Publication

Summary

This discussion focused on the launch of a book about tech diplomacy, exploring the interactions between governments and tech companies. The speakers, Jovan Kurbalija and Pavlina Ittelson, presented their research on how tech diplomacy is shaping global politics and policy.

They highlighted the terminological confusion surrounding tech diplomacy and emphasized the importance of clarifying what specific aspects are being referred to when using terms like “cyber diplomacy” or “digital diplomacy.” The speakers discussed how tech companies’ business models and revenue sources influence their diplomatic priorities and engagement with governments.

The discussion covered the geopolitical implications of tech diplomacy, including the importance of submarine cables and semiconductors. The speakers analyzed how different tech companies engage in diplomacy based on their business interests, such as data protection for Meta or cybersecurity for Microsoft.

They also explored various hubs of tech diplomacy, noting the significance of places like Brussels, Washington D.C., and Beijing. The speakers addressed strategies for smaller countries to engage in tech diplomacy, suggesting focused approaches rather than establishing costly representations in Silicon Valley.

The presentation touched on the instruments of tech diplomacy, including lobbying, public-private partnerships, and involvement in international negotiations. The speakers emphasized the need for diplomats to understand the digital landscape, including how their countries connect to the internet through submarine cables.

Overall, the discussion highlighted the complex and evolving nature of tech diplomacy, stressing the need for continued research and adaptive strategies in this rapidly changing field.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– Defining and clarifying the concept of “tech diplomacy” amid terminological confusion

– Analyzing how tech companies interact with governments and shape policy agendas

– Examining the business models and geographic revenue sources of major tech companies to understand their diplomatic priorities

– Discussing where and how tech diplomacy takes place, including key hubs and methods of interaction

– Exploring strategies for smaller countries to engage in tech diplomacy with limited resources

The overall purpose of the discussion was to launch and provide an overview of a new publication on tech diplomacy, explaining key concepts, trends, and insights from the research.

The tone was primarily informative and analytical, with the speakers aiming to explain complex topics in an accessible way. There was also an underlying tone of enthusiasm about the research and eagerness to engage with the audience. The tone became slightly more casual and interactive towards the end during the Q&A portion.

Speakers

– Jovan Kurbalija: Expert in digital diplomacy, Director of DiploFoundation

– Pavlina Ittelson: Expert in tech diplomacy, colleague of Jovan at DiploFoundation

– John Hemery: Expert in diplomatic training

Additional speakers:

– Michael Kende: Former employee at Federal Communication Commission (FCC) in the US (mentioned but did not speak)

– Vladimir Radunovic: Expert in digital policy (mentioned but did not speak)

– Tereza Horejsova: Former researcher on tech diplomacy at DiploFoundation (mentioned but did not speak)

Tech Diplomacy: Navigating the Complex Landscape of Government-Tech Interactions

This comprehensive discussion centered on the launch of a book about tech diplomacy, exploring the intricate relationships between governments and technology companies. The primary speakers, Jovan Kurbalija and Pavlina Ittelson, both experts from DiploFoundation, presented their research on how tech diplomacy is shaping global politics and policy.

Defining and Clarifying Tech Diplomacy

The discussion highlighted the terminological confusion surrounding tech diplomacy, with various terms like “digital diplomacy,” “cyber diplomacy,” and platform-specific terms like “Twitter diplomacy” being used interchangeably. Kurbalija emphasized the need for clarity when using these terms, suggesting that one should always ask for specificity. Ittelson defined tech diplomacy as the interaction between governments and the private sector, particularly focusing on how tech companies influence policy issues that governments deal with.

The Business of Tech Diplomacy

The speakers provided a novel framework for understanding tech companies’ motivations and strategies in tech diplomacy. Kurbalija explained that by examining a company’s income sources and geographical exposure, one can predict their diplomatic priorities. For instance, this explains why Google and Meta have a strong presence in Brussels, why Huawei is active in standardization bodies in Geneva, and why Microsoft is involved in cybersecurity negotiations.

Geopolitical Implications and Tech Diplomacy Hubs

The discussion touched upon the geopolitical aspects of tech diplomacy, including the strategic importance of submarine cables. Kurbalija emphasized how these cables are crucial for internet connectivity and data transmission, making them a key focus of tech diplomacy efforts. The speakers identified key hubs for tech diplomacy, including Silicon Valley, Brussels, Washington D.C., and Beijing, noting that the distribution of these hubs is influenced by factors such as regulatory environments and technological ecosystems.

Power Dynamics and Engagement Models

The discussion highlighted the complex power dynamics between governments and tech companies. A notable example was the recent conflict between Brazil and Elon Musk’s X (formerly Twitter), illustrating how tech companies can challenge national sovereignty. The speakers explored different models of engagement in tech diplomacy, citing examples from various countries:

1. Brazil’s approach of engaging directly with tech companies from their capital.

2. Switzerland’s strategy of establishing a presence in Silicon Valley.

3. African nations’ efforts to collaborate regionally in their tech diplomacy initiatives.

Strategies for Smaller Countries

Kurbalija suggested that it might not be proportional or necessary for small countries to establish representation in Silicon Valley. Instead, he advocated for establishing priorities and using AI and other technologies to level the playing field. Ittelson noted that many smaller countries conduct tech diplomacy from their capitals rather than having direct representation in tech hubs.

Instruments and Challenges of Tech Diplomacy

The presentation touched on various instruments of tech diplomacy, including lobbying, public-private partnerships, and involvement in international negotiations. The speakers emphasized the need for diplomats to understand the digital landscape, including how their countries connect to the internet through submarine cables.

John Hemery, an expert in diplomatic training, highlighted the need for diplomats to enhance their digital presence and develop strategies to counter disinformation. Ittelson mentioned the AI reporting tools developed by Diplo for diplomatic analysis, showcasing how technology can aid in diplomatic efforts.

The Impact of Tech Companies on Policy Agendas

The discussion delved into how tech companies shape policy agendas, particularly in areas like AI regulation. Ittelson cited the example of California’s AI regulation, which focuses on regulating AI models rather than risks, potentially influencing global approaches to AI governance.

Future Directions and Continuous Improvement

Kurbalija discussed the evolving publishing models needed to keep up with rapid changes in the field, suggesting a ‘Kaizen’ continuous improvement model for their tech diplomacy publication. This approach allows for regular updates and incorporates reader feedback to improve future iterations.

The speakers also mentioned the upcoming National Forum on Diplomatic Training in Montenegro, highlighting the ongoing efforts to adapt diplomatic training to the digital age.

