Digital diplomacy: success at your fingertips


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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7


  1. 1.

    Federica Mogherini, cited in “11th EU–Central Asia Ministerial Meeting in Astana, Kazakhstan”, European Union—External Action, 21 December 2015. Available at,%20Kazakhstan, accessed 14 August 2017.


  1. Auer, M.R. 2011. The policy sciences of social media. Policy Studies Journal 39 (4): 709–736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Belgrade Initiative 4 Digital Public Diplomacy. 2016. 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.

    Book  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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. 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). 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Digital Diplomacy Coalition. 2016. Homepage. 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). Accessed 13 Nov 2016.

  12. EU Commission. 2016. A global strategy for the European Union’s foreign and security policy. Accessed 12 Nov 2016.

  13. Khondker, H.H. 2011. Role of the new media in the Arab Spring. Globalizations 8 (5): 675–679.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. London School of Economics and Political Science. 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. 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.

  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. 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Payne, G., E. Sevin, and S. Bruya. 2011. Grassroots 2.0: Public diplomacy in the digital age. Comunicação Pública [Online] 6 (10). Accessed 25 Sept 2016.

  26. Portland Communications. 2016. 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. 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. 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Shaw, C.M. 2015. Connecting students cross-nationally through Facebook. Journal of Political Science Education 12 (3): 353–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Seib, P. 2012. Real-time diplomacy: Politics and power in the social media era. London: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  33. Sørensen, M.P. 2016. Political conversations on Facebook—the participation of politicians and citizens. Media, Culture and Society 38 (5): 664–685.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Talev, M., and W.P. Strobel. 2009. Obama ‘friends’ the world with Facebook, Twitter diplomacy. McClatchy Newspapers, July 31, 09. 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Tunney, D. 2014. Traditional diplomacy is being transformed by social media and online communication. Digital Diplomacy, 29 April, 14. Accessed 8 Nov 2016.

  38. The United Kingdom’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office. 2010. What is digital diplomacy? 15 November. 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.

  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.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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 

Download references


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

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Neil Collins.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Collins, N., Bekenova, K. Digital diplomacy: success at your fingertips. Place Brand Public Dipl 15, 1–11 (2019).

Download citation


  • Digital diplomacy
  • European embassies
  • Kazakhstan
  • Facebook
  • Social media
  • Political conversation