Advertisement

Digital diplomacy: success at your fingertips

  • Neil Collins
  • Kristina Bekenova
Original Article

Abstract

It is claimed that digital diplomacy will radically change how diplomats engage with the populace in the countries to which they are stationed. Facebook in particular is seen as a means by which embassies can speak to sections of the local population that have previously been difficult to engage. The European Union has signalled its intent to embrace social media more purposefully and meaningfully as part of its diplomatic effort. This article examines those claims made for digital diplomacy relying on data that show the patterns of use of Facebook by European embassies in Kazakhstan. The results show that, primarily, Facebook’s features are used for one-way communication of banal and routine information. However, little policy dialogue is evident.

Keywords

Digital diplomacy European embassies Kazakhstan Facebook Social media Political conversation 

Notes

Funding

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement no. 693799.

Supplementary material

41254_2017_87_MOESM1_ESM.docx (78 kb)
Electronic supplementary material 1 (DOCX 78 kb)
41254_2017_87_MOESM2_ESM.docx (61 kb)
Electronic supplementary material 2 (DOCX 61 kb)

References

  1. Auer, M.R. 2011. The policy sciences of social media. Policy Studies Journal 39 (4): 709–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Belgrade Initiative 4 Digital Public Diplomacy. 2016. Social media has become the main driving force for change in diplomatic communication. http://www.bidd.org.rs/social-media-has-become-the-main-driving-force-for-change-in-diplomatic-communication/. Accessed 9 Nov 2016.
  3. Berridge, G.R. 2015. Diplomacy: Theory and practice, 5th ed. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bjola, C. 2015. Introduction: making sense of digital diplomacy. In Digital diplomacy: Theory and practice, ed. C. Bjola, and M. Holmes, 4. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Bjola, C. 2016. Getting digital diplomacy right: what quantum theory can teach us about measuring impact. Global Affairs 2 (3): 345–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bjola, C., and L., Jiang. 2015. Social media and public diplomacy: A comparative analysis of the digital diplomatic strategies of the EU, US and Japan in China. In Digital diplomacy: Theory and practice, ed. C. Bjola, and M. Holmes, 71–89. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Blua, A. 2005. Central Asia: Gays say tolerance improving, but still long way to go. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, January 20, 05. http://www.rferl.org/a/1056994.html. Accessed 8 Dec 2016.
  8. Christensen, H.S. 2011. Political activities on the Internet: slacktivism or political participation by other means? First Monday [Online] 16(2). http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3336/2767. Accessed 12 Dec 2016.
  9. Comor, E., and H. Bean. 2012. America’s ‘engagement’ delusion: critiquing a public diplomacy consensus. International Communication Gazette 74 (3): 203–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Digital Diplomacy Coalition. 2016. Homepage. http://www.digidiplomats.org/. Accessed 8 June 2016.
  11. Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in Astana, Kazakhstan. 2016. Joint statement to mark the International Day against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia (IDAHOT). http://kazakhstan.nlembassy.org/news/2016/05/joint-statement-to-mark-the-international-day-against-homophobia-transphobia-and-biphobia-idahot.html. Accessed 13 Nov 2016.
  12. EU Commission. 2016. A global strategy for the European Union’s foreign and security policy. https://europa.eu/globalstrategy/en/global-strategy-foreign-and-security-policy-european-union. Accessed 12 Nov 2016.
  13. Khondker, H.H. 2011. Role of the new media in the Arab Spring. Globalizations 8 (5): 675–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lee-Won, R.J., Leo Herzog, and Sung Gwan Park. 2015. Hooked on Facebook: The role of social anxiety and need for social assurance in problematic use of Facebook. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking 18 (10): 567–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. London School of Economics and Political Science. Review roundtable: Naked diplomacy: Power and statecraft in the digital age by Tom Fletcher. http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/2016/07/18/review-roundtable-naked-diplomacy-power-and-statecraft-in-the-digital-age-by-tom-fletcher/. Accessed 12 Nov 2016.
  16. Mann, M. 2015. The European external action service and digital diplomacy. Twiplomacy, 28 April, 15. http://twiplomacy.com/blog/the-european-external-action-service-and-digital-diplomacy/. Accessed 8 Nov 2016.
  17. Manor, I. 2016. Are we there yet? Have MFAs realized the potential of digital diplomacy: results from a cross national comparison. Brill Research Perspectives in Diplomacy and Foreign Policy.Google Scholar
  18. Manor, I., and C. Segev. 2015. America’s selfie: How the US portrays itself on its social media accounts. In Digital diplomacy: Theory and practice, ed. C. Bjola, and M. Holmes, 89–108. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Martin, C., and L. Jagla. 2013. Integrating diplomacy and social media. Queenstown, MD: The Aspen Institute.Google Scholar
