Required #10 (Late) - Digitial Diplomacy

The week's topic of Digital Diplomacy is certainly interesting after listening to Phillip J. Crowley speak about Wikileaks. Between the readings, speaking with Professor Don Shemanski, and PJ Crowley I can safely say that diplomacy has radically changed in the last ten years. Previously, diplomacy used to happen one on one with other diplomats. Now, diplomacy happens live in a public setting with billions of other spectators. All it takes is a person with a cell phone and a Twitter account to start frenzy across the Internet. 

Recent events demonstrate exactly how the old ways of acting no apply in diplomacy and world events. When Osama Bin Laden died, I did not find about it from reading the newspaper or watching CNN. Instead, I discovered that Osama Bin Laden was dead after I logged onto Facebook after being Portal for the first time. Almost an hour and a half passed from when I first discovered that Osama was dead to the time of President Obama's Press Conference. In that time, enough people had gathered in Beaver Canyon to "riot." If the old models still applied, people would not find discover Osama Bin Laden's death until the next morning when they read the newspaper. 

These new technologies are almost forcing these government organizations to become more transparent. While many would argue that transparency is a good thing, I am not fully convinced that it is in the diplomatic world. In the diplomatic world, diplomats frequently say things that would cause embarrassment should it reach the rest of the world. However, it is important that these diplomats recognize these embarrassments internally. If the world becomes so transparent that these conversations no longer happen, diplomacy will become that much tougher. Wikileaks demonstrates the problems of what happens when transparency no longer exists. In the future diplomats will be hesitant to write cables, similar to those contained in the Wikileaks release, for fears that the information will become public knowledge. This fear slows, and damages the Diplomatic community's ability to operate.

Another lesson that I learned reading Diplomacy in the Digital Age is that immediacy between events and required events is now much shorter. If a government does not jump on top a crisis immediately, than situations will spread like wildfires. While not a diplomatic situation, the differences in the response between Syracuse and Penn State highlight just how true this actually is. When faced with a sexual-abuse crisis, decision makers at Penn State decided to sit on the situation for a few days before issuing a response. The only initial response from Penn States was a misguided statement from President Spanier. Meanwhile when word spread of a potential sexual-abuse scandal at Syracuse, decision makers there jumped right on top of the crisis. Bernie Fine immediately found himself on administrative leave and out of a job just a few days later. By jumping on top of a crisis immediately, Syracuse was able to help shape the narrative that came out in the immediate aftermaths. Diplomats can apply the lessons learned from Penn State in the digital age of interconnectedness. Situations today, require an immediate response from those involved. If you do not jump on top of those situations immediately, you lose the ability to help shape the narrative that arises afterwards.