Environmental Issues and Social Inclusion in a Sustainable Era – Robbie et al.

(Eds)
© 2024 The Author(s), ISBN: 978-1-032-41938-1

Taiwan digital diplomacy association as new public diplomacy

practice in the digital era

Bima Jon Nanda*

National Dong Hwa University, Hualien, Taiwan

ABSTRACT: This article aims to explain Taiwan Digital Diplomacy Association

(TDDA) as a form of new public diplomacy practice in the digital era using Bjola’s three key
aspects of public diplomacy in the digital age as a concept to explain TDDA’s role as public
diplomacy actor that uses the digital platform in their practice. This article is using quali-
tative approach with data collection techniques used in the study of literature. TDDA indeed
is a new public diplomacy practice in the digital era based on how they communicated their
presence in blurred Taiwan domestic and foreign connections, and their position as a non-
state actor in Taiwan diplomacy practice. This article then contributed to the emerging study
of new public diplomacy that utilizes digital platforms.

Keywords: Taiwan Public Diplomacy, Taiwan digital diplomacy association, Non-state

diplomacy actor, social media

1 INTRODUCTION

With the advancement of technological information, especially where information is flowing

rapidly, breaking borders, and accessed by various actors, whether they are states or non-
states, it is becoming obvious that technical information is affecting various aspects of our
daily lives. The rapid growth of technological information will impact how public diplomacy
is conducted. Data become the ‘new oil’ for public diplomacy as a field of practice and game-
changing policies according to Bjola (2019, 100). In resonance with the Bjola’s arguments,
Jan Mellisen also argues that digital platforms like social media are the place where people
and government both look for live updates. Furthermore, Jan Mellisen explains that the
dynamic of citizens and government in the digital age leads to the evolution of relationship,
which explain that “Technological change is offering greater potential for exchange via new
tools and platforms, shaping a new environment in which citizens and governments swap
more information and in which governments and citizens-turned-customers renegotiate the
quality of their interaction” (Mellisen & Caesar 2016, 322).
Based on the definition from Han Tuch, public diplomacy is a “government process of
communicating with foreign publics in an attempt to bring about understanding for its
nation’s ideas and ideals, its institution and culture, as well as its national goals and policies”
(Tuch 1990, 3). Cull (2008) explains that public diplomacy is the “process of international
actors seek to accomplish the goals of their foreign policy by engaging with foreign public”.
We could understand that public diplomacy is a series of policies of one state to engage with
the foreign public, to bring the understanding of its nations, or to accomplish their interest.
However, the term new public diplomacy is popularized by Jan Mellisen, who explain that
new public diplomacy is a move to engage with a foreign audience where the modus

*Corresponding Author

310 DOI: 10.1201/9781003360483-35

This chapter has been made available under a CC BY NC ND license
operandi of new public diplomacy is not entirely different from the approach of enhancing
public relations. This means that new public diplomacy operates to achieve information
exchange, reduction of misconception, the creation of goodwill, and construction of the
image. It is no longer about campaigns, and government contact with foreign public policy
services but also about building relationships with civil society actors, and facilitating net-
works with non-governmental parties at home and abroad (Mellisen 2005). In the new public
diplomacy practice, state actors are no longer exclusively engaged; rather, non-state actors
such as individuals or civil society organizations may participate.
We could understand that the new public diplomacy practice could be also done by non-
state actors, and we also can understand that in the digital era, engagement via social media
or other digital platforms is an important trend that creates a high degree of dynamism
between the public and government. Then, Taiwan Digital Diplomacy Association
(TDDA), a non-state actor based on its official Facebooks page, stated that, “Taiwan
Digital Diplomacy Association is dedicated to participatory diplomacy and digital diplo-
macy. We initiate multinational projects in ways of authentic participation and community
localization. In order to strengthen Taiwanese partnerships with other countries by con-
tributing our digital content and hosting real-life events, we invite Taiwanese youths to take
part in the new possibilities of public diplomacy and encourage the innovation of social
media marketing for government and private sectors in Taiwan.” (數位外交行動計畫
Digital Diplomacy 2022) TDAA, according to its founder Kuo Chia-yo (郭家佑), is not a
typical government project where it goes to promote how great Taiwan is, but rather the
approach is more like networking to find things that TDAA can do together with the people
of other countries on social media (Taipei Times 2020).
It is interesting to analyze TDDA as new public diplomacy that uses social media and
other digital media as platforms to benefit Taiwan’s position in the international community.
Taiwan as a political entity is unique, as de facto Taiwan fulfills the requirement to become a
state, but the One China policy and the political history of China make Taiwan recognized
as one of the provinces of the People’s Republic of China (Chiang 2004). From Taiwan’s
perspective, they are the sole representative of China. Although in recent years, Taiwan has
been moving its political agenda to become an independent and sovereign state known as the
Republic of China or Taiwan. Taiwan’s domestic political dynamic influences this dynamic,
but the particular thing is that Taiwan is a political entity like every sovereign state; it wants
recognition from the international community.
This paper aims to explain that TDAA is one of the new public diplomacy actors that
utilize digital platforms to conduct digital diplomacy. It will also explain TDAA utilizing
digital technology when engaging in Public Diplomacy practice in the context of new public
diplomacy concepts in the context of the digital age that is predicted to be bright.

