Twitter diplomacy backfires: Why the US ambassador's public spat with Pretoria damages both sides

Forensic psychologist and military analyst Dr Joan Swart dissects the increasingly public diplomatic standoff between US Ambassador Leo Brent Bozell III and DIRCO — and finds both sides wanting. Her core argument: social media rewards confrontation, but statecraft requires discretion. DIRCO's assertion that "non-alignment must not be conflated with neutrality" reflects a coherent doctrine of strategic autonomy — one India, Saudi Arabia and Turkey all practise — but South Africa applies it with inconsistent messaging. Meanwhile, an ambassador tweeting criticism of his host country's foreign policy narrows negotiating space rather than expanding it. In an era of algorithmic diplomacy, long-term relationships are the casualty.By Dr Joan Swart*.The latest public exchange between US Ambassador Leo Brent Bozell III and South Africa's Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO) is about far more than South Africa’s relationship with Iran and China. It raises a more fundamental question: what is diplomacy for?.Ambassador Bozell's criticism of South Africa's foreign policy on X, followed by DIRCO's equally public response defending Pretoria's position, has become another episode in a growing trend where diplomatic disagreements increasingly play out before social media audiences rather than across negotiating tables.Whether one agrees with Pretoria’s policy towards Iran or not is almost beside the point. Diplomacy has never been about winning the day’s news cycle. Its purpose is to preserve relationships, manage disagreements, reduce misunderstandings and create opportunities for compromise. Public confrontation rarely achieves those objectives.This is not to suggest that South Africa’s foreign policy should be immune from criticism. Like every sovereign state, South Africa’s decisions should be scrutinised and debated. Critics are entitled to ask whether Pretoria applies international law consistently, whether its diplomatic signalling is sufficiently balanced, or whether some of its relationships advance South Africa’s national interest. Those are legitimate questions in any democracy.Yet foreign policy cannot be assessed in isolation from the international environment in which it operates. The strategic landscape of the Middle East is undergoing one of its most significant realignments in decades. The recent conflict has exposed the vulnerabilities of every major regional actor, accelerated dialogue between former rivals, and reinforced the tendency of regional powers to pursue more autonomous security arrangements. The influence of China and Russia continues to expand, while traditional American security guarantees are increasingly viewed through the lens of strategic uncertainty rather than unquestioned assurance. In such an environment, middle powers across the world—including South Africa—are reassessing how best to preserve diplomatic flexibility. Foreign policy is not static; it evolves alongside changes in the international balance of power.Equally, however, South Africa is entitled to determine its own foreign policy.That does not mean every foreign policy decision is beyond criticism. On the contrary, strategic autonomy places an even greater burden on governments to explain the principles guiding their decisions. It is here that DIRCO’s response to Ambassador Bozell is particularly instructive—not because it settles the debate, but because it articulates the doctrine that increasingly underpins South Africa’s foreign policy.DIRCO’s statement included a phrase that deserves closer attention: “Non-alignment must not be conflated with neutrality.”Although easily overlooked, this sentence reflects an important shift in international relations. Non-alignment no longer means standing apart from world affairs or refusing to express opinions. Increasingly, it means strategic autonomy: maintaining the sovereign freedom to engage different powers according to national interests rather than permanent alliance obligations.India has practised this approach for years. Saudi Arabia simultaneously deepens its relationship with China while maintaining close security ties with the United States. Türkiye remains a NATO member while pursuing an independent regional policy. Many middle powers are no longer willing to choose exclusive geopolitical camps.South Africa is pursuing a similar approach, although not always with consistent messaging or diplomatic finesse.This distinction also explains why non-alignment should not be confused with neutrality. Neutrality implies refraining from taking sides in disputes between states. Strategic autonomy preserves the freedom to cooperate, criticise and engage different states according to national interests.That principle is defensible.Its implementation, however, can always be debated.The same applies to diplomacy itself.An ambassador’s foremost responsibility is to advance his country’s interests by strengthening bilateral relationships. That does not require avoiding disagreement. On the contrary, honest disagreement is often essential to diplomacy. But there is a difference between communicating disagreement privately through established diplomatic channels and broadcasting it publicly to domestic and international audiences.Social media undoubtedly has a place in modern diplomacy. It can explain policy, communicate with citizens during crises, promote trade and cultural ties, and counter misinformation. What it cannot easily do is build trust between governments whose relationship is already under strain.The problem is not social media itself but the incentives it creates. Diplomacy traditionally rewards patience, discretion and compromise—qualities that often produce few headlines but meaningful outcomes. Social media rewards immediacy, certainty and public confrontation. What earns applause online frequently narrows the space for negotiation offline. When diplomacy begins to follow the logic of the algorithm rather than the logic of statecraft, relationships become performative rather than productive.Public criticism may satisfy domestic political audiences. It may demonstrate resolve. It may generate headlines. But it rarely changes another government’s behaviour. More often, it encourages governments to harden their positions rather than appear to yield to external pressure.This is not a uniquely American phenomenon. Around the world, diplomats increasingly find themselves rewarded for visibility rather than influence. The incentives of social media favour speed over reflection, confrontation over persuasion, and performance over quiet negotiation.South Africa and the United States have a relationship that extends far beyond current disagreements. The United States remains one of South Africa’s largest trading partners, while South Africa continues to play an important diplomatic role within Africa, BRICS and the wider Global South. Neither country benefits from allowing disagreements to become public spectacles.Traditional diplomacy evolved over centuries for good reason. It recognised that relationships are strategic assets. Effective diplomats seek to expand the space for dialogue, not narrow it.There will always be profound differences between Pretoria and Washington on issues ranging from the Middle East to global governance. Those differences should neither surprise nor alarm us..Read more:.US trial exposes social media 'quick buck' short-selling tactics.Diplomacy has never been about saying what supporters most want to hear. It has always been about saying—and sometimes withholding—what best advances a country's long-term interests. That is why diplomacy is conducted between governments, not audiences. In an age increasingly defined by public performance, that distinction may be more important than ever.In an increasingly fragmented world, that distinction matters more than ever..*Dr Joan Swart is a forensic psychologist and military analyst specialising in security studies, geopolitics and strategic affairs, with a particular focus on Africa. She is currently completing a PhD at the University of Stellenbosch Military Academy..Sign up for your early morning brew of the BizNews Insider to keep you up to speed with the content that matters. The newsletter will land in your inbox every morning on weekdays. Register here.Support South Africa's bastion of independent journalism, offering balanced insights on investments, business, and the political economy, by joining BizNews Premium. Register here.If you prefer WhatsApp for updates, sign up to the BizNews channel here.

Twitter diplomacy backfires: Why the US ambassador's public spat with Pretoria damages both sides

Related Stories

Dean Macpherson's R148bn property play: The government's biggest untapped asset is about to get a manager

SA firms caught in crossfire as anti-immigration protests spark continental backlash

Foreign hands or a failing government? Why Lamola's protest conspiracy theory doesn't hold up

Hersov: There are two South Africas — it's time Washington started treating them differently