The State of Cyber Diplomacy: Momentum, Inertia, or Something Else Altogether?

Dr. Bernd Pichlmayer

Cyber diplomacy involves addressing complex technical issues related to cybersecurity. Diplomats need to possess knowledge in areas such as 5G technology and cyber threats in order to effectively engage in discussions and negotiations on cyber issues. Traditionally, diplomats are educated in history, culture, and language, but the technical aspects of cybersecurity have become increasingly important in the digital age.

Moreover, cyber diplomacy is no longer limited to discussions between sovereign states. It now includes a broader range of stakeholders, such as big tech companies, law enforcement agencies, and civil society organizations. These non-sovereign entities play a crucial role in cybersecurity, and their inclusion in discussions poses a challenge for many countries and international organizations.

The pace of change and impact in the cyber realm is faster than in other areas. This dynamic nature of cybersecurity requires diplomats to stay updated and adapt to new challenges. The rapid rate of technological advancements and emerging threats necessitates continuous learning and collaboration in the field of cyber diplomacy.

Cyber diplomacy has demonstrated its effectiveness in addressing common cybersecurity problems. One approach involves creating small, focused groups of like-minded countries. The success of initiatives such as the Counter Ransomware Initiative, which expanded from 28 to 40-plus countries, highlights the value of forming collaborative and targeted alliances to tackle cyber threats.

Ministries of foreign affairs need to have a basic understanding of the cyber elements that are being discussed or negotiated. Given the increasing importance of cybersecurity in international relations, it is essential for diplomats to possess a level of cyber expertise to effectively navigate and contribute to discussions on cyber issues.

There is already an existing normative framework for responsible state behavior in the cyber realm. The UN Cybercrime Convention, which is due for completion in January 2024, provides a framework for addressing cybercrime and promoting responsible state behavior in cyberspace. This convention serves as a guide for states to uphold cybersecurity norms and principles.

Flexible and issue-specific alliances are seen as positive in the realm of cyber diplomacy. Governments are advised to find niche and like-minded partners and then expand their collaborations. This approach allows for tailored and effective responses to cyber challenges, leveraging the strengths and expertise of different stakeholders.

Multi-stakeholder platforms, such as the Global Cyber Security Forum, are considered essential for progress in cyber diplomacy. These platforms enable diverse actors, including governments, industry players, and civil society, to come together and exchange ideas, best practices, and solutions. In 2022, Saudi Arabia will host the Internet Governance Forum, demonstrating the importance placed on multi-stakeholder engagement in shaping cyber governance.

In conclusion, cyber diplomacy requires diplomats to possess technical knowledge as it involves complex issues related to cybersecurity. The landscape of cyber diplomacy has expanded beyond sovereign states to include various stakeholders. Keeping pace with the rapidly evolving cyber realm is crucial, and collaboration through small, focused groups has proven effective in addressing common cybersecurity challenges. Governments need to develop an understanding of cyber elements, and a normative framework for responsible state behavior already exists. Forming flexible alliances and engaging in multi-stakeholder platforms are crucial for progress in cyber diplomacy.

Dr. Jovan Kurbalija

The analysis explores the concept of cyber diplomacy and its relationship with traditional diplomacy. It starts by stating that diplomacy originated from the realization that it is better to talk than to fight. Cyber diplomacy involves negotiations with various actors and operates in the realm of cyberspace, spanning different disciplines.

Effective communication across disciplines is vital in the context of cyber security. The analysis emphasizes that cyber security is connected to different arenas, such as WTO trade negotiations, which requires communication between the technical and diplomatic communities. The challenges in maintaining this communication are highlighted, emphasizing the need for an effective protocol.

The resilience of the internet is evidence of progress in multidisciplinary collaboration. Despite geopolitical tensions, the internet has thrived, showcasing the positive strides made in cyber diplomacy. The analysis also notes that individuals from the technical and diplomatic communities are gaining a better understanding of each other, indicating improved collaboration.

