There was something unconvincing about the foreign secretary William Hague’s call last month for Russia to “resolve the crisis in Crimea through diplomacy”. Perhaps it’s because we’ve heard this refrain before: in Syria for instance, where we were told it was “vital that diplomacy succeeds” and then it didn’t; or in Libya, where a last-ditch diplomatic mission ended in embarrassment and ultimately war. Or perhaps it’s because with 30,000 Russian troops already on the ground in Ukraine, appeals for a diplomatic solution seem as likely to be heeded as appeals for a higher power to intervene; and Lord knows there’s precious little chance of intervention at the moment.

In the West the ongoing economic malaise and war-weary legacy of Iraq and Afghanistan have diminished both the will and capacity of nations to take military action abroad. This point was underlined last summer when Parliament voted against the use of force in Syria. At the time many were quick to celebrate the change in mood but now, with the situation in Damascus increasingly bleak and the crisis in Ukraine still developing, questions about the potential of diplomacy to find a way out of these quandaries are beginning to be asked.

To confuse matters further, geopolitical and technological changes have made the task of conducting diplomacy even harder

Is it still good to talk?

The world’s major powers used to be able to resolve many of their problems at a diplomatic level. But in Syria, Ukraine and other flashpoints, diplomacy no longer seems effective, says Michael Bonnet

at precisely the time when the expectation on it is greatest.

“There’s no doubt that diplomacy has become more complicated,” says Paul Whiteway, a British diplomat for over 30 years and now a director of advisory group Independent Diplomat.

“It’s not like the 19th century when Britain could dispatch a gunboat and just the sound of the anchor dropping in the bay would calm everything down. No single nation on earth, not even the United States, can have that impact anymore.”

These sentiments were recently echoed by US Secretary of State John Kerry, who rather nostalgically recalled the Cold War as a time when America “could make really bad decisions and still win because we were pretty much the sole dominant economic and military power around. That’s not true anymore.”

As if to underline the point, Kerry last week was forced to walk away from long-running talks that failed to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Whiteway suggests that it’s not only the absence of a superpower that’s making the job of diplomats more difficult. He points towards the growth in the number of nation states and UN members, the increased role of non-governmental parties and the impact of the communications revolution as other factors that have disrupted the traditional diplomatic order.

“Governments are loath to admit

14 THE BIG ISSUE IN THE NORTH · 5-11 MAY 2014

BITN 1028_14,15,17 (diplomacey).indd 14 02/05/2014 12:10

that they are more or less powerless in the face of all this. In fact not only are they powerless but on occasion perhaps quite often, they don’t fully understand what is going on despite the fact that they go to huge lengths to collect intelligence. There are so many actors and the impact of those actors is so diverse and unpredictable that it is just really difficult to have much effect on what’s happening.”

Another former diplomat, Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles agrees, and thinks that acknowledging this

powerlessness is an inherently unpopular act.

“There is a time for diplomacy and there is a time when diplomacy doesn’t work. In the case of Syria at the moment it’s very difficult to

see any easy or early way out of the conflict by the use of force or the use of diplomacy. It’s a tough message for politicians to get across.”

As British ambassador to Afghanistan between 2007 and 2009, Cowper-Coles understands politically unpopular situations only too well. In that time he observed first-hand the impact of the American-led counter-insurgency against the Taliban and became an outspoken critic of the approach.

“One of the problems in Afghanistan is we got in without any idea of how we were going to get out. I don’t think you should engage in a problem unless you have a strategy for solving it or getting out of it.”

Cowper-Coles says he can understand why recent international events may have left the public sceptical about the potential of diplomacy to secure peace.

“The great trick with diplomacy as in so many other areas of life is to under-promise and over-deliver but too often the reverse happens.”

The most infamous example of over-promising came in 1938, when, upon his return from signing the Munich Agreement, Neville Chamberlain declared that “for the second time in our history, a Is it still good to talk?

“The trick is to under-promise and over-deliver but too often the reverse happens.”

