Virtual Cultural Diplomacy

Dr. ASLI VAROL

Virtual reality technologies have provided the presentation of culture in the virtual environment. Thus, cultural elements crossed the borders of the country and became accessible in the global area. Virtual cultural diplomacy can be briefly expressed as the implementation of cultural diplomacy in the virtual environment. Virtual cultural diplomacy should be considered as a field of diplomacy based on communicating with the global audience through the digital cultural assets of the countries.

Private Sector Strengthens Cultural Diplomacy

Cummings defines the concept of cultural diplomacy as “the exchange of ideas, information, art, and other aspects of culture among nations and their peoples in order to foster mutual understanding” (Cummings, 2003). According to this definition, cultural diplomacy can be a two-way exchange. On the other hand, cultural diplomacy can also be a one-way street, when a nation “telling its story” to the rest of the world (Cummings, 2003).

As Goff noted cultural diplomacy springs from two premises: “First, that good relations can take root in the fertile ground of understanding and respect. Second, cultural diplomacy rests on the assumption that art, language, and education are among the most significant entry points into a culture” (Goff, 2013). Cultural diplomacy aims to impress with charm and is on the side of soft power. Cultural diplomacy is about bridging differences and facilitating mutual understanding. Cultural diplomacy can tell a different story than official policy implies. This may be a story that counters what opponents are telling (Goff, 2013).

Cultural diplomacy is also seen as a sub-field of the public diplomacy that a government aims to communicate and influence to foreign audiences in a positive way. Cultural diplomacy can overcome audience doubts about official messages while presenting a national image abroad. Thus, it can serve to give concreteness to the national reputation. At home, it can contribute to national social cohesion, particularly when targeting minority ethnic groups (Mark, 2009).

Cultural diplomacy should not be seen only as a sub-field of public diplomacy. Because culture is not only in the domain of the state. Examples of cultural diplomacy are that private sector actors hold exhibitions abroad on the historical and national identity of their home country, establish galleries emphasizing cultural identity in foreign museums, and carry out various cultural sponsorship activities. In this sense, it is clear that the private sector contributes to the progress of their countries in cultural diplomacy by supporting the efforts of states.

Private sector actors aim to benefit themselves and their countries by building strong relations through corporate diplomacy and establishing cooperation in the social or cultural field. Companies have started to benefit from corporate diplomacy to develop social, cultural, environmental and even political relations abroad (Varol, 2020: 11). In this sense, cultural diplomacy in the private sector can be considered as a sub-field of corporate diplomacy. Companies promote cultural heritage of the home country in order to improve their own and their country’s image and strengthen their reputation.

Today, many private companies recognize cultural activities as a requirement of their contract with the communities in which they operate. The development of digital communication technologies has led the private sector to work for the presentation of cultural assets in the digital environment as well as in the physical environment. The virtual environment provides significant advantages to the private sector in the promotion of cultural assets to the world. For example, virtual museums have already taken their place in corporate social responsibility and sponsorship efforts of companies. Cultural diplomacy has left the official field of states and has become a field of diplomacy in which the private sector willingly participates.

Utilizing Virtual Diplomacy for Sustainability of Cultural Heritage

Solomon defines “virtual diplomacy” as “political, social, and economic interactions that are mediated through electronic means rather than face-to-face communication (Solomon, 1997). It is necessary to include cultural interaction in these interactions. It is clear that culture affects other interaction zones. Cultural similarities, affinities or differences between countries affect foreign affairs.

Virtual diplomacy is often used in the sense of digital diplomacy (Gilboa, 2016: 541; Purwasito and Kartinawati, 2020). Because both virtual diplomacy and digital diplomacy use the digital environment. However, these two are different concepts. Digital diplomacy aims to provide instant interactions digitally, especially through social media sites. Virtual diplomacy may not always have such a purpose. Virtual diplomacy can aim for two-way or one-way communication, providing audience access wherever there is an Internet connection. Virtual diplomacy can be considered as the implementation of other forms of diplomacy through virtual platforms.

The concept of “virtual cultural diplomacy” can be used to express the application of cultural diplomacy in the virtual environment. In this sense, virtual cultural diplomacy means the presentation of cultural elements in the virtual environment for diplomatic purposes.

Virtual cultural diplomacy may more quickly fulfill the functions specified in the above definitions, such as storytelling in the virtual environment, building bridges between differences, providing mutual understanding between societies, contributing to social cohesion. In addition, digitally documented cultural elements will be transferred to future generations, even if they are destroyed by human or natural disasters. On the other hand, virtual cultural diplomacy may be functional in resolving disputes between countries, especially on the ownership of archaeological assets. Because, in order to inform and persuade the global community about which lands the archaeological assets belong to, it is important to present the other archaeological assets that they related in a virtual environment.

Presentation of Virtual Cultural Heritage to Global Audience through Virtual Cultural Diplomacy

According to UNESCO’s “Charter on the Preservation of the Digital Heritage”, adopted in 2003, “the digital heritage consists of unique resources of human knowledge and expression. It embraces cultural, educational, scientific and administrative resources, as well as technical, legal, medical and other kinds of information created digitally, or converted into digital form from existing analogue resources. Where resources are “born digital”, there is no other format but the digital object” (UNESCO, 2003). And as stated in this Chater’s Article 9 titled “Preserving cultural heritage”, the digital heritage is unlimited in time, geography, culture or format and is potentially accessible to anyone in the world. Through digital heritage, minorities may speak to majorities, and the individual to a global audience. Therefore, the digital heritage of all regions, countries and communities should be preserved and made accessible, in order to ensure that all peoples, nations, cultures and languages are represented over time (UNESCO, 2003).

Ceccotti explains virtual heritage as “one of the computer-based interactive technologies in virtual reality where it creates a visual representation of monuments, artifacts, buildings and culture to deliver openly to global audiences” (Cecotti, 2022: 82). Virtual heritage is created by directly computer graphics and/or multimedia content, i.e., 3D objects, 2D images, sounds, music.  The main purpose of virtual heritage is to represent cultural heritage in realistic virtual environments so that the public can engage and interact with these artifacts (Cecotti, 2022: 83).

