The rise of social media has significantly transformed diplomacy and the way states project their power and image in the international system. In this new digital ecosystem, international communication is no longer carried out exclusively by official institutions and traditional diplomats; instead, it is beginning to incorporate new intermediaries with an unprecedented reach. Among them, digital “influencers” have emerged as key players in disseminating values and perceptions about countries, demonstrating the ability to shape the global narrative in favor of state interests.
Diplomacy is no longer conducted solely through embassies, but also throughdigital “influencers” who, via their platforms, act both as official agents—in partnership states—and as unofficial actors, operating independently while still contributing to the management the country’s international image. This is a process of digitizing public diplomacy. However, although they have influence over a large audience, they lack institutional legitimacy, which creates significant tension with actors who do enjoy such legitimacy.
Following Joseph Nye’s logic, the conduct of foreign policy today cannot be understood without considering the evolution ofsoft power itself, one dimension of which has expanded into the digital realm. It can be said that a state’s ability to co-opt and attract, rather than coerce, depends today on its connectivity and its skill managing digital platforms. In this context, digital diplomacy ceases to be merely a tool dissemination and becomes an ecosystem where national prestige in the global system is built through the virality of international audiences. In this status, ‘influencers’ act as strategic ‘opinion leaders, ’ mediating information and translating institutional discourses into an emotional and authentic language, serving as filters of legitimacy in the virtual space.
This phenomenon underscores the shift from traditional diplomacy toward"network diplomacy"—a term coined by Anne-Marie Slaughter—marking a transition from a formal, closed structure, in which each country’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs held a monopoly on the official voice, to a horizontal, decentralized structure. In this new network, the state is no longer the sole voice and begins to interact with a variety of digital actors, who also have the power to amplify or undermine a nation’s international image.
Recruitment
The presence of digital figures in state strategies can be linked to the sophistication of the strategies employed by foreign ministries, which have begun to select and recruit individuals whose reach and goal audience goal with the country’s geopolitical objectives. This process is typically carried out through programs for “country brand ambassadors” or through invitations to international forums and funded trips. According to Corneliu Bjola and Ilan Manor, contemporary digital diplomacy has evolved toward more personalized and emotional forms of international communication, in which non-state actors, such as “influencers” and content creators, become strategic intermediaries for the national image.
A clear example of this internship—which could be described as the “nationalization” of the “influencer”—is South Korea’s “K-influencer” program . Under this initiative, the South Korean government recruits various foreign content creators to produce content that promotes Korean culture, in exchange for exclusive benefits within the country. Similarly, countries such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have used Western “influencers” who create travel content to project an image of modernity and social openness. A clear example is Saudi Arabia ’s investment in major international sporting events, such as bringing in world-class soccer stars to the Saudi Pro League and collaborating with sports content creators and influencers who promote the country on social media. According to Human Rights Watch, these strategies are part of a process of“sportswashing,”through which sports and entertainment are used to improve the country’s international reputation and divert attention from human rights-related criticism.
The goal of these efforts is to humanize foreign policy. By entrusting the message to a third party—who uses their own voice and editing style—the government is able to convey its intended message in informal, less bureaucratic language, which makes it come across as authentic. Through this approach, governments are able to control the country’s narrative and ensure it remains positive, as while “influencers” are free to create their own content, the topics and their approach always determined and controlled by the government. Consequently, these countries gain the trust of younger audiences, such as Generation Z and Millennials, who often view traditional institutional channels with skepticism. By “translating” national interests into the aesthetic language of platforms like TikTok Instagram, diplomacy becomes accessible, while simultaneously masking political messages through simple and engaging content.
Challenges and limitations
However, although this strategy appears to offer only benefits to the state—by allowing it to manage its international image at a lower cost than official campaigns and with potentially greater impact—it also presents significant challenges and limitations. When the audience perceives the content as artificial or overly controlled, the credibility of the message is called into question, and the impact of the content created becomes negative once the veracity of the information is questioned. Thus, it can be understood that the challenge for states lies in collaborating with these new digital actors without undermining their essence, so that their community does not doubt their authenticity.
In contrast to official intermediaries, modern diplomacy also relies on“accidental diplomats,” a concept coined by Nicholas J. Cull. These are travel content creators or activists who, naturally and without state intervention, contribute to shaping a country’s image. By showing social events to their large audiences from a staff perspective, these actors are able to construct a “truth” that competes with the international positioning campaigns carried out by states.
This phenomenon becomes particularly significant in conflict zones, where individuals are able to shape global public opinion without the backing of any major media outlet. Building on David Patrikarakos’s premise that social media has empowered individuals in the face of institutions, so-called “war influencers” use their cell phones to generate an emotional impact that often achieves more effective mobilization than official statements.
Legitimacy
This shift in the focus of communication highlights a tension between legitimacy and authority. It is evident that facts conveyed by government sources are perceived as biased and have less influence on public opinion than personal experiences shared by intermediaries viewed as independent. The ‘influencer’ derives their power from the supposed transparency of their real-time content, while traditional diplomacy is perceived as lacking transparency. Thus, despite lacking training , independent creators are able to manage one of the most important assets of modern foreign policy: credibility in the eyes of global public opinion.
The emergence of influencers on the international stage poses challenges for diplomacy, the main one being the state’s loss of control over the narrative. Unlike government media outlets, content creators act independently, with the ability to disseminate whatever messages they choose, making it difficult to control or correct them and potentially leading to image crises. This results in a significant erosion of legitimacy; there is a risk that aesthetics and virality may end up being more important than the accuracy and depth required in international relations.
In conclusion, diplomacy today is no longer confined to embassies but has moved to screens and social media. As discussed, “influencers”—whether working in an official capacity or independently—have redefined the boundaries of diplomacy and influence on the international stage. agreement , the future of diplomacy points toward a model , where states must accept the loss of their monopoly on information and learn to coexist with new actors and their narratives (or to counter them). Finally, the effectiveness of diplomacy in the future will depend less and less on its protocol and much more on the ability to generate viral narratives that are perceived as authentic and that succeed in capturing the attention of the public.