The lost art of talking – can diplomacy still win?

As conflicts increasingly escalate through force instead of dialogue, the world risks losing faith in diplomacy as a tool for resolving disputes, writes Professor Datuk Dr Ahmad Ibrahim.

There is a weary cynicism that settles over you when watching the news these days. Another ceasefire broken. Another ultimatum ignored. Another leader thumping a table instead of picking up the phone.

We are told endlessly that conflict is human nature – that greed, power and territory will always drive us towards fists and fire. That may be partly true. But what separates us from a brawl in a prehistoric cave is not the absence of dispute, but how disputes are settled.

Diplomacy is not the naive hope that everyone will be nice. It is the hard-won recognition that talking, even through gritted teeth, is cheaper and more durable than winning at the barrel of a gun.

Yet today, from the eastern edges of Europe to the South China Sea, we are witnessing a slow retreat from the negotiating table. More disputes are being settled by drones than by delegates. The question, then, is whether the world still wants diplomacy – or whether arrogance now sounds more appealing than compromise.

I believe there is still a chance. But only if diplomacy stops being treated as a polite ornament of peacetime and is rebuilt as a muscular, unglamorous and relentless infrastructure capable of outlasting the tantrums of strongmen and the impatience of the public.

The first thing we must admit is that diplomacy has partly failed because we made it boring. When it works, nothing happens. No bombs fall, no borders shift, no heroes emerge. When it fails, the world burns. Human psychology rewards the belligerent.

The solution is not to make diplomacy louder, but to make it inevitable. That means building institutions that do not wait for crises before opening channels of communication.

Consider the near-miracles of the past: the Helsinki Accords, the Iran nuclear deal – flawed as it was – and the Colombian peace process. What did they share? Not saints in power, but structure. Layers of back-channel negotiations, neutral venues, economic incentives and face-saving off-ramps.

Today, that architecture is crumbling. The United Nations Security Council is paralysed by vetoes. The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe is mocked. The World Trade Organisation’s dispute mechanism is barely functioning.

So here is one proposal – not utopian, but structural.

First, create a Diplomatic Reserve Corps. Just as nations maintain military reserves, the world needs a standing multinational corps of professional negotiators, conflict mediators and communication specialists – jointly funded by the G20, deployed when tensions rise, and tasked with opening secret pre-negotiations before threats escalate into force.

They would function like fire extinguishers: unnoticed until needed, but always ready.

Second, weaponise interdependence differently. Sanctions are a blunt instrument. But what if diplomatic “lock-ins” were built into major infrastructure projects?

Any undersea cable, pipeline or satellite network crossing borders should include a binding clause requiring parties to undergo 100 hours of mediated talks before disputes escalate into force. Not arbitration – simply public dialogue before a neutral panel, with the clock ticking.

Shame and scrutiny remain powerful antidotes to arrogance.

Third, rethink how power is taught. Officers at military academies study Clausewitz, but how much time is spent on negotiation theory, cognitive bias in conflict or the history of successful face-saving?

We need leaders who see picking up the phone not as weakness, but as a tactical advantage.

Diplomacy schools and war colleges should exchange faculty. Let generals teach strategy to diplomats – and diplomats teach generals that the best victory is the one never fought.

The deeper obstacle, however, is not institutional failure but ego.

Arrogance feels good. It rallies supporters and erases doubt. But it is also a terrible long-term investment. Every leader who chooses missiles over memorandums eventually discovers that force creates enemies faster than it destroys them.

The world will never run out of disputes. That is not the problem. The problem begins when we forget that how we fight is a choice.

Diplomacy is not the absence of conflict. It is the discipline of containing it. Like any discipline, it weakens without practice.

The opportunity for the world to embrace diplomacy still exists – not because humanity has become kinder, but because it has become more dangerous. Nothing sharpens the mind like the prospect of mutual ruin.

Build the institutions. Train the negotiators. Make talking the path of least resistance.

And maybe, just maybe, the next time two leaders scream across a map, someone will hand them a phone – not a gun.

The views expressed here are the personal opinion of the writer and do not represent that of Twentytwo13.