According to Koutsabasis, an increasing number of interactive systems aim to improve the user experience (UX) of visitors in cultural heritage (CH) places and sites, including museums, exhibitions, archaeological places, historical cities or settlements (Koutsabasis, 2021). Cultural heritage organizations are addressing to a wide range of potential visitors. In doing so, these organizations focus specifically on young people and children affected by interactive technology. Visitors to cultural heritage sites are interested in maximizing their experience in terms of technology-mediated sensitivity and learning (Koutsabasis, 2021: 125).

Especially, virtual museums can be highly functional for heritage diplomacy as they provide public access to cultural assets (Varol, 2023). The presentation of cultural assets through virtual museums provides the promotion of the cultural identities of the countries. Virtual museums should be considered as platforms that strengthen virtual cultural diplomacy.

Virtual cultural diplomacy aims to interact between societies by presenting the attraction of cultural elements to the global audience without the limit of time and space. This interaction will provide an opportunity for societies to get to know each other better, to respect each other’s history, to understand their similarities and differences, and to develop good-willed relationships.

Conclusion 

Culture will continue to exist as a soft power in diplomacy. Therefore, in order to the promotion of cultural elements to reach global audiences, it is necessary to make use of the virtual environment as much as possible.

Virtual cultural diplomacy can be a way for states to achieve their foreign policy goals. In addition, the work of the private sector to contribute to the image and reputation of the country and to build cultural bridges should be considered among the examples of virtual cultural diplomacy.

The development of digital communication technologies will continue to offer significant advantages to diplomacy. More new types of diplomacy will emerge based on digital communication technologies and artificial intelligence technology. Virtual cultural diplomacy can be expressed as a new type of diplomacy that allows experiencing the exchange between cultures at an individual and institutional level, free from time, space and even national bias.

 

References

Cecotti, Hubert (2022): Cultural Heritage in Fully Immersive Virtual Reality, Virtual Worlds, 1, 82-102, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/virtualworlds1010006.

Cummings, Milton (2003): “Cultural Diplomacy and the United States Government: A Survey”, Cultural Diplomacy Research Series: Americans for the Arts.

Gilboa, Eytan (2016): “Digital Diplomacy”, The SAGE Handbook of Diplomacy, Ed. Costas M. Constantinou, Pauline Kerr, Paul Sharp, SAGE Publications, London, 540-551.

Goff, Patricia M. (2013): “Cultural Diplomacy”, The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy, Ed. by Andrew F. Cooper, Jorge Heine, and Ramesh Thakur, DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199588862.013.0024.

Koutsabasis, Panayiotis (2021): “Evaluation in Virtual Heritage”, Virtual Heritage: A Guide, Ed. by Erik Malcolm Champion, 115-127, London: Ubiquity Press, DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/bck.k., License: CC-BY-NC.

Mark, Simon (2009): A Greater Role for Cultural Diplomacy, Discussion Papers in Diplomacy, Netherlands Institute of International Relations ‘Clingendael’, April 2009, https://www.clingendael.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/20090616_cdsp_discussion_paper_114_mark.pdf, Accessed: 13. 08. 2023.

Purwasito, Andrik, Erwin Kartinawati (2020): “Hybrid Space and Digital Diplomacy in Global Pandemic Covid-19”, Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, Volume 510, 6th International Conference on Social and Political Sciences (ICOSAPS 2020), 662-666.

Solomon, Richard H. (1997): “The Information Revolution and International Conflict Management, United States Institute of Peace”, Keynote Addresses from the Virtual Diplomacy Conference, Peaceworks, United States Institute of Peace, https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/pwks18.pdf, Accessed: 13. 08. 2023.  

UNESCO (2003): “Charter on the Preservation of the Digital Heritage”, UNESCO, Paris, France, 15 October 2003, https://en.unesco.org/about-us/legal-affairs/charter-preservation-digital-heritage, Accessed: 23. 03. 2023.  

Varol, Aslı (2020): Kurumsal Diplomasi, Cinius, Istanbul.

Varol, Aslı (2023): “Promoting Heritage Diplomacy: Access to Underwater Cultural Heritage through Digital Communication Technologies”, International Mustafa V. Koç Underwater Archeology Symposium, The Turkish Foundation for Nautical Archeology (TINA), June 16-17, Istanbul, Turkey, 2023.

 

Die Sustainable Development Goals durch Sozialdiplomatie für Flüchtlinge bedeutsam machen

Dr. ASLI VAROL

Migration ist nicht nur Frage offizieller zwischenstaatlicher diplomatischer Beziehungen. Nichtstaatliche Akteure sollten in der Sozialdiplomatie aktiv werden, um die soziale Anpassung von Flüchtlingen sicherzustellen und ihre Lebensbedingungen zu verbessern. Die Ziele für nachhaltige Entwicklung der Vereinten Nationen (UN Sustainable Development Goals) werden nichtstaatliche Akteure im Prozess der Sozialdiplomatie leiten.

Die Anwendung der Diplomatie auf soziale Fragen: Sozialdiplomatie

Nichtstaatliche Akteure schaffen ihren eigenen Bereich der Sozialdiplomatie. Denn nichtstaatliche Akteure sind zu Akteuren geworden, die ihre lokalen und regionalen langfristigen Netzwerke nutzen, um gegenseitiges Verständnis, Zusammenarbeit und Schadensbegrenzung zu verbessern. Auf diese Weise stellen sie die traditionellen „Grenzen“ der öffentlichen Diplomatie in Frage (Doeveren, 2011: 18).

Da Sozialdiplomatie sozial, grundsätzlich vernetzt, interaktiv und relational ist, liegt sie zwischen zielgerichteten sozialen Einheiten wie Einzelpersonen, Gruppen, Organisationen und Staaten und ihren Aggregationen. Sozialdiplomatie kann als eine Mission des guten Willens betrachtet werden, die konstruktives Engagement und dialogische Interaktion zwischen den Parteien umfasst, um einen sozialen Nutzen und positive Beziehungen zu schaffen (Faizullaev, 2022).

