Observations About the World, Part Forty-Nine

Photograph of the Atlas globe

Is Diplomacy Worthwhile?
Monday – October 19, 2026

Today the world seems rather more dangerous than what it is, read "The State of Geopolitics", or rather than what one objectively can assert, relying of course entirely on the still common reference point of history. Of course, the matter of diplomacy seems also rather more important today, and perhaps this is true and perhaps this is why I should write about the subject of diplomacy, but allow me to first attempt to point out the fact that there is an argument against diplomacy today, or rather an argument in favour of more personal and private diplomatic channels. You see, it seems to me that institutions such as the UN (United Nations) work poorly, and yes the argument is and should perhaps be that the UN works poorly because the nations that make up the UN have refused to grant it more power and influence, and I suppose then that the Secretary General of the UN António Guterres functions much more like an empty suit, and yes this I agree to as well, but this is also nothing new; this has practically been the case since the founding of the UN organization the better part of a century ago. Now, some would even go as far as to argue that the UN has completely failed, and instead mutated into a monster of sorts that now has grown its own appetite of money, especially white men's money, and yes while this is all true, let us not forget who set up this organization in the first place: white men, and if white men wish to destroy their own money then so be it; nothing else should be stated, read "Can Western Civilization be Restored?". To the extent that the UN works towards peace this is a good thing, and it is a good thing in particular for Western Civilization, since war is the very thing that has almost completely destroyed it in the first place, and I remain convinced that the West would be unable to ever emerge from another large conflagration, and it may even be too late at the moment, read "Spoils of War?".

    In light of all this, it makes sense to pay particular attention to the course of diplomacy, even though much of it is empty talk. Now, I do agree with certain people that diplomacy requires a certain knowhow, and yes I would argue and I do argue that certain diplomats are better than certain other diplomats, and as usual it can be noted that most diplomats are rather mediocre and not very effective, but this is true for most people in most occupations, and so we need to rely especially on good diplomats, and good diplomats always have a rather conservative disposition, for any liberal and messianic bias is sure to contribute to the downfall of diplomacy; respect is required on both sides in order to uphold the preciousness of diplomatic immunity and in the end peace. Besides, the emissaries and the representatives on the other side know fully well that they have time on their side, and that the gerontocracy in the West is swiftly coming to an end, and just as well, just as well. Of course, there is also the individualism of phoney vanity when it comes to diplomacy, but in our 21st century this aspect unfortunately seems rather unavoidable, even though a good diplomat should stay out of public life. Now, I am sure that certain good diplomats, if there are any good diplomats around, and I am also sure that they at least attempt to maintain a certain level of conduct, even though this is likely getting harder and harder. In fact, more and more politicians are inserting themselves into the lives of their constituency without shame and without reflection; it seems that the "social media age" has completely almost completely removed these otherwise appropriate social barriers, and mind you humility. These are not qualities common to people and they are not qualities common to prominent people in the 21st century, not that prominent people should be allowed to matter, but when we live in a world where prominent people matter regardless, it becomes impossible to also not take prominent people into account, and I suppose this is a kind of reference point as well. Note that diplomacy is about personal relations, but personal relations can only carry someone so far. I think too that we should not allow someone's image to distract us, but this goes beyond diplomacy of course.

    Then there is the fact that the Arab Chief has no need to worry because he may rely on his magic and his mysticism, while the Western emissary must rely on his orders, orders that tend to not be clear enough. I suppose this is the case with the UN: instead of stopping wars, this organization can almost be described as a parasite, which would be true for almost any organization with such a low effectiveness. It would be true to say that the predecessor organisation, the League of Nations, was more successful at preventing the outbreak of war: in 1925 the League successfully prevented, through diplomacy, a war between Bulgaria and Greece, and this is more than what you can say about the UN, unfortunately for us. Of course, as the UN has grown into its own institution, it has become more clear that the UN, just like many similar organizations, exists to justify itself, and no doubt many nationalists around the world would prefer to see this organisation gone. Now, I refuse to take a position on the UN, because this post is not supposed to primarily revolve around the many difficulties and shortfalls of that organization, because that would mean that I would have to spend another 1300 words on this post, which would carry this post well beyond the scope of the topic at hand. Now, I did mention Arab Chiefs in the beginning of this section, and yes, Arab Chiefs do often function as emissaries or ambassadors for their klans, and this did not only used to be so in the Arab World and in the Near East, this used to be so in many other parts of the world as well: diplomacy was a matter of two or more patriarchs, and in certain contexts even matriarchs. It did not used to be a profession to be a diplomat, but then again this used to be the case for a lot of things in the past. It is quite outrageous that diplomats and even more monstrous politicians are being referred to as professionals in their conduct. Anyhow, these were some of my thoughts and observations this day.

Reginald Drax (AKA, M. C. Dutt) – October 19, 2026.