Is Diplomacy Failing to Resolve Global Conflicts?
M. Hassan
Bilawal Marri
Feroz Khatran
M. Umair
Maqsood Baloch
[email protected]
Department of Political Science and IR
ABSTRACT
In an era of escalating tensions and unresolved conflicts, the efficacy of
diplomacy is being increasingly questioned. This research explores the
limitations of traditional diplomacy in addressing global crises, with a focus
on three key conflicts: the Ukraine crisis, the Taiwan tensions, and the
Kashmir dispute. Through a detailed analysis, this study examines the
underlying diplomatic failures in each of these situations, shedding light on
the implications for global peace and security. The research also delves
into historical examples of diplomatic failures, including World War I and
the Gulf War, to identify patterns and lessons that can inform contemporary
diplomatic efforts. Furthermore, it analyzes the current state of diplomacy in
resolving these conflicts and proposes strategies to prevent diplomatic
failures, including open communication, flexibility, mediation, confidence-
building measures, early intervention, and strengthening international
institutions. The study aims to contribute to a deeper understanding of the
complexities of diplomacy and inform more effective approaches to conflict
resolution.
Introduction
In an era of escalating tensions and unresolved conflicts, the
effectiveness of diplomacy is being critically questioned. From the war in
Ukraine to the rising tensions over Taiwan and the long-standing Kashmir
conflict, the global community is witnessing a troubling trend of diplomatic
stalemates. This research explores whether traditional diplomacy is failing
to address these crises effectively. Through a detailed analysis, the study
will focus on three key conflicts: the ongoing Ukraine crisis, the geopolitical
tensions surrounding Taiwan, and the protracted Kashmir dispute. By
examining the underlying diplomatic failures in each of these situations, this
research aims to shed light on the limitations of current diplomatic
frameworks and their implications for global peace and security.
What is Diplomacy?
Diplomacy is based on the idea that communication and negotiation
can resolve disputes and differences between nations without resorting to
violence. It involves a complex network of negotiations, treaties,
agreements, and alliances that seek to maintain peace and stability in the
international system. Diplomacy is essential for addressing issues such as
trade, security, human rights, and humanitarian crises on the global stage.
On the other hand, conflicts are the ultimate failure of diplomacy.
When negotiations break down and disputes cannot be resolved
peacefully, nations may resort to military force to achieve their objectives.
War can have devastating consequences, leading to loss of life,
destruction of infrastructure, and long-lasting social and economic
upheaval. It is a brutal and costly means of settling disputes that should be
avoided whenever possible.
Research Problem
1. Is Diplomacy Failing to Resolve Recent Global Conflicts?
Complications in Diplomacy
There could be many complications between the States some times
when they could not communicate properly and try to influence each other
to get a solution done which becomes more dangerous, the best way is to
communicate properly and if required bargain and adjust differences
through diplomacy. Although a wide range of methods are used for conflict
resolution, it may be negotiations, mediation, arbitration and diplomacy,
and whichever is the best way to settle disputes. The prominent quality of
the ambassador or diplomat is his communication ability.
A positive conversation and ability to listen to the counterpart is extremely
important, because a diplomat must have this quality to
convey the message or issue of his government or State to the other
country through his counterpart. It is diplomat who builds the reputation of
his country at international level.
Historical Example of Failure
War can be resorted to because one's enemy is vulnerable
Because one’s ally would not expect such a drastically Act Or because one
is simply bored at home with this big army and all these plans and nobody
to share them with in circumstances such as these diplomacy almost
certainly fails.
Weather it was human blenders misunderstanding pure ambition National
Honor or the balance of power that caused the diplomacy to fail the one
constant in which of these events is that when diplomacy did fail war was
the result.
World War I
World War I was a defining event of the 20th century – a
military and economic disaster from which Europe’s Great
Powers never recovered. The war left 8.5 million men dead,
toppled three monarchies, ended four empires, and set the stage
for European decolonization. Scholars have studied the origins of
World War I and its results from every possible angle, whether
social, military, economic or intellectual. What they have not
considered, however, is diplomacy during the war itself.
