Digital Diplomacy
CRAIG HAYDEN
American University, School of International
Service, USA
Digital diplomacy describes a moment,
capturing the novelty of information and
communication technologies put to use for
diplomacy. The term conveys a concurrent
set of issues at the intersection of technology and diplomacy: how the practice and
context of diplomacy is influenced by the
availability of digital platforms for communication, information gathering, and analysis.
Technology has catalyzed change for both
policy-makers and practitioners. Information
and communication technologies have created emergent challenges for foreign policy
decision-makers, who must contend with
how digital platforms have enabled new
forms of public engagement, commerce, and
warfare.
Diplomats and foreign ministries, those
charged with supporting the objectives of
policy-makers, are likewise presented with
new opportunities to communicate interests,
represent their respective governments, and
otherwise leverage the availability of information afforded by such technologies. Digital
diplomacy asserts a pivot point in the evolution of diplomacy as much as the broader
context of international relations (Ross 2011;
Bjola and Holmes 2015; Owen 2016). But
the underlying lack of specificity in the term
invites further investigation as to whether the
fundamental institutions of diplomacy are
being challenged by the ubiquity of technology and its digital platforms – the ecology of
social media networks, the analytical capacity
of big data, and the growth of applications
that enhance transparency, connect global
publics, and create new avenues to shape the
global flow of information.
Where is the impact of digital diplomacy
most apparent? As Corneliu Bjola suggests,
“questions persist about the extent to which
digital diplomacy makes a significant difference in how states pursue their foreign
policy objectives and how they manage the
relationships between them” (Bjola 2016a:
298). The term needs to be unpacked for
both its meaning and its implications. Only
then can we begin to make reasonable claims
that the “DNA” of diplomacy has been
altered through digital diplomacy (Sandre
2015: xix).
Digital diplomacy, as a concept, is a logical
extension of well-recognized, global social
and political transformations catalyzed by
the growth of information and communication technologies (Castells 2009). From the
upheavals associated with the Arab Spring,
to the growing recognition that social media
networks and information flows can be
hacked by international actors – it is clear
that the term “digital diplomacy” taps into
a broader sense that the availability of communication and computational technology
affords new practices for state actors, as
much as provides new strategic choices and
opportunities (Hayden 2011).
Technology is therefore both an inevitable
context as much as a defining feature of how
states imagine and implement their foreign
policy strategy. Yet, where does this scenario
leave diplomacy – a well-established institution of practices, roles, and responsibilities
crucial to the maintenance of the international system? While “digital diplomacy”
may connate a broader sense of disruption
in the norms and practices of international
actors – what does it mean for diplomacy and
for diplomats?
The Encyclopedia of Diplomacy. Edited by Gordon Martel.
© 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2018 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118885154.dipl0068
2
DIG I TAL DI PLOM AC Y
This entry identifies how the term digital
diplomacy has been used to describe the
intersection of technology with the practice
of diplomacy. It provides an overview of
how the term is manifest across discussions
of diplomacy, foreign policy, public diplomacy, and cognate concepts. It also builds
on existing scholarship, to identify where
digital diplomacy may signify change in
contemporary understanding of diplomatic
practice, agency, and its enduring role as an
integral institution of the international system. Finally, it provides an argument for how
digital diplomacy can represent a basis for
productive interdisciplinary scholarship that
may re-energize academic attention towards
the practice and necessity of diplomacy.
The implication presented here is not
that digital diplomacy hearkens a new age
of “tweeting Talleyrands” (The Economist
2012), but that it provides an analytical frame
through which to consider the intercession
of technology on the practice of diplomacy.
Digital diplomacy remains a relatively contemporary term, though there have been
previous analogous hyphenated constructs
such as “cyber diplomacy” or “e-diplomacy”
(Burt et al. 1998; Dizard 2001; Potter 2002;
Hanson 2012). Such studies acknowledged
the emergent relevance of technology to
diplomacy, though the transformative potential remained to be fully articulated. In
the wake of social media’s rapid entrenchment into the fabric of social and cultural
life around the world, the intersection of
technology and diplomacy seems largely
encapsulated by the term “digital diplomacy.”
Yet digital diplomacy could use some conceptual refinement. It implies some degree
of transformation in both the practices of
diplomacy, how diplomatic functions are
carried out, as well as structures, or how
organizations adapt (Hocking and Melissen
2015: 6). Likewise, the term may invite analysis of potentially new categories of diplomacy
that do not simply carry forward diplomacy’s
historical institutions into new technological
contexts, but may provide distinctly new
opportunities for diplomatic agency and its
role as an instrument of state power.
Digital diplomacy is described as accounting for the influence of technology on the
institutions of diplomacy. Institution is used
here to convey diplomacy as a set of practices,
norms, and traditions that inhere in the
profession (Holmes 2015). But clearly digital
diplomacy also captures a larger component
of the imagination about technology-driven
international relations. It is both context and
practice, as Tyler Owen argues:
The practice of digital diplomacy, then, can be
seen as one of two things: an addition to the
toolkit through which the state seeks to influence other states; or, more radically, a strategic
extension of the objectives of diplomacy to seek
to influence digital actors themselves, rather
than just states. (Owen 2016: 305)
The term conveys an encroaching context, an
evolving set of organizational practices, and a
potentially pivotal transformation in the profession itself.
