The story goes that when the first telegram reached the desk of British Foreign Secretary Lord Palmerston in the 1840s, he reportedly exclaimed: “My God, this is the end of diplomacy.”
The everyday use of social media, especially through platforms such as Twitter, TikTok and Instagram, raises similar concerns today.
Are networks the problem or do they simply amplify what already exists?
In barely more than a month of Javier Milei's government, there is already a marked inclination to interpret the international scene as a fight between good and evil, between virtue and vice, leaving no room for doubt about where lies the virtue and good, and where lies evil and vice.
Underlying this “black and white” conception of the world is always the assumption that the triumph of virtue is somehow assured through an unwavering alignment with the forces of good, the United States being chief among them, followed by by Israel and the West in a secondary way.
In the pages of this newspaper, a recent column by Professor Tokatlian clarifies this point very well.
If foreign policy is placed in a quadrilateral, highlighting opponents to polarize it as if it were an electoral issue, what space is left for conciliatory, discreet and negotiating diplomacy on issues crucial to our political and economic interests?
Or do you simply resort to making people angry and then kneeling, provoking and then submitting?
It is worth rescuing a speech given by the academic Hans Morgenthau in 1958, where he noted: “Under this interpretation of international conflict as essentially a moral one, foreign policy is destined to become a crusade, serving the inevitable triumph of virtue over evil.” vice […] then diplomatic negotiations, which necessarily seek accommodation, compromise and the giving and taking of negotiations, have no place in foreign policy […] they amount to a betrayal of the moral principles that are defended.”
In some ways, the spirit perceived today is similar to that of the Early Middle Ages.
The Christian crusade against the Muslims was not a conventional war of conquest or honor.
Instead, Christer Jönsson and Martin Hall point out, it represented an answer to the question “who is this other?”
The Muslims, like the pagans, were the antagonists and had to be converted or fought.
Neither of them were part of international society.
Currently, does the enemy seem to be communism or socialism rooted in some governments or renowned international institutions, such as the United Nations?
Here, again, the intimate relationship between a moralistic approach to foreign policy and a utopian conception is observed.
If foreign policy amounts to a crusade and the only objective is the unconditional surrender of the enemy, diplomacy becomes a mere instrument of war.
For example, it is decided not to join the BRICS because “we do not want to associate with autocratic regimes like Iran”, but then should we withdraw from China's Belt and Road Initiative or from the United Nations, where Iran is present?
Not doing so would be a betrayal of the crusade.
Following this perspective, what emerges are not ideas and principles regarding the country's international projection, but rather dogmas rooted in a certain invoked religiosity.
Unlike ideologies, which present a practical political program, reviewable and adaptable to contexts, a dogma is a set of beliefs that must be accepted without question, since they represent a truth revealed without criticism or examination.
The leader illuminated by divine forces is the one who identifies the path.
The economic and social crisis in which Argentina is immersed leads us to ask ourselves: why should we place foreign policy in a crusade, whether that of the United States against China, that of democracies against tyrannies, that of Ukraine against Russia, or whatever is defined?
What would be the specific benefit?
First, it is essential that the country respect the constitutional powers granted to Congress in matters of foreign policy.
The Legislative Branch can be a sounding board for all political forces and a space of convergence for the achievement of national interests, both in the short and long term.
Second, defining the means to achieve those ends is crucial.
Both in the Foreign Ministry and in the Ministry of Defense and in other instances, the country has the support of a prepared bureaucracy and a diplomatic corps for the restoration of the deep-rooted traditions of global peace, well-being and justice of our foreign policy.
Energetic pragmatism and judicious adherence to principles are not antithetical.
Both can be exercised in all international spheres.
In short, international action must serve both to cooperate and to accommodate divergent interests with other countries.
It is essential that the President, his ministers and officials understand that they are not following a historical mandate or fulfilling a sacred mission ordained by Providence.
More diplomacy is needed and fewer dogmas acclaimed by followers on social networks, more prudence and moderation instead of grievances and untimely reactions.w