In search of a dialogue: Digital di-plomacy of Sweden

Digital diplomacy opens up new opportunities for both developed and devel-oping states to promote their international image, clarify their position on current issues, and realize long-term foreign policy aspirations, but it also brings com-pletely new challenges. The chief one among them is establishing a continuous constructive dialogue with the target audience in the virtual space. Facilitation for this dialogue is one of the key priorities of the digital diplomacy of Sweden. 
The author examines the activities of the key actors of Sweden’s digital diplomacy (the Ministry of Foreign Aff airs of Sweden, the Swedish Institute, the Swedish Tourist Association (Svenska Turistföreningen), ‘Visit Sweden’) and identifi es their key features. Particularly, the author emphasizes the government’s readiness to implement innovative and creative methods to promote its media projects. The latter include such projects as ‘The Second House of Sweden’, ‘Curators of Sweden’, and ‘Swedish Number’, which were aimed at improving the quality of communication with the foreign audience. In doing so, the responsible minis-tries and agencies placed a heavy emphasis on promoting a dialogue via social networks between the Swedish offi  cials and representatives of the civil society on the one hand and foreign users on the other. The leading actors of Sweden’s digital diplomacy actively engaged the foreign audience in discussions on the most important issues on the foreign policy agenda of Sweden. This was most clearly demonstrated in media campaigns designed to eliminate discrimination against women and gender-based violence. The author concludes that Sweden has achieved a certain degree of success in establishing a dialogue with the foreign audience, yet this dialogue is not comprehensive enough and still depends on the initiative of individual politicians and diplomats.

1. Zol’nova M. 2014. Obshchestvennaya diplomatiya Shvetsii [Public diplomacy of Sweden]. Trendy i upravlenie, no. 2, pp. 137–146. (In Russ.)

2. Markushina N., Parfenyonok N. 2020. Klyuchevye momenty stanovleniya publichnoi shvedskoi diplomatii i shvedskogo brenda na sovremennom etape [Key insights in the development of public Swedish diplomacy and the Swedish brand at the present stage]. Original’nye issledovaniya, no. 10 (3), pp. 82–86. (In Russ.)

3. Parfenyonok N. 2015. Tsifrovaya diplomatiya kak chast’ publichnoi diplomatii: primer Shvetsii [Digital diplomacy as a component of public diplomacy: Swedish case]. Nauchnoe obozrenie. Seriya 2: Gumanitarnye nauki, no. 5, pp. 31–35. ( In Russ.)

4. Tsvetkova N. 2020. Fenomen tsifrovoi diplomatii v mezhdunarodnykh otnosheniyakh i metodologiya ego izucheniya [The digital diplomacy as a phenomenon of international relations: Research methodology]. Vestnik RGGU. Seriya ‘Politologiya. Istoriya. Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya’, no. 2, pp. 37–47. DOI: 10.28995/2073-6339-2020-2-37-47. (In Russ.)

5. Adesina O., Summers J. 2017. Foreign policy in an era of digital diplomacy. Cogent Social Sciences, no. 1, pp. 1–13.

6. Aggestam K., Bergman R., Hedling E. 2021. Feminist digital diplomacy and foreign policy change in Sweden. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy DOI: 10.1057/s41254-021-00225-3. Available at: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1057/s41254-021-00225-3.pdf (accessed: 12.11.2021).

7. Alaimo K. 2016. Pitch, tweet, or engage on the street: How to practice global public relations and strategic communication. London, Routledge. 8. Anca A., Lăcătuș M. 2021. Digital diplomacy: The case of the embassy of Sweden in Bucharest diplomacy. In: Sebastião S., de Carvalho Spínola S. (eds.). Diplomacy, organizations and citizens: A European communication perspective. Springer, pp. 199–218.

8. Bengtsson S. 2011. Virtual nation branding: The Swedish embassy in Second life. Journal of Virtual Worlds Research. Available at: https://journals. tdl.org/jvwr/index.php/jvwr/article/view/2111/5547 (accessed: 12.11.2021).

9. Bolin G., Miazhevich G. 2018. The soft power of commercialized nationalist symbols: Using media analysis to understand nation branding campaigns. European Journal of Cultural Studies, no. 21 (5), pp. 527–542. DOI: 10.1177/1367549417751153.

10. Bortree D., Seltzer T. 2009. Dialogic strategies and outcomes: An analysis of environmental advocacy groups’ Facebook profi les. Public Relations Review, no. 35 (3), pp. 317–319.

11. Brown R. 2013. The politics of relational public diplomacy. In: Zaharna R.S., Arsenault A., Fisher A. (eds.). Relational, networked and collaborative approaches to public diplomacy: The connective mindshift. Routledge, pp. 44–55.

12. Causey C., Howard P. 2013. Delivering digital public diplomacy. In: Zaharna R.S., Arsenault A., Fisher A. (eds.). Relational, networked and collaborative approaches to public diplomacy: The connective mindshift. Routledge, pp. 144–156.

13. Christensen C. 2013. @Sweden: Curating a nation on Twitter. Popular Communication, no. 11 (1), pp. 30–46.

14. Cull N. 2013. The long road to public diplomacy 2.0: The Internet in US public diplomacy. International Studies Review, no. 15, pp. 123–139.

15. Сull N. 2019. Public diplomacy: Foundations for global engagement in the digital age. Medford, Polity Press.

