RTO Diplomacy
As the pace of digitalization quickens and technology plays an increasingly important role in our lives, maintaining global leadership in science, technology, and innovation is critical. To do so, the United States Foreign Service has created a new position—regional technology officer (RTO)—which will focus on enabling the United States to maintain its leadership through transnational approaches to technology policy and development initiatives.
New embassy role focuses on technology leadership and collaboration
As the pace of digitalization quickens and technology plays an increasingly important role in our lives, maintaining global leadership in science, technology, and innovation is critical. To do so, the United States Foreign Service has created a new position—regional technology officer (RTO)—which will focus on enabling the United States to maintain its leadership through transnational approaches to technology policy and development initiatives.
RTOs will focus on:
- Promoting US leadership in technology
- Ensuring that technology ecosystems support democratic values
- Securing US economic assets
- Enhancing US competitiveness with strategic competitors
The RTO program will place foreign service officers (FSOs) at key global innovation hubs, where they can engage with the local technology community, promote regional cooperation and public outreach, and energize global technology hubs to accomplish US policy objectives.
This year, the US Department of State is deploying three RTOs. Matt Chessen (RTO Tokyo) and Jim Cerven (RTO Sydney) have arrived at their posts, and Charlette Betts is due to begin her RTO role in São Paulo, Brazil, in November. There are plans to deploy three more RTOs in 2022, with additional officers rolling out in the coming years.
To learn more about the RTO role, The ACCJ Journal spoke with Chessen about the overall goals as well as his mission in Japan.
How does an RTO in a diplomatic capacity differ from one in a corporate capacity?
This is a great question, as there are some similarities and analogues, but also important differences in our work.
One interesting observation from the diplomatic perspective is how we’re increasingly seeing corporate representatives playing a more proactive role in areas that traditionally were the domain of governments, such as the creation of normative value frameworks for particular areas of technology.
I was recently introduced to the Business Software Alliance’s Framework to Build Trust in AI. I see this kind of work as a positive evolution in the concept of corporate responsibility, where businesses recognize that there are risks inherent in new tools and are proactively taking steps to mitigate those risks.
The US government welcomes the participation of the private sector, encouraging it to play a strong role in the development and adoption of principles and norms for technologies. In fact, governments can’t and shouldn’t develop these frameworks without working hand in hand with the private sector and other stakeholder groups.
RTOs will focus on some of the same topic areas as their corporate counterparts, such as promoting an environment conducive to US business. RTOs have an outreach role which is analogous to private-sector public relations. This could involve working with our public diplomacy colleagues to enhance messaging around technology issues, or speaking on behalf of the US government. Because RTOs have deeper expertise in technology policy, they will serve as panelists and speakers at regional events, both governmental and non-governmental.
There are also some differences between RTOs and our corporate counterparts. We are focused on a broader range of critical and emerging technologies than are most private-sector representatives. Even within the technology sphere, we are generalists compared with our private-sector colleagues. RTOs have an internal capacity-building role in which we are tasked with raising the level of technology awareness and expertise among our diplomats in the region. We also have a strategic foresight function, where we’re expected to analyze emerging-technology markets and report on trends that generate opportunities and risks for economic and national security.
Why has the US government created this role?
The decision to establish the RTO positions was well supported by evidence from outside and inside government. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine first proposed the idea of regional technology diplomats in their 2015 report Diplomacy for the 21st Century: Embedding a Culture of Science and Technology Throughout the Department of State. The National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence made similar recommendations in their final report, where they recommend that the Department of State “establish a cadre of dedicated technology officers at US embassies and consulates to strengthen diplomatic advocacy, improve technology scouting, and inform policy and foreign assistance choices.”
Concurrent with these analyses, the Department of State noted four trends that made the case for RTOs.
First, as we’ve seen with 5G communications technologies and trusted infrastructure, technology issues are closely connected with many US core geopolitical interests.
Second, technology issues—such as semiconductor supply chains—are increasingly transnational in nature.
Third, there is a proliferation of international forums where technology issues are discussed, and we need officers with deeper expertise and focus on technology issues who can represent the United States in these forums.
And fourth, there is a recognition that, to maintain global leadership in technology, we have to build networks of regional partners that include the private sector, non-governmental organizations, and academia—in addition to governments.
Most of our FSOs are generalists who could be issuing visas in one assignment and coordinating climate policy in their next. The RTO initiative is a means of placing greater focus on technology issues and has a side benefit of cultivating a cadre of FSOs with deeper technological knowledge.
How will you liaise with the Japanese government?
In addition to their regional responsibilities, each RTO has a bilateral portfolio focused on their host country. For myself, I’ll be focusing on building additional cooperation with Japan on artificial intelligence (AI) and enhancing our partnership on standards for emerging technologies. I will also be focusing on how we can partner with Japan on broader regional technological issues such as regional data governance or promoting trusted infrastructure in ASEAN member states.
Will you be supporting Japan’s digitalization efforts?
I wouldn’t want to give the impression that the RTO becomes the focal point for all bilateral technology issues. We have officers that cover everything from digital economy issues to emerging energy technologies to fintech. We also have a large team here at the embassy focused on digitalization, both in the Trade and Economic Policy Unit and the Foreign Commercial Service Office. The RTO will serve to support their efforts.
Somewhat related, one of my goals is to improve collaboration between the United States and Japan on basic research in AI. Japan has tremendous capabilities in hardware and robotics, while the United States is strong in software and data. Enhancing our basic research cooperation will allow us to capitalize on each other’s strengths.
What are the biggest technological threats and challenges facing the United States and Japan?
I believe that the United States and Japan must work together, and with other democratic partners, to ensure we remain the global leaders in technology, and that technological ecosystems reflect our shared values. We are facing a new geotechnological environment, where the People’s Republic of China aspires to lead the world in technology and is using technology to undermine democratic values, the rule of law, and human rights. Ensuring US and Japanese leadership will require enhanced cooperation across the technology spectrum, from research and development to principles and governance.
We also need to make certain that markets are fair and that our economic assets are protected. The key will be enhancing our shared economic security without veering into policies that become protectionist or, worse, undermine the very industries we are trying to cultivate. We believe we can strike this balance and we look forward to working with Japan and other regional partners—especially our friends in the private sector—to promote our mutual economic and national security through global technology leadership.
Of One Blood All Nations
There is ample scholarship around Meiji-period Japan and the United States that John Bingham did more to shape America’s initial diplomatic relationship with Japan than any other American. In his biography of Bingham, former ACCJ Executive Director Sam Kidder contributes significantly to that body and makes a persuasive case for the US minister to Japan from 1873 to 1885.
John Bingham: Ohio Congressman’s Diplomatic Career in Meiji Japan (1873–1885)
Listen to this story:
I often pass by a wall on which hang portraits of the US Ambassadors to Japan in chronological order. I am drawn to it because I have known a few of them. By comparing the portraits, one can trace the evolution of photography and fashion through the centuries. As the calendar rolls back into the 19th century, the image quality declines until it becomes clear that the portrait is a grainy copy. One of the earliest and most recognizable portraits is of John Bingham, US minister to Japan from 1873 to 1885, the subject of Sam Kidder’s latest book Of One Blood All Nations.
Diplomatic Difference
There is ample scholarship around Meiji-period Japan and the United States, and Kidder’s biography of Bingham contributes significantly to that body. But it also goes further. He makes a persuasive case that “John Bingham did more to shape America’s initial diplomatic relationship with Japan than any other American.”
A leading figure in post-Civil War Reconstruction, Bingham was an Ohio Congressman and one of the prosecutors in the Lincoln assassination case. He was author of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which provides equal protection under the law.
Without question, Bingham had an accomplished life before coming ashore in Yokohama. As Kidder’s book details, Bingham’s innate decency, sense of duty, and energy led him to build the framework of the two nations’ diplomatic relationship while overcoming obstacles in nearly every direction.
The author shows the perplexing diplomatic and political knots that bound key issues surrounding the bilateral relationship, and how Bingham untied them. His hard-won success elevated the United States’ relationship with Japan from among its ties to other nations.
Bingham inherited a poorly housed and staffed US mission, with far-flung and nearly frontier consulates and incoherent administration. By management talent and diplomatic skill, he left behind an effective mission that was well networked with Japanese officials, influential, and trusted. His personal integrity and example played a key role in the rise of US prestige in Japan.
Context Matters
Diplomacy is sometimes more a prism than a window, and Bingham’s experience in Congress helped him measure what he could do to advance the bilateral relationship against the United States’ political realities and mood of the time.
To this part of the biography, Kidder brings truly impressive work tracing Bingham’s family, faith, and political connections to provide the context for, and limits of, Bingham’s personal political power. Bingham drew on his contacts for trusted advice, to staff key positions with competence, and for personal support.
Distinct from biographies by others, Of One Blood All Nations displays the author’s understanding of Bingham’s faith as the compass of his behavior and decisions. This is insightful and important. Other historians sometimes default to religious caricatures or shorthand about “beliefs of that period.” Kidder accepts Bingham as he was: an industrious but reserved man whose abundant intellect was yoked with an equal weight of modesty. Bingham’s personal diligence, dislike of ostentation, and his integrity distinguished him from other foreign diplomats of the time.
This diplomatic biography is an entertaining read. Bingham contends with many of the same issues—and character types—encountered in modern diplomacy and expatriate life: managing, or suffering as a result of, lags in communication with the capital; judging between when an immediate decision is required and when to wait; and bridging misperceptions as the only person with a foot in each world.
Bingham is not an unknown historical figure but, until now, rarely has his period in Japan been explored. As the book’s conclusion explains, Bingham’s papers and family were scattered, which makes Kidder’s work even more impressive. Faced with these challenges, another writer might have filled in the blanks with speculation. But Kidder set himself the more difficult task of understanding the subject in context. He does not embellish Bingham’s portrait, but restores it so that its long-lost detail and color emerge.