Digital Diplomacy and Its Effects on International Relations

This study traces the transition of diplomacy from traditional forms to digital formats within a digital age and a virtual networked space, applying communication models to digital diplomacy. The paper also highlights the impacts of platforms like Facebook and Twitter on the structures of international relations, revealing the particularities and challenges of this new type of diplomacy, as well as the dilemma between the constraints of devices like iPads and the customary use of credentials.

Introduction

The world has witnessed significant changes in the last decade of the 20th century that have affected the structure and pattern of international relations across various political, economic, and cultural levels. These changes have left notable marks and have necessitated new approaches to addressing previously non-existent phenomena. The technological advancement and emergence of social media have had a profound impact on the new landscape of international relations, influencing diplomacy as a tool for implementing foreign policy aimed at realizing national interests.

The digital media revolution and the emergence of cyberspace have produced digital platforms that have become a nervous system upon which the international community relies, allowing both official and unofficial actors to interact. These horizontal changes have necessitated vertical alterations in the interaction between political and civil societies, solidifying the importance of these new media among numerous decision-makers in policy formulation, ultimately giving rise to digital diplomacy.

Geopolitical tensions among various actors on the international stage aim to build vital areas and spheres of influence. The mechanism of digital diplomacy has become a means of promoting visions and undermining states’ approaches to conflicting interests, prompting countries to encourage their diplomatic interests to utilize social media as a central component of their activities, considering it a positive tool to enhance their interests.

Methodological Measures of the Study

A. Research Problem

The study attempts to explore the factors that are shifting the centers of gravity in diplomatic practice from embassies to digital platforms, and the erosion of diplomats’ monopoly on information in light of technological advances and data transparency founded by digitization and social media. It seeks to answer a critical question about the evolution of diplomacy: Why shift toward digital diplomacy? What impacts do these media have on international relations?

B. Significance of the Research

The study distinguishes between two types of goals:

1. Practical Goals
   • Studying the importance of social media in the interaction of diplomats and its use to influence state policies.
   • Understanding the role of digitization in the formulation of foreign policy according to smart power.
   • Highlighting the importance of opening new workshops related to digital diplomacy and alerting policymakers to the significance of utilizing social media in the digital age.
2. Scientific Goals
   • Providing cumulative contributions to the field of scientific research through the study’s findings and enhancements.
   • Enriching the Arabic library, addressing the scarcity of studies in this field in Arabic.

C. Methodology of the Study

The study employs comparative and descriptive-analytical methodologies to answer the critical question about the reasons and motivations surrounding the shift towards digital diplomacy and the context of this transformation. A conceptual framework has been established to form the analytical reference starting from the studied phenomenon, examining the limits of these concepts and their interrelationships, such as: traditional diplomacy, digital diplomacy, technological evolution, and communication platforms.

The study does not focus on analyzing the phenomenon and its dimensions within a specific geographical area but rather examines countries that are heavily utilizing this form of digital diplomacy.

Traditional Diplomacy: Historical Background and the Necessity of Digital Transition

1.2. Traditional Diplomacy and Concerns for International Stability

The term diplomacy is derived from the Latin word “Diploma,” which means a document that is folded to hide secrets. Thus, diplomacy has come to signify the act of concealing such secrets. In its traditional sense, it embodies the negotiations aimed at resolving conflicts and managing international relations through peaceful means. British diplomat Harold Nicholson defines diplomacy as the management of international relations through negotiation, or the manner in which these relations are modified by ambassadors and envoys.

Traditional diplomacy has been actively practiced in times of peace and war, striving to reconcile viewpoints between states and find appropriate solutions. Therefore, diplomacy serves as a means and tool for negotiation, an art of dealing with bilateral and international issues, aiming to persuade certain parties to come to the negotiation table using dialogue and reason rather than warfare.

Traditional diplomacy has achieved numerous positives for the international community by circumventing conflicts and wars and facilitating commercial exchanges. These noble tasks of diplomacy were taken on by diplomatic representatives, framed by embassies and consulates through various offices, providing reports that decision-makers use to develop desired foreign policies. These reports can strengthen relations at times while suggesting a reconsideration of imbalances that might lead to a breakdown in relationships.

Today, diplomacy is no longer utilized solely for managing bilateral relations but is a platform for dialogue on new issues such as climate change, illegal migration, and international terrorism, allowing for concessions and agreements that serve the public good. Historically, diplomats were stereotyped as individuals in elegant attire holding highly confidential information, considered to be messengers representing their state’s interests. Thus, diplomacy has become a space that is both formal and secretive rather than public and expanded.

