What’s wrong with traditional diplomacy conducted behind closed doors? Last Friday’s clash between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, in which public confrontations and political theatrics overshadowed serious discussions, is Exhibit A of the perils of reality TV diplomacy.
The meeting was supposed to finalise a minerals deal between the two countries, but it quickly turned into a confrontation. Trump and vice-president JD Vance accused Zelensky of not showing gratitude for US support during the ongoing conflict, and Trump blasted Zelensky. Predictably, the meeting ended abruptly with Zelensky being asked to leave the White House.
The Oval Office clash, which bore the hallmarks of a scripted spectacle, underscored the necessity of traditional diplomacy conducted behind closed doors. The public displays of political theatrics may capture the headline, but they often do little to advance the substantive dialogue or foster enduring agreements. Behind closed doors, leaders can engage in candid and constructive conversations without pressure of public scrutiny and political posturing.
In an era in which the boundaries between politics and entertainment are increasingly blurred, it is crucial to remember that diplomacy is not a reality show. The stakes are too high and consequences too far reaching to reduce international relations to a mere spectacle. Let’s return to the good old-fashioned diplomacy that prioritises substance over style and seeks to build bridges rather than burn them.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.