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

The term public diplomacy is said to have been coined by Edmund Gullion when he opened
the Center of Public Diplomacy in 1965. It stated that “Public Diplomacy deals with influ-
ences of public attitudes on the formation and execution of foreign policies” (Cull 2022).
Public diplomacy is generally understood as policies to influence public attitudes (Wilson
2008, 117).
Public Diplomacy channeled its influence through attraction. Because of this, soft power
become one of the inseparable elements in Public Diplomacy. It is also important to note
that hard power or soft power influence is produced by a resource. Hard power resources are
channeled directly because of the nature of their resource. That’s why the resource of hard
power is the military (through military intervention or pressure) and the economy (through
economic sanctions) (Dahl 1957). Tangible resources like the military are the resource of
hard power (Gallarotti 2011, 27). Wagner argues that the German invasion of Poland in

311
1939 and the UN Economic sanction against Iraq in 1991 are the examples of use of hard
power (Wagner 2014).
Public diplomacy is the way to channel soft power resources. Based on Nye’s argument as
one of the scholars that popularize soft power term, public diplomacy is a means of pro-
moting a country’s soft power, where the objective of soft power is to get others to do what
you want based on attraction, hence, soft power in Nye argument could be understood as the
power of attraction. Furthermore, Nye stated that a country’s soft power rest on its resource
of culture, values, and policies (Nye 2008). But after the Cold War, through rapid globali-
zation and the emergence of various non-state actors that become more relevant in inter-
national politics, the term new public diplomacy is starting to take the spotlight. Jan
Mellisen in his “New Public Diplomacy” term, argues that public diplomacy will increas-
ingly standard component of overall diplomatic practice and is more than a form of pro-
paganda (Mellisen 2005). Mellisen called “new public diplomacy” a form of public
diplomacy where the public is no longer the audience or observers in international politics,
but also an assertive participant in international politics (Mellisen 2005). Furthermore,
Mellisen explains that new public diplomacy is a move to engage with the foreign audience
and the modus operandi of new public diplomacy is not entirely different from the public
relations approach. This means that new public diplomacy operates to achieve information
exchange, reduction of misconception, the creation of goodwill, and construction of image.
In the context of public diplomacy and its correlation to digital advancements in infor-
mation exchange in the digital era, according to Bjola (2019, 85), there are three key aspects
of public diplomacy in the digital age: the evolution of the medium of communication, the
blurring of foreign and domestic policies, and the rise to diplomatic prominence of
technological-based non-state actors. The digital age affects how diplomacy is commu-
nicated. Christopher Johnson said that “without communication, there is no diplomacy”
(Jönsson 2016, 79). Bjola wrote that digital technologies have infused the public sphere in
which diplomacy operates with new elements that have already started reshaping the way in
which public engagement is carried out. He then explained that the impact of the digital age
on public diplomacy is determined by communication that utilizes technologies. This aspect
in public diplomacy is whether it will prove the messages would be better heard, listened to
and followed by the relevant audiences. Next, in the aspect of blurring line between foreign
and domestic policies, Bjola argues that digitalization and globalization blurred the domain
of domestic and foreign in the context of issues and challenges that one state faced. Where
local challenges require regional or global solutions such as climate changes. Digital plat-
form then could be use to engage in two-level game logic. The concept that elaborated by
Putnam that explain national and international politics often collide (Robert 1988). In the
digitalization context, one government could use social media to inform the public about
certain information to gain support for their foreign policy. Lastly, as digital technologies
grow, the actors that represent diplomatic activity will also include the non-state actor. Bjola
starts its argument about the relevance of technological giants such as Google and Facebook
in public diplomacy practice in the digital era, where data now is the most important part of
public engagements, and their behavior and attitude in digital spaces. But one trend remains
clear that in public diplomacy practice, a field that was once dominated by states become
more inclusive with non-state actors through digital engagements.

