Veronica Maimescu

International Diplomacy is built on the principle of collaboration, resolving potential conflicts through soft power, and peaceful means. It serves as a channel of communication as well as a tactful method of negotiating on issues concerning states. Some of these issues include but are not limited to power imbalances, territorial disputes, global health, terrorism, and the threat of nuclear weapons.

“Nuclear weapons are the greatest threat to world peace”.

Mary Robinson

After the so-called ‘long peace,’ the world finds itself once again tangled in one of the major violent conflicts in Europe. Russia invades Ukraine, and with that comes the threat to use nuclear weapons as Russian leader Vladimir Putin’s plans to occupy Ukraine quickly fail dramatically.

As pointed out by Bryan Walsh in Vox, (2022) Russia’s choice to mobilise its strategic nuclear forces prior to the invasion caused global alarm as we all know the devastating consequences. Is Putin threat to use nuclear weapons real? If the threat of nuclear weapons were to be used as a last resort, it could mean that the leader finds himself in desperation, spreading fear and horror. However, the usage of nuclear weapons could also mean an end to Russia as well. Also, it could mean an end to the whole world. It is not difficult to imagine a scenario where a nuclear weapon falls into the wrong hands; indeed, the consequences are far from diplomatic.

Where does diplomacy stand in a messy war? Well, diplomacy remains highly relevant in the modern world, particularly where states with nuclear weapons are in the role of aggressors. While diplomacy may succeed in resolving minor conflicts, it stands on fragile ground. We witness in real time how it fails to establish peace and prevent major issues such as armed, violent conflicts.

Diplomatic efforts often require strong political will and commitment.

There is no doubt that major gaps and challenges exist in diplomacy. Diplomatic efforts often require strong political will and commitment to a resolution from all parties involved, which is difficult to achieve. The power imbalances between negotiating parties can undermine diplomatic efforts and make the process challenging.

When one party holds significantly more influence, resources, or leverage than others, it may exploit its position to impose terms that are unfavourable to weaker parties, leading to resentment and mistrust. Diplomacy relies heavily on trust between negotiating parties. The issue with trust is that it is too vague, difficult to measure, very challenging to build, and easy to break. For example, past betrayals, broken promises, or perceived violations of agreements can significantly erode trust and confidence, making it hard to sustain diplomatic momentum and cooperation.

Leaders forget that political leadership and diplomacy are different and many times take the role of diplomats without necessary capabilities.

It is common for state leaders to diminish the role of diplomats and intervene directly, thus bypassing traditional diplomatic channels. While these actions can bring potential benefits, such as important signaling in commitment to solving conflicts, faster solutions, and visibility.

On the other hand, major risks may follow, such as a lack of expertise and emphasis on the relationship between leaders instead of broader diplomatic objectives or institutional frameworks. Leaders often seek to shape their legacy through diplomatic achievements or landmark agreements that enhance their historical reputation. In pursuit of a positive legacy, leaders may prioritise personal or symbolic victories in diplomacy, sometimes at the expense of pragmatic or sustainable solutions to complex international issues.

Despite devastating history lessons on highly costly damages, both human and economic, it is disheartening to witness leaders who have chosen the path of aggression instead of cooperation, building bridges, fostering understanding, and seeking common ground, even in the face of profound differences.

UN plays a crucial role in Diplomacy for Peace and yet it has major gaps that has been widely exploited

Where does the UN stand in Global Governance and what capacity does it have in maintaining peace, building bridges, and fostering international collaboration? Well, many have placed great hopes in the international organization to extend the periods of reduced conflict through diplomacy and mediation, promotion of dialogue, and collaboration.

Yet violent conflicts still arise. Perhaps there are major gaps in the UN system, in terms of enforcing the law and norms of peaceful coexistence. While each state is following its own interests, its own political agenda within the UN, vulnerable communities are exposed to violence and deprivation. As the organisation relies heavily on voluntary contributions, it is no surprise that there are political divisions on the distributions of funds.

Expelling Russia from the UN Security Council

And the worst part is the UN brain, the Security Council which fails dramatically to secure peace and security through diplomacy. A fish always rots from the head down. The failures within the Security Council impose great danger to the whole system. The five permanent members with veto power (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) have substantial power in decision-making, which reflects the post-World War II geopolitical order.

The ability of these permanent members to veto resolutions gives them considerable influence over the Council’s decisions, making it a pivotal forum for great power diplomacy. And yet, having Russia as a current aggressor on the Security Council raises multiple questions on the strengths of the foundation it has been built. Is it possible to expel Russia from the UN Security Council? Thomas D. Grant provided quite an impressive guide, in which the author argues that Ukraine may have a valid claim to the USSR Security Council seat.

While diplomacy and the UN remain relevant in modern international relations, its efficacy is often hindered by political will. The tendency of leaders to bypass diplomatic channels and directly intervene can exacerbate tensions and impede long-term solutions. Without genuine cooperation and diplomatic dialogue, achieving a more peaceful and secure future for all becomes an elusive goal.