new world? What has become harder or easier in terms of operating across different countries? Any advice you can offer readers on how to navigate the current geopolitical landscape?

Most of my work takes place outside conventional political and diplomatic venues, so the adjustments were less dramatic than they might be for those who have to function in more formal environments. Still, the corrosion of state governance has resulted in a lack of predictability, not just in the world of politics and diplomacy, but also in military and intelligence contexts.

The prevention or de-escalation of armed conflicts now requires interactions with individuals who make up with transactional instincts and moneyed relationships what they lack in competence and professional qualifications. Navigating this new world, in which flattery, vanity, and wealth reign supreme, can at times require a different set of skills, for which the principles of behavioral psychology can be as essential as the wonderful fables of Jean de La Fontaine, whose fox is a masterful teacher of cunning, deception, and wit. This does, however, take a personal toll, and it can be difficult not to become a cynic and misanthrope.

Q15. Shifting gears, please share some of the work you’ve been doing in the Middle East. What are some of the important changes happening in the region? What do you think the media and pundit class are getting wrong in their coverage of regional developments?

We are experiencing a highly combustible period in the Middle East, where any spot seems capable of bursting into flames at any time. In Iran, protests have been erupting in a manner that is both familiar and disconcerting. Familiar, because over the past years there have been several waves of popular discontent, such as fuel price demonstrations in 2019 or protests over the cost of food and water shortages in 2021, and with particular virulence following the death of Mahsa Amini in custody, which started as fury at police brutality and the oppression of women, and quickly morphed into expressions of fury about economic malaise, corruption, and international isolation.

While the current demonstrations were triggered by a collapse of the national currency and have a similar, familiar refrain of the people being sick of being poor, what makes this round so unsettling is less the fact that the regime is unwilling to address the roots of discontent, and more that those in charge have no clue how to tackle the country’s monumental challenges. Iran’s problems are deeply structural and can be solved neither with oppression nor with gimmicky, meaningless gestures. At the same time, the absence of an organized opposition makes any realistic alternative or viable regime change unlikely. While we continue to engage with senior players in Iran’s politics, economy, military, and academia, the combustible environment is making our foundation’s mediation work even more challenging and, at the same time, more pressing.

As to Israel and Palestine, the past two years since October 7, 2023, have been very difficult, also on a very personal level. Even though the hostages have been released and a fragile ceasefire is in place, the Gaza nightmare drove home how far the region is from any lasting, peaceful solution. Rather than learn from this nightmare and vow to ensure that such slaughter does not occur again by addressing the root causes of the conflict, everyone is reverting to the same tribal posturing. In lieu of actual, workable solutions that are based on demographic and economic realities, religious sources are used to justify maximalist demands. The hardest part of our work is not any failure in a particular mission, but rather the resigned acknowledgement that by hardwiring the hatred on all sides the next October 7 is being implanted in the DNA of today’s victims.

On a perhaps more hopeful note, we are witnessing an extraordinary transition in Syria with the fall of Bashar al-Assad and the rise of President Ahmed al-Sharaa, who was known by his nom de guerre Abu Mohammed al-Julani as the head of Islamist Al-Nusra Front when we first interacted in 2015. It is far too soon to tell whether Syria can move towards a more encouraging future. There are too many visceral conflicts remaining in the country, from pockets of well-funded Alawi militias armed to the teeth, to the Druze community that is in part supported by Israel. The social and economic challenges awaiting this ravaged country are gigantic, but the potential for meaningful change is real and exciting.

My sense is that the media and pundit class – regrettably groups that have become increasingly interchangeable – are still looking at these conflicts and their rapidly shifting sands through conventional lenses, picking sides and regurgitating elucidations that sound more like slogans than workable blueprints. These include stale two-state solution platitudes for Israel and Palestine rather than concepts such as a confederation that take the nuances within Israeli and Palestinian societies into account, recognizing that neither side is a monolith and that there are many actors who, despite good intentions, are contributing to the perpetuation of the conflict.

The same goes for the coverage of a highly complex country such as Iran, in which the impending leadership transition after Ali Khamenei will pit powerful and sophisticated groups against each other with candidates and power brokers to whom most journalists have zero access, and of whom they have painfully little intelligent knowledge. The same could be said of the fragmentation in the Gulf with the Saudi and Emirati leaders locking horns in Yemen and, indirectly, in Sudan. These divergences in interests have existed for many years, yet their coverage today is simplistic and superficial. This does not allow for thoughtful planning and risk management for private or public sector actors with meaningful stakes in the region.

Q16. Please share any favorite books, publications, blogs, podcasts or other resources that readers could use to improve their understanding of geopolitics, political systems, technology, culture or other interesting topics.

I stay away from social media and listen to very few podcasts. It is trite to make categorical statements on how we consume information, but my preference is to learn through the study of history rather than a constant stream of current-day analysis. For example, I am currently rereading books by Václav Havel, the Czech dissident turned president. “The Power of the Powerless” is a masterful dissection of communist regimes, yet it appears as eerily relevant today as it did when it came out in the late 1970s. Havel had a wonderful way of expressing his disdain for those who speak in absolute certainties: “Keep the company of those who seek the truth, run from those who have found it.”

If you or your company has a due diligence requirement or needs assistance on a fraud issue, corporate investigation, risk advisory, or other related matters, please contact us at info@kalavinkaadvisors.com or +852 2196 2727