Diplomacy is being tested by a world that no longer agrees on the rules
As wars, sanctions, trade disputes and competing visions of global governance intensify, diplomacy is becoming the critical arena for deciding what comes next.
FOSTER! NEWS | GLOBAL AFFAIRS
15 SEPTEMBER 2026
THE WORLD IS RETURNING TO THE NEGOTIATING TABLE
There is a paradox at the heart of international affairs in 2026.
The world has never had more channels for diplomacy, dialogue and international cooperation. Yet the ability of those mechanisms to produce agreement is under increasing pressure.
Wars continue in Ukraine and the Middle East. Trade is being used as an instrument of foreign policy. Sanctions have become a central tool of international pressure. Strategic competition is extending into technology, energy, critical minerals and financial systems.
At the same time, countries that once accepted the architecture of the post-war international system are increasingly demanding a greater role in shaping it.
The result is not the disappearance of diplomacy.
It is the transformation of diplomacy itself.
THE UNITED NATIONS IS AT A CROSSROADS
The coming days will place the United Nations at the centre of international attention.
The 81st session of the UN General Assembly's high-level week runs from 18 to 28 September, with the main high-level meetings taking place from 21 to 25 September. World leaders will gather in New York at a moment when the international system is facing wars, institutional pressure and growing disagreement over the rules governing global affairs.
The central question will not simply be what governments say from the General Assembly podium.
It will be whether the organisation can still function as the principal forum where countries with radically different interests can negotiate.
The challenge is becoming increasingly structural.
UN Secretary-General António Guterres has argued that the institutions created after the Second World War no longer fully reflect today's economic, demographic and geopolitical realities. He has specifically called for reform of the Security Council.
That debate is moving from the margins towards the centre of international diplomacy.
THE GLOBAL SOUTH WANTS A SEAT — AND A VOICE
The demand for reform is no longer coming from a handful of governments.
It is increasingly becoming a collective position among emerging powers.
At the BRICS summit in New Delhi, Guterres told leaders that the international system must adapt to a world in which economic and geopolitical weight has shifted towards emerging economies. He called for institutions to reflect the realities of the 21st century rather than those of 1945.
The BRICS declaration also called for greater representation of developing countries in global governance and backed discussion of reforming the UN Security Council.
This is important because the argument has changed.
The Global South is increasingly seeking not simply to participate in an existing system.
It wants to help design the system itself.
BRICS IS BECOMING A DIPLOMATIC PLATFORM
The latest BRICS summit demonstrated how diplomacy is increasingly operating through overlapping coalitions rather than a single dominant framework.
The expanded group now includes 11 members, bringing together countries with very different political systems, strategic interests and relationships with the United States and Europe.
That diversity makes BRICS difficult to transform into a unified political alliance.
But it also makes the organisation useful as a diplomatic platform.
India was able to host Chinese President Xi Jinping, Russian President Vladimir Putin and other leaders while presenting itself as a bridge between competing strategic camps. Reuters described the summit as a demonstration of India's growing diplomatic role, while also highlighting China's increasing influence over the group's economic agenda.
The message is significant:
countries do not necessarily have to choose one camp to increase their influence.
They can negotiate with several.
INDIA IS TURNING STRATEGIC AUTONOMY INTO DIPLOMACY
India offers one of the clearest examples of this new diplomatic model.
New Delhi maintains relationships with Washington, Moscow, Beijing, Europe and countries across the Global South while defending its freedom to pursue its own strategic interests.
That approach was visible again during the BRICS summit, where India simultaneously engaged China and Russia while maintaining its wider relationships with Western powers.
India's position illustrates a broader transformation.
For many middle and emerging powers, foreign policy is no longer primarily about choosing an alliance.
It is about maximising room for manoeuvre.
UKRAINE REMAINS A TEST OF DIPLOMACY
Nowhere is the difficulty of diplomacy more visible than in Ukraine.
Washington has continued to push for negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, but the fundamental questions surrounding territory, security guarantees and the future European security architecture remain unresolved.
On 14 September, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said Ukraine could support a US-brokered ceasefire covering attacks on energy infrastructure if Washington could establish that Moscow was genuinely committed to the arrangement.
The distinction is crucial.
A ceasefire can stop attacks.
A peace agreement must address why the war happened, what security system follows it and what prevents another conflict.
That is a much harder diplomatic problem.
THE MIDDLE EAST IS ANOTHER TEST
The Middle East presents an even more complex diplomatic environment.
The war involving Iran, the United States and Israel has placed enormous pressure on international institutions while raising questions about energy security, maritime routes and the effectiveness of existing diplomatic mechanisms.
The issue is no longer confined to the region.
Any disruption to major maritime routes can affect energy prices, supply chains and economies far beyond the Middle East.
Meanwhile, the dispute over Iran's nuclear programme is demonstrating how international institutions can become arenas of geopolitical confrontation themselves.
On 14 September, the United States blocked Iran's nuclear chief, Mohammad Eslami, from attending an IAEA conference in Vienna after opposing a visa exemption under UN sanctions procedures. Iran condemned the decision as politically motivated.
Diplomacy is therefore not only about negotiating peace.
Increasingly, it is also about controlling access to the institutions where international legitimacy is contested.
