ashington, DC and many world capitals are reopening to the public at a pace marked by the whims of seasons and what some analysts describe as "vaccine diplomacy" geopolitics. After months of confinement and many lessons learned, the so-called new normalcy is gradually more classic as light is finally palpable at the end of the long, too long, tunnel. And diplomacy, certainly one of the professions most heavily impacted by the pandemic, is getting back into the spotlight as well.
Para leer este artículo en Español, haga clic aquí.
World leaders, government officials, diplomats, representatives of civil society, and the private sector are returning to the world stage, most of them with their masks off, to chat and interact again face-to-face with a rewarding feeling of recovery and, yes, enthusiasm. White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki could not have put it in better terms when, after President Biden’s first official trip overseas, she concluded that “there is nothing that can replace in-person diplomacy.”
Of course, the pace is slower and expectations proportionally higher in other corners of the world that still await mass immunization and better weather, but the fact remains that in-person diplomacy is getting back to normal, slowly but steadily, as it blends with the virtuality imposed by the pandemic during confinement.
Hybrid diplomacy is the recently coined neologism to define this new combination of virtuality and in-person diplomacy, although its recentness is not preventing heated debates on whether and how both worlds will coexist.
A great deal of this cohabitation controversy has to do with the lasting and devastating effects of the pandemic on diplomacy. Essentially a face-to-face business, diplomacy's most precious asset - the human dimension of building relationships in person and hence the trust and empathy necessary to build the bridges between societies that diplomats are tasked, expected, and trained to foster - was snatched by Covid-19.
When the pandemic was hitting fiercely, diplomats were forced to turn en masse to digital tools, exploring these tools for the first time in many cases, and inadvertently fueling the catalyzation of digital diplomacy as never before. Diplomacy not only had to adapt but to resist, while flexing its muscles also on health, science, and technology as priority matters to solve the world scourge, bilaterally and multilaterally. Despite initial limitations, digitalization proved to be a timely and available means to facilitate interaction, be it under the auspices of WHO, PAHO, G20 and every other forum sensibly calling for attention on the need to work together against Covid.
Along the process from adaption to adoption, the pandemic taught these diplomats many lessons. Virtuality turned out to be a handy tool after all. Foreign ministries, embassies, and diplomats themselves in general coincide on its merits, despite some initial adverse reaction (I wouldn’t dare call it “despise”, though) that mainly focused on the limitations that a screen world imposed on diplomats.
Most diplomats agree now and then that it is truly hard to begin a relationship online, “read the room”, pass on certain messages in reserve on a mosaic screen (despite private chat functions), or have the cherished chance to “break up for five minutes” to dive in the sofas in the room next door to explain to your colleague the true boundaries of your position and which she or he will later report home as your “red lines” in the negotiation at stake.
Nevertheless, at the same time, they all concur on the positive “side effects” brought about by the pandemic such as the possibility of bringing more people into the conversation -when necessary, including previously briefed officials from their own capitals. Virtuality has also allowed us to quickly sort out technical or preliminary details of a meeting during online get-togethers that would have taken ages in person. And it also helps diplomats to keep the ball rolling and conversation flowing as they await the cherry-on-top high-level meeting that will -hopefully, in person- crown both their online and offline efforts.
Benefits of virtuality are plenty in terms of public diplomacy too, that part of diplomatic work not addressed to official counterparts but societies with whom diplomats dialogue also online to promote the gems of their national culture, tourism, trade and any other field blessed by their country’s soft power. Besides migrating film festivals online and art exhibits to interactive digital formats, some embassies even ventured into online live wine tastings that demanded tons of preparatory work and coordination to guarantee that thirsty prospective customers got on a same screen on time with the producer connecting live from his vineyard in Malbec land, Argentina, as local distributors helped the crowd digitally walk through the virtues of the elixirs they were actually tasting, with actual samples having been mailed to and received well in advance by the interested parties, bien sûr!
