WORKING PAPER SERIES Oxford Digital Research Group Oxford Department of International Development University of Oxford

Ilan Manor The Digitalization of Diplomacy: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Terminology

DigDiploROx Working Paper No 2 (Jan 2018)

Table of Contents

Introduction ...... 3

The Digitalization of Diplomacy - the Need for a New Term ...... 4

The Digitalization of Diplomacy - A Definition ...... 6

The Digitalization of Diplomacy - Mutual Influence ...... 9

The Digital Research Corpus ...... 12

Conclusions ...... 17

To cite this work: Manor, Ilan, “The Digitalization of Diplomacy: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Terminology,” Working Paper No 2. Oxford Digital Diplomacy Research Group (Jan 2018), Available from: http://www.qeh.ox.ac.uk/sites/www.odid.ox.ac.uk/files/DigDiploROxWP2.pdf

2

1. Introduction media profiles while the MFAs of Kenya, Rwanda and Uganda have all 2017 marks a decade since the advent crafted policies for digital diaspora of “digital diplomacy”. What began as outreach. Studies even suggest that an experiment by a select number of African MFAs are as active online as foreign ministries and diplomatic their Western peersv. pioneers, has now become standard practice for diplomatic institutions The past decade has also witnessed the world over. Early examples of increased academic interest in “digital diplomacy” include Sweden’s “digital diplomacy” with scholars virtual embassy to Second Life, evaluating the digital practices of launched in 2007, and the formation embassies, , MFAs and of a US digital outreach team in world leaders. 2006i. To date, scholars and practitioners Over the past decade, the utilization have offered different terms to of digital technologies in diplomacy conceptualize the growing influence has become increasingly diverse. of digital technologies on diplomacy. Within the realm of , These have included net diplomacy, Norwegian are using cyber diplomacy, diplomacy 2.0, Skype to converse with university networked diplomacy, real-time students, while Palestine is diplomacy and 21st century statecraft embracing Facebook as a medium for (See Hocking & Meissen’s 2015 report engaging with Israeli citizensii. The for their taxonomy)vi. Similarly, while Indian MFA (Ministry of Foreign the Israeli MFA uses the term ‘digital Affairs) is developing computer diplomacy’, the Finnish ministry games for children of Indian proposes the term ‘diplomacy in the Diasporas, while the Georgian digital age’. The difference between Diaspora Ministry offers online the two in not merely semantic. The courses in the Georgian language. UN latter implies that the conduct of Ambassadors are employing diplomacy has remained similar but WhatsApp to coordinate their votes it is now practiced in new digital on various resolutions while the environments. Digital diplomacy, by Kenyan foreign ministry is contrast, is a term that could allude to increasingly using Twitter to deliver an entirely new form of diplomacy. emergency consular aidiii. More recently, MFAs have begun to employ The plurality of terms relating to software programmers so as to technology's impact on diplomacy analyse big data sets and manipulate stems from the fact that new social media algorithms using Botsiv. platforms, tools and practices continue to immerge. In 2016, MFAs The utilization of digital technologies were increasingly concerned with the in diplomacy is now also a global use of Twitter to manage their phenomenon. The MFAs of Egypt, national image. Nowadays, MFAs are Jordan and Qatar all operate social developing algorithms to fracture 3 echo chambers of hate and technologies on the radicalization. Similarly, MFAs are conceptualization, practice and migrating to new digital arenas such institutions of diplomacy. as Wikipedia and Google Earth. Additionally, I demonstrate the manner in which this term can help Numerous scholars and diplomats scholars map the existing research have adopted the term “digital corpus and identify new avenues of diplomacy” when referring to the research. intersection between digital technologies and diplomacy. This paper therefore aims to clarify a However, scholars have yet to offer a fractured terminology through the clear definition of this term. The introduction of a new and more search for such a definition is an inclusive term “the digitalization of important one. For practitioners, diplomacy”viii. definitions help conceptualize how diplomacy should be practiced, what 2. The Digitalization of working routines need to be altered Diplomacy- the Need for a New and which skills must be acquired. If Term diplomats conceptualize