  20. Metzgar, E.T. 2012. Is it the medium or the message? Social media, American public diplomacy & Iran. Global Media Journal [American Edition] 11 (21): 1–16.Google Scholar
  21. Morozov, E. 2009. The brave new world of slacktivism. Foreign Policy, 19 May, 09. http://foreignpolicy.com/2009/05/19/the-brave-new-world-of-slacktivism/. Accessed 26 Nov 2016.
  22. Nadkarni, A., and S.G. Hofmann. 2012. Why do people use Facebook? Personality and Individual Differences 52 (3): 243–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Norris, P. 2005. The impact of the Internet on political activism: Evidence from Europe. International Journal of Electronic Government Research 1 (1): 20–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Park, S.J., and Y.S. Lim. 2014. Information networks and social media use in public diplomacy: A comparative analysis of South Korea and Japan. Asian Journal of Communication 24 (1): 79–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Payne, G., E. Sevin, and S. Bruya. 2011. Grassroots 2.0: Public diplomacy in the digital age. Comunicação Pública [Online] 6 (10). https://cp.revues.org/422#abstract. Accessed 25 Sept 2016.
  26. Portland Communications. 2016. Digital diplomacy—why do we need to talk about it? http://www.portland-communications.com/publications/age-of-digital-diplomacy/digital-diplomacy-why-do-we-need-to-talk-about-it/. Accessed 17 June 2016.
  27. Portland Communications. 2016. The soft power 30: A global ranking of soft power. http://softpower30.portland-communications.com/wp-content/themes/softpower/pdfs/the_soft_power_30.pdf. Accessed 3 Oct 2016.
  28. Renken, W. 2014. Social media use in public diplomacy: A case study of the German missions’ Facebook use. MSc Thesis, University of Stirling, UK. http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=4770251&fileOId=4770252. Accessed 12 Dec 2016.
  29. Ross, K., S. Fountaine, and M. Comrie. 2015. Facing up to Facebook: politicians, publics and the social media(ted) turn in New Zealand. Media, Culture and Society 37 (2): 251–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schlozman, K.L., and S. Verba. 2010. Weapon of the strong? Participatory inequality and the Internet. Perspectives on Politics 8 (2): 487–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shaw, C.M. 2015. Connecting students cross-nationally through Facebook. Journal of Political Science Education 12 (3): 353–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Seib, P. 2012. Real-time diplomacy: Politics and power in the social media era. London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sørensen, M.P. 2016. Political conversations on Facebook—the participation of politicians and citizens. Media, Culture and Society 38 (5): 664–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Talev, M., and W.P. Strobel. 2009. Obama ‘friends’ the world with Facebook, Twitter diplomacy. McClatchy Newspapers, July 31, 09. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article24549130.html. Accessed 27 Oct 2016.
  35. Taylor, M., and M.L. Kent. 2010. Anticipatory socialization in the use of social media in public relations: A content analysis of PRSA’s public relations tactics. Public Relations Review 36 (3): 207–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tromble, R.K., and M. Wouters. 2015. Are we talking with or past one another? Examining transnational political discourse across Western-Muslim “Divides”. International Studies Quarterly 59 (2): 373–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tunney, D. 2014. Traditional diplomacy is being transformed by social media and online communication. Digital Diplomacy, 29 April, 14. http://digitaldiplomacy.ro/interview-david-tunney-head-social-media-eeas-traditional-diplomacy-transformed-social-media-online-communication/?lang=en. Accessed 8 Nov 2016.
  38. The United Kingdom’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office. 2010. What is digital diplomacy? 15 November. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20101115120414/https://digitaldiplomacy-secure.fco.gov.uk/en/about/digital-diplomacy/. Accessed 18 Aug 2017.
  39. Westcott, N. 2008. Digital diplomacy: the impact of the Internet on international relations. Research Report, Oxford Internet Institute, UK, June.Google Scholar
  40. Wihlborg, E., and A. Norstedt. 2017. New ways and actors when diplomacy goes digital—the e-Diplomacy Campaign “Midwives4All”. In Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii international conference on system sciences.Google Scholar
  41. Xiguang, L., and W. Jing. 2010. Web-based public diplomacy: The role of social media in the Iranian and Xinjiang riots. Journal of International Communication 16 (1): 7–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Yarchi, Moran, Tal Samuel-Azran, and Lidor Bar-David. 2017. Facebook users’ engagement with Israel’s public diplomacy messages during the 2012 and 2014 military operations in Gaza. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy. 13: 360–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zaharna, R.S., and W.A. Rugh. 2012. Issue theme: The use of social media in US public diplomacy. Global Media Journal [American Edition] 11 (21): 1–8.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Humanities and Social SciencesNazarbayev UniversityAstanaKazakhstan
  2. 2.Department of Government and PoliticsUniversity College CorkCorkIreland

Personalised recommendations