By Giles Strachan and Ilan Manor

In 1957, the physicist Hugh Everett proposed the Many-worlds Interpretation of reality. Quantum physicists had discovered that fundamental information about particles was unknowable until the particles were observed. At this point, reality re-asserts itself, as in the famous example of Schrödinger’s cat, which is both alive and dead until observed. While physicists debated how these two competing realities came into existence, Everett cut the gordian knot with a simple proposal: there are multiple realities. The Many-worlds Interpretation has long existed as a scientific curio. Today, however, it is more relevant than ever.

In the aftermath of the recent crisis between India and Pakistan, MFAs scrambled to gather information. Clearly some form of military exchange had taken place, but the precise details were unclear. Along with the usual tools for disinformation – clips from the video game Arma 3, photos from other conflicts, shoddy photoshop jobs – a new form of misinformation emerged. On May 8^th, a sophisticated deepfake purported to show Pakistani General Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry reporting the loss of two Pakistani jets. The report was picked up on Indian media channels and was viewing nearly one million times before being debunked. The speed with which good-quality fake videos can be produced and disseminated demonstrates that, thanks to artificial intelligence, we are facing greater challenges than ever in maintaining a single definition of reality.

AI has not changed the human propensity to misrepresent facts. A simple examination of the evolution of the Wikipedia page on, say, the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, reveals that competing versions of reality have long sought to assert themselves. In the past, however, the fabrication of sophisticated evidence took time. Editing Trotsky out of photos with Lenin was a delicate task handled by specialist editors. Building fake news websites to spread stories about EU immigrants swamping British public services was easier, but still required time and money. Today, however, AI has made disinformation cheaper and easier to access than ever.

 The challenge for diplomats is that diplomacy is fundamentally dependent on a shared definition of realities. As negotiations take place for a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine, it is clear that there is a distinction between public and private positions. In public, Russia has made it abundantly clear that Ukraine is a Nazi-run state which must be thoroughly cleansed of all anti-Russian elements. Meanwhile, Ukraine is implacably opposed to any settlement other than the return of pre-2014 borders, including Crimea. Clearly, no ceasefire would be possible if those positions were maintained in private.

The art of negotiation is the ability to soften these stances in such a way that both sides can achieve a satisfactory resolution – in short, to achieve a shared vision of reality in which both sides acknowledge their inability to achieve their objectives through conflict. If diplomats are unable to do so, then negotiations cannot succeed.

This search for a shared definition of reality dictates how negotiations are conducted. Diplomats may not change their definition of reality in front of news cameras, but within the privacy of the negotiation chamber, they can soften the edges of their position to achieve a settlement. Such was the case in 2014 when, despite public claims to the contrary, a Russian diplomat could acknowledge that ‘some’ Russian troops had crossed into Crimea.

 Achieving a shared definition of reality requires significant skill and hard work but is also dependent upon reliable data for decision-makers and a supportive political environment. The spread of AI-generated misinformation undermines both. The former is clearly challenged by the proliferation of open-source misinformation. The latter is also a victim of AI – users of social media can increasingly maintain a supply of increasingly sophisticated content that reinforces their worldview. Under the influence of their feed, they may resist diplomatic settlements that contradict their interpretation of reality. An Indian public which believes that India has shot down two Pakistani jets may consider themselves to have the upper hand in military affairs and thus resist a peaceful de-escalation of tensions.

Beyond these short-term scenarios, AI brings a further challenge in the form of virality. In February, Donald Trump shared an AI-generated video showing himself and Benjamin Netanyahu dancing at the Trump Gaza resort. Although clearly fake, the video nonetheless demanded a diplomatic response. Was it simply a ghoulish joke, or a signal of a long-term plan? Do MFAs lose credibility when responding to clearly fake videos, or is it necessary to re-affirm negotiating positions even in the face of such an absurd proposal?

Once again, AI has not given Donald Trump any greater desire to sow chaos on social media. The sophistication of these tools, however, allows for content that can go viral in a way that a written tweet could not, and that can be generated by comparatively untrained users in a short space of time. The absurdity and novelty of the video drove its popularity. As the sophistication of AI grows, we should expect to see more of these videos, forcing diplomats to spend more time and energy responding to artificially-generated content.

The proliferation of AI is the proliferation of parallel universes. Whether in the form of persuasive deepfakes or absurdist humour, AI is enabling a proliferation of competing realities. For regular users, the seductive appeal of a vision of reality tailored entirely to one’s own beliefs is enough to influence political decision-making. Without a supportive political environment, diplomats will face greater pressure to maintain public rhetoric and will struggle to sell negotiated settlements to their domestic audiences. Simultaneously, diplomats themselves face greater challenges as AI makes it increasingly difficult to establish what has actually happened. By the time a diplomat has established whether or not a video is fake, it is too late. An endless number of plausible realities, generated as fast as prompts can be typed, will provide plausible evidence in support of mutually-exclusive versions of reality.

In this scenario, there is a risk that diplomats will use AI to counter AI – for example, in drafting customised responses to misinformation. In this scenario, an MFA’s public position would be tailored to individual groups of users in an attempt to reach a wider audience. Under such a scenario, however, diplomacy would be surrendering to a fractured reality. Instead of attempting to assert a single, shared reality, MFAs would be accepting defeat. Amid a cascade of differing realities, they may long for the comparative peace of the negotiating room.

Read More

The rapid development of AI tools has caused a frenzy in foreign ministries (MFAs) as diplomats across the world are trying to identify the risks and benefits brought about by artificial intelligence tools such as ChatGPT, Mistral, Claude, Gemini and DeepSeek. Diplomats’ attempts to grapple with the professional and societal ramifications of AI has taken different forms in different MFAs with some hoping to establish in-house AI tools and others dedicating staffers to mapping how AIs could be leveraged to obtain foreign policy goals.

Thus far, diplomats seem to be focusing on two main areas. The first is the automation of routine diplomatic functions. This very notion demonstrates how societal discourses may shape diplomats’ attitudes towards digital technologies. As newspapers and industry leaders all predict that AIs will soon replace entire segments of the labor force thanks to automation, diplomats also come to view the benefits of AI through the arrow lens of automation be it through consular Bots that could replace consular officers or the automatic formulation of press releases, speeches and social media content. However, some MFAs have already discovered that while Generative AIs excel at producing texts, these are usually very formulistic and tend to follow a small number of templates. Generative AI texts are thus generic and fail to elicit interest or emotions. One diplomat who read an AI generated address to the UN Human Rights Council stated, “no one would remember this address five minutes after it was given and no journalist would cover it”.

In-house AI tools are viewed by diplomats as a potential “game changer” especially if these tools could be used to analyze the vast amounts of digital data that MFAs produce on a daily basis including emails, reports, ministerial briefings, analyses of ties between states, reports on state visits, crisis management and negotiation. The allure of AI is that it may facilitate data-informed policy making in diplomacy. Yet this entails a dangerous assumption- that the future will mirror the past. Indeed, an in-house AI tool may be used to analyze previous rounds of negotiations between states while helping diplomats formulate successful negotiation tactics. Similarly, in-house AI tools may be used to review press statements by foreign countries and identify terminology that is indicative of crisis escalation. Yet the difficulty of crisis management lies in the fact that crises are often novel and are dissimilar to past ones. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine differed from the stealthy annexation of Crimea while the Covid pandemic differed from Ebola outbreaks.

However, there is one area where Generative AI may be of use to MFAs and that is in gauging global public opinion. AI tools such as ChatGPT are trained on vast amounts of readily available digital information. This includes websites, social media posts, comments on news sites, free sites such as Wikipedia and blogs. As such, Generative AIs like ChatGPT may be conceptualized as aggregators of global public opinion. If asked to list 10 good things about France, ChatGPT’s answer would be based on commonly held perceptions and opinions about France. If asked to list 10 bad things about Nigeria, ChatGPT’s answer would essentially be a summary of commonly held beliefs about Nigeria. Lastly, if asked why the US supports Ukraine, or why Germany has enacted strict migration policies, ChatGPT’s answers would again be an aggregation of popular notions and beliefs.

This suggests that MFAs may use Generative AI as a tool for gauging global public opinion regarding a nation’s image, its reputation, its policies and the role it plays on the global stage. This insight may then be used by diplomats when narrating state action or crafting campaigns to enhance a state’s image. MFAs may also use this to challenge misconceptions about nations and regions. For instance, African nations may dedicate digital efforts to countering misperceptions found across AIs which depict Africa as inherently corrupt, insecure and plagued by social unrest.

Additionally, as an aggregator of digital information, Generative AIs reproduce biases found online. For example, AIs often describe Global South countries as being very violent while failing to mention violence in Global North countries such as the US. Similarly, Global South countries are labeled as corrupt while AIs fail to note rampant corruption found in Global North countries such France and the UK. Social unrest is also now pervasive across the Global North but is rarely acknowledged by Generative AIs. Such biased depictions of world regions stem from the data used to train AIs including Wikipedia and blog posts which themselves are rife with stereotypes and misconceptions.

Notably, Generative AIs were not designed to be aggregators of opinions and beliefs, and they are mostly trained on English-language content which means that they aggregate information written by English speakers. Yet the depiction of states, regions and policies in and across Generative AIs may serve as an initial data set used by diplomats to gauge public opinion and enhance their communications and ability to “sell” their foreign policies. In this sense, AI may be a “game changer” for diplomacy.  

Read More

Throughout the 1980s, noted British historian Eric Hobsbawm delivered a series of lectures examining the academic study of history, and the state of social history, his chosen field. Hobsbawm’s lectures offer much needed insight into the study of digital diplomacy, in general, and the study of AI’s potential impact on diplomacy. For example, Hobsbawm argued that many historians focus on moments of great revolutions and eruptions such as the Industrial Revolution or the 1917 Bolshevik revolution. Yet historians fail to examine those countries and regions that did not experience revolutions. Hobsbawm therefore suggested that history suffers from a selection bias.

This is also true when examining the history of digital diplomacy scholarship as most studies focus only on those technologies that diplomats have adopted. We know very little about the technologies that diplomats chose not to adopt and why they did so. We know why diplomats chose to adopt social media, but we do not know why diplomats rejected aggregators like Reddit. We know that diplomats adopted virtual worlds, but we do not why they chose not to leverage virtual and augmented reality.

AI presents scholars with a unique opportunity to address this lacuna. Academics need to gain a better understanding of the processes and mechanisms that lead diplomats to adopt or reject technologies. Is this a deliberative process where diplomats hold formal meetings to discuss digital technologies and their potential use? Or is this a bottom-up process where trailblazing diplomats use new technologies in ways which are then emulated across an MFAs? This was the case with social media and Twitter. Or is this a societal process in which diplomats use technologies in their personal life and then adapt these to their professional needs, as was the case with WhatsApp?

Hobsbawm’s second argument is that historians often engage in comparative analysis. Yet Hobsbawm asserted that such comparisons are highly problematic. In his eyes, one could not compare 19th century England with 19th century Russia, or 15th century China with 15th century Japan, given great differences in the size and complexity of these societies.

The history of digital diplomacy scholarship is marked by frequent comparisons between Embassies and MFAs from different countries. Numerous digital diplomacy studies compare the digital strategies and narratives of different MFAs or Embassies. Yet studies also suggest that each MFA is a world unto itself. Indeed, MFAs are national institutions, social bodies and political organs and each MFA is characterized by distinct features such as risk tolerance, communicative culture and standard operating procedures developed over decades. Each of these can shape the process of digital adoption or impact which technologies diplomats adopt and which they reject.  

Thus, it is likely that the use of AI in diplomacy will evolve differently in different MFAs, with some focusing on the benefits of AI and others focusing on AI’s challenges. One of the greatest challenges posed by AI is that of individuals’ ability to create “Real Fakes”- or false yet highly believable realities. Using DeepSeek and ChatGPT I have been able to create a host of diplomatic and military memos all dealing with a “secret” Ukrainian plan to attack Russia and retake Crimea in 2019. These memos, generated within minutes, are remarkable in that they lay out plausible and detailed ways in which Ukraine could in fact retake Crimea. I have shared these memos and military plans with diplomats who all concluded that they were genuine and could not have been generated by AI. These “Real Fakes” were simply too detailed, too well drafted, too plausible and too nuanced to have been generated by a machine.