16. Cull N. 2009. Public diplomacy: Lessons from the past. Los Angeles, Figueroa Press.

17. Fischer E., Reuber A. 2011. Social interaction via new social media: (How) can interactions on Twitter aff ect eff ectual thinking and behavior? Journal of Business Venturing, no. 26 (1), pp. 1–18.

18. Glassman J.K. 2008. Public diplomacy 2.0: A new approach to global engagement. U.S Department of State Archive. Available at: http://2001-2009. state.gov/r/us/2008/112605.htm (accessed: 12.11.2021).

19. Grundel I., Stenberg J. 2019. Social listening: A tool for public diplomacy organizations. Available at: https://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/blog/social-listeningtool-public-diplomacy-organizations (accessed: 12.11.2021).

20. Hanson F. 2012. Baked in and wired: eDiplomacy@State. Washington, Foreign Policy at Brookings. Available at: https://www.brookings.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2016/06/baked-in-hansonf-5.pdf (accessed: 12.11.2021).

21. Hoff man H. 2015. Digital public diplomacy on Twitter? The case of @sweden. International Journal of Diplomacy and Economy, no. 4, pp. 278–298.

22. Holmes M. 2015. Digital diplomacy and international change management. In: Bjola C., Holmes M. (eds.). Digital diplomacy: Theory and practice. New York, Palgrave, pp. 13–32.

23. Jezierska K. 2021. Incredibly loud and extremely silent: Feminist foreign policy on Twitter. Cooperation and Confl ict. DOI: 10.1177/00108367211000793. Available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/00108367211000793 (accessed: 12.11.2021).

24. Jezierska K., Towns A. 2018. Taming feminism? The place of gender equality in the ‘Progressive Sweden’ brand. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, no. 14 (1), pp. 55–63.

25. Kampf R., Manor I., Segev E. 2015. Digital diplomacy 2.0? A cross-national comparison of public engagement in Facebook and Twitter. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, vol. 10, iss. 4, pp. 331–362. DOI: 10.1163/1871191X-12341318.

26. Lewis D. 2014. Digital diplomacy. Gateway House. Available at: https:// www.gatewayhouse.in/digital-diplomacy-2/ (accessed: 12.11.2021).

27. Madestam J., Falkman L. 2017. Rhetorical construction of political leadership in social media. Journal of Organizational Change Management, no. 30 (3), pp. 299–311.

28. Manor I. 2016. Are we there yet: Have MFAs realized the potential of digital diplomacy? Results from a cross-national comparison. Leiden, Brill.

29. Manor I. 2019. The digitalization of public diplomacy. New York, Springer.

30. Melo A. What’s in a place? The contribution of strategic communication to placemaking and territorial communication. Available at: https://repositorium. sdum.uminho.pt/bitstream/1822/73792/1/2021_Melo_What-s-in-a-place.pdf (accessed: 12.11.2021).

31. Metzgar E. 2012. Is it the medium or the message? Social media, American public relations & Iran. Global Media Journal, no. 11 (21), pp. 1–16.

32. Ociepka B. 2012. Impact of new technologies on international communication: The case of public diplomacy. Information Science, no. 59, pp. 24–36.

33. Pamment J. 2011. Innovations in public diplomacy and nation brands: Inside the House of Sweden. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, no. 7, pp. 127–135.

34. Pamment J. 2014. New public diplomacy in the 21st century. London, Routledge.

35. Pamment J., Cassinger C. 2018. Nation branding and the social imaginary of participation: An exploratory study of the Swedish Number campaign. European Journal of Cultural Studies, no. 21 (5), pp. 561–574. DOI: 10.1177/1367549417751152.

36. Pelling J. 2016. Public diplomacy in the age of networks: Midwives4all. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, no. 12 (2–3), pp. 201–209.

37. Pelling J. 2015. When doing becomes the message: The case of Swedish digital diplomacy. In: Bjola C., Holmes M. (eds.). Digital diplomacy: Theory and practice. New York, Palgrave, pp. 164–180.

38. Richter C. 2008. International broadcasting and intercultural dialogue: Deutsche Welle in the Arab World. Arab Media & Society, iss. 6. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242462994_International_Broadcasting_and_Intercultural_Dialogue_Deutsche_Welle_in_the_Arab_World (accessed: 12.11.2021).

39. Rosamond A. 2020. Swedish feminist foreign policy and ‘gender cosmopolitanism’. Foreign Policy Analysis, no. 2, pp. 217–235. DOI: 10.1093/fpa/orz025.

40. Sevin E. 2017. Public diplomacy and the implementation of foreign policy in the US, Sweden and Turkey. Cham, Palgrave Macmillan.

41. Standish R. 2016. How Sweden is pursuing its ‘feminist foreign policy’ in the age of Erdogan, Putin, and Trump. Foreign Policy. Available at: https:// foreignpolicy.com/2016/07/29/how-sweden-is-pursuing-its-feminist-foreignpolicy-in-the-age-of-erdogan-putin-and-trump-wallstrom-hultqvist/ (accessed: 12.11.2021).

42. Strauß N., Kruikemeier S., Meulen van der H., Noort van G. 2015. Digital diplomacy in GCC countries: Strategic communication of Western embassies on Twitter. Government Information Quarterly, no. 32 (4), pp. 369–379.

43. Wihlborg E., Norstedt A. 2017. New ways and actors when diplomacy goes digital. The e-diplomacy campaign @Midwives4All. The 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Available at: https://www.divaportal.org/smash/get/diva2:1134243/FULLTEXT01.pdf (accessed: 12.11.2021).