The mismanagement of the July Crisis in July of 1914 by Imperial
Germany is often regarded as the most important factor that
contributed to the outbreak of World War One. The diplomatic
collapse, which was evident through Kaiser Wilhelm's going on
holiday during the most tense moments and the infamous 'blank
cheque' he gave to Austro-Hungary, however, other important
causes contributed far more to the outbreak. The diplomatic
failure in July was just the final nail in the coffin which kick-
started the horrific conflict.
Before we examine the short-term cause. Article 231 blames
Germany for the war, and it is also known as the 'War Guilt
Clause'. While solely blaming one nation for the start of World
War One is incredibly biased, undoubtedly, Germany's foreign
policy played a huge role in the outbreak of war. When in 1890
Bismarck was sacked, as depicted in the cartoon 'Dropping the
Pilot', Germany's foreign policy changed for the worse. In the
next two decades, Germany would antagonise major European
powers and worsen the tension and rivalries with Britain, Russia,
and France. This is much more important than just the short-
term cause in 1914.
The infamous Zimmerman telegram destroyed the
relationship with Britain and forced them to pursue an alliance
elsewhere. Along with the naval race and the building of the
Dreadnoughts, Britain and Germany grew further apart each
year, and in 1906 a détente was reached with France in the
following Moroccan Crisis. Germany once again made a critical
mistake as they pushed France and Britain closer together.
Germany's worst nightmare would come to fruition after this
Moroccan Crisis, as a Triple Entente was formed with Russia. As
George Kennan himself said, the writer of the notorious long
telegram, the Franco- Russian Entente of 1894 and the
diplomatic encirclement caused World War One.
Once Britain joined this alliance, Germany was now truly
diplomatically and territorially encircled. A war would have
broken out either way between the Central Powers and the
Entente, it was only a matter of time.
Therefore, these long-term causes made war inevitable and the
main cause for them was German aggressive, confusing foreign
policy which continuously worsened tension between European
powers.
short-term causes, particularly the diplomatic failure in July
which was previously mentioned. This was the final nail in the
coffin.
The Balkan Powder Keg was a significant event in the region,
triggered by Italy's invasion of Libya, leading to a rise in Balkan
nationalism and the First Balkan War. This war, considered the
start of World War One, resulted in territorial disputes and
shifted power to the Triple Alliance. Serbian nationalists also
claimed Bosnian ports. This relevant example of territorial
disputes based on ideology, motivation and other factors kick-
started the July Crisis in 1914, as Gavrilo Princip assassinated
the Archduke of Austria.
When Kaiser Wilhelm went on holiday, a true example of
mismanagement, he left the German diplomats to try and
negotiate more peaceful terms with Serbia, something they were
not interested in doing. Kaiser gave Austria the infamous 'blank
cheque', encouraged them to invade Serbia, knowing that Russia
would be forced to declare war on the Central Powers. This is an
example of how the alliance system contributed to the outbreak
of World War One. The ten impossible demands by Austria-
Hungary were rejected by Serbia, and thus, they were promptly
invaded.
What followed was a complete breakdown of diplomacy between
Germany and Russia, as full-on mobilisation ensued. Russia was
the first to mobilise, indicating they were also not interested in
peace talks. But after all, they were obliged to support Serbia
after the embarrassment of the Bosnian Crisis of 1908. To
conclude, the mismanagement of the crisis in 1914 was the final
nail in the coffin.