the world as networked they may increasingly Recent years have seen an abundance strive to become nodes in trans- of terms referencing the influence of national advocacy networks. But if digital technologies on diplomacy. diplomats conceptualize the world as Some terms focus more on the hierarchical they may place an conceptualization of diplomacy in a emphasis on engaging with elites. digital world. Such is the case with ‘networked diplomacy’ and ‘21st Definitions are also important to century statecraft’. Other terms scholars who rely on them to centre on the characteristics of digital formulate hypotheses, select case technologies. Examples include: studies and identify research ‘public diplomacy 2.0’, which draws avenues. Indeed the terms ‘public its name from the concept of web 2.0; diplomacy 2.0’ and ‘networked ‘net diplomacy’, which relates more diplomacy’ have both stimulated broadly to the internet and considerable academic researchvii. ‘Twiplomacy’, which references Twitterix. Some terms even focus on In this working paper I argue that the attributes of the digital society. none of the terms employed thus far These include ‘selfie diplomacy’ and in the context of digital technologies ‘real time diplomacy’x. Finally, terms and diplomacy are sufficient. In such as “cyber diplomacy” relate to addition, I propose that practitioners new diplomatic arenasxi. and scholars adopt the term “the digitalization of diplomacy” in Other scholars employ the term reference to the impact of digital “digital diplomacy”. Yet, this term has technologies on diplomacy. It is my traditionally been defined within the contention that this term more fully context of specific studies. For encapsulates the influence of digital instance, in 2015 Segev and Manor 4 defined digital diplomacy as the use engage and the technologies they of social media by a state to achieve employ to achieve their goals. Even its foreign policy goals and manage more importantly, digitalization is a its national imagexii. The same year process that, over time, redistributes Bjola and Holmes defined digital power within diplomatic institutions. diplomacy as a tool for change management while in 2012 Potter Second, the aforementioned terms stated that digital diplomacy is the fail to clearly identify the domains of conduct of diplomacy through diplomacy that are influenced by networked technologiesxiii. Finally, in digital technologies. While some 2016, Manor re-defined digital terms focus on digital platforms, diplomacy as the overall impact ICTs others relate to the audiences of (Information and Communication diplomacy, while still others deal Technologies) have had on the mostly with the conduct of conduct of diplomacy- ranging from diplomacy. As such, none of these the email to smartphone terms offer a systematic classification applicationsxiv. through which the influence of digitalization can be investigated. In What emerges from the addition, none of these terms aforementioned definitions is a state encapsulate the overarching influence of fractured terminology in which digital technologies have had on some terms are too broad, such as diplomacy. “digital diplomacy, while others are to narrow, such as “Public Diplomacy Lastly, digital technologies do not 2.0”. merely offer new functionalities. Rather, they promote new norms and Additionally, it is the contention of facilitate new behaviours. These, in this working paper that none of the turn, influence the practice of aforementioned terms, including diplomacy. For instance, digital digital diplomacy, are sufficient as technologies enable individuals to they fail to capture three distinct create and disseminate content on a features of the intersection between global scale. This has given rise to a diplomacy and digital technologies. new form of journalism known as “citizen journalism”. From a The first feature is that digitalization normative perspective, citizen is a process rather than a binary state. journalists are seen as adding to the In other words, one cannot separate diversity of voices heard in the digital diplomats into those that are digital town square. From a behavioural and those that are not. Rather, perspective, internet users diplomats, MFAs and embassies are increasingly seek the analysis of all undergoing a process of citizen journalists. The rise of citizen digitalization. This process is journalists, and their ability to influencing the manner in which influence how publics perceive issues diplomats envision their world, the and events, prompted MFAs to habits of their intended audiences, migrate online in the first placexv. the actors with whom they seek to 5

