Dr. Stephen Eric Bronner is a leading political theorist, peace activist, and former Board of Governors Distinguished Professor of Political Science at Rutgers University. With over four decades of academic and diplomatic engagement, he has authored more than 20 books, advised international peace delegations, and championed human rights across conflict zones from Iraq to Ukraine.
As Director of the International Council for Diplomacy and Dialogue—USA (ICDD-USA) and co-founder of the Independent Experts Peace Initiative (IEPI), Dr. Bronner continues to bridge scholarship and activism in pursuit of global peace. In this interview with The European Times, he reflects on his journey, the motivations behind his peace efforts, and the urgent need for dialogue in addressing the war in Ukraine. What follows is a compelling discussion on realism, idealism, and the path toward ending one of Europe’s most devastating conflicts.
1.Personal Introduction & Peace Initiatives:
Robert Johnson: Could you please introduce yourself and share some of the key moments or achievements from your extensive work for peace and dialogue over the years?
Dr. Stephen Eric Bronner: I grew up in a Manhattan neighborhood, Washington Heights, which was (famously) comprised almost exclusively of German-Jews who had fled the Nazis. There was hardly a family that had not lost someone in the camps. I think my contempt for authoritarianism, bigotry, imperialism, and militarism developed naturally out of my background. I was certainly prepared for City College of New York, otherwise known as the “proletarian Harvard,” which I attended from 1968-71; it was a hotspot of intellectual ferment and activism, where brilliant émigré professors and engaged students inspired my solidarity with what were courageous struggles for civil rights, outraged protestors opposing the Vietnam War, and the rights of poor people.
After my tine at City College, I attended the University of California: Berkeley, where I received my doctorate political science in 1975 following a year as a Fulbright Fellow at the Universität Tübingen, which granted me a certificate in philosophy. In short, I had interdisciplinary interests from the start. These carried over to my time at Rutgers University where I became Board of Governors Distinguished Professor of Political Science, Over 43 years there I directed 50 dissertations and, it’s fair to say, became a prolific scholar. I published 20 books, scores of articles, and my writings have been translated into well over a dozen languages; my vita is available at icdd-usa.org.
My work was inspired by a blend of cosmopolitan ideals, liberal-republican principles, and the commitment to social justice. Virtually all of it highlight the historical context with its conflicting material interests, geo-political ambitions, and ideological trends, wherein critical insights gain resonance—or not. In the aftermath of the 9/11 tragedy, and what would become a genocidal war in Iraq, I became ever more interested in civic diplomacy. As it happened, I was asked to join a peace delegation organized by Dr. Jim Jennings of Conscience International. It arrived in Baghdad about one month before the fighting began. The delegation received media coverage and a good deal of criticism upon its return and, as a consequence, I was asked to join the advisory board of the Brussels International War Crimes Tribunal. To talk about the “success” here would overstate the case Looking backward, however, our activities provided a bit of publicity for resistance in the face of lies about “weapons of mass destruction,” misguided hopes about the “welcome” that American troops would receive from the citizenry, and what was then monolithic support for President George W. Bush’s policy by politicians of both parties.
In fairly rapid succession I then became an advisor to Conscience International and then Chair of the Executive Committee for US Academics for Peace. In 2015, Mr. Eric Gozlan and I founded the International Council for Diplomacy and Dialogue and then, in 2025, it was transformed into the International Council for Diplomacy and Dialogue—USA, where I currently serve as Director. My travels as a member of various delegations took me to many countries outside Europe: Darfur, Egypt, Georgia, Guinea, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Palestine, Poland, Russia, Sudan, Syria, and – of course –Ukraine.
We met with brutal dictators trying to liberate prisoners, attempted to turn a paramilitary Janjaweed division into a sanitation corps, provide a spark of hope in Palestine, reorganize Kankan University in Guinea, speak with governmental advisory committees in Iran, create a campaign for incarcerated women in Yemen, and the – of course—there is Ukraine. In terms of honors, I am
particularly proud to have been the recipient of the “MEPEACE Award for Contributions to Peace” from the Middle East Network for Peace.
2. Motivations for Peace Projects:
Robert Johnson: What originally motivated you to focus on peace and human rights initiatives, and in particular, what drove you to take the lead in assembling an expert group to seek solutions for the Russia–Ukraine conflict?