The Gulf War
In the Gulf war scholars have identify a number of factors which
led to the failure of diplomacy, both before and after the invasion. One of
the most significant factors was the misperceptions on the part of the Iraqi
leadership. Iraq did not understand the radical changes in the Soviet Union,
and in U.S. Soviet relations. They expected the Soviets to oppose U.S.
military involvement in the Middle East. The Iraqi leadership did not
understand U.S. domestic politics. They believed the U.S. was still unwilling
to use military force in the aftermath of Vietnam. They also underestimated
President Bush's need to improve his popularity ratings and get rid of his
popular image as a "wimp." Saddam believed that there was an ongoing
U.S. conspiracy trying to depose him, and so viewed any U.S. statements
with extreme suspicion. Finally, the Iraqi leadership overestimated their
ability to amass popular Arab support, and overestimated Arab
unwillingness to accept U.S. intervention and troops.
Another significant factor was the misperceptions and mixed signals from
the international community. The U.S. in particular sent mixed signals to
Iraq. Arab states also sent ambiguous signals, indicating some willingness
to accommodate Iraq's demands. Kuwait's hard-line refusal to negotiate
signaled to Iraq that nothing short of force would move Kuwait to
compromise. Western nations underestimated Saddam's determination to
act to redress Iraq's grievances. Western nations assumed that invading
Kuwait was not in Iraq's best interests, and realizing this, Iraq would not
invade.
Analyses of the Current Global Conflicts and Diplomatic Role
1. Kashmir Issue
Since the inception of Pakistan, the disputed
territory of Kashmir has been the bone of contention
between Pakistan and India. Both the states have
fought almost three wars due to this issue, but the end
result has always been a stalemate. The issue couldn’t
get resolved yet, neither through wars nor through
diplomacy. The people of Kashmir have long fought for
the right to self-determination, whether it takes the
form of independence or annexation to Pakistan.
Since 1948, when it adopted a resolution asking for a
plebiscite to ascertain the will of the Kashmiri people,
the United Nations has been involved in efforts to find
a peaceful resolution to the Kashmir dispute .
A number of nations and organizations made several
attempts to promote diplomatic relations and talks between
India and Pakistan about Kashmir, but none of these has been
particularly successful. Among the noteworthy initiatives are:
the Simla Agreement of 1972, stating that India and Pakistan
should negotiate a peaceful, bilateral solution to the Kashmir
conflict, the Lahore Declaration of 1999 reiterated the Simla
Agreement and stated the willingness of both nations to
address all disputes, including Kashmir, via discussion, the
Composite Dialogue Process of 2004–2008 served as a platform
for extensive and ongoing discussion of all remaining problems,
including Kashmir, between India and Pakistan.
Adding to this, a covert plan for a four-point solution to the
Kashmir issue, based on softer boundaries, demilitarization,
self-governance, and collaborative administration, purportedly
featured the U.S-led backchannel diplomacy of 2006–2007.
Following a meeting on the fringes of a regional conference, the
foreign ministers of Pakistan and India released the Istanbul
Declaration of 2009, in which they declared their determination
to begin talks on all matters, including Kashmir.
Moreover, the prime ministers of India and Pakistan agreed to
restart talks on all problems, including Kashmir, during the
Thimphu Meeting in 2011, which took place on the fringes of a
regional summit. Also, the foreign ministers of India and
Pakistan met at the Heart of Asia Conference in 2015, which
ended with a commitment to begin talks on all problems,
including Kashmir.
But all the diplomatic initiatives went in vain as they were
hampered by various factors. Both being rivals since their
formation, India and Pakistan do not trust each other at all, so
they avoid composite dialogues.
However, most nations resisted taking a side or meddling in
what they viewed as a domestic Indian affair. The U.N. Security
Council (UNSC) was approached by China and Pakistan to
discuss the matter, but they failed in getting any response.
There hasn’t been any formal communication or diplomacy
between India and Pakistan on the Kashmir issue.
Therefore, unless there is a fundamental change in the parties’
viewpoints and strategies, which is not anticipated anytime
soon, diplomacy will continue to fail in Kashmir. Granting
Jammu and Kashmir, the status of an independent state would
also not benefit either country since it would exacerbate the
region’s volatility and unpredictability.
