Overcoming the Limitations of Traditional Diplomacy

  • Ilan ManorEmail author
Part of the Palgrave Macmillan Series in Global Public Diplomacy book series (GPD)


This chapter examines diplomats’ use of digital technologies to overcome the limitations of traditional diplomacy. As this chapter demonstrates, foreign ministries have sought to employ digital technologies to annihilate time and space, transcend national borders, overcome hostile media landscapes and interact with the populations of enemy nations. Employing Bauman and Lyon’s prism of a society at a distance, this chapter explores the use of virtual embassies by the governments of Sweden, the USA, Israel and Palestine. The chapter also examines how diplomats create global social media campaigns that seek to render space meaningless by interacting with a global constituency. The chapter concludes by arguing that diplomats often fail to realize the potential of virtual embassies as diplomacy has traditionally relied on proximity for gathering information and fostering relationships.


  1. Anholt, S., & Hildreth, J. (2005). Let freedom and cash registers ring: America as a brand. Place Branding, 1(2), 164–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bauman, Z., & Lyon, B. (2016). Remoteness distancing an automation. In Z. Bauman & B. Lyon (Eds.), Liquid surveillance (pp. 76–99). Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bjola, C., & Jiang, L. (2015). Social media and public diplomacy: A comparative analysis of the digital diplomatic strategies of the EU, US and Japan in China. In C. Bjola & M. Holmes (Eds.), Digital diplomacy theory and practice (pp. 71–88). Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Calamur, K., Vasilogambros, M., Weston Phippen, J., Graham, D. A., Yasmin, S., & Ford, M. (2016, July). What’s going on in Turkey? The Atlantic. Retrieved from
  5. Callimachi, R. (2015, June). ISIS and the lonely young American. The New York Times. Retrieved from
  6. Castells, M. (2013). Communication power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Causey, C., & Howard, P. N. (2013). Delivering digital public diplomacy. In R. S. Zaharna, A. Arsenault, & A. Fisher (Eds.), Relational, networked and collaborative approaches to public diplomacy (pp. 144–156). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  8. Cha, H., Yeo, S., & Kim, B. (2014). Social media’s dialogic communication of foreign embassies in Korea and public diplomacy: Based on dialogic communication theory. Advanced Science and Technology Letters, 63, 175–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clarke, A. (2015). Business as usual? An evolution of British and Canadian digital diplomacy as policy change. In C. Bjola & M. Holmes (Eds.), Digital diplomacy theory and practice (pp. 111–126). Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Clinton, H. [US State Department]. (2011, December 12). Secretary Clinton announces virtual embassy Tehran [Video File]. Retrieved from
  11. Comor, E., & Bean, H. (2012). America’s ‘engagement’ delusion: Critiquing a public diplomacy consensus. International Communication Gazette, 74(3), 203–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Copeland, D. (2013). Taking diplomacy public: Science, technology and foreign ministries in a heteropolar world. In R. S. Zaharna, A. Arsenault, & A. Fisher (Eds.), Relational, networked and collaborative approaches to public diplomacy (pp. 56–69). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  13. Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gilboa, E. (2005a). The CNN effect: The search for a communication theory of international relations. Political Communication, 22(1), 27–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gilboa, E. (2005b). Global television news and foreign policy: Debating the CNN effect. International Studies Perspectives, 6(3), 325–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hocking, B., & Melissen, J. (2015). Diplomacy in the digital age. Clingendael: Netherlands Institute of International Relations.Google Scholar
  17. Hughes, D. J., Rowe, M., Batey, M., & Lee, A. (2012). A tale of two sites: Twitter vs. Facebook and the personality predictors of social media usage. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2), 561–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (2017). Digital diplomacy conference summary (pp. 6–19). Retrieved from
  19. Jones, D. (2014). The Hollow Crown: The wars of the roses and the rise of the Tudors. London: Faber & Faber.Google Scholar
  20. Katz, R. (2014, September). The State Department’s Twitter war with ISIS is embarrassing. Time. Retrieved from
  21. Kwak, H., Lee, C., Park, H., & Moon, S. (2010, April). What is Twitter, a social network or a news media? Proceedings of the 19th international conference on world wide web (pp. 591–600). ACM.Google Scholar
  22. Lengel, L., & Newsome, V. A. (2012). Framing messages of democracy through social media: Public diplomacy 2.0, gender, and the Middle East and North Africa. Global Media Journal, 11(21), 1.Google Scholar
  23. Liebermann, O., & McKenzie, S. (2018, July). Israel helps evacuate Syria’s White Helmets to Jordan. CNN. Retrieved from
  24. Lupton, D. (2014). A critical sociology of big data. In D. Lupton (Ed.), Digital sociology (pp. 93–116). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Manor, E. (2018). Serving in Sweden in the days of Carl Bildt [In person].Google Scholar
  26. Manor, I. (2015, July 1). The US’s LGBT digital diplomacy blitz [Blog]. Retrieved from
  27. Manor, I. (2016). Are we there yet: Have MFA s realized the potential of digital diplomacy? Brill Research Perspectives in Diplomacy and Foreign Policy, 1(2), 1–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Manor, I. (2017). America’s selfie–Three years later. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 13(4), 308–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Manor, I. (2018, June 1). The ebb and flow of digital diplomacy [Blog]. Retrieved from
  30. Manor, I., & Crilley, R. (2018a). Visually framing the Gaza War of 2014: The Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Twitter. Media, War & Conflict. Google Scholar
  31. Manor, I., & Crilley, R. (2018b). The aesthetics of violent extremist and counter violent extremist communication. In C. Bjola & J. Pamment (Eds.), Countering online propaganda and extremism: The dark side of digital diplomacy. Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Manor, I. & Crilley, R. (2019). The mediatization of MFAs: diplomacy in the new media ecology. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy.Google Scholar
  33. Manor, I., & Holmes, M. (2018, May–August). Palestine in Hebrew: Overcoming the limitations of traditional diplomacy. Revista Mexican de Politicia Exterior, 113, 1–17.Google Scholar
  34. McNutt, K. (2014). Public engagement in the Web 2.0 era: Social collaborative technologies in a public sector context. Canadian Public Administration, 57(1), 49–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Metzgar, E. T. (2012). Is it the medium or the message? Social media, American public diplomacy & Iran. Global Media Journal, 12(21), 1.Google Scholar
  36. Mor, B. D. (2012). Credibility talk in public diplomacy. Review of International Studies, 38(2), 393–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Neely, C. (2018, January). Japan’s top social media networks for 2018. Humble Bunny. Retrieved from
  38. Newman, N., Fletcher, R., Kalogeropoulos, A., Levy, D. A., & Nielsen, R. K. (2017). Reuters institute digital news report 2017.Google Scholar
  39. Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research. (2017). Palestinian-Israeli pulse. Retrieved from
  40. Pamment, J. (2013). New public diplomacy in the 21st century: A comparative study of policy and practice. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Pamment, J. (2014). The mediatization of diplomacy. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 9(3), 253–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Quelch, J. A., & Jocz, K. E. (2009). Can brand Obama rescue brand America? The Brown Journal of World Affairs, 16(1), 163–178.Google Scholar
  43. Ravid, B. (2013, July). Israel open a ‘Virtual Embassy’ to Gulf States. Haaretz. Retrieved from
  44. Rawson, E. A. G. (2007). Perceptions of the United States of America: Exploring the political brand of a nation. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, 3(3), 213–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Roberts, I. (2017). Diplomacy—A short history from pre-classical origins to the fall of the Berlin Wall. In I. Roberts (Ed.), Satow’s diplomatic practice (pp. 3–19). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Robinson, P. (1999). The CNN effect: Can the news media drive foreign policy? Review of International Studies, 25(2), 301–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Said-Moorhouse, L. (2016, August). This is how many people Turkey has arrested since the failed coup. CNN. Retrieved from
  48. Seib, P. (2012). Real-time diplomacy: Politics and power in the social media era. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Seo, H. (2013). The “Virtual Last Three Feet”: Understanding relationship perspectives in network-based public diplomacy. In R. S. Zaharna, A. Arsenault, & A. Fisher (Eds.), Relational, networked and collaborative approaches to public diplomacy (pp. 157–169). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  50. Silver, S., & Hill, S. (2002). Marketing: Selling brand America. Journal of Business Strategy, 23(4), 10–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sotiriu, S. (2015). Digital diplomacy: Between promises and reality. In C. Bjola & M. Holmes (Eds.), Digital diplomacy theory and practice (pp. 33–51). Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  52. Spry, D. (2018). Facebook diplomacy: a data-driven, user-focused approach to Facebook use by diplomatic missions. Media International Australia, 168(1), 62–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Styles, D., & Allmand, C. T. (1982, May). The coronations of Henry-VI. History Today, 32, 28–33.Google Scholar
  54. Taylor, M., & Kent, M. L. (2014). Dialogic engagement: Clarifying foundational concepts. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(5), 384–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. The Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Research. (2018). Palestinian-Israeli pulse: A joint poll. Retrieved from
  56. TOI Staff. (2015, November). PLO launches Facebook page—In Hebrew. The Times of Israel. Retrieved from
  57. Van Ham, P. (2013). Social power in public diplomacy. In R. S. Zaharna, A. Arsenault, & A. Fisher (Eds.), Relational, networked and collaborative approaches to public diplomacy (pp. 17–28). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of International DevelopmentUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations