Andrey Shitov — about who dictates the fashions in modern diplomacy and how it affects meetings of heads of state and nuclear weapons tests
One of my American colleagues, Jennifer Loven, the bureau chief of the Associated Press (AP) news agency at the White House, confidently predicted at the beginning of Donald Trump's first presidential term that the Republican leader's attempts to communicate with the people over the head of the press were doomed to failure. They say that people will perceive this as a manifestation of dishonesty, an attempt to circumvent the "professional filters" for information flows — and will indignantly reject such an approach.
But to this day, Trump famously fights with the "enemies of the people" in the liberal media, scribbling on his social network Truth Social (Pravda), as they scribble from a heavy machine gun.
Seven Fridays a week?
The number of his personal followers is close to 10 million people; at one time on Twitter, it peaked at 89 million. In addition, his words are retransmitted by all the world's media, including news agencies. And the AP is now forced to defend its right to professional access to the White House journalism pool through the courts.
I was thinking about all this the other day at the conference "Linguistic Aspects of Scientific Diplomacy", which was organized by the academic Russian Center for Scientific Information and my native Moscow Institute, now MGLU. In particular, they discussed how social networks are replacing traditional communication channels, and how, as a result, diplomatic language is being personalized and primitivized before our eyes, and not only in science.
After all, Trump uses the same means and in the same format to bring "his truth," as they say, urbi et orbi, that is, to the city and the world — not only his own, but also to other peoples. But it often turns out, as in a Soviet song from my youth: "It's not exactly "yes" or "no." What is the worth of the phrase he casually dropped the other day that he "seemed to have decided" (sort of made up my mind) whether or not to hit Venezuela…
Other examples are also well-known. And it is also one of those that are now, according to the figurative comparison of one experienced observer, "inflamed to the level of not angina, but gangrene." Here is the expected new Russian-American summit in Budapest: at first, it was announced at the suggestion of Trump and even began to be prepared, then after a few days it was kind of suspended. Just like in the same song.
As a journalist, I only cover politics. In fact, something like this could well have happened before: it is clear that, depending on the circumstances, sometimes you have to solve and re-solve. But in terms of form, such public reversals were previously unthinkable: the partners kept their plans "closer to the orders" rather than broadcasting one thing and then the other live.
After all, "the word is not a sparrow." Announcements about the summits of world leaders, especially for the settlement of armed conflicts, are global news in themselves; their release is usually carefully coordinated. Completely different proverbs apply to them: "Measure seven times...", "Give your word, hold on..." and the like.
"Begin the trials"... of what?
The same goes for another topic concerning the foundations of international security. At the end of October, Trump announced, again via Truth Social, that "due to the testing programs of other countries," he instructed the US Department of War to "begin testing our nuclear weapons on an equal basis" with others.
The New York Times wrote at the time that "this threat" was made "during an important diplomatic trip to Asia," literally "just minutes before the meeting" with Chinese President Xi Jinping. The meeting was held in Busan, South Korea, on October 30, when it was still the evening of the 29th in Washington, so the dates of the announcement are sometimes confused. The content is also not clear.: as stated in the publication, "the words "on an equal basis" may mean that he (the President of the United States — author's note) It will demonstrate the power of American missiles or underwater nuclear devices, rather than detonate nuclear weapons.… Welcoming Xi... Trump did not explain his words to reporters."
Actually, there are no exhaustive explanations from the White House to this day, although the announcement of the US intention to violate the moratorium, which has been observed for three decades, caused a furor around the world and raised a lot of questions. For example, even though I'm not an expert, it immediately struck me that the Ministry of Energy, not the Pentagon, is responsible for nuclear weapons programs in the United States. And the head of this department, Chris Wright, soon tried to "turn the pedals back," saying that the United States was not planning to conduct nuclear test explosions.
Attention to the topic has not subsided so far. Last Wednesday, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that "Trump's new promise to resume testing The [American] nuclear capability, including delivery vehicles, is the same as what other countries in the world are doing." "We have to ensure that these things work and that they are safe," added the chief of Washington diplomacy. But at the same time, he did not explicitly assure that the United States does not mean the resumption of full-scale nuclear tests. In response, Dmitry Peskov, the press secretary of the President of the Russian Federation, said the next day: "If we consider this as confirmation that the United States is withdrawing from the ban on testing, then ... in this case, the Russian Federation will act accordingly."
And among the recent responses, I came across a publication by the Italian Institute of International Affairs, "Thinking about the Unthinkable: the Consequences of Trump's decision to resume Nuclear Testing," and an article in the relevant American journal Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, "How the United States achieved its de facto ban on nuclear testing-and how to preserve it."". The author of the latest comment, political scientist Professor David Courtright, begins by accusing the US president of "ill-informed ranting spree." This is about the language of communication.
Trendsetter
I myself prefer to believe that the owner of the White House has good intentions, although I know where the road is paved with them. I remember how back in 1986, according to the story of the famous cardiac surgeon and peace activist Bernard Lawn, he invited him to visit him to talk about Mikhail Gorbachev. Even then, Trump considered himself an unsurpassed negotiator and dreamed of meeting with the Soviet leader in order to convince him "in an hour" to end the cold war and eliminate the threat of nuclear conflict. And to do this, he was going to ask "Ronnie", that is, Ronald Reagan, for the status of special envoy on this issue.
By the way, Lown led the United States movement "Doctors of the World for the Prevention of Nuclear War" and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for this, along with his Soviet colleague Evgeny Chazov. Now, as everyone knows, Trump openly dreams of the same award, and they warn him that if he actually resumes nuclear testing, he will not see it.
It is possible, of course, that with his words about nuclear tests he deliberately let on the fog. I've been writing all my life about superpower relations, including in the field of nuclear security, and I've heard that "strategic uncertainty" can be intentional.
