Valdai Club

The international relations systems of the past were built primarily thanks to the efforts of diplomats. To back this up, one of the session’s participants quoted Jules Cambon, who wrote that the art of diplomacy is all about the ability to negotiate and build partnerships to achieve a goal that will make it possible to avoid resolving a conflict by military means.

The discussion participants noted that new forms of diplomacy have appeared in the newly available communications environment. Previously, diplomacy was conducted mostly behind closed doors, but it has now become more open. We are witnessing an open exchange of opinions, remarks and comments on important international relations issues. Diplomacy has changed its forms. Familiar features are making way to new dimensions, such as public, cultural and economic diplomacy.

Diplomacy, as one participant noted, borrowing Henry Kissinger’s terminology, is a state activity implying personal interaction between diplomats or political leaders; it’s a craft, or an art to address the affairs of the state. Accordingly, a lot depends on the personal qualities of a diplomat. The list of requirements for a 21st-century diplomat was presented: caution; understanding how countries and their regions work; understanding the need to limit the use of military force; courage and bravery; creativity, the ability to understand how other negotiators assess the prospects of talks.

The experts were unanimous in saying that for many years following the Cold War diplomacy was in decline, and its instruments were ignored in addressing conflicts, which adversely affected international security and led to proliferation of local conflicts. The session participants reviewed the situation in Afghanistan, Ukraine, Syria and Iraq, noting that they are similar in that diplomacy hasn’t played a key role in preventing the proliferation of civil war into an international conflict in any one of these countries.

According to experts, conflict resolution should be based on all players participating in negotiations, including non-essential ones, who are nonetheless concerned about the situation. The issue of trust in diplomacy was discussed at length. Some participants opined that without trust there can be no productive talks. However, diplomatic relations during the Cold War were not trust-based to say the least, but there were certain successes such as the resolution of the Cuban missile crisis. The session participants felt that any work should be based on mutual respect and understanding, whereas trust is helpful in addressing challenging situations. Talks, especially informal and candid ones, are good for understanding each other.

Discussing diplomacy’s prospects, the experts noted difficulties, such as a lack of empathy, competition within blocs, hostility and increasing resistance to imposed solutions and models. They believe all of that could lead to an escalation of chaos and a loss of control over international relations. Conversely, the session participants quoted examples of "returning diplomacy," such as the Normandy four, which charged itself with painstaking talks to agree all of the provisions of an agreement on Iran's nuclear program. 

They focused, in particular, on the assumption that diplomacy is a tool of the political will of a state and its political leaders – a foreign policy tool. It may be more or less effective depending on who uses it and how. The discussion was based on the foreign policy of Germany, Russia, the United States and the Soviet Union.

In the end, the session participants concluded that conflicts do not just serve as a background to modern international relations, but are also diplomats’ main focus. Thus, diplomacy should focus on controlling the escalation of unavoidable conflicts, formulating consensus-based decisions and introducing and implementing compromise solutions. However, achieving major goals is possible only when political expediency takes precedence over fleeting considerations.