by Muhammad Mohsin Iqbal
The conduct of diplomatic meetings between heads of state is governed by established norms of foreign relations, ensuring that discussions adhere to a level of decorum that reflects both national dignity and international expectations. These protocols are not just formalities but essential components of diplomacy that help maintain mutual respect, even between adversaries. The recent meeting between the President of the United States Donald Trump and the President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensk in the Oval Office of the White House, however, broke many of these conventional barriers. The language, tone, and emotions displayed during the conversation were extraordinary, raising the question: do heads of state really talk like this?
Diplomatic meetings between world leaders, whether in private or public, follow certain specific unwritten rules. These include maintaining a respectful tone, ensuring that grievances or concerns are expressed in a manner that does not undermine either party, and avoiding personal confrontations that could escalate tensions. The essence of diplomacy lies in controlled dialogue, where even the most serious matters are addressed with calculated words. Traditionally, even during high-stakes discussions between rival nations, leaders are expected to engage in a composed and restrained manner. Heated exchanges, emotional outbursts, or open expressions of frustration in front of the media are highly uncommon.
While it is true that heads of state sometimes engage in direct and blunt conversations, such moments are usually reserved for behind closed doors. The public display of strong emotions by the leaders of the United States and Ukraine during their recent meeting challenges the conventional wisdom of diplomatic interactions. In the past, there have been instances where leaders have used strong rhetoric, but these were often strategic rather than impulsive. For example, Soviet and American leaders during the Cold War exchanged harsh words, yet they did so within the framework of controlled diplomacy, ensuring that no side was publicly humiliated in a way that could escalate tensions.
Protocol dictates that such meetings are carefully choreographed. Before any head of state visits another country, a detailed agenda is set, and diplomats ensure that both parties understand the tone and structure of the conversation. Official statements, body language, and gestures are all considered in advance. Even the seating arrangements, the order in which leaders speak, and the level of media access are decided to maintain decorum. When deviations from these protocols occur, they are often the result of deliberate political strategy rather than spontaneous emotions.
However, there have been instances in history where heads of state deviated from traditional diplomatic conduct. One of the most notable examples is the interaction between former U.S. President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. Their exchanges, at times, involved direct insults and threats, something rarely seen in modern diplomacy. However, despite their verbal clashes, their eventual meetings followed diplomatic protocols. Similarly, former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson often displayed a casual and unconventional approach in international forums, sometimes using humor or blunt remarks that were outside the usual diplomatic tone, but even then, he adhered to the basic tenets of statecraft.
In contrast, the conversation between the American and Ukrainian presidents in the Oval Office appeared to break multiple diplomatic norms. The openness of their emotions, the lack of restraint in their words, and the visible display of frustration were unusual. This raises concerns about whether personal sentiments are overtaking strategic considerations in global diplomacy. Leaders are not expected to be emotionless, but their words carry weight beyond personal feelings. Every statement made in such high-level meetings can impact international relations, shape alliances, and even influence conflicts.
The question that arises from this event is whether such behavior sets a new precedent or is merely an exception. If world leaders begin to conduct diplomacy based on emotions rather than calculated words, it could have unpredictable consequences. The balance of power, especially in conflicts where multiple nations are involved, depends on controlled and strategic communication. Public displays of emotions, particularly between allies in a sensitive conflict like the Ukraine-Russia war, can create confusion and signal instability in decision-making.
Diplomacy has survived for centuries because it operates on established principles, regardless of personal relationships between leaders. Even during moments of extreme crisis, such as the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, U.S. President John F. Kennedy and Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev maintained careful diplomatic channels to avoid war. Their messages, though firm, were carefully worded to prevent escalation. This highlights the importance of measured language in high-stakes international discussions.
It remains to be seen whether the recent conversation between the American and Ukrainian presidents was an isolated incident or a sign of shifting norms in global diplomacy. While emotional appeals can have political benefits, they should not come at the cost of diplomatic stability. The world watches closely when major leaders speak, and every word they utter carries implications far beyond the room they are in. The rules of diplomacy exist for a reason—to ensure that even in moments of tension, dialogue remains a tool for resolution rather than division.