Cyber diplomacy is seen as a potential tool to alleviate geopolitical tensions. Even nations in conflict engage in cyber diplomacy, highlighting its ability to mitigate tensions.

The analysis emphasizes stakeholders’ interest in implementing general norms for cybersecurity practice. The Geneva Dialogue, which aims to find solutions for implementing these norms, is mentioned. The outcome of this dialogue will be the Geneva Manual, which will be launched on 7th December in Geneva.

The analysis advocates for the development of cyber and digital diplomacy capabilities by governments. It suggests that governments should create strategies and provide training in these areas. Additionally, it acknowledges the increasing importance of cyber diplomacy, with approximately 60 countries having established representation in Silicon Valley.

Lastly, the analysis highlights the significance of promoting dialogues and exchanges to facilitate understanding. Dialogues involving different fields, such as diplomacy, business, and technology, can foster professional empathy and understanding. It acknowledges that fostering these dialogues is a time-consuming process without any shortcuts.

In conclusion, the analysis provides insights into the world of cyber diplomacy and its relationship with traditional diplomacy. It underscores the need for effective communication across disciplines, the growth of multidisciplinary collaboration, the role of cyber diplomacy in alleviating tensions, and the importance of implementing general norms in cybersecurity practice. The analysis also highlights the role of governments in developing cyber and digital diplomacy capabilities and emphasizes the significance of promoting dialogues and exchanges to facilitate understanding.

Rudolph Lohmeyer

The field of cyber diplomacy has emerged as a distinct discipline that requires a unique set of skills and institutional requirements. While it shares some similarities with traditional diplomacy, cyber diplomacy also has important differences due to its technical nature. Unlike other fields of diplomacy, cyber diplomacy requires a certain level of technical expertise.

Recognising the importance of international cooperation, there is a growing consensus on the need for increased collaboration and global agreements on cyber norms. Countries around the world are deploying cyber diplomats within their embassies to actively engage in cyber diplomacy. At the United Nations, work is underway to develop global agreements that will facilitate cooperation and establish norms in the cyber domain.

The private sector is also seen as an indispensable partner in cyber diplomacy. The private sector has called upon government leaders to develop consensus on cyber conventions and norms. Google CEO Sundar Pichai has highlighted the need for the same kind of norms in the cyber environment as can be found in warfare. The involvement of the private sector is crucial in driving innovation and implementing effective cybersecurity measures.

Dialogue and interaction play a vital role in diplomacy. By engaging in open discussions, diplomats can identify common interests and work towards shared goals. Without dialogue, it becomes challenging to discover areas of mutual concern and make progress. It is through dialogue that diplomats can foster understanding, build trust, and establish strong relationships.

Another important aspect of diplomatic interactions is the endorsement of a non-zero-sum game approach. Diplomats acknowledge the need to find win-win situations and build upon them. This approach emphasizes collaboration and cooperation rather than zero-sum competition. By seeking mutually beneficial outcomes, diplomats can create sustainable partnerships and achieve long-term goals.

In conclusion, cyber diplomacy is a unique field that requires its own set of skills and institutional requirements. Collaboration and global agreements on cyber norms are crucial for effective cyber diplomacy. The involvement of the private sector is seen as essential, and dialogue and a non-zero-sum game approach play a significant role in making progress in diplomacy. By considering these factors, diplomats can navigate the complex challenges of the cyber domain and facilitate peaceful and secure cooperation in the digital era.

H.E. Massimo Marotti

Cyber diplomacy is a relatively new domain within traditional diplomacy that requires the adaptation of traditional tools, as it operates in a space with no physical boundaries. It has become increasingly important due to the rise of cyber threats and digital communication. Unlike traditional diplomatic efforts, cyber diplomacy involves navigating through an intricate virtual landscape where non-state actors play a significant role. This shift has created a need for diplomats to understand the unique dynamics and challenges present in cyberspace.

