Washington: Maybe it will be called the Donald duck-around. It's a sort of diplomatic glad-game in which what is apparent to the entire world is not raised, and a phone call that stung goes unmentioned.
And in the lobby of the Australian embassy in Washington on Tuesday evening, we were lucky to participate in a master class on the subject – Foreign Minister Julie Bishop, take a bow.
Bishop is in DC for meetings with Vice-President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and others in the new administration. And in the aftermath of her meeting with Pence, she'd have us believe that all is hunky dory.
Here's how it works.
Where the rest of the world saw an extraordinary parade of US cabinet secretaries traipsing through NATO headquarters and security forums in Europe last week to tell audiences that either Trump didn't mean some of the things he said or that they, Pence and Tillerson included, didn't mean what the President said; Bishop would only acknowledge the Pence-Tillerson part of the question.
It was as though Trump did not exist.
The question was framed in the context of the credibility of global diplomacy in the Trump era; which was to say, how could she believe a word that anyone in Washington said to her?
Alluding only to the speeches in Europe by Pence and the rest, Bishop argued: "That's not how I'd characterise their media appearances. I watched them and I thought that the secretaries and the senior members of the administration were setting out US policies."
Yes – but who is the guy in the background with small fingers and orange hair?
Bishop went on: "It's a new administration. Of course people are very interested to hear whether there's going to be a change in policy and I found the statements very reassuring, as I'm sure other NATO allies did as well, that the US is committed to a leadership role. The United States is asking other countries to share the burden of ending conflicts and resolving challenges around the world."
And at that point she made a very neat segue, away from Trump to a declaration that Australia was of a like mind, and that Canberra had a role to play, working with its allies to end conflict and build peace.
Then there was what sounded to the rest of the world like Tillerson declaring war on China - he caused jaws to drop in think tanks across the globe when he was asked if he would support a more aggressive US posture in the South China Sea.
"We're going to have to send China a clear signal that, first, the island-building stops and, second, your access to those islands also is not going to be allowed," he told his Senate confirmation hearing.
You might have responded: "Wow."
But Bishop wouldn't even acknowledge that Tillerson had spoken as the record shows he did, or that the vast information-gathering capacity of the Australian government surely delivered her several briefing papers on the Tillerson outburst.
To the amazement of the master class, Bishop's response was borderline Trumpian: "They are not the words that Secretary Tillerson has used in any conversation with me nor have I heard him say it at the G20 foreign ministers' meeting."
Then, another of those segues away from the cuckoo's nest that is today's Washington, to sober, sensible Canberra: "I think Australia has a role to play in putting our perspective and we have been consistent on the South China Sea.
"It's a matter we say publicly and privately to the US and to China and to other claimant states and it's a matter that we will continue to urge, that there be a de-escalation of tensions and that the parties resolve their differences peacefully.
"After all, Australia has a very deep national interest in peace and stability in the South China Sea. The majority of our exports go through the South China Sea. That's why we continue to exercise our rights to freedom of over-flight and freedom of navigation to ensure that international trade can continue unimpeded."
Asked about the phone call in which Trump lashed out at Malcolm Turnbull before throwing the Australian prime minister off the line earlier that expected, Bishop barely acknowledged that phone call.
Instead of talking about the Trump-Trumbull phone call, Bishop was away with her ears pinned back, eulogising the Pence-Bishop phone calls.
"I've had two previous telephone conversations with the vice-president. This was my opportunity to meet him face to face. It was very warm. It was very friendly. We spoke about many things. The meeting went longer than scheduled, which is always a good sign, because we had so many issues to discuss … a positive, constructive, discussion between partners, allies and friends.
"That matter [the Turnbull-Trump phone call] didn't come up …"
It all sounded a bit like speed-dating. Bishop's reference to the meeting going over time prompted a query on how long the meeting actually was. "I think it was almost an hour", she answered.
Maybe 50 minutes and take a few minutes at each end for welcome and farewell pleasantries, and you might conclude that she and Pence talked turkey for about 45 minutes - during which, by Bishop's count, half-a-dozen or more global issues were discussed.
Here's how it went:
Q: Did you discuss a greater commitment from Australia in the fight against [Islamic State] in Iraq and Syria?
A: We discussed the fight in general terms …
Q: What about the potential realignment between the US and Russia?
A: We certainly discussed many global and regional, as well as bilateral issues and we certainly spent some time discussing the situation in Iraq and Syria.
Q: Did Pence tell you what might be in Trump's revised executive order on migrants and refugees?
A: We discussed that, but not in the sort of detail that I can share with you.
Q: Did you discuss the two-state solution for the Palestinian crisis?
A: Not in detail …
Q: Did Afghanistan come up?
A: Yes it did …
Q: Did Pence indicate what is happening with the Paris agreement on climate change?
A: We discussed a range of issues …
Q: Did China and the South China Sea come up?
A: Yes it did.
Uncertain in all of this is who Bishop is seeking to reassure regarding the hunky-doryness of the trans-Pacific relationship.
Certainly, Pence and Tillerson are aware of the madness of the house in which they live; and anyone with half an ear or an eye on media coverage of Trump's Washington would be aware that we live in uncertain times.
Q: Had she encountered Trump on her way to or from Pence's office?
A: No, I didn't.
Q: Were you invited to Mar-a-Lago for the coming weekend?
A: I won't be in the US on the weekend; so no, I won't be there.
