Much of what we know about the origin of early diplomacy is rooted in the experiences and practices of the ancient civilizations. “Amarna letters” reveal a glimpse of diplomatic relations between Egyptians and Mesopotamians in the late Bronze Age. Later, the “Megarian decree” was the first use of economic tools in foreign policy by any state, as sanctions levied by Athens against the city-state of Megara.
Even in the Middle Ages, empires maintained relations through envoys, treaties, and strategic marriages to formalise relations. Diplomacy played a pivotal role in the survival, stability, and conflict resolution between those civilizations. From ancient civilizations to the Middle Ages, the nature, standards, and characteristics of diplomacy remained consistent except for the operating principles and conduct of diplomacy, which evolved as society progressed.
The Peace of Westphalia established the principles of sovereign equality of states, which became the basis for bilateral diplomatic relations in Europe. Nation-states maintained power relations, although classical diplomacy was secret and state-centric in essence, yet sovereign entities achieved a balance of power through interstate diplomacy, secret but successful for peace in Europe. Gentili and Vattel nourished this basic system with international law, state duties, and relations between sovereign states.
The fundamental objective was to maintain peace and balance of power, but each state pursued laws and norms according to its national interests. Different prevailing ideologies, democracy, and colonisation between the 18-19th centuries shattered the Westphalian order of peaceful co-existence, which resulted in two world wars, the Cold War, and bipolarisation.
The current trajectory of modern diplomacy has touched its lowest point in history, frequently failing, notably evident in the recent India-Pakistan and Iran-Israel crises. The diplomatic paralysis and the risk of escalation between nuclear-armed states raised critical concerns such as why modern diplomacy collapses in conflict resolution.
Despite its open nature and the assistance of international organisations to end hostilities and boost bilateral relations. The ironic decline of modern diplomacy is no different from the classical one. State interests still overshadow rule-based systems, Realpolitik still succeeds normative structure in contrast with the Gentili, the Grotius, and the Vattelian doctrines.
The conflict between India and Pakistan, involving the deployment of missiles and drones temporarily eroded deterrence. Both parties demonstrated maximum determination to escalate the situation for their sovereign integrity, and a nuclear catastrophe was perilously close. International peace is very fragile, just managed by mutual understanding and state-to-state engagement.
States with nuclear weapons bear more responsibility for sustaining the fragile peace. The US and the USSR survived a tense era of Cold War, important to recall the Cuban Missile Crisis nearly pushed both countries to the brink of nuclear confrontation. But the deadlock ended with President Kennedy’s direct engagement with the Soviet Premier Khrushchev.
The diplomatic breakdown between the two nuclear rivals in South Asia has revived memories of the Cold War. Since 2019, India has challenged twice the sovereign integrity of Pakistan. Disregarding nuclear deterrence and its consequences on the region and international peace.
The decline of classical diplomacy did not come with the outbreak of the two world wars, but rather when states attempted to hijack the League of Nations and reshape the regional order in pursuit of their interests, which ultimately resulted in two deadly wars and a nuclear catastrophe.
Foreign Policy is a subject of public opinion in democracies. Public voices shape the behaviour of states, but the hyper-nationalist public sentiment has surged in India, with growing anti-Pakistan sentiments. Since 2014, the public perception has been engineered with misinformation, prejudice and Hindutva jingoism.
A perfect archetype of Nazi Totalitaria, where minds, memories and identities were controlled for ideological absolutism. Populist regimes lack accountability for their foreign policy attitude, allowing them to align their local political manifestations with statecraft.
As the peace in the contemporary era is under strain, the Cold War history is evident of such rational actors caught between the dual imperatives of war and peace. Wars can be avoided, and conflicts can be resolved if diplomacy is valued. Accusations, miscalculations, and escalations are likely to end with chaos and catastrophe.
International peace is not just built on the conceptual foundations of the United Nations (UN), and other supranational organisations. It is built and sustained by states. International bodies assist in preserving peace and stability through rules and laws.
The crisis of state sovereignty and diplomacy is embedded in the modern problems experienced by states. Another catalyst that jeopardises modern-day state sovereignty is the speed, range and destructiveness of advanced weapons driven by technology, different ideologies, and the vital national interests of states. Conflict resolution is undermined in the shadow of glorified armed capabilities of states, enabling actors to resolve conflicts with confrontations rather than cooperation.
The success of peace through regional cohesion is reflected in the international political theatre due to the complex interdependent system of economies and political relations. Regional peace serves as a basis for international peace. The choice of war and peace is an open book of options for states, but the moral reminders from the past stand as instructive precedents for states in their decisions making.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in the article are of the author and do not necessarily represent the institute’s policy.
Authored by: Naseem Sabzal Mastoi, Research Assistant at BTTN, Quetta
Read More: Economic Diplomacy and Pakistan’s Quest for Economic Security
