Denmark’s envoy to the global ‘other’

In appointing a special ambassador to tech giants like Apple and Facebook, Denmark fits a pattern of engaging with global issues and forces, not self-isolating in fear.

Paramount Pictures via AP
This image shows Amy Adams in a scene from the film "Arrival."

 

In the hit movie “Arrival,” a linguist played by Amy Adams is tasked by the US government to communicate with aliens who have landed from outer space. Are they friend or foe?

What she discovers is that she must break free of limited thinking – for example, about the nature of time. She also ultimately breaks free from government to act for all humanity by embracing the strangers.

The film’s plot is similar to a decision last month by Denmark to appoint a special kind of envoy – a “digital ambassador” to the world’s tech giants such as Facebook, Amazon, Google, and Apple. These global nonstate entities with their extraordinary power and immense wealth do not fit neatly into the normal diplomacy of the nation-state. Their purpose is not always clear. Their language of bits and bots is alien. Are they a force for good or evil? Most of all, can a country’s fear of the “other” be turned into an opportunity – by engagement rather than estrangement?

In appointing this special envoy, Denmark hopes not only to invite more tech investment but to work with their foreign companies on issues such as digital privacy, cybersecurity, fake news, and the effects of automation and artificial intelligence on jobs and society.

“We simply need to have closer ties to some of the companies that affect us,” Foreign Minister Anders Samuelsen told the Politiken newspaper.

Special envoys are hardly new in diplomacy. Under recent American presidents, their numbers have exploded. Most are targeted at specific countries, regions, or conflicts, such as Darfur or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As global issues have grown – and fear of them – so have the number of “special” ambassadors or “high representatives” to deal with them.

Many countries as well as the United Nations now have envoys for climate change, terrorism, migration, diseases, hunger, or cybercrime. “You can emphasize an issue in a world where government to government traditional diplomatic contact is less and less the whole equation, and how things play out in the media, how they play out in social media,” said Thomas Perriello, who has twice been a US special envoy, at a conference on the topic two years ago.

In a survey of 19 countries last year, the polling unit YouGov found that less than half the people in the West see globalization, such as trade and migration, as a force for good. (Those who look more favorably on globalization tend to be under 35.) Such surveys help explain the rise of nationalist politicians who promise to protect voters from what are seen as negative foreign influences.

By assigning special envoys, however, countries hope to solve a global issue, or even use it to good effect. The alternatives are walls, bans, and other forms of isolation that merely accept a fear of outside forces.  Societies that can rise above such fears send out ambassadors to listen, learn, and embrace an “alien” situation. They break free of self-imposed limits.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.