Hispano-Flemish and English negotiators at the 1604 Somerset House conference, which brought to an end 20 years of war between Spain and England

155-11 MAY 2014 · THE BIG ISSUE IN THE NORTH

L I M I T S O F D I P L O M A C Y

BITN 1028_14,15,17 (diplomacey).indd 15 02/05/2014 12:10

British prime minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour.” Eleven months later, war was declared.

Such a lack of prudence among politicians and diplomats is something Whiteway believes creates unrealistic expectations about the power of diplomacy.

“There can often be a tendency for countries to talk up and exaggerate issues in one way or another and as a result our foreign policy or the public perception of it can become divorced from the reality on the ground. In the case of Ukraine it’s quite clear the West has no interest or ability to intervene.”

That word “ability” is significant. The ascendancy of diplomacy over military action isn’t just due to a declining appetite for war – it’s also the result of an inability to afford it. Last year the United States cut its defence budget by 8 per cent while cuts to Britain’s armed forces forced it out of the top five military spenders for the first time since the Second World War.

In this climate, what’s known as cultural diplomacy or soft power – essentially influencing through co-option and attraction as opposed to coercion – has become ever more important. Recent reports by both the British Academy and Chatham House have stressed that Britain has the potential to use its abundant soft power to retain and even enhance the country’s international influence.

“In Britain we underestimate our soft power and our influence around the world. Things like the BBC, the English language, the attraction of the UK – these are enormous assets at a time when our armed forces are being reduced for economic reasons,” says Cowper-Coles.

“I can think of other countries that

may have large armed forces but lack a particularly attractive message to put out to the world,” he adds, in characteristically diplomatic fashion.

But no matter how attractive the message, is it realistic to believe that the spread of culture alone could solve problems like those in Syria and Ukraine?

“Soft power is generally preventive,” says Cowper-Coles. “Not curative. But it can also help in healing the consequences of conflict and in creating the conditions in which the belligerent parties feel ready to end disputes.”

Cowper-Coles cites the role played by the United States in helping to resolve the Northern Ireland Troubles as an example. This process began with the granting of a visa to Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams in 1994 and culminated with the signing of the Good Friday Agreement in 1998, brokered in part by President Clinton’s personal emissary, George Mitchell.

More recently, diplomacy has played a part in the thawing of relations between the West and Iran and hopes are high that talks next week will bring an outline of a settlement of the nuclear dispute. Nevertheless, economic sanctions against Iran could be said to have been the most inflential factor.

Diplomacy then is a broad church that covers everything from sending gunboats to Piraeus to loaning pandas to Edinburgh Zoo. But between these

“Soft power can create conditions in which belligerent parties feel ready to end disputes.”

fearsome and fluffy extremes lies a profession at the crossroads. At times its credibility has been undermined by politicians who have used the term “diplomacy” cynically to give the impression that progress towards an amicable solution is being made, when it is not. And at times it has been rendered impotent by a belief that the velvet glove can carry out the work of the iron fist.

Whiteway is adamant that if diplomacy is to remain relevant in modern times, then it must evolve.

“Traditional diplomacy does not seem to have the answer. It may still be able to settle some bilateral disputes between neighbours, where the issues are a bit simpler. But when it comes to the mega-problems affecting the world, such as climate change, it isn’t able to find a solution. It needs to change.”

But change how? Whiteway questions the relevance of the UN, which he calls “an outmoded institution unsuited to tackling the problems” of the 21st century. “The trick is to find a new way of dealing with these.”

Cowper-Coles takes a more philosophical view. “In the end all wars and conflicts end through diplomatic means and negotiation. But diplomacy is just one tool in the toolbox of international relations. To be successful it needs to be backed by force, by the threat of force, by economic power and by a whole range of other instruments.”

Worst and best. Neville Chamberlain (left) claiming “peace in our time” with Hitler. Tony Blair, US Senator George Mitchell and Irish premier Bertie Ahern signing the 1998 Good Friday Agreement. Photo:PA

175-11 MAY 2014 · THE BIG ISSUE IN THE NORTH

L I M I T S O F D I P L O M A C Y

BITN 1028_14,15,17 (diplomacey).indd 17 02/05/2014 12:10