Ein Leitfaden zur Sozialdiplomatie, um Einwanderern ein menschenwürdiges Leben zu ermöglichen: Die Sustainable Development Goals

Migration ist die Bewegung von Menschen von einem Ort zum anderen, um sich an einem neuen Ort niederzulassen. Migration kann freiwillig oder unfreiwillig erfolgen. Die Migration hat drei wesentliche Push- und Pull-Faktoren: soziale und politische Faktoren, demografische und wirtschaftliche Gründe sowie Umwelt- und Klimamigration (European Parliament, 2023).

Unternehmerische Nachhaltigkeit erfordert die Berücksichtigung von Trends und Veränderungen auf globalen Bereich (Varol, 2019). Sozialdiplomatie gehört zum Bereich der sozialen Unternehmensverantwortung des Privatsektors.

Nichtregierungsorganisationen (NRO/NGO) sind auch die Hauptakteure der Sozialdiplomatie. Organisationen, die ihrer Corporate-Citizenship-Pflicht auf die korrekteste Art und Weise nachkommen wollen, sollten Maßnahmen zur internationalen Migration ergreifen.

Die Sozialdiplomatie zeigt, dass internationale Beziehungen nicht mehr nur die Domäne von Regierungen sind. Internationale Zusammenarbeit kann erreicht werden, wenn Bürger für ein gemeinsames Ziel zusammenkommen. NGOs spielen eine wichtige Rolle bei der Entwicklung von Zivilgesellschaften, der Förderung von Bildung und Gesundheitsversorgung in Entwicklungsländern und der Bereitstellung humanitärer Hilfe dort, wo sie benötigt wird (Boratyñski, 2002: 3).

Die Agenda 2030 ist ein Aktionsplan für Menschen, Planeten und Wohlstand. Diese universelle Agenda zielt darauf ab, den universellen Frieden in größerer Freiheit zu stärken (United Nations General Assembly, 2015). Die Ziele für nachhaltige Entwicklung sind geeignet, dem Privatsektor und der Zivilgesellschaft als Orientierungshilfe zu dienen, damit Flüchtlinge in den Ländern, in die sie ausgewandert sind, ein menschenwürdiges Leben führen können. Nahrung, Unterkunft, Bildung und Gesundheit seine Richtungen werden größtenteils von den Staaten bereitgestellt. Allerdings erfordern Themen wie Beschäftigung, sozialer Zusammenhalt und Anpassung, gegenseitiges Verständnis und kultureller Austausch die Zusammenarbeit nichtstaatlicher Akteure. In diesem Zusammenhang sollte verschiedene gemeinsame Projekte entwickelt.

Es ist deutlich zu erkennen, dass die Einwanderung weltweit in naher Zukunft noch stärker zunehmen wird. Umso wichtiger wird es, konkrete Ergebnisse aus den Zielen für nachhaltige Entwicklung zu erzielen. Durch die Ziele für nachhaltige Entwicklung ist es möglich, Entwicklungen zu überwachen. Denn die 17 Ziele für nachhaltige Entwicklung und 169 Unterzielgruppen zeigen, was erreicht wurde.

Sozialdiplomatie sollte als besonderes Feld der Diplomatie zur Verteidigung der Lebensrechte von Flüchtlingen und zur Verbesserung ihrer Lebensbedingungen anerkannt werden. In diesem Zusammenhang sollte es eine nationale und internationale Zusammenarbeit zwischen Privatwirtschaft und Zivilgesellschaft geben. Den Nachhaltigkeitszielen für Flüchtlinge Bedeutung zu verleihen, gelingt nur, wenn nichtstaatliche Akteure im Prozess der Sozialdiplomatie aktiv sind. Daher sollten der Privatsektor und die Zivilgesellschaft stets den Weg des Dialogs und der Zusammenarbeit offen halten, um dieser globalen Herausforderung zu begegnen.

Literaturverzeichnis

Boratyñski, Jakub (2002): “Introduction”, Social Diplomacy: The Case of Poland; International activity of Polish NGOs and their dialogue with government, Ed. by Grażyna  Czubek, p. 3, Warsaw: Stefan Batory Foundation, http://pdc.ceu.hu/archive/00002387/01/diplomac.pdf,  Accessed: 27. 07. 2023.

European Parliament (2023): “Exploring migration causes: why people migrate”, Updated: 

02-05-2023, (Created: 01-07-2020), https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/world/20200624STO81906/exploring-migration-causes-why-people-migrate, Accessed: 29. 07. 2023.

 

Faizullaev, A. (2022): “On Social Diplomacy”, The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 17(4), 692-703, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/1871191x-bja10132.

United Nations General Assembly (2015): “Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development”, Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015, A/RES/70/1, 21 October 2015.

van Doeveren, Rianne (2011): “Engaging the Arab World through Social Diplomacy”, Clingendael Paper, No. 4, The Hague, The Netherlands: Clingendael-Netherlands Institute of International Relations, October 2011.

Varol, Aslı (2019): Tüm Boyutlarıyla Kurumsal Sosyal Sorumluluk, Cinius, Istanbul.

Wróbel, Anna (2002): “Social Diplomacy, Warsaw 26-27 June 2002: Report on conference proceedings”, Social Diplomacy: The Case of Poland; International activity of Polish NGOs and their dialogue with government, Ed. by Grażyna Czubek, 7-9, Warsaw: Stefan Batory Foundation, http://pdc.ceu.hu/archive/00002387/01/diplomac.pdf, Accessed: 27. 07. 2023.

 

A Hybrid Model Proposal for Diplomacy: Cooperation between AI Diplomats and Human Diplomats in the Context of No-Press Diplomacy

Dr. ASLI VAROL

Ways to effectively benefit from Artificial Intelligence (AI) in diplomacy should be sought. Diplomatic actors such as states, governments, private companies, non-governmental organizations need to do more research and development (R&D) for this. In particular, a way should be sought for AI to work together with human diplomats.

By combining human power and AI power through gamification in diplomacy, hybrid models can be adopted. AI should be used in forecasting, research and reporting. Of course, like Meta’s Cicero, AI’s cooperation capability with humans must be developed. On the other hand, human diplomats should be active in building interpersonal trust and cooperation and using language skills.

No-Press Diplomacy and “Diplomacy” Game

Gamification in diplomacy began in the 1950s. This gamification is conceptualized as “No-Press Diplomacy”.

