Tech diplomacy has moved quickly from experiment to established practice. Since Denmark appointed the world’s first Tech Ambassador in 2017, a growing number of countries have created dedicated posts, offices and networks to engage with the companies and innovation hubs shaping new technologies. Yet the field still lacks a shared definition. What exactly is tech diplomacy, how does it differ from neighboring practices, and where is it heading as artificial intelligence reshapes global competition?
These questions are the focus of “Tech Diplomacy”, a chapter in Cyber, Digital, and Tech Diplomacy by Rafael Mesquita and Renato Lira Brito, both of the Federal University of Pernambuco in Brazil. The book was published in July 2026 in the SpringerBriefs in International Relations series. It sets out to bring conceptual clarity to an increasingly crowded field by distinguishing three related domains: cyberdiplomacy, digital diplomacy and tech diplomacy. This chapter (pp. 35–42) is dedicated to the third.
The core argument
The authors define tech diplomacy as the work of foreign affairs personnel to engage with the innovation centers developing game-changing technologies. Drawing on Casper Klynge, the first Tech Ambassador, they stress what sets it apart. Tech diplomacy is not about using technology as a diplomatic tool, for example through social media. It treats technology as a foreign policy field in its own right and the tech sector as its main interlocutor.
They see tech diplomacy as a descendant of science diplomacy, industrial policy and economic promotion, updated for the Fourth Industrial Revolution. At the same time, it breaks new ground in terms of actors and levels, by bringing cities, companies and investors into the diplomatic field.
Key takeaways
Two directions: outbound and inbound
The chapter’s central distinction is between two forms of tech diplomacy. Outbound tech diplomacy promotes a country’s own technology companies in global markets, as a continuation of industrial policy and export promotion. Inbound tech diplomacy connects ministries to innovation hubs abroad, to attract partnerships and investment or to influence how foreign technologies develop.
The balance between the two, the authors argue, reflects where a country stands in the technology value chain. States with strong innovation centers and competitive firms lean toward outbound tech diplomacy. The authors point to the close ties between major US technology companies and the second Trump administration, and to China’s “going out” strategy. Countries further down the value chain rely mainly on inbound tech diplomacy. Most of what scholars call tech diplomacy today, they note, corresponds to the inbound version.
A field defined by diversity
Because tech diplomacy is still a frontier activity, countries interpret it differently. Some envoys aim to influence the direction of technological development in line with national objectives. Others focus on networking and investment attraction. Some play an economic “matchmaking” role between innovations in the host country and businesses at home. Others prioritize ties with national researchers and diaspora communities working in global tech hubs. The chapter cites examples including Denmark, the United Kingdom, Austria’s Open Austria and France’s ambassador for digital affairs, as well as the Tech Diplomacy Network formed by diplomats in the San Francisco Bay Area in 2023. This diversity, the authors acknowledge, makes a single clear-cut definition difficult.
Big tech as a diplomatic actor
A defining feature of tech diplomacy is the power of the companies it engages with. The chapter recalls how tech leaders now act in ways that resemble diplomats: meeting heads of state, calling for international conventions and opening “representation” offices at the United Nations. Citing Katharina Höne, the authors note that ministries increasingly justify engagement with these companies not only because they help solve global challenges, but because they are “too powerful not to be included.”
This is one reason the authors distinguish tech diplomacy from internet governance. Internet governance has long been multi-stakeholder and relatively horizontal. Tech diplomacy, by contrast, recognizes that big tech is “in a league of its own” compared with other non-state actors. It also shifts diplomatic attention to cities such as San Francisco and Hangzhou, and to their leading businesses.
New profiles and new risks for diplomats
Engaging with technology companies is changing the profile of diplomatic services. The authors expect foreign ministries to recruit more professionals with backgrounds in computer science, mathematics and the hard sciences. Tech ambassadors are often described as interpreters between the languages of technology and policy, a role close to that of science advisers.
Careers are also changing on the way out. Some first-generation tech ambassadors have moved into policy roles at the companies they once engaged with. The authors identify two challenges here: retaining talent in public service, and managing the ethical risks of the “revolving door” between government and industry.
AI raises the stakes
The authors expect tech diplomacy to receive more attention than cyber or digital diplomacy in the coming years, driven by the rise of AI. They highlight three consequences:
- More powerful private actors: companies now lead in AI research and own much of the physical infrastructure, from data centers to chips.
- Securitization: AI is following the path of other strategic technologies, such as nuclear power, and becoming “high politics” for foreign ministries and the military.
- Geopolitical rivalry: decoupling between the United States and China may shape the loyalties of companies and push governments to back national AI champions. Scientific exchange between the two countries is also declining.
The authors warn that if this divide deepens, tech diplomacy as practiced by Western democracies could become an exchange within alliances. This would leave an open question about the role of tech diplomats from countries outside major alliances and further from the technological frontier.
The practice should not be confused with its object
The chapter ends with an important caution. Tech diplomacy is oriented toward innovation, and innovation ages quickly. Today’s breakthrough technologies will eventually become ordinary, a process one columnist called “the dial-toning of AI.” As the authors put it, for all the change and wealth railroads brought in their time, there is no “railroad diplomacy” today. Tech diplomacy should therefore not be defined by any single technology, AI included.
The TDGI perspective
At TDGI, we welcome this effort to bring conceptual clarity to a field that has grown faster than its definitions. The inbound and outbound distinction offers a useful tool for policymakers. It helps explain why countries organize their tech diplomacy so differently, and why their priorities depend on their position in the technology value chain.
The chapter also raises a question we consider central: what role can tech diplomacy play for countries outside major alliances and away from the main innovation hubs? Written from Brazil, it brings a valuable perspective to a debate often dominated by voices from the Global North. As geopolitical competition over AI intensifies, ensuring that tech diplomacy remains a tool for cooperation, and not only for competition, will be a shared responsibility.
Finally, the authors’ caution about the “dial-toning” of technology resonates with our work. Tech diplomacy is not defined by a single technology. It is a lasting capacity that governments need to build, to engage with whatever comes next.
Looking ahead
As foreign ministries continue to experiment with tech ambassadors, dedicated offices and networks, a shared vocabulary will help governments, researchers and industry understand one another and compare approaches. We encourage diplomats, policymakers, researchers and technology leaders in our community to read the chapter and the wider book, which also covers cyberdiplomacy and digital diplomacy, and to share their views with us.
Citation: Mesquita, R., & Lira Brito, R. (2026). Tech diplomacy. In Cyber, digital, and tech diplomacy (pp. 35–42). SpringerBriefs in International Relations. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-032-22423-1_5