How Successfully has Diplomacy Adapted to the Digital Age?

Diplomacy remains one of the primary tools states use to implement their foreign policy goals. While diplomacy has historically been a contested concept with varying definitions, its practice has expanded across multiple sectors and actors. Although the core reason for conducting diplomacy remains largely unchanged, the methods have evolved over time.

Thus, Digital diplomacy has emerged as a result. It can be argued that diplomacy has successfully been adapted at the level of communication, but far less successfully at the level of capability, thereby widening the digital divide between the states that can afford to secure new tools and those in South Asia that cannot. The clearest evidence of adaptation lies in how diplomacy communicates.

In this context, Manor and Segev (cited in Adesina) suggest that digital diplomacy has gained prominence due to the increased usage of technology and digital tools. Digital diplomacy, in this sense, refers mainly to the growing use of social media platforms by a country in order to achieve its foreign policy goals and proactively manage its image and reputation.

As Ayenew notes, technology and the internet have shifted political, social and economic spectrums, altering communication patterns and information exchange. Digital diplomacy has thus become synonymous with ICT-driven diplomacy, integrating digital tools, methods and internet technologies into the routine functions of diplomats. However, this integration has been challenged by critics. Diplomacy in the digital era heavily utilises social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, changing the modality (onsite or online), highlighting both integration and resistance to technology in everyday practice.

Illustrating both the integration of and resistance to technology in everyday diplomatic practice, Aggestam and Duncombe credit Adler-Nissen and Eggeling with introducing the concept of ‘blended diplomacy’, which resonates with today’s digital era.

In practice, Alden and Chan provide an example of how digital diplomacy is utilised effectively in the contemporary era. They have cited how China actively uses Twitter as a platform for conducting public diplomacy, mentioning reasons such as the targeted outreach capabilities of Twitter, allowing China to monitor international public opinion and also assisting China to push back against criticisms.

Adaptation is also visible in the Twitter posts and Security Council statements of UN diplomats, where Sakamoto et al. discovered that even though the gist of diplomacy remains unchanged, the diplomats have adapted to online communication strategically.

Online diplomacy has made them more expressive but also more selective, favoring non-security topics such as ceremonial matters and prominent policy stances. Hall shows how India utilises social media as a tool to leverage its soft power, a rare case of a South Asian state adapting successfully at the communication level.

Similarly, Budiana lists major opportunities in digital diplomacy, including expanded public diplomacy and international cooperation in addressing global issues by allowing countries to share data and information quickly. The swift shift to “Zoom diplomacy” in early 2020 as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrates how these practices can, at least temporarily, replace face-to-face diplomacy, but not without difficulties (Naylor 2020; Eggeling and Adler-Nissen 2021 cited in Hedling and Bremburg).

That caveat matters because the same tools that have modernised diplomatic communication have not modernised diplomacy’s ability to protect itself. Practitioners and academics have also criticized this adaptation. For instance, in TEDx Talks, Adler-Nissen states that technology challenges the three foundational pillars of diplomacy.

These are the time to mature the negotiation process, the confidential space to improve, improvise, and manoeuvre negotiations, and finally, taking the other parties’ feelings and emotions into consideration. She further mentions that the room for closed-door negotiations is slowly dying in practice and creating an openness with no filters, which could be lethal.

By citing the example of the Pakistani defense minister’s Twitter reaction to a fake news article that claimed Israel was threatening Pakistan with nuclear weapons, she emphasizes how leaders and parties involved in diplomacy can be manipulated, thus highlighting the need to act with responsibility and caution.

Since the digital space is boundless, the rapid flow of misinformation and disinformation threatens state stability and public opinion. From the Arab Spring to the recent protest movements in Sri Lanka, Nepal, and Bangladesh social media has proven its capacity to mobilize people against governments.

These movements not only destabilised governments but also exposed how little control South Asian states possessed over the platforms driving digital vulnerability directly tied to the digital divide discussed above. Additionally, the emergence of Artificial Intelligence and deep fakes raises concerns due to their capacity to disrupt diplomatic relations.

Likewise, Bjola questions the privacy of the social media tools that are used in diplomacy, as most of them are owned by companies over which the foreign ministries do not have any control. He further states that the rapid advancement of technology and the sophistication of digital tools pose a challenge for foreign ministries to adapt quickly, thus needing the help of expertise. Similarly, Fletcher brings up the point that with the rise in non-state actors such as commercial empires like Google and Tesla and how they can challenge the state. Furthermore, he questions the role of a diplomat and emphasises that diplomacy in the digital age would be constructive only if technology is used effectively, as nothing can replace human connections.

Again, Aggestam and Duncombe have also emphasised the increase in diplomatic interactions in the online sphere by non-state actors, mentioning rebel groups, civil society organisations, international institutions, and global corporations. Correspondingly, Radanliev highlights threats, such as AI-driven cyberattacks, where Oclou cites an example of the hacking of the U.S. Democratic National Committee that took place in the year 2016 and how sensitive emails were leaked, exposing the weaknesses of digital diplomacy.

Hence, Radanliev emphasises the need for global norms and frameworks to govern responsible technology adoption, reducing threats, protecting national interests and fostering mutual trust among nations in the digital sphere. The inability to secure these digital spaces deepens the digital divide between the developed and developing nations. The South Asian region finds itself highly exposed to social mobilisation through digital platforms, yet lacking resources to defend against cyber threats.

In conclusion, diplomacy has adapted considerably during the digital era. While the success of adapting to digitalization cannot be measured, the evidence indicates substantial progress in diplomatic practice. Nonetheless, technology has not fundamentally altered the essence of diplomacy, which relies on human relationship building.

Diplomacy has neither failed to adapt nor has it adapted evenly across the world. It has successfully adapted in well-resourced states capable of building and securing the digital infrastructure. Therefore, the most critical challenge for South Asia in the digital era is to bridge this security and capability divide, rather than simply accelerating the pace of social media adaptation.