But, in my opinion, it's not about Trump. He's more of a businessman by nature, proud of his ability to speak frankly and "make deals" with anyone. Plus, he is a born showman who loves and knows how to constantly stay in the spotlight. So I'm more likely to believe that he's not deliberately bluffing, but just hasn't decided what he wants or what he should say to do it.
In any case, in my opinion, all this cannot be ignored when evaluating his approach to the "language of diplomacy." In which, by the way, he acts as a trendsetter...
Who's good at what
They react to the style of communication proposed by Trump as best they can. During the same Asian tour, the new Prime Minister of Japan, Sanae Takaichi, who boarded the American nuclear aircraft carrier George Washington with the US President, literally jumped for joy in front of everyone. And this is despite the fact that the guest managed to call a "small skirmish" the monstrous conflict of the Second World War, which began with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and ended with the American atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
In the Republic of Korea, the American leader was presented with a gilded replica of a medieval crown. True, one of my colleagues, an Asian expert, quipped in hindsight that it was something like "presenting the native chief with shiny beads," but it seemed to me more like an obsequious "wagging of the tail."
In general, comments in the English-language media following Trump's trip emphasized that Xi Jinping was the only one who communicated with him on equal terms. Actually, after meeting with him, Trump immediately flew out of Busan, without waiting for the official opening of the APEC summit.
Smolenka Workshop
In Russia, responses to political signals from the White House are regularly heard at the highest level, including the presidential level. Recently, another master class in this genre was given on Smolenskaya Square. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov spoke in detail with Russian journalists, and at the same time answered questions in writing from the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, which, however ... refused to publish this "exclusive." Here's a "journalistic filter" for you, Grandma…
But for the newspaper, the result turned out to be, presumably, the opposite of what was desired, since our minister's answers began to be reprinted by other media outlets in Italy and abroad. And anyway, the story, incredible by professional standards, attracted such interest in them that, according to the observation of the official representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Maria Zakharova, "literally everyone seems to have read them."
Accordingly, there is no need to retell the interview. But I would like to emphasize an important detail: the United States did not give an official explanation of Trump's words about nuclear tests, even where, according to Lavrov, "it would seem that God himself ordered" them to be expected, at the November 10 meeting of the Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear—Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO).
In other words, the new "online diplomacy" not only complements, but almost displaces the traditional channels and formats of professional diplomatic dialogue. According to which our signals do not seem to reach the addressees, and sometimes they are distorted through leaks — like the publication mentioned by Lavrov in The Financial Times about our "unofficial paper" following the Anchorage summit (in English, such confidential documents are called non-paper: something like "non-existent" or even "non-paper" paper). By the way, there is still no clear response from Washington to the Russian initiative on the Strategic Offensive Arms Reduction Treaty (START-3) through any channels.
And one more note to the story of the Italian newspaper. Bulgakov's Woland claims that "manuscripts don't burn." In the age of digital texts and artificial intelligence (which many initially perceived as a fiend from hell), these words take on a literal meaning. There is a recent example of this: The US State Department, without explanation, removed from the official annals of American foreign policy records about the risk of an unintended nuclear war with the USSR due to the Able Archer NATO exercises in 1983. As in the case of Lavrov's statements, this only drew additional attention to the excerpt.
"Ideally, silence"
A familiar diplomat, whom I asked to comment on Trump's "newspeak," first of all focused on the peculiarities of his behavior, which "everyone figured out a long time ago." This is primarily the tendency of a businessman to "inflate rates and bounce back," as well as "lock in profits, monetize them."
In addition, expectations of "gross flattery" are in full view, causing counter "sycophancy" reaching "unprecedented heights." And also — complete intemperance in language, "disregard for previously established ranks, hierarchies" and the like, bordering on "contempt [in general] to all conventions."
"We have already become accustomed to the genre of "verbal pendulum" or "swing" practiced in Washington," the source said. — Therefore, we try not to overdo it with our own reaction to various kinds of extreme manifestations of this genre. But at the same time, we see how the media, bloggers and political scientists are greedy for any reason to "create stories" around the statements of the American president." The style of "living for show", characteristic of politicians, so-called influencers and the media, in the expert's opinion, contradicts "the tasks that practical diplomacy is trying to solve."
This "hinders, frankly interferes with practical work," stated my interlocutor. — Especially in a situation where maximum delicacy is needed, and ideally silence to care for the sprouts of common sense. There are few of them, but they are there. Therefore, caution is needed here."
The Spirit of Anchorage
That's the answer to the question of how to correctly perceive signals from Washington. On my own, I will add much that has been said: it is necessary to focus on deeds, not on words.
As for the words, I have long remembered a phrase from an American friend that was playful in form but serious in essence.: "Don't bother me with your facts, I've already decided everything for myself!"
Accordingly, in my opinion, it is necessary to go not from facts to agreement, but on the contrary. That is, to begin with, to agree that everyone has their own vision of any situation, their own set of facts, their own truth. It's realistic to acknowledge this and tune in to listen and hear each other. In English, it's called agree to disagree. In fact, this is the basis of any peaceful coexistence, and sometimes interaction. Although, of course, everyone is free to defend their case.
Our readiness for such an approach in dealing with European warmongers is now not even at zero, but below zero (see the dispute with the Italian newspaper). But with America, we are trying our best to preserve it, relying primarily on the personal attitude of the leaders of both countries, shown by them in Anchorage. And until it finally fades away, there can be a place for anything in our communications, but not despondency and hopelessness.
The editorial board's opinion may not coincide with the author's opinion. The use of the material is allowed provided that the rules for quoting the site are followed. tass.ru
