Diplomacy in the Digital Age
- By Brian Hocking and Jan Melissen
0 Comment(s)
Print
E-mail China.org.cn, October 26, 2015
The fourth facet of the digitalization debate, again rooted in broader debates about the impact on government of digitalization, relates to the usage of digital technologies to improve the service delivery, enhance the key functions of sectors of the public service, and reinforce participation in the shaping of policy. On one side, the focus here is on improving access to government and enhancing participation, reflecting earlier debates on the 'democratisation' of diplomacy. Here we confront a key debate in the recent evolution of public diplomacy and the extent to which this can live up to expectations of two-way communication suggesting an 'opening up' of the foreign policy processes.
On another level, the issue is one of utilising new modes of communication to manage networks and to perform service functions more effectively, as in consular and crisis management. Central to these elements of digital diplomacy is the notion of developing 'responsive' or 'web 2.0' diplomacy. This recognises the need to move beyond top-down or one-way information distribution models (as represented by static websites and, in public diplomacy, practices that are effectively little more than 'Infopolitik') to interactive modes of communication.
These four interpretations of digital diplomacy are related features of an increasingly complex policy milieu that transcends domestic and international policy environments. Taken together they constitute patterns of 'digital disruption'.
Digital disruption and diplomacy
As a paper from Deloitte Australia suggests, 'digital disruption' is a neutral term covering positive and negative impacts of digitalization on organisations – both in the private and public sectors. How this will play out in a given context varies, depending on the nature of the enterprise or government and can be measured by the impact of digital technologies – the 'bang' – and the length of time before an industry or organisation is affected – the length of the 'fuse'.
How does this apply to the diplomatic arena? As we can see from table 3.1, diplomatic institutions face significant challenges from a changing policy environment partly determined by digital innovations. At the same time, the intensity of change (the 'bang') is likely to be lower than that experienced by government departments and agencies with sensitive domestic agendas. Diplomacy – with the obvious exception of consular functions – is less involved in service provision. Similarly the scope or 'fuse length' of digitalization will be more variable in foreign policy management with parts of the diplomatic machinery, such as those most closely involved with public diplomacy, affected more rapidly and extensively than others.
We can distinguish between two ends of a spectrum of change. At one end of the spectrum there will be patterns of adaptation reflected in table 3.1. Here, the structures and processes of diplomacy respond to digital disruption in a relatively straightforward way, by utilising its resources and tailoring patterns of activity to demands that are enhanced by digitalization. We see this for the fields of representation and consular functions.
Go to Forum >>0 Comment(s)