War and diplomacy

Of course, global diplomacy is an important means of preventing and resolving conflicts including intra- and inter-country wars. But the commencement of the Russia- Ukraine war, a failure of diplomacy, puts global diplomacy, especially preventive diplomacy which is conflict prevention and other forms of preventive action aimed at ending armed conflicts prior to the escalation to widespread violence, at a significant threat and has newly revived the problem of its effectiveness.

Though global preventive diplomatic mechanisms and efforts are improved much, it is undeniable that preventive diplomacy has failed many times to prevent both intra- and inter-country wars. The case of Syria, Yemen, Ethiopia and Afghanistan can be rendered as some examples here. But the ongoing Russia –Ukraine war has clearly proved that global preventive diplomacy, which was first used by the former United Nations Secretary General Dag Hammarskjöld in 1960, is not effective enough, especially when powerful countries get engaged in war, though such diplomacy helps mitigate conflicts many times, shows more effectiveness in small scale conflicts and helps generate some civilian-friendly responses including ceasefires from warring parties.

Notably, there are many reasons for the relative success of diplomacy in small scale war. But the most important reason seems to be the strength of the parties engaged in war rather than anything else. Indeed, less powerful conflicting parties are often dependent on more powerful countries for economic, military weapons related and other reasons and, as a result, diplomatic efforts especially when powerful allied countries put direct or indirect pressure upon less powerful conflicting parties result in success, even if diplomatic maneuvers also play important roles many times. Without direct or indirect roles of allied powerful countries, diplomacy has not been proved to be remarkably successful in preventing wars or mitigating conflicts among less powerful parties too. Again, Yemen and Syria can be rendered as examples here.

On the contrary, conflicts especially wars mostly remain un-prevented by preventive diplomatic means especially when any powerful country gets engaged, directly or indirectly. The direct engagement of powerful countries, especially superpowers, with civil wars in other countries and/or transboundary wars makes global war prevention and mitigation diplomacy almost ineffective. The recent Russia-Ukraine war and the Iraq war are two relevant examples here. In such situations, the United Nations is mostly ineffective in doing anything significant. Of course, the indirect engagement of superpowers also makes it difficult for diplomatic efforts to be successful in preventing wars. But in such cases, the space for a diplomatic solution remains at least, even though preventive diplomacy may not be successful always. While preventive diplomacy helped prevent a potential nuclear confrontation over the Cuban Missile Crisis, it has failed to prevent wars in Ukraine and many other countries.

Consequently, the extent of engagement of powerful countries in any intra- and inter-country war determines the success or failure of diplomacy. Alternatively said, the power of engaged parties appears as the most important reason for diplomatic success or failure many times, neither the established diplomatic mechanism nor the diplomatic maneuver. Thus, powerful countries need to do more to make preventive diplomacy successful and develop an effective diplomatic mechanism in preventing and dealing with wars especially when powerful countries are engaged, directly or indirectly. But the reflection of earnestness is very important.