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.

 

The U.S. Department of State Data Informed Diplomacy Strategy

Dr. ASLI VAROL

Protecting the United States and Americans; advancing democracy, human rights, and other global interests; promoting international understanding of American values and policies; and supporting U.S. diplomats, government officials, and all other personnel at home and abroad who make these goals a reality are the four main foreign policy goals of the U.S. Department of State (Bureau of Public Affairs, 2008). The U.S. seeks for ways to make more use of big data in diplomacy in order to be able to claim these goals more strongly. In the context of the meaning that the US attaches to data in foreign policy, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources Brian P. McKeon emphasizes that (U.S. Department of State, 2021: 4):  

      “To lead America’s foreign policy in the 21st century, we must be fully prepared for the challenges, both seen and unseen, that lie before us. As the leader of our country’s response to these challenges, the Department of State must leverage data as a critical instrument of diplomacy. When our foreign affairs professionals are equipped with high-quality and timely data, we can help make the world safer, more just, and less divided.”

 “Data is the new oil”

In 2006, British mathematician Clive Humby summed up the importance of data and its benefits in the new economy by saying “Data is the new oil”. Today, data is seen as a critical resource of modern society. Huge amounts of data are generated every day through electronic devices and the Internet. The private sector benefits from the big data sources to improve their products and services, streamline procedures, and ultimately increase revenues. Because it is said that big data analytics create insights that didn't exist before. On the other hand, some foreign ministries and international organizations are exploring the uses of big data for policy planning, information management, development, humanitarian aid and emergency response. These institutions have realized the benefits of big data analysis (Jacobson, Höne, Kurbalija, 2018: 4).

Information is at the center of international relations. International alliances are formed or broken down by the information available and who controls it. The data has brought more light and transparency to the work of diplomats, which is characterized by an unprecedented level of confidentiality and privacy in the conduct of diplomacy. Ndoumbe states that due to the democratization of diplomacy, many public diplomacy researchers argue that diplomats should switch from one-way communication to a two-way communication model in order to be more effective. This view was first adopted by the US government and later it was seen that African governments also joined this path (Ndoumbe, 2022).

Being data-driven means that decision-making relies on the collection and analysis of data. In this context, transforming an existing organization into a data-driven one is often motivated by a desire to make better decisions, such as improving the quality of a service or product and improving internal workflows that lead to greater success of the organization. The focus on specific data types and big data is determined by the type of organization and its ultimate goals (Jacobson, Höne, Kurbalija, 2018: 42).

Data Science and American Foreign Policy

Jeffrey Stanton makes the following statement about data science in his 2013 book titled “An Introduction to Data Science” (Stanton, 2013: ii):

          “Data Science refers to an emerging area of work concerned with the collection, preparation, analysis, visualization, management, and preservation of large collections of information. Although the name Data Science seems to connect most strongly with areas such as  databases and computer science, many different kinds of skills - including non-mathematical skills - are needed.”

According to Jacobson, Höne and Kurbalija, big data based on previously unavailable sources can challenge prejudices, validate information and provide new insights for diplomacy. Big data can lead to a better-informed foreign policy that is free from the assumptions of individual decision makers and contains the vast amount of information available from online sources, texts and sensors (Jacobson, Höne, Kurbalija, 2018: 65). 

The U.S. Department of State is also integrating big data analysis into foreign policy and tries to strengthen data informed diplomacy. In this context, in September 2021, the U.S. Department of State has published a strategy document titled “Enterprise Data Strategy Empowering Data Informed Diplomacy”. This initiative is described by the Department as a milestone in its transformation into a more data-centric organization. “Enterprise Data Strategy” aims ensure that the Department’s workforce is equipped with the timely, data-driven insights needed to make key mission and management decisions (U.S. Department of State, 2021). 

Tsvetkova and Kuznetsov state that authoritative scholars and experts from the United States have a common stance on the definition of data diplomacy. Data diplomacy is seen as a new stage in the development of digital diplomacy. Data diplomacy; incorporating elements of data science, social sciences and international relations, it provides new opportunities for governments to achieve results in domestic and foreign policy, diplomatic and consular services, cybersecurity and technological progress through the results of big data analysis of social networks and other Internet resources. However, data diplomacy can both bring states together to solve common humanitarian problems and divide them with discrediting and destructive activities on the Internet. Experts say that the main method of data diplomacy is the collection and analysis of “big” and “small” data from social networks, blogs and other Web resources. Accordingly, the main functions of data diplomacy are increasing the effectiveness of digital diplomacy projects; using data for information confrontation on the Internet; humanitarian cooperation; simplification of diplomatic and consular service (Tsvetkova & Kuznetsov, 2020: 40-41).

American experts express the following about foreign policy threats to U.S. cybersecurity due to the development of data diplomacy and the use of collecting and analyzing big data from social networks (Tsvetkova & Kuznetsov, 2020: 41):

1) China is emerging as a world leader in AI, contributing to the creation of new technologies to enhance its military potential.

2) There are subversive activities such as information attacks from Russia, China, Iran and terrorist groups.

3) Lack of international laws on the legitimacy of information operations and codes of conduct in cyberspace.

However, American experts point out the following among the problems related to the development of artificial intelligence and data diplomacy (Tsvetkova & Kuznetsov, 2020: 41):

1) The inability of diplomats to work with big data.

2) Humanitarian students need vocational training in the fundamentals of working with big data analytics.

3) Young professionals are uninterested in the analysis of US foreign policy activity.

Tsvetkova and Kuznetsov emphasize that although serious problems are expressed in the field of cybersecurity, the American expert community positively evaluates the development of an aspect such as big data diplomacy. Because it is accepted that data diplomacy is beneficial for the development of both U.S. foreign policy and the entire international relations system (Tsvetkova & Kuznetsov, 2020: 41). 

Data Diplomacy 

Data diplomacy is defined as a new international relations phenomenon that reflects the importance of digital data in the foreign policy mechanism of modern states (Kuznetsov & Tsvetkova, 2022: 37). At the “American Association for the Advancement of Science Conference” in 2015, Timothy Dye defined data diplomacy as (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2015):

 

“Data diplomacy is an emerging construct that integrates concepts from data science, technology, and computing with social science, international relations, and diplomatic negotiation, and in some cases, offers a new diplomatic tool that facilitates global (and local) relationships.” 

Marcotte states that data diplomacy aims to better understand the role that data sharing plays as a mediator in social and political relations around the world (Marcotte, 2016). Jacobson, Höne, Kurbalija state that big data interacts with diplomacy in three ways. First, big data can be used as a tool to make diplomacy more efficient, effective and inclusive. Second, it provides a new topic on the diplomatic agenda and takes part in international negotiations in areas such as cross-border privacy, e-commerce and international cybersecurity. Third, it acts as a factor that changes the environment in which diplomacy operates, potentially changing geopolitical and geo-economic positions (Jacobson, Höne, Kurbalija, 2018: 4).

Big data has the potential to contribute to insights and make certain processes more effective and efficient in information gathering and diplomatic reporting, negotiation, communication, and public diplomacy and consular affairs, which are the core functions of diplomacy. However, the relevance of big data in this field largely depends on the extent to which these processes are driven by human qualities such as interpersonal relationships, empathy, experience and expert knowledge (Jacobson, Höne, Kurbalija, 2018: 37). 

Boyd et al. emphasize that when thinking about data, it is necessary to accept that it is its creators, subjects, managers and owners. Data may be public or private, may be copied and modified, shared or not shared, used or not. On the other hand, the use of data can lead to benefits or harms, advantages or disadvantages and can have an impact at the individual, institutional, governmental or global level. In other words, data can be a tool that accelerates, directs, or otherwise blocks change. It follows, therefore, that the concept of data diplomacy will relate to a wide range of interactions between data and diplomats, as well as diplomatic principles, practices, and objectives. As we develop measures to secure and protect the public, the need for a new class of data diplomats who can streamline data-driven processes will also increase. However, recognizing that data diplomacy is a separate category will enable us to recognize its expanding role in society and the potential good or bad it can bring (Boyd et al., 2019). 

Data diplomacy is an interdisciplinary field that addresses the role of diplomacy and negotiation in accessing and sharing information, and the impact of knowledge on discretionary links between nation states and other international actors (intergovernmental organizations, NGOs, public figures, etc.). In recent years, data has gained importance in the conduct and implementation of global diplomacy, and over time it is on the agenda, among other key issues such as peace and security, development, climate change. For this reason, data is now considered an important tool used in consular affairs, soft power and public diplomacy, and strategic alliance building. Data diplomacy initiatives are positively described by practitioners. Thus, data diplomacy is needed to address social and global challenges more directly. The fact that data brings with it many opportunities has made it possible to define data as the new oil of the modern economy. Data is a collection of processed information. Data is the raw material, and diplomats are the processors of this material, which turns it into a finished “product” useful for strategic decision making and foreign policy choices. In their daily work, they collect, analyze and transmit data and information (Ndoumbe, 2022).

“Data” is a Strategic Asset for the U.S. Department of State 

The U.S. Department of State states that it is aware of the fact that the pace of American diplomacy has to keep up with the ever-changing geopolitical pace, and expresses the importance of using data to achieve foreign policy goals as follows (U.S. Department of State, 2021: 5):

         “We have the most advanced diplomatic corps in the world, and it is imperative that we match the excellence of our global workforce with excellence in our data-driven insights. Advanced analysis must act in support of diplomacy, putting evidence-based insights at our professionals' fingertips to help them achieve their mission. Likewise, to streamline the delivery of our operations, we must use data to provide enabling services more nimbly and expeditiously.” 

The Department of State declares its Data Vision in “Enterprise Data Strategy Empowering Data Informed Diplomacy” as (U.S. Department of State, 2022: 10):

 

“Data is a critical instrument of diplomacy, the Department’s global workforce is empowered with the skills and tools to derive actionable mission insights from data, and its data assets are securely shared and effectively managed.”

Due to the increasing pace of technological innovation, the U.S. sees data as a vital ingredient for diplomacy. An evolving global landscape, the need for data-driven insights, and the accelerated pace of technological innovation require an institutional approach to modernizing the way the U.S. Department of State uses data as a strategic asset. This Enterprise Data Strategy therefore takes a Department-wide approach to adapt to these factors over the next three years. The U.S. Department of State states that the establishment of the corporate strategy on data and the resulting initiatives will change the way the Department collectively manages and implements data in all its mandates. The Strategy is based on a Vision that provides strategic consistency and alignment for the Department’s efforts to develop data maturity and capabilities, and Goals that serve to achieve that Vision. This strategy requires the close collaboration of bureaus and offices across the Department to develop a holistic approach to building a foundation of data capabilities and assets. This initial data strategy, created by the Department to harness the full potential of data, is considered a critical step towards developing the U.S. State Department's ability to use data to inform diplomacy while maintaining the highest level of scientific and data integrity. The evolving global landscapes, the demand for data-driven insights, and technological innovation have created the need for data informed diplomacy (U.S. Department of State, 2021).

The U.S. Department of State has identified the following four goals to help move toward the Department's vision to improve data capabilities over the next three years (U.S. Department of State, 2021: 11):

“Goal 1: Cultivate a Data Culture

Goal 2: Accelerate Decisions through Analytics

Goal 3: Establish Mission-Driven Data Management

Goal 4: Enhance Enterprise Data Governance”

The U.S. Department of State announced that the first Enterprise Data Strategy implementation continued with two separate data campaigns. These data campaigns focus on a mission and management themed priority every six months. The steering theme of the first campaign is diversity, equality, inclusion and accessibility (DEIA). The DEIA campaign team created a new DEIA data policy to accelerate decision-making and increase data transparency while protecting privacy. Working with the Secretariat's Office of Diversity and Inclusion, they developed an interactive Demographic Baseline Report and dashboard that will be updated annually. The department will use this demographic baseline to help benchmark progress, identify potential barriers to equal opportunity, inform policy responses, and promote accountability for recruiting and retaining a diverse workforce. Mission-themed priority includes Strategic Competition with the People’s Republic of China (PRC). The Strategic Competitiveness campaign focused on using data to understand the nature and scope of the People’s Republic of China's global activities to better inform the Department’s strategic planning and foreign aid. To support this effort, the team developed a new suite of analytical tools, leveraged data to inform foreign aid project selection processes, and added dozens of relevant datasets to the Department’s data catalog, making them accessible to Department stakeholders and interagency. The initiative has packaged data into digestible, data-rich yet easy-to-use formats for busy policymakers. The management theme of the second campaign is cybersecurity. The cybersecurity data campaign will help the Department make extensive use of cyber data as a strategic asset to better manage cyber risk, drive analytics, increase compliance and improve security posture. The mission-themed priority is multilateralism. The multilateralism data campaign will use data to strengthen alignment with other countries on common priorities and expand coalitions to achieve U.S. interests (U.S. Department of State, 2022).

Conclusion and Recommendations

The U.S. Department of State has embarked on the path of transforming into a data-centric organization to protect the country's interests, advance its foreign policy, ensure security, and improve relations with its allies through data informed diplomacy. It has become a necessity today to benefit from data in policy making, decision making and negotiation processes in foreign relations.

Every government agency that aims to transform into a data-centric organization should first equip its internal target audience in this regard. Data diplomacy requires teamwork of data analytics experts, information and communication technology experts, and diplomats. Therefore, first of all, diplomats should be informed about how to work with and benefit from data. It is clear that quality data collection and data reporting in line with the corporate strategy will provide a significant advantage in foreign policy. For diplomats, having the ability to work with data in the digital age is of great importance to protect the country’s interests and prevent conflicts.

References           

 

American Association for the Advancement of Science (2015): “Summary of Science Diplomacy 2015: Scientific Drivers for Diplomacy”, April 29, 2015, diplomacy.aaas.org. 

Boyd, Andy, Jane Gatewood, Stuart Thorson, Timothy D. V. Dye (2019): “Data Diplomacy”, Science & Diplomacy, Vol. 8, No. 1 (May 2019), http://sciencediplomacy.org/article/2019/data-diplomacy. 

Bureau of Public Affairs (2008): “Diplomacy: The U.S. Department of State at Work”, U.S. Department of State, June 2008, https://2009-2017.state.gov/r/pa/ei/rls/dos/107330.htm, Accessed: 06. 10. 2022. 

Jacobson, Barbara Rosen, Katharina E Höne, Jovan Kurbalija (2018): Data Diplomacy: Updating diplomacy to the big data era, DiploFoundation, February 2018, https://www.diplomacy.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Data_Diplomacy_Report_2018.pdf, Accessed: 27. 09. 2022. 

Kuznetsov, Nikita M., Natal’ya A. Tsvetkova,(2022): “Russian data diplomacy: Goals, trends, perspectives”, RSUH/RGGU Bulletin Series, Political Science, History, International Relations, no. 1, 26-40, DOI: 10.28995/2073-6339-2022-1-26-40. 

Marcotte, Bob (2016): “‘Big Data’ generates need for ‘Data Diplomacy’”, University of Rochester, News Center, January 28, 2016, https://www.rochester.edu/newscenter/big-datageneratesneed-for-data-diplomacy/, Accessed: 05. 10. 2022.

Ndoumbe,Keira (2022): Data Diplomacy: Examining Data’s Impact As A Tool For Diplomatic Activities, Nkafu Policy Institute, February 2022, 1-4. 

Stanton, Jeffrey (2013): An Introduction to Data Science Version 3 [Online], With a Contribution By Robert W. De Graaf, Syracuse University, Google Books, Available at: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6iefdnF22XQeVZDSkxjZ0Z5VUE/edit, Accessed: 06. 10. 2022. 

Tsvetkova, Natal’ya, Nikita M. Kuznetsov (2020): “Phenomenon of Big Data Diplomacy in World Politics”, RSUH/RGGU Bulletin Series, Political Science. History, International Relations, no. 4, 27-44, DOI: 10.28995/2073-6339-2020-4-27-44. 

U.S. Department of State (2021): “Enterprise Data Strategy: Empowering Data Informed Diplomacy”, September 2021, https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Reference-EDS-Accessible.pdf, Accessed: 27. 09. 2022.

U.S. Department of State (2022): “Implementation of Enterprise Data Strategy Takes a Mission-Driven Approach”, July 13, 2022, https://www.state.gov/implementation-of-enterprise-data-strategy-takes-a-mission-driven-approach/, Accessed: 27. 09. 2022.