The responsibilities of diplomats in the past were significant, as their arrival in designated countries required difficult adaptability and effective decision-making without immediate consultation from their governments, providing them with broad scopes for maneuvering and representing a genuine data source, requiring intelligence in promoting their country’s interests and supplying central governments with difficult-to-obtain information. Countries grew convinced that their power on the international stage was supported by the number of embassies spread around, a concept also echoed by international organizations.

2.2. Traditional Diplomacy and the Necessity of Changing Its Concept

With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the rise of globalization and technological advancements, changes began to emerge in the mechanisms of international relations, including traditional diplomacy. Over the years, diplomacy has taken on various meanings and has changed its essence. Initially, diplomats were expected to approach foreign policy as a specialized field reserved for experts; however, advancements in communication have shifted its meaning from secrecy to openness, with the operational level of diplomats declining to pave the way for summit diplomacy, leading toward public and then digital diplomacy.

Foreign policy today is no longer solely dictated by political elites but is received freely by citizens through various channels—who have become sources of data and inspiration in policy-making. The image of the drowned Syrian child “Aylan,” who washed up on Mediterranean shores, circulated widely by many media outlets, serves as a stark example of the failure of the humanitarian dimension in international relations.

Historically, decision-making was dominated by elites with power. Today, there exists a global system for forming public opinion that is difficult to control through traditional means. It contributes to shaping identities and marketing images of states abroad. The state’s foreign work has shifted from an elite-focused relationship to a communication model dictated by communication technologies, which have restricted diplomats’ freedom of action. Diplomacy is now called to integrate digital tools not only to disseminate messages, but it has become necessary to engage fully in the digital realm within interactive networks.

3.2. Public Diplomacy, Erosion of Power, and Displacement of Power Centers

The evolution of international relations and the emergence of non-state actors on the global stage have driven countries toward adopting public diplomacy, which has become a fundamental element of soft power in shaping a nation’s stature and projecting its values, garnering interest in academic and official political circles. This type of diplomacy was defined by retired U.S. diplomat Edmund Gullion in 1965.

Public diplomacy comprises a complex array of activities that states engage in to manage their international relations and formulate policies to achieve their interests, sharing similarities with other terms that describe similar strategies. Its concept has been clouded with ambiguity and misunderstanding. States utilize public diplomacy to engage citizens from other nations to fulfill their strategic goals through cultural exchanges, educational programs, and international broadcasting.

Stanley Hoffman defines public diplomacy as the ways in which governments, groups, and individuals directly or indirectly influence public opinion, which, in turn, affects states’ foreign policy decisions. Eytan Gilboa regards it as an approach where governmental and non-governmental actors utilize media and other communication channels to influence public opinion in other societies. Practitioners of public diplomacy 2.0 can now communicate directly with citizens of other nations on a large scale, listening to their views and engaging them in direct conversations to build relationships.

Public diplomacy extends to dimensions of international relations that exceed traditional diplomacy, such as governments creating public opinions directed at other nations and interactions between specific groups and interests in one country regarding foreign governments through their citizens via media channels. Luis Tomás Melgar defines public diplomacy as a set of strategies that angle to present a nation’s image to international public opinion.

This type of diplomacy has allowed new players to enter international relations discussions on issues that traditional states can no longer cover with military force. Additionally, foreign policymakers are no longer the sole architects of foreign policy; individuals and organizations now intervene directly in international policy formation, creating strategies that affect public policies previously monopolized by the state and its institutions. Informal networks have reduced the monopoly of traditional bureaucracy, eroding government control over strategies and communication processes.

Public diplomacy 2.0 has rendered social networks and media vital tools in responding to changes in a complex international environment, shifting power centers from foreign ministries to other non-traditional actors playing a leading role in shaping global communication strategies through public opinion, enhancing dialogue, and limiting state control over information dissemination and its accessibility.

If public diplomacy represents communication with foreign populations and fostering positive environments for acceptance while governments sponsor public opinion in other countries to achieve foreign policy objectives, has public diplomacy paved the way for a shift toward digital diplomacy?

Digital Diplomacy: Reality and Theoretical Approaches

1.3. Digital Diplomacy: Technological Advancement and the Concept of Soft Power

The industrial revolution in the 19th century left significant marks on diplomatic practices, with steamships and railroads accelerating diplomats’ travel. The impactful developments in the 1920s and 1930s, including the widespread usage of radio and the Bolshevik revolution in 1917 alongside the rise of Nazism, mark important historical milestones in diplomacy. The broadcasting methods utilized by both the Bolsheviks and Nazis helped to communicate with neighboring nations’ populations, gaining acceptance for their expansive foreign policies.

Post-World War II technological advancements and electronic data processing have allowed the international community to experience globalization in receiving and transferring information within brief timeframes that previously required weeks or months. After the Cold War, Joseph Nye coined the term “soft power” to denote a new set of elements influencing state power, based not on military coercion but on ideas that create prestige and attraction for other nations through seduction. This is amplified by using modern technology and social media.

The adventure of digital diplomacy emerged as a three-dimensional game within virtual space, regarded as a secondary life entered by some countries establishing embassies within what was termed “Diplomacy Island,” created by the DiploFoundation initiative, which specializes in preparing future diplomats as part of a virtual diplomacy project.

Studies have also indicated the embryonic stages of digital diplomacy, traced back to the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, where international civil society exchanged numerous emails regarding the environmental dangers facing the planet. In 2008, the internet was responsible for over 80% of youth joining jihadist organizations, particularly al-Qaeda. Some diplomats even believe its roots can be traced to the Arab Spring in 2011, when activists used social media to broadcast live footage of their clashes with the regime and its security and military institutions. These platforms began to earn serious consideration and recognition for their influence. A notable landmark, which astonished everyone, was the WikiLeaks revelations in 2010, publishing 250,000 diplomatic cables.

Currently, there seems to be no agreement on a unified definition of digital diplomacy; like any new term in the human sciences, each definition relies upon its context and the multiple approaches researchers adopt, which focus on various angles such as cybersecurity, social media, or internet governance. This trend is supported by experts referencing it with various terms, leading to multiple labels based on the nature of the activities occurring in cyberspace, such as “Net-Diplomacy,” “Cyber-Diplomacy,” “E-Diplomacy,” and “Twiplomacy.” Yet despite these terms being relatively close in meaning, each denotes a more precise area of the topic and should be employed in the appropriate context.

The term “Cyber” is typically used in security matters; “E” relates to economic and commercial issues, while “Twi” generally refers to Twitter, denoting diplomacy via that platform. However, the most commonly adopted term is Digital Diplomacy, referring to the usage of digital social networking sites to engage with the public.

Digital diplomacy harnesses the internet and modern communication technologies for communication with external audiences to create an enabling environment for foreign policy, facilitating interactions with “internet communities,” positioned as a growing political force in the foreign policy making process within their nations. The DiploFoundation describes digital diplomacy as new methods and techniques for practicing diplomacy with the assistance of the internet, explaining its influence on contemporary diplomatic practices and using technology as a mechanism to enhance diplomatic relations. Digital diplomacy expert Andreas Sandre considers it a space where technology meets tradition, consisting of nodes and links that are part of networks that transcend government oversight, allowing all actors to interact within them. It embodies more than just a practice; it reflects a spirit derived from practices and cultural values associated with the technology itself.

Social media platforms, like Twitter, have become crucial tools in enhancing public diplomacy, as evidenced by a study conducted by the global strategic communications and public relations firm Burson-Marsteller indicating that government utilization of Twitter has enabled them to reach wider audiences. From the previous definitions, it can be inferred that the variable of technology has become an independent factor in the equation of digital diplomacy, facilitating wide avenues for effectiveness and influence.

2.3. Digital Diplomacy through Media and Communication Approaches

Given the novelty of the subject and its scant scientific references, the literature on digital diplomacy indicates two different theories. Some researchers assert that digitization has enhanced public diplomacy, while others claim that it has completely transformed it into something entirely distinct from its traditional form—namely, digital diplomacy.

The engagement of foreign ministries and diplomatic missions with social media has drawn academic interest, providing these missions with an unprecedented opportunity for direct communication with foreign audiences on various topics. New phenomena have emerged, and scholarships have been introduced for research in this nascent field. American diplomatic missions abroad have turned to social networks to bolster their image and influence international public opinion, establishing “two-way engagement” with foreign populations based on public relations and marketing theories, with James Grunig’s four models representing those theories prominently.

Grunig posits that public relations behavior possesses two independent dimensions: one-way communication versus two-way communication, and symmetrical versus asymmetrical models, leading to the emergence of four models that connect these dimensions:

• Press Agentry/Publicity Model: A one-way, asymmetrical communication model, where professionals from press agencies known as “flacks” advocate for their institution according to the “ends justify the means” logic. Information flows in one direction from the provider (the government or institution) to the recipient, the public, for publicity purposes.
• Public Information Model: Emerging in the early 20th century as a one-way, symmetrical model believed to present accurate information about clients’ institutions. Grunig later redefined it as asymmetrical, observing practitioners manipulate audiences despite that not being their intent. This model promotes and advertises, remaining one-directional from providers to recipients.
• Two-Way Asymmetrical Model: Rooted in the work of the Committee on Public Information led by George Creel during World War I, enhanced by Edward Bernays’ theories on social sciences believing in creating public opinion for nefarious purposes. It entails organizations deciding, then selling these choices to audiences as a negatively connoted model for quality diplomacy.
• Two-Way Symmetrical Model: Considered the most ethical among all models, it builds on public relations experts, especially those produced in the 1950s and beyond by specialists in education. This model aims at fostering dialogue, utilizing data gathered to shift organizational practices, and working on balancing interests through mutual concessions rooted in negotiation and conflict resolution.