Conclusion

The discussion provided a comprehensive overview of the complex and evolving nature of tech diplomacy. It emphasized the need for conceptual clarity, strategic engagement, and adaptive strategies in this rapidly changing field. The speakers’ insights encouraged a more nuanced understanding of tech diplomacy that goes beyond traditional diplomatic frameworks, highlighting the importance of understanding both the technological and business aspects of the digital world in modern diplomacy. As the field continues to evolve, ongoing research, collaboration, and adaptation will be crucial for effective tech diplomacy in the future.

Jovan Kurbalija: Hello from geneva we are really honored and pleased to welcome you today to this publication book launch of the book on tech diplomacy my colleague pavlina itelson and myself i’m speaking from my office in geneva pavlina is based in washington dc we are really honored and pleased to welcome you today to this publication book launch of the book on Tech Diplomacy, my colleague Pavlina Ittelson and myself. I’m speaking from my office in Geneva. Pavlina is based in Washington, D.C. We really honor and please- I can hear myself twice. Publication book launch of the book on Tech Diplomacy, my colleague Pavlina Itelson and myself. I’m speaking from my office in Geneva. Hello, everybody.

Pavlina Ittelson: I think Jovan does have some issues on the tech side. So in order not to waste time, let us start. So welcome, everybody, to our launch of the publications about tech diplomacy and about states and how they interact with the tech companies. Diplo started this work in 2017 mapping the San Francisco area, specifically diplomatic representations in San Francisco area at that time. And then we did another mapping in 2023. Also, again, the San Francisco Bay Area and what diplomatic representations they shaped, what the interactions they had with the tech companies present in the Bay Area in San Francisco. Looking at this, we have always looked at the diplomatic side. We have always analyzed how the ministries of foreign affairs or other ministries structure their engagement. And it felt very timely to look at the business. side as well, to have the whole ecosystem in place, and to also look beyond San Francisco. We have Jovan back. Welcome back, Jovan.

Jovan Kurbalija: No, Pavlina, just continue. Sometimes too much technology is not good, because I had the LinkedIn channel open and I was getting some sort of sound back, but Pavlina started. It’s great to address you all here. We will, over the next one hour, we’ll try to maximize on the understanding what tech diplomacy is, what is interaction with the private companies, and this is our third report in the row, and we will be guided by Pavlina, and I will be intervening with a few reflections on specific parts of the publication which you can access shortly. Pavlina, back to you.

Pavlina Ittelson: Yes, so to emphasize Jovan’s words, we do feel that this field is very dynamic, very new, and would love your interactions throughout, so if you have questions or comments or anything, please feel free to raise hand, put the chat in, and we’ll be happy to discuss it, but I’ll start with a couple of slides to get us into the topic. Let me open it up. And start the slideshow. Do you see it? Not for the time being. Just a second. No, it’s fine. We can see your screen. All right, so let’s start. As I said, in our previous mappings, we have looked at tech diplomacy from a perspective of diplomacy. We have We have looked at the interactions of governments with companies. And since then since 2017 even from 2023. When we had about 60 or 70 interviews with diplomats and tech diplomacy representatives. We have seen a great shift in this topic. It’s very dynamic. So on the side of governments, we have seen the interactions with companies moving to forefront. One of the reasons that we see this is a greater impact of tech companies on policy issues that governments deal with. And as many times through this presentation, the AI has opened the eyes and became a buzzword within the digital policy corridors. And the government also realized the need for new channels of communication with companies, they realized how profound a technological development can be to their development to the workforce to the economic stability and security. And on the sides of companies we have seen more regulation and compliance requirements and policies in place. So companies are interested to interact with governments about current and future compliance requirements, as well as solving global challenges. So that’s what that means for the companies, and how the responsible innovation should look like. So on the side of environments we’re operating in. There are also major geopolitical shifts, we’re dealing with. So the conflict, conflicts existing conflicts and technological advancements. Two years ago, no one would have ever spoke about neuro technology, or AI impact on software and malware development. development and such topics. So we have seen the shift in the topics. And that creates a necessity and a pressure for both governments and companies to talk to each other. Now, in this report, we have looked at what is tech diplomacy, and Johan will explain on that, it’s one of his favorite topics, what we see as tech diplomacy, because there is a terminological confusion, both in communications, in PR, as well as in foreign digital policies. We have also looked at why is tech diplomacy relevant currently. We’ll try to cut through the hype and see what terms are used in terms of digital economic science and tech diplomacy and what countries use what. Who are the tech diplomacy actors? So unlike in regular diplomatic exchanges, it’s not government-to-government, but we see it as a government to a company or business sector in general. We have also looked at what instruments and interaction methods are between the governments and companies. These interactions, how they happen and where they happen. So we looked at tech diplomacy hubs beyond San Francisco. Now, in terms of definition of tech diplomacy, I have mentioned the actors. So we’re dealing on one side with governments, on the other side with business sector, which also means that we’re dealing with a cross-stakeholder blending. Two ways of interaction, blending two different cultures that need to interact with each other, different expectations on each side and different motivations, of course. In terms of topics, there are a lot of digital policy topics and technical diplomacy topics on on the agenda, as well as geopolitical impacts and issues for the governments and for the companies as well. In terms of framing these interactions, we have looked at the intersection, intersectionality and interdependence between the companies and the governments. So in terms of maybe,