The complexity of cyber diplomacy is further highlighted by the multidisciplinary nature of the field. Dr. Yovan articulates the deep technical complexity and multidisciplinarity, which adds another layer of difficulty in navigating this domain effectively. Progress within cyber diplomacy is not linear due to the presence of different stakeholders, each with their own agendas and interests. However, there are glimpses of progress in certain areas, indicating the potential for advancement in cyber diplomacy.

One of the key challenges in cyber diplomacy is the lack of universally applicable rules. Ambassador Marotti emphasises the need for global regulations to address this issue and provide a framework for cyber diplomatic efforts. The discussions revolve around how to apply these rules effectively and ensure that they accommodate the unique characteristics of cyberspace. Without such global regulations, the effectiveness of cyber diplomatic efforts may be hindered.

Despite the challenges, Ambassador Marotti maintains a cautious optimism about the state of cyber diplomacy. He believes that small groups functioning as accelerators can provide the energy and effectiveness required to regulate cyberspace. These groups, operating within larger multilateral forums, play a crucial role in the regulatory process. The Ambassador encourages common ground efforts among member states with different interests to ensure successful regulation. Without a general agreement, multiple regulations might emerge, which could be detrimental to the overall progress in cyber diplomacy.

Capacity building is seen as a crucial aspect of cyber diplomacy, as highlighted by the shared need among nations and organisations to develop capacities and capabilities in this field. The availability of skilled engineers and IT professionals in state agencies is identified as a common problem that needs to be addressed. Improving cybersecurity education is also deemed necessary to enhance the capacity of nations to handle cyber threats effectively.

Furthermore, cooperation in institution building is emphasised as a way to strengthen cyber diplomacy. Agencies from different countries often collaborate to build robust institutions that can effectively address cyber threats and engage in diplomatic efforts.

In conclusion, cyber diplomacy is a rapidly evolving domain within traditional diplomacy that requires the adaptation of traditional tools. It operates in a space with no physical boundaries and involves the presence of non-state actors. The field is complex, progress is not linear, and the lack of universally applicable rules is a significant challenge. However, there are promising glimpses of progress, and the efforts of small groups and common ground initiatives can contribute to effective regulation. Capacity building and institution building are seen as crucial aspects to enhance cyber diplomacy.

Rudolph Lohmeyer:
Inertia, or something else all together? His Excellency Massimo Marotti, Ambassador, International Relations, National Agency for Cybersecurity, Italy. Dr. Yuvan Korbalia, Director, Diplo Foundation Head, Geneva Internet Platform. Dr. Bernd Pilchmer, former Cybersecurity Advisor to the Chancellor of Austria Federal Chancellery. Rudolf Lohmer, Moderator, Partner, Currany and Head, National Transformation Institute. Thank you very much. It’s a pleasure and a privilege to be here for this panel to be with you all. I think, can we all acknowledge it has been a remarkable day. To make sure that this was not an empty compliment, I asked my fellow panelists if they agreed and they did, that the substantive depth of the panels of this day has been rare. It’s been exceptional. You know, at events of this kind, I’ve rarely seen such an interest in actually going to a level that matters and it’s been a pleasure. And in those discussions, so many of the themes that have emerged across this day since the opening panel have converged in the topic of this panel, which is cyber diplomacy. And, of course, it makes sense. We’re at the Global Cybersecurity Forum. If we’re going to protect a truly global cyberspace, it requires that countries speak to each other, which is the heart and soul of diplomacy. Not just countries that are friends, even adversaries, and also not just countries, but in the context of cyber diplomacy, also very much the private sector, who plays an indispensable role as a partner in cyber diplomacy, of course, but also increasingly is demanding or asking the government leaders of the world to find a way to come to some consensus on norms, on conventions, on standards in which they can operate more seamlessly. Sundar Pichai famously, not long ago, made this call, saying, we need the same kind of norms and conventions we have with respect to warfare. We need those in the cyber environment. So calling upon cyber diplomats to achieve that. And, of course, it’s also important to acknowledge that cyber diplomacy, although it certainly shares a lot with the traditional disciplines of diplomacy, like commercial diplomacy and defense diplomacy, it is a separate and distinct discipline with its own institutional requirements, its own skill requirements, this unique inclusion of the requirement for some technical depth very much distinguishes it. And so it’s very different, and we have a remarkable panel here to help understand what makes it different, understand what’s happening in the world of cyber diplomacy, and where are the opportunities to make very substantive progress. And there’s a lot happening. Bilaterally, we’re seeing increasing number of countries have cyber diplomats deployed in their embassies. Of course, regionally, in ASEAN, here in the GCC, in Africa, elsewhere, we’re seeing increasing collaboration among cyber diplomats to create among like-minded countries more consensus on norms and conventions. And then, of course, crucially at the United Nations, work continues towards global agreements in the ad hoc committee that has been mentioned so many times today, and, of course, also in the open-ended working group. And so this is the domain of our discussion. And we couldn’t be more lucky than to have you, Mr. Ambassador, with us today as a seasoned diplomat in the traditional domains of diplomacy, now given your role in diplomacy on behalf of Italy in the context of cyber security. Tell us your perspective on what makes cyber diplomacy different, what distinguishes it in practice.