Dr. Stephen Eric Bronner: Honors are circumstantial. In the practice of civic diplomacy, “success” is difficult to measure. The results of civic diplomacy usually appear later rather than sooner (if at all) and its small steps in the right direction depend upon a contextual clash of complex interests that is almost completely out of the activist’s control. Idealism is necessary to deal with the sour fruits of realism. Yet, idealism without realism turns into pontification whereas realism without idealism is merely an excuse for opportunism. Serious work to further the causes of peace and human rights requires both — along with the realization that it always takes a great deal of work to accomplish very little. Nevertheless, everywhere I went, brave activists — especially young people—were struggling for liberal values, republican institutions, and enlightenment ideals.
Every time I returned home, I was struck by how many Western “radicals” either take them for granted or condemn them outright for being racist, sexist, hierarchical, or Eurocentric. Liberal-republican ideals are particularly meaningful for non-Western nations languishing under brutal dictatorships and anachronistic customs and beliefs. Political activists facing corrupt and authoritarian regimes view democratic governance and socialist redistributive policies as ideals awaiting realization. Civil rights that are operative serve as the precondition for enjoying economic progress, exercising one’s identity, practicing pluralism, and –perhaps most of all—challenging the mistakes and avarice of the powerful.
The Russian-Ukraine War, is the bloodiest conflict to have taken place in Europe since the Second World War. The current discussion –or, better, obsession – with “who started it” is overshadowing what is at actually at stake, namely, that a sovereign democratic state (whatever its faults), is defending itself against destruction by an authoritarian neo-fascist regime intent on dismembering it. There is an ever more urgent need to change what is becoming crisis fatigue by those who have nothing to fear—and politicians not only don’t have all the answers, but often ask the wrong questions. Why did I and Dr. Valery Engel, President of the European Council for Democracy Development, assemble our independent experts to focus on Ukraine? Because in order to change the world it is first necessary to interpret it.
3. About ICDD-USA:
Robert Johnson: As Director of the International Council for Diplomacy and Dialogue-USA (icdd-usa.org), what are the organization’s main goals and current priorities?
Dr. Stephen Eric Bronner: ICDD-USA is a completely independent organization that engages in civic diplomacy, promotes human rights, publishes briefs and imprints, arranges and participates in international symposia, and sponsors the “Independent Experts Peace Initiatives.” I am happy to say that ICDD-USA is now officially recognized by the United Nations, the European Union, OSCE, and other non-governmental associations and institutions. But there are three aims in particular that I would like to mention: the first is that we try to highlight less the interests of this or that party to a given conflict than the usually ignored interests of civil society and those everyday people suffering the brunt of violence and devastation. We also strive to keep the public informed about events through our symposia and publications, podcasts and interviews, even as we provide balanced white papers for decision-makers that sketch scenarios that might result from any given crisis.
Grounded in the United States, ICDD-USA is a cosmopolitan organization whose executive and advisory boards are composed of intellectual-activists from all over. This reflects its belief that human rights and the liberal rule of law are not the exclusive property of the West, but universal in their salience. Among the particular concerns of ICDD-USA is the plight of minorities, the excluded, and dissidents, because it is for them – not the empowered – that freedom exists. This cosmopolitan stance translates into something important whenever the question arises in dealing with a given crisis –which side are you on? Either/or is the demand of propagandists and cheerleaders not that of people seeking dialogue and peace. The implication of the true believer is that, without unconditionally supporting one side or the other, the political actor is rendering them morally equivalent. Of course, that is a difficult claim to make when it comes to, say, Israel-Gaza or Russia-Ukraine. But those who consider any criticism of an ally as an “objective apology” for the “enemy” are disingenuous. This nothing more than the psychological manipulation of guilt masquerading as ethical commitment. How then to judge those brave citizens of Gaza protesting the authoritarian tactics of Hamas when they have suffered so much, or the Israelis protesting against the existing regime, or those who fight against Russia even as they call for elections and stand up for the minorities in Ukraine?
ICDD-USA always takes a critical stance because it always stands behind those who defend the liberal rule of law, social justice, and a secular-cosmopolitan outlook. That means specifying the mistakes made and the changes in policy that are necessary. There are no saints in politics. Those who divide the world into children of light and children of darkness breed only violence and further hatred. The truth is that there are not many wars worth fighting, politics requires compromise, and knowledge of the real conditions is necessary before leveling the charge that a “sell-out” is underway. Furthering peace calls for engaging the geo-political concerns of both sides, questioning the identification of governmental with popular interests, targeting possible compromises, and understanding that the great conflicts of our time usually don’t end with one “winner” and one “loser”—but with two “losers” The great politicians render palatable the ideological and material losses suffered by their nations and among the most important roles of organizations such as ICDD-USA is to specify the options, and the best way forward.
