"Hallyu," or the Korean Wave, is a mainstay of South Korea's soft power and public diplomacy, but its rapid rise and spread since the mid-2000s has created backlash from other countries in the region. In Japan, a...
KEEP READINGThe CPD Blog is intended to stimulate dialog among scholars and practitioners from around the world in the public diplomacy sphere. The opinions represented here are the authors' own and do not necessarily reflect CPD's views. For blogger guidelines, click here.

From Silk Routes to Silicon Routes: The New Map of Data Diplomacy
In an age where every message leaves a trace and every digital tool has a potential backdoor, how are diplomats recalibrating the norms of data privacy, negotiation, and trust?
Before encrypted messaging apps and AI-generated briefing notes, old school diplomacy moved at the speed of horseback and sailing ships. It relied on ink, parchment, and the steady hand of a trusted diplomatic courier. For centuries, communication between sovereigns and their envoys was a slow, deliberate process—designed for secure diplomatic communication. Privacy and secrecy were maintained through physical control: of the message, the route, and the messenger. Today, that world feels almost mythical.
Modern diplomacy now unfolds in a far more fluid, fast-paced, and fragile environment. Messages cross borders in milliseconds, stored on servers’ continents away from where they were composed. Negotiations, once whispered behind closed doors, may now pass through cloud-based word processors or AI-powered language models. And in this seamless flow of information lies a paradox: the easier it is to communicate, the harder it is to protect our diplomatic communication.
In this piece, we explore the urgent and rapidly evolving challenge of data privacy in diplomacy. These challenges are not merely cyber-related or technical; they are deeply geopolitical. Before diving into this complex topic, we would like to share a personal reflection that frames our perspective on data privacy. My co-author and I recently published a book titled Cybersecurity: Data Privacy in the Age of Digital Communication, which explores how emerging technologies are transforming nearly every aspect of modern life—from the way we socialize and shop to how we govern and negotiate. It offers practical strategies to protect both personal and professional spheres.
In modern diplomacy, where so much of statecraft unfolds across digital platforms, cloud systems, and increasingly AI-powered tools—every email, shared file, or AI-assisted draft isn’t just a communication tool; it’s a potential breach point. And this leads to a critical question we must ask: Alongside training diplomats in geopolitics, negotiation, and foreign languages, are we also preparing them to navigate the digital minefields of cyber vulnerability and data privacy? Are they equipped to understand the risks baked into every click and keystroke, or are we still assuming those concerns belong solely to IT staff behind the scenes? We argue that one of the greatest barriers to effective digital security in diplomacy is the lack of cyber literacy. Without a foundational understanding of the risks and responsibilities in digital environments, even the most advanced privacy tools can fall short.
As we now live in a world where communication resides in our pockets, travels through invisible networks, and leaves behind digital footprints that rarely fade. In this context, the boundaries between personal and professional privacy once clearly drawn in the analog era have become increasingly blurred. Information, in this new digital paradigm, is truly borderless. And as data becomes the lifeblood of international affairs, questions around its ownership, access, and data security are no longer abstract. They are central to the practice of diplomacy itself. The stakes are no longer confined to leaks or surveillance, they involve trust, sovereignty, and power.
Diplomats must now understand that the platforms they use, the devices they carry, and even the AI tools they rely on for assistance are all part of a much larger, often invisible, infrastructure that shapes and sometimes threatens the integrity of their mission. In diplomacy, where every word carries weight and every leak can shift the balance of power, the challenge of securing digital communication is no longer optional, it’s existential. In today’s digital world, the phrase “data is the new oil” has moved beyond buzzword status to a stark reality. We now stand at a point where the conflicts of the future may not be fought over territorial lines, but over control of digital information, its storage, movement, exploitation, and manipulation.
The stakes are global, and the tools are increasingly digital. So, how do we vision modern diplomacy in an era where every digital communication can be intercepted, every device can be compromised, where a 12-year old kid can get into your device with a little knowledge of coding and hacking.
The diplomat’s arsenal, once limited to briefcases, classified cables, and closed-door negotiations, now includes encrypted messaging apps, shared cloud drives, and yes even AI tools like ChatGPT. But as these tools become more embedded in everyday practice, so too do the questions they raise: How secure are these platforms? What risks do they carry when used to draft sensitive policy language or refine negotiation positions? In a world where every word can be cached, traced, and potentially exposed, the very act of communication has become a diplomatic tightrope. These are not theoretical dilemmas; they are active, daily concerns for those navigating the intersection of diplomacy and digital privacy.
How are diplomatic institutions rethinking data security, communication, and credibility in an era where a single cyber breach can derail negotiations or realign alliances? That’s the question that increasingly sits at the heart of our global conversations and the one that guided much of our research.