What emerges from AI is a world in which any individual can create highly believable disinformation campaigns within an afternoon, campaigns that can be shared across digital spaces- the types of campaigns that the CIA and Russian intelligence would take weeks to create in the 1980s. The crisis brought about by “Real Fakes” is that the distinction between the real and the fake collapses as even experts can longer spot a forgery.  In artistic terms, the expert can no longer tell the difference between a genuine work of art and a forgery and thus the forgery is as valuable and as important as the genuine work of art. 

The risk here is that of a world in which there is no longer any shared reality but an endless array of highly believable false realities. But diplomacy necessitates that diplomats, states and publics reach a shared definition of reality. Diplomats cannot act in the world if they do reach a shared definition of reality. Diplomats cannot remove Russian troops from Crimea if they cannot first agree that there are Russian troops in Crimea.

Hobsbawm’s third point was that history and power were intrinsically linked, and that history could not ignore power or the different ways in which power is exerted. The age of AI has given birth to AI power- a power that is silent, nuanced and yet highly impactful. I am referring to the power of AI to shape users’ perceptions, expectations and understanding of the world around them. This is the awesome power of AI.

For example, if you ask Mistral, a French AI, why the US supports Ukraine it will highlight the fact that America views Ukraine as a buffer between Russia and NATO. If you ask ChatGPT you will learn that America and Ukraine share a deep commitment to democratic values. If you ask the popular Chatbot “The Psychologist”, you will read that American arms companies and financial interests are what motivate America’s policy towards Ukraine while DeepSeek, the Chinese AI, will tell you that Ukraine is yet another state consumed by America’s hegemonic ambitions.

The differences between AI answers are often subtle, they often emerge from reading between the lines, they are often minute differences, yet they may lead readers to view the world, and world actors, in very different ways. Scholars and diplomats must begin to research and explore “AI Power”” and understand how AIs promote the worldviews, interests and the power of the states in which they are created.  

Read More

Werner Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle is considered the cornerstone of quantum mechanics. Heisenberg famously argued that quantum particles are subject to unpredictable fluctuations, making them impossible to track precisely. The position and momentum of an electron, for example, are subject to unpredictable fluctuations and as such cannot be measured exactly. Even more complex is the understating that electrons do not possess precise values simultaneously. One can measure the position of an electron, or its momentum but never both simultaneously. Put differently, quantum particles simply do not simultaneously possess precises values of these two attributes- position and momentum. As such, quantum mechanics is a statistical theory. One can measure an electron’s position and estimate its possible momentum thereby generating a set of predictions as to where the electron will move next. These predictions can be regarded as a set of plausible realities. It is plausible that an electron may find its way across the room or that it may remain in its place or that it will move ever so slightly. Different momentums generate different statistical predictions or different plausible realities. In other words, quantum mechanics allows for the existence of several plausible realities at any given moment.

Unlike the quantum realm, ‘the real world’ is supposedly marked by a single shared definition of reality. Donald Trump is President. Russia and Ukraine are at War. India and Pakistan are clashing over Kashmir. Nvidia’s stock price is 135$. That is the reality of the world. And yet people around the world often subscribe to different realities and numerous definitions of reality have always co-existed. These are known as “history”.

According to Russian history, the Great Patriotic War of 1939-1945 ended on May 8^th as a soldier hoisted the Soviet flag over the German Reichstag. According to British history, World War 2 ended on May 8^th, 1945, when the German high command offered Germany’s unconditional surrender. According to US history, the Vietnam War was meant to prevent a domino effect in which Southeast Asia would fall into Communist hands. According to Vietnamese history, the Vietnam War was a brutal, imperialist war waged to prevent the unification of Vietnam.

Most societies and nations are able to exist in a world without a single, shared definition of reality. The same cannot be said of diplomacy. In fact, diplomatic activities necessitate a shared definition of reality. Diplomats cannot, for instance, resolve the Russia-Ukraine War if according to some diplomats there are thousands of Russian troops in Ukraine and if according to other diplomats there are no Russia troops in Ukraine. To resolve this crisis, diplomats must reach some consensus such as: “there are Russian troops in Ukraine”. Once diplomats agree that there are Russian troops in Ukraine, they may search for ways to remove these troops.

