Ditching Diplomatic Niceties

Diplomacy is not always niceties and pleasantries that the world is led to believe during press briefs and pre- and post-closed-door talks. Barring exceptions, leaders and delegations meet in accordance with pre-set agendas. But alert staffers at the schedule-scrutinising stage demand clarification and elaboration to iron out any ambiguity and doubts over the agenda scope. Whatever the efforts, talks can go nasty. A glimpse of it was given by the recent spat between Ukraine’s visiting President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and his American host, Donald Trump, at the White House in full view of the Press.    

Trump posed an intimidating position that normally would not be displayed in public, even between nations nearing a war. Zelenskyy got a dressing-down from the hosts. Not only Trump but also his Vice President JD Vance broke in to criticise Zelenskyy. In 1919, when the defeated German delegation arrived in Versailles to glumly sign the peace accord prepared by the victors, the choice was not to reason why but to listen and accept whatever was dished out. All for the sake of a superpowers’ victors’ nation-first collective policy and “international security”.

That Trump spoke the way he has been doing since taking office in January might be surprising to many. More surprising is how the mainstream elite in the militarily and economically biggest superpower were reticent to comment critically on their president’s public demeanour. Had Trump’s comments come from, say, Chinese President Xi Jinping or Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, the now-silent lot would be up in arms in aiming their critical darts at the “aggressive” talk.

Hypocrisy at work

Western hypocrisy tolerates authoritarian regimes engaged in heinous crimes as long as the strategy serves its “vital interests”. In Vietnam, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, South Korea, Indonesia and the Philippines in the post-World War II decades, many democratic capitals tolerated or befriended lustily authoritarian regimes. That was on account of “national interests” and “global and regional peace”. Much of the elite and the news media accepted the official line. 

Bar room brawl diplomacy won’t work. That’s for sure. The backlash will come; in what form and shape, the prevailing conditions will determine. Bitter memory runs deep when national humiliation is involved. Dismissing lightly or disparaging an entire nation has consequences sooner or later. In a March 4 address to the US Congress, Trump explained his administration's humanitarian foreign aid cuts, citing a USAID project worth $8 million to Lesotho, which “nobody has ever heard of”. This means the world is confined to Trump’s knowledge, and there is nothing beyond that. This means, as the saying goes in Nepal, a void “beyond one’s nose tip”.

A British protectorate in Africa, which became independent in 1966, Lesotho’s 2.3 million people have a constitutional monarchy. Ironically, Trump’s adviser and the world’s richest billionaire, Elon Musk had previously met with Lesotho's prime minister to discuss the country’s internet access. History is for the future also, not just an exercise in recording but also analysing events for future reference as to what, and why things happened, and how can its repetition be avoided in the future.

As a spillover of the Trump treatment of foreign leaders, governments are assessing how they would be treated when a clash of interests takes place with the superpower and how others would react. Will they chicken out or come out in strong support of the victim? Remember how Trump went all the way to Southeast Asia to meet North Korea’s President Kim Jong-un in what his predecessors and counterparts in Europe had termed the “international pariah”?

The bigger and more powerful a state, the greater the potential for it to act like a bully for bulldozing the course of events to its perception of advantage. Most targets bend and bow, some of them for as long as conditions are not in their favour. A few take their own stand, firm and loud. The government of Greenland did not want Vance to visit but the latter did just the same to inspect the US military base there, even if he was greeted with popular protests over “disrespectful” remarks on the huge island territory that Trump craves on grounds of “security” interests. There were hardly any statements from European powers on Trump’s tone. Had that come from Putin or Xi, they might have reacted differently.  

No to bullying 

In response to Trump’s recent letter to him for a new deal on containing Iran’s advanced nuclear programme, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei tagged Washington a “bullying government” that pushes for talks on its own terms. He said their talks are geared “to impose” what they want “on the other party that is sitting on the opposite side of the table”.

Khamenei’s remarks came a day after President Trump made overtures for reviving talks. Khamenei said: “They will be about defense capabilities, about international capabilities of the country. (They will urge Iran) not to do (certain) things, not to meet certain people, not to go to a certain place, not to produce some items, your missile range should not be more than a certain distance. Is it possible for anybody to accept these?” The ugly spat between visiting Zelenskyy and his hosts at the White House might tempt other powers to emulate the same when confronting leaders not toeing their lines in toto.   

Trump and Vance did not spare even British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who had to bear the slight that his country was among “random” nations that did not fight any war for 30 to 40 years. A few days later, Trump lost his cool with Ireland’s Prime Minister.

A couple of days later in the House of Commons, Starmer answered the White House by paying tributes to British heroes who died fighting in Afghanistan. It was a diplomatic jab at the American vice president, who has the habit of taking the floor out of turn to assert the kind of role his predecessors were not publicly known to have played previously. 

A solitary quarter airing dissenting views could be tolerated as a nuisance better left alone. But the issue with the bigger powers is the domino effect the case might trigger. When someone tries to stand tough against being pushed around, other smaller but determined powers could also summon the energy to follow suit. This would mean sowing long-term seeds of bitter memories bent on striking difficult when an opportunity arises.

 (Professor Kharel specialises in political communication.)