Yet digital diplomacy writing and scholarship is not always specifically about
diplomacy in practice – an issue that often
emerges in studies that claim to be about
diplomacy, but are most often about foreign
policy (Hutchings and Suri 2015). Claims
about the growth of Twitter followers for
heads of state raise questions about the diplomatic value of such online networks to the
practice of statecraft and thus, whether they
qualify as diplomacy (Pamment 2014). Nevertheless, it is not the purpose of this entry to
police conceptual boundaries when the status
of diplomacy itself is in flux – given the rise
of non-state actors, the growth of strategic
communication efforts as central to statecraft, and the complicated nature of global
problems. Digital diplomacy, in other words,
DIG I TAL DI PLOM AC Y
may be symptomatic of a broader change in
who gets to practice diplomacy, how diplomatic responsibility is effectively diffused,
and how non-state actors (from publics to
networks) end up practicing a kind of de
facto diplomacy of international engagement,
relation-building, and representation (Kelley
2014).
Digital diplomacy, as Holmes and Bjola
argue, provides an important conceptual
frame through which to assess the nature of
change within an institution that is arguably
about managing change (Bjola and Holmes
2015). How does diplomacy adapt in ways
that enhance or hinder the agency of diplomats, their relevance in relation to other
government agencies, and the ability of
organizations to effectively capitalize on the
affordances of technology to forward foreign
policy objectives?
The term itself suggests a form of diplomacy that is distinctly located and enabled
within a communication platform. It conveys
novelty – that the practice of diplomacy is
somehow implicated, constrained, or otherwise enabled in qualitatively new ways
through the communication medium. This
is not an entirely new proposition. Studies
have illustrated the impact of communication
technologies on the practice of diplomacy,
noting celebratory and cautionary discourse
surrounding the rise of the telegraph, the
television, and the internet (Nickles 2009).
It would be premature, however, to dismiss
digital diplomacy as faddism. As Bjola and
Kornprobst and others have argued, diplomacy is arguably a form of institutionalized
communication (Bjola and Kornprobst 2013).
Diplomats face the demands of interpersonal
communication in support of relationships
with interlocutors in bilateral and multilateral
contexts. They must work with communication strategies on display in the work
of negotiations. They must also contend
with the broader sweep of media used to
3
advocate foreign policy interests. Therefore,
attention to the material substrate of diplomacy – communication technology – is both
warranted and necessary (Hayden 2013).
Iver Neumann argued that diplomacy
is never wholly isolated from social and
cultural change (Neumann 2003). It is
inevitably impacted by changes wrought
outside the traditional halls of diplomatic
practice. Digital diplomacy directs attention
back to what has likely always been true to
some degree – diplomacy is never outside of
communication. As Hocking and Melissen
suggest, digital diplomacy invites consideration of diplomacy’s “hybridity” – what
aspects of diplomacy remain offline, while
other practices and responsibilities shift
increasingly online (Hocking and Melissen
2015: 11).
CONVERGING CONCEPTS
Digital diplomacy reflects the ways in
which international actors – typically states
– employ digital platforms to achieve policy
outcomes. Yet, this sweeping definition also
shares some conceptual territory with other
terms that describe similar practices and
strategy. The most obvious is public diplomacy. Digital diplomacy scholars have noted
that there are indeed differences between the
concept of digital and public diplomacy, yet
the focus of many digital diplomacy cases
studies (outside of consular and crisis communications) deal with the domain of public
diplomacy (Owen 2016).
Public diplomacy is an expansive term that
cobbles together the methods through which
international actors engage foreign publics
to achieve strategic objectives – through
cultural exchange, education programs,
advocacy, and international broadcasting
efforts. Considerable overlap between digital
and public diplomacy is visible in studies
that highlight the role of digital platforms
4
DIG I TAL DI PLOM AC Y
in counter-terrorism efforts, in audience
analysis, mediated issue advocacy campaigns,
and efforts to monitor and connect with
foreign publics online.
Examples of early adopters of digital
diplomacy, such as social media activities
of pioneer Swedish minister Carl Bildt, and
advisers for digital diplomacy at the US
Department of State, Alec Ross and Jared
Cohen, reflect the tacit convergence of public
diplomacy and digital diplomacy – where
the sphere of diplomacy practice is enlarged
to necessitate engagement with connected
publics, that amplify the agency of diplomats
to effect change in a time where transparency
is enhanced through the sharing of news
and information (Lichtenstein 2010; Sotiriu
2015).
At the same time, the connectivity afforded
by digital diplomacy suggests the possibility
of a more collaborative and inclusive foreign
policy that is responsive to the networks
of global policy stakeholders. Noted digital
diplomacy author Andreas Sandre goes so far
as to suggest that the digital diplomacy represents “a space where technology and tradition
meet; where nodes and links are components
of networks that transcend government as
we know it; where all actors interact and
collaborate” (Sandre 2015: xxviii) Digital
diplomacy embodies not just a practice, but
an ethos derived from the cultural practices
and values associated with the technology
itself (Pamment 2014).
Yet the difference between many digital
diplomacy descriptions and public diplomacy is mostly rhetorical. Public diplomacy
invites comparisons to propaganda and more
stilted efforts at message management. Digital
diplomacy, in contrast, draws on a shared
cultural imaginary about social media and
technology – yet arguably both deal with
platforms for communication and their role
in enabling the connectivity of diplomats to
interlocutors and foreign publics.
Digital diplomacy is also used interchangeably with the discourse of international public
relations and technology, most often in studies of social media engagement. In these
cases, the term “digital diplomacy” overlaps
with the so-called “public diplomacy 2.0”
phenomenon that captures how diplomatic
missions and foreign ministries turn to social
media platforms to increase engagement with
specific publics. In these cases, digital diplomacy connotes the kinds of communication
efforts used to shape audience opinions and
beliefs, how diplomatic representatives serve
as gatekeepers for information, and how missions can effectively boost advocacy through
strategic connections to other actors, like
NGOs and advocacy networks (Kampf et al.
2015).
Digital diplomacy, in this view, embodies the campaign of nation-states that seek
to cultivate and shape communities online
around particular images and views related
to the promoting country. Indian prime
minister Narendra Modi’s significant push
across social media platforms to reach populations around the world embodies this
approach – which draws together appeals to
cultivate soft power with relation-building
and image management ambitions through
outreach to broader social networks in
targeted countries.
Digital diplomacy scholarship, however,
reflects an interdisciplinary community of
study. Public diplomacy, public relations,
branding, international studies, and media
studies are all represented in the nascent
literature. The scholarship has tracked how
the concept has moved beyond discussion of
social media platforms as a necessity – where
diplomatic presence is the primary indicator of influence – to follow up questions of
impact and meaning for policy-makers and
diplomats. So programs like the Twiplomacy
project, connected with the public relations industry, infer that digital diplomacy
DIG I TAL DI PLOM AC Y
is synonymous with the reach of world
leaders, international organizations, and
other prominent international actors (e.g.,
the pope) within social media networks and
related platforms. In this earlier view, states
should conduct digital diplomacy in order to
establish presence.
Yet this trend has given way to less superficial and more substantive engagement with
the capacities of social media and related
platforms. Some campaigns to garner attention through Twitter hashtags, such as the
US attempt to leverage the #UnitedforUkraine
tag, met with mixed results. Nevertheless,
the US Department of State, which was recognized as an early adopter for social media
engagement, has developed other programs
that embody some of the potential that digital diplomacy affords (Hanson 2012). For
example, the US Department of State has
leveraged crowdsourcing technologies to
launch a collaborative mapping platform,
“Mapgive,” to identify critical resources for
populations in need. In 2014, the department launched the Global Development Lab
to identify data-driven solutions to complex development challenges. As part of
the department’s educational diplomacy, it
launched the “MOOC Camp” initiative that
brought asynchronous online course offerings to US embassies around the world. The
US-based examples are arguably not exhaustive, but demonstrate how the integration of
technology can penetrate beyond the domain
of public engagement.
Not surprisingly, the domain of digital
diplomacy is arguably being redefined in
real time. With the emergence of significant
intervention by foreign actors in news flows
sustained by social media, it is possible to
locate this development within the ambit of
digital diplomacy, especially if we conceive of
digital diplomacy as more closely related to
international strategic communication and
persuasion. The rise of automated bots and
5
the potential role of hackers and disinformation providers in effecting political change
suggest an expanding definition for what may
constitute digital diplomacy. While diplomacy itself is not information warfare, efforts
to leverage or contain the effects of such digital aggression and intervention have become
a matter of diplomatic concern (Bjola and
Pamment 2016; Woolley and Howard 2016).
TRADITIONAL DIPLOMACY
There is considerable attention in digital
diplomacy studies on public engagement, yet
what does it signify for the more enduring
aspects of diplomatic traditions? How does
digital diplomacy challenge the conventional
understanding of diplomacy? Looking across
theoretical and conceptual treatments, the
inclusion of the digital prefix to diplomacy
suggests at the very least a new terrain for
diplomatic practice, but not necessarily a
fundamental challenge to diplomacy itself.
Various definitions of diplomacy tend
to revolve around integral practices and
responsibilities that have been observed for
centuries, and preserve an institutional space
for diplomats to serve the interests of the
sovereign state (Sharp 2009). The early traditions in diplomatic studies focused on the
tradecraft of negotiations and the qualities
of the ambassador. Noted British diplomat
Harold Nicolson’s definition of the diplomatic responsibility as the “management of
international relations by negotiation; the
method by which these relations are adjusted
by ambassadors and envoys” or Adam Watson’s “dialogue between states” suggests a
broad canvas to depict how interpersonal and
organizational activities sustain relations and
advance the interest of states (Sofer 2013).
