APRIL 11 — We live in an age of interconnected crises—climate change, pandemics and supply chain fragility—that demand unprecedented global cooperation. Yet the political landscape is increasingly defined by trade wars that fracture economies, border conflicts that spill blood, and a resurgence of zero-sum thinking that treats the world as a chessboard of winners and losers.
The user’s plea, “Can’t there be more diplomacy?” is not naive; it is the essential and urgent question of our time. The current disruption of sustainability is not a side effect of global politics—it is a direct result of its failure.
The problem is not a lack of diplomatic forums; the United Nations, G20 and countless summits already exist. The crisis is one of diplomatic intent and method. Modern statecraft has become dangerously transactional, reduced to public threats and sanctions, and often conducted for domestic audiences rather than genuine problem-solving.
Leaders are incentivised to appear “strong”, often conflating strength with belligerence, while the quiet, patient and courageous work of building understanding is dismissed as weakness. This is a catastrophic miscalculation. In a world of climate tipping points and nuclear arsenals, there are no victors in a war of all against all—only varying degrees of collective loss.
Recalibrating diplomacy
So, how do we recalibrate? The path forward requires a renaissance of diplomacy, rebuilt on three pillars.
First, we must institutionalise and legitimise “permanent dialogue”. The most successful diplomatic frameworks of the past—such as the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe during the Cold War—created continuous tables for conversation even amid deep hostility. We need new, dedicated and high-level channels for the most fraught issues, particularly between major powers.
These should be insulated as far as possible from the daily churn of domestic politics and social media storms. Their mandate should not only be to manage crises, but to proactively identify shared interests—such as pandemic preparedness or Arctic governance—and build cooperation that can withstand external tension.
Second, we must empower “track-two” diplomacy and civil society. Official state-to-state talks are necessary but insufficient. Parliamentarian exchanges, scientific collaborations, city-to-city partnerships and business leader dialogues create a web of relationships that states cannot easily sever.
When Beijing and Washington are at odds, collaboration between their climate scientists or epidemiologists must be protected and amplified. These networks act as shock absorbers and idea incubators, often finding pragmatic solutions that formal politics cannot. This is the essence of science diplomacy.
Third, we must redefine national interest for the Anthropocene. The outdated definition equates interest with relative advantage. The new definition must integrate absolute survival.
No nation “wins” a trade war if it worsens food insecurity and fuels regional instability. No nation wins a border conflict if it triggers refugee flows or diverts resources from the green transition. Statesmanship now means recognising that national security is inseparable from adversary stability and planetary health.
This requires leaders to educate their publics, arguing that funding global vaccine initiatives or honouring climate agreements is not charity, but strategic foresight.
The problem is not a lack of diplomatic forums; the United Nations, G20 and countless summits already exist. The crisis is one of diplomatic intent and method. — Reuters pic
Leadership and responsibility
Ultimately, this hinges on leadership. We need leaders with the historical imagination to see beyond electoral cycles, and the moral courage to pursue dialogue when demagoguery is easier.
They must be held accountable not only for short-term economic indicators, but for the long-term health of the international system. Critics will dismiss this as utopian. But the truly naïve belief is that 21st-century existential threats can be managed with a 19th-century playbook of rivalry and domination.
Diplomacy is not a synonym for concession; it is the instrument of intelligent statecraft. It is the recognition that in an interconnected world, your opponent’s problem inevitably becomes your own.
The stakes are not merely peace or prosperity, but sustainability and continuity itself. The choice is not between diplomacy or strength. It is between diplomatic engagement and collective ruin. We must choose the former decisively. The table is waiting—we only need the will to sit down at it.
*The author is affiliated with the Tan Sri Omar Centre for STI Policy Studies at UCSI University and is an Adjunct Professor at the Ungku Aziz Centre for Development Studies, Universiti Malaya. He can be reached at [email protected]
** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
