Diplomacy is increasingly moving online. More specifically, summits and high-level negotiations between states and their representatives usually happen through digital means; on-the-ground diplomats are doing less of the ‘middleman’ role they’ve always occupied.
This phenomenon is apparent with a quick glance to recent events. Biden’s major international climate conference; US Secretary of State Tony Blinken’s various virtual tours; ongoing, pan-EU meetings on the vaccine rollout. All demonstrate how crucial video calls and digital solutions have become for foreign policy. This obviously predates COVID, arriving on the scene at the exact moment skype got good. But it is equally obvious that the pandemic has accelerated the need and desire to scrap traditional, in-person diplomacy.
Weighing up the pros and cons of this zoomification has become a favorite past-time of foreign policy observers and columnists.
The named benefits invariably revolve around notions of ease and convenience. It is much easier and cheaper to organize a zoom summit than an in-person summit. And it could be argued that the former gets right to the meat of an issue while the latter is more of a glorified party. Indeed, there is a fundamental utilitarian appeal to doing diplomacy digitally. It is easier to involve more countries and more perspectives online than in person; easier to go around the global table several times over, as it were. Blinken can 'visit' all of Africa's leaders, for instance, in a fraction of the time it would normally take. Lastly, a government might be interested in having its objectives directly communicated to the relevant parties, as this allows it to retain maximum control over the negotiation process.
The most often stated drawback of digital diplomacy is that it underestimates the importance of spontaneity and unstructured negotiation. There are many famous stories of such impromptu diplomacy, when breakthroughs hinged on some personal and fortuitous encounter. Take as one example the famous ping-pong incident that preceded Nixon’s 1972 China visit; while not technically an official diplomatic act, this events illustrates the power of personal symbolism and well-timed human moments. Furthermore, it is clear that it takes time to build strong diplomatic connections - time simply not possible during a series of zoom calls. And even if an online conference ends with head-nodding and eager smiles, that doesn’t mean the respective positions and priorities of foreign governments have shifted. Digital diplomacy hasn’t been around for long enough to have any real record of accomplishment. And until we have such proof we have no good reason to turn our backs on in-person interactions, especially when dealing with truly important matters.
What I find interesting about this whole debate, beyond the specifics of either position, are the implicit assumptions and characterizations made.
Generally, those on the pro-digital side emphasize, wittingly or not, the empirical element of diplomatic endeavors. In their view, diplomacy is a problem solver, a way of communicating, gathering intelligence, and formulating policy. And, as with most policy-oriented activities, increased efficiency and ease of access are simple goods.
For those who talk mostly about drawbacks, diplomacy is more of an art-form. From this perspective, a diplomat is an expert in human subtilties, someone who combines long-accumulated knowledge with unique negotiating skill. For those who see diplomacy as an exercise in trust and long-term professionalism, it is only natural to leer at the promise of moving online.
It is too soon to settle this debate. In either case, however, I think recent trends will only continue to accelerate, even after COVID. Convenience is the great driver of history, after all, and once an ease has been discovered it is impossible to forget. This does not mean that embassies and diplomats are going away though. Actually, I am sure that these institutions are here to stay.
Nonetheless, countries on both sides of the Atlantic will have to ask themselves with renewed urgency what purpose a foreign service fulfills. And the first step of that conversation is deciding what diplomacy ultimately comes down to. Is it a policy organ unlike any other? Or is it a special craft, with intangible and vital value?
Think on these questions, next time you hear about digital diplomacy. Think of the currents that flow below the surface discussion. The problem at hand really isn't about the 'digital' aspect; questions about zoom and virtual-summits are all mere proxy talk. The larger conversation being had is about the conceptual logic behind the diplomatic corps.
The role of diplomacy has never been more in flux, and every nation will have to chart their own course forward. This bigger issue is just getting started.
Comments