3 RESEARCH METHODS

This article will be using qualitative methods. Christopher Lamont defined that “qualitative
methods refer broadly to data collection and analysis strategies that rely upon the collection
of, and analysis of non-numeric data” (Lamont 2021, 78). This article uses a qualitative
approach with data collection techniques used in the study of literature. Based on Lamont’s
explanation, the principal strategies for collecting qualitative data include archival or

312
document-based research or internet-based research. The sources of data used mostly come
from journal articles, newspapers, books, and online media. The data is searched using
keywords such as TDDA, new public diplomacy, Taiwan, information technology, new
public diplomacy, and non-state actors. After that, the data found will be analyzed using
Bjola’s three key aspects of public diplomacy in the digital age. This approach aims to
explain TDAA as one of the new public diplomacy actors that utilize the digital platform to
conduct digital diplomacy. From this analysis, conclusions can be drawn about TDAA as
new public diplomacy practice that utilizes digital technology in the digital era.

4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

TDDA is established in 2018. As stated on the TDAA website, it committed to creating an

international project to change people’s perception of Taiwan from “zero impression to good
impression” (Taiwan Digital Diplomacy Association 2022). In terms of communication, it’s
quite impressive what TDDA already does in its public diplomacy practice. Social media is
used as a principal medium of Public Diplomacy. TDAA official Twitter account has
around 125,000 followers (Twitter 2022), and about 36,000 people follow their Facebook
page (Facebook 2022), although their digital engagement on Instagram is quite low with
6500 followers in November 2022. Although TDAA also has YouTube and even Spotify
accounts to amplify their voice, the subscriber and follower numbers are lower than 1000
accounts. Despite this, the number of TDAA Twitter and Facebook followers is impressive.
Based on Bjola’s argument, TDAA has a good outreach regarding how TDAA is heard,
listened to, and followed by international audiences in their Twitter and Facebook followers.
Using the digital platform, TDAA can spread its message and information thoroughly and
more inclusively; in short, for its message to be heard, only a person with social media and
internet connection is needed. Based on what TDAA founder Chiayo Kuo said, in order to
build international friendships, TDAA has been creating social media content for countries
where Taiwan is active, and training hundreds of volunteers in social media messaging so
they can help to keep Taiwan top of mind (New York Times 2022). In resonance with the
argument of Hocking and Mellisen, in the 21st Century, social media is the prime focus of
debate as a tool of diplomacy (Hocking & Mellisen 2015, 10). It is notable how social media
can be used as a diplomacy tool, as demonstrated by the importance of social media in
impactful political events such as the Arab Spring (Wolfsfeld 2013, 115). In the context of
New Public Diplomacy, the role played by TDAA as a non-state actor in public diplomacy
practice to communicate Taiwan’s positive image to the international world is in fact the
practice of non-state actor public diplomacy in the digital era.
When it comes to the dynamic between domestic and foreign policies, this can be seen in
the early history of TDDA. The TDDA was founded by Chiayo Kuo when she launched a
campaign to raise international support for Kosovo to receive a national internet domain
name; hence, the importance of the internet domain signifies Kosovo’s sovereignty (Taiwan
News 2022). Since 2008, Taiwan has recognized Kosovo as a sovereign state, yet China,
Taiwan’s biggest political rival, does not recognize Kosovo independence despite having an
informal liaison office in Pristina while Taiwan has not yet established diplomatic relations
with Kosovo (Zweers et al. 2020, 26). The interesting thing is that Kuo’s campaign got
recognition from Kosovo citizens when she was invited to local Kosovan TV shows due to
the importance of her campaign about Kosovan citizens. Kuo then continued the campaign
further that created connection between the Taiwanese and Kosovo through a series of
videos where 40 Taiwanese holding signs in Albanian appeared that said “I am from
Taiwan. I support Kosovo to have their own domain,” and posted it online
(CommonWealth Magazine 2018). Additionally, it is interesting to note that Kosovo and
Taiwan both have limited international recognition. (Kasim & Kaim 2017, 554). The earlier
history of TDAA shows it to be a bridge between the foreign policy objectives of Taiwan to