“Diplomacy” was created by Allan Calhamer in 1954. “Diplomacy”, commercially released in the United States in 1959, is a strategic board game (Calhamer, 1974).  The game begins in 1901. In “Diplomacy”, players can choose Austria, England, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, or Turkey (Paquette et al., 2019).

No-Press Diplomacy is designed as a complex game involving cooperation and competition (Gray et al., 2021: 9). Today, No-Press Diplomacy is a complex strategy game involving cooperation and competition that serves as a benchmark for multi-agent AI research (Bakhtin et al., 2022).

The aim of the players is to take control of most of the map on the game board. To succeed in this challenge, players must cooperate, negotiate, trust and support each other, as well as compete for as many territories as possible. In “Diplomacy”, players form alliances and support each other through private, one-to-one conversations. On the other hand, there are no binding agreements. Therefore, players may misrepresent their plans and make a double deal. After negotiations, players write down their moves, which are then executed simultaneously. Of course, they trust others to do what they say. Because the only way to win in the “Diplomacy” game is to build trust, negotiate and cooperate with other players (Meta AI, n.d.).

AI as a “Diplomacy” Game Player

Today, the “Diplomacy” game can be played as “webDiplomacy” via https://webdiplomacy.net/. Various researchers and experts have studied to understand the level of success and effectiveness of AI in this game.

Bakhtin et al. discuss a planning algorithm they call DiL-piKL. They used RL-DiL-piKL to train an agent they named “Diplodocus”. They found that “Diplodocus” was successful in “Diplomacy”. They state that combining human imitation, planning, and RL (Reinforcement Learning) offers a promising way to create agents for complex cooperative and mixed-motivate environments (Bakhtin et al., 2022). “Diplomacy” is a game that only one player can win. Cooperation with other players is almost essential to achieve victory in this game (Gray et al., 2021: 2).

Paquette et al. focused on training an agent who learns to play the version of No-Press Diplomacy. They presented “DipNet”, a neural network-based policy model for No-Press Diplomacy. In “Diplomacy”, players are faced with SSD (Sequential social dilemmas) at every stage of the game. “Diplomacy” is also one of the first SSD games with a rich environment. A single player can own up to 34 units, with each unit having an average of 26 possible actions. This astronomical action space makes planning and searching difficult. However, thinking across multiple time scales is an important aspect of “Diplomacy”. Agents need to be able to formulate a high-level long-term strategy (for example, whom to ally with) and have a very short-term execution plan for their strategy (for example, what units should I move in the next round). Agents should also be able to adapt their plans and beliefs about others (e.g. trustworthiness) depending on the game’s unfolding (Paquette et al., 2019).

Anthony et al. proposed a simple but effective approximate best response operator designed to handle large combinatorial action spaces and simultaneous movements. They also introduced a family of policy iteration methods that approach the fictitious play. With these methods, they tried to apply RL to “Diplomacy” (Anthony et al., 2020). Bakhtin et al. also trained “DORA”, an agent completely from scratch, for a popular two-player variant of “Diplomacy” (Bakhtin et al., 2021).

For the first time, Meta’s Fundamental AI Research Diplomacy Team trained an AI to achieve “human-level performance” in the war strategy board game “Diplomacy”. This new AI agent is named as “Cicero”, the classical statesman and scholar who witnessed the fall of the Roman Republic. The new AI agent, Cicero, can effectively communicate and strategize with other human players, plan best practices for victory, and in some cases even pass as a human. And also, the researchers state that Cicero is a “benchmark” for multiple AI agent learning, which performs its tasks by combining dialogue and strategic reasoning models.

The researchers conducted their study experiments on 40 anonymized online webDiplomacy.net games, played for a total of 72 hours, between August 19 and October 13, 2022. Cicero “passed as a human player” in 40 “Diplomacy” games with 82 unique players. Cicero even managed to successfully change a human player’s mind by proposing a mutually beneficial move (DeGeurin, 2022).

Conclusion

As a new generation of No-Press Diplomacy, efforts should be promoted to ensure cooperation between AI diplomats and human diplomats in the physical and digital environment. This hybrid model cooperation will provide benefits to the parties in diplomatic relations in terms of time, effort and cost. Because there will also be a work sharing between AI and human diplomats, thus sharing responsibilities and obligations. Therefore, AI agents to work in diplomacy should be developed. These AI agents should be developed as experts in various fields of diplomacy and should be equipped and trained with communication and negotiation skills that form the basis of diplomacy.

References

Anthony, Thomas, Tom Eccles, Andrea Tacchetti, János Kramár, Ian Gemp, Thomas C. Hudson, Nicolas Porcel, Marc Lanctot, Julien Pérolat, Richard Everett, Roman Werpachowski, Satinder Singh, Thore Graepel, Yoram Bachrach (2020): “Learning to Play No-Press Diplomacy with Best Response Policy Iteration”, 34th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS 2020), Vancouver, Canada.

Bakhtin, Anton, David Wu Adam Lerer Noam Brown (2021): “No-Press Diplomacy from Scratch”, 35th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS 2021).

Bakhtin, Anton, David J Wu, Adam Lerer, Jonathan Gray, Athul Paul Jacob, Gabriele Farina, Alexander H Miller, Noam Brown (2022): “Mastering the Game of No-Press Diplomacy via Human-Regularized Reinforcement Learning and Planning”, arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.05492.

Calhamer, Allan (1974): “The Invention of Diplomacy”, Reprinted from Games & Puzzles, No. 21 (January 1974),

https://web.archive.org/web/20090910012615/http://www.diplom.org/~diparch/resources/calhamer/invention.htm, Accessed: 19. 07. 2023.

DeGeurin, Mack (2022): Meta’s ‘Cicero’ AI Trounced Humans at Diplomacy without Revealing Its True Identity, November 22, 2022, Gizmodo, https://gizmodo.com/meta-ai-cicero-diplomacy-gaming-1849811840, Accessed: 18. 07. 2023.

 

Gray, Jonathan, Adam Lerer, Anton Bakhtin, Noam Brown (2021): “Human-Level Performance in No-Press Diplomacy via Equilibrium Search”, Published as a conference paper at ICLR 2021, arXiv: 2010.02923, Accessed: 18. 07. 2023.

