Diplomacy & Technology, with Dr. Jovan Kurbalija | "Diplomacy, light" podcast, Episode #001
A warm welcome to all viewers and listeners to the first "Diplomacy light" podcast. This series will try to unbundle key concepts and dynamics -- past, present, and future -- of diplomacy. In this first podcast, with our guest Dr. Jovan Kurbalija, we'll reflect in broad strokes on the interplay between diplomacy and technology. We will start by considering the
historical interweaving between something that is a constant of diplomacy, the peaceful conduct of foreign affairs, with something that is fluid, technological innovations that affect diplomacy. In this sense, it is not only technologies that enable better communication, like the telegraph or the internet, but also technologies that stem from security considerations that have an impact. We will seek the wisdom of the past of what has worked towards peace, and what has not.The Internet is a major technological milestone affecting all aspects of societies; as such it has impacted diplomacy, not least through bringing in new powerful actors, or stakeholders. This is why we will consider how the relationship between all stakeholders in the age of the Internet is shaping up in modern times and the role diplomacy can play. The concluding end offers three main takeaways exactly on this
potential role for diplomacy, brought forward from Dr. Kurbalija's recently concluded Master Class. Before we start, a few words about our guest, with the full bio available in the summary below. Dr. Jovan Kurbalija is the Executive Director of Diplo Foundation and Head of the Geneva Internet Platform. He has been involved directly in key milestones that have shaped the digital agenda over the past two decades, including being a member of the UN Working Group (WGIG) that defined what Internet Governance means, and most recently as the Co-Director of the UN's High-Level Panel on Digital Cooperation. A former diplomat, Jovan has a professional and academic background in
international law, diplomacy, and information technology. His book, "An Introduction to Internet Governance," has been translated in nine languages and is used as a textbook for academic courses worldwide. He lectures in several prominent academic institutions, including the Diplomatic Academy of Vienna, the College of Europe, The University of St. Gallen, and the University of Southern California.
A pleasure to start this podcast series with a dear friend, a colleague, and a mentor, whom I have known almost 20 years now and who has really spent his professional life on thinking about the topic that we can discuss here, and that is this combination of diplomacy and technology. Jovan, you've really been, since I know you and much before that, these are the issues that that you have focused your mind to, try to find solutions to,... most precisely in the Internet Governance debates, but not only. The whole combination of how diplomacy is being impacted and changed at this moment by current technologies is something that you have focused over the years. But technologies have really been around for a very long time. They have, in each different epochs ... different technologies have had an impact on diplomacy. Can you perhaps just briefly fly us
through some of the main ones that have impacted, and what has changed over over this period and what has stayed the same? Ljupčo, congratulations for the for the start of your podcast. And, I think it's a good moment to have a start with the reflection about the evolution of technology and diplomacy. And, if you go carefully through the history of humanity, you can see this interplay dating back, definitely to Mesopotamia, or the ancient Egypt. But, probably even before that, to the point
where our far, far predecessors realized that it was better to "hear the message than to eat the messenger" (Hamilton and Langhorne). It was a point when diplomacy started. and when technology added to diplomacy with the invention of writing -- we always forget that writing is a technology -- invention of writing and different way of conveying a message, in addition to the direct contact and direct exchanges. Now if you move throughout the history you definitely have the ancient egypt the Pharaoh Akhenaten (Amenhotep IV), with the first diplomatic archive in El Amarna, then moving through the very busy diplomatic period of the uh ancient history, via Persia coming to Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, Renaissance diplomacy and modernity and you have always this interplay, interplay between on one side uh innovation, innovation in how people communicate. Then we head back in the history, after writing we had the smoke signals, we have different pigeon uses, animals as conveyors of the message, and fast forward, uh telegraph, and railway and different messaging systems... ... that was innovation and we have now innovations in the way we communicate and then you have something which we can call tradition or a constant in diplomacy.
and this constant has been uh drive and aim of humans to solve their conflicts through peaceful means Unfortunately, this constant had many interludes with wars, and unfortunately history is not, in that sense, ending in our era, as we are witnessing today. Quite a few wars and conflicts, where basically military means were managed to win over diplomacy, negotiation, and engagement. Therefore, this is this interplay: continuity of our constant drive to try to solve the conflicts peacefully through negotiation, and innovation on the other side in the ways how we communicate, engage, represent, negotiate. These technologies, uh, we can think of really positive ones: Gutenberg's printing press, and the telegraph, the telephone, the radio,... But, really, there is another aspect of technology, um and that is the ones used for war, and for really the conflict that you mentioned Perhaps we have become spoiled in a way that we've had a long period of relative calm of course without a major war between major powers -- and this is the the key thing -- uh but this interplay of technologies being used for military means uh is also a part of technology, is it not? Yeah, definitely, I mean, always, drive for innovation didn't come from diplomacy.
It always comes from either security field, military field, or economic field. i would say internet had that I would say that the Internet had that interplay with some security concerns after the Sputnik moment, when the Soviets launched Sputnik on 4th of October 1957, and then the reaction of the United States driven by fear that they were losing uh scientific and technological competition, which with this perspective wasn't the case. But that was a moment where NASA was established where DARPANET, predecessor of the Internet, was established. Therefore, yes, military reasoning and security reasoning has been always an important driver of technological innovation. In very early days of the mechanic telegraph, Napoleon realized that it had a use for military operations. Therefore one of the first mechanical telegraph lines were used .. during Napoleonic wars. ...and you have many examples with telegraph, telephone, and later all those inventions.
So, if we go back you, know in in your Master Class and we can put the link here to your great Master class, in which you go over the history of this interplay between diplomacy and technology, what the Golden Age, as you say, of Diplomacy, has been really the period between the Napoleonic Wars, about this century between 1814 and the beginning of World War I, 1914, and, if one looks at that period, it's,... it may be successful diplomacy, but it's really Great Power diplomacy. There's not much room for diplomacy for smaller powers. Perhaps they can align themselves with a Major Power and find a way in that regard,... but, are we coming back, perhaps, to this Great Power competition that we had gotten accustomed to, first in a Bipolar world where this Strategic Stability uh perhaps provided some possibilities of progress but also of, as i said, avoidance of a major war. Now, we're in the midst of, really a major war in
in Europe with a nuclear-powered country,... Are we going back to this, and if so, does that mean that diplomacy will again be a major power diplomacy? Well, uh Ljupčo, this is a really old discussion between so-called Realist and let's say Institutionalists in International Relations Theory, dating back to Hans Morgenthau, and definitely Kissinger, who wrote his "Diplomacy" book and his Doctoral Thesis exactly about this period after the Vienna congress 1814-1815 until the start of the First World War and uh That will be an ongoing debate, I would say, Kissinger and his thinking and that type of uh school was based on on power concern that and the basic assumption that individuals like states tend to increase, are driven, by the need to increase their power -- economic, political, social, cultural power. Therefore, their thinking, and it was a thinking of the negotiators in Vienna, uh in 1814, was, "Okay, let's start from that, power-driven uh motivation and see how we can arrange it through negotiation, through mechanisms, to control the power .. through balance of power, of which Kissinger was a big proponent.
That debate will continue. After the Second World War, there was a slight push towards the idea that we can move beyond power and aim for the public good, develop institutions, and benefit more from the cooperation than through that "Realpolitik" competition. That debate uh will continue, but just a quick reflection on on this "Golden Age" of both diplomacy and technology -- this was interesting that it was a period without with absence of the major conflicts -- you had Crimea war, you had 1848, you had the unification of Germany, unification of Italy, then quite a few uh regional wars. And somebody can argue that it wasn't as peaceful period as it is [portrayed]; but there was absence of a major conflict for two reasons. Because, in Vienna, Big Powers, mainly monarchies, made some compact that they agreed that they should preserve status quo and their power within their countries: Russia before the establishment of germany; Russia, [England] and the other actors. That was the first point. The second point
is that they created carefully balanced mechanisms, and Vienna Congress was very interesting event where they spent one year basically having, first a lot of fun, many parties, they spend a lot of lot of money for entertainment, and it is an interesting lesson because then Versailles peace negotiation 100 years later was more scientific negotiation, where you calculate reparation of germany, when you calculate the peace, and then as you know it lasted only two decades but they created that carefully balanced mechanism. In parallel to that, let me bring then technology. Exactly in this period you had the telegraph, first mechanic then electronic; you had a telephone, you had radio communication closer to the first world war, and that interplay, I think, diplomacy and technology, had a really reinforcing some sort of public good, which was absence of major conflict and absence of war, and i think that period is still under research, especially Vienna congress, 1814-1815. We have Kisssinger's book, but it's still uh i don't think that the messages from that period are internalized among policy makers who are making decisions today, let's say in managing Ukraine crisis. So in the period that we have just mentioned, ... the one century between 1814 and
1914, perhaps there was diplomacy and perhaps there was an avoidance of Major Power war it is again this kind of interplay of tension which is there, and the balance that you mention is at the same time with the tension. I think that many people forget that when we're thinking of this balance of power, this this Congress of Vienna 19th century peace and even obviously the period after World War II there is this tension. But, as you say, it is diplomacy that jumps in through different means and tries to find ways of bridging different interests. Is this still in the making, do you think? and please, I mean, if you want
to focus on that period, but as well today because we can learn from this, to get insights from it. Ljupčo, one point is extremely important. When the Vienna Congress started in 1814, France was defeated but France was brought into negotiation through Talleyrand. Talleyrand and Metternich were the key sort of architects of the Vienna Congress. Therefore, they were not humiliated. they were not punished; they were brought back into negotiation; and for any balance of power and any lasting peace you need to get back the side which lost the war. Well I'm referring to almost any war, but in particular even if it is not
not a military conflict, but also a loss in economic and other wars. If you compare with Versailles Peace Treaty, that was a basically a typical humiliation peace treaty, where Germany was forced to pay huge reparation and it was treated as losing power from winning powers, mainly UK, France, uh to some extent United States and other. That is a crucial point. You have to make sure that there is a face-saving option for all sides.
Obviously, somebody will have upper hand, because of military superiority or economic superiority. But respect for people, respect for their dignity, for the whole countries is extremely important. It existed in Vienna Congress and it contributed to lasting peace. It didn't exist in Versailles and it brought, well within less than two decades, the next conflict. And it existed as well after World War II, with Germany and Japan, so, exactly, you're absolutely on-point. We sometimes underestimate emotions.
We easily calculate number of tanks, GDP, number of people, number of missiles, or whatever... it is important. But emotions are important to motivate people and to avoid humiliation. And humiliation ultimately doesn't help anyone because victorious power can be tomorrow losing power, and that's one wisdom which unfortunately humanity has not gathered from history and in particular from the Vienna Congress period. And if we fly to the present time, there is, obviously, one of the biggest revolutions, not just of this past century, but really in the history of humanity, is the invention of the Internet. You have spent, as i said, a lot of time in thinking about how to really protect this great resource. You're one of the world's foremost authorities on Internet Governance; you were involved in the World Summit on the Information Society in Geneva and onward, a member of the Working Group that defined what it is, and one thing that is interesting, aside from the technology, is the new actors that have come in. Even this concept
of multi-stakeholderism really comes from from these debates on on Internet Governance, to a point where really the word "Multilateral" became a dirty one, almost. How has this trust or distrust dynamic been evolving over the past let's say 20 years, or has it at all? ...between the stakeholder groups? Probably ... while you were asking this question, I was thinking what contributed to real good developments, but also misinterpretation? ...and probably one
should come to the social/cultural context in which the Internet was invented. It was driven by Sputnik moment, therefore military consideration the way how internet was developed uh was related more to social and cultural context of, mainly US universities, uh especially on the west coast, in the 1960s. It was a time of the well flourishing of rock, freedom, emancipation, and the idea of inclusion. And the Internet came with a quite a strong social cultural undertones, as a tool for inclusion, for empowerment, for strengthening public good, for sharing. And when we fast forward from the this time 1960s-70s, when this idea was shaped, including TCP/IP standard, then the internet was in that initial phase, in that element of empowerment. And that was, among other things, which
excited me in 1980s, when i got my first PC, to start experimenting. It was something that can overcome your limitations, physical; get to the other continents, other people; engaged through, at that time, simple email, later on websites in 1990s. Now fast-forward, that idea of inclusion, which is behind the multi-stakeholder approach was suddenly transferred into a different type of Internet, which still had this undertone of empowerment but became also a space for economic, political, and military power.