2. Israel-Gaza Conflict
The international community's failure to agree on
a ceasefire is costing thousands of lives, says Save the
Children, as the United Nations Security Council (UNSC)
prepares to meet tomorrow to discuss the escalation of
violence in the occupied Palestinian territory and Israel.
Since 1945, the UNSC have been unable to
reach consensus on the protection of civilians in Israel
and Palestine 36 times through 36 draft resolutions.
More than four weeks ago, following four previous
failures, the UN passed a resolution calling for an
immediate humanitarian truce between warring parties,
and demanding aid access. Meanwhile, children and
families in Gaza have been left without protection and
have been denied what they need to survive.
At least 6,000 children have been killed in Gaza since
the start of the escalation, according to the Ministry of
Health in Gaza. With challenges in collecting and
verifying casualty figures since 11 November due to the
collapse of communications and services in hospitals in
Gaza, the reality is likely higher. A further 4,400 children
are reported missing likely buried under the rubble. 58
children have been killed in the West Bank and 33 in
Israel, with at least 36 children estimated to be among
the hostages held in Gaza, according to Israeli media.
While the current pause in fighting has allowed
agencies to bring some aid and fuel into the south of
Gaza, not enough aid is reaching the north, with civilians
remaining cut off from electricity, food and water
supplies, whilst all hospitals are out of service.
While Member States have continued to prioritise politics
over people, four out of five people in Gaza have been
made homeless, over 60% of Gaza's buildings have been
damaged, health facilities have become battlegrounds,
children have continued to wake up as hostages, and
water and food supplies have been all but entirely cut.
No child in Gaza has gone to school since 7 October and
no one knows what the future holds.
"If the UNSC cannot uphold its mandate to promote
peace, security and respect for human rights and
international law, then the system is failing. With or
without a resolution, children have the right to
humanitarian access and protection. When the UNSC
calls for these rights to be respected, and still nothing
happens, then the global rules-based order is failing
those children" says Save the Children Country Director
in the occupied Palestinian territory, Jason Lee.
3. Ukraine Crises
The invasion of Ukraine followed a series of failed
diplomatic efforts.
In December 2021, Biden met virtually with Putin in
what the White House described as a "moment of
crisis." European leaders, including France's Emmanuel
Macron, also met with Putin in an effort to defuse
tensions. In February 2022, Biden spoke directly with
Putin again in an hourlong call , during which the U.S.
leader warned of a decisive response to an invasion,
that nonetheless resulted in no "fundamental change,"
according to a senior administration official . Days
later, the Kremlin claimed to be pulling troops back
from the border regions in eastern Ukraine, even as
the U.S. insisted that Russian troop strength in those
areas was actually building significantly and that an
invasion was imminent.
Days later, the Kremlin claimed to be pulling troops
back from the border regions in eastern Ukraine, even
as the U.S. insisted that Russian troop strength in
those areas was actually building significantly and that
an invasion was imminent.
Along with the president, U.S. Secretary of State
Antony Blinken repeatedly warned that invasion could
come "at any time."
However, early on in the diplomatic effort, Biden staked the
U.S. position that Washington would not go to war directly with
Russia in Ukraine and instead would "rally the world and oppose
its aggression."
"The United States and our allies and partners around the world
are ready to impose powerful sanctions and export controls," he
said
The president also warned Americans to leave Ukraine, saying
he wouldn't be sending troops to rescue them in Ukraine.
While the "steep consequences" that the White House promised
failed to deter Putin from the invasion, the Biden administration
hopes they will succeed at punishing him for his actions.
Meanwhile, the European Union blacklisted Russian lawmakers
and officials, banned EU investors from trading in Russian state
bonds and moved to economically isolate Donbas separatist
entities.
Complicating diplomatic efforts is that a third of Europe's
natural gas supply comes from Russia, a fact that threatened to
blunt a unified response. EU member Germany nonetheless
agreed to shut down the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline project
with Russia, a huge potential revenue source for the Kremlin.