 

Meta AI (n.d.): “About the Game”,https://ai.meta.com/research/cicero/diplomacy/, Accessed: 19. 07. 2023.

 

Paquette, Philip, Yuchen Lu, Steven Bocco, Max O. Smith, Satya Ortiz-Gagné, Jonathan K. Kummerfeld, Satinder Singh, Joelle Pineau, Aaron Courville (2019):  “No Press Diplomacy: Modeling Multi-Agent Gameplay”, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32 (NeurIPS 2019).

 

Wikipedia (n.d.): “Diplomacy (game)”, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomacy_(game), Accessed: 19. 07. 2023.

 

Interdependent World Order and Quantum Diplomacy

Dr. ASLI VAROL

                                                                                                “God does not play dice.”

                                                                                                     Albert Einstein

Quantum logic goes beyond classical physics and presents a new perspective in science. This requires more discussion of the contribution of quantum technologies to economy, society, politics, security and in short, all areas of life. In addition, benefiting from the perspective of quantum physics in the diplomatic field will also be important in terms of understanding the relations between countries and institutions and guiding their future.

Notion of Quantum Theory

The field of physics went through two major transformations at the beginning of the 20th century. The first of these was Einstein’s “General Theory of Relativity”, which dealt with the field of universal physics. The second was the “Quantum Theory”, which postulated that energy exists in separate packets, each called “quantum”. This new branch of physics allowed scientists to describe the interaction between energy and matter across the subatomic realm. Considering that defining truth requires precise predictions and then direct observations, Einstein viewed Quantum Theory as a way to describe nature at the atomic level, but doubted that it provided “a useful basis for the whole of physics”. Physicist Niels Bohr challenged Einstein and defended Quantum Theory. According to Bohr, who argues that the act of observing the atomic realm indirectly changes the outcome of quantum interactions, quantum predictions based on probability accurately describe reality. Niels Bohr and Max Planck, the founding fathers of Quantum Theory, received the Nobel Prize in Physics for their work on the quanta. Einstein, on the other hand, is considered the third founder of Quantum Theory, as he defined light as quanta in his theory of the Photoelectric Effect, for which he won the 1921 Nobel Prize (American Museum of Natural History, n.d.).

Quantum theory is the theoretical foundation of modern physics that explains the nature and behavior of matter and energy at the atomic and subatomic level. The nature and behavior of matter and energy at this level is sometimes called quantum physics and quantum mechanics.

Organizations in various countries have devoted significant resources to the development of quantum computing, which uses quantum theory to greatly improve computational capabilities beyond what is possible using today's classical computers. In 1900, physicist Max Planck presented the quantum theory to the German Physical Society. Planck had tried to discover why the radiation emitted from a glowing body would change its color from red to orange and finally to blue as its temperature raised. Making the assumption in 1900 that energy consists of individual units or quanta, Planck won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1918 for his theory, but over a thirty-year period the advances made by various scientists all contributed to the modern understanding of quantum theory. In 1905, Albert Einstein theorized that not only energy but also radiation itself is quantized in the same way. In 1924, Louis de Broglie proposed that there is no fundamental difference in the structure and behavior of energy and matter. According to this theory, which became known as the principle of wave-particle duality, elementary particles of both energy and matter behave depending on conditions such as particles or waves. In 1927, Werner Heisenberg suggested that precise, simultaneous measurement of two complementary values, such as the position and momentum of a subatomic particle, was impossible. Contrary to classical physics principles, their simultaneous measurements are inevitably flawed; the more precisely one value is measured, the more inaccurate the measurement of the other value will be. This theory came to be known as the uncertainty principle, which led to Albert Einstein's interpretation that “God does not play dice” (Wigmore, 2020).

The Copenhagen interpretation and many-world theories constitute the two main interpretations of quantum theory's implications for the nature of reality. According to the Copenhagen interpretation proposed by Niels Bohr, a particle is what it is measured for, but it is claimed that it cannot be assumed to have certain properties or even exist until it is measured. In short, Bohr said that objective reality does not exist. This translates into a principle called superposition, which asserts that while we don't know what the state of any object is, it is actually in all possible states at once unless we're looking to check it (Wigmore, 2020). In his book titled “Quantum Mechanics and Experience”, Albert uses the phrase that superposition is perhaps the most shocking story to come out of any physical science since the seventeenth century (Albert, 1992).

The second interpretation of quantum theory is the theory of many-worlds (or multiverse theory). According to this theory, any object has the potential to be in any state. And that object's universe becomes a series of parallel universes equal to the number of possible states the object could exist in. Each of these universes contains a unique possible state of that object. On the other hand, there is an interaction mechanism between these universes that somehow allows all states to be somehow accessible and all possible states to be affected in some way. Stephen Hawking and Richard Feynman are among the scientists who expressed their preference for the many-worlds theory (Wigmore, 2020).

Quantum Diplomacy: Reality, Superposition and Many-Worlds Theory in Interdependent World Order

It is known that the idea of quantum diplomacy first emerged from a conversation between former US Secretary of State George P. Shultz and theoretical physicist Sidney Drell. In this conversation, Drell says, “As soon as you observe something in physics it changes, so it’s very hard to really observe something.” and Schultz replies “In diplomacy, you put a TV camera around something, it’s not the same” (Höne, 2016). Shultz explains this at the “Virtual Diplomacy Conference” (Shultz, 1997):

“My views on the media’s role in foreign affairs are heavily influenced by the notion of “quantum diplomacy,” for which I must credit a physicist friend at Stanford, Sid Drell. An axiom of quantum theory is that when you observe and measure some piece of a system, you inevitably disturb the whole system. So the process of observation itself is a cause of change. That is all too often the case when a TV camera is right in the middle of some chaotic event, trying to capture its essence objectively. Quantum diplomacy holds that true reality is hard to record. So the possibilities of distortions, let alone selectivity, mean that an independent base of information is essential. Even so, the compelling image on the screen—accurate or not—can have a powerful impact on the citizenry.”