The fundamental difference between symmetrical and asymmetrical two-way communication models lies in the desire for personal change and self-position adaptation when necessary for mutual benefit, versus convincing the audience to alter their views to favor the speaker. Grunig believes the symmetrical two-way communication model exemplifies a normative and ethical approach to organizational effectiveness in public relations. Digital diplomacy activities can be categorized under this two-way, symmetrical model, facilitating interaction between citizens and international foreign policy decision-makers.

Academics initially aimed to determine the benefits of social networks for “winning hearts and minds,” yet they now express concerns regarding whether these platforms are used to engage individuals from other countries in “two-way communication” as a method for steering public opinion favorably. Here, digital diplomacy strives to connect with foreign masses via digital media to construct an external public opinion serving state interests and protecting them.

The DiploFoundation remains a principal source of discussions surrounding digital diplomacy. Andreas Sandre compiled a number of tweets from government officials as evidence of the impact of digital diplomacy on their work. In an effort to assess the effects of diplomacy on international relations, the platform “Twiplomacy” has conducted numerous case studies, concluding that digital diplomacy is new and difficult to measure for long-term effects, with many gaps still unexplored.

Numerous researchers have inferred that diplomacy is no longer the exclusive domain of a specific elite and that social media has empowered citizens to demand transparency, reducing gaps in dialogue with authorities. Rodríguez Gómez deems it a new diplomatic model that requires restructuring forms and systems, as well as training personnel to adapt to this new environment.

3.3. Digital Diplomacy and Utilization of the Cyberspace

• The Web: Represents the significant portal through which foreign ministries present their structures and daily activities, serving as a tool for constant and formal communications, continually updated to allow communication channels to interact with the largest possible number of citizens. The United States adopted a dual strategy online, establishing two pages: “State.gov” for the American public, and “America.gov” designed for interaction with foreigners, upon which the government bases its foreign policy, promoting values that define the identity of the United States toward the world.
• Blogs: Websites that allow users to easily update them, prompting readers to comment on articles and retain texts and responses, often becoming the primary means of communication within communities. Most institutions have added blogs to strengthen their presence on various platforms, showcasing their activities and introducing their members. The technical simplicity has allowed diverse applications for public diplomacy.

The Japanese government has utilized blogs directed toward specific audiences, such as children, with the Foreign Ministry hosting a blog featuring electronic games, instilling interaction with profiles to excite their curiosity about Japan’s importance in Asia and globally, familiarizing them with its culture. The UK Foreign Office has developed its blog to blend citizen opinions with the personal impressions of diplomats, culminating in comprehensive conclusions.

• Wikis: Pages containing editable texts by any user regardless of identity, with a history that captures changes, allowing reversion to previous information without issue to prevent others from deleting any potentially significant content. The U.S. Department of State started utilizing this program in 2006 to create a diplomatic encyclopedia titled “Diplopedia” within its internal intranet, engaging over 1,000 staff, either from the State Department itself or from missions that can communicate via the intranet, with the “Diplopedia” page made available to various intelligence entities in the U.S. and other national security-related organizations.
• Facebook: One of the most widely used media platforms worldwide, usually for creating personal social networks and a channel for communication with friends without geographic limitations. Diplomatic staff often establish personal accounts serving as direct communication channels with citizens living خارج their home countries, allowing officials to broaden their personal and professional networks. A foreign minister’s page may encompass over 4,000 friends, where followers can review its latest activities and share images and comments, granting users more insights into its political leanings on the international stage.

The importance of social media platforms has established itself in diplomatic realms, leading several foreign services to create official pages on Facebook. Their simplicity and diversity afford these pages to frequently replace official sites.

• Twitter: A microblogging service established in 2006 by Jack Dorsey. In 2020, the number of registered users on Twitter was estimated at approximately 314.9 million, with about 290.5 million monthly active users that year, projected to rise to 340 million by 2024, generating around 290.5 million daily interactions and over 1.6 million daily search requests. Twitter enables users to send short messages with character limits of up to 280 per tweet displayed on their timeline, allowing subscriptions to other users’ tweets, a process called following.

The U.S. State Department was the first to use Twitter for microblogging via official accounts to keep users informed about the Secretary of State’s actions. Philip Seib argues that Twitter serves as a diplomatic tool resonant with the new political empowerment associated with social networks, enhancing connections across the global community.

