Today diplomacy increasingly relies on tweets. Yet, as tweets only allow for 280 characters, statements must be brief and impactful, which encourages the use of humour in conveying one’s message. This article scrutinizes irony and ridicule in diplomatic interactions. Even though these forms of humour may antagonize parties and even turn issues into a security concern, this article points out that they also have an affiliative aspect and could play a conflict-mediating role. Because humour, especially irony, is easy to misunderstand (especially in cross-cultural settings), many warn against using them in diplomatic exchanges. Nevertheless, I will argue that they are ideal for expressing multi-layered messages, enabling the speaker to rely on what is often called ‘constructive ambiguity’, which is often useful in diplomatic conduct. Two case studies illustrate the argument. The first focuses on cartoons ridiculing President Wilson in the early 20th century for his reluctance to commit the US to join WWI (suggesting that cartoons of the time might be predecessors of today’s tweets), and the second on tweets published by the British Embassy in London apropos of the Skripal case (offering an example how humorous tweets can convey multi-layered, complex messages).
What Accounts for the Us Ascendancy to Economic Superpower by the Early 20th Century: The Morrill Act – Human Capital Hypothesis