Like any other speech, text, or piece of writing, diplomatic parlance also comes in various types.

We often attribute the use of niceties and layered nuances as ‘diplomatic talk’ or ‘parlance’. This is the most common form. However, one of the less-used types of diplomatic talk is direct diplomacy, where you just say it as it is. This is often employed only by those who:

• have nothing to lose by being as honest as possible; or
• are very secure in their position that they are willing to reveal their hand; or
• are veteran negotiators / leaders whose style is well-known to the others.

Another type of diplomatic parlance is that which uses a veiled threat. This can be seen at the negotiation table, and most commonly at the United Nations, for example: “terrorists must be stopped and they must be stopped now. Any entity that sympathizes with these organisations will soon find how difficult life can be.”

At the United Nations General Assembly, leaders have resorted to all sorts of dramatic tactics in order to drive home their point. In the picture above, Soviet leader Nikita Krushchev pounded his shoe upon the podium in protests against a statement made by the Philippines. Cuba’s Fidel Castro spent most of his extra-long UN speeches in fiery indignation. Libya’s Muammar Gadafi tore up the UN Charter in the middle of his UN speech to signal his contempt for the UN guidelines.

In short, diplomatic parlance can be almost anything – straightforward, veiled, nuanced, subtle, conspiratorial. The one thing that diplomacy cannot condone is walking away from the table in the middle of a negotiation. But that is a story for another time…