Digital Diplomacy 4.0: The Return of the Jedi?

The Evolution of Digital Diplomacy: A Retrospective and Future Outlook

Tom Fletcher, having served as British ambassador to Lebanon, was among the first diplomatic representatives to fully embrace digital tools. Reflecting on a decade of experience, he examines the successes and shortcomings of the initial wave of technodiplomats and considers the future trajectory of digital diplomacy.

Disruption and Cultural Shift

Diplomacy, traditionally defined by protocol and established practices, has undergone significant disruption due to the advent of digital technology. Like many professions, the initial impact was felt through improved tools and communication methods, leading to a faster operational pace.

However, the most profound changes have been cultural. A greater understanding of shifting power dynamics fosters humility, while new technologies enable agility and inclusivity. Increased public access to information, previously confined to closed circles, promotes transparency.

The First Phase: A Brave New World

Ten years ago, while serving as Her Majesty’s envoy to Lebanon, Fletcher recognized the potential of technology to reshape engagement between governments and citizens. This led to experimentation with what became known as “digital diplomacy.” Digital diplomacy has since progressed through three distinct phases, and now stands poised to enter a fourth.

The initial phase, spurred by the U.S. State Department’s 21st-century statecraft program under Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, was characterized by excitement and optimism. Ambassadors who actively adopted these new tools experienced a period of relative freedom.

There were, of course, risks involved. The very smartphone used for frequent updates also presented a security vulnerability, potentially exposing the ambassador’s location. Despite these challenges, this era allowed for surprising connections and a demonstration of humility, fostering the hope that social media could promote agency and freedom.

Institutionalization and Dialogue

The second phase focused on institutionalizing digital diplomacy, creating frameworks for dialogue between established powers and emerging technological forces. Recognizing the geopolitical implications of rapid technological change, Fletcher left government to advocate for a more urgent and coordinated response.

Following a 2017 report on the United Nations, the U.N. initiated efforts to facilitate communication between Big Tech companies and governments, encouraging dialogue rather than adversarial confrontations. The U.N.’s High Level Panel and the Global Tech Panel were designed to bridge the gap between those disrupting the status quo and those traditionally in control.

Adapting to New Realities

Foreign ministries adapted to social media more readily than to previous technological advancements. By 2011, four U.K. ambassadors were active on Twitter, a number that grew significantly in subsequent years, with some, like John Casson in Egypt, amassing over one million followers.

This willingness to experiment stemmed from the lack of established metrics for assessing impact. Ambassadors were encouraged to showcase their personalities and engage in genuine conversations, rather than simply broadcasting information. The risks were acknowledged, but the greater danger lay in remaining absent from the conversation.

The Rise of Authoritarian Influence and Technological Power

The third phase witnessed a resurgence of authoritarian control, with governments exploiting digital technology to suppress dissent. Figures like Donald Trump utilized Twitter to amplify xenophobia and incite unrest, while Vladimir Putin’s Russia weaponized the internet to undermine democracy.

The proliferation of Twitter mobs hindered nuanced diplomatic discourse and made it difficult to achieve compromise. Governments increasingly viewed cyberspace as a new battleground, prioritizing defense and security.

Simultaneously, Big Tech companies grew in power, sometimes surpassing governments in influence and even adopting reactionary stances. Talent was poached from governments, depriving them of crucial expertise and revenue. The initial idealism of the “brave new world” phase faded as legal battles intensified.

Looking Ahead: Realism and Optimism

Today, Fletcher advocates for a more realistic, yet still optimistic, approach to technology and diplomacy. He believes that collaborative solutions, including achieving the Sustainable Development Goals, are still possible, but require governments to acknowledge their limitations.

Technology companies need to demonstrate patience with slower-moving governments and acknowledge their role in contributing to existing problems. Diplomats can continue leveraging technology to enhance their effectiveness, exploring innovations like wearable technology for reading social cues and sentiment analysis for understanding public opinion.

The Next Phase: Reconnecting and Rebuilding

The next phase of digital diplomacy should focus on addressing critical global challenges, including planetary health, the relationship with Big Tech, intergenerational equity, and integration of migrant communities.

This will also require a renewed emphasis on fundamental diplomatic skills, such as empathy and emotional intelligence. Education plays a crucial role in fostering these skills, representing “upstream diplomacy.” A concerted effort is needed to rewrite global rules for online freedom and to revitalize embassies as centers for human connection.

Ultimately, Fletcher argues that diplomacy is too important to be left solely to diplomats. It demands a collective effort to reinvent the craft for the 21st century.