Write a summary in your own words (280 minimum to 400 maximum) of the following text.
People have huge amounts of information to deal with. How do you do this as diplomats? Do you keep it close to your chest? Does information mean power? Or do you share the information with the network in which you are increasingly operating? The playing field is changing very rapidly, partly as a result of digitalisation.
Operating in a network
I used to tell my students that 90% of diplomatic information was in the public domain, but the figure is even higher now. Of course, confidentiality, and even secrecy, are important in diplomacy, particularly when it comes to matters like peace and security. However, diplomatic success depends increasingly on collaboration with others. Collaboration takes place in networks, which are becoming increasingly digital. The rules are not the same as in your own diplomatic circles, where you know roughly how your counterparts work, whatever country they come from. In a network you are not merely an official representative of a government; what defines you more is probably the information you bring to the network. That kind of added value is what people are judged on. That is what you are worth. It is a changing playing field through which information now flows much faster, via your network. And that network is what you rely on.
Role of social media
Everyone immediately thinks of people like Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi or US President Barack Obama, who practise “Twiplomacy” — diplomacy via Twitter. Social media make things more personal and bring people who traditionally operate in the shadows into the limelight, giving an ambassador a face. You can find out what they are doing by following them on their social media account. People also get more “digital personality”. You can be sure that political leaders are cultivating this quite carefully. It’s still the early days. Institutions and individuals still have to adjust and find their voice in the digital age. They are wondering what exactly to do on Twitter. What should they say? A personal note must also serve their professional goals. My opinion is that, in reality, diplomats, who have always been quite focused on their own professional group, might continue in the same vein on social media. Meanwhile, it is important to remember that there are different ways of using social media. We often assume that you interact with those around you on social media. You make sure you tweet every day, you join the conversation. But diplomats also use it passively, following what’s happening. It’s a useful tool that allows you to discover things you might not otherwise find, or at least not as quickly. So, in fact you see a conservative diplomat using new media on a new information playing field in the same way as an intelligence officer.
Fine to make mistakes
The motto at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs used to be “Call DVL!”, the former Information and Communication Department. Wherever you were and whatever happened, if you were approached by the media, you just had to say “Call DVL!”. But that’s all ancient history. The information environment is much more open now, and the people at the embassies have much more freedom to take the initiative. They need background material to give their own account. In this age of social media, we accept that people might make mistakes, and then simply admit it. That’s new. I t used to be f atal f or your career i f you made a mistake. That created a professional culture in which the approach to providing information was extremely conservative. This is all changing, things are gradually becoming more open. The question is no longer “What can we release?”, but “What do we really need to keep secret?”. An essential difference.
New winners
Excellence in terms of responding to the digital environment is partly the preserve of the “usual suspects”, like the US and the UK. But Estonia, India, Kosovo and tech champions like South Korea are also responding well. All aspects of diplomatic work can benefit: searching for information, collaborating with others, explaining what you do, negotiating, how open you can be with the outside world. This question of information is increasingly important. Digitisation is also about the modernisation of diplomacy, becoming more experimental, seeing the network more as the starting point. Questions about digitalisation will then automatically find their way onto the agenda. There are in fact only a few countries that take a holistic view. Digital transformation is a trend in the business world, but it is much less so in the public sector. The reality is that many countries simply do not have the capacity. You can perform a conceptual analysis of the impact of big data, but that is only the start of the challenge. It is also a matter of focus. Like in Estonia and Kosovo, where they are thinking creatively about how communications technology and digital technology can help them achieve what they want with few resources.
Jan Melissen. Diplomacy in the digital age: More than Twiplomacy. May/2016. Internet: <www.clingendael.org> (adapted).