Diplomacy, like many other professions, has undergone a profound technological and societal transformation. Drawing on sociologist Dr. George Ritzer’s metaphor of the globalization shift from the “heavy” to the “light” and now the “weightless,” we can trace a similar evolution within the realm of diplomacy, a field once defined by physical presence, formal protocol, and analog security.
Traditional diplomacy was grounded in the physical boundaries. Embassies functioned as fortified outposts of the state, their architecture as symbolic as their function. Sensitive documents moved in sealed diplomatic pouches, entrusted to trained couriers. Negotiations took place in wood-paneled rooms, often behind closed doors, where eye contact and body language were essential tools of the trade. Secure landlines and codebooks governed communications, and trust was built on face-to-face interactions, procedural rigor, and the tangible security of physical space. Trust and confidentiality were tangible rooted in location, protocol, and physical security.
Challenges of the digital age also bring opportunities!
As digital technology and AI tools gained momentum, traditional diplomacy lightened. Documents crossed borders via encrypted email instead of courier bags. Envoys jetted across continents with increasing speed. Information-sharing expanded, facilitated by digital networks and mobile communication. Flexibility and speed of information became a diplomatic asset!
Today, we’ve entered the weightless era of diplomacy. Negotiations can occur entirely in virtual spaces. Ambassadors participate in summits from opposite sides of the globe via video calls. Drafts of policy are co-authored in real time across cloud-based platforms. Algorithms assist in shaping talking points, parsing sentiment, and forecasting diplomatic outcomes. An ambassador today may never physically meet their counterpart, yet may exchange hundreds of messages across digital interfaces and despite the encryption, it may still pass through vulnerable third-party servers.
"Diplomats must now understand that the platforms they use, the devices they carry, and even the AI tools they rely on for assistance are all part of a much larger, often invisible, infrastructure that shapes and sometimes threatens the integrity of their mission."
In shedding physical weight, diplomacy has gained digital exposure. The infrastructure may now be invisible, but the vulnerabilities are very real. The risks are no longer about bugged rooms or intercepted couriers, they’re about compromised cloud accounts, Deepfake video calls, and AI-assisted espionage. In this weightless world, a single misdirected message or a breached login isn’t just an inconvenience, it’s a strategic failure that can ripple across alliances, derail negotiations, and even shift the course of international policy. Confidentiality, once ensured by locks and protocol, now depends on digital hygiene, cyber literacy, and cloud architecture, these domains often outside the traditional diplomat’s training.
This transformation demands a fundamental rethink of how diplomacy is practiced, secured, and trusted in an age where the line between connection and compromise is thinner than ever. This metaphor isn’t merely rhetorical—it reflects a real strategic shift. Just as weightless capital flows transformed global finance, weightless diplomacy demands a reimagining of trust, presence, and protection in international affairs. It raises new questions: How do you build rapport without physical interaction? What does diplomatic immunity mean in cyberspace? And who bears responsibility when a leak stems not from espionage, but from an unsecured platform used in good faith?
In this evolving landscape, the future of diplomacy will depend not only on linguistic fluency or geopolitical insight, but on the ability to navigate and defend an increasingly abstract and exposed digital terrain.
What we are witnessing is not just a change in tools—it’s a redefinition of diplomatic presence and influence. The digitization of diplomacy means states no longer project power solely through physical embassies or charismatic envoys, but through cloud infrastructure, digital norms, and algorithmic presence. A diplomat’s effectiveness now depends as much on the platforms they use and the data ecosystems they inhabit as on the policy positions they articulate.
But these platforms are not neutral. The software that hosts a virtual negotiation or drafts a communiqué may be developed under one legal regime but operate in another. This raises serious questions about digital sovereignty: Whose rules govern the tools of diplomacy? Who owns the logs, the transcripts, the metadata? And can any state truly claim control over its diplomatic voice when the medium itself is entangled in foreign jurisdictions and opaque terms of service?
Just as troubling is the psychological vulnerability introduced by digital dependence. The tempo of virtual diplomacy—the expectation of immediate response, the blurring of time zones, the illusion of constant presence can erode strategic patience. It encourages reactive communication, flattens nuance, and makes even the most seasoned negotiator susceptible to miscalculation. Digital tools accelerate dialogue but compress reflection. In diplomacy, where silence and delay can be tactical, the expectation of immediacy is not always an asset.
This is the paradox of modern diplomacy: greater access and reach, paired with diminished control and clarity. We have expanded our voice but complicated our intent. In this environment, protecting diplomatic integrity means not just encrypting information, it means curating presence, pacing response, and selecting tools that reflect the values and strategic interests of the state. The medium is no longer just the message; it is now part of the mission.
Visit CPD's Online Library
Explore CPD's vast online database featuring the latest books, articles, speeches and information on international organizations dedicated to public diplomacy.
POPULAR ARTICLES
Join the Conversation
Interested in contributing to the CPD Blog? We welcome your posts. Read our guidelines and find out how you can submit blogs and photo essays >.