Jovan Kurbalija: maybe on this point, just as you as you said, it’s my favorite topic. There is a huge terminological confusion in this tech, digital, online, cyber, whatever, we found 24 different terms, including Twitter, Facebook diplomacy. And the real problem is for those of you who are involved in diplomatic science, is that, let’s say till the so called Arab Spring 2011, diplomacy was a part of international relations studies and international law, but sort of orphan topic, because it wasn’t scientific enough for international relations studies for calculation for game theories and other things. There were there were side events. But then after the after the Arab Spring, it was basically there was a big descent of communication studies people on the diplomacy field, for one simple reason, but because diplomacy is an exotic topic. Therefore, you had all sorts of studies on Twitter, diplomacy, communication, TikTok recently, to the point that one of the has more than a half articles dealing with communication, basically public diplomacy. Therefore, it was a major, major shift while we have been trying to anchor study of diplomacy around changing geopolitical environment, new topics on diplomatic agenda that diplomats should discuss, and new tools. Within new tools, you have also public diplomacy, but you have negotiation, analysis, forecasting, and other issues. Now, personally, I gave up any discussion what is correct definition or not. I use term digital diplomacy as a more comprehensive and specific, because it’s based on digits one and zero. But we don’t get into discussion what is the right term. What we insist in our discussion, and I invite everybody to do it, is when somebody use term cyber diplomacy or tech diplomacy, to ask what he or she refers to. Does he refer to negotiation, digital issues on agenda, or use of digital tools? Now, it is not any more academic pedantry, because US congressional report on the US cyber and digital diplomacy, consider terminological confusion as one of the major problem for the digital diplomacy in making. I suggest that you read this report in excellent, a report from the US government accounting office. I forgot exact title. Now, when we started tech diplomacy, it came with the way with Danish tech ambassadors appointed in 2017 in Silicon Valley. It was a part of linguistical shift to use of tech. You had big tech. You remember, big tech was very favorable. You have techies, you get fintech. Suddenly, tech became a topic like digital in 2010s, or cyber at the beginning of the century. It is now contextual understanding, and this is why we in our this in this publication and consider tech diplomacy as interaction between governments and private sector in this intersection between digital diplomacy, economic diplomacy, investment and science diplomacy. Now, mind you, we use a tech, for example, for tech attachés in Geneva. They don’t have to deal, do anything with the companies they negotiate here at the UN. But at that time, tech was popular term when we started tech attaché circle and we used tech. But we always explain, we discuss with tech attachés interaction on digital issues in Geneva. Now, I insist on this because there is a huge confusion and now U.S. Congressional report confirmed that it creates confusion. It creates confusion in European Union because you have cyber ambassador network and digital ambassador network, which makes sense because cyber in some sense is closer to security. But those issues are so interlinked that I’m sure that the European External Action Service will have to reconcile these two networks into one very soon, otherwise it won’t make sense in the future. All in all, when somebody use tech cyber diplomacy or write the book or establish new department in the government, always ask what it is about. This term is very popular. You have many tech ambassador, digital ambassador, publication on digital diplomacy, but without conceptual clarity. And it’s not academic issue, it’s very, very practical issue that we know what we are talking about. Use of digital tools for social media or negotiating data and digital governance. That’s, I would say, critical point that can help us to bring some clarity. And we use this tech diplomacy title for our book in the context, contextual understanding of tech diplomacy as interaction between governments and private sector. sector. Back to you, Pavlina.

Pavlina Ittelson: Thank you, Jovan. No, just to add to that, we have also looked at current digital foreign policies and how these terms are used by different countries that have these policies. And of course, it’s a mix. So if you look at Denmark, for example, which was the starting point for the tech diplomacy, if you actually look at the content, it’s all cyber now. Brazil goes with science and tech diplomacy. Others go with economic diplomacy. So it is, as Joma said, very, very wise to when you speak to someone to actually clarify what is it that you’re speaking about, because sometimes it might be completely different. So the next slide, we have also looked what we looked at is interplay between digitalization and diplomacy. So there are three areas. And that is the impact on digital impact on geopolitics and diplomacy. So how does digital impact sovereignty, interdependence and power distribution? Specifically, two topics that are of importance in this context are submarine cables and semiconductors. There is a lot of discussions about these two technologies. Then we have looked at digital policy topics on the diplomatic agenda, what is being discussed. And depending on the on the company you’re discussing it with, it can be anything from privacy and data protection and data flows, which is a very often the base for the business models of the tech companies, to economy and trade and antitrust and competition, to content moderation, digital taxation, and such. Content moderation has been very high on the agenda, of course, in 2024, especially in relation to the elections in the 64 countries. and the EU that we have. So there is a whole sub-discussion on that one and initiatives within the companies and governments to tackle content moderation issues. And then we looked at digital tools for diplomatic activities. How do digital tools make diplomats’ life easier? So in negotiations and representations and reporting. As you know, Diplo has very vast AI reporting from UNGA, from other forums that we implement. And that was actually mentioned at the UNGA. And that we know that diplomats use in their own reporting and make their life easier. Also, the digital tools for policy analysis and public diplomacy. This is a big area, specifically in public diplomacy Three countries, US, France, and Germany are implementing AI now for public diplomacy purposes. And that is their own proprietary AI for the government. And specifically for Ministry of Foreign Affairs. And what can you do with digital tools for crisis management? So either it goes back to the content moderation or other areas, especially in the humanitarian sphere. And then we have looked at how businesses and digital policy interact. And there are four distinct areas we have identified. The first one is regulations that have direct impact on business models. That is antitrust and competition regulations, especially for multinational companies. And data regulation. As I said, data is very often used as the base for the business models of big tech companies. So the data regulation would be the one which mostly affects their business models. models and their bottom line. The next one is indirect impact on business. So those regulations or policies that impact labor, talent acquisition, investments in different countries, consumer protection have indirect impact on businesses. An example is, of course, investments of US companies in the EU. While it sounds very easy, you’re actually dealing with a lot of national level regulations. So US companies do have a high threshold of entering the EU investment market and setting up shop in the EU because of this fractioned regulatory landscape on national level. Then we have international impact. And those are international agreements and treaties. The recent example is cybercrime treaty, of course, where businesses have had a big say and commented on it in the process. And these treaties and international agreements also have impact on how business is done, whether it is the cybercrime, as I mentioned, or cybersecurity negotiations and norms and rules in cyberspace. The companies are part of the ecosystem which implements these regulations, so it has impact on them as well. And then we have societal impact, which is a little softer, I would say, in terms of impact definition. However, companies put forward good business practices, environmental social governance rules, and these have societal impact. One of the areas which is up and coming and being a concern is actually that the business companies not only the policy processes, but because of their access to data and the ability to analyze data, they actually define the problems which would need to be addressed through policy processes. So, and then of course, if the companies have too much of a societal impact in a negative way, then we go back to the direct impact on business through regulation. Now, yes.

Jovan Kurbalija: Maybe just one important point for those of you, and I can see friends like John Henry and others from diplomatic studies, and Yolanda, we are also analyzing how businesses are framing the agenda, not only negotiating and they cannot negotiate, they don’t, but what Paulina said, they’re framing agenda through those evidence-based approach or data-driven approach. And as we know, statistics could be easily twisted in one and the other direction. Therefore, there is an important impact on the agenda and discourse shaping on the global level by big companies, which we saw in 2023 with the companies pushing for strict regulation of AI, which we can discuss in more details, and basically that AI will destroy humanity. It’s softened in the meantime, but there was a clear business interest behind it. And that shaping made, for example, US public from almost nobody, well, except community, which is involved in it, knowing anything about AI in November, 2022, in less than six months, according to the Gallup research, 60% of interviewed people were for very strict regulation of AI and the view that AI will destroy humanity. Therefore, in six months with the concentrated campaign, you had complete shaping of the agenda. And then there were a series of U.S. Congress hearings, agreements, meeting in Bletchley Declaration and these things, which address one important part of AI, which is long-term risks. But there are many other aspects. Therefore, that’s a, I think, case study, definitely for master thesis or PhD, how the big companies shape the agenda and push the governments to act in a way which was not probably optimal for governments. Now there is a wake-up call in many countries, in U.S. Congress, and saying basically, okay, we will regulate what will happen in long-term, but we need to regulate what’s happening now with jobs, data, consumer protection, data protection, knowledge protection. That way, it’s an interesting power of the companies in shaping the agenda. Over to you, Paulina.