Reaching a shared definition of reality is the very goal of diplomatic negotiations. The art of negotiation is really the art of reaching a consensus about reality. Negotiators are skilled at narrowing differences between different parties’ definitions of reality. When two countries subscribe to entirely different definitions of reality, negotiations grow complex and at times become impossible. Such was the case during the 1991 Madrid Conference in which Israeli and Arab delegations could not even agree that there was a political entity known as “Palestine”. The smaller the differences between parties’ definition of reality, the smoother negotiations are likely to be.

The quest for a shared definition of reality dictates how negotiations are conducted. Diplomats are unlikely to change their definition of reality in front of news cameras as this would mean negating state messages. But cloistered in a negotiation room, devoid of cameras and surrounded by trusted colleagues, diplomats may be able to alter their definition of reality. In 2014, far from prying eyes, a Russian diplomat could have conceded that “some” Russian troops had crossed into Crimea.

The endeavor to reach a shared definition of reality is also the goal of public diplomacy in which one nation shares its definition of reality with another. Under the Obama administration, US public diplomacy disseminated a definition of reality according to which an “Iran Deal” would prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons while revitalizing the Iranian economy and increasing stability across the region. Once other nations embraced these definitions of reality, their diplomats joined American ones in trying to broker an Iran Deal or a Middle East peace deal. 

That diplomacy requires a shared definition of reality explains the destructive potential of Generative AI as these tools can be utilized to create false yet highly believable realities. For example, false AI-generated images, videos, documents, and military plans can be created within seconds and shared digitally creating a dizzying array of plausible realities. It is the level of sophistication of AI-generated content that increases the potency of these false realities as AI-generated content can no longer be distinguished from genuine articles. ChatGPT users could thus disseminate a false yet believable reality according to which there are there are Chinese or even American troops in Ukraine, realities supported by visuals and memos.

These plausible realities would then be delivered via social media algorithms directly to people willing to believe them. The real world would thus suddenly mirror the atom world as several realities would co-exist simultaneously. However, statistical probabilities would not apply to the real world as there would be an infinite number of plausible realities to which people subscribe each created by different AI users and funneled through different algorithms. This endless number of plausible realities would fracture societies and nations into atoms that do not join to create a coherent whole.

The real world would thus be even more difficult to comprehend than the quantum one, and almost impossible to manage by diplomats.

For how can diplomats reach a shared definition of reality when there is no single reality? Diplomats may soon enter the negotiating room believing in opposite realities, making negotiations all but impossible. Similarly, public diplomacy activities would grow ineffective for how could two nations reach a shared definition of reality when national publics have been splintered into endless numbers of plausible realities? Any diplomatic message would have to account for all possible realities. Yet, like electrons, each reality would be composed of different variables too numerous to calculate. Ultimately, in their quest to reach some concerns diplomats may automate their messaging, using bots to create endless variations of messages that account for endless variations of reality. This bott-ification of diplomacy would hasten the demise of diplomacy as an instrument for managing world affairs. Diplomacy would be reduced to lines of code as diplomats long for the solace of the negotiating room of old.

Read More

On May 8^th, the world celebrated the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II. It was, for many, a solemn day. The end of World War II was meant to usher in a new dawn of stability and harmony amongst the nations of the world. The struggle to defeat Nazi Germany symbolized victory over tyranny as well as the ability of conflicted states to rally together in order to oppose evil and injustice. May 8^th, 1945 was a moment of jubilation and exaltation as Europe finally stood free, united and at peace. For a few hours on that fateful May 8^th exactly 80 years ago, hope descended in its all majesty on the streets of Paris, London, Amsterdam and Moscow.  

Yet peace was not to last. World War II would soon be followed by the Cold War and a period of 50 years in which the world stood at the brink of nuclear annihilation. Notably, the legacy of World War II was integral to the historical narratives of both the West and the Soviet Union, and both sides celebrated the victory over Nazi Germany. However, the meaning of this victory differed. The Soviet Union celebrated The Great Patriotic War and the heroic stand of the Red Army which overcome insurmountable odds, while paying a devastating price. It was a lesson regarding the pain and blood sacrifice required by all Soviets to protect their socialist Eden. In the West, World War II was proof that democratic states could prevail over despots if they held true to their values and a constant reminder that determination leads to liberation from oppressive yokes.