 

Der Derian, in his article titled “Quantum diplomacy, German-US Relations and the Psychogeography of Berlin”, uses the concept of quantum diplomacy to mean the interdependence of different expressions of diplomacy, independent of causal relationships. He focuses on quantum diplomacy in his study centering on the commemoration ceremony held in Berlin for the 100th anniversary of the birth of US President Ronald Reagan in February 2011. In this study, Der Derian evaluates new quantum diplomacy through the ubiquity, interconnectivity and reflexivity of global media during these anniversary events (Der Derian, 2011). Rasmussen, in his article titled “Diplomacy as a Quantum Superposition: Towards a Conceptual Common Ground for Interdisciplinary Studies of a Pluralising Phenomenon?”, examines the superposition situation in quantum theory within EU diplomacy (Rasmussen, 2016) . 

In a quantum system, the visible world reveals only a fraction of what is happening beyond our gaze, there is no certainty and everything is potential. Reality is not independent of the observer; both intertwined and formed each other. In this context, subjectivity is a feature of the system (Del Rosso, 2022).

Bjola states that quantum theory offers useful cognitive guides for discussing the ontological and epistemological assumptions underlying the concept of digital diplomatic effect. That is, it opens the analytical “door” to the possibility of examining the impact of digital diplomacy not only in separate terms (A causes B), but also as a continuous process (A and B shape each other) (Bjola, 2016).  

Global economic crises, climate crisis, COVID-19 pandemic, and natural disasters reveal that all stakeholders in the world are interdependent. It is already predicted that other global threats will emerge in the near future. For this reason, states and institutions cannot deal with any issue in foreign relations by thinking one-dimensionally and aiming to reach the absolute reality. In this context, it is important to think about diplomacy with quantum logic. According to quantum logic, it is necessary to divide foreign policy issues into sub-categories and to grasp them according to their movements in the universe they are in. In as much as there is no single reality. According to the effects that occur simultaneously in the sub-universe, it will be necessary to consider the idea that not a single right but all the parties can be right for valid reasons. In this way, it will be easier to mitigate conflicts between countries. 

On the other hand, when considered according to quantum logic, observing and generalizing a foreign policy issue as a whole will lead to dogmatic results. It will be necessary to negotiate the interests of all stakeholders on our planet, their contribution to global problems and the conflicts among them, taking into account the interdependence of sub-universes. In addition, in the case of superposition, the same problem can be seen in different parts of the world at the same time and the same potential situation can be assumed until the measurement is made. In other words, every problem that falls under the subject of foreign policy can take place in all quantum states on its own. For example, the climate crisis is related to both domestic and foreign policy areas of countries. It also has effects in different universes such as the global economy, energy transition, and migration. Therefore, the sum of the impact of each sub-universe is equal to the total impact of the climate crisis on the entire planet. 

The universe of any subject dealt with in international relations can turn into a series of parallel universes equal to the number of possible situations in which that subject may exist. For example, it is possible to observe this situation in Turkey-Syria relations. So the disagreements and conflicts between both countries can be divided into sub-universes in the context of both the countries in the region and the European Union countries. Each of the sub-universes includes a unique possible situation, such as Russia's interests in the region, the risk of migration from the region to the EU, Turkey’s counter-terrorism and border security issue. On the other hand, Turkey-Syria relations also have an interaction mechanism that allows interaction and influence between these universes. This interaction mechanism shows that no state can act alone in the world and necessitates the conduct of diplomatic relations with the reality of mutual dependence. 

Conclusion 

According to quantum logic, there is no single reality or even objective reality in diplomacy and foreign policy. Because quantum physics involves making predictions on probabilities and considering subjectivity. The reality is in the form of superposition. In this context, it is necessary to consider foreign policy issues as sub-universes beyond phenomena and to observe how they affect each other. Quantum diplomacy, which integrates the state of superposition and diplomacy in the interdependence world order, emphasizes the fact that all stakeholders on our planet are in more than one place at the same time and the importance of collective behavior in solving global issues. Quantum diplomacy brings an application method and rational thinking ability to the field of foreign policy.

 

References

Albert, David Z. (1992): Quantum Mechanics and Experience, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

American Museum of Natural History (n.d.): “Quantum Theory”, https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/einstein/legacy/quantum-theory#:~:text=Niels%20Bohr%20and%20Max%20Planck,won%20the%201921%20Nobel%20Prize, Accessed: 10. 03. 2023. 

Bjola, Corneliu (2016): “Getting digital diplomacy right: what quantum theory can teach us about measuring impact”, Global Affairs, 2:3, 345-353, DOI: 10.1080/23340460.2016.1239388.

Del Rosso, Stephen J. (2022): “Making the Case for Quantum International Relations”, Carnegie Corporation of New York, June 2, 2022, https://www.carnegie.org/our-work/article/making-case-quantum-international-relations/, Accessed: 20. 02. 2023.

Der Derian, J. (2011): “Quantum diplomacy, German-US Relations and the Psychogeography of Berlin”, Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 6, 373-392.

Höne, Katharina (2016): “Quantum diplomacy – ideas from the other side of the looking glass?”, DiploFoundation, 10 June 2016, https://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/quantum-diplomacy-ideas-other-side-looking-glass/, Accessed: 24. 10. 2022.

Rasmussen, Steffen Bay (2016): “Diplomacy as a Quantum Superposition: Towards a Conceptual Common Ground for Interdisciplinary Studies of a Pluralising Phenomenon?”, Comillas Journal of International Relations, nº 06, 13-27, DOI: cir.i06.y2016.001.

Shultz, George P. (1997): “Diplomacy in the Information Age”, Keynote Addresses from the Virtual Diplomacy Conference, Peaceworks, United States Institute of Peace, https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/pwks18.pdf, Accessed: 15. 03. 2023.

Wigmore, Ivy (2020): “Quantum Theory”, TechTarget, October 2020, 

https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/definition/quantum-theory#:~:text=Quantum%20theory%20is%20the%20theoretical,quantum%20physics%20and%20quantum%20mechanics, Accessed: 11. 03. 2023.

 

 

Critical Infrastructure Protection Diplomacy in the Age of Cyber Threats

 Dr. ASLI VAROL

As problems and conflicts diversify in the global arena, it becomes difficult to determine where the power of information and communication technologies will reach. The use of these technologies for destructive purposes seriously harms countries, institutions, societies and individuals. Cyber attacks on domestic and cross-border critical infrastructures cause tension in international relations and therefore lead to the development of a new field of diplomacy in foreign policy. 

