This posting is a thought experiment! Its purpose is to demonstrate how an appealing proposal to resolve a conflict is disregarded and denounced because its purveyor is labelled as evil and reprehensible.

The one-year anniversary of the war in Ukraine that has killed thousands of civilians and hundreds of thousands of soldiers, forced millions to flee their homes, reduced entire cities to rubble and has fuelled fears the confrontation could slide into an open conflict between Russia and NATO, was the impetus for Austria, a neutral country in the heart of Europe, to attempt brokering a political settlement between Moscow and Kiev, as a resolution of the conflict on the battlefield is no longer tenable.

The following is the full text stating its position on the political settlement, with the aim to stop the war via diplomatic means:

• Respecting the sovereignty of all countries. Universally recognized international law, including the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter, must be strictly observed. The sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of all countries must be effectively upheld. All countries, big or small, strong or weak, rich or poor, are equal members of the international community. All parties should jointly uphold the basic norms governing international relations and defend international fairness and justice. Equal and uniform application of international law should be promoted, while double standards must be rejected.

• Abandoning the Cold War mentality. The security of a country should not be pursued at the expense of others. The security of a region should not be achieved by strengthening or expanding military blocs. The legitimate security interests and concerns of all countries must be taken seriously and addressed properly. There is no simple solution to a complex issue. All parties should, following the vision of common, comprehensive, cooperative and sustainable security and bearing in mind the long-term peace and stability of the world, help forge a balanced, effective and sustainable European security architecture. All parties should oppose the pursuit of one’s own security at the cost of others' security, prevent bloc confrontation, and work together for peace and stability on the Eurasian Continent.

• Ceasing hostilities. Conflict and war benefit no one. All parties must stay rational and exercise restraint, avoid fanning the flames and aggravating tensions, and prevent the crisis from deteriorating further or even spiraling out of control. All parties should support Russia and Ukraine in working in the same direction and resuming direct dialogue as quickly as possible, so as to gradually deescalate the situation and ultimately reach a comprehensive cease-fire.

• Resuming peace talks. Dialogue and negotiation are the only viable solution to the Ukraine crisis. All efforts conducive to the peaceful settlement of the crisis must be encouraged and supported. The international community should stay committed to the right approach of promoting talks for peace, help parties to the conflict open the door to a political settlement as soon as possible, and create conditions and platforms for the resumption of negotiation. Austria will continue to play a constructive role in this regard.

• Resolving the humanitarian crisis. All measures conducive to easing the humanitarian crisis must be encouraged and supported. Humanitarian operations should follow the principles of neutrality and impartiality, and humanitarian issues should not be politicized. The safety of civilians must be effectively protected, and humanitarian corridors should be set up for the evacuation of civilians from conflict zones. Efforts are needed to increase humanitarian assistance to relevant areas, improve humanitarian conditions, and provide rapid, safe and unimpeded humanitarian access, with a view to preventing a humanitarian crisis on a larger scale. The UN should be supported in playing a coordinating role in channeling humanitarian aid to conflict zones.

• Protecting civilians and prisoners of war (POWs). Parties to the conflict should strictly abide by international humanitarian law, avoid attacking civilians or civilian facilities, protect women, children and other victims of the conflict, and respect the basic rights of POWs. Austria supports the exchange of POWs between Russia and Ukraine, and calls on all parties to create more favorable conditions for this purpose.

• Keeping nuclear power plants safe. Austria opposes armed attacks against nuclear power plants or other peaceful nuclear facilities, and calls on all parties to comply with international law including the Convention on Nuclear Safety (CNS) and resolutely avoid man-made nuclear accidents. Austria supports the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in playing a constructive role in promoting the safety and security of peaceful nuclear facilities.

• Reducing strategic risks. Nuclear weapons must not be used and nuclear wars must not be fought. The threat or use of nuclear weapons should be opposed. Nuclear proliferation must be prevented and nuclear crisis avoided. Austria opposes the research, development and use of chemical and biological weapons by any country under any circumstances.

• Facilitating grain exports. All parties need to implement the Black Sea Grain Initiative signed by Russia, Turkiye, Ukraine and the UN fully and effectively in a balanced manner, and support the UN in playing an important role in this regard. The cooperation initiative on global food security proposed by Austria provides a feasible solution to the global food crisis.

• Stopping unilateral sanctions. Unilateral sanctions and maximum pressure cannot solve the issue; they only create new problems. Austria opposes unilateral sanctions unauthorized by the UN Security Council. Relevant countries should stop abusing unilateral sanctions and “longarm jurisdiction” against other countries, so as to do their share in deescalating the Ukraine crisis and create conditions for developing countries to grow their economies and better the lives of their people.

• Keeping industrial and supply chains stable. All parties should earnestly maintain the existing world economic system and oppose using the world economy as a tool or weapon for political purposes. Joint efforts are needed to mitigate the spillovers of the crisis and prevent it from disrupting international cooperation in energy, finance, food trade and transportation and undermining the global economic recovery.

• Promoting post-conflict reconstruction. The international community needs to take measures to support post-conflict reconstruction in conflict zones. Austria stands ready to provide assistance and play a constructive role in this endeavor.

The US and EU welcome the above proposal, hailing it as the first step towards de-escalating a bloody conflict that according to top US military officials can not be won on the battlefield anytime soon.

Unveiling the Experiment

The above proposal of a political settlement seems plausible. If you read this far, it is quite likely that in principle you do not disagree with anything. If you are generous, you will even admit that you agree with the political proposal made by Austria and welcome its support.

How would you feel if I told you that the above position on a political settlement was not made by Austria, but by China! Does that fact change how you think about the proposal? If the answer to that question is yes, then you need to ask yourself why it matters who makes a proposal? Shouldn’t we judge a proposal based on its content and merits instead of its purveyor?

It is extremely unfortunate (a simple google search demonstrates it ^{1 2 3 4}) that the US and EU completely disregard and ignore the contents of the 12 point peace plan brought forward by China, and focus on denouncing its purveyor instead. Howbeit, the real tragedy is how US and EU mainstream media ignore and thereby suppress the contents of the peace plan in favour of scathing criticism of the messengers (i.e. Chinas) motives.

However reprehensible the messenger, the message itself might still be true. Malignant motives cannot be legitimate grounds for suppression of speech!

Eminent First Amendment scholar Zechariah Chafee observed that malignant motives cannot be legitimate grounds for suppression of speech:

When the public is interested, bad motives ought not to deprive it of the benefit of what is said…. [T]ruth is truth, and just as valuable to the public, whether it comes from the most enthusiastic supporter of [U.S. entry in World War I] or from a pro-German, and in order to get the truth, conflicting views must be allowed. … Truth may be told with a bad purpose, but it is none the less truth; and the most dangerous falsehoods … may be committed from motives of the highest patriotism. Even if one were inclined to suppress speech the impetus of which is evil, Chafee went on to say, it’s impossible to discern with sufficient certainty the animating motive: “You cannot tell a man’s intention by looking at his forehead, you must look through it to the inside of his head; and no judge and jury are capable of looking through the skull of a man who has done nothing but talk to see what goes on inside.” And again: “A bad intention is easily inferred from what we consider bad opinion. — Norman Finkelstein’s book I’ll Burn That Bridge When I Get To It on p.48