Even in these treatments, diplomacy is not
explicitly about technology, but is very much
located in communication.
6
DIG I TAL DI PLOM AC Y
Building on these kinds of foundational
definitions, the study of diplomacy very
often distills the concept to some form of
negotiation, communication, advocacy, and
representation. These are broad categories
that are not entirely mutually exclusive, nor
do they preclude the advent of something like
digital diplomacy. Martin Wight’s “master
institution” of global politics seems like a flexible signifier for how practitioners advance
the will of policy-makers across different
contexts and circumstances, through adaptation, skill, and analytical acumen (Sending
et al. 2015: 20). Digital diplomacy could
easily be used to describe those tools through
which the enduring practices of diplomacy
are implemented.
From a theoretical perspective, the necessity of diplomacy as an institution (or set
of institutions) is fundamentally rooted
in the persistence of political and social
entities committed to living apart (Sharp
2009). Diplomacy is therefore required to
mediate and manage difference, to deal with
the fundamental condition of estrangement
that describes the international system. The
sweeping impact of technology on social
relations and by extension, the mediatization
of politics suggests a tectonic shift in the
relationship of diplomacy to the broader
sweep of international politics that it must
navigate.
For example, some argue that the role of
diplomats has grown from managing bilateral
and multilateral relations to playing significant roles in the governance of global public
goods (Sending et al. 2015). Diplomats, in
other words, are uniquely poised to play
both intermediary and managerial roles in
the promotion of rules and norms related
to transnational issues of human rights,
environmental change, and democratic governance. Diplomacy is not just multilateral
As Geoffrey Wiseman has argued, diplomacy
is defined by polylateral configurations of
public, private, and commercial actors and
interests (Wiseman 1999).
Recognizing the impact of context, therefore, is crucial to unpacking the significance
of digital diplomacy to international relations
(Holmes 2015). Hocking and Melissen note
the progression of diplomacy from a statist
perspective, through its reaction to global
and multilateral challenges, to ultimately an
“integrative” enterprise. Integrative diplomacy
captures the manner in which diplomacy
must deal with the complex networks of
policy stakeholders, the proliferation of other
international actors wielding agency, both
within interagency contexts and outside of
governments, and the significance of publics,
empowered by technological tools (Hocking
and Melissen 2015: 43).
Arguments about the changing nature of
diplomacy are very often warranted by observations that at some level implicate the transformative impact of digital technology – on
either the context of diplomacy, or, the
way this context changes the foreign policy
requirements that diplomats must ultimately
support or advance. Whether we describe the
state of contemporary diplomacy as digital or
not, it is hard to isolate the practice of diplomacy from the consequences of information
and communication technologies, and the
downstream effects of digital platforms.
Perhaps one of the largest theoretical
challenges to the concept of diplomacy that
might be mitigated by the advantages of
digital diplomacy is understanding how
diplomacy manages its fundamental responsibility to mediate estrangement within
a complex media ecology. International
relations is increasingly intermediated by
diffuse relations among and between publics,
with cultural and social boundaries effaced
through the sharing of stories, information,
and data in ways that diminish the distinctive gate-keeping role that diplomats have
historically played (Miskimmon et al. 2013).
DIG I TAL DI PLOM AC Y
Not only are diplomats less privileged actors
in terms of their monopoly on information for
their respective governments, but individuals,
transnational advocacy networks, and indeed
other international actors leverage the capacity of digital platforms to inform, engage,
and relate to foreign publics in ways that
circumvent traditional diplomatic channels.
This is not to say that traditional relations
among diplomats in bilateral or multilateral
settings are not necessary. Rather, the sphere
of relevant and interested actors that have
influence over the outcomes of diplomacy
has grown. This argument underscores the
integrative diplomacy model proposed by
Hocking and Melissen, but also figures at
the core of Holmes and Bjola’s question
about the significance of digital diplomacy. If
diplomacy’s chief responsibility is to manage
change in the international space, how does
digital diplomacy reflect that pace through
which diplomacy is itself adapting to meet
the challenges imposed by technology?
The most obvious category of diplomacy
that is changing in the face of circumstances
wrought by digital technology is public
diplomacy. This manifests in a number of
ways. First, embassies and MFAs around
the world have invested in online and social
media presence, through platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and regional applications such
as the Russian Vkontake and China’s Sina
Weibo. The growth of social media outputs
by diplomatic organizations illustrates the
rapid normalization of social media-based
diplomacy, the kind of network relations
established, and the limits of contemporary
messaging strategies through such platforms.
What is evident across most content analytic and network analysis of social media
engagement with foreign publics is that usage
is not uniform (Manor 2016). Put differently, embassies and ministries deploy digital
platforms for a variety of purposes – to assist
with branding efforts, promote particular
7
policies, amplify the voice of the ambassador, or increase awareness of other kinds of
diplomatic programs.
