Diplomacy in the Digital Age
- By Brian Hocking and Jan Melissen
0 Comment(s)
Print
E-mail China.org.cn, October 26, 2015
At the other end of the spectrum, there are much more profound changes to fundamental norms and rules which challenge accepted notions of what diplomacy is – or should be. As we have seen, these comprise entrenched notions of hierarchy rooted in the evolution of state-based diplomacy over several centuries. A second norm is the specialness of foreign policy as a realm of one-way, top down communication. A third norm is the place of secrecy or confidentiality in diplomatic process. At most levels of diplomatic activity, whether in national or international forums, there is a counter claim to that of confidentiality. Networked diplomacy requires engagement with broader constituencies, increasingly transparent relationships, and more openness when it comes to sharing information in the interests of collaborative policy-making and joint problem-solving. This 'opening up of diplomacy' underscores the key problem of balancing the requirements of confidentiality in negotiations with the growing demands for transparency. One response to this tension is to argue that new technologies such as social media do not replace conventional forms of diplomacy, as a paper from the Russian International Affairs Council argues:
…digital diplomacy is mainly applicative in nature and is particularly useful in working with foreign audiences in matters of relaying the official position and building up the image of the state. It is important to understand that it is unlikely to ever replace diplomacy in its conventional sense. Closed talks will remain closed. However digital diplomacy is capable of explaining why a certain decision was made, what results it will give, how it will influence the foreign policy process, i.e. of opening public access to the results of conventional diplomacy.
Diplomats' comments on digital diplomacy
How do practitioners see the impact of digitalization on their work, or better: what do they say about this in public? We have seen the view reflected in the comment of John Kerry that employing digital technologies is becoming mainstreamed into diplomatic practice. But that still leaves the question of how digital technologies are being used, with what kinds of policy objectives and how they relate to fundamental precepts of diplomacy identified earlier. A favourite theme is that social media is somehow 'demystifying' diplomacy and enhancing access to diplomatic process. Examples regularly cited are social campaigns using Twitter hashtags and viral videos such as the 'bring back our girls' campaign calling for the release of 270 Nigerian schoolgirls kidnapped by Boko Haram.
Another key theme is the use of digital technologies to 'amplify messages'. As one example, Michael Grant, Canadian deputy permanent representative at the UN, notes the significance of social media for finding and spreading information, replicating and amplifying messages such as diplomats' speeches and public appearances: “Is social media absolutely 100 per cent required? No it isn't. But I think you can do your job better by engaging with social media…Is it 100 per cent part of diplomacy? Yes it is.” A recurrent theme is that social media is an essential weapon in the developing diplomatic armoury through message projection and amplification. National diplomats make the point regularly but often surround it with cautionary notes mostly heard during in-house discussions about the use of the social media in diplomacy. Many practitioners are skeptical about the hyperactive sending behavior of colleagues who are sometimes portrayed as role models of the diplomat in the digital age.
Go to Forum >>0 Comment(s)