Critical Infrastructure Protection in the European Union 

Cyber-attacks are among the fastest growing types of crime worldwide. However, cyber-attacks are also growing in scale, cost, and complexity. So businesses need to invest more money to make cyberspace safer for themselves and their customers. Companies, citizens and all countries are also affected by cyber attacks. The first known cyber-attack against a country was carried out in Estonia in April 2007. This attack affected the online services of banks, media outlets and government agencies for weeks. Since then, many other countries have been subject to cyber-attacks, including critical infrastructures such as electrical power systems, hospitals or water utilities. Critical industries such as transportation, energy, healthcare and finance have become increasingly dependent on digital technologies to run their core businesses. Growing digital connectivity certainly brings tremendous opportunities. But this digital connectivity also exposes economies and societies to cyber threats. Cybersecurity incidents are increasing in number, complexity and scale, as well as their economic and social impact (Negreiro, 2022). 

The Commission of the European Communities states that critical infrastructures consist of physical and information technology facilities, networks, services and assets that, if disrupted or destroyed, could have a serious impact on the health, safety, security or economic well-being of citizens or the effective functioning of governments around the world. Critical infrastructures exist in many sectors of the economy. Energy installations and networks, communications and information technology, banking and finance, food, water, transportation and distribution, production, storage and transport of dangerous goods, energy, utilities, health, food supply, communications, key government services are referred as critical infrastructures (Commission of the European Communities, 2004: 3-4). 

The European Union’s “Critical Entities Resilience Directive” covers critical infrastructures in a broad context, covering ten sectors: energy, transport, banking, financial market infrastructure, health, drinking water, wastewater, digital infrastructure, public administration and space (European Commission, 2020: 11). 

The EU-wide “Directive on Security of Network and Information Systems across the EU” (NIS Directive), which must be transposed by Member States by 9 May 2018, constitutes the first part of EU-wide legislation on cybersecurity. The EU has introduced legislative measures to increase the overall level of cybersecurity in the EU, with a focus on protecting critical infrastructure. The NIS Cooperation Group and the network of Computer Security Incident Response Teams (CSIRTs) were established within the Association to ensure both the exchange of information on cybersecurity and cooperation in specific cybersecurity incidents. On 16 December 2020, the European Commission presented a proposal for a directive on measures for a high level of common cybersecurity across the Union (NIS 2), which would repeal and replace the existing NIS Directive (NIS1). Expanding the scope of NIS2 to force more organizations and sectors to take effective action will help increase the level of cybersecurity in Europe in the long run (Negreiro, 2022).

In May 2022, the Council and the European Parliament agreed on measures for a common high level of cybersecurity around the world. Thus, the Union aimed to further develop the resilience and response capacities of both the public and private sectors and the EU as a whole. The new directive, called ‘NIS 2’, was prepared to replace the existing directive (NIS Directive) on security of network and information systems. Stronger risk and incident management and collaboration lay the foundation for cybersecurity risk management measures and reporting obligations in all sectors covered by NIS 2, such as energy, transport, health and digital infrastructure (Council of the European Union, 2022). 

Critical Infrastructure Protection Diplomacy as a Subfield of Cyber Diplomacy                                   

Today, critical infrastructures cannot be separated from cyberspace. The management, operation and control systems of critical infrastructures have technological infrastructure in the cyberspace. Therefore, critical infrastructure protection diplomacy is close to cyber diplomacy. However, cyber diplomacy represents a wider area than critical infrastructure protection in cyberspace. Therefore, critical infrastructure protection diplomacy can be considered as a sub-field of cyber diplomacy.

Critical infrastructure protection diplomacy is defined as the use of diplomatic tools and organizational methods to address issues related to the safe design, construction, operation and decommissioning of cross-border critical infrastructures. In this context, critical infrastructure protection diplomacy includes various actors such as the state, private sector, academia, civil society and international organizations. Vevera states that they envision the field of critical infrastructure protection diplomacy as a pragmatic, risk-focused form of diplomacy. In this area, it should be aimed to provide more security and durability (Vevera, 2022: 45). 

One pillar of critical infrastructure protection diplomacy should be on crisis management. In order to protect critical infrastructures from the dangers of physical terrorism or cyber terrorism, it is necessary to take serious security measures in the national and international arena. However, an effective crisis management plan should be prepared in order to overcome the crises caused by physical, cyber or both types of attacks with the least damage. In order to prevent the crisis and to minimize the damage caused by the crisis, it is necessary to keep the emergency response and rescue efforts ready, to keep the communication network open, and to make preparations for rapid recovery after the crisis. The crisis management plan required for critical infrastructures should cover both the national and international area. In this context, it is necessary to increase international cooperation and technology sharing between countries to ensure security.      

Vevera states that the challenges of the modern world can be analyzed from a critical infrastructure protection perspective, revealing how the functioning of interdependent and interconnected critical infrastructures affects the security of our societies. In this context, Vevera proposes critical infrastructure protection diplomacy following the development of cyber diplomacy as a separate field of study and practice in international relations. Critical infrastructure protection diplomacy, similar to cyber diplomacy, requires a significant diversity of stakeholders and a multidisciplinary approach (Vevera, 2022: 48). 

United Nations Warns Global Community and Governments to Protect Critical Infrastructures 

The United Nations Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) 2021 Report once again confirms that the serious information and communication technology threats identified in previous reports continue. The report also highlights that there are serious concerns about harmful information and communication technology activities against critical infrastructure, including critical information infrastructure, infrastructure that provides essential services to the public, the technical infrastructure necessary for the general availability or integrity of the Internet, and health sector entities (Gavrilović, 2021). 

