COMMENTARY: Once upon a time – Diplomacy in the image of our times [Shridath Ramphal Centre Trading Thoughts]

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not represent the views of Duravision Inc., Dominica News Online, or any of its subsidiary brands.

In watching recent regional and international events, I pondered whether political discourse, and diplomacy more specifically, is in decline or being remade in the image of the times. This is a question that I am certain concerns not only seasoned career diplomats but average citizens. To avoid any misunderstanding, I use ‘diplomacy’ here to mean specifically the conduct of international interactions and communications between states.

Traditionally, diplomacy was conducted through couriers who travelled long distances to deliver written communications. As technological innovation took hold, inventions such as telegraphs, telephones, and fax machines emerged, enabling more effective and efficient diplomatic communication. The arrival of the internet has enabled today’s politicians to use social media to communicate, negotiate, and share information. Remarkably, not only has the method of undertaking diplomacy changed, but the way it is practised has changed as well.

This piece explores how it was, is, and should be practised by those representing nations, while addressing the decline of traditional diplomacy.

What Was

Once upon a time, diplomacy was marked by the mystery of discretion and secrecy. There was a display of intellectual qualities and social and practical skills. Disputes between states were resolved, or not, behind closed doors or through official channels. Eloquence and the command of language in both written and oral persuasions were admired qualities. As a student of diplomacy, my lecturer taught me the famous sentiment commonly attributed to former British Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill on tact: I should be able to tell someone to go to hell in a way that would make them believe the ride would be enjoyable. Further, when and where meant something, time and place mattered. There was a time to speak and a time for silence. This is not to suggest that there were never instances of deviation from such norms, but today it is at an unprecedented level, even among those in high office.

What Is

Digital diplomacy is 21st-century statecraft for international relations, facilitating real-time communication, knowledge, and information management through the internet. Apart from negotiation and official communication with other states, many foreign offices use it to
connect with nationals overseas, engage in cultural penetration, and influence the publics of other nations. With the advent of social media, many statesmen and women, embassies, and nongovernmental organisations have begun to utilise various platforms. With just the click of
a finger, communication and interactions take place on applications such as X (formerly Twitter), Facebook, Instagram and LinkedIn.

Negative trends are steadily unfolding in the realm of digital diplomacy. What exists today is the very opposite of discretion, eloquence and a standard that reflects traditional diplomatic norms and practices. Today, social media is flooded with a new type of diplomacy, with leaders using expletives and derogatory language that degrades other leaders and nations.

Examples of this include the Easter Day Message targeted at the Iranian government via X (formerly Twitter) and the name-calling practised by the Argentine president to describe other leaders. Disagreements are evident in back-and-forth exchanges akin to high school fallouts.

Foreign policy articulations are made via tweets. Regional and international issues that ought to be resolved behind closed doors are thrust into the public domain, with real consequences.

The consequences of such actions extend beyond mere trivialisation. The war in the Middle East is being reduced to memes and comical videos while innocent lives are lost. Businesses and consumers feel the real effects of tariff decisions announced in the public theatre of social media, with the likelihood of reduced demand for businesses and higher prices for consumers.

There is indeed a shift in the standard of diplomacy. The way some leaders utilise digital diplomacy dismantles years of trust-building and shapes perceptions in a negative light.

Political leaders author and share content that fuels disunity and hate, undermining positive relations between states. We are witnessing the redefining of diplomacy, not so much by practitioners trained and educated in the field, but by leaders who are supposed to be role models for citizens and, more importantly, future generations. An extraterrestrial being visiting our planet might very well not be able to tell the difference between a leader and a social media influencer based on behaviours exhibited today.

What Should Be

The question that naturally follows is: what is to be done? As citizens, we are not powerless and ought to demand that our leaders behave professionally. At election time, we often see the traits of political hopefuls, and our vote can therefore serve as a check on the types of
leaders who are likely to contribute to the decline, based on their expressed behaviours. At the international level, there should be codes of conduct for digital diplomacy with prescribed norms for engagement of members of multilateral institutions such as the United Nations.
Certainly, these are not unreasonable suggestions or demands.

The world is experiencing many events over which human beings have no direct control. How leaders engage with one another and how they influence and shape perceptions are not entirely uncontrollable. A level of sophistication is needed that fosters smooth dialogue, reduces unnecessary friction, and guards against the kind of miscalculation that breeds conflict. Protocol and measured language will always have their place in interactions, whether in person or on social media.

Diplomacy, as we once knew it, is in decline, and it is being remade for the current time, where respect for international law has dwindled, multilateral systems and institutions are in upheaval, and there exists a situation explained by the ancient historian Thucydides, where the strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must to survive.

In keeping with the diplomatic sign-off of a renowned leader on Twitter, thank you for your attention to this matter!

The Shridath Rampal Centre originally published this article on April 30.

Vanessa Mason is the Research Assistant at the Shridath Ramphal Centre for International Trade Law, Policy & Services of The University of the West Indies, Cave Hill.