“Diplomatic” communication: Is it really diplomatic?

Nilofar Suhrawardy :

Diplomatic communication has perhaps faced too many tests in recent past leading to questions regarding credibility of the same, intentions of those engaged in this exercise and more. Undeniably, United States’ diplomacy is given the maximum importance by practically all. Of course, with the country being a superpower, this is natural. Besides, the tendency of President Donald Trump to throw his diplomatic weight around and gain maximum attention cannot be ignored. This may be viewed as his style of displaying US diplomacy and gaining substantial media coverage. In essence, US diplomacy practiced by him cannot be labelled as being pursued as per party lines, that is Republican. As for instance, till date, US Presidents- whether Republican or Democratic- have hardly differed in their policies towards Russia, United Kingdom, Israel, Iran and other countries. The difference lies in that many chose to pursue the same silently, while Trump has chosen to do the same openly and loudly together with taking credit for the same.
Trump’s predecessor, Joe Biden’s stand towards Ukraine was reflected by United States’ arm supplies for Ukraine. Besides, he barely gave any diplomatic importance to bringing the conflict to a halt. It was and is apparent that Ukraine-crisis is viewed by Washington as “war” between USA and Russia. Undeniably, at a point – that is initially, Trump did make noise about bringing all conflicts to a halt. This was also his stand regarding Ukraine-crisis. But recently (July 15, 2025), his comments clearly indicated that there seems no change in his approach towards Ukraine from what was displayed by Biden. With respect to his talk about “ceasefire,” Trump has indulged in it on various other fronts too without much consistency. In other words, his diplomatic approach towards “ceasefire” cannot be dependent on for too long. At least, this is suggested by his diplomatic approach regarding Gaza-ceasefire as well as that deliberated on for a brief while on the Iran front.
Undeniably, Trump’s “stands” on ceasefire has earned him media coverage and also enhanced the importance of his diplomatic role on certain issues. This is one side of the diplomatic picture. Given the continuity of Israeli strikes against Palestinians, Gaza-genocide, their being moved towards “concentration camps” and the real aim probably being “ethnic cleansing,” what can one say for hype raised about “ceasefire” as well as it being considered along “conditional” lines? The immediate question is naturally when and how was “ceasefire” even considered, if not seriously than at least minimally? But, yes, certainly “diplomatic” importance as well as abundant media coverage has been accorded to whatever has been voiced by Trump along these lines. What does this really imply? Irrespective of limited, minimal and/or no element of ceasefire’s implementation, it did bear some importance for Trump. Simply speaking, its primary significance was apparently that of Trump’s “diplomatic” approach- regarding ceasefire- gaining global attention along with media coverage. In other words, notwithstanding the fact that it invited criticism also, what probably pleased Trump about it was his being in the limelight.
Irrespective of whether ceasefire diplomacy may be viewed as having failed, succeeded or having had limited impact, what carries relevance here is its contribution to gaining substantial coverage. Paradoxically, this clearly points to a strange linkage of the manner in which diplomatic communication can be exercised nowadays. Diplomatically, success or failure on certain issues bears little importance if the same succeeds in helping master strategists gain the required media coverage. Or in other words, required tools of communication help their stand gain limelight. Here, media coverage as well as other tools of communication, including official press releases, diplomatic interaction help key players propagate their stand, irrespective of the fact that little importance is held by the same diplomatically. In other words, diplomatic communication seems to hold little relevance in succeeding on the diplomatic front. Continuation of war, without any ceasefire, even though latter is talked about can hardly be viewed as diplomacy being actually practiced. But that “diplomatic” communication in this direction plays its role cannot be ignored. It’s role as suggested is that of propagating “diplomatic rhetoric” for the sake of gaining attention and not actually to ensure its implementation. This clearly stands out in “diplomatic” communication by US and to a degree by its allies about “ceasefire” in several areas.
This issue, that is “diplomatic” communication, may not have demanded attention if in recent days, it was not marked by it playing its role in several directions. Or rather not played the role it was actually supposed to. Strangely, not too long ago, US appeared to be giving considerable importance to talks with Iran. To a degree, these had apparently been initiated with several rounds having been held regarding Iran’s nuclear program. The word apparently has been used here as now it is difficult to accept that the real intention behind their being initiated was really diplomatic. Nevertheless, it is possible, Israel was disturbed by prospects of its key supporter considering “diplomatic” ties with its enemy- Iran. Israel has never kept its animosity with Iran a secret. Nor it ever had two opinions about striking at Iran. What matters here in context of United States’ communication diplomacy is timing of strikes’ initiation. There is no denying that Israel banks immensely on support from US. There is a view, without support from US, Israel’s war against Iran would not have lasted 12-days. It is one of those wars without any winner or loser, to end which, US had to adopt a tough stand following Iran’s strikes against its base in Qatar and thus which Israel couldn’t afford to continue.
United States’ diplomatic communication- regarding its talks with Iran- was certainly put to a strong test by Israel initiating war against Iran. It carried little relevance while the war lasted and may be said to have lost its credibility when US chose to get actually involved in the same.
The heights reached by various tools of communication have certainly enhanced their importance as important means of diplomacy also, that is diplomatic communication. Sadly, the same loses its credibility when it is not genuinely practiced to pursue diplomacy but is accompanied by war-oriented moves. What bears equal relevance in this context is undue importance accorded to communication, the one that is not genuine, largely biased – based on manufactured news – leading to communication gaps, communication lapses, misunderstandings and so forth. When “diplomatic” rhetoric or communication is engaged in, with practically little concern for peace and/or diplomacy but is primarily motivated towards promoting a particular image in addition to war-oriented moves, it would probably be erroneous to view the same as actually diplomatic communication.
The preceding point may not have been made if communication at various levels and in different parts of world was controlled only by one party/country or primarily by those favoring it. It is not. And therefore, it is not difficult for recipients of “news” to comprehend when it is genuine/real and when it is not. From this angle, such diplomatic communication does succeed in promoting images and also flattering egos but with little diplomatic credibility. Interestingly, the amazing degree to which manipulated diplomatic communication has begun being exercised is posing a strong test for diplomacy, communication and also quite a few nations’ foreign policies!

(NilofarSuhrawardy is a senior journalist and writer with specialization in communication studies and nuclear diplomacy).