-
CENTRES
Progammes & Centres
Location
Diplomacy is increasingly being reshaped by AI tools that aid negotiations and decision-making, but their adoption must be guided by human judgement, cultural sensitivity, and transparency.
Image Source: Getty
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is rapidly reshaping various sectors. Even diplomacy, a field long characterised by human-centric decision-making, has not been immune to its influence. In this domain, AI currently augments tasks such as text analysis, simultaneous translations, and offers recommendations during negotiations. As this technology is increasingly incorporated in diplomatic practices, familiar concerns regarding transparency, accountability, and ethical dimensions of these tools resurface. Integrating AI into diplomatic processes introduces newer risks, such as potentially skewed policy recommendations due to limitations in the availability of high-quality and reliable datasets, and the opacity of model outputs. Customised AI tools for advanced negotiation can be capital-intensive and might be inaccessible to diplomats from less technologically advanced nations, thereby placing them on unequal footing in critical negotiations.
Integrating AI into diplomatic processes introduces newer risks, such as potentially skewed policy recommendations due to limitations in the availability of high-quality and reliable datasets, and the opacity of model outputs.
In addition to the trade-off between risks and opportunities associated with deployment, AI integration is also reshaping diplomatic practice by demanding new skill sets and prompting adaptation in how professionals engage with data and decision-making. This article examines the evolving role of AI in this field and the new challenges it poses for diplomatic exercises. Through this exploration, it argues that as AI gains ground in international affairs, it must be accompanied by the adoption of critical safeguards and human oversight.
There is a growing interest in incorporating AI as a practical tool in diplomatic activities. It has already been put into use for improving communication and administrative tasks, and is also being explored for more complex roles, such as negotiations and public sentiment analysis. For instance, AI has found its place in consular services where chatbots and virtual assistants support visa applications, consular registrations, and legal aid for refugees. Often, diplomats, especially those in lower ranks, are assigned humdrum tasks, such as monitoring news and social media and compiling reports. Today, AI assists with much of this work by compiling and analysing texts and visual media instantly. The United States’ (US) embassy in Guinea started using ChatGPT in late 2022 to condense daily media reports for the ambassador and embassy staff, write speeches, press guidance, project proposals, and social media posts. The embassy has been exploring other AI tools for image and video editing and audio clean-up.
A key component of diplomacy is understanding people and their language to build trust and avoid misunderstandings. In this view, automated language processing simplifies negotiations by providing simultaneous translation, such as in the case of Google language translation glasses, thereby reducing time spent on consecutive interpretation. Other AI models are more suited for recommending context-specific action. This is especially useful in negotiating peace deals by simulating scenarios and identifying potential areas of agreement. These tools augment negotiators’ efforts by providing ready insights and strategies that might not be immediately apparent through traditional diplomatic efforts.
More advanced uses of AI remain in exploratory or prototype stages. For example, the Futures Lab at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) is experimenting with generative AI tools such as ChatGPT and DeepSeek in matters like war and peace. One of their initiatives, the “Strategic Headwinds” project, is an interactive programme designed to aid peace negotiations, which was built by training an AI language model on peace treaties and news articles outlining each party’s negotiating posture. Under this project, the Futures Lab team developed the first version of the Ukraine-Russia Peace Agreement Simulator, which lets users input preferences across four themes – territory, security, justice, and economics – after which the AI drafts an agreement and scores each element’s acceptability for Russia, Ukraine, the US, and the European Union. Apart from this, Hagglebots (AI-driven negotiation agents) continue to provide recommendations on what to say and do during the conversation, reducing time-intensive bargaining while maintaining a data-driven strategy.
A notable feature of the CTA is “Adam,” a cognitive assistant capable of understanding natural language queries related to trade agreements.
