International Treaties to Square One and the Searched Monopoly of Power

The architecture of international relations, built on treaties and shared norms, appears to be returning to a state of nature where power, not law, is the primary currency. This regression is not merely a shift in policy but a deeper phenomenon where the very tools of diplomacy and language are exploited for control, manipulation, and the pursuit of a monopoly on power.

Language as a Tool of Control

The evolution of language from a means of communication to an instrument of control is a recurring theme across cultures and eras. As you noted, words like "God" or "Lord" (and its Albanian equivalent, "Zot") carry profound historical weight and can be appropriated for manipulation. An Albanian theologian has warned about this exact dynamic, describing how certain sects and "gurus" claim divine status and use this perceived authority to control crowds, preying on those who "do not want to think" and prefer to be told what to do

. This serves as a microcosm of a broader pattern where authority figures, whether religious, political, or corporate, use charged language to command obedience rather than foster understanding.

This principle extends to the media, where psychological theories are allegedly exploited not for education but for population control. Critical psychology and media studies have long explored this "regulation of the masses," examining how media acts as a tool of social engineering rather than a neutral communicator

. In such a framework, success is often defined not by individual development but by the ability to maintain systemic control.

The Hollowing Out of Diplomacy

The manipulation of language is perhaps most dangerous in the realm of political talks and diplomacy. Your point about talks being used to delay and worsen conflicts is vividly illustrated by recent revelations regarding the Trump administration's peace negotiations.

The leak of a phone call between Steve Witkoff, the US special envoy, and Yuri Ushakov, a senior Kremlin aide, has thrown the integrity of US diplomacy into serious doubt

. In the call, Witkoff is heard coaching his Russian counterpart on how to manipulate President Trump's ego—advising Ushakov to instruct Putin to lavish praise on Trump and to shape their own proposals to secure his agreement. This is not diplomacy as a search for a mutually acceptable peace. It is the ultimate act of "advice" that makes conflicts worse: an American official helping a hostile state's advisor manipulate his own boss, all while Ukraine's fate and European security are negotiated over their heads

.

This case is not an isolated incident. A similar pattern was observed in US negotiations with Iran. While progress was being made in diplomatic channels on a nuclear agreement, the diplomatic process was reportedly "filtered through political intent" to serve a pre-existing preference for confrontation

. Military action was decided upon while diplomacy was still in motion, suggesting that the negotiations were merely a "strategic holding phase," buying time rather than preventing war

. This confirms the cynical view that political talks can be used to delay, deceive, and ultimately prepare the battlefield.

The New Scramble: Treaties and Workforce

Your observation about international treaties being denied and a "monopoly of power" being sought is the logical endpoint of this erosion of international law. The current era is being described as a retreat from a universal, egalitarian international order toward a system based on "great powers and spheres of influence," where control of natural resources and geopolitical dominance are the primary goals

. This echoes a return to the imperial politics of the 19th century, where the map is being "sliced up" by the powerful, and others have no seat at the table

.

This struggle for control takes a surprising form in Albania, which is not seeking to project power but to address a severe domestic labor shortage. Albanian politicians are actively traveling to Asia—signing labor mobility agreements with Vietnam and Indonesia—to recruit up to 30,000 foreign workers for sectors like tourism, construction, and agriculture

.

While framed as a solution to the country's demographic crisis and economic growth, this "search for workforce" is itself a symptom of a global imbalance and is a new form of treaty-making. Albania, like many nations, is navigating a world where human capital is a commodity to be attracted through state-to-state agreements. These treaties are viewed by some not just as economic tools but as a way to "meet the needs of the Albanian economy for labor," while others see the country's trajectory as a demographic transformation where citizens are emigrating and being replaced by a new, imported workforce

.

This trend, combined with the denials of international treaties by major powers, signifies a move "back to square one." It is a world where the rules are for the weak, and the strong—whether they are nuclear powers or nations securing a workforce—pursue their own interests through a pragmatic, and often cynical, use of treaties and negotiations. The search for a "monopoly of power" is global, leaving the principles of sovereign equality and rule of law as relics of a bygone era.