[MUSIC] >> Successful diplomacy is about reaching some kind of agreement, bargain, compromise that everybody can live with. So the sort of old idea that if nobody's happy with an agreement, then it's probably a decent agreement, because everybody has some complaints about it, but everybody signed up to it. Yes, everybody has to give a little bit. You're not going to get all of what you want. So to go back to the Syria example, the United States really does not want President Assad to be part of the solution, but it's pretty clear President Assad will be part of the solution. The Americans are going to have to give on this. On the other hand, the Russians and Assad are going to have to give some other things in order to get the Americans to buy in to any kind of final solution. So there are various ways to describe this, but essentially successful diplomacy is where in effect, some kind of agreement, deal or compromise is reached. Everybody gives something. But whatever the worst harm is, is to some degree contained. >> Well, I think the starting point is, are you talking? I think one of the features, you go back to antiquity here, you look back through history. The starting point is, is there some form of dialogue and some sort 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 in 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 parley, the ability to talk to each other and the ability to send delegates, and the ability to make representations. So I think these things have always existed in human affairs, but I would say the starting point is some form of dialogue. Clearly from dialogue, you can build some form of understanding of reciprocal positions, and then we get into the negotiation, adaptation and all the higher forms of state craft. >> I suppose the obvious answer is do you have a clear, written, agreed outcome? A nice treatise, bviously, a good indication of successful diplomacy. I think there's also an aspect of what Richelieu talked about continuous engagement, continuous dialogue. So the idea that you end up with a nice peace treaty or a nice treaty or a nice agreement is nice and neat, but there's also the aspect of that continual dialogue and maintaining the dialogue even if other relations are not so successful. So maybe successful diplomacy sometimes is just keeping talking. >> Diplomacy has occurred and has gone well if both or however many parties there are have been changed in some way by the experience, whether it's really mini school stuff or whether it's obviously, like a big agreement or something like that. >> I supposed to take one example, it would be that no serious political action arose around the legality of the Iraq War. There are number of states considered bringing that forward in the international system analysis where the diplomatic pressure of the United States meant that this never appeared substantially, for example, on the agenda of the United Nations. >> I think that it's very much built around immeasurable patience, particularly when you're working in conflict zones or in conflict situations. Without that kind of patience, absolutely nothing is going to happen. And I think the corollary of that is if you go in thinking you've got all the answers, so that you're half closed off to the discourse to the points of view, to the drives of the antagonist parties, nothing is going to work. You can't go in with the compromise sorted out in your head beforehand. >> I think for me successful diplomacy is about getting to yes. In other words, getting some sort of agreement. I suppose if you think back to the more conventional views of diplomacy here, it's about getting to yes in the knowledge that there are constraints here. Partly of course, what your opposite numbers will be thinking and what they want. But you also, of course, know what your own side would want in an ideal world. So I think it's about getting to yes, but with the knowledge that there are constraints and getting to yes without giving too much away. Being a skilled and tough negotiator. >> But diplomacy isn't always about this bargain of give and take. I would actually view Roosevelt as somebody we both worked on, as someone who was less interested in necessarily haggling over particular details. More interested in establishing a relationship, particularly a relationship with Stalin around the war, which would be the center point of his post war strategy. [MUSIC]