Since 2006, former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice commented on new technologies, recognizing them as effective means of communicating with millions of new people across the globe. Rice joined Twitter in October 2007, surpassing 5 million followers by September 2019, maintaining over 800 accounts across various media platforms worldwide, such as Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, Flickr, and Pinterest. Responding to experts’ calls for policymakers in the U.S. to harness these platforms as tools for exerting soft power after the previous strategic approach to combat terrorism under former President George W. Bush damaged America’s symbolic and ethical image globally, as winning hearts and minds could be achieved through substantive and impactful media messages.

• Other Social Networks: Lesser-known platforms may include Orkut in Brazil, Hi5 in Mexico, Qzone in China, and VKontakte in Russia. All these platforms are being utilized by embassies and consulates as vehicles for transmitting messages and crafting acceptance while enabling political, economic, and cultural empowerment.

Twitter Diplomacy and New Topics in International Relations

1.4. The Digital Age: Shortening Distances and Information Flow

When British Prime Minister Lord Palmerston received the first telegraph message in 1860, he exclaimed: “Oh my God, this is the end of diplomacy!” This exclamation signified a new development that profoundly altered the traditional diplomatic landscape. The last two decades have witnessed a real scientific transformation modifying patterns of relationships and interactions. Furthermore, developments in communication have altered the concept of borders, bringing distances closer and establishing the notion of a global village. This virtual realm has empowered citizens significantly, granting substantial authority.

The internet has established transnational virtual communities, opening paths to millions of participants unrestrained by gender, social status, or religious affiliation. Individuals have become subjects of international relations due to their influence on both proximal and distant circles, particularly those shaping national and international public opinion, making them targets of diplomacy and active agents within it. Lev Grossman described this phenomenon as an opportunity to forge a new kind of international understanding not just among politicians, but also among citizens of diverse nationalities. Joseph Nye warned that the information revolution has fundamentally altered the landscape of foreign policy, imposing a requirement for officials to adapt to the increasing power of non-state actors while soft power occupies a broad sphere in foreign policy formulation.

Consequently, many foreign ministries have begun adjusting their structures to fit the realities of the new age; this shift will necessitate changes in the traditional diplomat image associated with nobility, often someone proficient in languages. The digital age has indeed cultivated characteristics appearing within the new generations of diplomatic schools worldwide. These factors have liberated diplomacy from its conventional concept, pushing it to seek new tools for comfortable international existence and establishing relationships that serve its interests through engagement with global public opinions—expanding its audience for more effective defense of its interests across various venues, surpassing the traditional formal representation previously mandated before states and organizations.

David de Ugarte, in his book “From States to Networks,” posited that states possess a history of expiry; they will be replaced by new institutions responsive to developments in the digital world. Esther Dyson promoted the idea of “government-less intermediation,” envisioning a global community where transnational virtual networks intertwine with traditional local communities, requiring comprehensive and serious analysis of these concepts.

2.4. Twitter Diplomacy: The Dilemma Between iPads and Credentials

Matthias Lüfkens focused on the concept of digital diplomacy through Twitter, overseeing the Twiplomacy site, which has published annual reports since 2012 detailing how heads of states and governments utilize Twitter to interact with both citizens and peers. Lüfkens believes that the most successful diplomats are those proficient in using iPads rather than relying on credentials, asserting that the benefits of Twitter diplomacy transcend communication with voters and politicians to facilitate interaction with diplomats and heads of states.

Antonio Deruda noted that Twitter serves as a significant source of information and a leading platform for diplomatic communication, becoming the preferred tool for government officials and international diplomats. Additionally, Twitter allows for real-time interviews with political leaders through the “Twitcam” service, and it is also used as a platform to mobilize social groups for various causes like organizing protests.

Twitter played a prominent role during what was termed “Twitter Revolutions” or events of the Arab Spring, as well as protests arising from elections in Iran and Moldova in 2009, and the protests against the Ukrainian coup from 2013 to 2014, and even during demonstrations in Venezuela that same year. Leaders have utilized it to send messages to their followers to inform and organize them within street protests.

A 2013 study by the global strategic communication and public relations firm Burson-Marsteller indicated that 83% of UN member states maintained a Twitter account, representing 68% of all heads of state and government globally. Two-thirds of world leaders from 125 countries were present on Twitter, with a particular popularity in North America and Europe. By 2015, the percentage of leaders with Twitter accounts reached 86%, and the study found more than half of the world’s foreign ministers and their institutions active on the platform.

