Expert Insight: Holistic Diplomacy for the AI Era
The 360° Diplomat: Building Bridges Across Bifurcating Global & Technological Systems
Kayla Blomquist On Why the Next Era of Global Affairs Demands a New Type of Diplomat
The age of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has arrived. At our fingertips. At our doorsteps. At our borders, wherever they may be.
As the lines between countries, cultures, and communities have been drawn and redrawn throughout history, diplomats have helped (or attempted to help) bridge disparate or competing groups in pursuit of common goals, and aspirationally, in service to a greater good.
We now exist in a time where some divides, especially political, seem as sharply defined as ever. Meanwhile, the sands we stand on –intellectually, socially, financially, militarily, and beyond– are shifting with the technological winds.
In this era and those to come, we will need diplomats more than ever, in greater numbers and in new varieties. We will need what our team at OCPL has come to call a “360-degree diplomat”: an individual who operates effectively not only across national borders, but across the technical, political, and border-defying cultural divides that increasingly shape global outcomes.
At OCPL we have worked for years to develop frameworks and training programmes to cultivate these capabilities across ecosystems, and this week, we are excited to open applications for our 2026 Fellowship Programme.
But First… Exploring AI in Diplomacy and the Diplomacy of AI
In a recent panel discussion with Young China Watchers Hong Kong, I spoke with other experts on AI capabilities and Chinese AI policy about the use of AI to augment rather than replace human judgement in diplomatic contexts. Anthropic’s Joseph Castellano defined safe diplomatic AI as one that “makes diplomats better at their jobs, not one that does their jobs for them.” Similarly, Professor Michael (Jinghan) Zeng raised concern that over-reliance on large language models risks losing the “traditional touch of diplomacy” or the trust building, in-person context, and observation of body language that machines cannot replicate.
Their points caused us to reflect on the importance of human agency and empowerment, particularly in globally consequential decisions, while noting that disempowerment of humans in these decision making processes and positions may be gradual, imperceptible, and the result of millions of minute decisions.1 In many individual decisions about where and how to use AI to improve diplomacy, doing so may make sense, especially through a lens of efficiency gains and cost saving. However, like grains of sand being carried away by (or at times, thrown into) the wind, these seemingly local decisions about delegating seemingly mundane layers of diplomatic processes to AI could add up over time, eroding the global protective fabric of diplomacy as we know it.
This sandstorm is already underway. As Professor Zeng noted, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs already deploys it for information gathering, consultancy, and polishing external communications. And China is far from alone in its AI use in diplomatic contexts.
At another level of analysis, Alex Duffy took a creative look at how AI systems may behave in diplomatic contexts by training currently popular AI models to play the game Diplomacy. In his “AI Diplomacy“ project, different large language models exhibited distinct personalities; some betrayed allies more frequently, others lied more readily. A closer look at these behavioral differences illuminates how training data and cultural contexts (particularly at the firm level) may shape AI models and their outputs in unexpected ways.
Aside from needing to pay close attention to the aggregate impacts of AI use throughout diplomatic contexts, panelists broadly agreed that current Large Language Model (LLM) landscapes create digital inequalities, primarily benefiting English-speaking countries with Chinese as a distant second.2 For diplomats navigating a multipolar, AI-infused world, language is no longer a communication tool alone; it is a geopolitical factor fundamentally shaping who is able to access and benefit from AI tools.
Finally, the same AI capabilities that may enable more effective diplomacy will also complicate how we distinguish between legitimate engagement and manipulation. AI tools that help diplomats craft culturally resonant messaging, translate nuance across languages, or personalize outreach at scale serve clear diplomatic purposes. Yet these exact capabilities –generating persuasive content tailored to specific audiences across cultural and linguistic contexts– are also what makes “influence campaigns” possible. Some may argue that the technology itself is neutral and many argue the opposite. But what one side will call strategic public diplomacy, the other will call foreign interference. The judgment about legitimacy depends entirely on perspective and intent (see below point on “positionality), and these categories shift depending on which side of the divide you occupy. This presents both an opportunity and a challenge: the opportunity to establish shared norms about AI-enabled diplomatic engagement, and the challenge of doing so when the same tools look so different depending on your vantage point.
Bridges Aren’t Optional. They’re Critical Infrastructure.
Building bridges is hard enough on stable ground. Building them on shifting sands, or when the intellectual, technological, and political terrain changes beneath your feet, demands something else entirely. Traditional diplomatic bridges were built between relatively fixed points: nation-states with established interests, predictable timelines and responsible parties for negotiations, and more slowly changing technological baselines. The AI era offers few of these luxuries. Technical capabilities and their future projections shift monthly if not weekly. The regulatory landscape fragments across and even within jurisdictions. Technical governance realities demand coordination that includes private actors; most AI security challenges simply cannot be solved by governments working alone. The geopolitical stakes escalate (and sometimes de-escalate) unpredictably. Bridges built with rigid assumptions crack under this kind of strain.
