When geopolitical heat rises, foreign policy professionals are urged to mind their words. Where does this leave the curious querier in the age of technostrategic ambiguities?
There is no better pairing than the diplomat and their buzzword or the bureaucrat and their acronym. Buzzwords are an important part of the diplomatic craft, helping to send latent messages or give the impression of a response whilst never saying too much.
From both within and outside of government, we hear our fair share of ‘deeply committed,’ ‘enduring ties,’ ‘partner of choice,’ ‘leveraging,’ ‘whole-of-government responses,’ ‘appropriate mechanisms,’ ‘shared values,’ ‘building coalitions,’ ‘strategic balance’ and ‘fostering assurance.’
There are innumerable foreign policy forums and Q&As laden with this kind of language. I have seen plenty of avid question-askers be disappointed with such a response, myself included, and a small handful satisfied.
Strategically placed poetic vagaries are an important part of diplomacy. It protects the represented government and the speaker. It is understandable that Australians in particular, who are known for their bluntness, become particularly frustrated by the careful word choices of a policymaker. This has become more apparent because, at least to my ear, techno-strategic language sounds a lot like Artificial Intelligence. In my time working with and for diplomats from several countries, I am certain it frustrates many of them too.
The art of never saying too much safeguards foreign affairs organisations from a myriad of diplomatic crises. However, as both a researcher and a curious, politically engaged citizen, I do like to ask questions of diplomats and politicians. But, I like it even more when they share an authentic answer – or at least one that feels authentic. Navigating diplomatic language in the current geopolitical climate is a critical skill, as we collectively adapt to an ever-changing world politics. It should be attempted, however imperfectly.
As such, here are some lessons I have gathered from my failures and successes in question-asking. These lessons are as much my own as they are those of my brilliant colleagues, who I have had the pleasure of sitting beside whilst they ask a sticky but polite question to an unassuming policymaker.
Asking a Question in a Forum
There are a range of circumstances where you might find yourself in front of a foreign policy professional with something to say: receptions, meetings, Q&As, forums or roundtables. If there is a specific answer you are seeking, here is one way of going about it in the more structured of these events, like forums or Q&As:
- Start with the why of the question; provide strong but brief context. Do the explanatory work for them.
- Pose the question.
- Touch briefly on counterarguments you are aware of, e.g. ‘some say this, some say that.’
- Repeat the question, perhaps in a polite but more direct fashion. You are welcome to say, ‘But Minister/Your Excellency,’ for example, and continue with your question.
In the interest of not ‘hogging the microphone,’ you have less than thirty seconds to do the above. Speaking clearly and calmly helps assure the moderator that you are respecting their time and gives you the brief freedom you need to provide context, with the promise that you will not ramble. In my experience, this tends to set a diplomat or policymaker up for a more honest answer that relies less on buzzwords. Likely, you have already used many of them., However, when you take your time, it makes it clear you are not set on ‘pinning’ them and are ready to engage. Be warm and remain open to disagreement or follow-up questions, which often lead to more fruitful conversations.
If the receiver hears alarm bells that make them feel the pressure they are under to speak carefully, they will likely give a generic answer and/or take it on notice. This feels official, but in circumstances where they are not required to follow up with you, the onus of re-engaging with the conversation afterwards is a two-way street.
A Q&A is better when it is a conversation. Especially when this happens, you are allowed to follow up. Whether via email or on the sidelines, thank them for their response and time, and politely follow up if appropriate. You may not get a response, but you also just might. They may genuinely need time to think, or they might be more comfortable answering on the sidelines.
Asking Sideline Questions
Unsurprisingly, asking questions on the sideline is the most effective way to understand what is going on for a policy practitioner. It is also the one I feel least awkward doing. Depending on who you are and why you are asking the question, be mindful of the way you come across and of quoting them without permission. A significant part of a diplomat or policymaker’s job is judging when to make official representations and when to feel a little more themselves.
The above is an imperfect way to guide diplomatic hands to the crux of an issue.
Unsurprisingly, the core theme is to treat diplomats as who they are: people with jobs to do, but people first.
There is never any guarantee you will get the answer you seek – but best of luck!
Lucy Pennington is a Naarm-based international affairs practitioner and researcher. She is a PhD candidate at Monash University, looking at how foreign policy is made on the diplomatic frontlines. Lucy has designed, implemented and evaluated major infrastructure, climate, public diplomacy, tourism, gender and water programs for DFAT (Australia), MFAT (New Zealand), the Asian Development Bank and UNHCR. She has worked on international development programs across the Pacific, South Asia and Southeast Asia. Her foreign policy commentary is featured in international policymaker-focused forums, including through @lucyfieldnotes on most platforms.
She is a Visiting Fellow at Universitas Gadjah Mada, and the recipient of a 2025 AIIA Euan Crone Asian Awareness Scholarship, which supported her research in the Asia-Pacific region. You can find more about the scholarship program, including how to apply, here.
This article was written based on observations at the 2025 Australasian Aid Conference, the 2025 Australian Political Studies Association Conference, Lowy Institute foreign policy events, the 2026 Aus-PNG Network’s Emerging Leaders Dialogue and interviews conducted for the author’s PhD research. The author thanks the following for their support: the Australian Institute of International Affairs (Euan Crone Asian Awareness Scholarship) and Universitas Gadjah Mada (Visiting Fellowship), as well as two diplomats and Ms Amanda Kundil for their helpful comments.
This article is published under a Creative Commons License and may be republished with attribution.