More “traditional” aspects of diplomacy,
however, reflect a growing if less visible aspect
of digital diplomacy. Crisis communications,
and the ability to connect embassies with
local authorities and wardens in order to
protect citizens in a host country has been a
path-breaking development in the expansion
of digital platforms for diplomacy. Consular
services now utilize social media to stay connected and provide citizen services (Hocking
and Melissen 2015). Likewise, information
technology increases the capacity of consular
diplomacy to handle increased processing
loads for visa applications and other services.
By necessity, consular diplomacy has benefited from the data analytic capacities of digital technology, as well as the ability to remain
connected to relevant citizen networks.
Digital diplomacy is also manifest in commercial diplomacy, where the role of the
embassy and commercial services to promote
business in the host country relies not only
on traditional diplomatic skills related to
persuasion and negotiation, but on the availability of open and transparent information
and data. At the same time, nation and place
branding efforts feature governments actively
deploying digital diplomacy programs to
increase the scope of their campaigns (Sevin
and Dinnie 2015).
The role of diplomats as reporting officers is
also impacted by the consequences of digital
diplomacy. The ability of diplomats to effectively engage their counterparts and other
potential interlocuters – within the foreign
ministry and beyond the capital – is clearly
augmented by the capacity of social media
platforms to establish connections, especially
when security considerations limit the ability
of political officers to get outside the capital
or even the walls of the embassy. Effective
reporting officers can use digital media to
8
DIG I TAL DI PLOM AC Y
establish relations with non-government
individuals and organizations, diasporic
groups, and other advocacy or policy-related
networks – to gather insight and to establish
credibility.
In this regard, the advent of digital
diplomacy may signal – at least in some
circumstances – the convergence of traditional political and public functions for
diplomacy. MFAs and embassies increasingly
connect with each other through social media
platforms, forging linkages on substantive
issues, regional affiliation, and membership
in international agreements. This connection
also provides opportunities for informal
communication, another channel for dialogue that may strengthen the capacity of
formal diplomatic institutions to sustain their
more fundamental responsibly to manage
change in the international system.
DIPLOMACY AND PRACTICE
The further MFAs and embassies become
enmeshed within digital platforms, the more
normalized the concept of digital diplomacy
becomes as part of the routines of diplomacy.
This phenomenon is probably best captured
by the growth of “practice theory” perspectives in diplomacy studies, that have sought
to describe how diplomats actively work to
define the contours of diplomatic culture and
institutional development (Holmes 2015).
Practice theory perspectives are particularly
insightful, because they strive to capture the
emergent discourses and routines that reflect
how diplomats themselves make sense of
their identity, role, and profession.
This kind of scholarship is increasingly
necessary to understand digital diplomacy,
in order to ascertain how diplomats and
the organizations they serve are actively
reconstructing the “art of the possible” for
diplomacy – not just through increased
“outputs” of tweets and Facebook posts,
but also through sophisticated metrics and
attempts to link digital engagement efforts
to broader foreign policy objectives. Digital
diplomacy has the potential to redefine and
expand the nature of diplomatic agency – by
enabling new avenues for leverage in complex
negotiations, new opportunities for representation in digital fora, and additional channels
through which to advocate diplomatic interests. Clarifying the evolving notion of agency
for diplomats is important, in part, because
diplomats have played a historical role as
gatekeepers of information. Diplomats are
one of the primary sources for advice and
counsel to policy-makers threatened by
the proliferation of information and norm
entrepreneurs empowered by information
and communication technology.
The terrain of diplomatic activity through
digital platforms – specifically on social
media – suggests that there is a more inclusive
arena for action in international affairs. Put
simply, more kinds of actors, from individuals
to collectives acting as advocacy networks or
extremist groups, exert a well-documented
form of agency that yields real effects within
international relations. Because this activity
is effectively grounded and enabled in networked communication (and technology),
does it efface the traditional boundaries that
separated diplomats from non-diplomats?
Does digital diplomacy herald a diminished
role for diplomats, who must share the stage
with a range of activities, extremists, and
corporate advocates?
John Robert Kelley’s argument seems to
affirm the notion that diplomacy’s purview
is no longer an exclusive club (Kelley 2014).
The capacity to effect change enabled by
technology, through mediated politics and
networked organizing, presents real challenges to the exclusive status of diplomats.
While this kind of claim is a thread that
underscores much of the more sweeping
claims about digital diplomacy as profoundly
DIG I TAL DI PLOM AC Y
transformative, there is also an argument to
be made for the distinct position of diplomats
to capitalize on their location within MFA
and embassy networks that span the world
(Ross 2011; Causey and Howard 2013).