Former Italian Foreign Minister Giulio Terzi commented that Twitter offers two significant positive impacts on foreign policy: it promotes idea exchanges between politicians and civil society, and it enhances diplomats’ capacity to gather, analyze, manage, and respond to information in a timely manner.

According to Lüfkens, the role of Twitter diplomacy has become evident in diplomatic relations; it was used by late Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez as a tool in his campaign, facilitating his reelection in October 2012, while directly interacting with 3.6 million followers. Former Estonian President Toomas Hendrik Ilves employed the platform to counter negative reports published by The New York Times regarding his country during the same year. However, Twitter diplomacy is not a substitute for traditional diplomacy.

Deruda believes Twitter diplomacy, alongside other social networks, has altered traditional and formal diplomatic interactions—email messages and online communications have reshaped the diplomatic landscape by shortening distances between countries, diminishing the traditional idea of protocol, and weakening the role of embassies. This sentiment echoes Eva Harder’s conclusion that Twitter has changed the face of diplomacy in the same way it has transformed citizens’ media engagement by their governments.

In 2011, Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard did not respond to her New Zealand counterpart John Key on Twitter. Similarly, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu refrained from acknowledging Palestine on the platform, allowing the global public opinion to infer meaningful diplomatic positions from these omissions. In this context, the action of “following” and “not following” on Twitter has become a focal point of diplomatic tension, where following signifies friendly relations, whereas not responding suggests potential underlying issues.

The late Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez’s following of leftist leaders from Ecuador, Argentina, Brazil, and Cuba on Twitter curated a map of alliances among left-leaning governments in Latin America. Conversely, interactions between leaders of Colombia, Chile, and Peru represented a core of right-leaning governments, indicating another map of regional alliances that persisted until 2014, with some exceptions. Interest in following on Twitter thus emerged as a diplomatic indicator, prompting many countries to strive toward being followed by influencers on the global diplomatic scene.

Researchers have sought to examine the effects that the nature of these online relationships might have on international relations. On May 25, 2015, the U.S. Department of State “followed” the Cuban Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Twitter, and Cuba later reciprocated the gesture on the same day. This online connection occurred two months before both nations officially welcomed re-engagement via social networks.

Current scenes indicate an increasing interaction between diplomats and ministries on the platform. On January 28, 2017, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu tweeted praise for President Trump’s initiative to build a “border wall” with Mexico, calling it a fantastic idea to curb illegal immigration. Hours later, the Mexican government publicly demanded an apology from the Israeli Prime Minister for his statement. On February 20 of the same year, the Swedish Embassy in America responded to a tweet by Trump, claiming there was a terrorist attack in Sweden.

3.4. The Internet’s Outpacing of States in International Policy Formation

Since the 1990s, the world has witnessed a remarkable shift in communication operations, with social networks playing a pivotal role in spreading and disseminating news. The developments in the internet and decreasing technological costs have accelerated data transmission and exchange. Until the 1950s, interactions in international relations were primarily state-centered, whereas diplomacy served as a medium for managing these interactions. The role of diplomats has evolved, according to Hedley Bull, in managing relationships between states and entities with weight in global politics.

The internet has the capacity to track developments of various phenomena and movements, linking these groups and amplifying their voices on the global stage, introducing new active elements into the realm of diplomacy and enabling participation and influence. New Zealand diplomat Richard Grant described this process as a “democratization of diplomacy,” where the internet has empowered new actors to engage in expanded fields activating participation from non-state entities.

The internet bears three fundamental impacts on international relations:

• Doubling the number of actors involved in global policy-making.
• Free and rapid dissemination of information, regardless of its accuracy.
• Offering more effective and less costly diplomatic services to citizens or governments.

Personal information, once made public, may profoundly affect the management of international affairs; the Abu Ghraib scandal serves as an illustrative example: when images exposing the inhumane treatment of Iraqi prison inmates were disseminated globally via the internet, it significantly tarnished America’s reputation and incited vengeance-seeking jihadist attacks. Furthermore, the war in Iraq, facilitated through the internet, led to the resignations of both José María Aznar in Spain and Tony Blair in the UK, with consequential ramifications in international relations.

The necessity to adapt to the internet is no longer confined to states alone; this adaptation extends to non-governmental organizations seeking increased influence in international affairs. Notably, the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) showcases its capacity to mobilize Jewish advocates through online platforms. Platforms available have democratized the resources necessary for communication, with citizens no longer facing challenges in finding those sharing similar ideologies and inclinations within a community interconnected by a web of uncomplicated connections.

