Initiative for U.S.-China Dialogue on Global Issues

Eleanor Albert: Today our guest is Lunting Wu, a senior researcher at the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs (NUPI) in Oslo and an associate at the German Institute for Global and Area Studies (GIGA) in Hamburg. He is also an associate of the Cluster of Excellence “Contestations of the Liberal Script” in Berlin. He is the author of the book Belt and Road Initiative in South America: Explaining the varying responses (2024). His research interests revolve around foreign policy analysis, diplomacy, political economy, and security. Lunting, welcome to the show. I'm really happy to have you with us today.

Lunting Wu: Thank you very much for having me.

Eleanor Albert: Before we start talking about this concept of ghosting diplomacy, I wanted to ask how you came to studying rhetoric in diplomacy and then what drew you to focusing on China specifically?

Lunting Wu: I started out my academic career in political economy, global governance, and foreign policy. My Ph.D. looked at the Belt and Road Initiative in South America, mainly through the lens of domestic politics and international relations. At the beginning, my work wasn't really about diplomatic rhetoric. It was much more focused on political interests and economic interests in foreign policy and its institutional dynamics. But the deeper I got into studying foreign policy and political economy, the more I became fascinated by the role of narrative and discourse in diplomacy.  Narratives shape how governments understand their room for maneuver and how shared realities are constructed. Rhetoric gradually became a natural extension of my research interests.

As for why I focus particularly on China, perhaps I'd like to just clarify that my research does not only deal with China, but also a range of other international actors, like countries in the Southeast Asia, the European Union, in Latin America. China is just one part of my research geographically speaking.

This said, as Beijing intends to strengthen its discursive power in the world and to enhance its capability of shaping norms and ideas, as well as defending its core interests, which is evidenced by what some would call “Wolf Warrior diplomacy.” I think it is essential for researchers to be attentive to not only what China is doing, but also, what China is saying and by extension, what it wants the world to believe it is doing.

Eleanor Albert: Absolutely. I think that's spot on. You're the author of a new article that develops a concept: “ghosting diplomacy.” In the broadest of broadest sense, how would you define it, and how is it observed in the actual conduct of foreign policy?

Lunting Wu: Of course. I will first begin by illustrating what ghosting means in our daily life and interpersonal relationships. Overall, I think it happens to a lot of people when they text somebody at some point in their lives [and] they don't get a response for an extended period of time. And when this continues, you may start to think “Why this is taking place?” or “Why the person that is supposed to enter into conversation simply evaporates?” and instead turns into a so-called ghost. Now, there are two explanations for this. That is, ghosting can be intentional or unintentional. Maybe [the] other side simply forgot to reply your messages because they're too busy, or they're doing it on purpose.

Now, upgrading it to the interstate level, the scenario in which you get no response from another country can be rarely attributed to the other side simply forgetting to respond. This then leads us to think whether it is ghosting, or to put it another way, this silent treatment has been strategically deployed to reach a certain foreign policy objective because after all, in order for it to count as a diplomatic instrument, or ghosting diplomacy, it needs to carry certain meanings, intentions, and objectives.

The way I see it is that ghosting diplomacy is a unilateral and purposeful act of severing communications with another country. Now, there are different levels and different types of this so-called interstate silent treatment. First of all, the magnitude of this silent treatment can vary. It can be that only the communication of leaders or heads of state that is disrupted. It can also be that the ministry-to-ministry communication is cut off, or it can be that several communication channels across different departments or sectors are affected as well.

Second, the duration could also vary. It can range from days to weeks to even months. But here's the tricky part. When you want a response on an urgent matter, even a two-day silence can be worrying. If you want a response on a non-urgent matter, then the response does not need to be that time sensitive.

Third, interstate silent treatment can be explained or unexplained. That means that in some cases, the target simply knows why they're being treated with silence. Whereas in other, rarer, cases, the reason may not be that clear or straightforward.

And last but not least, I would say ghosting diplomacy can be a standalone act without other sanctions or punitive measures, or it can be also accompanied by those sanctions or punitive measures.

To your question about how we can actually see whether silent treatment is happening between countries, or whether we can even know when it is going on, well, the thing is that states almost never have a total communication blackout. It is not like an interpersonal relationship where you can just stop talking altogether completely. Even during the Cold War, the United States and Soviet Union kept an emergency hotline open. Normally, you have Track I and Track II diplomacy between countries. If you watch the Netflix series The Diplomat, you will see that sometimes, even if major communication lines suffer a breakdown, however, the intelligence communication between allies will be still open.

But having said that, you can have a really important ministry or several ministries basically ghosting their counterparts for a long time. Sometimes, it's the top leader doing the ghosting.

In short, we do not always know what's happening through every single behind-the-scenes channel, but even this targeted silence can have big consequences. And because it does matter, it usually becomes visible in one way or another. Either the media reports it or you can see it in official statements. In a sense, we know countries are not talking when one or both sides come out and essentially say, "Yes, we're not talking right now."

Eleanor Albert: You can also, I presume, have some that might want to not have their silent treatment strategy be visible. They might deny it or they might say, "Oh, we're not not talking to them on purpose." This is such an interesting dynamic because it's hard to figure out, well, what is the purpose of the ghosting? What is the outcome that they want to achieve through the ghosting? I think us talking about a country with some specifics might help ground this because I think this is such an interesting phenomenon. So, in talking about China, how does China ultimately use this strategy? How does it employ it? And what does China use it for?

Lunting Wu: It is interesting that China has deployed [the] silent treatment in some notable cases. One case that caught researchers’ attention is after the former British Prime Minister David Cameron decided to receive the Dalai Lama in 2012. China suspended high-level diplomatic communication with London for over a year. What was particularly interesting was that, during this period of time, the economic exchange—meaning trade or investment between China and the UK—remained largely unaffected. In other words, China only resorted to diplomatic sanctions rather than economic sanctions.

Another notable example of China using ghosting diplomacy is in the aftermath of former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's visit to Taiwan. After this event, China held a three-day live fire military exercise encircling the island, which was broadcasted by Chinese media as well as international media. But what is less known and less discussed is its subsequent severance [of] military-to-military communication with the U.S., as well as other dialogues concerning climate and counternarcotics.

Directly to your question of how China is doing this: according to a report from the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), for about one year and a half, Beijing canceled or suspended planned engagements between the two militaries and either refused or ignored the DOD’s requests for engagements. This silence even continued in the wake of the reported surveillance balloon incident, which was months after Speaker Pelosi's visit. This was, according to former U.S. Ambassador to China Nicholas Burns, one of the most dangerous moments for the U.S.-China bilateral relations during his ambassadorship.

A more recent case of silent treatments is Beijing's decision to permanently cease communications and engagement with the Czech President Havel in the wake of his recent meeting with Dalai Lama earlier this year.

In these examples, China mainly targeted communication channels that are deemed important by the target. In the U.S. case, we're talking about China-U.S. theater-level commander talks, defense policy coordination talks, as well as the Military Maritime Consultative Agreement meetings. In addition to that, the crisis communications working group meeting between the two countries was rejected by the Chinese side. These platforms and dialogues are of crucial importance for both militaries to coordinate policy and to avoid misperception and misunderstanding.

But clearly, China has instrumentalized—if not weaponized—these communication channels to exert pressure on the United States in an attempt to regain control of the situation. In the Czech case, it was only the communication channel with the president himself that was severed, while other established communications remained largely unaffected. Also, economic exchanges seem to continue. This shows that the channels that Beijing chooses to cut off have been carefully selected.

Eleanor Albert: It's interesting because you could imagine a scenario in which lower level, ministry level is seeking to come up with some policy win. They have an objective. They're hitting some blockades. They're not getting through. Are there any instances in which you could imagine a ministry level employing the silent treatment in a specific ministry in order to try and extract a win because they know the target side cares about this?

Lunting Wu: Of course, I think silent treatment, as I mentioned earlier, can target [a] ministry, can target leaders. Extracting this silent treatment from the case of China and upgrading it to broader cases, let's say like the U.S. We have seen President Donald Trump has refused to take up phone calls from other leaders as well. I think this is also a way of leveraging communication to extract certain conditions or certain concessions from the interlocutors that you're engaging with.

Eleanor Albert: Why does China use ghosting diplomacy at all? Has it been effective for them? Why is this a strategy that seems to be something that their diplomats want to engage in? It seems risky in certain scenarios, right? So why take such a risk?

Lunting Wu: If we look at those episodes of China using ghosting diplomacy or silent treatment, it usually happens when it perceives the other country to have violated or transgressed its national interests. In the U.S. case, it was about Taiwan. In the British and Czech cases, it was about Tibet. We see a pattern here in which this passive aggression was invoked when Beijing perceives that its core interests have been trampled despite constant warnings.

Secondly, silent treatment is not merely ignorance, but an intentional and strategic ignorance or refusal to engage. It serves as a means, and more importantly a passive-aggressive one, to punish the other without direct confrontation. In other words, it is a form of punishment, and it deprives something valuable from the target that is the access to the source of silence. It also compels the target to comply with its demands because the termination of ghosting and the resumption of dialogues would ultimately depend, to a large extent, on whether certain conditions are met, or not, by the target. If not, then silence continues.

Also, it might deter other countries from following suit to violate the core interests. In a way, I would say the punitive mechanisms might be similar to that of a sanction, but it differs here from economic sanctions in the sense that the imposition of silent treatment or ghosting would not need to mobilize a lot of labor to achieve that. It simply involves the cutoff of communication by not responding, and this might be solely at the discretion of the executive.

Third, I would say, [the] motivation behind silent treatment is that different from other types of overt aggression. Ghosting signals grievance and resentment without making the conflict drastically escalate in the short run. This is important—in the short run. Again, if nothing wrong precedes the act of ghosting, then it should not have occurred in the first place. Therefore, sometimes, silence speaks louder than words. Sometimes silence is the nonverbal way to say, "Hey, you did something wrong. I don't like it." But on the other hand, it forecloses the possibility of undue escalation because overt confrontation can escalate quickly, particularly when it is mismanaged.

