This turn is a pivot away from the hushed back channels and toward the global public square. It’s a linguistic shift from the nuances of pragmatics to the blunt force of performative speech acts—statements designed not just to communicate, but to do something in the full glare of the public eye. And its patterns are becoming alarmingly clear.
The Lost Art of Strategic Ambiguity
Traditional diplomacy was built on a shared understanding among a small group of professionals. They used language that was intentionally flexible. Consider the classic diplomatic tool of strategic ambiguity. For decades, the United States’ policy on Taiwan was a masterclass in this approach. By neither confirming nor denying whether it would defend the island militarily, the U.S. simultaneously deterred a Chinese invasion and discouraged any Taiwanese move toward formal independence. The ambiguity itself was the policy.
This is a perfect example of pragmatics in action. Pragmatics is the branch of linguistics concerned with how context contributes to meaning. The power of a diplomatic statement wasn’t just in the words themselves (the semantics), but in who was saying them, to whom, and under what circumstances. It allowed all sides to save face, to interpret statements in the most convenient way, and to keep pathways to negotiation open. The goal was to manage complex relationships and avoid painting oneself into a corner.
The Rise of the Performative Speech Act
Today’s Un-Diplomatic Turn trades this subtlety for something entirely different: the performative speech act. Coined by philosopher J.L. Austin, a performative utterance is one that performs an action. When a judge says, “I sentence you to ten years,” they aren’t just describing a sentence; they are enacting it. In modern diplomacy, we see this constantly.
When a world leader tweets a direct threat, condemns a rival nation in a fiery speech, or unilaterally draws a “red line,” they are performing for a global audience. The primary interlocutor is no longer the foreign minister across the negotiating table; it’s the domestic electorate, the 24-hour news cycle, and the algorithm-driven world of social media. The message must be simple, powerful, and emotionally resonant. Nuance doesn’t go viral.
Think of former President Trump’s 2017 threat to unleash “fire and fury” on North Korea, or the rise of China’s “wolf warrior” diplomats, who use aggressive, often sarcastic language on platforms like X (formerly Twitter) to push back against criticism. These aren’t veiled warnings. They are public performances of strength, defiance, and national pride, crafted for maximum impact back home.
The Language of Division: Stark Binary Oppositions
A key linguistic feature of this un-diplomatic style is its reliance on stark binary oppositions. The complex, multipolar world is flattened into a simple, two-sided struggle. This pattern is everywhere:
- Us vs. Them: This is the foundational binary, creating a clear in-group (the righteous nation) and out-group (the threatening other).
- Democracy vs. Autocracy: A frame heavily used by the Biden administration, it morally sorts the world into two camps, simplifying geopolitical alliances.
- Patriots vs. Globalists: A populist framing that casts international cooperation as a betrayal of the nation.
- Good vs. Evil: The most ancient and powerful binary, famously used by George W. Bush with the “Axis of Evil,” it removes any possibility of moral complexity or common ground.
This language is effective because it’s psychologically potent. It clarifies who to support and who to oppose, mobilizes public opinion, and justifies aggressive policies. But it’s a diplomatic dead end. When you frame an issue as a zero-sum battle between good and evil, you leave no room for compromise, negotiation, or mutual understanding. You are speaking the language of conflict, not resolution.
What’s Driving the Un-Diplomatic Turn?
This linguistic shift isn’t happening in a vacuum. It’s a symptom of broader changes in our world.
First, technology has collapsed the space between leaders and the public. Social media demands immediacy and rewards confrontation. A carefully worded diplomatic communiqué is ignored, while a provocative tweet is amplified around the world in minutes.
Second, the rise of populism has changed the political playbook. Populist leaders often build their brands on being “authentic” and rejecting the “elites,” a group that most certainly includes traditional, pinstripe-suited diplomats. Speaking in blunt, unvarnished terms is a way of performing this authenticity for their domestic base.
Finally, the very structure of the global order is in flux. With the relative decline of a single, dominant power, nations are more openly jostling for influence and challenging established norms—including the once-sacrosanct norms of diplomatic communication.
The Paradox of Plain Speaking
There is a paradox at the heart of the Un-Diplomatic Turn. In theory, directness should lead to clarity. But in the high-stakes world of geopolitics, it often breeds instability. By abandoning the shared language of ambiguity and nuance, we lose the crucial buffer that helps prevent miscalculation and escalation.
When every statement is a public performance and every issue is a binary struggle, the space for quiet, constructive diplomacy shrinks. We are left with a world that is louder and seemingly more transparent, but also more brittle and more dangerous. The greatest question for our time may be a linguistic one: have we forgotten how to speak the language of peace?