H.E. Massimo Marotti:
Good evening. Certainly, the moment when we realize what cyber diplomacy is when we read our own national strategy for cyber security. I think in those documents, any diplomat see that when you approach this field, there is something new from what normally we have been experienced. And it’s not only the character of the cyberspace, a space with no boundaries, no physical boundaries. And for a diplomat, this is the first new world to discover. And the second one is that the proliferation of non-state actors. This define a field, a territory that completely new, which requires to adapt our traditional tool, because diplomacy is a tool, is a language. The way you articulate it makes the difference. And you do it according to who you have around, the field you are in. And that is the moment when we enter a new field of diplomacy.

Rudolph Lohmeyer:
Thank you so much. It’s so true, because not only is it intrinsically, technically deep, but because of the pace of change in technology, the issue set is also constantly changing. Which brings me to Dr. Pichelmaier. You have had unique experience at the frontier of understanding how we reach agreements and then how they’re implemented in practice. What strikes you about what distinguishes cyber diplomacy as most important?

Dr. Bernd Pichlmayer:
Well, before I answer your question, let me quickly congratulate the organizers of the GCF, the NCA, and the entire team that is working backstage and front stage. It is such a great event. Thank you for the invitation and congratulations. I think that’s worth a round of applause. Coming back to your question, if you define diplomacy as the art of managing international relations with your national interests in your mind, cyber diplomacy would be an extension into the digital realm, but following the same principles. However, there are certain aspects that make it in my observation, and I’m the only not diplomat on stage. I’m sorry for that. That’s the reason why I’m not wearing a tie. But there are some observations that I made in the last couple of years why it is a totally different material compared to the rest of diplomacy. One is it involves complex technical issues. Diplomats, when they’re educated in Vienna, they are taught in history, they are taught in cultural aspects, in language, all that kind of stuff. But they are not so much taught about latency times of 5G or the difference between TDoS attacks and APTs, which would be needed if you’re sent by your nation to negotiate something like that on the international stage. So that’s one of the distinctions. The other one is diplomats, in my observation, in my humble one, are used to negotiate and discuss with sovereign states. But all of a sudden, if you talk about cybersecurity, that changes because, and we talked about that earlier backstage, that there are many similarities of the opening talk with President Barroso to our closing talk that we’re having here right now. When you’re going through the program, we had the protection of children and the internet, civil society. We had representatives of big tech companies that play an important role. We have law enforcement, cyber criminals that somehow are also in the game. So all of a sudden, it’s no longer sovereign states that you have to discuss with, but also other stakeholders that you have to include. And where many countries, but also international organizations, are still having a hard time to find the right ways how to include them because they are not sovereign. That’s the second point. And yeah, global region instant impact, the pace in the cyber realm is faster than everywhere else, which makes it also harder and more complicated to deal. And that’s what makes cyber diplomacy, I think, special.