Nowadays the Winds of War can be felt in many regions across the world. Most notably on May 8^th, Europe is at war as Ukraine and Russia are engaged in a bloody stalemate claiming the lives of tens of thousands of innocents. Indeed, the 2020s have been marked by strife, discord and violence throughout the continent with nations across Europe rebuilding their armies and spending billions on defense and security. In many countries, Russia and not terrorism is now considered to be the number one threat to national security while Cold War relics and agencies are brought back to life to help contend with Russian misinformation and psychological warfare.

It was for this reason that tweets shared on digital diplomacy accounts on May 8^th  were particularly interesting. Although World War II is frequently mentioned in tweets published by European diplomats and foreign ministries, and although World War II images are often invoked online by diplomats to help promote current day policies, tweets published on May 8^th differed in important ways.

First, although May 8^th denotes a collaborative effort to defeat Nazi Germany, some digital diplomacy channels focused on national efforts and national achievements. Such was the case with UK as the FCO tweet stated that “Today we honour the bravery of a generation who fought for our values and freedom”. The emphasis here is on the words “we”, “our” and the iconic images from Britain’s past that accompany the tweet.

A similar sentiment was expressed by the French MFA stating “80 years ago, France celebrated the victory over Nazism. On this occasion, discover our exhibition on the railings of the Quai d’Orsay with photos of liberated France between 1944 and 1945”. Both countries committed historical appropriation with the past being selectively retold. Britain would not have defeated Germany without Russia; France would not have been liberated without the UK. Yet this is not mentioned in either tweet or inferred from accompanying images. World War II was thus a national story, with national legacies and national lessons. It has no international dimension worthy of mentioning.

The reason for this national retelling of an inherently international affair may stem from several factors. First, both MFAs chose messages that would resonate with national audiences. This is not surprising as much digital diplomacy is domestic diplomacy nowadays. Second, this national telling may be indicative of growing nationalist sentiments in both countries with nationalist parties on rise across the UK and France. Third, this retelling may be indicative of the times we live in or a signal that we have entered another moment of rupture in which states become preoccupied with protecting national borders and strengthening national narratives.  

Second, Ukrainian diplomats also appropriated history yet they chose an international retelling of World War II. Unlike the UK or France, Ukraine’s MFA joined “the world in honoring the memory of the millions of victims of World War II”. Yet the MFA added that “remembrance means responsibility”, suggesting that the nations of Europe must collectively maintain their responsibility to bring peace to Europe and that without such an effort remembrance become a hollow exercise in vanity. The abstract image used by the Ukrainian MFA is far mor inclusive the national images used by France and the UK.

Unlike the UK and France, also expressed a sense of urgency writing “The past is not behind us – it is repeating before our eyes…Now, Russia is once again bringing war, destruction, and death. ” and using the hashtag “#NeverAginisNow”. Of course, Ukraine’s international retelling of World War II is not without its own reason as the country remains reliant on international support to protect its borders from the Russian invasion.

The third interesting aspect of May 8 tweets was the use of historic images, which could be found across several European digital diplomacy accounts as shown below. These visuals were not randomly selected. The lack of color attests to their age and authenticity so these images serve an evidentiary purpose- they lend credence to each nation’s retelling of World War II. These visuals are actually rhetorical devices that facilitate historical appropriation and allow for very different telling of the same event.

The past is always present on digital diplomacy accounts as diplomats use the past to make sense of the present. But how one retells the past also shapes the future. National retellings that highlight national trials and national achievements create a national future in which the ‘international’ becomes less important. This is a terrifying prospect as it is the international community, and a commitment to international solutions to international challenges that is the true legacy of World War II.  
 

Read More

In January 2025, the Trump White House unveiled a new Twitter/X account titled “Rapid Response 47.” From the perspective of digital diplomacy, such an account may be of strategic importance. The ubiquity of social media, smartphones, and digital technologies has ushered in an era of instantaneous news dissemination and real-time crisis communication. In this dynamic digital environment, diplomats and world leaders are increasingly expected to narrate, interpret, and influence unfolding global events as they occur.

