Diplomacy is an intricate phenomenon. In his seminal work on the subject, Adam Watson (1982: 11) accentuates that diplomacy considerations the advanced and multifaceted dialogue between distinct and impartial civic political models, essentially sustaining worldwide society. Solid from the interaction of constitutively reproduced and mutually recognised practices, as Hedley Bull (2012: 13) succinctly identifies, a world society ‘exists when a gaggle of states, aware of sure widespread pursuits and customary values, conceive themselves to be sure by a standard algorithm of their relations with each other, and share within the working of widespread establishments.’ Within the modern context, worldwide society has been globalised to incorporate all omni-acknowledged sovereign states, and so it might be referred to interchangeably with ‘World Worldwide Society’ (GIS).
Functioning as one such establishment by its generally carried out function in legitimating motion, the observe of diplomacy features in related vein to WD40 on a rusted hinge. By this, I suggest that it permits antiquated and in any other case corroding entities – entities shaped in a socio-relational context someday previously – the potential to co-manoeuvre and interconnect with fluidity. It’s the facilitation of dialogue, as ease of formalised and bonafide intercourse that grants Diplomacy its standing as a key establishment of GIS.
This theoretical framing offers a helpful lens by which to interpret latest diplomatic affairs, notably these below President Trump’s second administration. So far, Trump’s diplomatic practices ought to be described as frictious at greatest, be it regarding Greenland, Palestine, Panama, Canada, tariffs, NATO, European Safety, and so forth. As we come to the top of his second ‘first-hundred-days’, no occasion vindicates this description extra so than his late-February encounter with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
Throughout a televised engagement between the 2 heads of state within the Oval Workplace, Trump urged Zelensky to barter peace with Russia, stating “You’re both going to make a deal or we’re out” (Bateman and Debusmann, 2025). Amidst arising tensions, Vice President JD Vance accused Zelensky of being disrespectful, following a query in regards to the Ukrainian President’s apparel. In a language not of his mother-tongue, Zelensky asserted that, “In the course of the warfare, all people has issues, even you. However you will have a pleasant ocean and don’t really feel [it] now, however you’ll really feel it sooner or later,” triggering an outburst from Trump whereby he exclaimed:
You don’t have the playing cards proper now with us. You’re playing with the lives of tens of millions of individuals. You’re playing with World Struggle Three. You’re playing with World Struggle Three, and what you’re doing may be very disrespectful to this nation… When you may get a cease-fire proper now, I let you know, you are taking it so the bullets cease flying and your males cease getting killed. (Rathi and Lu, 2025)
Finally, the confrontation led to the suspension of army assist to Ukraine and the collapse of a proposed mineral sources settlement, to not point out a transparent bilateral diplomatic breakdown.
In response, overseas ministers and political representatives centred concentrate on the immediacy of Trump’s behaviour alongside its impact on the way forward for a ‘simply and sturdy peace’ to the Russo-Ukrainian battle. (Al Jazeera, 2025) Wrapped up within the spectacle of what Trump himself confirmed “goes to be nice tv,” (McCreesh, 2025) the worldwide commentariat sought to showcase the incident, in some instances going as far to declare that diplomacy itself ‘died’ stay on display screen. (Smith, 2025)
Though such an assertion is obvious hyperbole, what I wish to declare is that the occasion revealed the fragility of the diplomatic norms underpinning GIS. This isn’t as a result of diplomacy has been weakened as an establishment of worldwide society, however as a result of its contingency upon the copy of its constitutive practices has been uncovered, in actual time nonetheless.
Trump’s dealing with of this diplomatic engagement has despatched shockwaves exactly as a result of it’s an occasion the place, in Watson’s (2002) personal phrases: ‘the observe outruns the idea.’ Right here now we have an uncomfortable second whereby the facade of diplomatic decorum collapses below the load of uncooked political calculation. As practitioners from Nicolson (1939:15), to theorists like Bull and Martin Wight (1966: 90) have articulated, the important ideas of diplomacy manifest as a traditionally cast cautious upkeep of stability, the popularity of mutual pursuits and the adherence to a standard language of engagement between sovereign states – crystallised within the rationalist western ‘constitutional’ values of GIS. Trump deserted these ideas in his coping with Zelensky, be that by his overt transactionalism or by deviating rhetorically from established diplomatic norms. In doing so, he not solely disrupted a bilateral relationship, however uncovered the inherent fragility of the normative bedrock which have traditionally sustained worldwide coexistence and cooperation.