While diplomacy has primarily occurred between state governments, the arrival of the internet has introduced numerous variables that impede traditional diplomacy from maintaining its course. The impact of digital diplomacy on forming foreign policy manifests in the following areas:

• Service Delivery: The internet influences services provided by diplomats and foreign ministries as well as local administrative departments and private institutions. Traditional diplomatic distribution methods have been challenged by the internet, facilitating access to information as foreign ministries and embassies now offer services online.
• Ideas: Ideas and values play a significant role in shaping foreign policy and fall within what Joseph Nye terms “soft power.” The traditional diplomatic approach to discussing any issue has shifted from delivering ministerial speeches or distributing pamphlets to diverting primary messages to radio and television, and printed media; today, such speeches are directly published on official websites for immediate access. The proliferation of blogs and interactive forums supports political discussions involving experts rather than solely ministers or officials.
• Networks: Establishing appropriate networks serves as a platform for discussion among stakeholders and opinion-makers about domestic policies and influencing foreign policy. This network structure allows diplomats not only to gather reliable information for sound decision-making but also to explore means of optimizing their influence.

The International Reality of Digital Diplomacy: Advantages and Constraints

1.5. The International Race to Transform Diplomatic Interactions

International policies in the information age require substantial efforts to forge a global consciousness and create a public that adopts and accepts foreign policy orientations. British Ambassador to Lebanon Tom Fletcher noted that social media has become indispensable in modern diplomatic work and that online citizens form part of discussions surrounding foreign policy.

Former U.S. President Barack Obama’s shift in political practice starting in 2008 is regarded as a new diplomatic approach. His use of Twitter, with an audience of around 96 million followers and approximately 15,500 tweets, has had both positive and negative feedback. Months after his Twitter inception, former Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez created his account, followed by Colombian President Álvaro Uribe, Ecuador’s Rafael Correa, and Argentina’s Cristina Fernández, enhancing interactions among Latin American leaders. Michael McFaul, the U.S. ambassador to Russia, was a pioneer in using Twitter for diplomatic matters, communicating in both Russian and English since his ambassadorship began in 2011, making U.S. policies clearer to his followers.

The U.S. State Department has invested seriously in this area, conducting training for social activists on using social media to help them “conceal” their activities from security forces within their countries by deleting traces for harder tracking, while simultaneously developing their skills to “break through firewalls” and evade monitoring.

In 2008, the U.S. embassy in Beijing installed an air quality screen, broadcasting hourly readings via Twitter to draw attention to pollution, sparking public discourse among Chinese populations against their government policies. The number of the U.S. State Department’s Twitter accounts exceeded 300, and it maintained over 400 pages on Facebook in the host country’s languages. By 2013, tweets were issued in 11 languages, with about 900 diplomats using digital diplomacy abroad, including 39 ambassadors. By May 2013, the State Department’s social media sites had accumulated 26 million followers, marking a 350% increase from January 2012.

Moreover, the State Department leveraged crowd-sourcing technologies to launch collaborative platforms for mapping needs (MapGive). In 2014, the department initiated a comprehensive development lab to provide solutions to complex development challenges. In educational programs, it introduced the “MOOC Camp” concept of offering online courses to U.S. embassies worldwide, working to enhance digital diplomacy by increasing connectivity with networks and encouraging their use. Additionally, it implemented a 21st-century initiative for political efficiency aimed at training American diplomats and encouraging them to engage with these platforms to create a global social dialogue. The term “social networking diplomacy” now extends beyond interaction between states to encompass dialogue with civil society, enabling attentiveness to and listening to citizens.

France has emerged as a leader in digital diplomacy, referring to it as “influence diplomacy,” ranking second in 2016 and third in 2017 in digital diplomacy reports. The French Foreign Ministry created its online site as early as 1995, attempting to improve its image, defend its interests, and enhance public interaction with foreign affairs activities on the web, attracting around 1.7 million monthly visitors. Additionally, France has opened accounts in various languages related to “French diplomacy.” The ministry holds a monthly interactive session on Twitter allowing the public to connect with officials, offering responses to a broad range of inquiries, fostering direct engagement with audiences, and influencing them.

Over 280 French diplomatic missions have established digital platforms, with the number of languages utilized across these sites approximating fifteen. These embassies and consulates primarily engage through Twitter and Facebook while adapting to the most utilized platforms within their host countries, such as using Weibo in China. Moreover, the Danish experience signified its appointment of Kasper Klink as its first ambassador to networks represented by major tech companies, including those specializing in smartphone applications and social networks.

In Iran, Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif created an English-language Twitter account. In Chile, under the Andres Bello University initiative, the foreign ministry regularly updates its activities, proving effective and transitioning it into state policy aimed at boosting transparency and public information access, allowing the expression of ideas and interaction through social networks to foster collaboration between peoples and their governments.

