From Ukraine to Iran: The closing channels of strategic communication in an uncertain world

Globalisation rests on effective communication, institutional connectivity, and a broadly accepted rules-based international order, underpinned by consensus on trade, technology, capital, and the movement of talent.

The current moment marks a significant departure from this model. The rules-based international order enshrined in the UN Charter is not without its shortcomings, especially given the long-standing structural inequality between permanent and non-permanent members and the total absence of any genuine reforms. However, it remains the only universal framework for peace and development since 1945.

Over the decades, the United Nations has many achievements to its credit. It has contributed extensively to peacekeeping missions in Asia, Africa and beyond. At the same time, the inability of the UN to prevent or resolve conflicts such as the crisis in Gaza and conflicts in Ukraine and the Strait of Hormuz reflects deep divisions among veto-wielding powers, which have repeatedly stalled coordinated diplomatic messaging and action.

More from Opinion

Communication is a two-way process. It is predicated on elements of transparency, good faith and a degree of trust as well. Lamentably, the breakdown in communication has occurred in an era supercharged with multiple means of connectivity. In fact, the central paradox of our time is that even as the tools of communication have multiplied, the quality of strategic communication between states has deteriorated.

The growing absence of meaningful dialogue is not limited to competitors but also afflicts allies. Emerging policy divergences within the trans-Atlantic partnership, particularly between the United States and key members of the European Union on trade protectionism, technology regulation and common security illustrate how even long-standing allies are struggling to maintain coherent strategic messaging.

The erosion of multilateralism is not just weakening cooperation but dismantling the very channels through which strategic communication is possible. Recent tariff escalations, particularly the trade tensions between the US and China, have increasingly bypassed World Trade Organisation (WTO) dispute settlement mechanisms, signalling a shift away from rules-based arbitration toward unilateral economic coercion. This represents one of the clearest indications of a breakdown in strategic communication within the multilateral system. Tariffs now hang over the heads of nations like the proverbial sword of Damocles, outside the purview of a weakened WTO.

As multilateral institutions wither away, states increasingly rely on unilateral, bilateral, and minilateral arrangements. This shift reduces opportunities for inclusive dialogue, amplifies mistrust, and places developing countries at a structural disadvantage when engaging with advanced economies and bigger powers.

Regionalism is a critical driver of economic growth and development, especially when led by dynamic regional players which may include major and middle powers. However, in the absence of transparency and genuine equality, regionalism can degenerate into spheres of influence and dependencies. This risk is perhaps not unique to Asia.

Another feature of our times is the phenomenon of expanding neighbourhoods. Advances in communication and connectivity have enabled countries to redefine their regions. The overlap potentially creates friction with established powers. While foreign policy outreach and physical presence, particularly military and strategic, in non-traditional and redefined neighbourhoods are relatively easy to assess, the motivations and strategic intent behind such moves often remain opaque.

Transparency in communication is at the heart of human progress. The march of technology, particularly in the digital sphere and now in artificial intelligence, has the potential to alter the nature of communication.

Today, the world runs the risk of digital domination by advanced economies over the have-nots. The developing countries of the Global South are rich in data but not the means to store or process it for their own benefit. Data control translates directly to strategic communication power. The fundamental question before us is, 'Why should data be stored on foreign servers and subjected to interpretations that facilitate manipulation of the Global South?'

The explosive proliferation of the internet and social media has created a largely ungoverned information space. The absence of global consensus on digital governance, evident in contrasting regulatory approaches such as the General Data Protection Regulation and more market-driven models, has enabled misinformation, manipulation, and influence operations by states, corporations, and non-state actors alike.

In an era of conflict and growing uncertainty, social media and micro-blogging platforms offer the means to reach out to mass audiences, both domestic and international. Emerging digital platforms, including algorithm-driven and decentralised networks, have democratised mainstream communication, which can be a force both for good as well as evil. Conventional print and audio-visual media remain relevant, but the role of media barons, private entrepreneurs and NGOs has come under growing scrutiny on account of vested interests, often with ideological and religious undertones. Shaping public opinion is a global trend today transcending borders. We often use terms such as "information operations" and "cognitive warfare" to address such concerns.

In coming decades, countries of the Global South will require access to better communication links through undersea cables and satellites. This is directly relevant to the growth of the knowledge economy, innovation and industrial progress.

Strategic communication is at the heart of peace, progress and development. The following manifestations of strategic communication are important:

1. Regular communication between heads of state / governments is key to stable international relations. The traditional exchange of greetings on important anniversaries, messages of commiseration and condolence during disasters, high-level face-to-face engagements and telephonic/virtual conversations all play a major role in deepening mutual understanding, averting misunderstanding and promoting transparency even during periods of tensions. Consistency in tone and tenor is critical to effective international communication.

2. Regular exchanges between the armed forces, including through hotlines and face-to-face meetings, contribute to enhancing mutual trust, especially between countries with lingering territorial disputes. Confidence-building measures invariably entail better communication links and foster a habit of dialogue.

3. The role of back channels and low-key engagement away from the media glare is especially relevant for tackling sensitive issues and diffusing crises. Such breakdown in communication contributes to protracted conflicts.

4. Strategic communication is no longer the exclusive preserve of governments. Business and tech leaders, NGOs, religious figures and social influencers all have transnational agency. They must realise the power of communication at their command and act in a responsible manner for the larger good. Their emphasis should be communicating a message of harmony and cooperation in addressing global challenges. Issues confronting humanity, such as pandemics, climate change and environmental protection, including the challenge of micro-plastics and marine debris, cannot be tackled without convergence of vision and action.

5. A responsible media is a force for national and global good, especially in regions with a history of past conflict. It is vital for the media to distil truth from fiction and news from propaganda. The media must temper reporting, help diffuse tensions, remove misunderstandings, and foster better relations. Yet, this cannot be truly achieved without tackling communication asymmetry between nations. Centralised and authoritarian systems invariably tend to outdo the more democratic models of communication.

6. We have seen how strategic communication and regular high-level dialogue have, at various points, helped India and China manage tensions and stabilise ties despite underlying strategic differences. Communication at multiple levels, including between think-tanks, is making positive contributions. As such, visits by entrepreneurs, tourists and youth exchanges can provide added impetus and overcome prejudice and misunderstandings between peoples during difficult times.

The defining paradox of our time is not a lack of communication capacity, but a collapse of meaningful communication. Strategic communication must evolve to address the myriad challenges in an increasingly fragmented world. Strategic communication is not merely a diplomatic tool but a strategic asset. It must remain constant, credible, and anchored in mutual respect. Without it, miscalculation and mistrust will increasingly define international relations in an already fragmented world. Only through responsible and transparent communication can the international community navigate uncertainty and work towards a more stable, equitable, and peaceful world.

(The author is the Director General of the Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, New Delhi. The views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely that of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.)