Diplomats serve in a distinct capacity as boundary spanners and network
hubs – connecting various constituencies
and stakeholders. Diplomats work to balance
the interests of their government with an
expanding role as providers of global public
goods – around issues of rights, transnational
issues like migration and human trafficking,
and on trade, technical standards, and intellectual property regimes. Diplomats – and by
extension diplomacy – provide a distinct convening function to maintain the international
status quo. The question remains whether
digital diplomacy reflects more of a challenge
or an adaptation to current circumstances.
Corneliu Bjola emphasizes an expanded
list of practices that illustrates how digital
diplomacy augments the work of diplomacy,
through listening, agenda-setting, hybridization (the blending of offline and online
practices), engagement, and adaption (Bjola
2016a). Bjola, and other digital diplomacy
scholars, point to new practices that make the
digital technology visible in what diplomats
do, as indicative of change.
However, as Cassidy and Manor observe,
there are persistent issues that plague the
significance of this change. The use of digital
platforms for diplomacy, when considered
across various countries and MFAs, appears
to be:
primarily focused on presence rather than
strategy; meaning that MFAs are arguably more
concerned with whether or not they are being
seen to use their online accounts, as opposed
to whether or not they are actually using them
to attain diplomatic goals. (Cassidy and Manor
2016: 332)
Likewise, James Pamment has argued that the
increased reliance on performance metrics
9
tilts diplomatic practices towards objectives
that are more readily quantifiable (Pamment
2012). This is consistent with Bjola’s observation about the tension between outputs and
outcomes in digital diplomacy. In the absence
of established metrics for the impact of digital
diplomacy, a default position for diplomacy
has been to demonstrate its use (Bjola 2016b).
Put differently the use of the technology
stands in for the strategy (Hayden 2013).
Pushing the argument even further, Pamment makes the broader sociological claim
that the logics associated with information
and communication technology – including
the norms that govern such technology outside of diplomacy – have begun to manifest in
the practice of diplomacy itself. Thus, expectations for how diplomacy should perform in
the service of statecraft may be yet defined by
criteria established in the media and cultural
industries.
CONCLUSION
The definitions and examples identified in
this chapter are not an exhaustive treatment
of the digital diplomacy concept. There is
undoubtedly a growing list of examples
where diplomats have turned to ICTs to
achieve objectives and push the boundaries
of diplomatic innovation. For scholarship,
there are also larger questions about the significance of digital diplomacy to the broader
concept of diplomacy itself – outside of
“big picture” debates over the diffusion of
power and macro-challenges that technology
poses for the calculus of cyber-security and
information warfare (Owen 2016).
Indeed, there are other examples where
digital technology intersects with the domain
of diplomacy and international relations.
Largely missing from this digital diplomacy
conversation is the ongoing and complicated
process of managing the global governance
of the internet. The architecture of internet
10
DIG I TAL DI PLOM AC Y
standards and governance mechanisms are
themselves maintained through an evolving
multi-stakeholder balancing act of diplomacy
and engagement with a variety of state, civic,
and commercial actors. In many respects
internet governance is a significant and
revealing example of the diplomacy of the
digital, as much as digital diplomacy. More
attention is needed to the unfolding political
economy of the cyber domain, where diplomats will continue to play a role in debates
that have direct impact on issues of access,
surveillance, and civil liberties (Powers and
Jablonski 2015).
The next steps in digital diplomacy studies will likely follow two trajectories. First
is continued engagement with the practice
of digital diplomacy – cataloging efforts,
assessing organizational attitudes towards
technology, and identifying how digital platforms are more firmly ensconced in foreign
policy strategies that diplomats must ultimately support. This might also involve a
more robust engagement with the ethnographic dimension of institutional analysis
of diplomatic sense-making. But it may also
mean more culturally revealing analysis of
the audiences constructed through the acts of
digital diplomacy – networks of diplomatic
stakeholders called into being by strategies of
appeal online.
Perhaps what is most needed in digital diplomacy scholarship is a theory of
diplomatic agency – that illustrates how
impacts are constructed and maintained.
This may inevitably involve an interdisciplinary dialogue with terms and theories
outside the canon of diplomatic studies and
history. The good news for digital diplomacy
researchers is that digital diplomacy very
often is public in nature, and leaves traces of
effort accessible to research. The signatures of
digital diplomacy may illustrate the extent of
engagement – the web of relations sustained
through social media. These are measures of
output, which in turn must be matched with
a conceptualization of impact.
For example, there may be opportunities
to link diplomacy to questions in the study
of press–state relations, such as the “CNN
Effect” which posits that the process of foreign policy is influenced by the content and
pace of news flows.
Just as media cycles challenge the ability
of foreign policy decision-makers to “control
the narrative,” how might we extend this
concept to the work of diplomats who seek to
deploy information and build relationships
in ways that foster stories that chain out to
publics. The United States effort to build on
shareable media stories, “Share America,”
embodies this kind of strategy (Livingston
2011).
But any attention to refine the notion of
impact and outcome should be matched by
studies that attend to the concept of power in
digital diplomacy. Melissen and de Keulenaar
suggest the need for a “critical digital diplomacy” (2017). The benefits of technology’s
affordances are not evenly distributed across
the world’s foreign ministries. What does
it mean when some countries can mount
significant campaigns on social media, while
others are left less capable of shaping the
narratives that define their place among other
international actors?