Pavlina Ittelson: Well, yes, in case you’re interested in the AI discussion and the impacts and how companies interact, I would also, in the report we mentioned the California regulation, which actually does not, unlike the EU AI regulation, does not regulate the risks, but actually regulates the AI models. And that is a very interesting reading on how the companies react to it and how they’re trying to fight it. Yes, so in relevance and tech diplomacy, we looked at different areas where tech diplomacy negotiations are relevant. One is geopolitics. It becomes more and more obvious that the impact of tech diplomacy on geopolitics is coming to the forefront. We have at least two written policies, and that is AUKUS policy, for example, where the there is a provision that the government will discuss with business companies that have technological knowledge and technological advancement in advance, any kind of technology that can provide military advantage and they will actually use that technology for their own military advantage. So there is discussion on acquiring emerging tech for military purposes. Then we have interdependence between companies and governments. We have spoken a little bit about the regulation that is the right of any country to regulate within its borders, but the governments are also dependent on companies for many other reasons. That is for data that is used then to run the state itself, whether for security purposes, social taxes, anything. So there is, it’s a symbiotic relationship between the companies and governments. We have looked at power of companies, what, how they wield the power, either economic, societal, political power. We have touched upon a little bit how companies are trying to shape the discourse within the regulatory and policy negotiations. And we looked at power of governments and the difference between it. Power of governments is of course derived from the elections. So when we’re dealing with the government representative, you’re dealing actually with a representative of the whole nation, unlike with the companies where the main power comes from basically being big and having a lot of money and having the bottom line. But the motivations on both sides are different. The power of companies and their motivations are. coming from having the bottom line, having the income and having the profit. And power of governments and regulatory power of governments and the interests of governments can stem from different areas, including the future of the country itself, its security, its education system and such. Now, looking at the different companies, maybe on different governments. Yes.

Jovan Kurbalija: Just one comment from the latest developments, what’s happened between Brazil and X, Elon Musk and Brazilian government. It’s an interesting tension between one extremely powerful personality and owner of big company, Elon Musk, and Brazilian government. Basically, Brazilian government wanted X to be integrated into legal system, Brazilian legal system. Then Elon Musk argued that it is for the censorship purposes and the other things. But apart from the real dynamics, whether it is freedom of expression, freedom of speech, whatever it is, there is underlying question. Who runs the particular territory? Is it Brazilian government who has jurisdiction, who has the sovereignty, or Elon Musk and his company? Yolanda and the other colleagues from our academic field should encourage their students and researchers to discuss that because it’s not anymore just academic topic. It’s very concrete happening, just like in this case, between Brazil and Elon Musk. Over to you.

Pavlina Ittelson: Thank you. I’m going to speed up a little bit because we’re kind of wasting, you know, getting out of time a little bit. So what we looked at is how governments interact with businesses and which ministries are responsible. for what? There is a table in the report that defines these interactions and suggests which ministries are talking to which parts of the companies. It is important to understand that these are two different ecosystems that are trying to talk to each other. So very often times the diplomats are confused to whom to talk to within the company and the companies are confused to whom to talk to within the governments. So there is this discourse. And within the companies we looked at the different parts of the company departments and only several ones have digital diplomacy departments, Microsoft being one of them. The others deal with digital diplomacy issues, tech diplomacy issues, through a variety of other departments, anywhere from communications to legal and compliance. But we wanted to go into deeper on the business side of things, Jovan, if you could take over again.

Jovan Kurbalija: Thanks Pavlina. What we did, we chose eight top companies, five US and three Chinese, and we looked at their revenue for last year. And we basically, through revenue, we indicated, we found whatever their policy priorities, and we look also to their source of income geographically. Like in case of Amazon, online stores are the main. Then the US, they have 69.3% in the US, and they’re probably not interested that much in diplomacy. They’re interested in negotiating with strong lobbying in Washington DC. Meta relies 98% on advertising, basically data mining from Instagram, from Facebook. Facebook and other things, they’re very exposed to the question of data protection. And they are very exposed to Brussels because Brussels is the leader in the data protection, and especially with GDPR. Therefore, their focus is completely different from Amazon. And we have then NVIDIA as a third example, which sells the hardware, sells GPU, graphical processing units, and do the graphics. They are basically quite solid when it comes to data. They’re not exposed on data regulation. But they’re exposed, for example, to Chinese regulation because they export a lot to China. And the sanctions regimes of the US government affects them directly. But then if you see this chart of NVIDIA, you can see their CEO coming and telling governments, you have to have your own AI. By the way, I think governments should have their own AI. But his interest is very clear. He wants to send more hardware. Or Microsoft, which has servers all over the world. Obviously, Microsoft is interested to share the security cost of the cybersecurity because they are the most exposed to attacks, much more than Facebook or Google. They want to have the governments stepping in with cybersecurity. It is the reason, for example, why they push strongly for Geneva Cyber Convention. And you can see Microsoft very active in cybersecurity negotiation in the UN. When you look for the business model, you can see exactly why companies are pushing for some policies and why they are present in some policy spaces. Microsoft is also very much involved in cybercrime negotiation because it is exposed to these things. Now, what we did in the study, we also checked what is geographical distribution of their revenues. And you can see that, for example, Chinese companies, which are at the bottom. are very much China-driven. 90% of income 10-cent Alibaba is generated in China, Huawei is 67.10, and they are not that much present in international negotiation. They’re present in interesting places. For example, Alibaba has been very much involved in WTO, but also in the Universal Postal Union, where they negotiate the regulation of the minimal cost for the custom purposes of the parcels, because they distribute goods worldwide through the postal system. And they are very much involved in the debt negotiation in Bern, because the Universal Postal Union is based in Bern. Therefore, through this, a type of income they make, whether it is data or hardware or cloud computing or subscription services, and geographical exposure of these companies, you get like x-ray, you can exactly see why they have a strong presence in Brussels, like Google and Facebook, or Meta, Alphabet and Meta. Why they have a strong presence in the standardization bodies in Geneva, like Huawei, for example. Why Microsoft is present in cybersecurity negotiations. Why Apple, for example, is quite relaxed on the question of data, because they are doing very little data mining, but they are very concerned about China regulation, because they are reducing dependence on China when it comes to regulation. Why Amazon is not involved at all in the global diplomacy. They are involved here and there, but you cannot see them present. Therefore, through these two statistical elements, based on the annual report of the companies from 2023, you can basically see their interest for involvement. and negotiation with the governments, including lobbying. And you come then to the few centers of negotiation, international one. National, it’s Washington DC, definitely. Beijing for China. But then you have Brussels as important place where data, AI, and other things are negotiating. European Union has a very weak AI and tech industry. It is in a way third world of digital world because it is basically more consumer, but it has very powerful and very rich market. Therefore, companies are investing in the lobbying and the power in Brussels. It was clear during EU AI Act, they were very heavily involved in it. For another reason, many countries, smaller countries who do not have a power to negotiate with big companies, they’re watching what will be outcome of the Brussels negotiations. This is so-called Brussels effect, which is now contested in theory, but it is what smaller countries are watching. It was clear with GDPR, it will be now with EU AI Act negotiation to see how countries will deal with Europe. And then countries, not even small countries, for example, Indonesia took quite a few things from GDPR, then they will implement and basically they will say, hey, we want the same treatment as you give to European Union. That’s an interesting for diplomacy dynamics.

Pavlina Ittelson: Thank you. So going forward, in order to discuss these questions, we have looked at the instruments and how the interactions take place. We have already mentioned lobbying parts in Brussels, D.C. and Geneva or Beijing. Also through public… policy and advocacy initiatives, public policy both on the side of governments and companies, corporate responsibility. And for example, part of the tech diplomacy negotiations is actually adopting the regulations before they come into full force, like we see with the AI regulation currently within the EU. Public-private partnerships on both sides, so benefiting governments and businesses. Research and development, so countries do like to benefit from research and development that is conducted by the tech companies, as of course, tech companies do have resources which are way beyond the governmental resources to dedicate to these questions. And consulting and advisory and negotiations, so we have seen it over the couple of negotiating processes, including the cybercrime process that the companies are very involved, either in commenting on the upcoming legislation or putting their input forward in global internet governance for. And then we have looked also at where these interactions are taking place, I’d like to circle back on what Johan was saying about the companies. When we look at the map, there’s clear indicators why certain areas are more prone to tech companies’ investments than others. Those countries which do have landings of submarine cables, for example, will always be part of the tech diplomacy ecosystem of negotiations, as well as the countries which do have climates that allow for major data centers that have less environment. impacts, so they need less cooling and less energy. We have seen also certain areas, specifically in India, that where the local, not only national, but local policies and regulations have provided a very strong stimulant for the companies to be there. We have, for example, Luxembourg and Dubai that have tax benefits, as well as Ireland, of course, for the tech companies to settle there. So there will be also there. And we have looked at some of these interactions. So I would invite everyone when you see the map of tech diplomacy hubs, and we also in the report have a detailed table of what happens, which company does what, in which of these cities. It’s also to think globally about it. For example, why does Google acquire carbon dioxide offsets in Brazil, but in Singapore, they promote environmental sustainability, and how that interacts between each other. So I will invite you all to download the report. I think my colleague Nina already has posted the link to the report in the chat. And I do see we have 20 chat messages. So I would suggest we have 15, about 15 minutes left, we will dive into these questions that we have on chat, or if there are any in the room, please go ahead and ask.

Jovan Kurbalija: No, just a quick, you mentioned the cables. The cables are very important part of geopolitics. We’ll discuss it. We were mentioning in chat National Forum on Diplomatic Training, Directors of Diplomatic Academies will meet next week in Montenegro and we will discuss these issues. But this is an important part of geopolitics where you have all our communication. If some colleagues are following now this call in India or in China or in Singapore, probably the packets which are carrying my image, or sorry, Paulina’s, are going through this from Alexandria to Suez, through Red Sea and other places. And while internet is based on Wi-Fi, it has a really clear cable structure with more or less the same points that existed a long time ago with British Empire and the telegraph cables. And they remain the same points in the digital era, geostrategical points, including we saw it Cairo, including Miami. Most of the cables coming in the Euro are coming via Miami. Therefore, that’s an interesting, interesting, we have this European cable structure. Therefore, I invite you, you can take the link and you can see how your country is connected to the internet. We ask always our diplomats who attend our courses, like they should know, the ports, rivers, the roads, airports, they should know what are the cables that connect them, especially when countries have one or two cables like many African countries. Here is United Arab Emirates, quite well connected, but you can see how your respective countries are. India is well connected, you see. But we have countries in West Africa, which depend on one cable, like Liberia, Cote d’Ivoire and Mauritania. What does it mean? If that cable is cut, that countries won’t have anything, won’t have WhatsApp, won’t have emergency services. There’s just one element which is not directly. related to tech companies, but it is important part of geopolitics. Okay.

Pavlina Ittelson: We do have a lot of questions.

Jovan Kurbalija: Right, we’ll go through questions. Would you like Pavlina or should I read?

Pavlina Ittelson: I don’t know. Let’s start with Janik. Hello, Janik. Nice to see you again. So the question is, if you were a developing country with limited resource, how would you go about tech diplomacy? What would be the one thing, right? I would say it is quite obvious from the map we have shared that there’s areas where there are no red dots or any kind of big tech diplomacy hubs, specifically in African, Latin America and Central America. So for those countries, I would say it is internally very important to have the capacity to identify what they want to address, what they need to address on a national level, and then understand which companies may have what they need, may have the technology or the access to data or research and development that that country would mostly benefit from. But Jovan, I’ll let you also chime in on this one because it’s a big issue with tech diplomacy.

Jovan Kurbalija: Sure. I wouldn’t go by all means to have, let’s say representation in Silicon Valley. That is not proportional for some small countries. They have to establish priorities. They have to use AI. We had this morning session and AI provides small countries with possibility to have level playing field in the diplomacy in general, because they can follow. You saw our UNGA analysis. Big countries do not have any more big advantage because with AI you can have reporting on your priorities. I would definitely be very strategic involvement in cables. Let’s say Mauritania should have at least. second cable, not one cable, should focus on the very concrete issues, not bringing next billion, but bottom billion. Most of these countries have a big poverty issues and people who are completely excluded from normal and digital world. To use a common sense, but definitely I wouldn’t invest time and money, limited time and money into representation in Silicon Valley. That would be maybe African Union as a whole should have it like European Union has. Switzerland has an interesting representation in Silicon Valley in San Francisco, more on science side, Swissnex. That would be my answer. Definitely. As Paulina said, focus on priority issues and that’s it. And then see who can help what companies. Helena Krugovic asked the question to Dr. Hemery. I don’t know, John, you may answer, but I don’t know. Given the increasing flow of digital, what strategy do you recommend for diplomats to enhance the digital presence? With the rise of disinformation propaganda, what are the most effective methods for diplomats to counter these threats? How can international cooperation be strengthened to address this issue? Looking ahead, what emerging technologies do you believe will have the most significant impact on diplomats? How should diplomat training program adapt to prepare? John, you can answer the question. You are always well informed and an excellent speaker. Just unmute yourself and tell us what would be your take on it. And Helen apparently knows you well, and it’s good. I love when we have interaction among audience.

John Hemery: Yes, well, Jovan and your colleagues, thank you so much for providing this opportunity for discussion. I wouldn’t dream of intervening and taking the lead on this discussion, particularly in the first question addressed directly to me. What strategies for diplomats? to enhance their digital presence. Every diplomatic service with which my colleagues work are confronting the same question. What do we do? And it’s Diplo that leads, I think, on helping people to understand how quickly this context is changing, how the playing field is changing. So this is going to evolve as a discussion and we’re looking forward to the International Forum on Diplomatic Training next week when a lot of people from diplomatic areas will share their confusion with each other.

Jovan Kurbalija: Thank you, John. It’s great to see you. We haven’t seen each other for a really, really long time. Too long. Excited that we see each other in Montenegro. Gangesh Varma, is there an exploration on the engagement with regional versus bilateral versus national engagement by tech companies? Any thought on how one might influence the other? Okay. Gangesh, what we can see in Europe, I think is the best case study, is that companies are trying to go on all levels. They have presence in Brussels, obviously, but they’re trying to find like-minded countries. For example, they had a very close relation with the Italian government, one of the Italian governments, around GDPR and lobbying on GDPR. Therefore, they have very close relation with Ireland, obviously, because most of companies are incorporated in Ireland. Complex relation with France, Germany, UK, especially on taxation. France and Germany are pushing, as you know, in OECD taxation, that taxes should be paid according to the number of users where big tech companies and platforms are making money. And OECD is not getting yet there into the new taxation format. And in European Union, let’s say Luxembourg, Malta, Czech Republic, and Ireland. are against this reform, against this new type of taxation. Taxation will be more or less the following. If Meta, Facebook, Instagram has 30 million users in Germany, it should pay Germany taxes according to the number of users. The formula is more complex, but it boils down to this issue. Therefore, what we are noticing is that they are lobbying heavily on the countries that support their cause, their bottom line. And they are trying to play a bit of Dividend Emperor by playing once against other. They always find the champion in the region who is pro-business, and they are working on that actor. That’s our sort of observation of the situation. To follow all they have, does the Middle East have plans for a representation in the Bay Area? I heard from, I think, from Kuwait, from, if I’m correct, Emirates, from Oman, they were mentioning it. But I don’t know if they established some representation. Mind you, what we found, one shouldn’t mystify this. Many countries have their general consulate in San Francisco, and you have one department dealing with Silicon Valley. I think Brazil has that, and quite a few countries. Pavlina will reflect more on that. Therefore, that could be also formula of representation in San Francisco. And in the publication, you will see how they act, how European Union has representation, how Switzerland and other actors. Vladimir Radunovic, in many cases, small countries of the same region and beyond have similar digital concerns with big tech, cybercrime evidence, content policy, AI bias. They should, therefore, join efforts to talk to big tech, or AU, African Union Mechanisms, to talk to big tech. That’s definitely Vladimir Radunovic. our advice, because for very simple reason, they’re too small to take on Big Tech. Only European Union can do, or African Union, if they get together, because African Union has power to do it. Tereza Horejsova, Tereza, great to see you, and we miss you. Very exciting to listen to how the research on tech diplomacy has progressed, diplo showing how it’s done again. Tereza was one of the pioneers. She did the first study, and she was the key mover seven years ago, and thanks Tereza for setting this on the track. You can see that baby is growing nicely, and you shouldn’t be worried about this. Alexandra Arns Gonzalez, I apologize, but I must leave. Sorry for not being able to continue. We are sorry, Alexandra, Alexandra, male, female, I don’t know. Ganges, thank you, Jovan, for the detailed response. Congratulations to the team, to this report, and this presentation. Look forward to reading it, definitely. Pavlina, Pavlina, you can take over reading, but let me just sharing again the link to the book preview with the registration form, so when you sign up, you’ll receive a link to the full text. Michael Kende, great to see you, Michael. Michael, an obvious question from me, but how can Geneva increase its role as a hub, particularly for companies and civil society, or inversely, why is there this gap? Michael, what Pavlina has shown is this four layers of interaction, bottom line, indirect impact, third was international negotiation, fourth was societal impact. Obviously, Geneva doesn’t, for most of these companies, Geneva does not impact bottom line. Maybe on tech standards, but maybe on WTO, but WTO is not in good shape these days. It impacts the second or even third layer. And probably, they prioritize engagement. And what we notice, most of them are covering Geneva through what we call easy-jet diplomacy. Easy-jet diplomacy is that you can be in two hours from most of European centers where they have presence, mainly Brussels and London. And Amazon is in Luxembourg. They can be in Geneva in two hours, come in the morning, have a meeting, and leave Geneva. I think that’s basically their calculus, except Microsoft, which has the presence in Geneva, mainly for this, I would say, this broader agenda and security issues and other push for Geneva Digital Convention, Cyber Convention. That’s it. Pavlina, over to you.

Pavlina Ittelson: Yes, so to reflect, I wanted to reflect a little bit on the Ganesh question as well, because you addressed the question of why companies interact and why should you go to Silicon Valley and why should you not. The countries do have different models in how they engage in tech diplomacy. Many of them do not have representation in Silicon Valley. And they rely on conducting tech diplomacy within their capitals. So that is either strong countries that are involved in tech diplomacy, like India, Singapore, or South Korea, or South Africa, or those that do not have the possibility to do so, but they also want to be engaged in tech diplomacy for their own national purposes. And that’s, for example, the case of Nigeria, Rwanda, and some African countries. So I would step away from the prerogative that you have to be in San Francisco to actually conduct tech diplomacy. diplomacy, it is way more dispersed area that we’re working with. And the topics will be different as well. In San Francisco, you may have access to maybe closer decision makers, you may have access to more global view of things. However, as we have seen with tech companies, one change in ownership, and everybody worked with is gone the next day. So it is very finicky area. A lot of countries do have, and Jovan mentioned this, a whole systems of representations, one of them Swissnex, of course, they have, they have set up their offices in different countries and regions that they think that are priority for Switzerland. Another very good one is Brazil and their tech sections, which they call, of course, science and technology. But actually, it’s tech diplomacy. And if you speak Portuguese, they also have mapping of very various areas they’re interested in in different geographical areas. So there’s a lot of work done there. But just to complete the picture, and kind of give the other side as well. It is not always the geographical area you were discussing. And rather than having your national priorities, identified having the strength of your country, identified from the point of view of companies and having that as your kind of ammunition as a diplomat to discuss things. Jovan, over to you.

