Cutting a 940-Word Communiqué to 350 Words Before the Deadline
The joint communiqué from a bilateral summit is due for release at 6 p.m. The full draft runs 940 words; the joint drafting committee has agreed a ceiling of 350. Your junior officer's text is grammatically clean but politically loose. Four sentences are on your desk:
(a) “The two sides agreed to consider reviewing the existing arrangement at an early date.” (b) “Sri Lanka noted that progress on reconciliation has been satisfactory.” (c) “Both leaders shared the view that the presence of foreign military vessels in the Indian Ocean should be regulated by regional countries.” (d) “The Prime Minister expressed serious concern on the fishermen issue.” – the Sinhala source used a term closer to “close attention”.
The partner's delegation has just proposed inserting “moratorium” on fishing in the disputed waters. Cabinet has not approved that word. It is 4:40 p.m.
1. Classify the risk in each of the four sentences and rewrite each one so that the political balance is preserved but the risk is removed.
Read the worked answer
(a) Commitment risk. “Agreed to consider reviewing” is a soft commitment with an undefined trigger; it becomes quotable as an undertaking. Rewrite: “The two sides reviewed the existing arrangement and will continue consultations through established channels.” Reasoning: converts a future commitment into a past fact plus a process.
(b) Attribution risk. “Sri Lanka noted that progress has been satisfactory” is ambiguous in two ways: whether satisfaction is Sri Lanka's assessment or a shared one, and how “satisfactory” will be quoted domestically. Rewrite: “Sri Lanka set out the progress achieved under its reconciliation framework.” Reasoning: reports an action, not a judgment; nothing can be quoted back as an admission.
(c) Uncleared policy risk. This is a substantive position on foreign naval presence that no cabinet process has cleared, and it will be read as alignment with one bloc. Rewrite: “The two leaders exchanged views on maritime security in the Indian Ocean and underlined the importance of freedom of navigation and respect for international law.” Reasoning: replaces a policy prescription with a universally accepted formulation. If the partner insists on the original, escalate – do not absorb it at official level.
(d) Translation fidelity risk. “Serious concern” is a stronger register than the Sinhala source; the gap will surface if both texts are compared. Rewrite: “The Prime Minister drew close attention to the fishermen issue and called for early resolution through existing mechanisms.” Reasoning: matches the source register, retains the priority, installs a mechanism.
2. State the two tests you would apply to every remaining sentence, and explain what you would cut to get from 940 words to 350.
Read the worked answer
Test 1 - “Can this be quoted against us in six months?” Read each sentence as a hostile opposition researcher or a foreign ministry spokesperson would. If it contains a commitment, a deadline, a number, an attribution of a judgment, or a superlative, either qualify it or delete it. Adjectives are where most communiqué damage originates: “historic”, “unprecedented”, “full support” and “satisfactory” all create expectations that no follow-up can meet.
Test 2 - “Is it cleared?” Every sentence must be traceable to an approved position: cabinet, a signed agreement, or a previously published statement. The “moratorium” proposal fails this test outright and cannot be softened into acceptability – it either appears with clearance or not at all.
What to cut, in order:
- Pleasantries and self-description – paragraphs on the history of the relationship, the warmth of the welcome and the composition of delegations. Typically 200–250 words in a draft of this length.
- Duplicated commitments – the same undertaking expressed in the bilateral and the regional section.
- Lists – convert enumerations of sectors into one sentence naming the mechanism that will handle them.
- Adverbs and hedges of emphasis – “very”, “deeply”, “fully”, “continues to”.
What must not be cut: anything the partner needs for its own domestic audience (usually one paragraph), anything with a number that has been announced already, and the sentence establishing the next meeting – it is the only forward-looking anchor the document has.
Practical arithmetic: four substantive paragraphs of about 60 words each, an opening of 40, a closing of 30, plus a title and date. If the draft still exceeds the ceiling, cut a whole paragraph rather than shaving adjectives from every one; a shaved text reads as evasive.
3. The partner proposes “moratorium” at 4:40 p.m. Set out the clearance sequence and what you say to them.
Read the worked answer
Clearance sequence (90 minutes):
- 4:45 – Flag the insertion to the head of delegation with a one-line note: the word is not cleared by cabinet, and the consequence of including it is a public commitment Sri Lanka cannot implement.
- 4:50 – Ask the partner, in the drafting committee, for the status of the proposal: is it a drafting suggestion or a position their principal has raised with ours? A drafting suggestion can be declined at official level; a leadership-level position must go to the principals.
- 5:00 – If it is leadership-level, seek a five-minute call between the two heads of delegation or their sherpas. Do not let it sit in the text as a bracketed phrase – brackets are how uncleared language survives to publication.
- 5:30 – Whatever is agreed, put it in writing to the partner's drafting lead, so the final text has a shared record of the decision.
- 5:50 – Final read-through against the ceiling, then release. If no agreement by 5:45, release the communiqué without the disputed sentence and issue a parallel agreed line on continued consultations; a shorter communiqué is always better than a contested one.
What to say to them: “We can support language on strengthening cooperation against illegal fishing and on early convening of the joint working group. We cannot include ‘moratorium’ today because it has not completed our domestic process, and a joint statement that announces something we cannot deliver would damage both governments' credibility. We propose the working-group formulation now and will revert on the wider question through diplomatic channels.” That is a refusal with an offer attached, which preserves the relationship and the deadline simultaneously.