Diplomacy is evolving, rapidly adapting to a world in which real time communication is faster than ever and the “rules of engagement” are not limited only to foreign policy and military strategy, but also to social media and public diplomacy. It is a different kind of engagement, a veritable framework to provide the conditions necessary for ambassadors and diplomats to open and nurture a true dialogue with their publics, both at home and abroad.

The term “engagement” is a floating signifier; its meaning is typically embedded in the context of the articulation – who is saying it, in what venue, to serve a particular argument claim, etc. It’s a form of jargon that informs practice, and helps to rationalize acts of public diplomacy into the larger strategic language for U.S. diplomacy.

Matthew Wallin of the American Security Project posed an interesting question in a recent blog post titled “Engagement: What does it mean for public diplomacy?” This question touched a nerve for me, because there are no ready definitions for the term – despite the fact that it appears across statements articulating the purpose of U.S. public diplomacy.

Canada now faces this danger. When it comes to using social media for diplomacy, Canada is lagging far behind its closest allies. In a report for the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute, released Thursday, I compare Canada’s digital diplomacy to that of the U.S. and U.K. The results are striking.

That venture was part of the two-year Global Dialogue on the Future of Iran that Ottawa is sponsoring through the Munk School in order to increase digital communications with and among dissident Iranians.

Digital Diplomacy is a topic that, for most people, conjures up images of embassies conversing with foreign governments and broadcasting information, messages and well -- propaganda -- to impact foreign policy goals.