Diplomacy Has Lost Ground

If there is one thing we have learned as professionals in the field of International Relations, through our studies and continuous updates, it is that the absence of peace is war. War means taking a conflict to its most violent scenario: the use of power (military), the use of weapons, and whatever modalities comprise it, in which human barbarity implies that one party defeats another to achieve its objectives within the spectrum of its own interests.

However, years of experience have led me to conclude that the concept of war is not viewed from the same perspective by everyone. While there is broad consensus on its most logical definition, which involves the use of military forces, it seems that for the main international organisation that prides itself on being the guarantor of world peace, war is understood as events like those that were horrific at the beginning and middle of the last century, which precisely inspired its creation—the two world wars. Nevertheless, it would be unfair not to acknowledge the results of the great efforts it has made in its eighty years of existence toward its primary objective, from its own point of view.

However, it is precisely the events in which parties (countries) with large and proven military capabilities, international stature, and influence within that organisation call into question the effectiveness of that work, while assuming the supposed acceptance of the guiding principles of its foundational document, known to all of us dedicated to these issues as the Charter of the United Nations.

The validity of the United Nations’ raison d’être will always depend on its effectiveness in resolving differences that threaten the balance achieved to date, and even the very existence of human beings in every part of the planet.

Attributing the conditions of the order of things to this body and those who comprise it (the members) might commonly lead us to think that it is something very abstract; however, within it operate countless individuals—from civilians to military personnel—who have, within their roles, the task of guiding actions from their areas of competence, whether they are diplomats, experts, scientists, activists, or others who deal with world affairs on a local or global scale, in the formats established by the institutional framework of the body to which they belong.

Now, the worthiest instrument that we, as individuals, have been able to develop for the various situations that threaten peace between the parties to a dispute is precisely diplomacy. Diplomacy involves permanent dialogues, agreements, negotiations, arrangements, accords, and all kinds of actions aimed at putting an end to a given dispute.

In this context, it is truly questionable, and for those of us who cling to the ideal of a better world, difficult to believe that even in these times, behaviours persist that undermine the validity of human reasoning. Likewise, the capabilities of the organisation and other bodies, which should be guarantors of peace, are diminished by these misunderstandings, which, in this game of half-truths, discredit the values and principles that underpin the integrity of individuals.

Diplomacy has lost ground, and this is a discouraging factor for anyone who hopes to maintain a harmonious balance for peaceful coexistence among the nations of the world. The military actions undertaken on the third day of this year in South America, and others carried out in previous years by this and other actors with similar military capabilities in various parts of the globe, will never find a valid or acceptable justification for employing such approaches for the purposes they themselves claim.

As subjects of the international order established and “recognised by all actors,” within the framework of the institutions of which we are members, Panama has an obligation to explore ways to respectfully influence and contribute to decisions that strengthen international peace and security. With a rich history of hosting conferences, as a nation of dialogue, and as host for international events that have resulted in key understandings for better comprehension among the parties to a given dispute—including our own with the most powerful country in the military field—we must align our position with the participation of the various sectors that make up our distinguished and illustrious nation.

I consider that we still have time to guide the necessary course for our effective contribution toward paths of peace in all regions of the world. In that order, I encourage those of us dedicated to this important issue to organise the necessary spaces—through forums, debates, and specialised consultations—to position ourselves and align our efforts to create the conditions for that desirable reality.