Switzerland (Brussels Morning Newspaper) The recent exchange of letters between U.S. First Lady Melania Trump and her Turkish counterpart, Emine Erdoğan, is more than a polite diplomatic courtesy. It is a powerful demonstration of the evolving and often under-appreciated role of first ladies in international relations. Far from being mere hostesses, modern first ladies wield a unique brand of “soft power,” capable of navigating sensitive global issues in ways traditional diplomats cannot. This recent correspondence illuminates both the potential and the inherent complexities and risks of this form of public diplomacy.
Melania Trump’s letter to Russian President Vladimir Putin, delivered by President Trump himself, was a poignant appeal for the protection of children caught in the conflict. While the message was criticized by some for its vague language, its core was an appeal to shared humanity, a theme first lady have long championed. Their traditional focus on humanitarian and social causes allows them to transcend the rigid, interest-driven discourse of statecraft. By focusing on the “melodic laughter” of children, Mrs. Trump was able to open a channel of communication on a deeply personal level, one that resonated beyond the geopolitical trenches. This emotional appeal, unburdened by official policy, is the essence of soft power.
This practice of first ladies as activists is not new. Throughout American history, activist First Ladies have defined the role. Eleanor Roosevelt, for instance, became the first to truly use the platform as a political tool, championing civil rights and advocating for the New Deal. Later, Hillary Clinton took the role to a new level by actively engaging in policy-making, notably on healthcare reform. Michelle Obama used her position to combat childhood obesity and promote education for girls globally. These women, among others, demonstrated that the first lady’s platform, while informal, can be a potent force for global advocacy and social change.
The response from Turkey’s First Lady, Emine Erdoğan, was a masterstroke of diplomatic jujitsu. Praising Mrs. Trump’s “important sensitivity” to the plight of Ukrainian children, Mrs. Erdoğan then skillfully pivoted, urging her to extend the same concern to the children of Gaza. This move was not a simple rebuke, but a strategic leveraging of Mrs. Trump’s own words. By framing her appeal within the universal values of compassion and child welfare that Mrs. Trump herself had invoked, Mrs. Erdoğan demonstrated a keen understanding of the unique diplomatic space first ladies occupy. She was, in effect, holding up a mirror, challenging her American counterpart to apply her humanitarian principles consistently across different global crises.
While cloaked in the noble language of humanitarianism, her message was a deeply political gambit. The letter directly served Turkey’s foreign policy interests, which have been sharply critical of Israel’s military actions in Gaza. By urging Melania Trump to contact Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Mrs. Erdoğan was attempting to co-opt a high-profile American figure—one who is notably outside the traditional foreign policy establishment—to pressure a key U.S. ally. The letter’s emotional pleas were not simply expressions of empathy. They were carefully crafted rhetorical devices designed to place the humanitarian onus on Melania Trump, and by extension, the United States, thereby validating Turkey’s position on the international stage without the formal constraints of state-to-state diplomacy.
This exchange reveals several key insights into the mechanics of First Lady diplomacy:
First, the episode highlights the power of surrogacy, where first ladies can act as a stand-in for the head of state, conveying messages and signals that the president cannot or does not want to send directly. By having Mrs. Trump hand-deliver the letter, President Trump was able to show a softer, more compassionate side to his foreign policy while maintaining a more traditional and tough-minded negotiating posture. This duality allows for a more nuanced and flexible approach to foreign relations.
Second, it underscores the humanitarian-as-political nature of the role. First ladies often focus on “safer” issues like health, education, or children’s welfare. However, as the letters demonstrate, these are never truly apolitical. A first lady’s advocacy can serve as a non-threatening entry point for a nation to engage on a politically charged topic. In this case, Mrs. Trump’s letter provided an opening that Mrs. Erdoğan expertly exploited to push her country’s agenda on the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
Finally, the incident showcases the increasing global interconnectedness of first ladies. Thanks to social media and a more interconnected world, the actions of one first lady can now be instantly seen and responded to by her counterparts around the globe. This creates a network of non-traditional diplomacy where personal connections and shared values can be used to advance national interests.
While some might dismiss this exchange as a sideshow, a closer look reveals the quiet, yet potent, work of public diplomacy, however, a truly critical analysis requires acknowledging the inherent limitations and potential liabilities of this informal role. What is celebrated as a “masterstroke” in one context can be seen as an exploitation of a non-official figure in another, exposing the nation to public pressure and manipulation without the formal protection of statecraft. The success of first lady diplomacy is heavily reliant on a delicate balance that, when disrupted, can have consequences.
Dear reader,
Opinions expressed in the op-ed section are solely those of the individual author and do not represent the official stance of our newspaper. We believe in providing a platform for a wide range of voices and perspectives, even those that may challenge or differ from our own. We remain committed to providing our readers with high-quality, fair, and balanced journalism. Thank you for your continued support.
