Global diplomacy has long been considered a crucial component of effective relationships between states in the international arena. Through cooperation and open dialogue, it is expected to handle the current challenges that the world is experiencing, ranging from health crises to the opportunities and threats of new technologies. However, the kind of effective diplomacy that ended the Cold War on American terms or produced the breakthrough of the Nixon administration in relationships with China is no longer present. The latest example of the failure of modern diplomacy is Russia’s launching of a military offense on Ukraine, with Western states lacking the strength to act together in opposition to the aggressor. The fears of many nations of the aggressor’s nuclear potential and the history of ‘realpolitik’ relationships with Russia show that diplomacy is no longer a mechanism for establishing peace or solving any pressing current challenges.
The counter-argument to the statement that diplomacy is dead is that the modern world has changed dramatically, and the challenges that used to affect the global population are no longer relevant. As diplomacy is a way of responding to current challenges, its efforts have shifted toward addressing the implications of the COVID-19 pandemic, the refugee crises, and the adverse effects of globalization and global warming (Cohen, 2013). There is no longer a need for an arms or space race but rather a pressing need to address the concerns of human rights. Instead of using the authority of a state to coerce others into certain decisions, diplomats could have benefited from compromise and mutual understanding. Thus, there should be a win-win in every situation that involves a diplomatic solution.
The idea that the needs of modern society have shifted and thus diplomacy should change in accordance with them fails to consider the lessons of history. The past threats to security and international relations are as relevant as they used to be several decades ago. One of the reasons for diplomacy’s demise is the United States losing its dominant position in the global arena without any other nation rising to the necessary level to take its place (Cohen, 2013). The result of this is a lack of understanding of where the world should be heading and who takes the lead. The case of Syria is an unedifying lesson in the course of the crisis of diplomacy’s lack of effectiveness. Besides, violence has taken new forms, including hybrid ones, in addition to terrorist attacks, even in instances when a nuclear state attacks and annexes the territories of a non-nuclear country and murders tens of thousands of people, diplomacy can do nothing but call for a dialogue and a compromise. In true diplomacy, there should be no compromise with terrorists.
To conclude, for modern diplomacy to succeed, it has to go back in time and learn the lessons of history. Currently, there are too many ‘woke’ diplomats who advocate for human rights and offer peaceful one-state solutions for the Israel-Palestine conflict. While the hyper-connectivity of social media provides significant benefits for diplomacy, it can distract from what really matters. There is no more focus on preventing adverse events from occurring but rather responding to them after they have already taken place. Such a strategy cannot do much good for international security, which is why modern diplomacy must learn from past mistakes and recapture momentum to benefit society through actions and not words.
Reference
Cohen, R. (2013). Opinion: Diplomacy is dead. The New York Times. Web.