Therefore, you had that line of inclusion and "multistakeholderism" that's, let's say, even, to some extent, utopian. And then you have now power again i mean power And then you have now power again. I mean, power is real power. Let's say "Apple" has market capitalization of three trillion US dollars and the GDP of the African continent is 2.6 trillion USD. We're speaking about real power. Economic one, social one over data, and cultural one. Now you ask yourself: Can multi-stakeholder model, in that initial philosophy, survive? And here the situation is becoming much more complex and I would say that here we need to brush the dust over the multi - lateral and bring it back in interplay with multi - stakeholder, because governments and states and countries are ultimately responsible for the public good. They have a social contract with their citizens to deliver to them security, food
good political system, respect for human rights,... Can they deliver can african continent deliver but it Can they deliver? Can African continent deliver, when it has less power than some companies? this is a real question. And this is a question when, i would say, multi-stakeholder approach in its initial format is losing a bit of traction and multilateral is gaining. Now, interplay will be important, especially on the issues of legitimacy, because multi-stakeholder approach doesn't have traditional legitimacy. Well, let's see, if I go as "Diplo" to a meeting, I represent "Diplo," and how i can negotiate with somebody representing India, 1.5 billion people? I may have legitimacy because of my expertise, but this is different issue. Now we have to get back to basics, whom you represent and
how you contribute ultimately to the public good? And i would say that "multi-" in multilateral will become bigger and bigger and "multi-" in multi-stakeholder will become slightly smaller. But multilateralism really presumes a state actor. ...and, wither the State? At approximately the same time just as an illustration a bit over a year ago uh we saw how Twitter and other social media deleted the account of an outgoing president uh its country, while on the other side of the world, the opposite happened. Alibaba, or Jack Ma specifically, were if not deleted, with significantly clipped wings. So with this enormous power
that tech companies are having, and if we're saying that multilateralism is a way to address it, how can states, which are becoming relatively weaker in power -- and power is always relative -- with these new entities that are entering the international system, how can they cope. I mean perhaps even the European Union finds it hard, though it has done quite a bit... My country, a small one; other small countries, by themselves, don't have the possibilities of really of negotiating. They're not at the table even. It is definitely a huge discrepancy in power. We mentioned some numbers on Apple and others.
But I would just correct your observation with one development which happened during the COVID crisis. governments are getting back, because they have to deliver on the public good, on global health. Therefore companies were a bit less, although tech companies got relevance because of remote work, zoom, and the other things, but governments were deciding the rules of the game.
They were deciding about public health; they were voting for the huge economic incentive programs; they were deciding,... they are still deciding ... where you can travel, with what type of certificate of the Covid pass, or other things. Therefore governments got some sort of power on the very common-sense approach: they have a social contract with citizens, to protect their health, and companies cannot do they can contribute to that, but they cannot do that. And we are getting here back to the core issue: can companies deliver on the social contract? to provide security to their citizens. I mean security for the physical well-being, but also health security... Can they provide a functional economic system? To a large extent: not. This is the role of governments.
I would argue that governments will be regaining power, in different ways -- you mentioned example of United States, China, EU -- depending on their political system, but you have a general tendency, I would say, in US congress, definitely in Brussels, in Beijing, to name just a few capitals as governments are trained trying to say, "hey we have to deliver on social contract to our citizens and we cannot do it because we do not have any more means since they're controlled by tech companies." Therefore, that interplay will be much more complex. My guess is that governments will be regaining more power, but, we should ask a really basic common sense question: if not governments... uh i know it is very provocative ... but maybe tech companies can I'm not arguing for that and I'm very critical on that point, but somebody has to provide security, fix roads, ensure that the economy functions,... maybe companies will be new candidates it will be a rather Orwellian future, but we have to have a clarity of discussion: What is the purpose of governing and what are the respective roles of all of these actors? For me, government should ensure the public order, public good; companies should provide some services, contribute with the goods, with agility, with innovation; civil society, academia should ensure that all of major actors, meaning governments and businesses, are kept in control through some sort of feedback, writing, activities, civil society activities and other issues.
And the internet is a good medium for that, and it has really, on the one hand served that purpose, it has provided and facilitated a lot of these possibilities of .. health services being brought online etc. But there's always been this fear, especially among those who are specialist in it, of this possibility of what is called "Splinternet." Since the beginning of the Internet Governance debate, we've seen a lot of discussions, "well what if, at that time the US, which had its Department of Commerce was in charge of the top-level domains takes off another country's top-level domain and just takes [that country] off the internet.
We had a call, just a week ago i think, by Ukraine to do that with Russia and luckily this was not adhered to by by ICANN but Russia itself is considering taking itself off the internet. Are we witnessing the fear that many have anticipated: a splinternet a splintered internet? Yeah, definitely, there is a huge risk and i think Ukraine war could be a point where we may face this as one sort of collateral damages, that term is not very nice to use but collateral damage could be the end of the internet as we know it. I hope it won't happen but it is important to keep in mind that United States has been a benevolent protector of the Internet, even at the time when u.s had a direct control over the ICANN and the domain name system
it never removed a country from the from the internet. Even in the case when there was a legal basis because the chapter 7 of the un charter provides possibility to cut telecommunication links in the case of the sanctions imposed by the UN, mainly Security Council, and it happened in the case of Iraq War, ex-yougoslavia, Somalia ... there were quite a few UN-driven sanctions which gave United States possibility to cut the Internet from the to cut the country from the Internet, basically to delete domain name, technically speaking. There was even a court case when the Iranian expat community requested the seizure of the Iranian domain by ICANN and it was refused by a Californian court. Therefore, US -- the political US, economic US, juridical US -- has been always benevolent guardian of the internet. It is now tested and so far ICANN
made the right decision not to remove Russia from the internet; but, as you indicated, Russia may decide itself, and it started already by Instagram and few other services ... I'm afraid that it will get worse before it gets better. My only hope is that decision makers worldwide will make a careful calculation of trade-offs what they are gaining from integrated internet, in economic terms, in terms of keeping their, let's say broader society together. We live on the time of migrants. Many families are kept together via the Internet. China has diaspora of more than 80 million people. Therefore, the Chinese
government has to make a careful calculation for any move over disintegrated internet I won't speak about supply chains, about the economy, about issues now that's a delicate decision which has to be made with a clear calculation of benefits and losses and trade-offs and I guess that many societies worldwide, including societies which are now in the conflict, Russia, Ukraine, but also other societies, will have to see what they will gain or lose with the possibility of disintegrated internet. I think the losses will be many; they may not be seen currently but that has to be an informed decision. I don't think that it should be put under the carpet that should be informed decision of society and their representatives, governments and other actors. Through proper debate. To conclude, uh and i will let me just play a short clip from To conclude, let me just play a short clip from your master class lecture at the end where you talk about three takeaways let me just play that: "Our generation should pass to the next a rich heritage that we receive from previous generations and future generations need to be able to make decisions that are informed by their time and interests. Passing our shared heritage to the next epoch is the public responsibility
of us and our generation this includes preventing the privatization of our common knowledge through for example AI-driven codification made by leading tech companies. There will be need for much more effective diplomacy and in policy-making along three main aspects: First, we will need more diplomacy than ever before since in a highly interdependent world, military solutions could be very damaging for all involved, including those who may have a stronger military power. Thus diplomacy as a way of solving conflicts by using peaceful means is becoming more important than ever in human history. But, second point diplomacy will be performed differently But, second point, diplomacy will be performed differently. It will require much more bottom-up approach, [with] information and involvement of new actors...
... and, third point, are new actors. New actors from businesses, civil society governments, religious community will have to be involved more in policy making and modern diplomacy. It will make modern diplomacy not only more inclusive but more informed and ultimately more impactful because agreements and deals that are made will be owned by wider community than just let's say diplomatic services and member states. Therefore, these are three aspects of the major impact of the current developments and future diplomacy: (1) interdependence and diplomacy is a key tool for dealing with interdependence; (2) new ways of doing diplomacy; and (3) new actors, which should join diplomatic negotiation and overall processes. It is important to highlight that as we
are shifting in that era, there should be utmost clarity of the roles and responsibilities of each actors including their legitimacy and including their relevance to the global public good and global public interest. So how do we pass onto the next generations our shared heritage and protect it from being privatized, and what is the role of diplomacy in this? Yeah, this is our responsibility not towards only each other or people who live currently on this rock in the Milky Way, but it is a responsibility also to future generations as we get from the previous generation more or less civilization in a relatively good shape: culturally, economically, politically. The question is what we are going to pass to the next generation? I won't speak about climate change, about conflicts, but about the Internet: are we going to pass to them a rich heritage that we we got which is a public good from Aristotle to Tolstoy to Shakespeare ..
and others, to wisdom of the ordinary people? Or, is it going to be captured by the Artificial Intelligence patents, for which there is a huge risk. We often focus on data in current discussion but what is really important is who is going to own and how the patterns of human creativity, inventions, and reflections. My deep conviction is that it should remain public good, as it has been for centuries, and we should deliver it to the future generations and give them a chance to create their own world, hopefully better and peaceful than our world especially these days. Thank you very much. On that note, let me thank you once again for coming to this podcast, for sharing your knowledge and really a great discussion. Always invited back.
But, to continue a tradition that you started on your master class let me raise a toast, and, as you say, "To Peace and Prosperity! Cheers!" prosperity cheers To Peace and Prosperity!
2022-06-14 14:36