Rudolph Lohmeyer:
Absolutely. And I remember so well when President Barroso spoke about the fact, it’s a sensitive fact, that nation states, those especially that are most powerful, have domains that are, for them, no-go zones in cyber diplomacy. And that becomes a constraint. And yet, a key question for us in this panel we’ll come to is, where is their common ground, given some of those maybe necessary limitations? Dr. Kurbalija, we come to you, sir. As somebody who is truly an expert and focuses specifically on this domain and what makes it different, tell us your perspective. What makes it different? How is it evolving in the ways that seem most important to you?

Dr. Jovan Kurbalija:
Well, cyber diplomacy is both same and different. And it’s always good to start from the very simple things. Diplomacy, per se, is as old as humanity. When our far predecessor realized that it was better to talk than to fight, diplomacy started. And in that sense, cyber diplomacy is not different from diplomacy centuries ago. But then cyber brings a few specificities. One is that you have to negotiate with a wide range of actors. And by the way, this forum is an excellent example of cyber diplomacy. Especially in the corridors, in our session as well. People meet, they try to reduce lost in translation, they speak across different device, but in particular professional. And this is important for cyber diplomacy. The other element which is crucial is that you cannot stand in the specific realm of, let’s say, cyber security. And I’ll give you an example. There are currently negotiations in WTO in Geneva, where you have quite a few issues which are related to cyber security. And I asked my colleagues, WTO trade diplomats, negotiators, I said, do you consult with your people back in capital? And the situation is not very rosy, because many countries are trying to find a way to manage this cross-disciplinary nature of cyber, which crosses different realms. And I always tell them, protocol is the world that exists in diplomacy, how we see it, how we organize etiquette. It is also term used in the technology, protocol for the data. But there is not yet effective protocol for communication between cyber community, technical community, and diplomatic community. And it is a huge challenge for all countries in the world. And I think that this forum is a good step towards facilitating, nurturing that dynamics.

Rudolph Lohmeyer:
Fantastic. I couldn’t agree more, and I thank you for that. And because of this landscape, because of its unique characteristics, because of the challenges we’ve heard, of technical complexity, of deep multidisciplinarity, as Dr. Yovan just so articulately expressed, of the presence of a whole range of different stakeholders, progress is not linear, I think we could agree. But it happens in pockets and places. And I guess that’s what I would like you to speak about now. Mr. Ambassador, speaking with you, give us your assessment as a diplomat of the state of play of cyber diplomacy. Some feel that things are stuck, that there’s inertia. Others see progress. What’s your assessment of that landscape?

H.E. Massimo Marotti:
In the morning, the former president of Estonia was saying that if we apply the rule or in the morning in the panel, one of his panel, they were saying that if we apply the rules in any circumstances, international laws, we will be at ease with the issue that we are dealing with, which is mainly the lack of regulations valid for everybody and for every needs. But even if we had that, probably the discussion would be on how to apply those rules, which is the terms of the problem today, in my view, in the major multilateral forum in New York, in the all many small groups that by necessity are moving on because it’s the common dominator that we all need a way to regulate the cyberspace. And the delay in time of a process that started more than 10 years ago is now. Now we realize that there is not much time. And so this process is moving. I’m not pessimistic in a sense. Nothing happen in 198 countries environment in a split of a second, the process requires time, and these small groups function as an accelerator in the sense that what we all need is to have a general agreement where on the possible largest common understanding among the all member state, member state with different asymmetric interest and positions in a way, but nonetheless we need a general agreement on that. And the small group that are flourishing around including the groups that is behind this event in a way will inject in this process more energy, more effectiveness, and the mandate of the open-ended working group has two years, but the need is to reach something before that too. And if everybody works in this group knowing in my view that if there is a failure there, then the small group will fail and there will be more several regulations founded and this is not in the benefit of the general group. If we work with this understanding I think we will all have the right motivation to work for the common ground which is the diplomacy at its peak in a way, and reduce the frictions that naturally are there in a process complex like that one.

Rudolph Lohmeyer:
Very clear, thank you. The idea that small groups can demonstrate the benefits of new forms of collaboration that could then be extensible as I think is a crucial part of the rationale that we need. Dr. Ben, what’s your perspective? You’ve been an advisor to the chancellor, that’s a unique position to have occupied. How do you see the state of play currently in the landscape?

Dr. Bernd Pichlmayer:
It was also mentioned earlier today, it was also mentioned earlier today, especially that aspect that small groups, like-minded groups come together and work on problems that unifies them. And let me stress that one. I came across that phenomenon in 2020, 2021, that was the colonial pipeline hack in the United States. And all of a sudden the Biden administration saw this is a serious national security problem that we have to deal with and obviously they were not able to deal with it only on the national level. So they created such a small group that was only focusing on that one topic and that was the counter ransomware initiative. Started with 28, 30 countries, in the end it was 15 times 40 plus. And I think that is one of the secrets and chances that I see in cyber diplomacy. If you cannot reach common ground in big fora with many stakeholders involved, look for the problems that you have in common with other countries and try to solve them first multilaterally and then invite others to join. I think with regard to cyber and the pace we talked about, it might in some cases be a better solution than to discuss it in larger and bigger foras on an international level.

Rudolph Lohmeyer:
That really resonates because there is a trade-off, isn’t there? In a way, Dr. Jovan, if you agree, there can be a trade-off between breadth and depth. The breadth of inclusion is necessary and ultimately critical at the same time when there is more alignment among a smaller group. To some extent, greater depth is possible. How do you see the landscape right now of cyber diplomacy globally? You’re sitting in Geneva. You have a very unique perspective on it. Please.

Dr. Jovan Kurbalija:
Well, there is a famous African saying, if you want to move fast, you move alone. If you want to move far, you move with the others. And I think that applies to cyberspace. The world optimism is not fashionable these days. We know what’s going on in the world, in geopolitics, but I’m a bit optimistic and I’ll substantiate with three main reasons. First reason is that internet still functions. Somebody sitting in Kyiv can send email to somebody sitting in St. Petersburg. Internet has not disintegrated in the case of conflict in Ukraine. There was a cut of the internet in the Gaza Strip, but it is reconnected. And it is remarkable that internet managed to survive all geopolitical tensions so far. This is the first point. Second point is that over the years, generational people, including director of the National Cyber Security Agency, who was attending meetings, multi-stakeholder and other meetings in Geneva, grow in understanding this interprofessional communication. Tech people understanding diplomats, diplomats understanding tech people. And third point is that we often forget that cyber diplomats, or traditional one, negotiate, as we are discussing, cyber crime convention that should be adopted next year. They negotiate on cyber security. And unlike in some other fields, in cyber field, there is negotiation even between the powers which are in the conflict. And this is essential because communication is for diplomacy what is blood for human body. Once communication stops, especially in times of crisis, diplomacy ceases to exist. Therefore, I’m rather optimistic that cyber field can contribute at least to calm some tensions and hopefully help us to see the light at the end of the current geopolitical tunnel.

Rudolph Lohmeyer:
Thank you. As we say, from your lips to God’s ears. I think it’s so important. I mean, as you say, our attention as human beings and the global media environment is properly focusing on certainly tragic events happening in this region right now and in the world, but it’s easy to forget all of the vast majority of people working productively together to try to make progress. And I guess that brings me to our final question before we close, starting with you, Mr. Ambassador, which is where do you see the most promising opportunities, the pathways for progress in cyber diplomacy? Where do you see those that are most urgent and maybe where progress you think is most possible? I’ll ask the same question to each of you, please.

H.E. Massimo Marotti:
In my view, capacity building is the key to the world. It is what in the contact among between countries and agencies, the word that I hear more is cooperation for institution building. Help each other, sharing. Everybody is in need to acquire some capacity, some capabilities. Everybody share the problem how to have enough engineer and informatics working in agency, in state agencies. Everybody has the problem how to address the education related to cyber security, how to improve the knowledge necessary to protect the system, the space, cyberspace. And so this world is, again, a generator of activity, interest, and cooperation. In my view, this will trigger more working together because it’s probably the real common need among across the nation, the continents, and the organizations.

Rudolph Lohmeyer:
Bravo. Clear. And by the way, that’s something I have the privilege of seeing indirectly how much the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is working on precisely the frontier of trying to lift globally capacity in the cyber environment for the benefit of all. Dr. Bernd, where do you see the most

Dr. Bernd Pichlmayer:
promising pathways? Three points and one platform. The platform, the ambassador already mentioned, and that is a minimum capacity every Ministry of Foreign Affairs needs with regard to expertise. You need to have a basic understanding of the cyber elements that you’re discussing about that you’re negotiating. So that is, I would say, a basis before we come to the outlook. I see three bullets that are very positive. One of them is the already existing things we have. We never talk about them. We take them for granted. But we have the normative framework that is already in place, normative framework of responsible state behavior. We have the UN Cybercrime Convention that is currently, to the surprise of some, in the final stage. January 24th. January 2024. If we manage to agree on maybe what is not the perfect solution but a minimum solution, at least there is a solution that would be a first step into the right direction. I think that is something everyone could agree on. So we have positive examples. Let’s try to use them and continue the way. Bullet number one. Bullet number two, the flexible issue specific alliances that I already mentioned. So if I would be asked to advise a government, one of my advices would be in regard to cyber diplomacy, find your niche, focus on that niche, find like-minded partners, and start walking and try to expand. And the third thing, and that’s how the circle closes with the Global Cyber Security Forum, are formats like this one, events like this one, on multi-stakeholder platforms. Next year, Saudi Arabia is hosting the Internet Governance Forum, which was established by the Secretary General of the United Nations, which is also a multi-stakeholder session. And I think being aware that it’s not only sovereign states that need to sit and have a voice at the table, but also many others like civil society, like big tech corporations. If you understand this rule, an important step for cyber diplomacy is made.

Rudolph Lohmeyer:
Thank you so much. Dr. Kurbalija, and to you, where do you see the opportunity?

Dr. Jovan Kurbalija:
A few points. One important point is that most of stakeholders are keen to find solutions. And I’ll tell you from practical experience, we are running Geneva Dialogue, which will result in Geneva Manual, similar to famous telling manual, which was triggered by calls by private sector companies, tech and other companies, to find some solution to move these general norms of the UN to the practice of cyber security specialists. And on 7th of December, I would like to invite you to put it in your calendar. It will be launched in Geneva. This is the first point which makes me optimistic. Second one, which we always advise governments, is to develop cyber diplomacy and digital diplomacy, whatever prefix you use, capabilities, by developing strategy, national strategy, by training people, and by establishing innovative forms like, for example, representation in Silicon Valley. There are about 60 countries with some sort of informal embassy in Silicon Valley, usually formally consulates or other elements. And third point, and I’m getting back to the forum and the function of the forum, is to facilitate this type of dialogues and to have exchanges, understandings, developing professional empathy, listening to the other professions, diplomatic, technical, business, and advancing that. It takes time, but there are no shortcuts when it comes to us, our way of dealing with things, and that would be the main message for the future.

Rudolph Lohmeyer:
Thank you. Thank you so much. Couldn’t agree more. Without interaction, without the dialogue that is the heart, soul, the blood of diplomacy, as you say, we cannot discover where there might be, even at a micro level, shared interest and make progress. In a way, I think it’s truly a game theoretic challenge. Can we find our way on shared interest to cooperate and raise the level, or will we fall prey to defection and the worst outcome? If you haven’t read Non-Zero by Robert Wright, I can’t endorse it to you more strongly. I think we need to find the win-wins wherever we can find them and we build on them. Please join me in giving a warm thanks to our panelists. And with that, on behalf of the Global Cyber Security Forum, I’m honored to say we look forward to seeing you tomorrow. Many thanks.