Kryachkov 2!indd

135
Английский язык для магистратуры
D
iplomacy in the Mirror of Globalization
Ex. 33. 
a) Read the following extract from an article and identify its topic and thesis. 
b) Think of a possible title.
c) Comment on the ideas of the article.
In the digital world, the momentum is always with the upstarts. They are the gamechangers.
Once upon a time, Amazon were upstarts and the people who changed the rules of book retail-
ing — now, for good or (mostly) ill, they are the gatekeepers of the book industry. For TV, Netflix 
are the ones who are shifting the goalposts. In news media, look to Buzzfeed. Right across the 
digital spectrum, it is the newbies who end up re-writing how content and services are delivered.
So could the same happen in diplomacy? Could a digitally adept nation change the rules of 
public engagement and become an influence far beyond their physical and financial resources? 
Why not?
For one thing, the digital diplomacy space needs positive presences. In some ways, it has be-
come a slightly moribund arena, with innovation at a premium. It’s a digital cliché, of course, but 
diplomacy needs its disruptors.
In recent years, digital diplomacy has become communications heavy, dependent on social 
media, but light on bright ideas, and there has been something of a minor vacuum, into which 
others have moved. At the extreme end, this has included the Israeli armed forces tweeting warn-
ings/threats to those in the Gaza strip, and, of course, the grotesque propaganda of ISIS forces. 
In the face of such extremes, the established players in digital diplomatic circles look a little 
tired, concentrating on upbeat communications, rather than invention or function, to look be-
yond the outputs of soft power and more towards digital as a driver of new relationships, with 
states and non-state actors, that can help create new policies. The time is right for new countries 
to step into that world and punch way above their weight, gaining influence above and beyond 
their more risk averse counterparts.
Unlikely as it may seem, Iran has found firm digital ground, not least with its use of social me-
dia. President Rouhani has, seemingly, found time to tweet both to all and sundry and to foreign 
leaders and managed to humanise the world’s view of his government. The Twitter account @
MeetIran openly admits it is ‘dedicated to providing a more nuanced idea of #Iran. One tweet at a 
time’, which has, shamefully, prompted one blogger to coin the word “Twipoganda”.
On a more granular level, and proving that people react better to other people than to organi-
sations, the likes of British Ambassador Tom Fletcher in Beirut have shown that creating networks 
and improving communications (‘talking to people’ in old money) can reap dividends in terms of 
the access and influence it engenders.
But while there are exemplars of good practice amongst countries big and small, sustained 
excellence has not been reached for some time. The opportunity is there, and its one that’s worth 
taking, the prize is an important one.
The big shift that digital diplomacy can give us is not that governments can communicate 
regularly on new platforms, it’s that they can do so with new groupings. Digital platforms enable 
people to group together for reasons other than mere geography and created bonds determined 
by something other than the traditional sense of nationhood. Some might be yolked together 
by region, rather than nation, or by religion, by economics, by gender, or by ideas. In the digital 
sphere, these groupings are every bit as legitimate, and often more vocal, than groupings decided 
by borders and flags. 

---

Д. А. Крячков
UNIT IV
These groups do not have the mechanics of traditional diplomacy, the ability to match ambas-
sador to ambassador and to share the same arcane procedures. In this new world, a diplomat’s cli-
ents are changing. Post-digital, post Arab Spring, and in a time of ISIS and Boko Harem, a diplomat 
is looking at groups which are based around a whole new set of values and loyalties that are not 
related to those borders drawn hundreds of years ago. Indeed, some members of those interest 
groups/fanatics/extremists are in your own country. 
Those who the diplomat must engage with have shape-shifted, and hard diplomacy is difficult 
with people who don’t share the same view of the rule of law; soft power is harder when faced 
with al Qaeda members in Arsenal shirts, and digital diplomacy is harder when groupings are flu-
idly forming in public and hidden areas of the web.
But a diplomat has to engage with these groups — because they are possible challenges to the 
nation that he/she represents. There’re a few challenges — you have to find them first. And you 
have to engage with them when they have no duty to engage with you. A diplomat’s job descrip-
tion, effectively, includes ‘speak to other diplomats, foreign ones included’ in amongst the list of 
core tasks. But a fluid group of people who have gathered round an abstract idea don’t have any 
contract or job description, they don’t wear white shirts and dark ties, and they may not want to 
respond, or converse in the way you want to. Where’s the treaty, the protocols, the agreements, 
the furniture of diplomacy?
While we are in a period of change, it’s only just beginning; the notion of nation still remains 
hugely strong. A diplomat can legitimately call on that concept as their main job. But it’s altering 
and the speed of change is increasing. A diplomat is facing a different set of challenges and deal-
ing with them will require a different skill-set. Some will have it, some do have it — but many do 
not. Digital diplomacy will no longer be about a certain elan on Twitter, it will be about identifying 
non-state actors and the channels of their choice, with which to monitor and engage with them 
to form new relationships. 
And into that space, new nations can stand tall, just as new groupings can. On digital platforms, 
the size of your army doesn’t matter (nor, really, does the size of your followers), it’s the influence 
and use to which you put those platforms — changing the way people think and act and using the 
crowd to inform policy decisions, while being, to some degree, agnostic about who you consider 
to be fit for connection.
Any country can begin to re-define this space, the incentive is with new, smaller nations, with 
less traditional power bases, to do so. The stage is set.
(Based on Jimmy Leach’s post at http://www.huffingtonpost.com)

---