In summary, the terms employed audiences of diplomacy, the thus far in the context of digital institutions of diplomacy, the technologies and diplomacy are practitioners of diplomacy and the lacking as they fail to offer a robust practice of diplomacy. conceptual prism or a system of classification. It is the contention of Moreover, the term is used in this working paper that term “the reference to four fields. The first field digitalization of diplomacy” more is a normative one which centres on fully captures the temporal and norms, values and beliefs. The second normative influences of digital field is behavioural as the adoption of technologies. The following section norms and beliefs gives way to elaborates on this term. behaviour change. The third field is procedural and relates to patterns of 3. The Digitalization of use and standard operating Diplomacy - A Definition procedures. The fourth field is conceptual and relates to the “The digitalization of diplomacy” is a metaphors and mental schemata term that centres on the normative individuals employ to imagine their and temporal influences of digital world. technologies. Imbued within this term is the view that digitalization is What emerges from “the a long term process whose influence digitalization of diplomacy” is the 4*4 far transcends the utilization of matrix shown in table 1. innovative technologies.

I employ the term “the digitalization of diplomacy” in reference to the impact digital technologies have had on four dimensions of diplomacy: The Table 1: The Digitalization of Diplomacy- Dimensions and Fields

Normative Dimensions (norms, Behavioural Procedural Conceptual of Diplomacy values, beliefs)

Audiences of Diplomacy

Institutions of Diplomacy Practitioners of Diplomacy

Practice of Diplomacy

6

transparent in relation to his work. In In table 2 (see page 7) I provide an other words, personal self-exposure example of how “the digitalization of may soon give way to increased diplomacy” offers insight into the professional transparency. audiences of diplomacy. As others have argued, the digital society is a When examining the institutions of sharing society which celebrates diplomacy (see Table 2, line 2) digital transparency and the continuous technologies have also facilitated the revealing of personal informationxvi. adoption of new norms and beliefs. Only last year a university Professor One example is valuing online became an online idol for publishing dialogue given connected publics’ a CV of his failures which listed all willingness to interact with the grants and positions he was diplomats. This norm has led to the unable to securexvii. This example adoption of new behaviour - suggests that digitalization has “listening” to the feedback of online impacted societal norms and values publicsxx. In addition, new working and, by extension, facilitated the procedures have been put in place behaviour of self-exposure. such as incorporating followers’ feedback into policy formulation. However, individuals not only share Finally, the growing importance of their failures online, they also share online publics has led to a conceptual their opinions, feelings, political shift as the network metaphor is used affiliations and understanding of to envision the environment in which local and global events. Digitalization diplomacy is practiced. Importantly, has thus given rise to an opinionated before diplomacy can be practiced, it online public that is “clamouring to must be imagined by diplomats. be heard”xviii. From a conceptual perspective, online audiences Next, one may examine the increasingly envision the networked practitioners of diplomacy (see Table society as a sharing society in which 2, line 3). Here, digital technologies “sharing is caring”. have also led to a normative change as digitalization forces diplomats to Markedly, it is interesting to begin adopt a new kind of openness given the analysis of digitalization from the the increased agency of non-state audiences of diplomacy given that actors (i.e., online publics, civil diplomacy is a social institution and society organizations, NGOs). This that diplomats are social beingsxix. has led to a subsequent change in Thus, societal norms, beliefs and diplomats’ behaviour as they now aim metaphors impact diplomats and, in to form temporary alliances, or turn, the practice diplomacy. Once an networks, to advance specific goals has used WhatsApp to (e.g., network of NGOs, UN missions communicate with his family he may and online publics to advance a soon use it to communicate with his human rights resolution). From a peers. Similarly, once a has procedural perspective, digital embraced a sharing mentality on technologies have led diplomats to Facebook, he may also become more engage with a plethora of new actors, 7 both online and offline. Finally, as Heine has argued, diplomats have begun to abandon the metaphor of the exclusive club for that of the inclusive network.

After taking into account the audiences, institutions and practitioners of diplomacy, one can also investigate digital technologies’ impact on the practice of diplomacy (see Tabl2 line 4) which is now collaborative in nature as it requires the formation of goal-oriented networks in which multiple stakeholders come together to achieve foreign policy goals.

Table 2: The Digitalization of Diplomacy- Examples

Normative Dimensions (norms, Behavioural Procedural Conceptual of Diplomacy values, beliefs) Sharing one’s Networked Audiences of Increased opinions/feelings/ society is a Self-exposure Diplomacy transparency achievements sharing online society Listening to global Incorporating Networks as Institutions Valuing audiences followers’ a metaphor of Diplomacy dialogue who offer feedback into of diplomacy online policy formulation feedback Opening up of diplomacy- Temporary From club diplomats Practitioners alliances with mentality to Openness engaging with of Diplomacy various network individuals, stakeholders mentality groups, organizations Goal oriented Multi- networks with Practice of Collaboration stakeholder connected Networking Diplomacy diplomacy publics, civil society orgs

