Diplomacy in the Digital Age
- By Brian Hocking and Jan Melissen
0 Comment(s)
Print
E-mail China.org.cn, October 26, 2015
Foreign policy arenas and ICT
It is essential to avoid generalisations about the policy environments we are examining. Not only is this important analytically but also in a practical sense so as to resist 'one size fits all' digital strategies. We need to differentiate between the often-intricate web of issues underlying negotiations (diplomatic domains) and the character of the processes through which diplomatic communication occurs in specific arenas (diplomatic sites). Several patterns of diplomatic interaction co-exist. These range from encounters marked by high levels of official input from national policy communities and/or intergovernmental organizations, through 'shared' diplomatic arenas reflected in 'multilayered' and 'private diplomacy' categories, to situations where government input is low.
Different models for diplomacy coalesce around different policy agendas involving varying actors and arenas – and indeed distinct communications requirements. The latter point can be illustrated by contrasting the employment of social media in human rights campaigns with their much more problematic use on traditional security issues. Furthermore, the shift towards 'networked governance' obviously puts a premium on 'networked diplomacy'. This requires the ability to develop holistic strategies, construct and manage diverse diplomatic spaces; persuade others outside one's own organization to work towards the accomplishment of shared goals, and to maximize knowledge capacity in producing relevant policy concepts, proposals and data capable of generating consensus for action. Each of these suggests a role for ICT tailored to the specific requirements of a given issue or area.
It is equally relevant to be clear about what diplomacy is for. Looking at earlier discussions on the effects of globalization, generalizations evolved from initial sweeping claims to more cautious approaches which disaggregated the basic functions of diplomacy, and sought to evaluate the impact of specific aspects of globalisation on them. We need to follow the same path with digital diplomacy. Not only is this important in allowing us to understand the rewards and risks of digitalization but, as Hanson makes clear in the case of the State Department, it has the added benefit of explaining the differential impact of ICT on the component parts of an MFA. Assembling the toolkit of digital resources is one thing: knowing how and where to employ them is quite another. Questions surrounding the use of social media, their purposes and even the desirability of their visible use on personal accounts, for example, vary greatly between different policy areas. Whilst the average consular officer in times of crisis probably prefers to work without being personally exposed to distressed citizens, diplomats campaigning for development goals have much less of a problem with being individually visible in public campaigns and engaging with the public.
Public diplomacy
Public diplomacy is the area most often singled out for attention in the digital debate. Social networking sites have created new dynamics and opened up a plethora of previously unimaginable opportunities for public diplomacy. It is necessary, however, to always bear the wider picture in mind: the use of websites and social networking sites like Facebook, Twitter and other online platforms for public diplomacy is just the tip of the larger digital iceberg. Marcus Holmes rightly argues that the danger of treating the digital agenda as one synonymous with public diplomacy is that it narrows the discussion in such a way as to downplay the scope of diplomatic activity. It is easy to agree with this point but, looking at it in reverse, public diplomacy principles and strategies are woven into most aspects of diplomatic activity.
Go to Forum >>0 Comment(s)