The relevance of the time-honoured tradition of severing diplomatic ties during a moment of hot dispute is at stake, and along with it, Nicolson’s claim that “in every democracy power rests with just three or four individuals only. Nobody but the resident ambassador can get to know these individuals intimately”[1] has taken a mortal blow. This is because, as we shall see, in the modern age the physical presence of a sending state in a receiving state is no longer strongly correlated with the capacity to deliver what Richelieu called ‘continual negotiation’. However, at the same time, the very same developments threatening the resident ambassador show promising potential for enhancing the interpersonal relationships of diplomats in general.
But how has this situation been brought about? Well, we only need to look towards something as mundane as Twitter to begin to see how it is modern methods of communication that are driving this change in diplomatic practice.
In the early days of January 2016, two United States Navy patrol boats unwittingly entered Iranian waters, and to the embarrassment of the Americans, their naval men, along with their boat, were both quickly detained by Iranian military forces. The Iranians were quick to capitalise the event for propaganda purposes, with a media spectacle being created around scenes of captured American military personnel being well treated and served food by their captors. Eventually this led to a scene of a crying naval man as he heard the news that the crisis had been resolved during a series of phone calls between the then secretary of state John Kerry and his counterpart in Iran Mohammad Javad Sarif[2]. Whilst this was a small event, it clearly had the potential to escalate into something more serious when considering that relations between the two powers were so dire that their diplomatic ties had been severed for almost 40 years.
Duncombe notes how the resolution to the crises was announced by both parties over Twitter and says that “given the difficulties of high-level diplomatic interaction between Iran and the United States since the severing of diplomatic ties in 1980, social media have become a significant platform on which diplomats can communicate”[3]. Furthermore, she contends that during the negotiations between the United States and Iran on the latter’s nuclear ambitions, then secretary of state Johny Kerry and his Iranian counterpart Mohammad Javad Sarif were able to build up a close rapport. This rapport was then sustained in part through an ability to freely communicate back-and-forth over Twitter, and this is what enabled the crises to be resolved so quickly. Such developments don’t bode well for the future of the resident ambassador, and his or her embassy, as these communicative platforms clearly enable a quick and easy direct-contact method for top officials to vent without the need of an interlocutor, as exemplified by this example[4].
Her key argument is that “the role of Twitter as a key part of negotiating strategy is a crucial demonstration of how social media can shape the struggle for recognition, and thereby legitimize political possibilities for change”[5]. Indeed, she thinks that this was a major factor in opening up the political space for a dialogue with Iran over its nuclear ambitions, as she asks what is it that changed since the time that George W. Bush linked Iran to an ‘axis of evil’.
If one does buy into the argument that Twitter, and indeed other forms of social media, act as an important mechanism of modern diplomacy. Then some major questions are raised, such as to what extent does the use of social media enhance or diminish the social bonds that diplomats create? Maintaining cordial relations with a huge variety of actors comprises some of the most important parts of a diplomat’s work, and yet the bonds that humans create face-to-face can be fickle. A study into the lives of investment bankers highlights this, as it showed that after the period of a year, three in four of their relationships would be over[6]. This was a conclusion roughly in line with a similar study done into the lives of some residents of Toronto, which showed that just 27% of their relationships would still exist after a decade[7]. If digital diplomacy can help to strengthen interpersonal ties, then surely, this is a good thing for diplomatic practice?
Contrast these studies with a study done into Polish expatriates based in Dublin, which investigated what effect social media networks might have on their social ties and migration patterns. It concluded that whilst modern society is becoming increasingly transient, for the people studied, social media had enabled them to reduce the negative effect distance had on their social ties and enhance their mobility by providing a ready way of connecting with people with the people in their pre-existing community. This was brought home by the fact that when questioned about the places where their top six friends resided, the males on average had 18.2% residing in neither Dublin nor Poland and the females 12.8%[8]. Obviously, in a world with six to seven billion people it would follow that those living abroad would likely be the first to face culling when the workload of correspondence becomes too daunting, and yet this has not been the case due to social media.
Indeed, when applied to the diplomatic realm such results suggest that social media has made the act of communication exponentially easier for diplomats too, and that in turn this has decreased the risks that they are exposed to when forgoing frequent contact with people for whom they have become acquainted with in the past. This is important for diplomacy, as when one forgoes frequent contact with an old friend, the risk is that they lose favour as somebody new curries it and a conflict of interest arises, or they simply forget about you. Therefore, there is likely a promising potential for social media to strengthen the interpersonal relationships of diplomats over prolonged periods of time.
[1] Nicolson, H. (2001). p. 82.
[2] De Luce, D. (2016).
[3] Duncombe, C. (2017). p. 546.
[4] Duncombe, C. pp. 556-561.
[5] Ibid. p. 548.
[6] Burt, R.S. (2000).
[7] Wellman, B., Wong, R.Y.-l., Tindall, D., & Nazer, N. (1997).
[8] Komito, L. and Bates, J. (2009). pp. 242-243.
Bibliography
Burt, R.S. (2000). Decay functions. Social Networks, 22(1), 1–28
De Luce, D. (2016). Inside the U.S. Navy’s Iran Fiasco. [online] Foreign Policy. Available at: http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/03/01/inside-the-u-s-navys-iran-fiasco-persian-gulf/ [Accessed 30 Apr. 2018].
Duncombe, C. (2017). Twitter and transformative diplomacy: social media and Iran–US relations. International Affairs, 93(3), pp.545-562.
Komito, L. and Bates, J. (2009). Virtually local: social media and community among Polish nationals in Dublin. Aslib Proceedings, 61(3), pp.232-244.
Nicolson, H. (2001). The evolution of the diplomatic method. Diplomatic Studies Programme. University of Leicester.
Wellman, B., Wong, R.Y.-l., Tindall, D., & Nazer, N. (1997). A decade of network change: Turnover, persistence and stability in personal communities. Social Networks, 19(1), 27–50.
The youth within the country, as well as the older generation, heavily invest in media and digital technology, which has helped them reach to the top ten. Digital diplomacy is something that is common around the world, but more within the western countries, and some within the Middle East (specifically the GCC countries). However, it has begun to spread. Is the digitalizing of diplomacy a good idea? Most definitely. This is how the world begins to develop, step by step. As well as other forms of public diplomacy, whether it be sports or social, digital diplomacy is on a rise. Across the many foreign ministries in the world, India’s Ministry of External Affairs Facebook page has accumulated 1.2 million followers, coming only second to the United States department in regard to the many other foreign ministries across the world.
Furthermore, people want to buy things that have a good reputation.
Public Diplomacy and Global Communication 2017 