Digital Diplomacy: Diplomatic Practice Re-Imagined
By PSOW alumna Michelle Mischier
The speed of transformation of the communication environment by the internet and wireless communication has not only reshaped societies but has significantly influenced the way foreign policy is conducted. The increased use of digital communication technologies has become an indivisible part of diplomatic work. Digitalization is forcing diplomats to rethink core issues of governance, order, and international hierarchy (Seib 2016; Bjola and Manor 2018; Riordan 2019). Several triggers for the adaptation of diplomatic practice, together with advances in information communication technology (ICT), have broken the state-centric monopoly on information and ushered in an era of increased democratization of diplomacy. The entry of multiple actors and networks into the discussion has complicated the decision-making processes and impacted how state actors operate.
Myriad challenges underpin the hesitancy to add digital diplomacy to the traditional diplomatic toolbox. Diplomats fear their place in diplomatic practices may be eroded by the digitalization of diplomacy. For senior diplomats who are accustomed to the traditional mode, the speed of digital innovation and rapid changes in the array of digital tools available can be the source of organizational conflict between different generations in the workplace. MFAs and multilateral organizations’ culture can significantly affect its capacity to use digital tools for diplomacy. “A conservative and cautious establishment preoccupied with preserving traditions and …. hierarchy, and collectivism is less amenable to the change and innovation demanded by the adoption of digital diplomacy.” (Robertson, 2018)
MFAs capacity to restructure and be nimble were seriously tested by the pandemic. The COVID-19 pandemic triggered an acceleration in the process of digital adaptation, by several years according to a McKinsey Global Survey of Executives conducted in 2020. For many techno-phobic diplomats the pandemic disruption compromised their faithful adherence to face-to-face, physical diplomacy with virtual engagement via videoconference, facilitated on platforms they once viewed with skepticism such as Zoom, Teams and Webex. The traditional in situ meetings had to be re-imagined (Bjola, 2018). The videoconferencing apps proved invaluable in organizing of virtual sessions of many multilateral meetings, while streamlining positions, pushing forward common decisions, and maintaining communication across distances. It has also significantly contributed to a reduction in travel budgets for MFAs and multilateral organisations.
Diplomacy has traditionally relied on backdoor channels of communication and qualitative intelligence. Digital diplomacy has ushered in a confluence of technological innovation including data analytics, 5G, Cloud Computing, Artificial Intelligence (AI) and more. This trend presents an opportunity for increased collaboration in foreign relations. There is great interest about the ways these digital tools can be used to support core diplomatic activities -– negotiations, consular services, humanitarian response and conflict monitoring. The prospective benefits of digital diplomacy outweigh the risks, and therefore efforts will be made to mitigate the ‘dark side.’
For the diplomat, data remains a strategic asset. “Big data” is the ‘’bloodstream’ of the digital revolution. Given its capacity to capture, predict and shape behaviour, it is a very desirable commodity for those seeking geopolitical dominance. Digital trends for AI tools have identified increasing tests conducted to now predict voting trends. Electoral Observer Missions (EOMs) and supporting mechanism will need to be adapted to access the impact of these sophisticated digital tools on influencing fair conduct of polls.
To date, MFAs have focused on the public-facing “front-end” of digital diplomacy (message dissemination and engagement), but the possibilities are endless. There is need for further research into the next level of digitalization like “back-end” architecture supporting MFAs’ digital strategies and operations (data analysis and network development). Many MFAs and multilateral organisations remain seduced by their social media presence, inadvertently hindering them from developing other digital applications.
The issue is combining what is next level in the technological revolution, moving beyond off-the-shelf tools, and customizing digital tools tailor made for 21st-century diplomacy, underpinned by a digital strategy for foreign policy objectives. “Digital diplomacy, as a product of the soft power of the twenty-first century, should be combined with smart power, which means maximum utilization of the benefits of digitization and empowering protection policies against various threats arising from ICT, the internet and social media because there is no escape from digitalization” (Melissen, 2005).
The modern diplomat must be familiar with the wide spectrum of skills that are required to successfully negotiate this new landscape. They must now expand their training to focus on developing skills to strategically harness the power of digital platforms toward the achievement of measurable goals. Non-state actors like Google Inc. have reached out to state actors from SIDS to assist them to adapt to digitalization, through sponsorship of participants to their Google Government Summit this November.
Digital diplomacy will not render the diplomat obsolete; but state actors will have to update their repertoire of skills by necessity. Any adoption of digital tools without an overarching strategy of how they should be deployed in support of foreign policy mandates can run the risk of digital diplomacy that is uncoupled from foreign policy. Managed correctly, digital diplomacy can strengthen the work of the state in international relations and foreign policy, in a faster and more cost-effective way, and leave no state unconnected.
About the Author:
Michelle Mischier is the Senior Executive Officer for the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) in Georgetown, Guyana. She is a 2011 graduate of The Protocol School of Washington.
Bibliography
Bjola, C. (2018, July 10). The rise of hybrid diplomacy: from digital adaptation to digital adoption. Retrieved from Oxford Department of International Development - University of Oxford: https://www.qeh.ox.ac.uk/content/conceptions-and-misconceptions-digital-diplomacy
BJOLA, C. (2019, January 22). USC Center on Public Diplomacy. Retrieved from USC Center on Public Diplomacy: https://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/blog/dark-side-digital-diplomacy
Burson, C. &. (2020, April 23). World Leaders on Facebook. Retrieved from BCW Twiplomacy: https://www.twiplomacy.com/world-leaders-on-facebook-2020
Corneliu Bjola, M. H. (2015). Digital Diplomacy: Theory and Practice. NY: Routledge.
GULENKO, V. (2020). Conventional Diplomacy vs Digital Reality. Ukraine Analytica, 5.
Khomeriki, D. (2022). Benefits and Risks of Digital Diplomacy: Is Traditional Diplomacy in Decline? In N. Chitadze, World Politics and Challenges for International Security (pp. 261-281). IGI Publisher.
Melissen, J. (2005). The New Public Diplomacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Riordan, S. D. (2017, May 27). USCCenter on Public Diplomacy. Retrieved from USC University of Southern California: https://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/blog/digital-diplomacy-2016-need-strategy
Robertson, J. (2018). Organizational culture and public diplomacy in the digital sphere: The case of South Korea. Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies, 672–682.
