The Philippines must take note of how international relations are conducted, built, and even possibly destroyed under the Trump presidency in the United States if we prefer to remain on their good side. If I were on President Bongbong Marcos’ diplomatic team, I would edit and share with him highlights of the latest seasons of The Apprentice, as the recent public confrontation between US President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office can be branded as reality TV at its highest form.

On 28 February, Presidents Trump and Zelenskyy met at the White House to discuss a proposed mineral-rights agreement and ongoing US support for Ukraine amid its conflict with Russia. The meeting, initially intended to strengthen bilateral ties, devolved into a heated exchange. President Trump criticized Ukraine’s reliance on US military aid and questioned Zelensky’s commitment to peace negotiations, leading to an abrupt end to the discussions and the cancellation of a joint press conference.

The world watched and will continue to watch how this diplomatic meltdown will affect Ukraine. An immediate show of support for Zelensky was expressed by European leaders. After the US, Zelenskyy headed to London, where he was greeted with a hug by UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer at 10 Downing Street. One thing is also for sure: Russian President Vladimir Putin must be smiling from ear to ear until now.

The Trump-Zelenskyy confrontation ignited global discussions about transparency in diplomatic relations. This unprecedented event, where a sitting US President openly criticized a visiting head of state before the national media, signifies a potential shift in how diplomatic engagements are conducted and perceived. This incident also marked a departure from traditional diplomatic protocols, where disagreements are typically handled behind closed doors.

As a silver lining, the public airing of disagreements between national leaders can have positive implications. On one hand, it promotes transparency, allowing citizens to witness the realities of international diplomacy and hold their leaders accountable. This openness can lead to a more informed public discourse on foreign policy decisions. On the other hand, such transparency can strain diplomatic relationships and reduce the flexibility leaders have in negotiations. As a consequence, the Oval Office incident led to a suspension of US military aid to Ukraine and elicited mixed reactions from global leaders, reflecting the potential risks of conducting diplomacy in the public eye.

In the age of instant communication, public perception plays a crucial role in international relations. The fallout from the US-Ukraine meeting highlights the need for countries to diversify their international partnerships to mitigate risks associated with diplomatic disputes. By embracing transparency judiciously, enhancing diplomatic capabilities, managing public perception, and diversifying alliances, developing nations can navigate the complexities of modern diplomacy more effectively.

The public dispute between Presidents Trump and Zelensky set a precedent for transparency in diplomatic engagements, challenging traditional norms of behind-the-scenes negotiations. For developing nations like the Philippines, this incident offers valuable insights into the evolving norms of international diplomacy and the role of transparency, especially when dealing with the international superpower nearest our shores, i.e., China.

For comments, email darren.dejesus@gmail.com.