Diplomacy in the Digital Age
- By Brian Hocking and Jan Melissen
0 Comment(s)
Print
E-mail China.org.cn, October 26, 2015
3 Offline and Online Perspectives
If the term 'digital age' presents us with a complex mix of technological, social, economic and political changes, then its popular derivative, 'digital diplomacy' is no less problematic. The easiest course would be to focus on social media, but even here the picture is confused. For many, the role of digital media seems to be equated with the broader public diplomacy function, with diplomats embracing Twitter and Facebook, and their embassies engaging with local audiences in the digital domain. For others, digital media is loosely associated with general developments in world politics and foreign policy. Then there are disagreements as to the intensity of change in diplomatic practice wrought by technological change, not to mention clashes of opinion on their compatibility with diplomatic culture. There is a wide continuum ranging from technophile diplomats who accept the blessings of social media in toto, regardless of the job at hand, to technophobes with an irrational resistance to their use and, in any case, no clue as to where to start.
The more fundamental parallel debate is about diplomatic transformations that precede the advent of digital media, which is drowned out by the buzz about the social media. As suggested in the previous chapter, we have become familiar with 'multistakeholder diplomacy' which recognises a broadening of constituencies that need to be involved in the delivery of successful outcomes. 'Network diplomacy' shares the same basic logic. It looks at the organisational forms, work processes and practices characteristic of diplomatic milieus, and suggests that vertical hierarchical structures based on command and control models are no longer fit for purpose in an environment where 'horizontal' dynamics are increasingly significant. These debates about the 'offline' environment in which diplomacy functions have been going on for some time, and are now interacting with discussions on diplomacy in an 'online' world.
Trust and communication
In the international press and other media, much of the debate in 2014 has focused on events such as the dramatic scenario unfolding in Ukraine, the Hong Kong pro-democracy riots and social turbulence in Western societies accompanying the rise of Islamic State. By casting our net wider, we can get a broader perspective on how changing communications patterns cut across the world(s) of diplomacy. Lessons can be drawn from three recent situations in which diplomacy has been challenged by a changing communications environment.
The World Health Organization (WHO) and the Ebola Crisis. During 2014, the WHO faced increasing criticism over its handling of the Ebola crisis in West Africa. Much of the criticism related to the speed of its response together with the lack of an effective strategy and focused on the leading health NGO, Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF). On 3 April, MSF first warned WHO, who responded by saying the numbers affected were still small. A dispute then broke out on social media between MSF and the WHO's spokesperson, who insisted it was under control. In September 2014, the adoption of a digital disease management system (RegPoint) through which medical staff, patients and public could communicate via mobile phones was being promoted by its private sector developer as the only means of combatting the emergency.
Go to Forum >>0 Comment(s)