Digital technologies are reshaping diplomacy worldwide, prompting the rise of dedicated tech ambassador roles. These positions represent an effort by governments to reframe their foreign policy around the fast-evolving digital landscape. Drawing on thirteen academic and policy studies, this article examines how Denmark, China, Australia, Brazil, and Kenya institutionalize tech ambassadorship. It highlights contrasting mandates and organizational placements, while also identifying a common governance gap: the lack of transparency in appointment processes, qualifications, and oversight.
Introduction
As digital platforms, emerging technologies, and data governance become central to global affairs, nation-states are formalizing new diplomatic instruments to engage with tech actors and influence international tech governance. One such innovation is the tech ambassador – a figure charged with representing state interests in digital and technological matters. But while a growing number of countries are appointing tech envoys, there is little consensus on what these roles should look like, where they should be situated within government, and how they should interact with the private sector and multilateral bodies. This article analyzes five national models—Denmark, China, Australia, Brazil, and Kenya—to map current approaches to tech diplomacy and highlight institutional strengths and gaps.
Five National Models of Tech Diplomacy
Denmark: Digital Diplomacy as Industry Engagement
Denmark was the first country to formalize a “Tech Ambassador” post in 2017 through its Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Danish Tech Ambassador is based across three global hubs—Copenhagen, Silicon Valley, and Beijing—underscoring the global nature of Denmark’s digital engagement. The role is deeply embedded in Denmark’s foreign and security policy apparatus and is specifically designed to engage with big tech companies, build multilateral partnerships, and advocate digital norms aligned with democratic values. Denmark’s model is noteworthy for its proactive outreach to private sector actors and for establishing a precedent that other countries have sought to learn from, if not always replicate.
China: Strategic Technology Monitoring and Industry Support
China’s approach to digital diplomacy is notably different. Rather than establishing a tech ambassador in the Western mold, China employs a cadre of Science and Technology Diplomats who operate under the authority of the Ministry of Science and Technology. Their mission is twofold: to monitor international technological developments and to support the global ambitions of China’s domestic tech companies. These diplomats play a crucial role in knowledge acquisition, tech transfer, and bilateral science and technology cooperation. Rooted in China’s centrally coordinated innovation policy, this model prioritizes strategic intelligence gathering and the reinforcement of national technological sovereignty over direct engagement with foreign companies.
Australia: Cyber Norms and Rulemaking through Diplomacy
Australia has adopted a cyber-focused variant of tech diplomacy through the position of Ambassador for Cyber Affairs, located within the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Unlike Denmark’s direct corporate engagement or China’s state-driven strategy, Australia’s approach centers on influencing global cybersecurity norms and frameworks. The ambassador’s work involves building coalitions for responsible state behavior in cyberspace, supporting international capacity building, and contributing to cyber governance discussions at regional and multilateral levels. While it involves less direct linkage with global technology companies, Australia’s role is highly visible in shaping the normative architecture of cyberspace governance.
Brazil: Innovation Diplomacy and Global Tech Alliances
Brazil’s contribution to the tech diplomacy landscape has evolved notably in recent years, particularly through the foundational work of former tech diplomat Eugenio Vargas Garcia. As Brazil’s liaison to Silicon Valley while serving as Deputy Consul General in San Francisco, Garcia played a pivotal role in connecting Brazilian public policy with the global innovation ecosystem. His tenure focused on establishing institutional bridges with tech firms, universities, and startups; representing Brazil in global governance arenas including the United Nations and the G20; and promoting policy frameworks around artificial intelligence. Garcia’s work also helped shape Brazil’s national Innovation Diplomacy Program, which continues to support the internationalization of tech startups and foster bilateral STI (science, technology, and innovation) cooperation. Although Garcia no longer holds this post, his contributions remain central to Brazil’s global positioning as an innovation-driven diplomatic actor.