4. IEPI and the White Paper
Robert Johnson: You created the “Independent Experts Peace Initiative.” What inspired the project? What is its role? How does it connect with your broader vision of civic diplomacy and conflict resolution?
Dr. Stephen Eric Bronner: What inspired the creation of IEPI is quite simply the belief that an alternative was necessary to the traditional think tank along with a new form of expertise to aid decision-makers when confronting ever more complex conflicts in an ever more complex world. Dr. Valery Engel and myself were behind the attempt to create a kind of mobile tool that can assemble experts from different backgrounds and with different types of disciplinary expertise to explore the causes, the conflicting motives and interests, the possible scenarios, and the possible responses with respect to different crises. This means that the experts will change depending upon the crisis that is being investigated though, no matter what the crisis, the resulting white paper will have been produced by the same process. In each case, the project leaders will formulate a questionnaire that will be sent out to about 20-25 experts that will have been chosen according to their credentials. Detailed responses will then be collated and synthesized in the form of a document that will then be sent back to the respondents for review. After that, we will hold a conference on the white paper in order to garner further comments and ratify it in principle. That document will then be sent to contacts provided by our experts, think tanks, media people, and politicians leading to interviews, symposia, podcasts, discussions at official organizations such as the UN and the OSCE, and the like ,to publicize it. Meanwhile, a subcommittee of experts will revise the document in the light of new information and new events.
The document will serve as a kind of impartial and balanced “second opinion” that illuminates options for policymakers. Will it have an impact? The reality is that this question can’t be answered in advance. We understand that most of the decision-makers to whom we send the given white paper will toss it in the garbage can. Under the absolutely best circumstances, of course, the reader will find this the breakthrough that is necessary for a new approach to negotiating the conflict. Of course, that is unlikely, But it is possible that any given decision-maker will take a look, perhaps only at the executive brief that accompanies the white paper, and find one or two points that can be of use—and that would be enough to satisfy us. There are no guarantees in civic diplomacy: I have learned during my time as a rights and peace activist is that it always takes a huge effort to accomplish very little. It is always a mistake to promise more than one might deliver. There is a good chance that the white paper will go nowhere and, only if the organization is very lucky, will it have even a modest impact. However, all of us knew this going in: all we can do is try our best.
5. The Way Forward
Robert Johnson: What are your recommendations to advance the peace process? What are the next steps? How can the international community and civil society support these initiatives?
Dr. Stephen Eric Bronner: What steps to take in the peace process depends upon the particular scenario that presents itself. Each has its own array of responses that are explained in the white paper—and I urge your readers to take a look at the document. We know that any move toward peace has its risks and, under present circumstances, any proscription can appear utopian. Indulging in despair, however, only contributes to further paralysis. Thus, there are certain steps that IEPI would recommend:
1.The West must overcome divisions among its members concerning support for Ukraine and, in many nations, burgeoning sympathy for Russia among ever more powerful right-wing extremist parties. 2. It is necessary to rethink the current use of sanctions that have failed to weaken the Russian military, block oil and gas exports, devastate the economy or cause any significant change in strategy. They have instead made life more difficult for everyday citizens and, thereby, led them to rally around their regime. We suggest that a new sanctions-policy restrict itself to military and energy sectors of the economy as well oligarchs who are enriching themselves by manipulating the loopholes. 3. Introducing the framework for a new collective security arrangement is unavoidable would rest on Russia and NATO to relinquish any plans for expansion and Ukraine becoming a “neutral” state whose sovereignty is respected. 4. The two sides might also consider “freezing” the conflict (on the Korea model) long fixed “red lines” and the creation of a “buffer,” or “no man’s land” to demarcate territory and temper the fighting.
There is no magic formula or negotiating tactic that will resolve the crisis in the blink of an eye. Other suggestions might prove more (or less) feasible. But this EPI white paper blends idealism with realism. It enables the governments of both Russia and Ukraine to “save face,” “sell” peace without victory to their citizens, and admit the bitter truth that in this war there can be no “winner”—only losers.
*Dr. Stephen Eric Bronner is Director of the International Council for Diplomacy and Dialogue, Executive Director of the Independent Experts Peace Initiatives, and Board of Governors Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Rutgers University.