313
gain international recognition and the public interest of Taiwan citizens. They support the
Kosovo campaign in getting a domain name for the internet.
Another example could be seen in TDDA’s presence in Taiwanese support for Lithuania.
It started when Lithuania’s Defense Ministry in 2021 recommended that consumers avoid
buying Chinese mobile phones and even advised its citizens to throw away the phones
because the government found out that the devices had built-in censorship capabilities
(Reuters 2021). This enraged Beijing and in retaliation, China made many Lithuanian
companies sell their wares in China. Seeing this opportunity, Taiwan set up a 200 Million
Dollar investment program and a 1 Billion Dollar program to finance joint projects,
including semiconductors, in January 2022. The Lithuanian situation sparked wide support
from Taiwanese citizens, and the Chinese ban on Lithuanian products resulted in great
demand for Lithuanian products in Taiwan as a form of support. These good public-to-
public relations also happened between the Lithuanian Taiwanese Governments. Following
this, the TDDA acted as an independent actor to further amplify this close friendship
between Lithuania and Taiwan, which not only existed in public, but also in government.
TDDA Facebook post, on 22 June 2021, showed the Lithuanian government sending
20,000 AstraZeneca vaccines to Taiwan as an act of reciprocity after the Taiwan government
sent 100,000 medical masks to Lithuania during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Facebook
post had already been shared 601 times and had 110 positive comments mostly from
Taiwanese (Facebook 2021). TDDA through its social media presence then utilizes Taiwan’s
interest to resonate with its people. TDDA using a digital platform then created the con-
nection between the foreign and domestic interests using its Public Diplomacy practice.
As a non-state actor in public diplomacy, TDDA is certainly promoting Taiwan’s inter-
ests, especially through sending positive images of Taiwan to international audiences. The
main objective of TDDA, as stated in their social media and in the statement of the TDDA
founder, is to create a good impression of Taiwan and bring a greater understanding of
Taiwan. TDDA fills a void that has been missing by Taiwan’s government for a long time,
which is the importance of digital platforms in the practice of diplomacy. This could be seen
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Republic of China (Taiwan) official Twitter account was
created in April 2018 (MOFA 2018). Utilizing digital platforms ironically is very important
for Taiwan, because it can give opportunity for Taiwan as an essential tool to connect with a
country with no formal diplomatic ties. TDDA become an important actor to fill this gap.

5 CONCLUSION

TDDA is indeed a practice of Public Diplomacy in the digital era. It creates a connection
between domestic and foreign issues, and becomes one of the non-state actors in public
diplomacy practice, while also communicating diplomacy practice in digital spaces. Although
the impact of TDDA’s public diplomacy practice on Taiwan image is still open for discussion.
Nevertheless, TDDA is marked as proof of rising non-state actors in public diplomacy that
have been long practiced exclusively by states. It also marked the current trend of utilizing
digital platforms in public diplomacy practice that will keep finding its traction in the future.

REFERENCES

BOOKS

Hocking, B., & Melissen, J. (2015). Diplomacy in the Aigital Aage. The Hague: Clingendael, Netherlands
Institute of International Relations.
Lamont, C. (2021). Research Methods in International Relations. Sage.
Tuch, H. N. (1990). Communicating with the World: US Public Diplomacy Overseas. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

314
BOOK CHAPTER

Cull, N. J. (2008). Public Diplomacy Before Gullion: The Evolution of a Phrase. In Routledge Handbook of
Public Diplomacy (pp. 39–43). Routledge.
Jönsson, C., & Aggestam, K. (1999). Trends in Diplomatic Signalling. In Innovation in Diplomatic Practice
(pp. 151–170). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Melissen, J. (2005). The New Public Diplomacy: Between Theory and Practice. In The New Public Diplomacy
(pp. 3–27). Palgrave Macmillan, London.

