Diplomacy in the age of power politics

The world has witnessed eras of rivalry among powerful states, with the greatest often competing for global influence, alliances, resources and strategic positioning for long-term benefits. Over the decades, the goal remained unapologetically same, however, the tactics varied.

A classic example of such a rivalry is the Cold War (1947-91) between the United States and the Soviet Union where the United States advanced in capitalism and democracy while the Soviet Union promoted communism. Despite immense tensions between these two powers, a full-scale war never erupted. However, the objectives were being tried to achieve through proxy wars in countries like Afghanistan, Korea and Vietnam.

While the Cold War was primarily based on diplomacy rather than military conflict, backchannel communications prevented a full-scale military confrontation between the two nuclear powers. But, a question here arises whether diplomacy still performs the same functionality or its role has changed when it comes to conflict with the powerful nations?

The current situation of the Middle East contrasts with the historical perspective. In today's era, big powers use diplomacy as a tool to regulate war rather than resolve it. Today, the role of diplomacy has become more troubled and complex in modern conflicts. Instead of resolving them, diplomatic efforts regulate them and are often accompanied by military operations, ceasefire violations and international humanitarian law violations.

A very familiar example is the Palestine-Israel conflict where several diplomatic efforts were made by Egypt, Qatar and the US to mediate a temporary ceasefire and limited humanitarian aid access to Gaza rather than achieving a permanent solution. As a result, the war continued for more than three years resulting in significant civilian casualties, although diplomatic efforts were still there all that time.

Additionally, diplomacy is often shaped by the strategic interests of major powers and diplomatic processes can be bypassed when it comes to conflict with the interests of powerful nations. For example, the invasion of Iraq occurred despite significant opposition within the United Nations framework, highlighting how powerful states can override international law and diplomatic formalities.

Undoubtedly international law exists, but powerful nations shape its application. In the Palestine-Israel conflict, there were debates over civilian protection and human rights. However, despite repeated concerns by almost half of the world, the enforcement of international law remained limited as its application is totally based on the political will of a country.

This is because the evolving power landscape over the last 3-4 decades has allowed powerful nations to consider themselves superior to the law.

The same is the case with the International Criminal Court as it does prosecute criminals but its enforcement also depends upon state cooperation. For example, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for the Israeli Prime Minister in 2024 but due to poor enforcement and accountability mechanisms, no progress was reported as the ICC often faces challenges in enforcing its decisions against powerful and politically backed actors.

Altogether, these examples reflect the evolving nature of global politics and demonstrate that diplomacy has not disappeared, it has blended itself into the system of power politics. In a system where the unequal influence of states sets the boundaries of the applicability of law, diplomacy can no longer be a neutral mechanism of peacemaking. Instead, it will be used by powerful actors for strategic interests over conflict resolution.

In conclusion, the history of great power rivalry shows that the actors and contexts may vary, yet the aim remains constant. However, what has evolved is diplomacy which is no longer confined to preventing war. Rather, it now operates within conflicts shaping its pace, scope and consequences. In such a system, the question is not whether diplomacy can help prevent a war and deliver peace but whether diplomacy can function without the influence of powerful actors.