A beguiling game of optics and briefings

Perhaps the substance of any meeting gets diluted if the associated ‘optics’ are not kept in full alignment with the proceedings of a meeting. Special efforts are required to make sure that the optics’ target is achieved. Any negativity if witnessed through optics in the interaction between two individuals or parties renders the process a recognition of invalidity. A picture is worth a thousand words. This dictum can be true only if the picture is real, that is if it reflects the reality. Recently, President Trump on his first-ever visit to China after being re-elected was highly hopeful for at least a ‘Panda Hug” if not for a real “Bear Hug” from President Xi Jinping. He, however, received a firm and stoic handshake, unlike the Chinese do. Readers may have seen or read that the then Prime Minister of China, Chou en Lai, would have a handshake with Z. A. Bhutto that would punishingly last for over 2 minutes at least, if not longer. In that handshake was always loaded a deep message. The stoic attitude of Xi Jinping wasn’t a surprise; it was expected. The Chinese for over the last two years were on receiving end of a lot of muck that was thrown at their face, beginning with imposition of unrealistic tariff to hurling of almost threats to annihilate them economically. The Chinese civilization’s core principles of operations in relation to politics are of being passively patient. Chinese do not operate on short-term scale or gains, they play long term. It is their patience that can frustrate and tire out the worst of their foes. The ages old Sun Tzu’s principles of ‘Surprise the enemy’ has remained in practice. By silence or by no reaction at all, the aims and the designs of an adversary are nullified. The USA experienced it first-hand. Times have changed. The world today is governed by a new order of multi-polar world, as against the uni-polar order that was dominated by the USA for over decades. America is now in a rush to regain foothold. In the first-ever contact in 1971, facilitated by Pakistan, President Nixon met Chairman Mao and Premier Chou en Lai from a position of prominence being the unquestionable global economic power. The Chinese until then had not even started to open their economy and hence were “light years” behind the USA and most of the other major economies. Today, there is an entirely different People’s Republic of China to engage with. In any equation of either friendship or an adversary, they are no more on the weak side of the equation. China is an economic powerhouse that sits on trillion of US dollars in reserves. Its foreign trade volume is a gigantic figure. The budget of a single successful state-owned enterprise could be larger than the annual budget of two to three developing countries, clubbed together. China is a powerful nation. Today it cannot be shoved away by the arrogance of the West, or its rhetoric. The 12-16 renowned CEOs who were onboard the Air Force One weren’t taken to Beijing for sightseeing – they were meant to crack economic deals in fulfillment of the MAGA slogan. Apparently, they all returned empty-handed. The Chinese are soft in their demeanour but extremely tough on the negotiating table. Within the socialist system they have mastered the art of negotiation via the typical capitalist behaviour. The fact that the thorny issue of Taiwan wasn’t mentioned during the visit is a triumph of Chinese political international policy. Chinese policymakers are astute as well as sound and mature in their assessments and outlook. No questions were asked or answered in relation to Taiwan. It is a conviction of this scribe that People’s Republic of China will take back Taiwan without putting itself to a war; just as they took Hong Kong and Macau back. It is only a matter of time. They will decide the date of such occurrence. Meantime, they will continue to trade and engage with Taiwan. Recently, Beijing hosted the leader of opposition of Taiwan’s parliament. The union will happen. It is inevitable. Leaders are expected to speak the least. They ought to be precise. They can’t afford for themselves the luxury to speak like a common man. In the arena of international diplomacy there exists a serious quantum of expedient duplicity. The pictures and statements released after due examinations and control, following high powered meetings, are actually ‘illusions’ or maybe even ‘optical illusions’. A warm handshake or a bear hug is not necessarily a reflection of great friendship or camaraderie. Politicians and the media create a perception that differs from reality. A photo-opportunity is abused to lead the brain into misinterpretations — instead of seeing the actual image (the reality), the brain relies upon short-cuts or previous assumptions to draw own conclusions, which could very well be contrary to reality. Political pictures are a perfect mirage — a chimera, divorced totally from the truth. Chinese don’t exhibit openly their likes or dislikes. In their culture it is considered that expression must never cause injury to others; and alternatively too, the Chinese are extremely conscious about public praise — they don’t like it. Self-effacement is a cultural streak in the entire north-east Asia covering the Korea (s), Japan, China, Taiwan and Hong Kong. They convey their messages through mature responses. Firstly, they don’t react on the spur of the moment. They aren’t hasty, as we are, to respond without considering all the ramifications of the reaction. In a subdued manner they take time to react. There is no room for knee-jerk reactions in their culture. Fireside chat in the presence of the glaring media is also a stunt of sorts; it is all possibly pre-planned. Most of the media personnel permitted to ask questions are pre-cleared and pre-informed. They can also be asked to stick to the ‘script’. Modi recently stepped out of the aircraft straight into the bridge — he walked out with his wide open arms to hug his host for the longest time. He audaciously held the arm of the host. All this enactment obviously was pre-planned to convey through ‘optics’ of what is essentially falsehood but portrayed as truth. India badly needed to brush aside its visible international isolation. This picture was considered a useful tool for that objective. The Chatham House rule framed and devised in 1927, adopted by the Royal Institute of International Affairs, spells out the rules of the game for international diplomacy. For example, where a meeting or part thereof is held under this Rule, participants are free to use information without disclosing identity or affiliation of the speaker can be revealed. Speak your mind is a dictum, but that does not provide a license to speak everything that comes to one’s mind. As an example once a High Commissioner from New Zealand to the UK, Phil Geoff, speaking at a public event in London, said, ‘President Trump has restored the bust of Churchill to the Oval Office. But do you think he really understands history? Moving on, he quoted Churchill’s remark of 1939 which was directed then at Chamberlain, the then serving prime minster, ‘you had the choice between war and dishonour, you chose dishonour, yet you will have war’. He was right away dismissed. If a politician had said something like this it would not have mattered. None would particularly bat an eye lid but diplomats saying such thing is akin to being sacrilegious. The joint communiqués issued at the end of any summit meeting are also like statistics, revealing the obvious and concealing the vital. When the spokesperson says the meeting was held in a warm and friendly manner; it should be decoded as some cooperation, some agreement, but not totally satisfactory meeting. And if it is ‘free and frank’, it must be decoded as blunt, tough and intensely argumentative. Disagree ments were politely handled but clashes over issues remain static. And if the spokesperson says the meeting was ‘constructive’ it would mean no conclusions were reached. Each party restated their existing positions. If the spokesperson says the meeting was ‘useful’ it should be decoded to read only grievances and accusations were shared but no progress was made. And the most deadly of all is the remark ‘off the record’ because this itself is a deception. The coinage ‘off the record’ actually is an admission of putting everything on record! ! International politics demands that less said is always more. A complete restraint of sentiments and emotions is a prerequisite. At the press briefings of the foreign office, the White House, State Department, etc. , we get to see and learn how to navigate an answer to a question asked without divulging anything or even getting close to answering the question. They say, what they don’t mean. They remain silent about what they actually mean. In the school of diplomacy the fine art of not answering any questions is the first lesson taught and imbibed. We live in a world dominated by media that glares upon leaders with intrusive cameras every single day. There is nothing that isn’t captured on screens today. In a European capital recently at an underground station I counted the number of cameras with audio recording features exceeding 50. These videos can be harmful and useful depending on how the possessor wishes to use it. The dilemma of the ‘game of optics’ has gained traction for the worse with the misuse of AI tools. As a nation we must learn to stop putting our foot in our mouth. This is done by both the leaders and the followers. Copyright Business Recorder, 2026

Read full story on Business Recorder