Kenya: TechPlomacy and Inclusive Global Leadership
Kenya represents the most recent national innovation in this space, with the 2025 launch of the TechPlomacy Connective and the appointment of Philip Thigo as the country’s first Special Envoy on Technology. Thigo’s role is based in the Office of the President and reflects a deep integration of digital strategy into executive governance. His mandate includes advising on emerging technology, supporting the domestic digital economy, and coordinating Kenya’s voice in global technology governance forums. Notably, Thigo serves on the United Nations Secretary-General’s Advisory Body on Artificial Intelligence and played a key role in negotiating the first UN resolution on safe and trustworthy AI. Under Thigo’s leadership, Kenya has positioned itself not just as a regional digital powerhouse, but as a global advocate for inclusive, multistakeholder approaches to digital development and governance.
Governance Gaps: A Lack of Transparency Across the Board
While national approaches vary, a significant commonality among the five case studies is the absence of detailed information on how tech ambassadors are appointed. Most studies do not clarify the criteria used for selection, the length of terms, or the oversight mechanisms for these roles. This presents a critical governance gap, especially given the increasing influence and visibility of tech ambassadors on the global stage.
The lack of institutional clarity raises important questions: Who selects tech ambassadors, and based on what qualifications? Are mandates politically appointed or professionally recruited? What mechanisms hold these envoys accountable to national and international stakeholders? Currently, no country in this comparative study provides sufficient public transparency to answer these questions in full.
Toward Professionalization and Global Standards
As the field of tech diplomacy matures, the professionalization of tech envoy roles must become a priority. The diversity of titles—tech ambassador, cyber envoy, innovation diplomat—reflects flexible experimentation, but without shared norms, inequities and accountability challenges remain. Addressing this requires several steps: first, countries should articulate public guidelines for tech envoy appointments and mandates. Second, institutions should collaborate internationally to share models, lessons, and standards—possibly through forums such as the UN, OECD, or multilateral digital partnerships. Finally, civil society and academia have a role to play in calling for openness and embedding evaluation into these high-impact diplomatic positions.
Conclusion
Tech ambassadors are rapidly becoming fixtures of modern diplomacy. As digital technologies grow more politically consequential, countries are responding by establishing dedicated roles to manage their intersection with governance, industry, and society. From Denmark’s pioneering industry engagement, to China’s strategic tech diplomacy, to Australia’s cybersecurity diplomacy, to Brazil’s innovation-oriented global outreach, and Kenya’s forward-looking, inclusive model, each country contributes to a diverse and expanding field.
Yet even as these roles grow in prominence, governance gaps remain—chief among them, the lack of transparency around appointment and accountability structures. If tech diplomacy is to become a recognized and credible branch of foreign policy, governance must evolve in parallel with strategy. Institutional clarity, openness, and shared best practices will be critical to ensuring that tech ambassadors not only navigate, but shape, a trusted and globally equitable digital future.
References
Barrinha, A. (2024). Study of emergence of cyber-diplomacy as a field.
Ercan, M. (2020). Conceptual discussion of Denmark’s digital ambassador and digital diplomacy.
Feakin, T., & Weaver, K. (2020). Description of Australia’s cyber diplomacy and ambassadorial role.
Fedasiuk, R., et al. (2021). Empirical analysis of China’s Science and Technology Diplomats and technology acquisition.
Hamyda, S. (2021). Legal/institutional analysis of TechAmbassador in international law.
Jacobsen, K. L. (2024). Case study of Danish cyber and tech diplomacy norm promotion.
Kļaviņš, D. (2021). Mapping innovation diplomacy in Denmark and Sweden.
Klynge, C., et al. (2020). Analysis of Denmark’s TechPlomacy initiative and lessons learned.
Manor, I. (2016). Cross-national comparison of digital diplomacy in four ministries.
Maschewski, F., & Nosthoff, A. (2018). Theoretical discussion of digital ambassador and diplomacy.
Palgrave and Macmillan. (n.d.). Book review: Commentary on Denmark’s Digital Ambassador and embassy social media in China.
Pomaza-Ponomarenko, A. (2025). Theoretical/comparative analysis of cyber diplomacy institutions.
Tanczer, L., et al. (2018). Study of Computer Security Incident Response Teams as science diplomacy actors in cybersecurity.