8

social ties, Twitter is utilized for The term “the digitalization of information gathering and LinkedIn diplomacy”, as employed in the is used for seeking employment examples above, suggests that opportunities. The rise of social scholars and practitioners can focus media sites has caused individuals to on four dimensions of diplomacy embrace the norm of connectivity as (e.g., audiences, institutions) and s/he who is not connected is left four fields of influence (e.g., outside the sphere of social and conceptual or behavioural). While professional life. The behaviour that some scholars may investigate new follows this norm is maintaining working procedures in MFAs, others several social media accounts and, can focus on the various metaphors procedurally, using social media sites Ambassadors employ when practicing to seek information, news and diplomacy. analysis. Conceptually, people now view the online environment as an As such, this matrix can bring order extension of the offline one. This was to the somewhat chaotic study of not the case in the late 1990s when contemporary diplomacy. Moreover, individuals marvelled at the this matrix can be used by anonymity afforded by the internet practitioners to evaluate their and one’s ability to distinguish institutional capacity to adopt new between his/her offline and online technologies or reflect on the persona (see page 10, Table 3). changing nature of diplomacy in the digital age. Both of these exercises The norm of connectivity, and the can lead to normative, procedural procedure of seeking news online, has and behavioural changes among impacted the institutions of diplomatic institutions thus paving diplomacy who use online platforms the way to more effective diplomacy. to deliver services and information to their citizens (see page 10, Table 3). Notably, one can also use this matrix This has been made apparent during to chart how the four dimensions of consular crises in which embassies diplomacy influence one and diplomats employ social media another. This is demonstrated in the and messaging apps to communicate following section. with citizens affected by natural disasters or terror attacksxxi. The 4. The Digitalization of growing use of digital platforms to Diplomacy - Mutual Influence deliver consular aid has led diplomatic institutions to adopt new The global proliferation of social beliefs as they now regard themselves media sites has seen the mass as “service providers”xxii. This, in migration of individuals of all ages turn, has led to new working online (note: there are still gaps when procedures such as issuing guidelines examining world regions). Notably, for embassies’ use of social media individuals now use different social during consular crises and media sites for different purposes. conducting digital simulations of While Facebook is used to maintain emergency situationsxxiii. From a 9 conceptual perspective, MFAs increasingly envision diplomacy as a domestic task thus giving rise to the concept of domestic diplomacyxxiv.

The practice of domestic diplomacy has also influenced practitioners of diplomacy who are more willing to relinquish control over the communication process and engage with their citizens onlinexxv. From a behavioural perspective, embassies and diplomats now curate information for their followers thus ensuring the accuracy of information delivered online. This has also brought about a conceptual shift in which power is seen to be migrating from the MFA to the embassy as it is the embassy that is tasked with aiding citizens or conversing with online publics.

Lastly, the practice of diplomacy has also changed given that diplomacy must react to events as they unfold. This has given rise to what Philip Seib has dubbed ‘real-time diplomacy. Indeed, during the 2017 London terror attacks, embassies found themselves curating online information and providing citizens with advice as events unfolded on their television screensxxvi.

10

Table 3: The Digitalization of Diplomacy- Tracing Influence

Dimensions Normative of (norms, values, Behavioural Procedural Conceptual Diplomacy beliefs) Online Maintaining Seeking environment Audiences of several social Connectivity information/ as extension Diplomacy media news/analysis of offline accounts environment Guidelines Using social for embassies Institutions MFAs as media to using social Domestic of service deliver media during Diplomacy Diplomacy providers consular aid consular crises Curating Relinquishing information Migration of Practitioners control over for followers; Crowd- power from of the real time sourcing MFA to the Diplomacy communication engagement consular aid embassy process

Information Favouring Identifying sharing as Real Time Practice of speed and reliable opposed to Diplomacy Diplomacy timing over sources of information (Seib) accuracy information keeping

11

As the next section argues, “the nodes in a myriad of intersecting digitalization of diplomacy” can also global networks. From a behavioural help scholars map the existing perspective, Bjola and Pamment research corpus. explore how diplomatic institutions can pursue tactics of digital 5. The Digital Research Corpus containment to combat dis- informationxxxi. When examining the Using the matrix of dimensions and procedures of diplomatic institutions, fields proposed in this working paper, Segev and Manor analyse the use of one can begin to map the existing social media to narrate a national research corpus. A partial mapping is Selfie while Hallams focuses on the shown in Table 8 (pages 13-14). competition between online narrativesxxxii. As can be seen, some scholars have focused on the audiences of More recently, Bean and Comor diplomacy. Haynal’s assertion that investigated how the connected publics are volatile and conceptualization of public diplomacy unpredictable refers to the norms as “data driven” has led the US State held byonline users who view digital Department to favour influence and interactions as a two-way audience manipulation over dialogue communicative processxxvii. and mutual understandingxxxiii. This Moreover, online publics can be “data-driven” conceptualization is a extremely sceptical as they feel that result of entrenched norms and Twiplomacy is actually Twipoganda. values adopted during the Cold War, Therefore, such publics may be eager pre-existing behaviours of US to counter or reject diplomatic diplomats and mandated procedures messaging. An interesting case study such as employing quantitative is the global rejection of Michel assessment tools in the search for Obama’s famous selfie with the “cost effective” public diplomacy. hashtag “Bring Back Our Girls”xxviii. Notably, Bean and Comor’s paper seems to follow the matrix of Conversely, Hayden argues that influence introduced in this working online publics are not assembled in paper. one place, or on one site, and thus constitute networks of selective Other studies have investigated the exposurexxix. This has led MFAs to practitioners of diplomacy, including strategically tailor their messaging by Archetti’s view of diplomacy as an identifying which audiences can be evolutionary model of change that found on each digital platform. diplomats must adapt to and Pamment’s analysis of British online Much of the research corpus focuses diplomacy as transmedia on the institutions of diplomacy. engagementxxxiv. Slaughter argues that in a networked world a nation’s networked-ness is as Studies have also examined the important as its traditional powerxxx. practice of diplomacy in digital Thus, MFAs must become integral environments. Seib’s conceptual 12 contribution focuses on the metaphor of real-time diplomacy while Rana explores a new procedure- engaging online with national Diasporas and leveraging digital relationships with Diasporasxxxv. From a behavioural perspective, Jenifer Cassidy and I examine digital crisis managementxxxvi.

13

Table 4: Mapping the Existing Research Corpus

Normative DimensionsDimensions of Normative (norms, values, Behavioural Procedural Conceptual Diplomacyof (norms, values, Behavioural Procedural Conceptual Diplomacy beliefs)beliefs) Diplomats must Digital publics constitute Digital publics as Diplomacy as conceptualize networks of Peer-to-peer Audiences of volatile and engaging with and imagine selective diplomacy Diplomacy unpredictable Public connected publics digital exposure (Attias, 2012) (Haynal, 2011) Diplomacy 2.0 (Melissen, 2005) diplomacy (Hayden, (Khatib, Digital From club mentality to before it can be 2012) Dutton & diplomacy networkNetpolitik mentality practiced Selfie Practitioners as (Firestone(Heine, & 2013 Dong,) Thelwall, diplomacy (Manor, 2016) 2015) of 2017) transmedia(Manor & Diplomacy Networked engagementSegev, 2015; Where is the Digital diplomacy 21st century diplomacy Manor,(Pamment, 2017 ) headquarters (Golberg as a clash between statecraft (Hayden, (Anne Marie traditional and 2015) & Kaduck,2012) 2011) Digital Slaughter, Digital agenda transparent Twiplomacy diplomacy as an 2009) setting (Bjola diplomacy study 2017 MFAs as service evolutionary & Jiang, 2017) (Hocking & providers (Manor, Digital modelMelissen, of change 2017) diplomacy and E- diplomacy (Archetti,2015;Wichowski, 2012) Institutions of digital (Hocking & Lack 2015)of online The connective Diplomacy containment Melissen, Real-Time Diplomacy mindshift engagement with (Bjola & 2015) (2012) (Zaharna, social media Pamment, Digital Aresnault & users (Kampf, 2016) DigitalDigital Digital diplomacy as Digital diplomacy Fisher, 2013) diplomacy as Diplomacy as Manoras managing & Segev, diaspora change management Practice of Publiccrisis a battle over organizational2015) diplomacy (BjolaDigital & Holmes, Diplomacy communicationDiplomacy 2.0 narratives culture of MFAs (Rana, engagement2015) (Metzgar, (Hallams, (Bjola, 2017) (Cassidy & (Comor, 2013) New public 2012) 2013)2010) diplomacy in the Manor, 2016) Diplomacy in the st Data-Driven Public 21 century Diplomacy 2.0 digital age (Hocking & Diplomacy (Bean (Harris, 2012) Melissen) (Pamment, 2013) & Comor, 2017)

14

Normative Dimensions (norms, values, Behavioural Procedural Conceptual of Diplomacy beliefs) Diplomats must From club conceptualize and Public mentality to imagine digital Diplomacy 2.0 network diplomacy before Digital (Khatib, Dutton mentality it can be practiced diplomacy & Thelwall, (Heine, (Manor, 2016) as Practitioners 2017) 2013) transmedia of Diplomacy engagement Where is the (Pamment, headquarters Digital diplomacy 2015) Twiplomacy (Golberg & as an evolutionary study 2017 Kaduck, model of change 2011) (Archetti, 2012) Real-Time Diplomacy (2012) Lack of online Digital engagement with diplomacy as social media users Digital Digital change (Kampf, Manor & diplomacy as diaspora management Practice of Segev, 2015) crisis diplomacy (Bjola & Diplomacy communication (Rana, Holmes, New public (Cassidy & 2013) 2015) diplomacy in the Manor, 2016) 21st century Diplomacy (Pamment, 2013) in the digital age (Hocking & Melissen, 2015)

15

includes a temporal dimension and views digitalization as a long term process. Thus, it negates the dichotomous view of diplomats as 5. Conclusions being either digital or not digital. Second, it clearly identifies four The emergence of digital technologies domains of diplomacy that have been has had a profound impact on the influenced by digital technologies. conduct and study of diplomacy. Lastly, it incorporates a normative MFAs, embassies and diplomats are element that places greater emphasis continuously embracing new tools on norms, values and beliefs and the and platforms while also reimagining behaviour that follow. the environment in which diplomacy is practiced. It is the inclusion of a normative element in “the digitalization of Recent years have also seen increased diplomacy” that recognizes the academic interest in the intersection manner in which culture can between diplomacy and digital influence the practice of diplomacy. technologies. Scholars have evaluated Moreover, the term proposed in this diplomats’ use of digital tools to paper recognizes that diplomats are engage with new audiences, social beings and that before overcome the limitation of traditional diplomacy can be practiced it must be diplomacy, collaborate with new imagined. actors and promote cross-cultural dialogue. In summary, this paper sought to clarify a fractured terminology and However, both scholars and offer a more systematic approach to diplomats continue to search for a the study of digital technologies’ term that best describes the impact of impact on diplomacy. digital technologies on diplomacy. This search is an important one for it Importantly, this paper argues that is through terms and definitions that the term "the digitalization of academics and practitioners make diplomacy", and its matrix of sense of the world around them. influence, can aid scholars in mapping the existing research corpus To date, the search for such a term and identifying new avenues of has led to a fractured terminology investigation. Thus, this term brings which is either too narrow in its order to a somewhat chaotic field. It scope, such as Twiplomacy, or to is therefore appropriate to end this inclusive, such as the catch all phrase working paper by identifying the digital diplomacy. research agendas currently being explored by diplomacy, international This working paper aimed to address relations and communication this substantial gap by proposing a scholars. new term- “the digitalization of diplomacy”. I have argued that this term offers three advantages. First, it 16

Bjola and Pamment are investigating procedures of diplomatic institutions, the use of digital platforms in CVE already suggest that digital spaces are activities (countering violent increasingly militarized by MFAs and extremism). Recent years have seen a diplomats. Similarly, Taylor Owen’s growing number of MFAs and research will continue to investigate diplomats practicing CVE, both on the impact of digital disruption of social media and elsewhere. Bjola and diplomatic institutionsxl. Pamment’s work will shed light on the new behaviours and procedures Jan Melissen’s work will offer insight of diplomatic institutions as well as into how South-East Asian MFAs are new beliefs held by diplomats adapting to the norms and values regarding the dangers of celebrated by the digital society. By so digitalization. doing, Melissen’s work will delve deeper into the normative field of Trail-blazers such as Jenifer Cassidy diplomacy and the contradiction and Rhys Crilley will continue to between the values held by the digital focus on the practice of diplomacy. society and the values held by Cassidy’s work on digital signalling diplomats. His colleague, Sean will reveal the procedures that govern Riordan will ask a more basic digital crisis diplomacy. Crilley’s question- who is a diplomat in the original work on the use of images by digital age? Located within the MFAs will examine both the domain of practitioners of diplomacy, normative and behavioural aspects of Riordan’s work will focus on the practicing diplomacy in a visual digital empowerment of non-state agexxxvii. actors xli.