Public diplomacy offers a very fertile ground for virtual formats now that diplomats are digitally better equipped, so much so that even AI and AR are no longer “unexplored” fields within some tech-friendly foreign ministries. A growing number of diplomats of all ranks have joined social media, now that rules and use protocols are clearer and benefits more palpable than ever before. In fact, as most scholarly debates concur, use of social media has been key in consular assistance during the pandemic as diplomats were able to keep communities not only informed round the clock but, in some cases, assist them directly through automated messaging and chatbots combined with actual human interaction.
At risk of controversy, catalyzed digitalization during the peak of the pandemic has also convinced many skeptics that resorting to technology in diplomacy is less of a generational matter and more of an institutional or technological gap relating to the existence of a culture of innovation within the ranks of diplomacy. Not only junior career professionals but seasoned diplomats have public profiles in social media and they all dialogue not only with official counterparts but with the societies they are temporarily living in. High-rank diplomats have been “migrating” to digital diplomacy over these last years, to resort to Marc Prensky’s categories on our relationship with technology, and new generations of ambassadors have been born in the meantime as “digital natives” in no need of digital transboundary experiences.
Diplomacy could survive the confinement imposed by the pandemic and it owes a debt of gratitude to digitalization. Migrating to virtuality allowed the wheels of diplomacy to continue working even if some practices and rituals were not completely at ease. Conversations kept flowing, agreements reached and relationships cultivated and, yes, in some cases even started on a flat screen. Now that the benefits of digital diplomacy are so well known, so are the limitations. Same applies to in-person traditional diplomacy whose virtues have been re cherished after a long year of face-to-face abstinence at the same time as some practical weaknesses became more evident through 21st century lens.
Digital diplomacy is here to stay and that is great news, as it blends peacefully with face-to-face interaction and relationship building. After the prime time of digitalization during the pandemic, time has come now for diplomats to strike the best possible balance of both worlds: virtual and in-person. But optimism should prevail as they are well acquainted with the concept of balance of power and better equipped now to decide which of those two worlds should tilt more and when. With both worlds in harmony and just proportion, hybrid diplomacy is the way to go.
a global affairs media network
Post-Pandemic Diplomacy is Hybrid, Proportional
Photo by AdobeStock.
June 30, 2021
In-person diplomacy is getting back to normal, as it blends with the virtuality imposed by the pandemic. This is a good thing, but there are heated debates over whether and how both worlds will co-exist.
W
ashington, DC and many world capitals are reopening to the public at a pace marked by the whims of seasons and what some analysts describe as "vaccine diplomacy" geopolitics. After months of confinement and many lessons learned, the so-called new normalcy is gradually more classic as light is finally palpable at the end of the long, too long, tunnel. And diplomacy, certainly one of the professions most heavily impacted by the pandemic, is getting back into the spotlight as well.
Para leer este artículo en Español, haga clic aquí.
World leaders, government officials, diplomats, representatives of civil society, and the private sector are returning to the world stage, most of them with their masks off, to chat and interact again face-to-face with a rewarding feeling of recovery and, yes, enthusiasm. White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki could not have put it in better terms when, after President Biden’s first official trip overseas, she concluded that “there is nothing that can replace in-person diplomacy.”
Of course, the pace is slower and expectations proportionally higher in other corners of the world that still await mass immunization and better weather, but the fact remains that in-person diplomacy is getting back to normal, slowly but steadily, as it blends with the virtuality imposed by the pandemic during confinement.
Hybrid diplomacy is the recently coined neologism to define this new combination of virtuality and in-person diplomacy, although its recentness is not preventing heated debates on whether and how both worlds will coexist.
A great deal of this cohabitation controversy has to do with the lasting and devastating effects of the pandemic on diplomacy. Essentially a face-to-face business, diplomacy's most precious asset - the human dimension of building relationships in person and hence the trust and empathy necessary to build the bridges between societies that diplomats are tasked, expected, and trained to foster - was snatched by Covid-19.
When the pandemic was hitting fiercely, diplomats were forced to turn en masse to digital tools, exploring these tools for the first time in many cases, and inadvertently fueling the catalyzation of digital diplomacy as never before. Diplomacy not only had to adapt but to resist, while flexing its muscles also on health, science, and technology as priority matters to solve the world scourge, bilaterally and multilaterally. Despite initial limitations, digitalization proved to be a timely and available means to facilitate interaction, be it under the auspices of WHO, PAHO, G20 and every other forum sensibly calling for attention on the need to work together against Covid.
Along the process from adaption to adoption, the pandemic taught these diplomats many lessons. Virtuality turned out to be a handy tool after all. Foreign ministries, embassies, and diplomats themselves in general coincide on its merits, despite some initial adverse reaction (I wouldn’t dare call it “despise”, though) that mainly focused on the limitations that a screen world imposed on diplomats.
Most diplomats agree now and then that it is truly hard to begin a relationship online, “read the room”, pass on certain messages in reserve on a mosaic screen (despite private chat functions), or have the cherished chance to “break up for five minutes” to dive in the sofas in the room next door to explain to your colleague the true boundaries of your position and which she or he will later report home as your “red lines” in the negotiation at stake.
Nevertheless, at the same time, they all concur on the positive “side effects” brought about by the pandemic such as the possibility of bringing more people into the conversation -when necessary, including previously briefed officials from their own capitals. Virtuality has also allowed us to quickly sort out technical or preliminary details of a meeting during online get-togethers that would have taken ages in person. And it also helps diplomats to keep the ball rolling and conversation flowing as they await the cherry-on-top high-level meeting that will -hopefully, in person- crown both their online and offline efforts.
Benefits of virtuality are plenty in terms of public diplomacy too, that part of diplomatic work not addressed to official counterparts but societies with whom diplomats dialogue also online to promote the gems of their national culture, tourism, trade and any other field blessed by their country’s soft power. Besides migrating film festivals online and art exhibits to interactive digital formats, some embassies even ventured into online live wine tastings that demanded tons of preparatory work and coordination to guarantee that thirsty prospective customers got on a same screen on time with the producer connecting live from his vineyard in Malbec land, Argentina, as local distributors helped the crowd digitally walk through the virtues of the elixirs they were actually tasting, with actual samples having been mailed to and received well in advance by the interested parties, bien sûr!
Public diplomacy offers a very fertile ground for virtual formats now that diplomats are digitally better equipped, so much so that even AI and AR are no longer “unexplored” fields within some tech-friendly foreign ministries. A growing number of diplomats of all ranks have joined social media, now that rules and use protocols are clearer and benefits more palpable than ever before. In fact, as most scholarly debates concur, use of social media has been key in consular assistance during the pandemic as diplomats were able to keep communities not only informed round the clock but, in some cases, assist them directly through automated messaging and chatbots combined with actual human interaction.
At risk of controversy, catalyzed digitalization during the peak of the pandemic has also convinced many skeptics that resorting to technology in diplomacy is less of a generational matter and more of an institutional or technological gap relating to the existence of a culture of innovation within the ranks of diplomacy. Not only junior career professionals but seasoned diplomats have public profiles in social media and they all dialogue not only with official counterparts but with the societies they are temporarily living in. High-rank diplomats have been “migrating” to digital diplomacy over these last years, to resort to Marc Prensky’s categories on our relationship with technology, and new generations of ambassadors have been born in the meantime as “digital natives” in no need of digital transboundary experiences.
Diplomacy could survive the confinement imposed by the pandemic and it owes a debt of gratitude to digitalization. Migrating to virtuality allowed the wheels of diplomacy to continue working even if some practices and rituals were not completely at ease. Conversations kept flowing, agreements reached and relationships cultivated and, yes, in some cases even started on a flat screen. Now that the benefits of digital diplomacy are so well known, so are the limitations. Same applies to in-person traditional diplomacy whose virtues have been re cherished after a long year of face-to-face abstinence at the same time as some practical weaknesses became more evident through 21st century lens.
Digital diplomacy is here to stay and that is great news, as it blends peacefully with face-to-face interaction and relationship building. After the prime time of digitalization during the pandemic, time has come now for diplomats to strike the best possible balance of both worlds: virtual and in-person. But optimism should prevail as they are well acquainted with the concept of balance of power and better equipped now to decide which of those two worlds should tilt more and when. With both worlds in harmony and just proportion, hybrid diplomacy is the way to go.
