‘Diplomacy can be hard in this polarised era, but it’s still our best chance for peace & stability’

ROOM TO TALK: ‘The best diplomacy goes unseen’. Picture by Rod Long

The Accidental Diplomat, a column by Paul Knott

The crucial art of diplomacy

Edwin Starr’s 1970 Motown hit single asked the question “War – what is it good for?” and answered it clearly with “absolutely nothing”. I think most of us would agree with that. Although I would add a line that is harder to fit into the chorus of a pop song – “except in extreme circumstances, when fighting back is essential to protect innocent people from the evil monsters like Hitler, Pol Pot and Putin the world vomits up from time to time”.

In all other circumstances, diplomacy is the main means of averting war and clearly preferable to the carnage of conflict. But what does diplomacy actually involve? And how can we tell when it is being done well? Or even that it is happening at all? I was a diplomat for twenty years and, as you are about to find out, still struggle to explain it succinctly.

The blunt-speaking military officers who were seconded to the Defence Section of the British Embassy in Moscow when I worked there had one suggestion. The sign on their office door read, “A diplomat is someone who can tell you to ‘go to Hell’ in way that makes you think you might enjoy the journey”. That is certainly a part of it. A persuasive tongue is a useful asset for a diplomat, especially one that can leave your opposite numbers thinking that the course of action you suggested was actually their own bright idea all along.

There is a lot more too it than that though. Perhaps a better analogy is that diplomats are like football or rugby referees – they are at their best when nobody notices their presence. They discreetly handle events without drawing attention to themselves, including spotting and foiling potential flare-ups before they ever happen. This enables everyone else to focus on the game and to avoid the kind of disruptions that spoil it. For diplomats, success is often measured by the crises that do not happen and the best “news” is when events are prevented from becoming bad enough to feature in the news at all.

Achieving these ideal outcomes is based upon diligently building contacts, acquiring information and thus developing knowledge about the country to which a diplomat is posted. In doing so, diplomats must avoid the common trap of focusing all their attention on influential elites in the capital.

There are many cases of dramatic changes bubbling up from below that few people in such circles saw coming – such as the 1979 Iranian Revolution and the 1989 collapse of communism in Eastern Europe, both of which are still having huge consequences on the world today. In such situations, the powerful people in the centre are usually the last ones to find out what is about to happen.

This work of building a deep understanding of other countries, how they will act in any given situation and their motivations for doing so enables policies to be developed in response to increase cooperation and prevent problems.

At the same time, a diplomat should usually be explaining clearly and persuasively what their own country’s interests and intentions are, in order to avoid issues arising from misunderstandings and confusion. Many people, UK Defence Attachés in Moscow included, would probably be surprised to discover that speaking “diplomatically” is in reality often much more forthright than flowery.

All this painstakingly acquired knowledge, persuasion and preparing the ground is what enables disputes to be identified early and agreements to be reached before they escalate into conflict. Ideally, such solutions are permanent and on terms that satisfy the preferences of your own country the most. But more often they involve making mutually acceptable compromises or even finding ways to delay difficult situations until the circumstances have improved or the political leaders involved have changed.

It is important to make sure that the desire for a perfect outcome does not become an obstacle to doing what is actually possible and adequate for the time being.

The imperfection and patience that successful diplomacy involves is somewhat out of step with our present era of instant gratification and all or nothing, ultra-polarised partisanship. But it often works and is still crucial in order to maintain whatever peace, stability and progress we can in the world.

The discreet initiatives currently being pursued in the Middle East and East Asia by US President Biden’s administration might turn out to be an example of diplomacy working well. Rather than being directed by the hollow rhetoric of a dangerous loudmouth like his predecessor, Biden’s foreign policy is driven by a team of experienced diplomats quietly doing the detailed work of making the world a safer place.

Even if they succeed, neither of these initiatives will produce ideal outcomes and the concessions they will involve will provide plenty to criticise. But they will also improve the chances of calm prevailing in two of the world’s worst potential flashpoint regions.

In the Middle East, US diplomats appears to be pursuing a series of interconnected understandings that will make Iran less of a threat, Saudi Arabia less of a nuisance and Israel less likely to get into a fight with either of them.

Simultaneously, in East Asia, the US is helping to broker a closer, more substantial relationship between historic rivals Japan and South Korea.

Bringing Japan and South Korea together is closely linked to the US’s China policy, which shows how diplomacy should never be understood as the search for “good relations” for their own sake.

Sometimes it is more important to risk bad relations by setting clear limits to an adversary about what you are willing to accept and construct alliances with other countries that share your interests to ensure these limits are respected. This is what the US and its Asian partners are doing to prevent the brutal Chinese dictatorship from stealing, threatening and bullying its way to global dominance. China’s growing problems, evident annoyance about being opposed and inability to do much productive about it indicate that the policy is working.

It is possible that some of this approach has been learned from a recent diplomatic failure. For far too long, Russia’s appalling behaviour (such as attacking Georgia in 2008, invading Ukraine for the first time in 2014 and murdering people with radioactive poison on Britain’s streets) was met with a weak response for the sake of maintaining “good relations”, or at least financially beneficial ones, with that powerful country.

Rather than encouraging Russia to reciprocate, this feebleness encouraged the Putin regime’s belief that it could get away with anything, with the horrific consequences we are now witnessing in Ukraine.

So, in conclusion, the point of diplomacy is to win friends and influence people. Except when it is not and its purpose is to deter enemies instead.