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 20th century and early 21st 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.