Worldwide Society is upheld on the important thing premise that order is maintained by shared pursuits, established guidelines, and the establishments that implement them – all in dialogue with an overarching notion of ‘justice’ (Bull, 1971, 2012). Traditionally, diplomacy has each enforced and embodied such commonality, even to some extent by these revolutionary states that search to overtake the defining establishments of GIS (Armstrong, 1993; Halliday, 1999). Empirically, the Congress of Vienna institutionalised diplomacy as an orderly observe, reinforcing the stability of energy as a central tenet of worldwide society. This notion had earlier been enshrined by the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht, which set a precedent for diplomacy to perform as an arbiter between sovereign states, offering continuity at the same time as energy dynamics advanced into the modern period. Such a declare is just not a revelation by any commonplace.
Trump’s strategy to diplomacy – usually characterised by abrupt shifts, public spectacle, and a rejection of procedural norms – instantly contests this custom. His assembly with Zelensky exhibited a transactional strategy to statecraft that dismisses the very conduct that give diplomacy its stabilising impact. This isn’t to say that various diplomatic norms are novel. Certainly, it will be incorrect as an act of colonial re-interpretation to neglect that differing practices of diplomacy existed and stay extant outdoors of the dominant Nice Powers’ spatio-temporal and epistemological context of western modernity (Watson, 1982: 82-95; Keal, 2003: 27). Nonetheless, what makes Trump’s strategy so disruptive is its deliberate publicity of the underlying dynamics of diplomacy, difficult the magnitude and energy of such engrained constitutive practices of secure order for common viewing.
Diplomacy, in its conventional kind, is an artwork of managed ambiguity – of signalling intent with out overt declaration, of leveraging affect with out the looks of coercion. Trump’s mode of engagement with Zelensky, nevertheless, was outlined by an absence of this managed ambiguity. His express, unscripted, and transactional rhetoric laid naked the ability imbalances that diplomacy usually seeks to obscure. In doing so, he has pressured us to confront an unsettling actuality: that the widespread norms of diplomacy are upheld not by any inherent ethical pressure, however by the continued observe of shared expectations. When these expectations are disregarded, even momentarily, the edifice of GIS wobbles.
Wight’s (1966: 96) argument that diplomacy maintains independence of membership throughout the stability of energy, operated by states lengthy earlier than they formulated express guidelines for it, additional contextualises the impression of Trump’s actions. Diplomatic observe within the trendy worldwide system has all the time been each an natural and codified system – a tacit settlement between sovereign states to conduct their affairs inside sure behavioural and reciprocated parameters.
The ‘raison de société’ of diplomacy therefore lies in its perform as a medium by which states sign continuity, predictability, and dedication to the norms that make worldwide cooperation potential. When worldwide society is taken into account as a normative commonplace, the nice powers that color its values bear a rational accountability to protect the distribution of energy that profit them and their conception of justice. But, on the similar time, upholding such a normal sustains the very circumstances that make worldwide cooperation potential. This presents a normative bind that turns into problematic for these ‘Revolutionists’ – in Wight’s (1987, 1991) nomenclature – who search to overtake worldwide society for an more and more simply order, but with out undermining the opportunity of cooperation between peoples.
Merely put, on a normative degree, if we take the declare that Bull (1980: 446) makes severely, that ‘Nice powers can not count on to be conceded particular rights if they don’t carry out particular duties’ – tasks directed to the upkeep of balanced order and cooperation – we should critique the US administration for its flagrant show of worldwide irresponsibility.
Trump’s diplomatic efficiency constantly serves to considerably undermine this equilibrium. If diplomacy has traditionally relied on a shared pretence of mutual respect and structured negotiation, then the overt disruption of this observe suggests some breakdown. This collapse is just not of diplomacy as a standard observe, however of the notion that its guidelines are immutable. Watson’s insights on legitimacy are notably pertinent right here. The ability of diplomacy doesn’t come from pressure alone, however from the idea that the principles governing it are adhered to by all main actors in concordance with their obligations, and normalised all through the society. As Watson (2002: 145) so aptly places it,
what’s at first merely conduct can grow to be a code of conduct; interpretations for guidelines and new makes use of for establishments, can modify the unique function; and these revisions step by step grow to be accepted as a part of a brand new typical legitimacy.
On this sense, Trump’s break with conventional diplomatic norms is not only a second of disruption, however a possible pivot level the place new expectations and prospects for state behaviour could emerge, difficult the status-quo and thus the order of worldwide society itself. The accusation of irresponsibility thus extends even additional. Whether or not the behaviour Trump displayed will probably be formalised right into a coherent observe or merely function an aberration within the broader arc of diplomatic historical past stays to be seen.
This isn’t to say that diplomacy has been completely weakened or that worldwide society is in irreversible decline. As Charlotta Friedner Parrat (2024) has coherently explored, change is an engrained high quality of worldwide order and the society that institutionally underpins it. Slightly, what the Trump-Zelensky episode illustrates is that the establishment of diplomacy in stated society relies upon not solely on formal agreements but additionally on an unstated consensus about how states ought have interaction with each other. If one actor intentionally flouts these conventions with out quick penalties, others could also be emboldened to do the identical – not least when an excellent energy beneficiary to the society is the irresponsible offender.
