Essay: Traditional state-to-state diplomacy has been replaced by public & digital diplomacy

International Relations and diplomacy for that matter, as a sub-discipline of IR, have always been influenced by developments in the global and domestic environments (Hocking, B and Melissen, J: 2015, p8). Whether it was the long ocean-crossing sailing ships allowing the expansion of European powers in the 16th and 17th centuries, the telephone and radio facilitating communication between states and non state actors, the consequences on the international political system and diplomacy are undeniable. Advances in digital technology are one of the most important changes in modern history and the aim of this paper will be to determine whether these developments have fundamentally changed the nature of diplomacy or if they only constitute new tools towards pursuing the same end (Westcott, N: 2008, p6).
We will argue that developments in digital technology has had an impact on the practice of diplomacy and the array of issues it seeks to encompass, making it more public, but did not fundamentally change the function nor purpose of it.
In order to fully understand some of the changes and challenges that diplomacy is facing in today’s digital world, conceptualising diplomacy both as a notion and sub-discipline of International Relations and the purpose of diplomacy is crucial. Developments in digital technology has an had  impact on how diplomacy is practiced and understood making it important to define what we understand as digital technology as well. The first part of the paper will endeavour to define diplomacy and digital technology in a manner that is relevant to this work and to the limit of the words allowed. Conceptualising both the function and purpose of diplomacy and digital technology will allow us to argue that diplomacy has become more public and deterritorialized with the emergence of digital tools such as social media and internet, eventually diffusing power and authority. The case study of the 2011 Arab Spring will be used to show the role of digital technology in achieving socio-political change, eventually forcing governments to adapt their diplomatic habits to an increasingly involved civil society making diplomacy more visible. Finally, we will argue that, although diplomacy has become more public and deterritorialized with the emergence of digital tools, such as social media and internet, they remain new means to pursue the same end, at least when state to state diplomacy is involved. Indeed, realists argue that the aim of a state is to maximise its power at all cost and protect its sovereignty and national interests, which represents the core purpose of diplomacy (Mearsheimer, J: 1994/95, p10). Within this theoretical configuration, states continue to maximise and use the new digital tools that are now available to them to fulfil the purposes of diplomacy, we will however discuss how these tools threaten power, sovereignty and national interests complicating diplomatic practices and relations.
I) Conceptual framework
a) Diplomacy
Historically, diplomacy was seen as a privileged function exercised by officially credited diplomats, the concept was studied by diplomats for diplomats. Traditionally, diplomacy has been defined as centred on relations between nation-states, concerned with matters of haute politique and achieved a transhistorical character that has persisted despite changes in the global system, evolving along with the emergence of nation-states and the idea of state sovereignty (Pigman, G: 2010, p202). Within this traditional view of diplomacy the purpose of it is to promote state interests in the international system and protect national and international security (Martin, C and Jagla, L: 2013, p2). However, because of an increasingly interconnected and globalised world, scholars begun to study and analyse diplomacy within the current international system in order to adapt its definition to the modern era. Diplomacy as a sub-discipline of IR and a notion has been discussed quite recently by scholars, and although some definitions vary, all scholars argue that the core features defining the nature and function of diplomacy as a concept are negotiation, communication, representation and information gathering (Jacob, O; Sending; Pouliot, V and Neumann, I: 2011, p531). In other terms, the purpose of diplomacy will be defined in the context of this work as “the conduct of relations between states and other entities with standing in world politics by official agents and by peaceful means.” (Bull, 1977: p162). Defining diplomacy within today’s globalised world will allow us to show that developments in digital technology had an impact on certain aspects of the practice of  diplomacy but did not fundamentally change it nor its purpose, which will be argued further in the paper.
b)Digital technology
The international system in general and diplomacy in particular have always been influenced by developments, this essay will focus on developments in cyber technology in general, and specifically communication tools via internet and social media platforms, and argue that these advances in digital technology have led to a more open and public diplomacy but also reinforce its nature and purpose. Westcott defines the internet as a means of communication enabling the exchange, publication and storage of information. The internet, according to Westcott, brings together global communication and information flows to make them instantaneous, allowing simultaneous group and person to person communication as well as universal publication (Westcott, N: 2008, p5). Within this definition of what we understand as digital and cyber technology we will come to talk about social media networks such as Facebook and Twitter. The business dictionary defines social media as primarily “internet or cellular phone based applications and tools to share information among people. Social media includes popular networking websites, like Facebook and Twitter; as well as bookmarking sites like Reddit. It involves blogging and forums and any aspect of an interactive presence which allows individuals the ability to engage in conversations with one another, often as a discussion over a particular blog post, news article, or event.”  (businessdictionary.com: 2016)
The next part of the paper will focus on using these definitions of diplomacy, its nature and purpose, and cyber technologies, specifically communication and information, in order to show how diplomacy is more public both for state and non actors.
