SYSTEM AND METHODS
2.5 Digital diplomacy
proactively bring these work streams together, both within national delegations and among inter- national organizations, as exemplified by the trilateral cooperation on access to medicines under- taken by WHO, the WTO and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).
The trend towards greater integration has been reinforced by increasing calls (for example, at the G7 and the G20) for joint meetings of health and finance ministers to secure financing for universal health coverage or for pandemic preparedness and response. Most countries integrate economic and commercial diplomacy into their health diplomacy at least to a certain extent, but this should not necessarily be seen as something negative. The issue of global supply chains in the face of COVID-19 is a case in point. For example, a recent EU veterinary directive has potential far-reaching implications for the fight against antimicrobial resistance, but it is also creating significant disrup- tion throughout the Americas and Oceania, since trading partners in those regions do not necessar- ily categorize some feed additives as antibiotics, while the new EU directive does. In this case a range of commercial factors come into play, including the protection of domestic producers at the expense of imports.
Health diplomacy – especially if accompanied by science diplomacy – is a helpful channel for inter- action between countries that have no or very strained foreign policy relations with one another. In the United States, the term “track-three diplomacy” is frequently used to refer to approaches that bring experts, scientists and citizens together; it is also referred to as “people to people diplomacy”.
Operating at the grassroots level, such approaches seek to facilitate a better understanding of others’ positions. Many global health conferences make space for this kind of diplomacy, which, like the other types, has also become more difficult in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. In crisis situations and in humanitarian diplomacy, the use of third party diplomacy, where a neutral and independent actor serves as an intermediary, can be critical.
As already indicated, other types of diplomacy can be greatly relevant for the advancement of global health: crisis and emergency diplomacy; humanitarian diplomacy; science diplomacy; and climate diplomacy. It is important to keep in mind that diplomats are on rotation and gain experi- ence in many settings. For example, many diplomats serve in Geneva after having been based with their national delegations to the UN in New York. Many different constellations of experience are possible and this can be an asset in health negotiations.
use of electronic media (such as websites, podcasts and blogs) and social media (particularly Face- book and Twitter) to reach out to other negotiators, the public and journalists. Digital diplomacy comprises such channels as “cyberdiplomacy”7, which has mainly to do with security issues; “tech and science diplomacy”8, which covers States’ interactions through innovation hubs; “data diplo- macy”9, which refers to the use and impact of “big data”10 on diplomacy and international affairs;
and “e-commerce”11, which is about economic issues.
Digital diplomacy through social media is often used by non-State actors to persuade or even pres- sure diplomats into adopting a particular position in negotiations. For example, social media fea- tured prominently in the “Hands off our medicine!” campaign launched by Médecins sans Fron- tières in 2010 to dissuade the EU from concluding a trade agreement with India that would have limited the generic production of medicines for the treatment of tuberculosis and other diseases.
Social media also played an important role in the negotiation of the “transparency resolution” at the Seventy-second World Health Assembly in 2019 (see Case Study 1). The increased use of new web-based tools in the practice of diplomacy is set to continue.
7 DiploFoundation on Cyberdiplomacy: https://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/web-discussion-summary-applicability-internation- al-law-cyberspace-do-we-know-rules-road
8 DiploFoundation on Tech and Science Diplomacy: https://www.diplomacy.edu/innovationhubs 9 DiploFoundation on Data Diplomacy: https://www.diplomacy.edu/datadiplomacy/policyresearch
10 DiploFoundation Website on Data Diplomacy: https://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/impact-big-data-geopolitics-negotia- tions-and-diplomatic-modus-operandi
11 DiploFoundation Website on E-Commerce: https://www.diplomacy.edu/e-commerce
Twitter diplomacy played a key role in the recent elections of the directors general of WHO and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Most of the candidates for high-level UN positions now actively campaign on Twitter. This platform is also used increasing- ly by Heads of State and Government and by ministers and diplomats to share their views and po- sitions with a wide audience. Similarly, the heads of international organizations use social media to present their work and policies – something that the WHO Director-General in particular has fre- quently done during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Social media are particularly prominent in what has come to be called “global issue diplomacy”.
In the context of global health diplomacy, this refers to efforts to promote a specific health issue – for example, a certain disease (AIDS) or group of diseases (noncommunicable or neglected tropical diseases) – to the top of the agenda, to gain acceptance for a specific approach (“One Health”, universal health coverage), or to draw attention to discrimination (the Women in Global Health campaign). Social media are also critical for new fundraising approaches, as illustrated by the “One World: Together At Home” campaign in support of the response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Global health is an area in which broad societal involvement is clearly meaningful. Civil society or- ganizations focused on development agendas expect governments to support initiatives on global health, human development and human rights. The number of NGOs active in the field of global health has grown significantly over the past few years, and they too now use social media to de- mand investment, action and accountability. They have also begun to organize novel types of glob- al fundraising campaigns, such as the “One World: Together At Home” and “Global Citizen” cam- paigns, which helped to raise over US$ 230 million for the COVID-19 Solidarity Response Fund set up by WHO together with several philanthropic foundations around the world.
While social media provide a wide cross-section of the public with an opportunity to comment on foreign policy action (or neglect), they can also result in negotiators being subjected to great moral pressure, highly emotional responses and even vicious personal attacks. WHO has warned of the negative health impacts of “infodemics”, that is, where the volume of information associated with a specific topic grows exponentially in a short period of time. The COVID-19 outbreak and the ensu- ing response measures were accompanied by a massive infodemic: an overabundance of informa- tion – some accurate, some not – that made it hard for people to find trustworthy sources and reli- able guidance when they most needed it. This new information environment poses an increasing challenge to diplomats. Accordingly, WHO took the critical decision to hold press conferences on the COVID-19 response three times a week – something that it still continues to do – and combined these with a strong social media presence and outreach efforts.
Efforts in global health diplomacy can be better understood by breaking this field down into seven dimensions: