Diplomacy is dead

With all the resources and intelligence — and I am using this term loosely — devoted to assembling and analysing information from such a strategically vital region, it has been rather sobering to see the helplessness of the best and the brightest in capitals worldwide — with Washington and Paris leading the way — trying to figure out whether Zine El Abidine Ben Ali or Hosni Mubarak were still “their men, guys they could work with”, and to see diplomacy reduced to a petal-picking game of “he loves me… he loves me not…”.

How could senior officials and diplomats be this tone-deaf to the pulse of countries and societies they were supposed to observe expertly? How can we explain this stupendous lack of diagnostic and anticipatory capabilities, not unlike that of the self-proclaimed financial prophets who completely missed the market meltdown even as the financial tsunami was smashing their world?

To understand this failure, especially among diplomats, requires a closer look at the clubby, invitation-only universe in which these illustrious statesmen work their magic. This is a universe imbued with an unbearable degree of self-importance that is matched by a remarkable absence of intellectual, analytical and operational skills. But because this universe is a closed bubble, its meaninglessness is only evident to those on the outside. How else to explain the pitiful mission that Frank Wisner, a seasoned diplomat and former US ambassador to Egypt, was sent on by President Barack Obama to negotiate a crisis resolution, without remembering to check whether the Egyptians had issued an invitation (they had not). Perhaps, it is unfair to expect diplomats to extinguish fires, but shouldn’t they at least be able to see, hear or smell a fire, especially one that has grown into a first-class inferno? These were not minor expressions of discontent, cooked up in some conspirators’ basements. No, these were mass movements, stirred by emotions that ran deep and that had grown over decades. If these distinguished emissaries had bothered to talk to real people, with their real fears, hopes and desires to have their voices heard and their dignity respected, rather than communicating only with other, equally detached members of their guild, they would not have been taken so utterly by surprise. And even after the uprisings started, diplomats still seemed at a loss to grasp, let alone explain, their virulence and contagion.

The contrast between the raw display of people power and the stunningly irrelevant gatherings of so-called leaders in an idyllic Swiss alpine resort at the very same time could not have been starker. At the same time that popular uprisings were raging 
furiously, the rich and the famous were feasting on caviar and champagne buffets, outdoing each other with comically clueless pronouncements about political, fiscal and social responsibility, and generally feeling very satisfied about their own sense 
of importance.

Comments on the events in Egypt were full of the same recycled platitudes that lacked meaningful insight into the deeper layers and fabric of Egyptian society. And when diplomats and government officials lack knowledge and awareness of any significance, they cannot be expected to shape policy that will be conducive to solving problems and promoting peace and stability. In fact, these diplomats cannot even be expected to advance their own governments’ self-interest intelligently and effectively, because their disconnected and disinterested actions and decrees end up leaving them isolated and without genuine friends and reliable allies in the countries to which they were dispatched.

The events in North Africa and the Middle East have exposed diplomats and intelligence agencies mercilessly. Only just a few hours before President Ben Ali fled Tunisia, diplomats and intelligence officers were still reporting that his security forces would defend him categorically. They didn’t. When the protesters first gathered in Cairo’s Tahrir Square, diplomats and intelligence officers reported that this would probably fizzle out and, when it didn’t, that it would be brought to an end by the security forces.

Only when the world of diplomacy will change in its core, and with it the diplomats who inhabit it, can we expect policies and international relations that no longer regurgitate oversimplified, uninformed stereotypes based on misguided, manipulated, outdated or simply incorrect information that produces nuggets such as President Bush’s priceless “I looked into his eyes and saw his soul”.

Only when diplomats will be selected based on meaningful qualification criteria and not based on the amounts of money they contributed to a politician or a political party, only then can we expect women and men who practice diplomacy as the art of conducting negotiations and bridging between nations, without supercilious arrogance and patronising hostility. And only then will we finally be able to bury the old, decrepit habits and shout with joy: Diplomacy is dead. Long live diplomacy!

Daniel Levin is a member of the Board of the Liechtenstein Foundation for State Governance, a foundation dedicated to the improvement of state governance and the prevention of state failures