Data Diplomacy: A Better Approach to Internationalism?
Negotiations — being at heart of diplomacy — requires massive information in order to have an understanding between both parties (in this case, nation-states). Say, a negotiation in trade deals, would probably need handful of data on which goods that are of good quality, readily available for exchange to a similar good. Or, a negotiation in providing health/education that must be based on robust heaps of information for it to be effective. Although traditional diplomatic notion surrounds on the following: credibility, expertise, and norms[1], data-driven diplomacy may serve as a support for better decision-making — a crucial key in breaking down cross-cultural negotiations between two states.
So, how would data looks like in terms of enabling nation-states conducting trade, defense, and in general, representing its people relative to others?
A side note before I dive in, I am not the to-go guy in foreign affairs. I have a keen interest in international relations, and I just happened to also have an interest in the world of data. This piece of writing merely serves as my opinion in implementing data to a broader level. Please do take it with a grain of salt, and I will cite the two works I read for the base of this article.
Diplomacy, aside of the three notions aforementioned, also has its core functions: information gathering and diplomatic reporting, negotiation, communication and public diplomacy, and consular affairs[2]. Stepping in 21st century, we have seen tremendous technological advancements, yet these core functions are being outpaced by the growth of data. Despite of this, data and the core functions can be linked:
- Information gathering and diplomatic reporting, for example, can be greatly enhanced by data.
- That same data then, can be interpreted to provide insights to negotiations and how to communicate it.
- Simultaneously, providing data can improve consular affairs for its citizens far away from their homes — in case of an emergency.
Theoretically, the use of data can greatly overcome the cross-cultural barriers diplomats are trained to mitigate during the negotiation process. Yet, as the field of data diplomacy itself are still emerging, there has not been a clear framework on data quality and its related security measures created by the ministries of foreign affairs (MFAs).
If data is beneficial to conduct international affairs, why don’t MFAs jump in to create these frameworks? A probable answer can be found on how the people see and treat data; American start-ups often praised and highly revered data for being able to predict consumer behavior. In American public sector, though, a skeptical one; data collection done by federal government can be seen as an intrusion to private lives of its citizens. PRISM surveillance program whistleblower Edward Snowden exacerbates this impression of governments and data. Not to mention UK’s Cambridge Analytica scandal, accusations of Russia meddling in European elections, and so forth.
Despite of the negative and skeptical views regarding data, an interesting case can be studied from South Korea and Singapore — the two countries blatantly used trackers to monitor their people during COVID-19 pandemic, and there hasn’t been any public outcry on the two countries. Imagine the data generated from these — massive, massive pool of information about the movements of nearly 52 million and 6 million people, daily. What I mean to say here is that by having government transparency in its usage (in this case people-tracking during pandemic), people would not be skeptical to the field of data.
Before MFAs can largely implement data onto their diplomatic practices, a framework I have mentioned previously needs to be formed carefully, in regards of data quality and security.
Data quality is an overarching element that includes data collection, selection and interpretation. Again, referring to South Korea and Singapore’s cases, their COVID-19 tracking system provide a high quality data through tracking devices and apps. In terms of diplomacy though, data is something not entirely uniformed across the world. Certain countries might have different interpretation of data, or the collection itself that might pose inaccuracies. Despite of this, various UN bodies have data already collected and meticulously selected for MFAs to use.
The big issue between the two would probably be security issues. In light of various data breaches involving Adobe, Instagram, Youtube, TikTok, and many others, more regulation in data has been demanded across the world. Some regulators are quick to notice the absence of this regulation — the infamous 2018 European Union’s GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) has been the ‘gold standard’ in data regulation, giving control to individual’s data as well as mandating data collectors to place an appropriate measures. MFAs of two nation-states may reach agreements on harmonizing these two matters before conducting data-driven diplomacy, to ensure its citizens that the data being used benefits the two countries in realizing their negotiations.
To conclude, the rise of data will not stop sometime in the near future, and it will permeate to every other aspect of our lives — it is up to the nation’s interest on whether data diplomacy will come to fruition, and definitely worth observing. As long as the data being used in the right context, internationalism can be done more efficiently in this age of globalism.
Further Reads:
