With this report, our aim is to present initial1
reflections on diplomacy in the digital age. In the ongoing
debate amongst international relations scholars, information
and communication technology (ICT) experts, digital4
strategists, social media advocates and others, the first question
for us is: what is happening to diplomacy? And the obvious
answer is what has always happened to it: diplomacy is7
responding to changes in the international and domestic
environments, in the main centres of authority, particularly
states, and in the character of societies at home and abroad.10
“Newness” in diplomacy today has everything to do
with the application of new communications technologies to
diplomacy. This issue goes right to the heart of diplomacy’s13
core functions, including negotiation, representation and
communication. Given the centrality of communication in
diplomacy, it is hardly surprising that the rise of social media16
should be of interest to practitioners of diplomacy. Most of
them, like people outside diplomatic culture, are in the process
of adjusting their “analogue” habits and finding their own19
voice in a new information sphere. This takes time, and for
technological enthusiasts to simply proclaim the arrival of a
“new statecraft” in the form of what is variously termed22
e-diplomacy, digital diplomacy, cyber diplomacy and
“twiplomacy” is too simplistic.
Paradoxically, greater complexity encourages25
shallow, hurried analyses and the search for simple
explanations about what is happening to diplomacy as the
regulating mechanism of the society of states. As in other28
epochs of fast technological change, the lure of quick fixes
addressing multifaceted processes of change in diplomacy
appears almost irresistible.31
Brian Hocking and Jan Melissen. Diplomacy in the digital age. 2015, p. 9. Internet: <www.clingendael.org> (adapted).
Decide whether the following statements are right (C) or wrong (E) according to text I.
-
In the first paragraph, the words “ongoing” (R.2) and “advocates” (R.5) can be correctly and respectively replaced by far-reaching and lawyers without this changing the meaning of the passage.
-
The passage “what has always happened to it:” (R.7) can be correctly replaced by what has always happened to it, which means that or by what has always happened to it, which is to say.
-
In the end of the second paragraph, the authors express the opinion that the so-called ‘new statecraft’(R.22), also known as “digital diplomacy” (R.23), is “too simplistic” (R.24).
-
The passage “the lure of quick fixes addressing multifaceted processes of change” (R. 29 and 30) could be replaced by the temptation of finding easy solutions for manifold processes of change and this would still keep the paragraph coherent.