The works of Ben O’Loughlin, Alister Marcus Holmes’ project on the Miskimmon and Laura Roselle on digitalization of Palestinian public digital narratives focuses on both the diplomacy will analyse MFAs’ use of audiences of diplomacy, who are digital tools to overcome the exposed to contradicting narratives, limitation of traditional diplomacy. and the practitioners of diplomacy, Similarly, Comor and Bean are likely who formulate and disseminate to expand their work on the norms narratives online. Their work, which and beliefs that govern US digitalized is situated at the intersection between public diplomacy, both from an diplomacy, societal norms, and individual and institutional digital culture, will further investigate perspective. the normative and procedural fields of the practice of diplomacyxxxviii. Sean Powers, who now heads the US Advisory Commission on Public Phillip Howard and Robert Gorwa of Diplomacy, will ask- can public the Oxford Internet Institute will diplomacy survive the internet? The examine the role of Bots and Commission’s recent report, which I computational propaganda in hope is the first of many, explores the modern diplomacyxxxix. Their series of internet’s influence on the normative working papers, which focus on the 17 and behavioural fields of diplomats diplomacy; drone use for consular and diplomatic institutionsxlii. aid; 3D printing for foreign aid projects (e.g., printing and building Lastly, Segev and Manor will research cheap homes for refugees) and cyber the influence of the network structure agreements regarding free movement on interactions between MFAs while of autonomous cars across borders. Kampf and Manor will evaluate if digital nativity influences the practice So as the digital age continues to of digital diplomacy evolve so will this research corpus continue to expand and diversify. Future avenues of research will arise from new technologies including virtual reality as a tool for cultural i Manor, I (2015, June). On Virtual content/uploads/sites/89/2017/07/Troops- Embassies in the Age of Digital Diplomacy. Trolls-and-Troublemakers.pdf Exploring Digital Diplomacy. https://digdipblog.com/2014/06/25/on- v Kampf, R., Manor, I., & Segev, E. (2015). virtual-embassies-in-the-age-of-digital- Digital diplomacy 2.0? A cross-national diplomacy/ ;Khatib, L., Dutton, W., & comparison of public engagement in Thelwall, M. (2012). Public diplomacy 2.0: Facebook and Twitter. The Hague Journal A case study of the US digital outreach of Diplomacy, 10(4), 331-362. team. The Middle East Journal, 66(3), 453- 472. vi Hocking, B., & Melissen, J. (2015). ii Manor, I. (2015, March). Norway’s in the digital age. Clingendael, Engagement Model A Much Warranted Netherlands Institute of International Change. Exploring Digital Diplomacy. Relations. https://digdipblog.com/2015/03/08/norwa https://www.clingendael.nl/sites/default/fi ys-new-engagement-model-a-much- les/Digital_Diplomacy_in_the_Digital%20 warranted-change/; Manor, I., & Holmes, Age_Clingendael_July2015.pdf. M. (2017, July 31). Online Palestine is Advicating Peace. The Jeruslaem Post . vii Manor, I. (2016). Are We There Yet: Have Retrieved from MFAs Realized the Potential of Digital http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Online- Diplomacy?. Brill Research Perspectives in Palestine-is-advocating-peace-501268 Diplomacy and Foreign Policy, 1(2), 1-110.

viii This title borrows from Robert Entman's iii Manor, I. (2015, January). How Kenya’s seminal article "Framing: Toward MFA Leads by Example. Exploring Digital Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm", Diplomacy. Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward https://digdipblog.com/2015/01/04/kenya clarification of a fractured / paradigm. Journal of

communication, 43(4), 51-58. iv Bradshaw, S. & Howard, P. (2017). Troops, ix Trolls and Troublemakers: A Global Cull, N. J. (2013). The long road to public Inventory of Organized Social Media diplomacy 2.0: The Internet in US public Manipulation. Working Paper no 2017.12, diplomacy. International Studies Review, Oxford Internet Institute’s Computational 15(1), 123-139. Propaganda Research Project. http://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/wp- 18

access/social-media-at-state-power- x Manor, I. America’s selfie–Three years practice-and-conceptual-limits-for-us- later. Place Branding and Public public-diplomacy.pdf Diplomacy, 1-17.; Seib, P. (2012). Real-time diplomacy: politics and power in the social xix I thank Jan Melissen for this insight media era. Springer. xx Metzgar, E. T. (2012). Is it the medium or xi Riordan, S. (2016, May). Cyber Diplomacy the message? Social media, American public vs. Digital Diplomacy: A Terminological diplomacy & Iran. Global Media Distinction. USC Center on Public Journal, 12, 1-16. Diplomacy Blog. Retrieved from xxi https://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/blog/cyber Manor, I (2016, March). How Russia -diplomacy-vs-digital-diplomacy- Practices Digital Diplomacy- Interview with terminological-distinction Press Attaché to London. Exploring Digital Diplomacy. xii Manor, I., & Segev, E. (2015). America’s https://digdipblog.com/2016/03/13/how- selfie: How the US portrays itself on its russia-practices-digital-diplomacy- social media accounts. Digital diplomacy: interview-with-press-attache-at-russian- Theory and practice, 89-108. embassy-to-london/

xxii Manor, I. (2017). Summary Report- xiii Bjola, C., & Holmes, M. (2015). Digital Israel’s First Digital Diplomacy Conference. Diplomacy: Theory and Practice. Routledge; Adesina, O. S. (2017). Foreign xxiii See Manor, I. 2016. Are We There Yet? policy in an era of digital diplomacy. Cogent Social Sciences, 3(1), 1297175. xxv Manor, I. (2016, April). Is Digital http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.10 Diplomacy Really Domestic Diplomacy. 80/23311886.2017.1297175 Exploring Digital Diplomacy.https://digdipblog.com/2016/0

4/07/is-digital-diplomacy-really-domestic- xiv See Manor, I. 2016, Are We There Yet? diplomacy/ xv See Manor, I. 2016. Are We There Yet?;

Seib, P. (2012). Real-time diplomacy: xxvi Manor, I. (2017, March). How Embassies politics and power in the social media era; Managed the London Terror Attack.

Exploring DigitalDiplomacy. xvi Wichowski, A. (2015). Secrecy is for https://digdipblog.com/2017/03/23/how- losers’: Why diplomats should embrace embassies-managed-the-london-terror- openness to protect national security. attack/ Digital Diplomacy Theory and Practice, 52-70. xxvii Haynal, G. (2011). Corporate Diplomacy in the Infromation Age.: Catching Up to the

Dispersal of Power. In J. G. Stein (Ed.), xvii See https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 Diplomacy in the Digital Age: Essays in 016/apr/30/cv-of-failures-princeton- Honour of Ambassador Allan Gotlieb (pp. professor-publishes-resume-of-his-career- 209-224). Ontario: Signal. lows xxviii Manor, I. (2014, May 20). Why Michelle

Obama’s tweet matters. The Times of Israel. xviii Hayden, C. (2012). Social media at state: Retrieved from Power, practice, and conceptual limits for http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/why- US public diplomacy. Global Media michele-obamas-tweet-matters/ Journal, 12, 1-21. http://www.globalmediajournal.com/open- 19

xxxv See Seib, P. (2012). Real-time xxix See Hayde, C. (2012). Social media at diplomacy; Rana, K. S. (2013). Diaspora state: Power, practice, and conceptual limits Diplomacy and Public Diplomacy. for US public diplomacy Relational, Networked and Collaborative Approaches to Public Diplomacy: The xxx Slaughter, A. M. (2009). America's edge: Connective Mindshift, 70-85. Power in the networked century. Foreign Affairs, 94-113. xxxvi Cassidy, J., & Manor, I. (2016). Crafting xxxi Bjola, C., & Pamment, J. (2016). Digital strategic MFA communication policies containment: Revisiting containment during times of political crisis: a note to strategy in the digital age. Global Affairs, MFA policy makers. Global Affairs, 2(3), 2(2), 131-142. 331-343.

xxxii See Manor, I. & Segev, E. (2015). xxxvii da Silva, R., & Crilley, R. (2017). “Talk America’s selfie: How the US portrays itself about terror in our back gardens”: an on its social media accounts. Digital analysis of online comments about British diplomacy: Theory and practice, 89-108; foreign fighters in Syria. Critical Studies on Hallams, E. (2010). Digital diplomacy: the Terrorism, 10(1), 162-186. internet, the battle for ideas & US foreign http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.10 policy. CEU Political Science Journal, 4, 80/17539153.2016.1237011 538-574. http://politicalscience.ceu.edu/sites/politic xxxviii Miskimmon, A., O'Loughlin, B., & alscience.ceu.hu/files/basic_page/field_att Roselle, L. (2014). Strategic narratives: achment/vol54.pdf#page=58 Communication power and the new world order (Vol. 3). Routledge. xxxiii Bean, H., & Comor, E. (2017). Data-

Driven Public Diplomacy: A Critical and xxxix Visit http://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/ Reflexive Assessment.http://www.foreignpolicyandpe xl Owen, T. (2015). Disruptive power: The ace.org/wp- crisis of the state in the digital age. Oxford content/uploads/2017/05/BeanComor- Studies in Digital Politics. 1506online.pdf

xli See list of essays at the USC CPD Blog- xxxiv Archetti, C. (2012). The impact of new https://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/users/shau media on diplomatic practice: an n-riordan evolutionary model of change. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 7(2), 181-206.; xlii Powers, S., & Kounalakis, M. (2017, Pamment, J. (2016). Digital diplomacy as May). Can public diplomacy survive the transmedia engagement: Aligning theories internet? Bots, echo chambers, of participatory culture with international and disinformation. U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy. advocacy campaigns. new media & society, Retrieved from 18(9), 2046-2062; https://www.state.gov/documents/organiza http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.11 tion/271028.pdf 77/1461444815577792

20