Digital diplomacy

Addressing terminological confusion

Should it be “digital”, “cyber”, “tech”, “net”, “virtual”, or “e-” diplomacy?

The transformation of diplomacy by information and communication technologies (ICT) and the internet has led to a complex and evolving vocabulary. While terms like “e-“, “virtual”, “cyber”, “digital”, and “net” diplomacy were initially used interchangeably, they have gradually acquired more distinct meanings. This differentiation is crucial as the digital realm matures and its governance becomes a central aspect of international policy.

The way we label the digitalization of diplomacy significantly impacts discussions and policy development. Clearer definitions for terms like “cyber”, “digital”, and “tech” diplomacy are needed to reduce confusion. For instance, it’s important to distinguish whether “digital diplomacy” refers to negotiations on digital policy issues or the use of social media for public diplomacy. Understanding the nuances of each term is crucial for clear communication, effective policy-making, and navigating the complex interplay between technology, language, and global governance.

Here’s a breakdown of the evolution and specific connotations of these terms:

E- diplomacy:

The prefix “e-” (for “electronic”) gained prominence during the early commercialization of the internet, most notably with “e-commerce.” It featured significantly in policy discussions around the year 2000, such as the EU’s Lisbon Agenda and the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). However, its use in broad policy strategies has declined sharply. While “e-commerce” remains a relevant term (with 23.8% of EU enterprises in e-sales in 2023 and 77% of internet users making online purchases in 2024), major policy actors like the EU now favor “digital” for strategic initiatives. “E-” largely persists in commercial contexts and specific legacy policies.

Virtual diplomacy:

“Virtual” highlights the intangible nature of the internet, sometimes implying non-physical existence or even simulation. This inherent ambiguity made it less suitable for precise policy language, leading to its general decline in broad discourse. However, “virtual” has found renewed, niche relevance with the emergence of immersive technologies like virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR), sparking discussions about their use in peace building and diplomacy. The rise of the Metaverse also brings “virtual” back into focus concerning human rights and governance. Additionally, terms like “virtual currency” (linked to cryptocurrencies and Virtual Asset Service Providers – VASPs) and “virtual embassies” (digital platforms for public diplomacy) demonstrate its continued significance in specific technological contexts.

 Net diplomacy:

“Net” (short for “network”) was popular in early German contexts like “Netzpolitik”. It experienced a resurgence with the debate on net neutrality, which emphasizes the equal treatment of internet data. The 2014 NETmundial meeting in Brazil briefly boosted its visibility. Currently, “net” is primarily used within technical communities, such as the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), and is central to net neutrality debates involving bodies like the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC). It also features in internet governance discussions, particularly through the UN’s Internet Governance Forum (IGF). However, outside these specific areas, “net” is often considered too generic compared to the broader term “digital”.

Cyber diplomacy:

Originating from the Ancient Greek word kubernetes (governor) and popularized by Norbert Wiener’s “Cybernetics” and William Gibson’s “Neuromancer”, “cyber” became a common prefix for internet-related terms during the late 1990s internet boom. Its usage saw a decline in the early 2000s but was revitalized by the focus on cybersecurity following the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime in 2001. This led to initiatives like the U.S. National Cybersecurity Strategy and NATO’s Cyber Defence Policy. Academic interest in “cyber diplomacy” has also grown. Despite some criticism that the military’s emphasis on “cyber” is linked to defense funding, the term remains prominent in security and policy discussions. It is strongly associated with security issues. 

Tech diplomacy:

Tech diplomacy refers to the practice of engaging with the private tech sector on issues related to digital policy and emerging technologies. The term was first introduced by Denmark in 2017, when the country appointed its first tech ambassador, who is based in the Bay Area. This ambassador’s primary responsibility is to foster relationships with the tech sector in the Bay Area and other global tech hubs. Additionally, the term “tech diplomacy” can also encompass broader topics, such as digital geopolitics and negotiations concerning digital policy issues. Denmark has adopted the term “TechPlomacy” to describe its approach to tech diplomacy.

Digital diplomacy

This term refers to the use of digital technologies, especially the internet and social media, to conduct diplomatic activities and achieve foreign policy goals. It covers a wide range of practices, including using social media for communication, holding virtual meetings and negotiations, and creating digital platforms for public diplomacy and cultural exchange. The term “digital”, derived from binary digits, has broadened to cover diverse government and economic strategies addressing the societal impacts of ICT. Its popularity grew alongside discussions about the “digital divide”. Major initiatives like the EU’s “Digital Single Market Strategy” and the UK’s “digital diplomacy” underscore its importance.  