What’s needed instead are structures engineered with flexibility: diplomatic approaches that can adapt as the ground moves, that anticipate rather than react to shifts, that hold firm on core principles while bending on tactics, and that include both state- and non-state actors when appropriate for conducting needed cross-border coordination. This kind of bridge-building requires exceptional talent: not just subject matter expertise in technology or policy, but the specific mindset and skillset to operate effectively when multiple systems are evolving, colliding, or bifurcating simultaneously.
Amidst our changing landscape, many jobs, tasks, and skills of the future remain uncertain. But, lessons from diplomatic history reveal several lasting characteristics that are sure to help those attempting to navigate through low-visibility until the dust begins to settle again:
1. Mindset: Maintaining Openness in a Polarized World
Everything starts with attitude. A 360° diplomat approaches interactions with:
Curiosity over certainty: Resist the urge to think in terms of “our logic vs their logic.” Every community (be it engineers, economists, or diplomats) has its own internal logic. Assume there’s something to learn from each perspective, especially when it challenges your assumptions. Ask questions; don’t just preach answers. Examples from history include the ‘Long Telegram’ by Kennan which cut through the DC swamp fog in introducing a new approach to Cold War competition with the USSR.
Genuine empathy: This goes beyond polite listening. It means truly stepping into another actor’s worldview — whether that’s a Silicon Valley researcher or a Beijing bureaucrat — and seeing how they define their problems and priorities. Urie Bronfenbrenner’s classic 1961 article, “The Mirror-Image in Soviet–American Relations” spells this out. It showed how each side saw itself as acting in defence and virtuous while seeing the other as aggressive and duplicitous. Only by inhabiting another’s perspective can you find points of true connection and language that resonate with them, as well as an understanding of your own blind spots. As one U.S. Foreign Service Journal commentary noted, effective diplomacy requires empathy, cultural sensitivity, and the ability to build real connections across diverse perspectives. These fundamentally human qualities are what allow a diplomat to bridge divides instead of widening them.
Humility and adaptability: A 360° diplomat never assumes their discipline or country has all the answers. Be ready to admit what you don’t know and to adapt on the fly. The ability to pivot, characterised famously in an OODA loop by military strategist John Boyd, is crucial. After all, complex global challenges don’t respect disciplinary silos. Even in the AI realm, it’s clear that being “the best” at one thing isn’t enough; true AI leadership means excelling in multiple domains like innovation, implementation, regulation, and moral authority. We have to recognize the limits of our own knowledge and actively seek others’ insights.
Positionality Awareness: A diplomat, by professionalized nature, is a representative of a given country. This is just how it works, and how it must work within the structure of the existing international system. But, for those who identify as diplomats more by nature than profession, they do not find themselves under such formal constraints. However, this does not free them from having “positionality” (having a social identity consisting of nationality, profession or academic discipline, among numerous other important layers), nor does it free them of the responsibility of being aware of such positionality. Having an awareness of how one’s life experiences, identities, and social ties impact their approach to problem identification and problem solving is critical for diplomats working on global issues with individuals and organizations with vastly different perspectives from their own.
This mindset layer is about cultivating intellectual openness. It’s the opposite of walking into a meeting thinking “I’m the smartest person here.” Instead, it’s walking in thinking “Everyone here knows something I don’t.” That posture sets the stage for genuine exchange and concrete progress.
2. Skillset: Translating Multiple “Languages”
Bridging divides also demands a practical skillset. Here, “language” is both literal (Mandarin, English, etc.) and metaphorical (the jargon and mental models of different fields). At OCPL, we often find ourselves straddling worlds that increasingly intersect but are built on fundamentally different foundations and ideas. Between Washington, London, and Beijing, tech innovators and policy negotiators, AI labs and diplomatic offices, some of the sharpest divides we encounter aren’t geopolitical, but epistemic: in short, differences in how communities (not just national ones) understand the world. For example, an AI engineer and a foreign policy official from the same country can approach the same issue as if they live on different planets. In fact, a Chinese AI researcher might share more common ground with an American AI researcher than either does with their own government’s policymakers when considering solutions to new societal challenges and opportunities posed by AI.
Thus, those who will shape the future of diplomacy and global security in an AI age will need to be well versed in:
Technical fluency: You don’t need a PhD in machine learning, but you should understand the basics of how AI systems work — think key concepts like model architectures, training data, algorithmic bias, performance benchmarks. This fluency lets you engage with engineers and scientists on substance. It builds credibility (“he actually gets what an algorithm is!”) and helps you spot when technical claims have policy implications. When an ML researcher mentions convolutional networks or model weights, a 360° diplomat knows where to begin asking questions, and how to discern real issues from hype.
Policy fluency: Likewise, a 360° diplomat needs to grasp governance frameworks, regulatory processes, and institutional incentives. Understand how a bill becomes a law (in more than just the Schoolhouse Rock sense), the timelines agencies work on, and the political pressures officials face. Policy fluency means you can talk with government stakeholders in their language — whether it’s referencing the latest AI Act in the EU or understanding what a White House executive order entails. It’s also about strategy: recognizing how different policy tools (sanctions, standards, treaties, etc.) can be applied to tech issues.
