LocationsDiplomacy in an Age of Crisis
By Aizaz Ahmad Chaudhry | Former Foreign Secretary and Chairman, Sanober Institute
Diplomacy today is more relevant than ever. The concept of ‘collective security’ gives us hope that the world will soon return to the enduring principles of the UN Charter.
With the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the United States emerged as the sole superpower of the world. China was rising but not yet in a position to challenge the supremacy of the United States. A spirit of connectivity and inter-dependence had engulfed international relations. The United Nations convened a series of landmark conferences on children, women, human rights, social development, and the environment, bringing these agendas together into a global normative framework for development. This era, often referred to as globalization, marked the heyday of diplomacy. The world looked like a global village.
However, within a few years after the terrorist incidents of September 11, 2001, the world began to change. Major powers started asserting force against their adversaries unilaterally, blatantly, and with little regard for international law. As the spirit of globalization faded, hyper-nationalism gripped nations, with populist leaders increasingly mobilizing divisions against “the other” in terms of faith, race, ethnicity, or even status of immigration. Major power competition between the US and China intensified, raising concerns that the world might get further polarized. Technological revolution enabled easier access to autonomous weapons, like missiles and armed drones, bringing the world to the cusp of disarray and disorder. An age of crisis had set in.
How should the world deal with this age of crisis marked by hybrid wars, electronic warfare, cyberattacks, and lethal autonomous weapons?
Diplomacy is the only answer. But effective diplomacy depends on leadership capable of managing tensions, sustaining dialogue across divides, and finding common ground without losing sight of national interests. In an increasingly fragmented world, diplomatic leadership is as much about preventing crises from escalating as it is about resolving them. Consider four areas of global contestation.
Asia-Pacific remains the primary venue for US-China competition. The US embarked on an Indo-Pacific strategy and teamed up with Australia, India, and Japan, to counterbalance a rising China. Summit-level diplomacy on May 14, 2026, saw Presidents Trump and Xi agree on a new vision of “constructive strategic stability”.
Trans-Atlantic alliance between Europe and the US is weakening. Unless European nations engage in intense diplomacy, the future of NATO will remain uncertain. Meanwhile, the Russia-Ukraine war still awaits active diplomacy to bring the conflict to an end.
In the Middle East, two years of conflict in Gaza resulted in immense loss of life and destruction, amid findings by a UN Commission of Inquiry that Israel had committed genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.1 Diplomatic efforts, including through the Board of Peace and ceasefire guarantors, helped bring an end to large-scale hostilities, although ceasefire violations and Israeli strikes in Gaza have continued, alongside renewed hostilities in southern Lebanon. The 40-day US/Israeli war with Iran was brought to a halt on April 4th, when Pakistan’s proactive diplomacy helped broker a ceasefire. Within days, the US and Iran sent their delegates to Islamabad for talks after 47 years of hostility. Diplomatic efforts by Pakistan and Qatar helped evolve a Memorandum of Understanding, which is continually being contested by both sides. Two issues remain unresolved: keeping the Strait of Hormuz open and Iran’s nuclear program. While the stalemate continues, diplomatic efforts are still underway to ensure that a full-fledged war does not resume.
In South Asia, two nuclear-armed neighbours engaged in a four-day conflict in May 2025, which ended in a ceasefire. Pakistan has credited US President Donald Trump’s diplomatic intervention with helping to secure the ceasefire.
The Gulf states are now wondering about the efficacy of the security umbrella provided by the United States. The regional countries are beginning to explore alternative security arrangements. Following the May 2025 conflict with India, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan entered into a strategic mutual defense agreement. Within months, Turkiye, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia have signed the Makkah Joint Defense Agreement (MJDA), which stands out by its clause that an attack on any one of the three signatories would be an attack on all three. This is a defensive agreement that is not aimed at any country. Iran did not react negatively to the agreement nor did the US. Given that MJDA is predicated on the concept of ‘collective security’, other countries might also join in later.
For diplomatic leaders, this fragmented environment demands more than traditional statecraft. It requires the ability to maintain channels of communication across geopolitical divides, build flexible coalitions around shared interests, anticipate and de-escalate crises, and pursue national interests without closing the door to cooperation. For countries like Pakistan, effective diplomatic leadership also means using relationships across competing blocs to create space for dialogue, rather than being drawn exclusively into one camp or another. In an age of declining consensus, the capacity to convene, mediate, and build common ground may itself become a country's most valuable diplomatic asset.
Where does the United Nations fit into all this? As it is, the UN is not a world government, but a platform available to member states to resolve their disputes through peaceful means. By now, it should be evident that there is no military solution to complex international relations in this age of crisis. Diplomacy is more relevant than ever. It is heartening that all this while the United Nations has continued with its quality work on sustainable development, climate change, and peace-making. The concept of ‘collective security’ gives us hope that the world will soon return to the enduring principles of the UN Charter.
1. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel, Legal analysis of the conduct of Israel in Gaza pursuant to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, A/HRC/60/CRP.3, UN Human Rights Council, 16 September 2025, Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies/hrcouncil/sessions-regular/session60/advance-version/a-hrc-60-crp-3.pdf