Since time immemorial, diplomacy has been employed to avoid wars and conflicts. The States established a requisited diplomatic corps across the globe. The level and size of the staff largely depended on the bilateral relations, geopolitical, geostrategic, and geoeconomic or the neopolitics, and the significance of the host state.
Theoretically, the practice remains, but has been expanded through the establishment of numerous international and regional organisations. However, the same does not appear to bring peace, stability, and security, particularly for the relatively smaller and weaker states. Perhaps, because realism remains dominant in international relations, and the Western world persists with the dictums of Lord Palmerston, Niccolò Machiavelli, and Carl von Clausewitz.
The most plausible reason for the diplomatic failures of Western powers to avert or avoid wars and conflicts is the economic interests of the war-making machines.
Briefly, Lord Palmerston (20 October 1784-18 October 1865) served as Britain’s Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1855 to 1858 and from 1859 to his death in 1865. He was of the view that there are no permanent friends and foes in international relations, but the interests. His precepts on national interest being supreme coincided with Machiavelli’s advice to the Prince that ‘The ends justify the means.’ Machiavelli laid great emphasis on the idea that state interests are supreme, for which the Ruler can go to any length to enforce them. Likewise, Clausewitz also professed that ‘war is a continuation of policy by other means.’
The above-referred are the three most notable political theorists and practitioners from the Western world whose precepts remain in practice even today. Hence, one must not be surprised if the U.S keeps on vetoing the UNSC Resolutions on the ceasefire in Gaza. Because, for them, the state’s interests, as they determine, have to be achieved even if hundreds of thousands are killed and rendered homeless.
Suppose the most powerful state at the United Nations is not allowing diplomacy to work; how can we expect it to work anywhere else, either bilaterally or at multilateral forums?
Disappointed on the Western front, where war is often seen as a preferred option to resolve conflicts, one can learn a great deal from the teachings of the East. The Chinese sage Sun Tzu, some 2500 years ago, had pronounced that one must try to win wars without fighting. However, if war is unavoidable, it must be brief and decisive, as protracted conflicts are often counterproductive.
Modern-day China is following Sun Tzu’s precepts in letter and spirit. China has not gone to war, except for some border clashes with India in recent years, and thus continues to advocate for global peace, stability, cooperation, and development.
Diplomacy, when employed as a tool to avoid wars and conflicts, manage and resolve disputes, and strengthen bilateral or multilateral relations, can be highly effective because every war ultimately ends through diplomatic efforts, either by signing an Agreement or a Peace treaty.
This may appear overly simplistic, but it is doable because launching a prolonged diplomatic campaign is much cheaper than launching a shortest possible military campaign of any nature. One is reminded of the longest-serving Soviet diplomat, Andre Gromyko, who insisted that ‘Ten years of talk is better than one day of war.’ Unfortunately, Russians have ignored him, and the war in Ukraine is well over three years old with no end in sight.
The most plausible reason for the diplomatic failures of Western powers to avert or avoid wars and conflicts is the economic interests of the war-making machines, the Military Industrial Complex (MIC). Today’s powerhouses need wars to run their economies because they are not manufacturing any consumer goods. All small and medium-sized manufacturing is done either in China, India and other developing countries. The Western powers are only producing combat aircraft, missiles, drones, bombs, and space vehicles. They sell these to developing states at exorbitant prices, which are determined by themselves. Their job becomes easy because they first create fear of security among the developing states, either directly or through their proxies, and then sell their arms and equipment at will.
In my opinion, the Western world, until the evolving international system truly becomes multilateral, will not allow diplomacy to flourish and do its primary function of striving for peace, stability and security across the globe. However, once the international system truly reflects multilateralism, one can hope and expect that sanity will prevail and global powers will reflect on past wars and conflicts, giving diplomacy a chance to bring a period of relative peace and stability at the international and regional levels.
The writer of this article has authored four international books: Nuclear Deterrence and Conflict Management Between India and Pakistan, South Asia Needs Hybrid Peace, Understanding Sun Tzu and the Art of Hybrid War, and Diplomacy and Deterrence.”