91̽��

Diplomats are accustomed to managing disagreements on various issues. At the same time, rising polarization places new demands on diplomatic work, particularly in relation to gender and sexuality politics. Research shows that countries often signal ideological affiliation by taking a stance on topics such as abortion, same-sex relationships, and gender equality. This can lead to bloc formations or tensions in international politics.

“Talking in terms of “us” and “them” has, to some extent, made diplomatic work within the UN more difficult. But the UN is only one of many arenas for diplomacy. Around the world, there are thousands of bilateral embassies and regional forums, and there is little research on how these are affected by growing polarization. I have investigated how diplomacy functions at this level, with a particular focus on issues of gender and sexuality”, says Monika de Silva, newly minted PhD in Political 91̽��.

In her dissertation she interviewed over 40 diplomats based in Warsaw and Brussels. In Warsaw, she examined how diplomats from more liberal countries responded to criticism from the Polish government after participating in pride parades. In Brussels, she focused on the EU negotiations surrounding the Istanbul Convention which aims to prevent violence against women.

“When it came to the pride parades in Warsaw, diplomats were accused of interfering in Poland’s domestic affairs by expressing support for LGBTQ+ rights. The Brussels negotiations on the convention triggered strong reactions from countries with strong populist tendencies who felt their way of life was being challenged.”

According to Monika de Silva, however, diplomats are more than just messengers for their governments.

“Diplomats operate with a certain degree of interpretive flexibility, meaning they can choose to represent their country’s policies in a more or less confrontational or responsive way. My research shows that the very fact that diplomats continue to meet and engage in dialogue, despite deep value-based differences, can itself help counter polarization. Personal encounters help reduce suspicion, clarify misunderstandings, and prevent issues like gender equality from turning into symbolic battlegrounds.”

Monika de Silva’s research thus suggests that diplomacy, in times of increasing polarization, requires a degree of independence between governments and diplomatic staff.

“Diplomacy is about more than promoting state interests. If it is reduced to a tool for narrow and short-term objectives – as can happen when populist governments tighten control over public administration – we risk losing an essential mechanism for addressing complex international challenges.”