“Digital” is considered to have a broader scope than other prefixes. It encompasses not just specific applications or security issues, but the entire socio-economic transformation driven by these technologies, including infrastructure, economy, governance, rights, and diplomacy. Its relatively neutral connotation, compared to the security-focused “cyber,” makes it suitable for framing ambitious, forward-looking policies. Since 2011, academic literature shows “digital diplomacy” has become the most frequently used term among its counterparts. It is now the primary prefix for describing our internet-infused world and related policy initiatives, reflecting a shift towards a term that captures the fundamental and pervasive nature of the ongoing transformation.

While the digital lexicon in diplomacy has been marked by a period of overlapping and sometimes confusing terminology, a clearer differentiation is emerging. “Digital diplomacy” stands out as the most comprehensive and widely accepted term to describe the overall transformation of diplomacy in the internet age. Its broad scope, neutral connotation, and increasing adoption in policy and academic circles make it the preferred choice for overarching discussions. It effectively covers both the tools used (like social media) and the policy areas addressed (like digital governance).

This table lists the main ways to define diplomatic changes brought about by technological advancements.

What are the three fields of digital transformation of diplomacy?

At Diplo, we aim to eliminate confusion around terminology by clearly defining terms such as tech diplomacy, cyber diplomacy, and digital diplomacy. Our semantic framework is outlined in Diplo’s tripartite methodology, which explores the impact of digitalization on the evolving geopolitics of diplomacy, the emergence of new topics in diplomatic agendas, and the adoption of new tools in diplomatic practice.

After more than 30 years of research and teaching on the intersection of digitalization and diplomacy, we have concluded that the term digital diplomacy is the most precise descriptor of this phenomenon.

Digital geopolitics: new ENVIRONMENT for diplomatic activities

Digital technology has changed international diplomacy significantly. This change affects not just how countries communicate, but also the essential interests they must protect today. An example of our vulnerability happened in 2008 when damaged submarine cables near Alexandria disrupted business in the Middle East and India. This incident showed how much economies depend on data flows. When digital systems fail, the effects can be severe. Even though the internet seems virtual, it relies on physical infrastructure. About 90% of global internet traffic travels through submarine cables, many of which follow old telegraph routes. Important routes like the Suez Canal and the Strait of Malacca are crucial for trade and digital connections. Current conflicts in areas like the Red Sea highlight the security risks for these digital routes.

The rise of the digital economy has changed global power dynamics. Technology companies now have market values equal to or even more significant than the GDP of some countries. For example, Microsoft’s market capitalisation exceeds that of many countries combined. As a result, tech hubs like Silicon Valley have become as crucial as traditional diplomatic centres. Recognising this, over 70 countries have set up diplomatic offices in Silicon Valley. As the Diplo study, The rise of TechPlomacy in the Bay Area, shows, more than 50 countries have been developing their representation in the Bay Area either via traditional consulates in San Francisco or via new types of representation such as the Swissnex hub.

New digital TOPICS on the diplomatic agenda & digital foreign policy

Traditional foreign policy is increasingly intersecting with a wide range of digital issues that require both technical knowledge and nuanced negotiation skills. Key areas of focus include cybersecurity, where countries must navigate norms and protocols for responsible online behavior, and data governance, which addresses how personal and national data are collected, stored, and used across borders.

Another crucial aspect is internet governance, which involves the infrastructure and standards that keep the global internet functioning. Diplomats are also becoming more involved in shaping rules for e-commerce, ensuring fair trade practices and access to digital markets. The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) has introduced urgent questions regarding ethical standards, regulatory frameworks, and global cooperation, particularly in aligning AI with human values and international law.

Furthermore, attention is being drawn to the digital dimension of human rights, including privacy, freedom of expression, and protection against online discrimination. Although these rights are rooted in traditional international norms, they require updated interpretations and protections to suit the digital environment. Therefore, digital foreign policy has evolved from being a niche area to becoming a core component of international relations, necessitating interdisciplinary expertise and collaborative approaches among states, private sector entities, and civil society.

Diplomats are increasingly encountering new digital policy challenges as they promote their countries’ interests. Digital foreign policy has to address – according to Diplo’s taxonomy – more than 50 digital policy issues organised in 7 baskets: Technology, Security, Human rights, Economy, Development, Legal, and Sociocultural. These issues are primarily related to the internet and digital governance, and clear terminology is essential for navigating this field.

