From handshakes behind closed doors to summits live-streamed worldwide. From intimate face-to-face talks to video calls across continents. Welcome to the new era of diplomacy, one where spectacle and screens shape the message as much as the negotiations themselves.
Part1: Video Calls: Can They Replace Face-to-Face interactions?
Diplomacy is a dynamic concept, never fixed but constantly adapting to circumstances. Wars, crises, and technological innovations have repeatedly reshaped its core principles. This flexibility has expanded the vocabulary of international relations: today we speak of digital diplomacy, hybrid diplomacy, virtual diplomacy and video diplomacy. Each term reflects not a separate practice, but an evolution that complicates, and sometimes blurs the fundamental definition of diplomacy itself. Is it a handshake behind closed doors, a carefully staged summit, or can it also be a pixelated exchange across a screen?
In this part, we focus on video calls as a tool of diplomatic communication and explore how they complement, but do not replace traditional face-to-face diplomacy. To gain deeper insight, we spoke with Dr.Hafedh Gharbi from the university of Sousse, a specialist in American foreign policy, globalisation, and international relations. He is also a lecturer in the Faculty of Arts and Humanities of Sousse, Tunisia. He shared his perspective on the advantages, limitations, and the irreplaceable role of face-to-face diplomacy.
It is true that video diplomacy existed before the COVID-19 pandemic, but it was rare and limited. The pandemic, however, changed that balance overnight. With borders closed and travel suspended, leaders had no choice but to meet online. Diplomatic summits that once depended on ceremony and physical presence were reduced to screens, microphones, and Wi Fi connections. What was once seen as too informal suddenly became the only way to keep international dialogue alive.
Even after restrictions were lifted, video diplomacy did not disappear. Instead, it became part of a hybrid model. On a summer morning, August 2025, in Brussels, European foreign ministers didn’t gather around a polished table as tradition dictates. Instead, they logged into a video call: smiles pixelated, voices carried by microphones, decisions taken through a screen. The image has become familiar: diplomacy once built on face-to-face encounters is now increasingly mediated by technology.
Today, high-level meetings still take place in person for the symbolic weight of handshakes and photo opportunities, but video calls have secured their place at the diplomatic table. They allow leaders to meet more frequently, react more quickly, and maintain constant contact, though at the cost of the subtle cues and informal exchanges that often shape negotiations behind the scenes.
Undoubtedly, video diplomacy has brought clear advantages in terms of speed, efficiency and accessibility, but its most profound impact lies in how it reshapes the very nature of communication between leaders. Video calls reduce travel time and costs, allow urgent consultations, and make international dialogue possible even during crises. But while practical, these platforms transform the way messages are conveyed and received.
Diplomatic Communication at Risk?
Despite its practical benefits, many diplomats and observers remain sceptical about the idea that video diplomacy could ever replace traditional face-to-face encounters. As Dr.Gharbi stressed, “we will always follow the traditional one” — not out of nostalgia, but because direct interaction carries elements that no screen can reproduce. In a negotiation room, body language, pauses, eye contact, or even the tone of silence can speak as loudly as words. These subtle cues, which often tip the balance in high stakes talks, are almost entirely lost through a webcam.
Another major concern is the difficulty of conveying complex or delicate messages through video. Diplomacy thrives on nuance, carefully phrased concessions, or ambiguous formulations that allow both sides to claim victory. A pixelated video call, often subject to glitches or awkward delays, can flatten these subtleties, leaving participants with an incomplete or even distorted impression.
The issue of security is equally pressing. Unlike closed diplomatic rooms, video platforms, even the most secure ones, carry risks of hacking, leaks, or interception. When governments rely on digital channels, sensitive strategies may be exposed to rivals or hostile actors. The recent development of AI technologies adds another layer of danger: not only can AI be used to manipulate video feeds or create deepfakes, but it may also end up serving particular parties at the expense of others, reinforcing power asymmetries in international communication. As our interviewee noted, “AI has manipulative power… you must be smart with it.”
Finally, some argue that video diplomacy is contributing to a loss of credibility in international communication. Traditional summits often allowed for “sweet talk” — symbolic handshakes, ceremonial dinners, or carefully staged press conferences, which reassured domestic audiences and built a sense of trust, however superficial. In contrast, the stark, transactional nature of video diplomacy can make international interactions appear more cynical, exposing double standards and weakening the symbolic power of diplomacy.
For Dr.Gharbi, the value of traditional diplomacy is even more crucial for countries that are still lagging behind in adopting new technologies and lack the financial and institutional means to embrace the latest diplomatic trends. He highlights the Tunisian case: Tunisia is not yet ready to adjust to the new wave of video diplomacy. The government often prioritises pressing domestic issues, economic instability, social challenges, rather than investing resources into digitalising its diplomatic apparatus. This gap leaves Tunisia dependent on conventional, face to-face diplomacy as the main channel to promote its national interests on the global stage. This is where traditional diplomacy becomes indispensable. For countries without significant hard or soft power, the human dimension of diplomacy can make the difference.
To illustrate his point, Dr.Gharbi referred to President Habib Bourguiba’s historic visit to President John F. Kennedy in 1961. Bourguiba’s charisma, eloquence, and persuasive oratory were central to capturing Kennedy’s attention and reshaping the American perspective on Tunisia’s role in the region. This personal, almost theatrical dimension of diplomacy: the handshake, the tone of voice, the spark of intellectual exchange is something a video call could never fully transmit. For developing countries, such personal encounters remain vital tools to secure visibility and advance national interests in an international system dominated by stronger powers.
In light of these reflections, it becomes evident that video diplomacy, while practical and increasingly relevant in a globalised and digitalised world, cannot replace the irreplaceable element of face-to-face diplomacy: human interaction. The gestures, the body language, the tone, and the personal presence of leaders often carry as much weight as the words they speak, dimensions that digital screens cannot fully convey. Yet technological development is a fact of this modern world; it is not something diplomacy can fight against, but rather a reality to adapt to.
Video diplomacy offers useful tools for efficiency, immediacy, and inclusivity, especially in moments of crisis or when distance poses logistical challenges. The most promising path forward lies in a hybrid model, where video diplomacy complements traditional diplomacy. Together, they create a more adaptable and responsive form of international engagement, one that leverages technological advances without losing sight of the enduring value of human connection.