It is hardly deniable that diplomacy failed in the lead-up to Russia’s
invasion of Ukraine. Diplomacy failed, the argument may go, because
Americans and Europeans did not take Putin’s threats seriously; or
because they did not propose to the President of the Russian Federation
solutions that would have prevented the so-called special military
operation. Looking more backwards, one could maintain that diplomacy
failed because it was not capable (or willing) to involve more and better the
Russian Federation in defining a shared post-cold war security architecture
in Europe.
Equally, it could be argued that diplomacy has failed because, after two
year of war, it is still unable to look for a credible path to a cessation of
hostilities, or to identify the conditions for an agreement between the
aggressor and the aggressed. But here, again, the counterargument may
be that the search for a dialogue has so far met with the systematic
practice of “fait accompli” by the Russian Federation. This has been
demonstrated numerous times: from the occupation by Russian troops of
parts of Ukrainian territory, and even more so the annexation to the
Russian Federation of the Ukrainian territories not only of the whole
Donbass, but also of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia; to Russia’s consistent
determination to set clearly unacceptable conditions, such as the request
that Kyiv gives up all the territories occupied by Russian troops and
renounces to its sovereignty over almost 20 per cent of its territory.
Nevertheless, diplomacy accomplished some minor, and sectoral, but not
insignificant results in the course of the first year of the conflict. This has
been the case for the agreement between Russians and Ukrainians on a
partial exchange of prisoners; and for the temporary solution to allow ships
carrying grains, cereals and other food products to leave the Ukrainian
ports in the Black Sea and export these products to their final destinations.
In both cases, Turkey played a major role, taking advantage of a carefully
designed neutrality between the two belligerents.
Diplomacy has worked less well, however, in broadening the international
consensus on the condemnation of Russia and assistance to Ukraine from
the Western camp to other major players on the world’s stage. Indeed, the
West, although it reacted united against the Russian aggression, has failed
to engage either China or India or other important international players. Too
many governments have preferred not to take sides openly; and have
adopted a position of deliberate ambiguity toward Russia, or even, in some
cases, helped Russia circumvent Western sanctions.
Thus, a significant divide has emerged between a Western world strongly
committed to supporting Ukraine and a new Global South unwilling to join
the West in this move.
Strategies To Prevent Diplomatic Failures
1. Open Communication:
Diplomats should encourage open, transparent discussions to
avoid miscommunication or misunderstandings that could
escalate tensions
2. Flexibility and Compromise:
Rather than rigidly sticking to national interests, diplomats
should be willing to compromise and find middle ground to
resolve conflicts.
3. Mediation and Third Parties:
Involving neutral mediators can help bridge gaps between
conflicting parties and offer unbiased solutions.
4. Confidence-Building Measures:
Encouraging countries to take small steps toward cooperation
(like arms control agreements) can help build trust over time.
5. Early Intervention:
Addressing issues before they escalate into crises is
crucial. Diplomatic efforts should start early to prevent
conflicts from becoming unmanageable.
6. Strengthening International Institutions:
Bodies like the United Nations can play an important role in
resolving conflicts through diplomacy, and strengthening these institutions
makes diplomacy more effective.
References
2023. 11 28. https://reliefweb.int/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/gaza-repeated-diplomatic-
failures-continue-cost-thousands-childrens-lives-says-save-children-ahead-un-security-council-
meeting.
Feroci, Authors: Ferdinando Nelli. 2023. 02 21. https://www.iai.it/en/pubblicazioni/diplomacy-and-war-
against-ukraine.
Glaser, Tanya. n.d. Conflict Research Consortium. https://www.beyondintractability.org/artsum/rakisits-
thegulf.
Malik, Amara. 2023. How Diplomacy Has Failed To Resolve the Kashmir Conflict? 08 08.
https://international.thenewslens.com/article/186460.
Siegel, Jennifer. n.d. Diplomacy of the First World War. https://mershoncenter.osu.edu/research-
projects/diplomacy-first-world-war-0.
