Diplo Blog

The pivoting argument in the article ‘Reading the CCP [Chinese Communist Party] Clearly’ by Perry Link (The New York Review of Books, 11 February 2021 issue) on US policy toward China is the topos of appeasement vs disagreement or resistance. I quote the analogy: ‘Why are the lessons the West has learned opposing dictators like Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin so difficult to apply to China?'

Is the analogy appropriate? Let’s have a closer look:

DiploFoundation works on capacity development in the fields of diplomacy, Internet governance, and digital co-operation. Established in 2002 by the governments of Malta and Switzerland, Diplo, among other initiatives, works to improve the role of small and developing states in global diplomacy by:

The Geneva Internet Platform (GIP) aims to provide simple and evidence-based access to and analysis of the complex fields of Internet governance and digital policy. The GIP’s particular focus is on building the capacity of diplomatic missions, international organisations, companies, and civil society to follow digital developments in Geneva, serving as a digital hub.

Some see two black faces,

Some see a white vase.

A few see them both.

Both sides mock the relativists.

It is all a matter of the right imagination...

This year has posed a tremendous challenge to diplomats. The impact of COVID-19 is felt in almost all areas of international relations. At the same time, there are various challenges to the conduct of diplomacy and how diplomats work. Particularly, in light of lockdowns and social distancing, diplomats had to change the way they worked. For example, how can negotiations be pursued and furthered in times of social distancing? For diplomats from small and developing countries, some of these challenges were exasperated, and additional challenges arose. 

Precise agriculture, monitoring water use, remote medicine – these are just some of the developments enabled due to the expanding use of Internet of things (IoT) devices. There is no doubt that IoT devices can improve our lives. At the same time, however, the growing use of IoT devices raises security, privacy, and trust concerns, as well as the need for establishing privacy and security standards for IoT devices.

The hands-on reflection of this blog post distils a couple of key success factors from a mature example of a digital journey of the alumni community of the College of Europe, a leading postgraduate institute for European studies.

Three hundred years ago, Charles Bonnet was born in the thriving intellectual epicentre of Geneva. Botanist, lawyer, philosopher, psychologist, and politician were but a few parts of what was a rich life of academic pursuits.

For delivering secure-by-design digital products, companies currently lack market incentives. Just as governments need industry for developing smart regulations and policies, the industry needs governments for setting the tone and impetus for the market. It is difficult to disagree with Bruce Schneier when he says that, in particular, the ‘Internet of Things (IoT) will remain insecure unless the government steps in and fixes the problem’. But he said that in November 2016; four years later – this is still the case.

Recent official revelations about the ‘special arrangements’ governing the diplomatic status of the US intelligence hub at the Croughton airbase in the English Midlands, which were provoked by the Sacoolas affair, raise important questions.

Article 12* of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961 (VCDR), reads as follows: