I recently took part in a panel about the future relationship between diplomacy and science. A fellow panellist bemoaned the difficulties of achieving international agreement about how to govern the internet. He complained that the different actors had different motivations, different objectives and different ideologies; they even spoke different languages. I couldn't help replying: ‘welcome to the world of the diplomat.’ If all countries shared the same views on global governance in physical space, then we would not need diplomats. The same is true of cyberspace.

When the internet began, many argued that it would revolutionise international relations. In cyberspace there would be no borders. The power and influence of the Westphalian nation-state would be fatally undermined. Traditional diplomats and diplomacy would no longer be needed. Citizen ambassadors would talk directly unto citizen ambassadors. The internet has undoubtedly changed the context in which international relations play out. New governmental and non-governmental actors have been empowered by the new information communication technologies as they join the debates about new international security agendas. And yet the nation-state is still with us and recently has even grown in relevance. Far from being a flat, borderless realm, cyberspace has become another domain for geopolitical conflict, as well as debates and disagreements over international governance. Where there are geopolitical conflicts and disagreements over international governance, there ought to be diplomats and diplomacy. But oddly they are noticeable mainly by their absence.

There are three vectors in diplomacy: agency (who is the diplomat), process (the tools and techniques of diplomacy) and subject matter (the area to which diplomacy is applied). So far, in relation to the new technologies, the focus of both scholars and practitioners has been on process: the implications of digital tools for diplomats and how diplomats can use these to advance broader diplomatic agendas. There has been some good work on how digital tools can support consular work. But this is counterbalanced by an obsession with the use of social media to advance public diplomacy agendas. Ambassadors blog, first secretaries tweet, and third secretaries have pages on Facebook. Insufficient thought has been given to the implications of using social media platforms and search engines designed to monetise data to promote international debate. Only slowly is it dawning that social media platforms facilitate information warfare and frustrate public diplomacy. The very algorithms that ensure efficient monetisation of data weaponise information. They ensure that the fake news of information warfare reaches the echo chambers predisposed to believe it while limiting the reach of public diplomacy to those who are already in agreement. Diplomats and scholars need to raise their game.

This book focuses on agency and subject matter. It explores what it means to be a diplomat and, in particular, whether there is a diplomatic approach or way of dealing with the world. It then examines how such a diplomatic approach can be applied to the various problems arising in cyberspace, whether related to internet governance or the various forms of conflict arising from illicit penetration of foreign computer systems. So far we seem to believe that both kinds of problem can be resolved with technological solutions. The techies built the internet, so the techies can sort out the problems. This is profoundly mistaken. This would be the equivalent to leaving all international problems in physical space to the military. The military, like the techies in cyberspace, have their role, but stability is likely to be enhanced by having the diplomats along too. To put it another way, technical solutions are necessary but not sufficient.

My colleague on the panel on diplomacy and science was concerned about the debates on internet governance. There is a struggle for the soul of the internet between those who advocate the original vision of a free internet and those who support the idea of establishing government control under the jurisdiction of international governmental organisations. The negotiating skills of the diplomat will be needed to edge towards a compromise. On the same panel, we discussed the problems in distinguishing between different types of computer penetration. For example, penetration designed to gather information and monitor developments looks very like penetration in preparation for a future attack on critical infrastructure. How do you distinguish between cyberespionage and preparations for cyberwar? Being unable to do so increases the risks of conflict escalation, including in the physical world. Our conclusion was that there is a need for a better understanding of the motivations and intentions of the other side. Recent evidence suggests that humans are remarkably good at identifying intentions, providing they enjoy prolonged and repeated face-to-face contact. Repeated face-to-face contact with foreign politicians and officials – who on earth would do that? The cyberspace that was once thought to make diplomats and diplomacy irrelevant may instead be making them more important by the day, and they are carrying out very traditional-looking functions. Time for diplomats to stop messing with social media and get back to the serious stuff.

This book has arisen from conversations with a broad range of colleagues from across the diplomatic studies and international relations spectrum. Appropriately, many of these exchanges have been through Twitter (which is better for academic exchanges than diplomacy!), while others have been at workshops, especially those organised by Corneliu Bjola, Ilan Manor and Jennifer Cassidy at the Digital Diplomacy Project in Oxford. I have also benefited from participating in webinars with Jovan Kurbalija and Katharina Höne at the DiploFoundation in Geneva. Mikkel Larsen's wonderful #Digital Diplomacy podcast was another opportunity to bounce ideas around. My thinking on diplomacy in general has been developed through conversations over the years with Paul Sharp, Jan Melissen, Brian Hocking, Pedro Baños and Velina Tchakarova. In Madrid, Colonel Ángel Gόmez de Ágreda, formerly of the Spanish Cyber Command, read the entire manuscript and made detailed suggestions. My editors at Polity, Louise Knight and Nekane Tanaka Galdos, were endlessly patient and encouraging, and the anonymous reviewers offered constructive criticism. I am grateful to them all, with the caveat that any errors or misjudgements are mine alone. My mother and my sons Tom, Fergus and Rory encouraged (bullied!) me to finish the book, which is dedicated to my wife Jenny.