Diplomacy has traditionally had two distinct faces, public and private, each with its own intended purpose. But those lines have been blurred. Changes in the nature of world politics, due to globalization, new digital communication technologies and democratization (and the rise of populism), have shrunk the distance between countries, and between leaders and their populations, and given rise to \u201cdigital diplomacy.\u201d<\/p>\n
On the one hand, digital technologies have provided governments with more ways to reach audiences around in the world and opened up space for participation from new voices in policy debates. On the other hand, new information and communications technologies amplify the messages of populist leaders, enable the diffusion of propaganda and misinformation, and can threaten the control exerted by authoritarian regimes \u2014 potentially spurring domestic conflict.<\/p>\n
Public diplomacy \u2014 conducted via choreographed state visits with glamorous events<\/a>, such as the\u00a0visit of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau<\/a> to the Obama White House, or through high-profile cultural exchanges such as tours by the American Ballet Theatre<\/a> and the Bolshoi Ballet<\/a> during the Cold War \u2014 is intended to project a well-groomed image of a country and build ties. The audience is generally a country\u2019s own citizens and its citizens living abroad, with the goal of changing public perceptions and building a national image.<\/p>\n Private diplomacy<\/a>, on the other hand, in backroom meetings<\/a>, quiet informal conversations<\/a> and third-party negotiations in neutral locations<\/a>, is used by professionals to draft foreign and global policy and build consensus for international agreements and standards. Meetings at the United Nations or among G7 or G20 countries often provide opportunities for professional diplomats and specialized ministers to have substantive discussions on significant policy matters ahead of the formal agenda. Countries maintain embassies even within unfriendly countries both as listening posts and to maintain channels for quiet conversations, most famously the Swiss embassy\u2019s Foreign Interest Section in Iran<\/a>.<\/p>\n Digital diplomacy maintains these two functions \u2014 public relations and communications \u2014 but limits the ability of governments to draw boundaries between sensitive information intended for limited audiences and messages framed for global consumption. Simultaneously, the network effects of social media platforms reduce government control over information while enabling them to reach larger audiences. Diplomacy in the digital era thus inevitably brings risks with its rewards.<\/p>\n Foreign policy via social media platforms<\/strong><\/p>\n Digital diplomacy is here to stay as Internet accessibility and usage expands worldwide, particularly among young people. A little over a decade after its creation, Twitter attracts 330 million monthly active users<\/a>. Nearly 80 percent<\/a> of users are from outside the United States and can choose from more than 40 operating languages. With a few more years under its belt, Facebook attracts 1.4 billion daily active users<\/a> and over 2.1 billion monthly active users<\/a>. More than 80 percent of users <\/a>come from outside the US and Canada.<\/p>\n In fact, the digital divide between developed and developing regions is narrowing. From 2013 to 2015, the median rate of Internet use by adults in developing countries rose from 45 to 54 percent<\/a>,<\/u> while smartphone ownership rose from 13 to 37 percent<\/a>. Once connected to the Web, users from developing areas are more frequent users of social media<\/a> like Twitter and Facebook than their European and North American counterparts.<\/p>\n Recognizing the ubiquity of this digital technology, governments have been using social media not only for domestic purposes but as an extension of international relations.<\/p>\n Who is posting their foreign policy online, and how does the medium affect the message?<\/p>\n Heads of government and\/or state have Twitter accounts, along with their ministerial colleagues in foreign affairs, trade and international development. Each of these ministries typically has a bureaucratic arm that operates its own Twitter accounts. Curiously, Facebook appears to be a slightly less popular choice for digital diplomacy (see table 1) but, when it is in use, activity there closely parallels Twitter activity (see table 2 for the accounts of G20 foreign policy officials with the largest and smallest Facebook audiences).<\/p>\n