Digital diplomacy also presents an important bridge to well-established research in
Media Studies and Science and Technology
Studies (STS). This is important, in order to
better understand the relevance of materiality
to the concept of diplomacy. These fields
have an established conceptual vocabulary to
address the significance of technology as an
impact on social institutions (Hayden 2013;
Pamment 2014).
Finally, digital diplomacy is an opportunity
to revitalize the concept of public diplomacy – which has hitherto been sequestered
between history, communication, and
DIG I TAL DI PLOM AC Y
international studies. This opportunity exists,
because public diplomacy itself is in need of
redefinition – in ways that account for how
its mission and purpose more directly serve
the institutional requirements of diplomacy.
As diplomacy (re)discovers technology, so
too must it recognize its “public dimension”
(Gregory 2016).
The advent of digital diplomacy may ultimately reflect a transition in practice that is
not so much transformative as it is descriptive
and inevitable, given the broader reach of
technology into society. As nation-states seize
upon the capacity of digital platforms to shape
media agendas and expand their presence in
the optics of crucial publics, their diplomatic
representatives also gain new methods to connect with the constellation of international
actors that exist beyond their foreign ministry
counterparts, that may ultimately be involved
in the resolution of complex diplomatic
agendas and problems. Digital diplomacy
proceeds from testing the waters of being
online to the broader spectrum of engagement: from forging collaborative linkages to
manipulating the algorithmic architecture of
social media content. The question remains
whether diplomats and the organizations they
serve can seize the opportunities afforded by
the technology that defines their world, while
remaining intentional professionals committed to the demands of diplomacy as managers
of change.
The views expressed by the author of this
entry are his own, and do not necessarily
reflect those of the US government.
SEE ALSO: Consular Affairs; Globalization
and Diplomacy; International Relations Theory
and Diplomacy; Non-State Actors and
Diplomacy; Public Diplomacy
REFERENCES
Bjola, C. (2016a) “Digital Diplomacy – The State of
the Art.” Global Affairs 2 (3): 297–99.
11
Bjola, C. (2016b) “Getting Digital Diplomacy
Right: What Quantum Theory Can Teach Us
About Measuring Impact.” Global Affairs 2 (3):
345–53.
Bjola, C., and M. Holmes (Eds.) (2015) Digital
Diplomacy: Theory and Practice. Abingdon and
New York: Routledge.
Bjola, C., and M. Kornprobst (2013) Understanding
International Diplomacy: Theory, Practice and
Ethics. Abingdon: Routledge.
Bjola, C., and J. Pamment (2016) “Digital Containment: Revisiting Containment Strategy in the
Digital Age.” Global Affairs 2 (2): 131–42.
Burt, R., O. Robison, and B. Fulton (1998) Reinventing Diplomacy in the Information Age. Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Cassidy, J., and I. Manor (2016) “Crafting Strategic
MFA Communication Policies During Times of
Political Crisis: A Note to MFA Policy Makers.”
Global Affairs 2 (3): 331–43.
Castells, M. (2009) Communication Power. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Causey, C., and P. N. Howard (2013) “Delivering
Digital Public Diplomacy: Information Technologies and the Changing Business of Diplomacy.” In R. S. Zaharna, A. Arsenault, and A.
Fisher (Eds.), Relational, Networked, and Collaborative Approaches to Public Diplomacy, 144–56.
New York: Routledge.
Dizard, W. P. (2001) Digital Diplomacy: US Foreign Policy in the Information Age. Westport, CT:
Greenwood Publishing Group.
The Economist (2012) “Virtual Relations: Foreign Ministries Are Getting the Hang of Social
Media.” Online at: http://www.economist.com/
node/21563284. Accessed May 2017.
Gregory, B. (2016) “Mapping Boundaries in Diplomacy’s Public Dimension.” The Hague Journal of
Diplomacy 11 (1): 1–25.
Hanson, F. (2012) Baked in and Wired: eDiplomacy@State. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Hayden, C. (2011) The Rhetoric of Soft Power: Public Diplomacy in Global Contexts. Lanham, MD:
Lexington Books.
Hayden, C. (2013) “Logics of Narrative and Networks in US Public Diplomacy: Communication
Power and US Strategic Engagement.” Journal
of International Communication 19 (2): 196–218.
12
DIG I TAL DI PLOM AC Y
Hocking, B., and J. Melissen (2015) Diplomacy
in the Digital Age. The Hague: Clingendael
Institute.
Holmes, M. (2015) “Digital Diplomacy and International Change Management.” In C. Bjola and
M. Holmes (Eds.), Digital Diplomacy: Theory
and Practice, 13–32. Abingdon and New York:
Routledge.
Hutchings, R. L., and J. Suri (Eds.) (2015) Foreign Policy Breakthroughs: Cases in Successful Diplomacy. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Kampf, R., I. Manor, and E. Segev (2015) “Digital
Diplomacy 2.0? A Cross-National Comparison
of Public Engagement in Facebook and Twitter.”
The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 10 (4): 331–62.
Kelley, J. R. (2014) Agency Change: Diplomatic
Action beyond the State. Lanham, MD: Rowman
and Littlefield.
Lichtenstein, J. (2010) “Digital Diplomacy.” The
New York Times, July 16. Online at: http://www.
nytimes.com/2010/07/18/magazine/18web2-0t.html. Accessed May 2017.
Livingston, S. (2011) “The CNN Effect Reconsidered (again): Problematizing ICT and Global
Governance in the CNN Effect Research
Agenda.” Media, War and Conflict 4 (1):
20–36.
Manor, I. (2016) Are We There Yet: Have
MFAs Realized the Potential of Digital
Diplomacy? Leiden: Brill. Online at: http://
booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/
books/9789004319790. Accessed May 2017.
Melissen, J., and E. V. de Keulenaar (2017) “The
Case for Critical Digital Diplomacy.” Stiftung
Wissenschaft und Politik (SWP)/German
Institute for International and Security Affairs.
Online at: https://www.clingendael.nl/sites/
default/files/WP_Critical_Digital_Diplomacy.
pdf. Accessed May 2017.
Miskimmon, A., B. O’Loughlin, and L. Roselle
(2013) Strategic Narratives: Communication
Power and the New World Order. New York and
London: Routledge.
Neumann, I. B. (2003) “The English School
on Diplomacy: Scholarly Promise Unfulfilled.”
International Relations 17 (3): 341–69.
Nickles, D. P. (2009) Under the Wire: How the
Telegraph Changed Diplomacy. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Owen, T. (2016) “The Networked State and the End
of 20th Century Diplomacy.” Global Affairs 2 (3):
301–7.
Pamment, J. (2012) “What Became of the New
Public Diplomacy? Recent Developments in
British, US and Swedish Public Diplomacy
Policy and Evaluation Methods.” The Hague
Journal of Diplomacy 7 (3): 313–36.
Pamment, J. (2014) “The Mediatization of Diplomacy.” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 9 (3):
253–80.
Potter, E. H. (2002) Cyber-Diplomacy: Managing
Foreign Policy in the Twenty-First Century. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s Press - MQUP.
Powers, S. M., and M. Jablonski (2015) The Real
Cyber War: The Political Economy of Internet
Freedom. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Ross, A. (2011) “Digital Diplomacy and US Foreign Policy.” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy
6 (3–4): 451–55.
Sandre, A. (2015) Digital Diplomacy: Conversations
on Innovation in Foreign Policy. Lanham, MD,
Boulder, New York, and London: Rowman and
Littlefield.
Sending, O. J., V. Pouliot, and I. B. Neumann (2015)
Diplomacy and the Making of World Politics.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sevin, E., and K. Dinnie (2015) “Digital Channels
and Technologies for Commercial Diplomacy:
Conceptualisation and Future Research Propositions.” International Journal of Diplomacy and
Economy 2 (4): 266–77.
Sharp, P. (2009) Diplomatic Theory of International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sofer, S. (2013) The Courtiers of Civilization: A
Study of Diplomacy. Albany: SUNY Press.
Sotiriu, S. (2015) “Digital Diplomacy: Between
Promises and Reality.” In C. Bjola and M.
Holmes (Eds.), Digital Diplomacy: Theory and
Practice, 33–51. Abingdon and New York: Routledge.
Wiseman, G. (1999) “‘Polylateralism” and New
Models of Global Dialogue.” In C. Jonsson and
R. Langhorne (Eds.), Diplomacy, Volume III,
36–57. London: Sage.
Woolley, S. C., and P. N. Howard (2016) “Automation, Algorithms, and Politics: Political Communication, Computational Propaganda, and
Autonomous Agents – Introduction.” International Journal of Communication 10: 9.
DIG I TAL DI PLOM AC Y
SUGGESTED READINGS
Manor, I. (n.d.) “What Is Digital Diplomacy.”
Exploring Digital Diplomacy. Online at: https://
digdipblog.com/. Accessed May 2017.
Oliver, A. (2016) “The Irrelevant Diplomat: Do
We Need Embassies Anymore?” Foreign Affairs,
March 14. Online at: https://www.foreignaffairs.
com/articles/world/2016-03-14/irrelevantdiplomat. Accessed May 2017.
Owen, T. (2015) Disruptive Power: The Crisis of
the State in the Digital Age. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
13
Stanzel, V. (2016) “Diplomacy in the 21st Century.” Diplomacy in the 21st Century Project.
Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (SWP)/
German Institute for International and Security
Affairs. Online at: https://www.swp-berlin.org/
fileadmin/contents/products/arbeitspapiere/
WP_Diplomacy21_No1_Volker_Stanzel_01.
pdf. Accessed May 2017.