In an interview on Why We Need Diplomats

Your next book, The Evolution of Diplomatic Method, looks at this same question of whether diplomacy has changed over time. What does Harold Nicolson argue?

Nicolson came from a diplomatic family and among his many books were half a dozen on diplomacy. This one, which first surfaced as the Chichele Lectures at Oxford in November 1953, stands out by virtue of its elegance, brevity and grand historical sweep. The history is sometimes suspect and his treatment of the ‘Italian system’ of diplomacy in the time of Machiavelli is something of a caricature. However, Nicholson plunges a gleaming rapier into the argument that the ‘old’, pre-First World War system of secret diplomacy conducted by honest professionals had been replaced by a wholly new and much better system of ‘open’ multilateral diplomacy. Fortunately, he pointed out, the baby had escaped being thrown out with the bath water, which was just as well because open diplomacy had its own perils. It is a pity that he was not listened to more attentively.

Do we need diplomats more or less than in the past?

We need them more than in the past because the implications of international conflict degenerating into war are more catastrophic than ever. Weapons of mass destruction mean that it is more important than ever to nip conflicts in the bud when possible and peacefully resolve or at least manage them when it is not. Recent years have also demonstrated the key role that diplomats need to play in negotiating agreements to avert environmental disaster and global financial meltdown. E-diplomacy – which sacrifices body-language and informal encounters, and keeps negotiators too close to their domestic constituents – will never replace diplomats.