II) Public diplomacy
a) Deterritorialisation of diplomacy
The following section of the paper will discuss how the developments in digital technology led to a deterritorialisation of diplomacy, eventually diffusing power and authority. The example of the 2011 Arab Spring will be used to show how developments in technology, specifically communication and information, enabled non state actors to achieve social and systemic change. We will also discuss how these tools are used by official diplomatic actors themselves to adapt diplomatic communication and practice to this increasingly digital environment, using the US example.
As Leonard and Alakeson argue in their work Going Public, Diplomacy for the Information Society, national and international security used to be discussed in terms of the ability of one state to protect itself from other states, but today states are faced with insecurities emanating from the civil society and other non state actors.
” On the surface, the rituals of diplomacy may look similar. But when Blair meets Putin now, they will talk as much about how Russia deals with organised crime and drugs[…]and delivering economic and political reform as they do about START II and the ABM treaties. This is because the new security threats often flow upwards from the conditions of everyday life- food, shelter, employment, health, public safety- rather than downwards from a country’s foreign relations and military strengths. All countries are now shaped by global forces that do not respect national boundaries.” (Leonard, M and Alakeson, V: 2000, p11-12)
Information and people travel faster, the platforms to get information have risen exponentially, increasingly raising awareness about transnational issues making them global problems.  The spread of new technologies, particularly internet, within a globalised international system has made people more and more interconnected and facilitates communication between the different communities and actors across the globe (Muldoon JR, Ariel, Reitano and Sullivan).
To get a rough idea of how important internet is in today’s globalised world, the percentage of internet users in 2000- here defined as individuals with working conditions hardware equipment, an active internet subscription service and access to the internet service at home at any time without any restrictions- represented 6.8% of the world’s population. In 2016, more than 3.4 billion people are internet users, accounting for 46.1% of the global population (Internetlivestats). This impressive and significant increase in the last decade has freed and accelerated the dissemination of information, true or false, about any topic or event concerning various matters such as politics, environment or human rights. It contributes to the amplification and multiplication of interested actors involved in international and domestic policy making eventually reducing the exclusive control of governments in the diplomatic process (Westcott, N: 2008, p8). Non state actors, such as the civil society, are now able to engage in the political, economic and cultural spheres using new tools such as the internet and social media to influence and shape diplomatic practices. “Individuals are freer to choose what determines their identity, as they have easier access to those that share their views or values and are less bound by the majority views of their local community (eg the one in which they live or vote). Secondly, they can project that identity more forcefully using the means the Internet puts at their disposal.” (Westcott, N : 2008, p4). As we previously argued, traditional diplomacy was concentrated on state to state relations, with the aim of advancing state’s interests as well as guaranteeing national and international security. Today, the number of issues are growing and more visible to the public, stemming away from the state’s interests. Various groups represent different issues, whether it is regarding ecology, human rights, animal rights, gender equality or literacy, the state does not define the identity of the civil society anymore, common interests and values do. “Access to technology and social media has expanded the means by which citizens make a national and global impact.” (Martin, C and Jagla, L: 2013, p4).