Cultural fluency: Context is everything. History, values, and norms shape how different communities respond.3 A 360° diplomat appreciates, for example, how prestige and status concerns influence decision-makers in Beijing versus Washington, or how Europe’s historical experiences lead to a preference for strong data privacy. Cultural fluency might mean knowing the significance of certain phrases or why a proposal that flies in Silicon Valley might fall flat in Brussels. They understand the incentive structures that govern the actors they work with.This sensitivity helps in bridging not only national cultures but also the culture of tech vs. the culture of policy.
Mastering these “languages” is admittedly challenging, and few people are polyglots in this sense. But it’s exactly the mix of skills countries, firms, and the world need at this juncture. Diplomats of the future will need to be part policy analyst, part tech analyst, part anthropologist. We’re not quite there yet institutionally (in any country, to our current awareness), but those who cultivate multi-domain fluency will be ahead of the curve.
3. Practice: Bridge-Building in the Field
Mindset and skills are the foundations, but a 360° diplomat proves themselves through practice and by actively building bridges in their day-to-day work. What does that look like in concrete terms at OCPL?
Interrogate zero-sum narratives: Luckily for curious minds, the world is far more interesting than black and white, win or lose, “open” or “closed”, either/or. Yet, debates in the public discourse often get stuck in false dichotomies: “AI safety vs. AI innovation,” “U.S. vs. China – who is winning?” A 360° diplomat questions whether a zero-sum approach is appropriate for the situation at hand. This doesn’t mean ignoring real conflicts of interest; it’s a matter of rigor and asking: “Does the framework or approach one is applying actually fit the case you’re evaluating?”
Find shared stakes: François de Callières understood this challenge centuries ago when he wrote in The Practice of Diplomacy that effective diplomacy requires “harmonizing the real interests of the parties concerned.” When bringing diverse groups together, start with what everyone in that specific room cares about. An engineer might prioritize efficiency, a policymaker security, a diplomat stability – but most of them can agree on working to avoid catastrophic misuse of AI. Emphasize those common goals. By spotlighting shared stakes (e.g. “We all want AI systems that we can trust and that don’t trigger unintended crises”), you create a foundation for collaboration. This helps move conversations away from us-versus-them and toward a problem-solving mode.
Create hybrid forums: Don’t wait for spontaneous cross-pollination; engineer it. We’ve found that the most effective sessions happen when we engineer hybrid forums that force cross-pollination between academics, technologists, and policymakers. At OCPL, our Track 1.5/2 workshops and dialogues are semi-formal discussions that bring government and non-government experts together. At times the goal is to find solutions to concrete problems in geopolitics, and at others it is simply to work toward a common language that will allow for future problem solving in complex technically- and culturally-shaped issues.
The Next Generation of Bridge Builders
The world needs not simply well-rounded generalists at a surface level, but bridge-builders with the mindset, skillsets, and practice to connect across crucial divides. At OCPL this approach isn’t theoretical. It’s what we do, and what we seek to help others do. For example, our evidence on the need for 360 degree diplomats, particularly those with a strong understanding of China, led to the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee directly asking then Foreign Secretary David Lammy how he planned to create these roles in his department.
Our Fellowship programme demonstrates how these capabilities develop through structured practice. When fellows from different countries and disciplines tackle pressing issues surrounding geopolitics, technology, and governance, they discover that perhaps academics need not be “out of touch,” policy folks need not exclusively speak in soundbites, and technologists need not operate in a way disconnected with the social world—but these professions as currently constructed inherently optimize for highly different variables within different constraints. They may also discover that similar things can be said for people living and working within different social and political environments.
With that, we’re opening applications for our 2026 OCPL Fellowship Programme. We are looking for individuals who already exemplify core characteristics of a “360 diplomat” (those with excellent research, diplomatic, and/or policy experience and concrete expertise in at least two different OCPL priority domains) who want to build bridges through their research and future work.
We look forward to hearing from you!
Acknowledgements: Many thanks to my colleagues Sam Hogg, Karuna Nandkumar, Scott Singer, and others for their comments on this piece.
The gradual yet consequential ceding of decision-making authority from humans to AI systems is a nascent area of study, taking shape differently across distinct epistemic communities, such as AI risk studies (see, for example, “Gradual Disempowerment: Systemic Existential Risks from Incremental AI Development” by Kulveit, et al., 2025), ethics & law (see, for example, recent works by Cass Sunstein), and many others. Particularly in contexts of diplomacy and national or international security, bridging these perspectives is needed when in pursuit of practical solutions.
For a small sampling of further reading on linguistic disparities in LLMs and their impacts, see for example, Wang et al., 2023; Coffey, 2021; NLLB Team et al., 2022; Blasi et al., 2021; Byrne, 2025.
International Relations scholar, Amitav Acharya, introduced the concept of “global IR”, arguing that much of the discipline of IR does not reflect the voices, experiences, knowledge claims, and contributions of the vast majority of the societies and states in the world, and often marginalizes those outside the core countries of the West. Outside of the academic discipline of IR, many foreign policy communities around the world also fail or struggle to account for the “multiplex” nature of the world.
 | A guest post by
|
Regarding the article, this idea of a 360-degree diplomat is so spot on and insightful because honestly, the technical literacy gap around AI itself is probaby one of the biggest divides they'll need to bridge.