In his guest commentary, Emil Brix talks about the challenges diplomats face at the current time.
By Emil Brix
In 2020, uninvited Chinese diplomats turned up at a reception hosted by Taiwan’s representative office in Fiji, where they proceeded to photograph the guests.When they were asked to leave the room, a fight broke out between the diplomats, during which a Taiwanese representative sustained head injuries and had to be taken to hospital.
Diplomats and waiters rarely come to blows. Yet both professions frequently have to deal with difficult customers. At least in Viennese coffee houses, a deliberate degree of unfriendliness towards guests is regarded as a subtle form of a waiter’s revenge.
Among diplomats – unless they also work for other intelligence services – respectful interaction with colleagues from other countries or organisations is the rule. In the public perception, and in the popular stereotype, they are virtually regarded as world champions of respectful dialogue.
International relations cannot be based permanently and fairly on “coercive power”, on the hard power of whoever happens to be stronger. Trust, compromise and dialogue are essential, particularly when the world order has been thrown into disarray. Diplomacy is needed most when it appears least successful.
The current wars in Eastern Europe, the Middle East and African countries will not be decided on the battlefield, even if there are statesmen who believe this – or at least want us to believe it. Mediation, conciliation and negotiation – in other words, diplomacy – are the only means of achieving a peace that can be as lasting as possible. It is a truism that dialogue between enemies is difficult for a wide range of reasons, but it must take place. In this sense, the widespread call for more diplomatic initiatives in conflict situations is absolutely justified.
At the end of almost every conflict comes a diplomatic solution – for example, a peace treaty or, at the very least, a “frozen conflict”. The diplomatic process therefore “wins” through perseverance. Much of classical diplomacy takes place behind closed doors. What is made public is usually limited to agreements that have already been negotiated to the point where they hold out a realistic prospect of success. Good conflict diplomacy also means ensuring that no party emerges as an absolute loser.
At the same time, there are famous examples of diplomacy failing. The “Munich Agreement” of 1938 and the “Treaty of Versailles” of 1919 are historical examples of diplomacy with catastrophic consequences. More recently, the Middle East conflict, unresolved for almost a century, has demonstrated the limitations of classical diplomacy. In 2022, diplomacy failed in the face of the imperial hubris of Russian President Vladimir Putin.
And now? At present, diplomacy is failing in the face of US President Donald Trump. He regularly breaks with traditional diplomatic conventions because he regards the established system as inefficient and often as working against his interests.
Trump views the traditional diplomatic corps as part of a bureaucratic “deep state”. He accuses career diplomats of pursuing their own globalist agenda rather than implementing his “America First” policy unconditionally.
For Trump, foreign policy is not a process of long-term, multilateral relationship-building, but a transactional business – a “deal”. Classical diplomacy is based on nuance, patience and compromise. Trump prefers direct, often disruptive negotiations between leaders, in which he applies maximum pressure.
Instead of relying on experienced career officials, Trump prefers to appoint personal confidants, political donors or figures from the business world to key positions, such as Steve Witkoff or Jared Kushner. From his perspective, these individuals are more pragmatic, more loyal and less constrained by rigid bureaucratic structures.
International organisations such as the UN or NATO, and the multilateral diplomacy practised within them, are, in his view, forums in which the United States is being taken advantage of. He prefers bilateral negotiations.
While diplomacy relies on reliability and predictability, Trump deliberately uses unpredictability and public provocations – often via social media – as negotiating tactics. He regards the cautious, deliberative approach of diplomats as an obstacle, or even as a sign of weakness.
The world champions of respectful dialogue will also survive Putin’s hunger for power and the Trump system. But we do not know which statesman will come around the corner next. Diplomats will have to learn – and adapt – from these experiences.