A rapid response Twitter account can serve as a vehicle for quick and succinct diplomatic messaging, enabling leaders and officials to swiftly comment on breaking news and emerging crises. These digital bursts of diplomacy may then be amplified by journalists, news organizations, and everyday users seeking real-time updates during critical moments. Additionally, rapid response accounts may play an important role in the swift debunking of digital misinformation and disinformation; the faster a false narrative is countered, the less traction it is likely to gain.

However, a closer analysis of this account reveals that its main purpose is to rapidly publish information praising President Trump and attacking his opponents. Notably, although this is an official account associated with the White House, its biography is decidedly unofficial and reads “Official Rapid Response account of the Trump 47 White House. Supporting @POTUS‘s America First agenda and holding the Fake News accountable. MAGA!”  

An analysis of the account, which already boasts over 900,000 followers, reveals its focus on four recurring themes. The first theme focuses on the American economy. A significant portion Tweet promotes the economic successes allegedly spurred by Trump’s policies, collectively branded under the term “Trump Effect.” These tweets assert that under Trump’s leadership, the U.S. is flourishing economically and attracting substantial international investment. Notably absent, however, are references to the trillions of dollars lost in global and domestic markets since his return to office.

Immigration is a second dominant theme. The account frequently posts statements by Trump administration officials condemning undocumented immigrants and advocating for stringent immigration policies while also “proving” how impactful Trump’s policies have been in securing Americas southern border. These posts often include inflammatory language, referring to migrants as “illegal alien criminals, gangbangers, and wife beaters,” and casting Democratic lawmakers as “full-blown crazy.” Liberal media outlets are routinely mocked on the account and dismissed as biased.

The account also serves as a megaphone for the President’s personal posts on Truth Social. Many of these reposts concern international affairs, ranging from Trump’s meetings with world leaders to responses to events such as terrorist attacks in Kashmir. This cross-platform strategy enables Trump’s messaging on Truth Social to rapidly reach a broader audience on Twitter.

Lastly, a steady stream of tweets is dedicated to congratulating President Trump, often portraying his actions as “historic” or unprecedented. These tweets frequently include praise from administration officials and selectively chosen media clips that celebrate Trump victories or favorable moments.

The Rapid Response account is a fascinating example of the direction in which digital diplomacy is headed. In more and more cases, diplomats and diplomatic institutions use social media not as “spokespeople” but as “people who speak”. While Twitter accounts remain official channels for government communication, the content and tone used by diplomats is anything but diplomatic.

This is true of Chinese diplomats who use social media to lambast America and decry the hypocrisy of the international community, of Israeli diplomats that lash out at media channels and of the Trump White House that has an account dedicated to rapidly attacking critics of the President and celebrating supposed achievements. It thus not an account run by “spokespeople” but by “people who speak”. Although the social media accounts of “people who speak” may trend more often and attract more followers, they can cause tremendous harm as they breed tensions between states, hamper the work of international organizations, polarize diplomacy and prevent cross-state cooperation and may lead to the radicalization of domestic audiences who follow diplomats and adopt a negative outlook on diplomacy, diplomatic functions and diplomatic arenas.

The blend of domestic and foreign affairs on the Trump Rapid Response accounts is also emblematic of the blending between the foreign and the domestic seen across digital diplomacy accounts which are increasingly used to target domestic social media users and not foreign ones. Crucially, despite its tone and topics, the Rapid Response account is already followed by dozens of diplomats. Ambassadors, MFAs and diplomatic institutions who may be hoping to gain better insight into the President’s mindset and the White Houses’ agenda.  

Read More

Diplomacy hinges on credibility. As Ben Mor aptly notes, “being perceived as honest and reliable is a necessary condition for obtaining and holding the attention of target audiences, as well as for effective persuasion.” States that are perceived as duplicitous or deceptive struggle to engage with global publics, let alone persuade them to accept their foreign policy priorities. Similarly, countries with a history of reneging on commitments or assurances face immense challenges in swaying online audiences or promoting their policies effectively. Credibility, after all, is fundamental to all diplomatic endeavors. Negotiations between states are bound to fail if one side is seen as deceitful, and states with questionable reputations will find it difficult to form or sustain international alliances or promote policies in multilateral forums.

