Hello, I'm here with John Wall from Kings College, London. John, in your understanding what is diplomacy? >> Well, it's a very good question Simon. I think the word or the expression I like the most is actually from the Vienna Conventions which is creating friendly relations between countries. And I think it's quite as sort of a gentle for friendly relationships, but there's quite a lot loaded in there. So overall, I would say that the purpose of diplomacy is about developing some form of appreciation, understanding, and friendly relations with countries. Of course achieving that, is far harder than setting it out as your purpose. >> And in trying to achieve that, what do you, what are the markers of success in diplomacy from your point of view? >> Well look, I think the starting point is are you talking? I think one of the features, you go back to antiquity here, you look through history the starting point is, is there some form of dialogue and some form of connection between two states or tribes or civilizations or forms of power? So I would start with some form of dialogue, and as we know, if you look back at antiquity, generally speaking at most times, some form of diplomatic relations were supported even when societies or civilizations were at war. So clearly, even going back 2,000 years, people would have recognized that you needed things like parlay, the ability to talk to each other. And the ability to send delegates and the ability to make representations. So I think these things voice existed in human affairs but I would say the starting point is some form of dialog. Clearly, from dialog, you can build some form of understanding at reciprocal positions and then we get into the negotiation, adaptation and all the higher forms of state craft. >> Okay, and conversely, what do you think are the markers of failed diplomacy in that sense? >> Well interestingly, and you and I have talked about this in the past, I think boycott is an interesting thing. Boycott, very popular in the modern world. Boycott is the kind of conscious severing of any form of dialogue. So I do think that if a starting point for me is in dialogue, then possibly the point where our diplomacy has completely failed is when there is no possibility for dialogue. And again, as we were saying earlier, given the fact that states have found ways have dialog even when their at war with each other. I do think that that is the starting point and the absence of dialogue, I think, ends the possibility for any improvement and. So I would be very, very, very, careful about the ending of dialogue. >> And in terms of we've spoken here about state craft and the nation's states conducting diplomacy. Where else have you seen diplomacy in action? How does it manifest itself in the modern world? >> Well a lot, I've spend a good deal of my professional career working for the British Council which a cultural body, whose purpose is to build cultural relationships between the UK and other countries. So clearly, most of my my work in the diplomatic sphere has been around expanding people-to-people relationships, expanding cultural appreciation, linguistic appreciation, educational appreciation. So very much more what's sometimes called soft power. The broader range of ways in which people can engage with people, or countries can engage with countries. So I would very much be of the view that there is a very broad palette of actions that a state, a country, or even a person can take in the modern world to influence the behavior of other states, cultures, and people. >> In thinking about your experience of having seen diplomacy play out across that broad field, who are the best exponents you've come across, either individually or sort of that you've become aware of, over your experience? >> Well, one of things that I've always found is that if you go to countries which have perhaps, a very different philosophy than the country you're from, a very different culture very different belief system. What you tend to find is that there are some broad universals, which everybody connects with. So, one of them is languages. Languages are terrifically successful. Most societies are very passionate about education and schooling. And then, there are the other kind of universal languages of humanity like for example, math, science, sports, arts and culture. So, I think, one of the things I found is that the more difficult the relations are between the two countries. So I think about for example in the recent past the UK and Iran or at times the UK and Russia. The more likely you are to have success with those very neutral forms of dialogue which are the universal languages of humanity. Sport, science, culture, art, t's very, very rare that you find that you can't get some form of constructive conversation going with those topics. Just to digress momentarily with Iran, I discovered that with weight lifting and wrestling, you can always get a conversation going. >> Thanks very much, John.