LONDON - London cabbies are a great source of received wisdom. Over the past several years I have had occasion to focus test some members of this select group. I queried them about the reputation of diplomacy in general, and their impressions of diplomats in particular. 

Their verdict?

Reduced to its most essential iteration: 

Dithering dandies, hopelessly lost in a haze of irrelevance somewhere between protocol and alcohol...

For diplomatic practitioners, exposure to the mainstream view of cartoon caricatures in pin stripes or pearls riding high at public expense serves as a sobering reminder that any vestigial prestige and mystique once associated with the profession has worn long since off.  

More worrisome still, since at least Chamberlain’s ill-starred visit to Munich in 1938, diplomacy has come to be associated with weakness and appeasement, with caving in to power.

In other words, diplomacy’s debilitating image problems are matched by serious misunderstandings concerning the substance of the work. That said, however misleading the archetypes, popular perceptions of diplomacy are not entirely unfounded. Neither the profession nor its institutions have adjusted well to the exigencies of the globalization age. 

It doesn’t help that so few diplomats have a clear sense of just how their work fits into the bigger picture. Simply put, diplomacy is a non-violent approach to the management of international relations which relies upon dialogue, negotiation and compromise. Doing it well requires empathy and understanding, a keen intellect, a capacity for political communication, and a very particular set of personal aptitudes. Book learning may be necessary, but it is by no means sufficient. Adaptability, self awareness and life skills, most more easily acquired through world travel than over the course of years of formal education, are crucial.

Diplomacy matters now more than ever, but it is in crisis. Western political leaders have developed an unfortunate habit of reaching for the gun - think Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya - as the policy instrument of choice. Defence departments receive the lion’s share of international policy funding, while foreign ministries and development agencies struggle. In the world we live in, not only does this make no sense, but it gives rise to serious distortions and misallocations. Our governments seem to have failed to learn the main lesson of the Cold War, namely that militaries work best when they are not used. Take the sword out of the scabbard, and it makes a dreadful mess.  

Defence is primarily about power. Diplomacy is about influence. The most profound threats and challenges engendered by globalization - and in my view religious extremism and political violence do not make the A-list - are not amenable to coercive military solutions. Generals and admirals, bombs and guns have their place, but at this point in the 21st century, it should not be centre stage. The best army cannot stop pandemic disease. Air strikes are useless against climate change. Alternatives to the carbon economy cannot be occupied by expeditionary forces.   

The unresolved, transnational issues that today imperil the planet are neither territorial nor ideological. Diminishing biodiversity, resource scarcity and a collapsing physical environment affect us all. In contrast, the probability that anyone reading this article will be caught up in an international terrorist incident is slightly lower than that of drowning in the bathtub. 

Bottom line? Security is not a martial art. The military is both too sharp, and too dull an instrument with which to respond in the prevailing circumstances. Diplomacy, in many cases linked integrally to development, is our best hope. 

Diplomacy can produce results by fostering genuine dialogue. That is exactly how the EU has been constructed. When fed back into decision-making loops, the sorts of inputs generated by meaningful exchange can affect behaviour at both ends of the conversation. That capacity to resolve differences and forge agreements non-violently is diplomacy’s most formidable advantage over the alternatives.

But that advantage is being squandered. In most EU countries, if not in complete disrepair, diplomacy is under pressure. Foreign ministries, often more than other departments of government, are being cut back. Foreign services are facing hiring freezes and layoffs. Mission closures have been widespread. 

It is certainly not an auspicious moment in which to get the European External Action Service (EEAS) up and running. It is no small achievement that amidst the adversity afflicting the diplomatic profession - not to mention the euro debt crisis, faltering economies, and political differences - the administrative and budgetary wheels have finally been bolted on to that very large cart. Moreover, there are all sorts of practical arguments which can be convincingly adduced to justify the EEAS’s creation. None of this, however, likely to capture anyone’s imagination. It may therefore be time to turn from the plumbing to the poetry, and to fashion for the EEAS a compelling narrative and a strategic vision.   

My advice? Europe’s ability to act effectively as a player on the international stage will never be based upon the threat or use of armed force, or the ability to cobble together a common defence policy. The Union’s strength resides in its abundant soft power, which is to say the appeal generated by liveable cities, quality public education and government services,  a rich cultural and artistic tradition and an abiding commitment to social democracy - even if not referred to as such. 

A supple, connected and innovative EEAS would do well to build upon that foundation.  Leave behind work on files better handled by specialized departments located elsewhere within the EU apparatus in order to focus on the large, cross-cutting issues such as climate change, distributive justice and management of the global commons. By rising up a couple of levels of analysis to serve as a catalyst, entrepot and network node equipped to manage the complex challenges of globalization, the EEAS could do something that is no one else’s job, including the foreign ministries of member states. 

Such a formula just might help define the basis for a new diplomacy, and in so doing contribute both to a higher level of European integration and to a better world.