When a state’s credibility falters, so too does the credibility of its diplomats. For example, Western European publics are likely to be skeptical of Russian diplomats, while American audiences may be unreceptive to promises made by the Kremlin. Similarly, Ukrainian diplomats may struggle to gain the trust of American publics, who might perceive diplomatic statements as part of Ukraine’s efforts to secure continued U.S. aid, an increasingly contentious issue in the US. Yet this crisis of credibility is not limited to states involved in wars or violent conflicts. Across the globe, diplomatic credibility is in crisis, driven by several factors.

The Changing International System

First, the international system that was designed to govern the world after World War II seems increasingly ill-equipped to handle today’s global challenges. As crises proliferate worldwide and tensions between states rise, institutions such as the UN Security Council and the OSCE appear unable to resolve contemporary conflicts, halt ongoing wars, or effectively reduce state tensions. The international system failed to end the Syrian Civil War, resolve the Russia-Ukraine conflict, prevent the annexation of Crimea, or curtail the destructive war Israel is waging in Gaza. Global publics watch with growing dismay as key diplomatic venues, such as the Security Council, devolve into deliberative forums where diplomats merely repeat national talking points and block meaningful resolutions through vetoes. Diplomacy is increasingly viewed with cynicism, and any statement from a diplomat is viewed through the maxim: diplomats are, at best, honest people sent abroad to lie on behalf of their state.

The Era of Coercion

Second, diplomats have lost credibility given the emergence of a world prone to coercion. If the late 20^th century and early 21^st century was the era of attraction, when states searched for shared solutions to shared problems, recent years have seen a shift to the era of coercion where states seek to resolve their own problems on their own. National leaders promise to solve national solutions through national means. Although this shift has taken many years, it was exasperated by Covid 19. As Bruno Latour has written, in many states the Covid pandemic was framed by the media and leaders as a national crisis that warranted national solutions such as hoarding vaccines in what was dubbed “vaccine nationalism”. The world that emerged from Covid was not a global one but one in which borders retained their mythical standing as barriers that help states ward off the dangers and ills of the outside world. 

The Rise of Populism and Nationalism

Thid, diplomats’ credibility has been reduced due to the rise of populism and nationalism. Populist leaders lambast international diplomacy and international forums which they label as globalist entities that prevent nations from obtaining their greatness. This is true of Donald Trump’s Maga movement but also of the UK’s Leave campaign that advocated leaving the EU. Under populism diplomats are also part of the old guard, the ancien régime and global elite which seek merely to preserve the status quo in which great nations are reduced to mediocrity. Nationalist leaders share a similar sentiment accusing international bodies of being “world government” and diplomats of being “global bureaucrats” who usurp the power, autonomy and right of the nation state.   

The Challenge of Digital Diplomacy

This crisis leads to an important question: How can diplomats remain effective communicators when their credibility is in question? More specifically, how can they leverage platforms like social media if they are seen as liars, elitists, or incompetent? One potential solution lies in the use of credible spokespeople to represent a nation’s interests. This approach was recently pioneered by Ukraine. In the early stages of the war with Russia, Ukraine appointed several “digital ambassadors” to help raise funds for the war effort and humanitarian aid. These included high-profile figures such as Star Wars actor Mark Hamill and singer Barbra Streisand, alongside academics like Timothy Snyder and former U.S. astronaut Mike Kelly. What these Ambassadors all have in common is that they are viewed as credible by their followers online. These Ambassadors are not viewed by social media users as national spokespeople but as people who speak on behalf of another nation.

Of course, different digital publics may view different individuals as credible. Some may trust academics, while others may put their faith in celebrities or former politicians who are no longer in office and can speak freely. For instance, Mexico’s former president used social media to criticize Donald Trump during his first term, amassing followers and influence. The future of successful digital and public diplomacy may depend on segmenting digital audiences and identifying credible spokespeople within each segment. By enlisting individuals who speak on behalf of nations, alongside traditional spokespeople, states may be able to regain the trust of digital publics and advance their foreign policy objectives.

Read More