SANCTIONS HAVE BECOME A LANGUAGE OF FOREIGN POLICY
Economic sanctions were once generally regarded as an alternative to military action.
Today they have become part of the permanent vocabulary of international relations.
Governments use tariffs, export controls, financial restrictions, technology controls and sanctions to influence the behaviour of other states.
The problem is that the more frequently these instruments are used, the more countries look for ways around them.
The BRICS countries have called for reduced dependence on Western financial systems and greater use of national currencies in trade.
That does not mean the existing financial system is about to disappear.
It does mean that financial infrastructure itself is becoming a diplomatic question.
TRADE IS NOW PART OF DIPLOMACY
The separation between economics and foreign policy is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain.
Tariffs can alter political relationships.
Supply chains can create strategic dependencies.
Semiconductors can influence national security.
Energy can determine diplomatic leverage.
Critical minerals can become bargaining tools.
The result is a world in which trade ministers increasingly find themselves dealing with questions once reserved for foreign and defence ministries.
The upcoming G20 trade ministers' meeting in the United States is already expected to provide another arena for disputes over tariffs and trade policy, including tensions between Washington and Brazil.
The era in which economics and geopolitics could be treated as separate systems is rapidly disappearing.
THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL FACES THE SAME QUESTION
The Security Council remains the world's most powerful formal institution for international peace and security.
But its structure reflects the balance of power that existed in 1945.
That is increasingly difficult to defend politically.
The Council's September agenda includes Ukraine, Iran, Afghanistan and Haiti, while members are also following the wider Middle East crisis and possible consequences for freedom of navigation. At the same time, governments are conducting informal consultations over candidates for the next UN Secretary-General.
The institution therefore faces two questions simultaneously:
Can it respond effectively to today's crises?
And:
Can it remain legitimate if major parts of the world believe its structure no longer represents them?
THE NEXT BATTLE IS FOR LEGITIMACY
Military power can determine what happens on the battlefield.
Economic power can influence markets.
Technological power can determine who controls strategic infrastructure.
But diplomacy determines something different:
legitimacy.
A government needs partners.
An agreement needs recognition.
A ceasefire needs verification.
A sanctions regime needs political support.
An international institution needs credibility.
That is why diplomatic influence is becoming one of the most valuable forms of power in the emerging international system.
THE AGE OF MULTIPLE NEGOTIATING TABLES
The old model imagined international politics as a relatively simple structure.
Washington had alliances.
Moscow had its partners.
Europe had its institutions.
China was rising.
The rest of the world was often treated as an arena in which those powers competed.
That model is becoming increasingly inadequate.
Today, a country can be part of BRICS, maintain relations with the United States, trade heavily with China, cooperate militarily with another power and participate simultaneously in UN, G20, regional and bilateral negotiations.
The world is becoming a network of overlapping diplomatic relationships.
That makes diplomacy more complicated.
But it also creates more opportunities for negotiation.
THE UNITED NATIONS STILL MATTERS
Despite its limitations, the UN remains difficult to replace.
It provides the world's broadest diplomatic forum.
It gives smaller states a platform.
It creates mechanisms for humanitarian action, peacekeeping, development and international law.
And it remains one of the few institutions where virtually every major power is required to sit in the same room.
The question is therefore not whether the UN will disappear.
The more important question is whether it can adapt quickly enough to remain relevant.
Guterres has argued that a multipolar world requires a stronger multilateral system with the United Nations at its centre.
That may ultimately be the defining diplomatic challenge of this decade.
WHAT COMES NEXT
The next phase of international affairs will not be defined by a single summit, treaty or alliance.
It will be defined by a series of negotiations.
Ukraine.
The Middle East.
Iran's nuclear programme.
Trade.
Technology.
Climate finance.
Critical minerals.
Global financial institutions.
UN reform.
Artificial intelligence.
Each issue is increasingly connected to the others.
And each negotiation is taking place against a background of declining certainty about who sets the rules.
THE WORLD NEEDS A NEW DIPLOMATIC BALANCE
The international system is not collapsing overnight.
It is being renegotiated.
The United States remains a major global power. China continues to expand its economic and technological influence. Europe is reassessing its strategic role. India is expanding its diplomatic reach. Russia remains central to European security. Middle Eastern powers are developing greater autonomy. African, Asian and Latin American states are demanding a larger voice.
No single actor can easily impose a complete new order.
That is precisely why diplomacy matters more than ever.
The world is moving towards a system in which power will be distributed more widely — but agreement may become harder to achieve.
The challenge will be to build institutions capable of managing that reality.
Not the world of 1945.
Not the world of the unipolar moment.
The world that exists now.
FOSTER! ANALYSES
The great diplomatic question of the coming years will not simply be who becomes the world's most powerful country.
It will be whether the world's major powers can agree on rules that the rest of the world is willing to recognise as legitimate.
That is the real test facing the United Nations, BRICS, the G20 and every other institution attempting to manage an increasingly fragmented international system.
Power is changing hands.
Influence is spreading.
Old alliances are being tested.
New partnerships are emerging.
And behind every conflict, tariff, summit and diplomatic crisis lies the same unresolved question:
Who gets to shape the rules of the world that comes next?
FOSTER! NEWS
Clear facts. Real context.