Daily Times

In an anarchic international system, each state has at least two avenues to ensure development and survival, diplomacy and deterrence (D2). Both these concepts date back to times immemorial. However, each state has differing mechanisms for employing these concepts in different sets of circumstances. I believe that the consequences of the failure of diplomacy and deterrence dilution may lead to violent conflicts that will only bring deaths, destruction, and devastation, particularly for small states.

The states that do not have conflicts with the neighbouring states deploy D2 for development, whereas the states that have protracted conflicts with neighbouring states employ them to ensure their territorial integrity and sovereignty.

Interestingly, the application of both these concepts requires skilful employment to draw maximum benefits to accomplish the interests of the states. In my opinion, states can avoid conflicts if both, diplomacy and deterrence are working. However, if at least one is working, the conflict can be managed, but if both fail, a violent conflict may become unavoidable. Therefore, it is incumbent upon states, particularly the smaller states that D2 continues to work at all times.

I understand that it is a challenging task for the smaller states to deter their bigger neighbours but the same can be done through alliance formations for which diplomacy will have to work relentlessly at all times.

Under neopolitics, the smaller states will never be sure if the other states will support their cause or not.

Looking at some ongoing wars and conflicts, Hamas may have their reasons for October 7, 2023 actions against the might of Israel, but the consequences have been disastrous for the people of Gaza. More than 40,000 noncombatants have embraced martyrdom so far, mostly women and children, and over 100,000 seriously injured. The Israeli atrocities have shaken the consciousness of the world’s populace except for the leadership of the major states like the United States and the United Kingdom.

Hamas did not read the evolving geopolitics, which is the hybrid employment of geopolitics, geostrategy, and geoeconomics. Each of these terms had clearly defined lines but the neopolitics has blurred the international environment further. Under geopolitics, the smaller states will never be sure if the other states will support their cause or not. Moreover, other major powers like Russia and China are in the consolidation phase before openly challenging the US-led Western world’s hegemony on the international organizations and institutions like the United Nations, The World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), etc.

Likewise, the Muslim Ummah is too busy evaluating the impact of neopolitics and therefore it was not in the interests of various regimes that they would even think of going against the existing world order until the expected change has been completed and the contours of the new international order are predictable.

In my opinion, the deterrent value (DV) of Hamas lies in its ability to surprise the adversary and gain support from like-minded groups in the region and beyond to cause damage to Israel’s critical infrastructure and sensitive installations. While Hamas did surprise the Israeli agencies, it did not receive the expected support to sustain its operations as well as defend itself from uninterrupted bombings that have caused huge losses to the life and property of non-combatants.

Another ongoing war where diplomacy and deterrence failed and led to serious consequences is between Russia and Ukraine. Ukraine’s DV lies in the support of the US-led Western world however the same was not even considered by the Russian leadership while crossing into the Ukrainian territory on February 24, 2022. On the other hand, Ukraine’s diplomatic efforts were invested in gaining support from the West for war instead of averting war by interacting in a meaningful dialogue with Russia. Since Russia had been warning Ukraine from joining NATO, therefore, Russians did not give weight to Western support for Ukraine’s war effort.

The US-led West used Ukraine as a Cold War proxy to engage Russia in a war of attrition so that its consolidation efforts to challenge the existing unilateral world order received a setback. The military and financial support by the so-called allies was never going to be enough to face off the Russian military and therefore Ukraine continues to lose territory and lives for the sake of other’s interests.

The consequences of the failure of diplomacy and deterrence for both the ongoing wars, Hamas-Israel, and Russia-Ukraine have been disastrous for the smaller parties. Therefore, it is incumbent upon smaller states or parties that they fully comprehend the evolving geopolitics before falling into the trap of global stakeholders who do not hesitate to sacrifice a relatively smaller ally for their gains. Each state regardless of its size and strengths, must employ diplomacy and deterrence to ensure its territorial integrity and sovereignty. If a particular state does not have an adequate deterrent value against a relatively larger adversary, it must opt for the alliance formations within the region and even beyond for the purpose.

Remember, the international order has still not evolved completely, and the US will do anything to keep its status as the sole superpower as long as possible, and in the process, it will sacrifice smaller members at will.

The writer of this article has authored three international books: “Nuclear Deterrence and Conflict Management Between India and Pakistan” “South Asia Needs Hybrid Peace” and “Understanding Sun Tzu and the Art of Hybrid War.”