The notion that Trump’s diplomacy represents an existential disaster for worldwide society can be an overstatement. As Watson reminds us throughout his broad physique of labor, diplomacy has been a resilient pressure all through historical past, adapting to shifting energy constructions and evolving norms. The Trump-Zelensky incident was not an anomaly when it comes to nice energy politics. Misunderstandings and disagreement have lengthy been a part of the mainstay of diplomacy and certainly populate the debates of diplomatic histories. Nonetheless, in its show of the ability dynamics that diplomacy has historically labored to obscure, the occasion was an aberration of normative accountability to a secure order.
Trump’s actions haven’t undercut diplomacy as an establishment of worldwide society, nor have they weakened its necessity. Slightly, they’ve starkly illuminated the delicate and precarious sensible contingencies that underpin it – contingencies of observe that, as soon as shaken, could also be troublesome to revive.
References
Al Jazeera (2025) World reacts after Donald Trump, JD Vance berate Ukraine’s Zelenskyy | Donald Trump Information | Al Jazeera. Out there at: https://www.aljazeera.com/information/2025/2/28/world-reacts-after-donald-trump-jd-vance-berate-ukaines-zelenskyy (Accessed: 8 April 2025).
Armstrong, D. (1993) Revolution and World Order: The Revolutionary State in Worldwide Society. Oxford, New York: Oxford College Press.
Bateman, T. and Debusmann, B. (2025) How the Trump-Zelensky talks collapsed in 10 fiery minutes, BBC Information. Out there at: https://www.bbc.com/information/articles/c2erwgwy8vgo (Accessed: 8 April 2025).
Bull, H. (1971) ‘Order vs. Justice in Worldwide Society’, Political Research, 19(3), pp. 269–283. Out there at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.1971.tb00674.x.
Bull, H. (1980) ‘The Nice Irresponsibles? The US, the Soviet Union, and World Order’, Worldwide Journal, 35(3), pp. 437–447. Out there at: https://doi.org/10.1177/002070208003500302.
Bull, H. (2012) The Anarchical Society: A Research of Order in World Politics. Third Version. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan UK.
Friedner Parrat, C. (2024) ‘Change in worldwide order? An institutional evaluation’, European Journal of Worldwide Safety, 9(3), pp. 449–467. Out there at: https://doi.org/10.1017/eis.2024.13.
Halliday, F. (1999) Revolution and World Politics: The Rise and Fall of the Sixth Nice Energy. Duke College Press.
Harold Nicolson (1939) Diplomacy. London: Oxford College Press.
Keal, P. (2003) European Conquest and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: The Ethical Backwardness of Worldwide Society. Cambridge: Cambridge College Press (Cambridge Research in Worldwide Relations). Out there at: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511491467.
McCreesh, S. (2025) ‘“This Is Going to Be Nice Tv”: Trump Sums Up His Zelensky Showdown’, The New York Instances, 1 March. Out there at: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/28/us/politics/television-trump-zelensky-ukraine.html (Accessed: 8 April 2025).
Rathi, A. and Lu, C. (2025) ‘Learn Trump and Zelensky’s Fiery Oval Workplace Change’, Overseas Coverage, 23 April. Out there at: https://foreignpolicy.com/2025/02/28/trump-zelensky-meeting-transcript-full-text-video-oval-office/ (Accessed: 8 April 2025).
Smith, D. (2025) ‘Diplomacy dies on stay TV as Trump and Vance gang as much as bully Ukraine chief’, The Guardian, 28 February. Out there at: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/28/trump-zelenskyy-shouting-match-oval-office (Accessed: 8 April 2025).
Watson, A. (1982) Diplomacy: The Dialogue Between States. London and New York: Routledge.
Watson, A. (2002) ‘The Apply Outruns The Principle’, in B.A. Roberson (ed.) Worldwide Society and The Growth of Worldwide Relations Principle. London and New York: Continuum, pp. 145–155.
Wight, M. (1966) ‘Western Values in Worldwide Relations’, in M. Wight and H. Butterfield (eds) Diplomatic Investigations: Essays on the Principle of Worldwide Politics. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd, pp. 89–131.
Wight, M. (1987) ‘An Anatomy of Worldwide Thought’, Evaluate of Worldwide Research, 13(3), pp. 221–227.
Wight, M. (1991) Worldwide Principle: The Three Traditions. Edited by G. Wight and B. Porter. London: Leicester College Press for the Royal Institute of Worldwide Affairs.
Additional Studying on E-Worldwide Relations
