Language in International Politics
Cover Image Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:P081109PS-0217_(3860763706).jpg
Before the age of polarisation and divisiveness, when Twitter was just a sound and Amazon just a rainforest, there was a time when words spoke the language of peace. It was a time when the Egyptians and the Israelis could bridge an unbridgeable divide at Camp David simply with words on a piece of paper. It was a time when language drove states, from Northern Ireland to South Africa, towards peace accords, one agreement at a time. Fast-forward to the present, and the power of language remains as potent as ever, if not more so in light of the communications revolution. But the way it is utilised has dramatically transformed. Words now speak the language of ultimatums and hyperboles, high-rhetoric plaguing statements are directed towards polarised audiences. This delicate shift, which is merely a change of vocabulary, has far-reaching consequences for the international order, none more so than to undermine state relations and to provoke regional instability. It is a subtle change that requires urgent consideration by all parties involved in international politics.
The Power of Language
If I were to ask you how power is represented in international politics, your answer would probably refer to military power, or economic power, or maybe even soft power to the more academic-leaning reader. But very rarely would linguistic power be offered as an answer. Yet this form of power is omnipresent in international politics; it is, in many ways, the backbone of day-to-day international relations. Consider the words chosen by state leaders when addressing one another, or the body language of a diplomat in a high-level negotiation. These little actions have profound impacts on the state of international politics. Just ask the thousands of Kurds in Northern Syria who are currently feeling the repercussions of a single phone conversation between US President Donald Trump and his Turkish counterpart, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, or the demonstrators on the streets of Hong Kong who are fiercely protesting against the language of the their government and their overbearing Chinese guardians. At its core, language in international politics reflects intentions and goals and offers insights as to what states are feeling and thinking. In this regard, it does not necessarily take a grand oratory speech to change an aspect of international politics because every word that is muttered, every gesture that is signalled by foreign policy actors, does exactly that by itself. Simply, words make international politics what it is.
This is one way to look at the relationship between power and language. Another is to reflect on how language can be manipulated in order to reach a particular goal. Consider, for example, the difference between a presidential address referring to an incident as a knife attack or a terrorist attack. Using the latter description leads to a certain set of connotations very different to the previous description, heightening fear and condemnation and motivating a lust for revenge. It is the same incident that is being described in exactly the same way except for a single word, but changing that very word is sufficient to distort the story, to change the version of events significantly. That is the immense power of language to influence perception, to shape the international political landscape.
A Dramatic Shift
Having established how language is a powerful concept, why, at this moment in time, is this of concern? After all, language has forever been a central part of human behaviour and the ability to manipulate has always existed. This is true, but what has fundamentally changed in the past decade is the breadth of issues on which societies have polarised, and the degree to which statesmen have reacted by heightening their rhetoric in order to garner support. On issues from Brexit to climate change to immigration, fault-lines have emerged, and passionate, entrenched tribes have formed resulting in language geared towards saying what people want to hear, articulated in its simplest form. Both sides of the Brexit argument have trended towards this outcome for example, one side by claiming economic “catastrophe” (not recession note) and the other by tooting emotively charged issues such as “freedom” and “surrender” when their argument could easily have been articulated in a more neutral manner. Note how this language on a tremendously complex and technical topic is simple and direct, and that it also fundamentally reflects what the different Brexit tribes want to hear. Language such as this drives policy to the extremes so as to please the target audience. But the extremes are where compromise goes to hibernate, where wedges are driven between states.
Some observers might contend that this is nothing new. The political battles of the past have been as divisive as today’s discourses, implying that a shift has not actually occurred. One only needs to look at the divisiveness of the Thatcher era in the UK in relation to Brexit to ask: what has changed? This point is important in that it is true that politics has always been divisive; that is the essence of the discipline. Politics without disagreement is nothing more than a cloud of floating ideas. The change we see today concerns the extent of the polarisation. NAFTA, for example, has always been a contentious issue in America, but in the 1992 Presidential election, independent candidate Ross Perot described the trade deal as a “giant sucking sound” stemming from Mexico, a rather poetic way of reflecting his side of the argument, whilst in 2018 President Trump bluntly remarked that it was “the worst trade deal ever made.” Again, this is exactly the same issue from the same side of the argument just articulated very differently. By merely analysing their words, one can sense the immense underlying shift in the use of language from our statesmen over the past decades. And when discussions on international issues, such as NAFTA, are subject to this shift, its consequences are also international in scope.
Effects of the Shift
This shift is not limited to one or two states; it is occurring worldwide, from Iran, which is hardening its anti-American rhetoric, to China, which is increasingly affirming its military capabilities and voicing its regional intentions, resulting in unnecessary increases in bilateral and regional tensions. But how exactly does a change of vocabulary increase international tensions? What is the link? Well, if one state articulates a more aggressive language, say America on trade relations, then the other states subjected to that language, say China, the EU or Canada, react by making their own language stronger as to avoid appearing weak. And when those countries react, the state which instigated the escalation in the first place has to respond itself, resulting in an upward spiral. Individual state intentions have not changed, but the relationships between these states have changed simply because their intentions, from an external perspective, look very different. The use of language, in this regard, changes the way states are perceived which is often a major determinant of how states act towards one another.
This is best illustrated by an example. Relations between Iran and the US have never been great since the Islamic Revolution of 1979, but between 2015 and 2017, they were at least stable; the immediate threat was not as pressing as it had been previously. But since Mr Trump reached the White House, without doing much more than talk about Iran, tensions have dramatically escalated despite Mr Trump and Barack Obama, the 44th US President, sharing a common goal of containing the Middle Eastern country. Just look at the rhetoric involved: Mr Trump threatening that America is “locked and loaded” and prepared to “obliterate” Iran, and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, on the other hand, warning of a “mother of all wars” with the US. The degree of hyperbole in these quotes is disquieting if not alarming. Indeed, if you were a state leader and another state was using language foreseeing your obliteration (rather than language of containment or looking to engage in constructive dialogue as it once was), you would have no choice but to react aggressively and view the relationship as profoundly tense, despite the fact that all your adversary has done is talk about you differently. What is evident is that a shift in tone and language articulated by both the US and Iran has dramatically accelerated instability in the region, subsequently causing a proliferation of notable skirmishes. Of course, this is not to say that non-linguistic events have no effect on the level of tensions; actions, after all, do indeed speak louder than words. But it would be naïve and carless to overlook the profound consequences that language has on international stability.
Caution
This is why caution is desperately needed. Too many relationships key to regional and international stability, be that US-Chinese, Saudi-Iranian, or Russian-EU relations, are becoming critically tense partly due to excessive and flamboyant language. All statesmen and political leaders have a duty to reverse this, to select their words more meticulously, and to choose their tone with greater care. Indeed, removing the rhetoric from the equation would be to extinguish the fire fuelling the tensions at the core of today’s international politics. Adopting the language of peace and compromise once more would go a long way to upholding and endorsing international stability, a condition in which everyone benefits.