Cybercrime is a threat to the national security of countries. Cybercriminals target and attack all sectors of critical infrastructure, including healthcare and public health, information technology, financial services and energy sectors. Ransomware attacks, in particular, are becoming more and more successful. Ransomware attacks cripple governments and businesses, and the profits from these attacks are increasing (Hogan-Burney, 2021: 8). Identifying and punishing perpetrators is imperative to deter malicious cyber activity against critical infrastructures. However, the multitude and multiplicity of cyber threats complicates attribution. State and non-state attackers sometimes work together temporarily or imitate each other. Protection of personal information and cyber security of critical infrastructures are closely related. As a result of the increasing digitization of their processes, critical infrastructure operators are increasingly managing or storing the personal data of their users (Garriaud-Maylam, 2022: 10-11). 

NATO Calls for Cooperation on Critical Infrastructure Protection Diplomacy 

The security environment is complex, dynamic and challenging, as evidenced by the hybrid warfare methods employed during the Ukraine conflict that began in 2014, and the global pandemic and its effects. Thus, challenges arise in critical infrastructure protection. In this sense, NATO strives to manage international cooperation to address critical infrastructure problems. The critical infrastructures of NATO Member States and their partners are facing an increased and unprecedented level of malicious cyber activity with destabilizing and devastating consequences. Public and private institutions that are indispensable for the functioning, well-being and cohesion of allied societies, such as energy providers, telecommunications operators, banks, hospitals, transport companies and democratic institutions are targeted (Garriaud-Maylam, 2022). In this context, critical infrastructure protection diplomacy is recognized as an emerging field that mixes diplomacy with technical expertise on systemic issues to influence systemic governance (Vevera, 2022).

Recently, there has been an international consensus for the applicability of international law in cyberspace and the establishment of non-binding standards for protecting critical infrastructures against cyber attacks. However, there are still many areas of disagreement between some states and therefore the implementation of the legal framework remains inadequate. The absence of unanimity, cooperation, and willingness therefore encourages a variety of state and non-state actors to take advantage of the increased availability and complexity of hacking tools and techniques. For this reason, NATO states that destructive malicious cyber operations against allied critical infrastructures continue. These operations are aimed at making a profit, obtaining political or trade secrets. However, some cyber attacks also aim to weaken and intimidate NATO member states and their partners, thereby challenging the democratic values on which their societies are built (Garriaud-Maylam, 2022: 2). 

Microsoft Digital Defense Report underlines that Russia is the most active country in cyberspace. Russia poses a persistent threat to critical infrastructures of NATO's Allied and partner countries. According to the report, from July 2020 to June 2021, 58% of malicious cyber activity attributed to a state globally originated from Russia. After Russia, the largest observed volume of attacks came from North Korea, Iran and China. Apart from these countries, South Korea, Turkey and Vietnam are also active in cyberspace but have much less volume (Burt, 2021). 

Conclusion 

Digitalization and increasing activities in the cyber field have revealed the problem of cyber security in critical infrastructure systems. The management and operation of critical infrastructures are provided by technological infrastructure today. This situation causes technological fragility in critical infrastructures. Whether state-sponsored or not, cyber-attacks cause these systems to be permanently damaged or temporarily cease to serve. For example, a major cyber attack on a country's energy systems will seriously affect other sectors in the country and the entire society. In this context, in addition to taking national and transnational measures, it is necessary to activate critical infrastructure protection diplomacy in order to ensure international cooperation and to make international laws that will bring deterrent sanctions. It is important to attend the calls of international or regional organizations such as the United Nations, NATO or the European Union, and their efforts to protect critical infrastructures. In this context, critical infrastructure protection diplomacy can be activated by establishing multi-stakeholder dialogues and utilizing various scientific fields.

 

 References

 

Burt, Tom (2021): Russian cyberattacks pose greater risk to governments and other insights from our annual report, Microsoft, 7 October 2021, https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2021/10/07/digital-defense-report-2021/, Accessed: 18. 10. 2022. 

Commission of the European Communities (2004): “Critical Infrastructure Protection in the fight against terrorism”, Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, Brussels, 20.10.2004 COM (2004) 702 final, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52004DC0702&from=GA, Accessed: 22. 06. 2022. 

Council of the European Union (2022): “Strengthening EU-wide cybersecurity and resilience – provisional agreement by the Council and the European Parliament”, Press Release 435/22 13/05/2022, https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2022/05/13/renforcer-la-cybersecurite-et-la-resilience-a-l-echelle-de-l-ue-accord-provisoire-du-conseil-et-du-parlement-europeen/pdf, Accessed: 24. 10. 2022.

European Commission (2020): Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the resilience of critical entities, Brussels, 16.12.2020 COM(2020) 829 final 2020/0365 (COD), https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:74d1acf7-3f94-11eb-b27b-01aa75ed71a1.0001.02/DOC_1&format=PDF, Accessed: 23. 10. 2022. 

Garriaud-Maylam, Joëlle (2022): “Strengthening The Protection of Critical Infrastructure Against Cyber Threats”, NATO Parliamentary Assembly, Committe on Democracy and Security (CDS), Draft Report, https://www.nato-pa.int/download-file?filename=/sites/default/files/2022-09/010%20CDS%2022%20E%20rev.%201%20-%20CYBER%20THREATS%20-%20GARRIAUD-MAYLAM%20REPORT%20.pdf, Accessed: 17. 10. 2022. 

Gavrilović, Andrijana (2021): “What’s new with cybersecuritynegotiations? The UN GGE 2021 Report”, 06 June 2021, DiploFoundation, https://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/whats-new-with-cybersecurity-negotiations-the-un-gge-2021-report/, Accessed: 08. 10. 2022. 

Hogan-Burney, Amy (2021): “Introduction: The growing threat of cybercrime”, Microsoft Digital Defense Report October 2021, https://query.prod.cms.rt.microsoft.com/cms/api/am/binary/RWMFIi, Accessed: 18. 10. 2022. 

Negreiro, Mar (2022): The NIS2 Directive: A high common level of cybersecurity in the EU, Briefing: EU Legislation in Progress, European Union, European Parliamentary Research Service, June 2022, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2021/689333/EPRS_BRI(2021)689333_EN.pdf, Accessed: 23. 10. 2022. 

Vevera, Adrian Victor (2022): “Critical Infrastructure Diplomacy – Tracing the Contours of a New Practice”, International Journal of Cyber Diplomacy, Vol. 3, 41-49, https://doi.org/10.54852/ijcd.v3y202205.