Diplomacy redefined: a tale of strategy and spectacle from Washington to Rabat

A performance of power in Washington

On May 22, 2025, a highly charged diplomatic scene unfolded in Washington. South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, on an official visit, found himself at the center of a confrontation orchestrated by American President Donald Trump. As part of a staged spectacle in the White House, Trump abruptly ordered the lights to dim, projecting videos that allegedly showed attacks on white South African farmers. The intention was clear: provoke, unsettle, and assert dominance.

Observers and analysts offered divergent interpretations. Some saw it as retaliation for South Africa’s land expropriation law passed on January 23, 2025, which stripped white landowners—who control 80% of arable land—of their holdings. Others pointed to Pretoria’s legal proceedings against Israel at the International Court of Justice in 2023, accusing Tel Aviv of genocide in Gaza. A smaller group cited South Africa’s shifting position within BRICS and its perceived double standards in international forums.

The rise of open-air diplomacy

This incident reflects a deeper evolution in diplomatic conduct. President Trump has crafted a new style—provocative, unfiltered, and confrontational—breaking with traditional diplomatic etiquette. This approach, which first emerged during his 2017–2021 term, seeks to deliver results through shock, spectacle, and psychological pressure.

World leaders entering the Oval Office must now navigate a hostile environment engineered to unbalance them. Several notable examples reinforce this dynamic.

In 2018, Trump presented Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman with oversized posters of American weapons sold to Riyadh. This theatrical move reasserted Washington’s strategic terms: U.S. security in exchange for Saudi energy. The implicit reminder of the 1945 Quincy Pact—between Franklin D. Roosevelt and King Abdulaziz—was unmistakable.

Similarly, during the February 2025 visit of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Trump bluntly stated that Ukraine had exhausted its diplomatic leverage. Zelensky attempted to counter the assertion but was shut down by Vice President James Davis Vance, signaling that no concessions would be entertained.

Diplomacy by disruption

Trump’s approach relies on seven identifiable tactics:

Imposing new negotiation frameworks
Resetting agendas and signaling an end to outdated alignments.

Reasserting asymmetry
Forcing weaker states to recalibrate or face isolation.

Mobilizing the media
Making strategic use of public exposure to sway opinion and unmask opponents.

Confronting journalists
Dismissing critical press as incompetent to reinforce narrative control.

Controlling visit outcomes
Demanding precise pre-visit alignment or reducing bilateral talks to spectacle.

Staging protocol mishaps
Deploying calculated symbolic errors—such as flag mix-ups—to unnerve visitors.

Recalibrating alliances
Nudging traditional allies to accept new realities grounded in transactional diplomacy.

A contrasting style: the diplomacy of His Majesty King Mohammed VI

In stark contrast, His Majesty King Mohammed VI of Morocco embodies a refined and measured diplomatic approach. His style emphasizes clarity, sovereignty, and strategic timing—eschewing confrontation in favor of precision.

Key traits define this model:

Selective media engagement
The King speaks rarely but deliberately, avoiding improvisation or misinterpretation.

Direct and rational communication
His speeches are concise and targeted, with clearly identified objectives and audiences.

Strategic timing
Messages are aligned with national priorities and delivered when most effective.

Firm negotiation parameters
Morocco draws clear boundaries in international engagements, especially on sovereignty.

Vision-driven foreign policy
The monarchy’s strategy blends adaptability with long-term geopolitical objectives.

Diplomatic symbolism versus substance

While Trump’s style focuses on dominance through destabilization, His Majesty King Mohammed VI favors diplomacy anchored in national interest and mutual respect. Where one seeks leverage through disruption, the other advances influence through coherence.

Both styles respond to an evolving global order marked by realignments, contested narratives, and rising multipolarity. Their contrast reveals more than personality—it reflects two paradigms vying for influence in international relations.