In addition to reimagining peace talks, this emerging technology is also transforming trade negotiations. For instance, the International Chamber of Commerce’s AI-powered Cognitive Trade Advisor (CTA), developed in collaboration with IBM, analyses complex trade agreements, thus reducing the time delegates spend preparing for talks. A notable feature of the CTA is “Adam,” a cognitive assistant capable of understanding natural language queries related to trade agreements. By parsing thousands of legal and economic text pages, “Adam” quickens the preparatory phase of negotiations, allowing diplomats to focus on strategic decision-making rather than being caught up in granular details. AI-based sentiment analysis tools are also being explored to help diplomats understand public attitudes toward national policies and identify which narratives resonate most. These tools aim to analyse external signs alongside diplomatic materials such as embassy cables, media reports, and intelligence summaries. This becomes especially important for diplomats when evaluating the reliability and impact of information received during times of crisis.
It is important to distinguish between what AI currently enables (text and pattern analysis, simultaneous translation) and what it is projected to enable (the integration of knowledge and skills). AI demonstrates potential in automating routine diplomatic tasks; however, its ability to comprehend cultural nuances, complex human emotions, and the intricacies of high-stakes negotiations remains limited as of date. Therefore, much of AI’s promise in diplomacy is currently nascent.
Diplomacy is often touted as an art, involving decisions shaped by sensitive political nuances that require human judgment, cultural understanding, and emotional intelligence – qualities that AI cannot fully replicate. Decision-support based on AI systems could involve subtle forms of algorithmic manipulation: nudging, shaping, and manipulating human behaviour in ways that might not be immediately apparent, particularly with off-the-shelf products built and trained in countries with different geopolitical and geoeconomic priorities from those where they are deployed. Compounding these risks is the deepening AI divide between technologically advanced and resource-limited countries. AI models tend to be developed and trained in the former, embedding linguistic, cultural, and contextual biases. As this technology becomes more prevalent in diplomacy, underdeveloped nations that have historically been excluded from technological discourse may confront greater alienation, further entrenching global power asymmetries.
AI can process data, but only human judgment ensures ethical and context-aware decisions.
Without robust oversight and in the absence of Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) mechanisms, there is a danger that AI could perpetuate stereotypes or reinforce divisive narratives. For instance, AI-powered sentiment analysis tools tend to struggle with detecting sarcasm and irony. A study analysing COVID-19-related tweets ascertained that an AI model classified the sarcastic tweet “Yay! A new virus??? Thanks China! Kung-Flu: The Legend Continues” as positive, despite its satirical intent. Such misinterpretations highlight the importance of HITL mechanisms to ensure accurate inferences and prevent diplomatic missteps. AI can process data, but only human judgment ensures ethical and context-aware decisions. In times of crisis or negotiation deadlock, overreliance on such tools may prioritise speed over nuance, making it crucial to assess the scope and structure of AI integration within diplomatic practices.
As algorithms take their place alongside diplomats, the art of negotiation now meets the science of AI. The future of diplomacy must lie in fostering a symbiotic relationship where AI enhances human expertise, streamlines processes, and offers new strategic tools while leaving the nuanced art of diplomacy in human hands. Diplomatic institutions adopting such technologies should also adopt guardrails to clarify how these systems inform decision-making. The Information Technology Industry Council’s (ITI) Accountability Framework, which emphasises the need for organisations to increase transparency in AI systems through practices such as auditability and documentation of risk and impact assessments, is a valuable starting point.
Rather than embracing AI as a magic wand, it must be approached as a double-edged sword that is capable of assisting, but never replacing the unique human skills that diplomacy demands.
Providing training programmes to equip diplomats with AI literacy can reinforce its use with informed understanding. To ensure that AI systems function appropriately across diverse cultural contexts, adaptive and responsible AI frameworks should be integrated into policy discussions at the national and international levels. Crucially, any AI deployment must prioritise human agency. The goal must not be to automate diplomacy, but to augment it.
AI’s incorporation into diplomacy offers both promise and peril. While the technology supports efficiency and expands access to information, it must be governed by strong ethical frameworks, particularly when it can shape global power relations through sensitive negotiations. Rather than embracing AI as a magic wand, it must be approached as a double-edged sword that is capable of assisting, but never replacing the unique human skills that diplomacy demands.
Anusha Guru is a Research Intern with the Centre for Security, Strategy & Technology at the Observer Research Foundation.
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
PREV