Last but not least, drawing on social psychology studies, we can see that by imposing [the] silent treatment, the source of [the] silent treatment can regain a sense of control over events that it seems to lose control over previously. For example, Speaker Pelosi visited Taiwan, albeit Beijing's constant warnings. The Czech president visited the Dalai Lama despite its dissuasion, and David Cameron's government received the Dalai Lama in spite of China's opposition. Therefore, China may see that it could no longer control the situation.

In order to regain the sense of control, [the] silent treatment could fortify some emotional needs that it has. In a way, it may also start to feel more respected when the target of [the] silent treatment begins to bombard China with calls and requests for meetings, because right now, it is essentially using silence to intentionally ostracize and even humiliate the target and treat it as somebody unworthy of being listened to, which elevates its own status in this communication as the superordinate interlocutor.

Eleanor Albert: Right. It's a silent treatment that has multilevel impact, both on the target, but also, on the broader social community. It's also interesting that in some ways, this silent treatment, as you said, it doesn't necessarily escalate confrontation. It also provides a sense of plausible deniability because it's understood in many cases that this is intentional, but it could say, "Oh, we lost that communication or that outreach,” or “We'll get back to you because we're busy doing X, Y, Z thing."

I wanted to ask about these cases because you provide some very concrete examples, and almost all of them are between states that might have fundamentally different values, foreign policy principles with China. There are some severe disagreements.  Are there instances in which even allies can be targets of this ghosting? Are there instances where countries are targets of ghosting that might traditionally be seen as more closely aligned with China?

Lunting Wu: It touches the question of whether ghosting can be observed in other cases. While I think all countries can engage with ghosting to some extent, it is definitely not an act that is limited to China. Just take a look at reports of President Trump not finding the time to pick up phone calls from the state leaders around the world when they want to negotiate tariffs with the U.S. president or take a look at how North Korea, [it] sometimes just cuts off communications with South Korea amid tensions.

So we can definitely discern instances of silent treatment elsewhere in the world, but then it remains an open question as to whether leaders or countries that demonstrate more authoritarian traits may instrumentalize or weaponize communication channels more frequently or not. And as to whether allies can ghost each other or can impose silent treatment on each other, I think it is a fascinating question to answer.

I cannot really name a concrete scenario in which allies are doing this, but again, looking at the reports of recent trade negotiations, we have seen instances in which the U.S. refused to pick up phone calls from Japan, for example. And this is, again, a fascinating question to provide answers to in the future and to research upon.

Eleanor Albert: So my last question, and you alluded to this already in talking about can all countries engage in ghosting. If all countries have the power to do so, that seems to be yes because all countries have channels of communication. But then the broader bigger question is, is the leverage that a state trying to employ ghosting or the silent treatment, does it matter that they have a certain amount of power? Is this something middle powers can use, or great powers? Or is it really about the interactive dynamic between who is doing the ghosting and who the target is?

Lunting Wu: Definitely. In social psychology terms, I would say that the saddest scenario would be a country not being paid attention to by anybody, for example, in a multilateral setting, simply because the country doesn't matter to another country and it was automatically ostracized. This is something that also deals with the power relationship between two countries, but I think what matters more is whether the communication channel is really valued by the target or not.

If the target says that we don't actually care about whether we have the access to another state, then the ghosting might not achieve a lot of impact. But on the other hand, if the target says that, yes, we really value access and communication with the interlocutor, then the severance of the communication with this target can be really impactful.

And for an extended period of time, the target might be left confused and frustrated and again, might bombard the source of silence with a lot of requests or with a lot of plans to engage, only to find out that the door has been shut. And this is something that also causes a lot of psychological or
emotional disruptions to the diplomats that are engaging with this sort of diplomacy.

Eleanor Albert: I think a lot about the role that Norway plays in broader relations with North Korea. That is likely a very important communication channel that could be leveraged for some powerful extraction if necessary. I'm curious: with this concept, do you have plans to expand it to have other cases, other instances?

Lunting Wu: Of course, this is just the beginning of a broader research agenda, and a lot of questions have been left unanswered. I think it is worth researching what is the impact of interstate silent treatment. We have already touched upon that in the short term, it is not going to escalate that drastically the tensions, if there is any.

However, what about in the long-term, with silence dragging on? Then the military-to-military communications in this case might be impactful because the silence can just lead to misperceptions, misunderstanding, and can amplify a very minor incident into a very big one if there is no communication at all.

It is worth studying what would be the consequences of the silent treatment and importantly, how this would end? So in which pathways or scenarios that silent treatment can end and the communications can be normalized and resumed.

The views and opinions expressed are those of the speakers and do not necessarily reflect the position of Georgetown University.

Outro

The U.S.-China Nexus is created, produced, and edited by me, Eleanor M. Albert. Our music is from Universal Production Music. Special thanks to Shimeng Tong, Tuoya Wulan, and Amy Vander Vliet. For more initiative programming, videos, and links to events, visit our website at uschinadialogue.georgetown.edu. And don’t forget to subscribe to our podcast on Apple podcasts, Spotify, or your preferred podcast platform.