talk by former UK Ambassador to Lebanon and author Tom Fletcher @TFletcher on his book The Naked Diplomat at ODI London last week.

The discussion addressed many of the current hot topics in international relations - tweet diplomacy, Trump and Putin in a post-truth world, is the UN redeemable, can diplomacy address today's conflicts and should Embassies exist.

Tom argues the merits of stripping away the archaic language and ritual of diplomacy in favour of a modern diplomatic engagement appropriate to a media savvy public used to the tools of social media.

Elites talking to each other behind closed doors at receptions is dying

However, whilst a proponent of the use of new tools of social media in order to get messages to the wider public he believes the message remains more important than the medium. In other words core diplomatic skills remain a necessary and relevant expertise. Furthemore, when you do social media badly it does more harm than good, for example when foreign ministries use new media but just churn out the same platitudes.

Inevitably the discussion turned to the use made of new media by President's Trump and Putin who appear to seek to up-end painstakingly constructed gains of the international system using twitter and trolls. With regard to Trump, Tom remarks:

Sometimes it does no harm to be shaken up and look at an issue differently. But in his position it is highly damaging and we need checks and balances. They are being tested but not tested to destruction.

As for Putin, he appears to use technology in a disruptive and destructive way.

If I tweet about Assad I will get relentless insults from 300 robots. It creates a lot of noise and makes people uncertain about what they think.

Diplomats, and diplomatic skills are needed now more than ever. With the liberal consensus of 60 years under attack Tom argues it is more important than ever to be out in the world defending universal values.

To have a world view a country needs to have people who view the world... an embassy is not a building. It is a group of people. You cannot replace diplomacy with a fax machine.

In a more networked and fluid world diplomats must focus on doing things with impact ensuring outcomes rather than inputs. An intriguing practical possibility, apparently under development, is to launch 'diplo-tolls' into the twitter sphere that would smother nasty trolls with messages of coexistence, collaboration and harmony. Does putting an extra batch of bots into the system risk simply increase the degree of uncertainty and further embedding the initial ‘lie’?

There were more questions than answers on the role of tech giants and corporates in the new diplomacy. Whilst tech platforms have allowed engagement with hitherto unreachable groups a number of issues remain around accountability, protection of human rights and #tag campaigns with no real world impact. Should facebook enforce Pakistan's blasphemy laws? How do we deal with the fact that the location of citizens in need of consular assistance in a crisis will be automatically known to their social media network but not to the consular staff at their Embassy?

With regard to the use of technology and social media for the resolution of today's armed conflicts Tom cautioned against hyper-optimism. The Iran deal was not tweeted live, traditional diplomacy carries on far away from the screen. Where social media can be very important is in mobilising public constituencies behind peace which then forces elites to make compromise. On balance we can remain positive as each time there has been a technological leapforward in the quality of democracy this has promoted coexistence and reduced conflict.

Tom will be submitting a report in mid-April to the new UN Secretary General, António Guterres, with recommendations on how the UN can be renewed. Some of this is not about technology but time honoured leadership themes:

the key to surviving disruption is to understand what you are really there for. The UN needs to reconnect with what the organisation is really for. This is about mindset.

But there is also attention to new issues such as how the UN can connect with citizens in an on line world, whether drones can undertake humanitarian relief, should there be a declaration of online rights, do we need diplo bots, how do we deal with cybersecurity. The report will advocate that the UN needs to set the boundaries and has an essential role to create the framework.

The most intriguing aspect of the morning for me was when Tom commented that:

The negotiation of space and relationships within Munich between the old citizens and the new arrivals is diplomacy. We need people to think of themselves as citizen diplomats.

This raised the very basic question of the boundaries of diplomacy. In my experience diplomats do indeed traverse many policy areas in their daily work and can make use of a variety of techniques ranging from peace mediation to sales and marketing. But in essence most diplomats self identify on the basis that they are employed by a Ministry of Foreign Affairs. If you are employed by google, Amnesty International, an Interior Ministry or development agency it is very unlikely you would be considered a diplomat.

Even UN and EU staff carrying out the same tasks and attending the same meetings as diplomats from bilateral missions can be excluded from formal diplomatic networks (the strange boundaries between 'diplomats' and 'non-diplomats' within the European External Action Service a case in point). This becomes all the more paradoxical when organisations that I have worked for, such as European Institute of Peace, Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue and Crisis Management Initiative undertake private diplomacy as non-state actors. I made this point and asked Tom what his definition of diplomacy was. He responded that diplomats should not just be government people and that diplomacy needs to involve many people outside state to state roles. I am looking forward to reading his book to think through the implication for the Ministries of Foreign Affairs of the contention that it is more important what you are doing and why you are doing it than who you are.

Ultimately, are diplomats there purely to deal with the national interest or are they to foster positive change in the world?

If you are interested in more, a full transcript of the event is available at the ODI website.

Guy Banim