Jovan Kurbalija: I think we’re out of time almost. Yeah, we will be on time representing Swissnex in this respect. And what is important, we have I have one more comment from Michael. He said, when I worked to the Federal Communication Commission in the US and lived in Washington, there were, of course, many companies represented. And it was always useful to get their perspective, not just in formal setting, but also in a workshop, informal setting. And I feel that is missing here with regard to human rights, cybersecurity, trade, AI. Definitely, Michael, that’s a problem. Michael refers to Geneva. He’s based in Geneva. That is the case, and that would be better to have the, let’s say, track two or track three diplomacy for signaling, for exploration of new ideas. But I’m afraid we live at the time where this bottom line is becoming too powerful. There is less and less strategic thinking, not only in companies, but I would say in governments. And that’s not favorable development comparing when you were two decades ago in FCC and having this feature. That’s the reality. I think we had very good questions, an excellent audience. We have with us colleagues from all over the world. Thank you for coming. What would be our take on it? Please let us know about the publication. Publication is developed in the new format, and this would be my comment of our Kaizen publishing. Kaizen publishing means that you have once a year or twice a year humans doing a write-up, summarizing, while publication is constantly updated throughout the year. The reason is very simple. I was invited two years ago to write on digital diplomacy for one publication, and it took two years to be published. And I said, well, it will change. It was even before ChargePT and other things. Therefore, the world is changing too fast, and traditional publishing doesn’t work simply anymore, especially in such dynamic fields. And what we do at Diplo, we do following just-in-time development. including reporting from UNGA and other places, but we also reflect on philosophical thinking. You can find on our website references to what would Rousseau or Voltaire or Cayetillo or Confucius or Locke advise us about the era. This is our approach, but this publication will be Kaizen-style publication. It follows the Japanese word of Kaizen of continuous improvement on the text, on narratives, on data. We invite you to let us know your comments, suggestions, and to go together on this journey with a few tasks. One is to increase clarity in this field. Unfortunately, the field of digital diplomacy studies got really confused over the last 10 years, especially after this, let’s say, movement of communication studies people in this field, which is great. They provide input on the public diplomacy, but diplomacy is much, much more than just public diplomacy. That’s one thing for the colleagues involved in training, please include this question in training. Always look for the bottom-up issues and stay connected, stay tuned, and there will be more coming from Diplo on digital tech, cyber, whatever you call it, diplomacy. Thank you. Thank you, everybody.

Agreement Points

Terminological confusion in tech diplomacy

Jovan Kurbalija

Pavlina Ittelson

Terminological confusion around tech diplomacy

Tech diplomacy as interaction between governments and private sector

Both speakers agree that there is significant confusion in the terminology used for tech diplomacy, which has practical implications for policy-making and diplomatic efforts.

Impact of tech companies on policy issues

Jovan Kurbalija

Pavlina Ittelson

Companies shape policy agendas through data and framing

Impact of tech companies on policy issues governments deal with

Both speakers highlight the significant influence tech companies have on shaping policy agendas and the increasing impact they have on issues governments deal with.

Different motivations of companies vs governments

Jovan Kurbalija

Pavlina Ittelson

Revenue sources and geographical distribution affect policy priorities

Different motivations of companies vs governments

Both speakers emphasize that companies and governments have different motivations in tech diplomacy, with companies primarily driven by profit and governments having broader concerns.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers recognize the importance of key tech diplomacy hubs and the various engagement strategies employed by different countries.

Jovan Kurbalija

Pavlina Ittelson

Key hubs like Silicon Valley, Brussels, Beijing for tech diplomacy

Different models of engagement by countries in tech diplomacy

Unexpected Consensus

Strategic considerations for smaller countries

Jovan Kurbalija

Pavlina Ittelson

Strategic considerations for smaller countries engaging in tech diplomacy

Different models of engagement by countries in tech diplomacy

Both speakers unexpectedly agree that smaller countries need to be strategic in their tech diplomacy efforts, focusing on priority issues rather than trying to establish a presence in every tech hub.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement include the need for clarity in tech diplomacy terminology, the significant impact of tech companies on policy issues, the different motivations of companies and governments, and the importance of strategic engagement for smaller countries.

Consensus level

There is a high level of consensus between the main speakers, Jovan Kurbalija and Pavlina Ittelson, on key issues related to tech diplomacy. This consensus suggests a shared understanding of the challenges and complexities in the field, which could lead to more coherent approaches in addressing these issues.

Disagreement Points

Approach to tech diplomacy for smaller countries

Jovan Kurbalija

Pavlina Ittelson

I wouldn’t go by all means to have, let’s say, representation in Silicon Valley. That is not proportional for some small countries. They have to establish priorities.

Many of them do not have representation in Silicon Valley. And they rely on conducting tech diplomacy within their capitals.

While both speakers agree that smaller countries need to be strategic in their tech diplomacy efforts, they differ on the best approach. Kurbalija suggests focusing on specific issues like cable connectivity, while Ittelson emphasizes the possibility of conducting tech diplomacy from capitals.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the definition and scope of tech diplomacy, as well as the best strategies for smaller countries to engage in tech diplomacy.

Disagreement level

The level of disagreement among the speakers is relatively low. Most differences appear to be in emphasis or approach rather than fundamental disagreements. This suggests a general consensus on the importance of tech diplomacy and the need for strategic engagement, with variations in how to best implement these ideas. The implications of these minor disagreements are that they may lead to a more nuanced and comprehensive understanding of tech diplomacy, potentially benefiting both academic study and practical implementation.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the need for clarity in defining tech diplomacy, but they approach it differently. Kurbalija focuses on the confusion caused by multiple terms and the need for specificity, while Ittelson emphasizes the interaction between governments and the private sector as the core of tech diplomacy.

Jovan Kurbalija

Pavlina Ittelson

Terminological confusion around tech diplomacy

Tech diplomacy as interaction between governments and private sector

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers recognize the importance of key tech diplomacy hubs and the various engagement strategies employed by different countries.

Jovan Kurbalija

Pavlina Ittelson

Key hubs like Silicon Valley, Brussels, Beijing for tech diplomacy

Different models of engagement by countries in tech diplomacy

Key Takeaways

Tech diplomacy involves complex interactions between governments and tech companies, with differing motivations and power dynamics

There is significant terminological confusion around tech/digital/cyber diplomacy that needs clarification

Tech companies’ business models and revenue sources strongly influence their policy priorities and diplomatic engagement

Key tech diplomacy hubs include Silicon Valley, Brussels, and Beijing, but engagement strategies vary by country size and resources

The rapid pace of technological change requires new, more agile approaches to diplomatic training and policy development

Resolutions and Action Items

Encourage diplomatic training programs to incorporate tech diplomacy concepts

Continue updating the tech diplomacy publication using a ‘Kaizen’ continuous improvement model

Invite feedback and suggestions from readers to improve future iterations of the publication

Unresolved Issues

How smaller countries with limited resources can effectively engage in tech diplomacy

The optimal balance between public and private sector influence in shaping digital policy agendas

How to increase Geneva’s role as a tech diplomacy hub, particularly for companies and civil society

Best strategies for diplomats to enhance their digital presence and counter disinformation

Suggested Compromises

Smaller countries could focus on regional cooperation and joint efforts to engage with big tech companies rather than individual representation

Countries without resources for Silicon Valley representation could conduct tech diplomacy from their capitals or through existing diplomatic channels

Use of AI and digital tools to level the playing field for smaller countries in diplomatic analysis and reporting

There is a huge terminological confusion in this tech, digital, online, cyber, whatever, we found 24 different terms, including Twitter, Facebook diplomacy. And the real problem is for those of you who are involved in diplomatic science, is that, let’s say till the so called Arab Spring 2011, diplomacy was a part of international relations studies and international law, but sort of orphan topic, because it wasn’t scientific enough for international relations studies for calculation for game theories and other things.

Speaker

Jovan Kurbalija

Reason

This comment highlights the complexity and confusion surrounding terminology in digital diplomacy, providing historical context for how the field has evolved.

Impact

It set the stage for a deeper discussion on the need for conceptual clarity in the field of digital diplomacy and how different terms are used by various actors.

What we insist in our discussion, and I invite everybody to do it, is when somebody use term cyber diplomacy or tech diplomacy, to ask what he or she refers to. Does he refer to negotiation, digital issues on agenda, or use of digital tools?

Speaker

Jovan Kurbalija

Reason

This comment provides a practical approach to addressing the terminological confusion in the field.

Impact

It encouraged participants to think more critically about how terms are used and to seek clarity in discussions about digital diplomacy.

We have looked at what is tech diplomacy, and Johan will explain on that, it’s one of his favorite topics, what we see as tech diplomacy, because there is a terminological confusion, both in communications, in PR, as well as in foreign digital policies.

Speaker

Pavlina Ittelson

Reason

This comment introduces the core focus of their research and acknowledges the widespread confusion in the field.

Impact

It set up the subsequent detailed explanation of their approach to defining and studying tech diplomacy.

Through this, the type of income they make, whether it is data or hardware or cloud computing or subscription services, and geographical exposure of these companies, you get like x-ray, you can exactly see why they have a strong presence in Brussels, like Google and Facebook, or Meta, Alphabet and Meta. Why they have a strong presence in the standardization bodies in Geneva, like Huawei, for example. Why Microsoft is present in cybersecurity negotiations.

Speaker

Jovan Kurbalija

Reason

This comment provides a novel framework for understanding tech companies’ motivations and strategies in tech diplomacy based on their business models and revenue sources.

Impact

It deepened the analysis by connecting business strategies to diplomatic engagement, offering a new perspective on tech diplomacy.

I wouldn’t go by all means to have, let’s say, representation in Silicon Valley. That is not proportional for some small countries. They have to establish priorities. They have to use AI.

Speaker

Jovan Kurbalija

Reason

This comment challenges the assumption that all countries need direct representation in tech hubs and suggests alternative strategies for smaller nations.

Impact

It shifted the discussion towards more practical and resource-efficient approaches to tech diplomacy for developing countries.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by highlighting the complexity of tech diplomacy, emphasizing the need for conceptual clarity, and providing novel frameworks for understanding the motivations and strategies of both tech companies and nations. The discussion moved from theoretical concerns about terminology to practical considerations about how different actors engage in tech diplomacy, with a particular focus on the challenges and opportunities for smaller or developing nations. The speakers’ insights encouraged a more nuanced and multifaceted understanding of tech diplomacy that goes beyond traditional diplomatic frameworks.

How can small countries with limited resources effectively engage in tech diplomacy?

Speaker

Janik

Explanation

This is important for understanding how developing nations can participate in tech diplomacy despite resource constraints.

What strategies do you recommend for diplomats to enhance their digital presence?

Speaker

Helena Krugovic

Explanation

This is crucial for understanding how diplomats can adapt to the increasing importance of digital communication in their work.

What are the most effective methods for diplomats to counter disinformation and propaganda?

Speaker

Helena Krugovic

Explanation

This is important for addressing the growing challenge of misinformation in international relations.

How can international cooperation be strengthened to address disinformation and propaganda?

Speaker

Helena Krugovic

Explanation

This is crucial for developing collaborative approaches to tackle global information challenges.

What emerging technologies will have the most significant impact on diplomats?

Speaker

Helena Krugovic

Explanation

This is important for anticipating future changes in diplomatic practice due to technological advancements.

How should diplomat training programs adapt to prepare for emerging technologies?

Speaker

Helena Krugovic

Explanation

This is crucial for ensuring diplomats are adequately prepared for future technological challenges.

Is there an exploration on the engagement with regional versus bilateral versus national engagement by tech companies?

Speaker

Gangesh Varma

Explanation

This is important for understanding the different levels at which tech companies engage with governments and how these levels interact.

Does the Middle East have plans for a representation in the Bay Area?

Speaker

Unspecified participant

Explanation

This is relevant for understanding the global expansion of tech diplomacy efforts.

How can Geneva increase its role as a hub, particularly for companies and civil society?

Speaker

Michael Kende

Explanation

This is important for understanding how international hubs can enhance their relevance in tech diplomacy.

Why is there a gap in Geneva’s role as a hub for tech diplomacy?

Speaker

Michael Kende

Explanation

This is crucial for identifying potential areas of improvement in Geneva’s tech diplomacy ecosystem.