JOURNAL ARTICLE

Bjola, C., Cassidy, J., & Manor, I. (2019). Public Diplomacy in the Digital Age. The Hague Journal of
Diplomacy, 14(1–2), 83–101.
Dahl, R. A. (1957). The Concept of Power. Behavioral Science, 2(3), 201–215.
Kasim, K., & Kasim, E. E. (2017). Taiwan-Cyprus-Kosovo Cases: Differences And Similarities. Yönetim
Bilimleri Dergisi, 15(30), 553–572.
Melissen, J., & Caesar-Gordon, M. (2016). “Digital Diplomacy” and the Securing of Nationals in a Citizen-
centric World. Global Affairs, 2(3), 321–330.
Putnam, R. D. (1988). Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-level Games. International
Organization, 42(3), 427–460.
Wilson III, E. J. (2008). Hard Power, Soft Power, Smart Power. The Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science, 616(1), 110–124.
Zweers, W., Shopov, V., van der Putten, F., Petkova, M., & Lemstra, M. (2020). China and the EU in the
Western Balkans. A Zero-sum Game? Clingendael Report. August 2020.

JOURNAL ARTICLE WITH DOI

Cull, N. J. (2008). Public Diplomacy: Taxonomies and Histories. The Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science, 616(1), 31–54. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/000271620731195
Gallarotti, G. M. (2011). Soft Power: What it is, Why it’s Important, and the Conditions for its Effective Use.
Journal of Political Power, 4(1), 25–47. doi; https://doi.org/10.1080/2158379X.2011.557886
Nye, J. S. (2008). Public Diplomacy and Soft Power. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and
Social Science, 616(1), 94–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716207311699
Wolfsfeld, G., Segev, E., & Sheafer, T. (2013). Social Media and the Arab Spring: Politics Comes First. The
International Journal of Press/Politics, 18(2), 115–137. doi; https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161212471716

JOURNAL ARTICLE ON WEBSITE

Chiang, Y. F. (2004). One-China Policy and Taiwan. Fordham Int’l LJ, 28, 1. Retrieved from https://ir.lawnet.
fordham.edu/ilj/vol28/iss1/1
Wagner, J. P. N. (2014). The Effectiveness of Soft & Hard Power in Contemporary International Relations. E-
International Relations Students, 14. Retrieved from https://www.e-ir.info/2014/05/14/the-effectiveness-of-
soft-hard-power-in-contemporary-international-relations/

NEWSPAPER ARTICLE ON WEBSITE

Andrius Sytas (2021, September 22), Lithuania Says Throw Away Chinese Phones Due to Cencorships
Concerns, Reuters, https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/lithuania-says-throw-away-chinese-
phones-due-censorship-concerns-2021-09-21/
Chiayo Kuo (2018, March 22), A Taiwan-Made Video Widely Shared in Kosovo, CommonWealth Magazine,
Retrieved from https://english.cw.com.tw/article/article.action?id=1882
Damien Cave & Amy Chang Chien (2022, October 20), How Taiwan’s ‘Adorable’ and Ambitious Diplomacy
Aims to Keep the Island Safe, The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/20/
world/asia/taiwan-diplomacy-china.html

315
Davina Tham (2020, January 9), Taiwan’s Digital Diplomacy Gets a Kickstart, Taipei Times. Retrieved from
https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/feat/archives/2020/01/09/2003728948
Kelvin Chen (2021, March 15), 29-year-old Boosting Taiwan’s Soft Power, Taiwan News. Retrieved from
https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4151090

WEBSITES

Ministry of Foreign Affair Republic of China, Follow the MOFA on Twitter, April 16, 2018, Retrieved from
https://en.mofa.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=1331&s=34242
Taiwan Digital Diplomacy Association (2022), Taiwan Digital Diplomacy Association. 7 November 2022
Retrieved from https://twdd.neticrm.tw/civicrm/contribute/transact?reset=1&id=2&fbclid=IwAR3dXJz9
A7bxdMFtCSJpADHLd-ryRvKu8_5HvjxhdZDSA94ImsfbUd8jufQ
Taiwan Digital Diplomacy Association (2022). 7 November, 2022. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/
digidiplotaiwan
數位外交行動計畫 Digital Diplomacy (2022). 數位外交行動計畫 Digital Diplomacy. 6 November, 2022.
Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/TaiwanDigitalDiplomacy/about/?ref=page_internal
數位外交行動計畫 Digital Diplomacy, 數位外交行動計畫 Digital Diplomacy. 22 June, 2021. Retrieved from
https://www.facebook.com/page/487213414986961/search/?q=lithuania

316