We will use the case of the 2011 Arab Spring to illustrate the impact of internet and social media in the coordination of actors sharing the same values across the globe and achieving social and political change. On the 17th December 2010, Mohamed Bouazizi a Tunisian street vendor set himself on fire, a desperate act to denounce the national government and officials’ wrongdoings. This tragic event was the beginning of the Arab Spring. Alec Ross, Senior Advisor for Innovation in the Office of the Secretary at the U.S. Department of State, explains that a video of the self-immolation of the young Tunisian was shared on social media platforms such as Facebook, raising considerable awareness nationally and globally. Between 2008 and 2010 the Tunisian’s membership to Facebook increased from 28,000 to 1.4 million members, allowing people to be aware of an event that happened in small town in Tunisia (Martin, C and Jagla, L: 2013, p4). Because of the government’s incapacity to control the flow of information and the ability for the civil society to access uncensored information, a movement was  organised and transcended national borders reaching citizens in other Arab countries with same democratic and social aspirations as the Tunisians. “… young Tunisians were able to organize and bring national and international attention to their resulting political upheaval, catalyzing citizens in other Arab countries to do the same. The Arab revolutions highlighted significant social trends and took place for reasons other than social media catalysts. Yet in hindsight, social media vastly accelerated movement-making.” (Martin, C and Jagla, L: 2013, p4). With the developments in communication technology, power and authority is diffusing from governments and big media companies to individuals who are able to use these powerful tools to achieve socio-political and economic change and eventually raise the awareness about issues that aren’t typically comprised in advanced in the state’s interests (Ross, A: 2013).
These developments have pushed states to integrate the will of the people in diplomacy, making it less state centred allowing diplomacy to become a public and open matter. Diplomacy is becoming more public in many ways, however we will focus on the communication and representation aspects of diplomacy in the following paragraph, particularly in state to state diplomacy and in the way official diplomatic actors are now interacting with other state and non state actors.
Hocking and Melissen argue that ‘Social networking sites have created new dynamics and opened up a plethora of previously unimaginable opportunities.The digital revolution has been accompanied by fundamental changes in international negotiation processes. Hybridity blurs the distinction between ‘online’ diplomatic activities and ‘offine’ diplomacy and negotiation. (Hocking, B and Melissen, J: 2015, p6). We have previously established that traditional diplomacy was surrounded with secrecy and protocol, and although many of the protocolar practices surrounding state to state diplomacy remain, in terms of communication diplomacy is opening itself to the public and to non state actors.  According to Coleen Graffy, the US Deputy Assistant Secretary of the State for Public Diplomacy, the use of social networks such as Facebook and Twitter has become an important part of the US Public Diplomacy strategy (Pigman, G: 2010, p211).
First of all, there is an official position to deal with public diplomacy, a position that was introduced only in 1999 by Bill Clinton (publicdiplomacy.org: 2003).
The position is described by the US Department of State, as a role to lead America’s public diplomacy outreach, including communication with international audiences. The goal of the American Public Diplomacy is to advance nation interests and “enhance national security by informing and influencing foreign publics and by expanding and strengthening the relationship between people and Government of the United States and citizens of the rest of the world.” (US Department of state, Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs). Because of this increasingly digital environment and because of the public’s need to be involved and be informed about the diplomatic processes, governments like the US government are using developments in digital technology. In order to fully take advantage of these new internet based assets and to conduct public diplomacy efficiently and effectively, the Obama administration has launched “Public Diplomacy 2.0”. This initiative was advanced to “create an institutional framework that can take full advantage of new media, with an understanding that these tools must be carefully tailored to particular circumstances and always used in the service of a larger strategy” (Morozov, E: 2009). Since 2001, the US government has spent 10 billion dollars on communication, the total views on the State Department’s youtube channel are up more than 400 percent since its inauguration.
“The Bureau of Public Affairs’ Rapid Response Unit has a small team monitoring social media responses to developments that have the potential to impact U.S. national interests. They produce short daily briefing reports with an anecdotal look at the online response to specific events/issues (for example, on the closure of the U.S. embassy in Syria) across the Arabic, Chinese, English and Spanish social media spheres.” (Hanson, F: 2012).
As we can see from these US public diplomacy strategies, the American government, and states in general, are putting more efforts and funds towards a better communication with the international society, becoming increasingly aware of non state actors’ role in state to state diplomacy. However, we will argue in the final section of this paper, that although states are practicing a more public diplomacy, they are just taking advantage of new digital assets to pursue the same end.
III) New means to pursue the same end
a) State to state diplomacy’s purpose
Realists argue that the international system is anarchic and states always try to maximise their power and compete to get more power than any other state. As a consequence of this competition the result can be war (Mearsheimer, J.J: 1994, p9-10). Diplomacy follows the same trajectory in the sense that its fundamental purpose is to allow states to guarantee that their interests are achieved and to protect their sovereignty and security through peaceful negotiations and avoid a state of war. Diplomats are only official agents representing their states’ ultimate interests (Lauren, P.G., Craig, G.A., George:  2013, p11). In today’s modern and public diplomacy this core purpose, as well as the nature diplomacy, have not changed, states and their representatives are utilising developments in digital technology to perfect their diplomatic practices and achieve their goals. Whether it includes key non state-actors in negotiations where these can provide advice and information, and when they are regarded as important domestic constituencies representatives, is only to fulfil the purpose of diplomacy (Jacob, O; Sending; Pouliot, V and Neumann, I: 2011, p540).
