For centuries, diplomacy has often operated in a space where truth is moulded, concealed, or reshaped to suit the interests of nations. Sir Henry Wooten’s famous aphorism, “An ambassador is a gentleman sent to lie abroad for the good of his country,” captured a recurring truth of his era. However, figures like Robert White, a U.S. diplomat who served seven presidents, exemplified that standing for truth can come at a cost. White’s integrity, which ultimately led to the loss of his career under pressure from the Reagan Administration, serves as a potent reminder of how values and truth can clash with power.

In today’s fast-evolving geopolitical landscape, these themes resonate more deeply than ever especially with the arrival of artificial intelligence (AI) in the realm of foreign policy. As AI increasingly influences how nations communicate, negotiate, and manage international relations, its role in shaping the ethics and future of diplomacy is under scrutiny. While AI offers transformative potential for decision-making, intelligence gathering, and conflict resolution, it also introduces new risks and dilemmas that challenge the very principles diplomats like White stood for. Will AI be a tool for enhancing transparency and truth, or will it further blur the lines between diplomacy and deception? AI’s ability to process vast amounts of data, analyze complex geopolitical trends, and simulate potential outcomes can aid diplomats in making more informed decisions.
For instance, AI can predict political unrest or detect early signs of conflict through social media patterns, enabling governments to act preemptively. Virtual assistants and translation software can smoothen communication between officials from different countries, reducing misinterpretation that has historically led to conflicts. However, AI’s promises are also accompanied by significant perils. The tools used to promote peace and cooperation can also be manipulated to serve darker purposes. Disinformation campaigns, deepfake technologies, and AI-generated propaganda pose challenges to the integrity of global communication. Governments or non-state actors could leverage AI to manipulate public opinion or orchestrate sophisticated disinformation campaigns that blur the line between fact and fiction – leaving both diplomats and citizens vulnerable to deceit on an unprecedented scale. The digital age makes it easier for nations to hide behind algorithms rather than human accountability.

The anonymity and speed of AI-driven actions could lead to deniability when ethical boundaries are crossed. In a world where AI operates behind the scenes, the timeless question of how much truth diplomats owe to their citizens and the global community becomes even more urgent. In the AI-driven world of diplomacy, the pressure to uphold truth and integrity will become even more complex. AI may automate certain processes and decisions, but it is humans who must ultimately decide how and why AI is deployed in the service of foreign policy. This brings into focus the need for ethical frameworks to guide the use of AI in diplomacy. Just as Robert White refused to lie for political convenience, future diplomats may find themselves grappling with how to use AI responsibly, ensuring it serves the common good without perpetuating falsehoods or escalating conflicts. The presence of AI also redefines the role of the diplomat, requiring a new set of skills and responsibilities.

Diplomats will need to understand the implications of AI tools while maintaining the moral compass to use them wisely. They will have to navigate not just cultural differences but technological complexities, where the ability to discern between truth and manipulation will be critical to preserving global stability. As we move into this new era, international organizations and governing bodies must work collaboratively to establish clear regulations around the use of AI in diplomacy. Transparency in AI algorithms, robust verification processes for information, and accountability mechanisms should be embedded into the fabric of diplomatic practice. Otherwise, we risk a future where diplomacy is not only guided by machines but by the whims of those who control them – without the ethical restraint that has historically been the cornerstone of international relations.

The development of global AI standards should be driven by a commitment to peace, human rights, and truth – principles that ambassadors and diplomats have upheld for generations, even when personal and political costs were high. The international community must ensure that AI does not become a tool that erodes the very trust and transparency it was designed to enhance. In the coming decades, AI will undoubtedly reshape the landscape of diplomacy and foreign policy. But while machines can process data and predict outcomes, they cannot replace the core human values of integrity, accountability, and ethical judgment that are essential to the art of diplomacy. Figures like White remind us of the importance of standing firm for truth, even in the face of political expediency.

As AI takes its place in the diplomatic toolkit, it is crucial that we continue to ask: How can we ensure that AI serves as a force for good rather than deception? What role should diplomats play in guiding its development? And, most importantly, how do we protect the principles of truth and integrity in an increasingly AI-driven world? The answers to these questions will determine the future of international relations and whether the digital age becomes an era of enhanced global cooperation or one of deepening mistrust and manipulation. The stakes are high, but with the right leadership and ethical foresight, AI could be a powerful ally in building a more just, transparent, and peaceful world. In the realm of diplomacy, principles such as “an enemy’s enemy is a friend” or “no permanent friends, only permanent interests” have guided international relations for centuries. AI may reshape the landscape, but these timeless truths remain. Diplomats will continue to navigate a world where interests shift, alliances form and break, and opinion is not an iron rod but a flexible tool of negotiation.

(The writer is Associate Professor, Centre for South Asian Studies, Pondicherry Central University.)