According to a study by the Twiplomacy platform assessing global interactions, 97% of UN member states have a presence on Twitter, with 951 Twitter accounts that include 372 personal accounts for heads of state and government, and 579 accounts for official institutions in 187 countries. The U.S. President’s account ranks first for followers among official sites globally.

Conclusion

Technological development has played a significant role in transforming the structures and outlines of many phenomena and topics. Digital diplomacy may be seen as a result of exploiting outcomes from and strategically utilizing information and communication technology, which has become an inseparable part of foreign policy. It reshapes data delivery across new channels that push governments toward greater openness in handling foreign affairs.

The nature of handling information and ways of utilizing it have transformed; secrecy is no longer beneficial; instead, the speed of relaying information and ensuring its credibility now serves as invaluable capital in constructing state prestige and standing. Digital diplomacy has emerged as a tool for engaging with foreign peoples and an operational mechanism to adapt to them, creating the groundwork for receiving foreign policy tailored for effective delivery that leverages soft power alongside smart power.

Countries are employing social media channels based on strategies that understand user engagement, aiming for existence far beyond their geographical confines without firing a shot while minimizing financial burdens. This leap in diplomatic engagement trajectories has prompted many nations to design smart strategies to align with technological advancements, which the study concludes serve as an independent variable within layers shaping the fabric of digital diplomacy, with social networking platforms acting as intermediary variables. Thus, digital diplomacy becomes the dependent variable tasked with skillfully employing the preceding elements and adeptly maneuvering within its tools to serve national interests within new foreign policy mechanisms.

Delays in embracing this transformation may incur costs for those unaware or unwilling to accompany these shifts, with burdens and challenges that could take decades or centuries to alleviate. Nonetheless, while digital diplomacy may not replace traditional diplomacy, it can certainly enhance the state’s operations in international relations, speeding up and amplifying their effectiveness.

References

• “Digital Diplomacy: Theory and Practice” by Corneliu Bjola and Marcus Holmes

• “The Digital Diplomacy Handbook: How to Use Social Media for Global Engagement” by Andreas Sandre

• “Digital Diplomacy and International Organisations: Autonomy, Legitimacy and Contestation” by Corneliu Bjola and Ruben Zaiotti

• “Twitter for Diplomats” by Andreas Sandre

• “Diplomacy in the Digital Age” by Jovan Kurbalija

• “Social Media and International Relations” by Sarah Kreps

• “Public Diplomacy in the Digital Age” edited by Guy J. Golan, Sung-Un Yang, and Dennis Kinsey

• “Cyber-Diplomacy: Managing Foreign Policy in the Twenty-First Century” by Shaun Riordan

• “Diplomacy and the Digital Revolution: Political Communication in the New Media Environment” by Majid Tehranian

• “Virtual Diplomacy and the Digital State” by Marcus Holmes and Corneliu Bjola

• “Digital World War: Islamists, Extremists, and the Fight for Cyber Supremacy” by Haroon Ullah

• “Digital Diplomacy: Global Public Diplomacy in the Internet Age” by Wilson Dizard Jr.

• “Digital Government: Technology and Public Sector Performance” by Darrell M. West

• “The Digital Transformation of Diplomacy” by Jovan Kurbalija and Katharina Höne

• “Networks of Influence: Understanding Digital Diplomacy in International Relations” by Corneliu Bjola

• “Soft Power and Digital Diplomacy: Social Media as Tools of International Communication” by Beata Ociepka

• “The Rise of Digital Diplomacy: Information, Communication, and International Relations” by Jennifer Brinkerhoff

• “Diplomacy and the Digital State: Global Practices and Innovation” by Paulo Siqueira

• “The Digital Public Diplomacy of States: Messages, Strategies, and Effectiveness” by Ilan Manor

• “Digital International Relations: Exploring the New Frontier” edited by Corneliu Bjola and Louise Tatham

• Graig Hayden, “Digital Diplomacy,” the Encyclopedia of Diplomacy, (2018)

• Bridget Verrekia, “Digital Diplomacy and its Effect on International Relations,” SIT Digital Collections, (Spring 2017).

•  Alfredo A. Rodríguez Gómez, “Diplomacia digital, adaptación al mundo digital o nuevo modelo de diplomacia?,” Opción, Año 31, no. Especial 2, (2015): 7.

• Viona Rashica, “the Benefits and Risks of Digital Diplomacy,” SEEU Review, Vol. 13, Issue. 1, (2018)

• Saif Shahin, “Friend, Ally, or Rival?  Twitter Diplomacy as “Techno-social” Performance of National Identity,” International Journal of Communication 13, (2019): 5102

• Nicholas J. Cull, “WikiLeaks, public diplomacy 2.0 and the state of digital public diplomacy,” Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, Vol. 7