Sure, diplomacy has become more public both for the interests of state and non state actors, but non state actors activities can be regarded as outside of diplomacy as we defined it, they do not have the power to change the nature and purpose of diplomacy itself.
Indeed, states have always spied on each other, traditionally through diplomats themselves sent to other countries and gather as much classified or secret information as they could to maximise their leverage over other states and provide their government with a strategic approach and an ability to bargain. Diplomats were seen as dishonest people surrounded by intrigue and conspiracy, Sir Henry Wotton, a 17th century diplomat and politician, described a diplomat as “an honest man sent to lie abroad in the good of his country” (Lauren, P.G., Craig, G.A., George:  2013, p11).
The way spying and information gathering is done in modern cyber era, is different, it is in a way easier and more dangerous. For instance, the National Security Agency, an American Intelligence organisation, has been using the breakthroughs made in digital technology to widen and deepen its information gathering and fortify its diplomatic negotiations. In one of the NSA’s latest  built infrastructure in Bluffdale, the organisation is collecting all sorts of data from any country thanks to satellites and internet:
“including the complete contents of private emails, cell phone calls, and Google searches, as well as all sorts of personal data trails—parking receipts, travel itineraries, bookstore purchases, and other digital “pocket litter.” It is, in some measure, the realization of the “total information awareness” (Bramford, J: 2012).
In 2013, Wikileaks, revealed that the US intelligence services were spying on German Chancellor, Angela Merkel and the three latest French presidents, Jacques Chirac, Nicolas Sarkozy and Francois Hollande (Tapper, J., Anchor and Correspondent, C.W. : 2015). This revelation was an international scandal but as Christopher Murphy put it, this is not new, states have been spying on each other for centuries now and they even share intelligence data for favours, in the name of national interests and achieving diplomacy’s purpose (Murphy, C: 2015).
What was new, however, was the revelation of Edward Snowden, a former NSA contractor, who showed the extent of the practices used by the intelligence community, Snowden, now referred to as a whistleblower, shared classified files showing that the US government was spying on its own citizens, collecting any kind of data, regardless of who you are, threat or no threat. The US government’s response to the scandal, was that in the post 9/11 age of the terrorism, the government was protecting its people and its sovereignty (Breslow, J.M: 2015).
Although states have not changed the purpose of diplomacy, they are incorporating developments in digital technologies to fortify the nature of diplomacy, and whether whistleblowers denounce the illegitimacy of the state’s practices, the state has the institutional and legal power to pursue its interests.
Conclusion:
Developments in digital technology within a globalised world have allowed for a broader spectrum of actors to be represented in the diplomatic sphere, making diplomacy more public. There is an increasing number of non state actors such as NGOs, civil society or private businesses, taking part in diplomacy. ‘Traditional’ state to state diplomacy has slowly been replaced by public and digital diplomacy. States use internet and social media to engage with a wider public and polish their image both on the domestic and international levels. They use the cyber sphere as a platform to win the support of other countries, and keep the public aware of diplomatic achievements (Comor, E and Bean, H: 2012, p204). However, some scholars are careful when assessing the role of digital technology in diplomacy, as Martin and Jagla argue “while sitting face-to-face takes time and effort, it is historically successful. The State Department may need to incorporate the tools of technology effectively, but it should not forego the rules, strategy and successes of traditional diplomacy “(Martin, C and Jagla, L: 2013, p7). Despite some sceptic scholars and officials, governments are extending their use of the breakthroughs made in digital technologies, to information gathering and negotiations, such as cyber-spying on other nation-states, and have been caught and denounced by whistleblowers, questioning the morality,  ethics, and legitimacy of  questionable practices. The new issue that is rising lies within the digital technology itself, and if incorporating it in such sensible aspects of diplomacy is a wise choice. Developments in digital technology remain after all a tool, and depending on which entities (private or public ) are using this tool, the outcome may be positive or negative (Gramer et al : 2015).