Our illustration of digital governance maps these issues like a subway system, with categories as subway lines and specific issues as stops, showing their connections.

Diplo’s digital governance taxonomy has developed over 20 years, informed by initiatives such as the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) and the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). This taxonomy is officially recognized in the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development’s 2014 report, “The Mapping of International Internet Public Policy Issues.”

Using various digital tools like charts, diagrams, and text to map through digital governance.

You can learn more about internet and digital governance in Diplo’s certified online course, the Advanced Diploma in Internet Governance (ADIG), as well as Dr Jovan Kurbalija’s An Introduction to Internet Governance book  (DiploFoundation, 7th edition).

New digital TOOLS for diplomacy 

Digital tools are fundamentally transforming diplomacy, moving beyond mere supplementary aids to reshape how diplomatic activities are conducted, the environment in which diplomacy operates, and the topics diplomats address. These tools, ranging from video conferencing and social media for negotiation, representation, and public diplomacy, to data analytics and AI for policy analysis and crisis management, empower more agile, inclusive, and efficient diplomatic practices. 

Zoom diplomacy

During the COVID-19 pandemic, diplomacy has shifted online to conferencing platforms such as Zoom. However, online meetings are not as new as one might think. 

The first online participation session in multilateral diplomacy was held by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in 1963. Since then, the availability of the internet in conference rooms has made remote participation a reality for more inclusive and open international negotiations. 

Online meetings come with many pros and cons. As the pandemic crisis has shown, they provide business continuity. They also increase inclusion by allowing participation without being physically present, which is often conditioned by travel and other expenses. Among the major cons of online meetings is the lack of physical contact, which is important for building trust and empathy that are essential for dealing with, in particular, controversial and political issues. 

As the illustration shows, in addition to traditional physical and remote meetings, there will be the emergence of “hybrid (blended)” meetings that will combine in situ and online participation. Hybrid meetings will require new techniques for planning and running meetings, as you can see on our ConfTech page.

Social media for public diplomacy

Social media is now a key tool in public diplomacy. It allows countries and organizations to connect directly with foreign audiences without going through traditional news media. Social media provides quick communication, a broad reach, and the chance for interaction. Governments use platforms such as X (formerly Twitter), Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube to inform and shape perceptions, build trust, and foster dialogue. For example, the U.S. State Department runs multilingual accounts that share policy updates, cultural content, and educational opportunities, helping to present a more accessible and relatable image of the United States. Similarly, Ukraine’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has used sharp, emotional storytelling and infographics on X and Instagram to mobilize international support during its conflict with Russia, effectively countering Russian disinformation and influencing global narratives. Meanwhile, smaller countries like Estonia have built strong digital diplomacy brands by consistently promoting their tech-savvy identity and democratic values online. Social media also facilitates listening ; diplomats can monitor public sentiment, engage with influencers, and respond to misinformation rapidly, making it a powerful two-way communication channel that traditional diplomacy often lacks.

However, the use of social media in public diplomacy also carries significant risks. One of the main challenges is the spread of misinformation and disinformation, which can undermine diplomatic efforts and damage credibility. For instance, during the COVID-19 pandemic, false narratives about vaccine safety and origin were amplified on social platforms, complicating international health diplomacy and cooperation. Another risk is the potential for misinterpretation or escalation; a poorly worded tweet from an official account can spark diplomatic tensions, as seen when Iran and the United States exchanged sharp statements on X, escalating hostilities. Additionally, social media platforms are vulnerable to hacking, impersonation, and manipulation by hostile actors. In 2020, several verified Twitter accounts, including those of politicians and diplomats, were hacked in a Bitcoin scam, raising concerns about the security of official communications. These risks highlight the need for careful strategy, digital literacy, and cybersecurity in effective digital diplomacy.

For 30 years, Diplo has been creating solutions that unite diplomacy with technology. DiploAI’s Tools blend our extensive experience with advanced AI to support individuals influencing global conversations. If you are an ambassador, policymaker, or international strategist, this is your access point to more creative, quicker, and influential diplomacy.

10 AI and digital predictions for 2025

Discover our AI and digital forecasts for 2025. We start by examining the evolution of AI technology and how geostrategic interests are influencing its development. Next, we explore governance, where these interests translate into policies and regulations. With this foundation in place, we address key issues such as security, human rights, the economy, standards, content, the environment, and global development. Prepare for tomorrow by understanding the trends today!