Good and Bad: Communication and Diplomacy

By Shekhar KC, MDEVS

Abstract: This article(1) Illustrate two of my real-life experiences involving the role of communication in maintaining diplomacy(2) With my senior professor

Communication and diplomacy

Communication is to diplomacy what blood is to the human body (Jonsson & Hall, 2002). As the saying goes, communication plays a decisive role in maintaining relations between two or more parties and in the implementation of their respective diplomacy, which cannot be underestimated. Good or bad communication directly leads to favorable or unfavorable consequences. Scholars admit that diplomacy still relies on a creative combination of verbal and non-verbal communication (Jonsson & Hall, 2002). In addition, cultural understanding is also very important when communicating with partners, especially when communicating with new partners (Slavik, 2004).

Carolyn (2011) writes that diplomats not only talk to other diplomats, but also engage with a wide range of stakeholders in the relationship building process. For example, the media not only publish news based on press releases issued by embassies after diplomatic visits, but also based on the non-verbal characteristics of both parties. In other words, if diplomacy is understood as an appropriate mechanism for building positive relationships, thereby gaining benefits and achieving interaction goals, then correct communication is essential.

There are many examples of good and bad communication leading to different diplomatic consequences in the international arena, but here I want to talk about my own student and professional career experiences to illustrate how good or bad communication can lead to good or bad events, especially when it comes to the cultural perception of the relationship between the two parties.

Case 1: Good Diplomacy

Get money from your boss

The Global Fund (now renamed) is a non-profit governmental organization that has been conducting research since 2008. I participated in a 3-month research project as a contract research assistant. The research director, Mr. X, is PhD I am Mr. Y’s advisor, and Mr. Y is my thesis advisor. That is, Mr. X and I have a relationship that is not just that of a professional colleague, but also that of a senior scholar, which involves some cultural obligations, including proper greetings and humble exchanges on my part, and more importantly, no direct or harsh words.

The purpose of my interaction with the organization was to obtain timely compensation by maintaining a professional and academic relationship with Mr. X, the Director of Research.

My communication strategy

– Since I could not talk to the Director of Studies clearly about my payment, I had to talk to someone else around him. Since the Director of Studies was much more senior than me and he had little idea how important it was for me to get paid, I had to talk to someone who could convey the message of how important money was to me at that time. So I talked to Mr. Y, who was my supervisor and a student of the Director of Studies, Mr. X. Thus, I was able to maintain my student image in front of Mr. Y and Mr. X. Likewise, I received the money in time. Everyone was happy.

– Another problem I faced was delayed salary because I was just a student and I was working hard but not getting any recognition. Financially. All senior and established employees in the organization were paid, except me, because it was my first time to be paid, so I could not ask them for my share. I could not ask Mr. Y for help this time, because it sounded too reliable and a bit against my self-reliance. So what I did was to find some urgent excuses at home to be away from home. This directly affected the research project because the deadline was approaching and my part of the work was not completed (I know I can finish it in 3 days and there are 17 days left until the deadline)After four or five days, the Director of Studies called me and asked what emergency I had. I cleverly said that I needed some money and I was busy collecting money from my relatives who had lent me a few months ago. Through that call, he was sure that I had financial needs. On the other hand, I had done enough work and got around Rs. 10,000. The next day, he ordered his accountant to give me some money. The way he asked me was also clever. The accountant called me and said that my cheque had arrived a few days ago.

I understand that this is how the payment system works in Nepali NGOs, where money matters are always diplomatic.

So through this combination of verbal and non-verbal communication, I was able to get the money and our relationship would not be damaged.

Summary: It was very important to remain diplomatic about the direction of the research, because maintaining a relationship with him was just as important as getting paid. And I knew I had a chance to work with him in the future, and I wouldn’t miss it no matter what. He’s a well-known researcher and media personality, and everyone wanted to work with him as much as I did.

Case 2: Bad foreign policy

Kathmandu University SWC and Management

KUSWC (Kathmandu University School Welfare Committee) is a student organization of Kathmandu University, whose president is also a member of the senate of KU, and can therefore be considered an influential decision-making body. Currently, the committee no longer exists as it could not convince the KU management to lead student issues in an appropriate manner as a constructive body. The relationship between KUSWC and KU management was never good. The communication between them was very bad. More importantly, KUSWC was much weaker than KU and should have adopted diplomatic means to maintain its existence, but failed to do so.

Some of the crazy activities of KUSWC that convey poor communication include

– Portray its student representatives as being affiliated with some powerful mainstream political parties

– Issued a press release in a very cynical manner, directly criticizing KU management

– Use handwritten text instead of typed text in your press release.

– Loyalty should be to non-KU stakeholders (such as mainstream political parties) rather than to KU students.

The above activities send a very bad message and are a threat to the student-friendly environment. The KU SWC is unable to achieve its goal of leading KU students and extracurricular activities such as Sports Week and the annual KU Festival. Due to poor communication, both students and SWC are lost. If the SWC tries to inject political Cultural elements within private universities. This can be seen as an example of bad diplomacy because there is a lack of cultural awareness (Slavik, 2004).

To maintain the relationship, KUSWC should

– Believe that they are loyal to KU students

– Organize student interactive activities

– Invite KU administrators to participate in various student-related projects

– Communicate goodwill and commitment to work towards KU’s mission and vision

Summary: If a negotiation is to be conducted with a strong party, the weak party must behave modestly and non-aggressively, not necessarily the inferior party. Due to the bad political culture in Nepal, the overall situation of mixing politics into the educational scenario is not viewed positively. Therefore, cultural factors should be considered while designing the communication strategy.

in conclusion

Obviously, diplomacy is directly related to good and bad communication, but it is also dependent on cultural understanding of specific issues. Whether it is relationship building or power sharing, both parties must communicate with cultural considerations in order to keep the relationship balanced. Otherwise everyone knows –Good communication can bring benefits, while poor communication can lead to disaster.

refer to

Carolin. (January 11, 2011). Diplomatic revisions. Excerpted from New Diplomacy A on March 29, 2013: http://thenewdiplomacya.blogspot.com/search/label/new%20vs%20old%20diplomacy

Jonsson, C., & Hall, M. (2002). Communication: An important aspect of diplomacy. Department of Political Science, Lund University. Los Angeles: 43rd ISA Annual Conference.

Slavik, H. (2004). Cross-cultural communication and diplomacy. DiploFoundation.