Today diplomacy increasingly relies on tweets. Yet, as tweets only allow for 280 characters, statements must be brief and impactful, which encourages the use of humour in conveying one’s message. This article scrutinizes irony and ridicule in diplomatic interactions. Even though these forms of humour may antagonize parties and even turn issues into a security concern, this article points out that they also have an affiliative aspect and could play a conflict-mediating role. Because humour, especially irony, is easy to misunderstand (especially in cross-cultural settings), many warn against using them in diplomatic exchanges. Nevertheless, I will argue that they are ideal for expressing multi-layered messages, enabling the speaker to rely on what is often called ‘constructive ambiguity’, which is often useful in diplomatic conduct. Two case studies illustrate the argument. The first focuses on cartoons ridiculing President Wilson in the early 20th century for his reluctance to commit the US to join WWI (suggesting that cartoons of the time might be predecessors of today’s tweets), and the second on tweets published by the British Embassy in London apropos of the Skripal case (offering an example how humorous tweets can convey multi-layered, complex messages).

如今，外交越来越依赖推文。但是，由于推文只允许280个字符，声明必须简短而有影响力，这鼓励在表达信息时使用幽默。本文仔细研究了外交互动中的讽刺和嘲笑。尽管这些形式的幽默可能会激怒各方，甚至将问题变成安全问题，但本文指出，它们也具有从属关系，并可能起到调解冲突的作用。由于幽默（尤其是讽刺）容易被误解（尤其是在跨文化环境中），因此许多人警告不要在外交往来中使用幽默。尽管如此，我将争辩说它们是表达多层信息的理想选择，使演讲者能够依靠通常被称为“建设性歧义”的东西，这在外交行为中通常很有用。有两个案例研究说明了这一论点。第一个关注于漫画在20世纪初嘲笑威尔逊总统，因为他不愿美国加入第一次世界大战（暗示当时的卡通可能是当今推文的前身），第二个关注英国大使馆在伦敦发布的推文。关于Skripal案的案例（提供一个示例，幽默的推文可以传达多层，复杂的消息）。