White’s involvement has sparked debate over its implications for regional stability and peace efforts, as her presence suggests a growing intersection of evangelical agendas with U.S. diplomatic interests in Africa.

The programme, developed and delivered by DiploFoundation, guides participants through a practical, step-by-step learning journey that builds both technical knowledge and diplomatic skills, supported throughout by a flexible helpdesk service offering tailored expert advice.

1. Technical Knowledge Track (10 December 2025 – 31 March 2026)

2. Diplomatic Skills Track (6 April 2026 – 31 May 2026)

The ancient question reborn

Every leap in human capability raises an older, quieter question: How far should we go with the power we acquire? Artificial intelligence now brings that timeless dilemma into focus with unprecedented clarity. When algorithms can write novels, compose symphonies, or diagnose illness more accurately than a doctor, we marvel at what is possible. Yet the deeper unease remains: are we building tools that serve human flourishing, or systems that slowly redefine what it means to be human?

The conversation about AI’s creative reach or its impact on labour is, at its heart, a moral conversation. The technology itself has no intention or conscience. It simply magnifies our own. The question is not what AI will become, but what we will become through it.

From Eden to algorithms

The earliest moral stories warned against knowledge untempered by wisdom. In the Garden of Eden, the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge offered understanding at the cost of innocence. Prometheus brought fire to humanity and suffered for overreaching. The builders of Babel dreamed of touching the heavens and lost their unity of speech.

These stories endure not because they oppose discovery, but because they reveal its cost when divorced from responsibility. Every age has replayed the same pattern: capability races ahead of conscience. Fire, steam, electricity, the atom, each transformed civilisation before moral reflection caught up. AI continues that sequence. We are no longer merely inventing tools to extend our reach; we are creating systems that may one day act, decide, and imagine in our stead. The moral challenge is not the pace of progress, but whether our ethical reasoning can keep step with it.

Power without purpose

Generative models can now produce art, music, and writing at an extraordinary scale. But they do not ask why. They generate without curiosity, without struggle, without the spark of lived experience. The same applies to workplace automation. Machines optimise; they do not care. In earlier reflections on human dignity and work, I argued that efficiency alone can erode meaning. A society that measures worth only by productivity risks mistaking motion for purpose and output for value.

If technology can perform both creative and physical labour, what remains distinctly human is not the task itself, but the intent behind it. The danger is not that AI will destroy meaning, but that it will tempt us to forget why meaning matters. A civilisation guided only by capability risks producing abundance without direction, a future busy but hollow.

Regulation and its limits

Societies have always tried to turn moral instincts into systems of control, such as laws, norms, and codes of conduct. Such structures are essential, yet they function like fences: they set boundaries but cannot cultivate virtue. Today’s debates about AI governance (data protection, content transparency, liability) are vital steps, but they address behaviour, not belief. A company may follow every rule (like the GDPR) and still build products that erode trust, displace workers, or manipulate emotion.Regulation can restrain excess; it cannot replace wisdom. Moral progress has never come from law alone. It depends on conscience, the inner measure that asks not ‘Is this allowed?’ but ‘Is this right?’ That question is difficult precisely because no algorithm can answer it for us.

The conscience in the circuit

We sometimes speak of ‘ethical AI’, but ethics is not a property of code. Algorithms can simulate empathy, but they cannot feel the moral gravity of a decision. The responsibility lies with those who design, deploy, and depend on them. Every decision to automate, imitate, or accelerate carries a moral weight. Choosing to replace human labour with machines, to mimic human faces for digital performance, or to delegate judgment to algorithms may all be efficient. Still, each choice reshapes what it means to act responsibly.

The myth of Eden was never about forbidden knowledge; it was about the temptation to act without accountability. AI tempts us in a similar way: to wield immense capability while distancing ourselves from its consequences. If we are not careful, we risk building a civilisation of plausible deniability, where harm is no one’s fault because it was everyone’s code.

Cultivating moral awareness

If technology reshapes what we can do, moral education must reshape how we decide. Ethics cannot be outsourced to compliance departments or left to after-the-fact regulation. It must be woven into the design of systems, institutions, and individuals. In science fiction, Isaac Asimov imagined this challenge in his famous Three Laws of Robotics, which encode the protection of humans, obedience to their commands, and self-preservation into artificial agents. These stories show that even imagined machines require ethical guardrails, an insight that applies directly to real-world AI. Just as Asimov’s laws guide robots, our challenge is to ensure that the designers and users of AI carry an equally robust moral compass.

Universities that train data scientists should also train moral thinkers. Companies building AI tools should conduct dignity assessments alongside safety tests, asking how each innovation affects human agency and wellbeing. Policymakers should ensure transparency not only in data but also in intention. Why a system exists, who it serves, and what values it encodes. Most of all, societies must preserve areas of life that remain deliberately, consciously human: care, judgment, creativity, empathy. These are not inefficiencies to be optimised away but sources of meaning that sustain civilisation itself.

Keeping humans at the centre

Progress requires imagination balanced by humility. The aim is not to slow discovery, but to guide it. A humane future will depend on designing systems that expand freedom, not dependency; that value dignity over mere output; that measure success not only in what machines achieve, but in what people become through them.

Our creations now mirror us with uncanny precision. The question is whether we can still recognise ourselves in what we make. The true measure of advancement will not be how lifelike AI becomes, but how alive our moral sense remains.

The compass we must keep

The line between what we can and what we should do has defined civilisation from its beginning. It is redrawn in every era, not by algorithms but by conscience. AI grants us unprecedented power to create, to decide, to transform. But the story of progress has always hinged on restraint, on knowing when to stop and on remembering that knowledge without wisdom endangers what it seeks to serve. We stand again before a tree heavy with fruit, surrounded by voices urging us to taste. The choice, as ever, is ours: to pursue what is possible, or to remember what is right.

Author: Slobodan Kovrlija

However, election day was marred by technical chaos, with monitoring group NetBlocks reporting a nationwide internet blackout. Users across the country faced difficulties sharing multimedia on messaging apps, while access to major social media platforms—including Facebook, X, YouTube, and Instagram—was severely limited or unavailable.

Economic diplomacy not only promotes the state’s prosperity but also, as occasion demands and opportunity permits, manipulates its foreign commercial and financial relations in support of its foreign policy – as in the case of sanctions against Iran. Accordingly, economic diplomacy is a major theme of the external relations of virtually all countries. At home, economic ministries, trade and investment promotion bodies, chambers of commerce, and, of course, foreign ministries are all participants in economic work. Current trends include increasing collaboration between state and non-official agencies, and increased importance given to WTO issues, the negotiation of free trade and preferential trade agreements, and accords covering investments, double taxation avoidance, financial services and the like. Abroad, embassies, consulates, and trade offices handle economic diplomacy. The main focus is on promotion, to attract foreign business, investments, technology and tourists. Economic diplomacy connects closely with political, public and other segments of diplomatic work. This online course is practice-oriented and aims at capacity development.

Reviews

In Oman, Jovan Kurbalija delivered a public lecture, Artificial Intelligence and Geopolitical Shifts: Challenges and Opportunities for Diplomacy, led an interactive workshop on the future of digital and tech diplomacy, including the evolving role of tech ambassadors and state engagement with technology companies, and undertook field visits focused on Oman’s National AI Strategy and innovation ecosystem.

During the AI Ethics: The Convergence of Technology and Diverse Moral Traditions conference in Doha, Dr Kurbalija joined an international expert panel discussion at the session on transnational AI principles and global ethical guidelines.

These activities fostered discussions on the responsible deployment of AI in governance and policy, capacity development for government staff, and strategies to integrate ethical and cultural considerations into technology-driven decision-making. The programme builds on Diplo’s ongoing insights into how Arabic philosophical traditions can inform the AI era and how Islamic and Arab thinking traditions contribute to debates on AI, creating a platform to advance globally inclusive, practical, and ethical AI in diplomacy and policy.

In earlier reflections on Chinese thought and AI, I emphasised how philosophical traditions shape both the development of technology and its cultural acceptance, and how governance must engage not only with technical systems but with the deeper transmission of values. The Arabic philosophical tradition that flourished during the Islamic golden age offers insights that remain highly relevant for contemporary AI development, policy, and governance.

Arabic philosophy in the context of AI governance

AI is often presented as a novel challenge without precedent. Yet, many of the philosophical dilemmas we face today – questions of agency, justice, accountability, and the purpose of knowledge – have been explored in depth by earlier intellectual traditions, including Arabic thinkers.

In his blog Early origins of AI in Islamic and Arab thinking traditions, Dr Kurbalija argues that many concepts at the base of what we today call ‘AI’(algorithms, statistical thinking, pattern, classification) have precursors in that tradition, emphasising how those traditions saw the role of reason in balancing revelation and ethics.

The term Islamic golden age refers to the network of scholars from the 8th to the 13th centuries, centred in Baghdad but connected across the Islamic world, who worked in philosophy, mathematics, medicine, theology, and literature, often translating and integrating Greek, Persian, and Indian sources. In this blog, I’ll focus on four scholars, often described as the key thinkers of this tradition, in chronological order.

Abu Nasr Muhammad al-Farabi (872–950), or just Al-Farabi, often called the ‘Second Teacher’ after Aristotle, perceived society as an organism guided by a virtuous leader whose role was to orient collective life towards the highest good. For Al-Farabi, knowledge and governance were inseparable: political leadership had to be grounded in ethical purpose and rational deliberation. This resonates almost completely with the role of the Emperor in Chinese philosophical and political thought.

For AI governance, this translates into the principle that governance structures cannot be purely procedural or technical. They must be evaluated by their capacity to ensure that AI serves human flourishing. Al-Farabi’s vision of the virtuous polity suggests that global AI governance should not limit itself to risk management but focus towards positive ends – justice, education, and the well-being of communities.

Ibn Sina (980–1037), better known in the West as Avicenna, systematised Aristotelian philosophy and developed sophisticated theories of logic, metaphysics, and epistemology. He placed strong emphasis on the faculties of the human mind, particularly reason, as the means by which knowledge is organised and meaning is discerned. His extensive work on categorisation and classification resonates with contemporary AI systems, which rely on taxonomies, ontologies, and pattern recognition.

The relevance for governance lies in two areas. First, Ibn Sina’s insistence that knowledge must be integrated into a broader metaphysical framework suggests that technical systems should be evaluated for alignment with ethical and human-centred goals rather than only for accuracy. Second, his defence of human rational agency underscores that AI should not erode human responsibility and that governance must preserve the principle that humans are the ultimate arbiters of meaning and accountability, not machines.

Al-Ghazzali (1058–1111), theologian, jurist, and mystic, is best known for his critique of excessive rationalism in The Incoherence of the Philosophers, arguing that reason, as valuable as it is, could not answer all metaphysical or ethical questions. For him, ethical life required humility, spiritual discipline, and recognition of human limitations.

This perspective is especially useful when thinking about AI as a tool that promises predictive power and optimisation. Al-Ghazzali’s emphasis on limits cautions against the illusion of total control through technology, suggesting governance frameworks that would benefit from recognising uncertainty, fallibility, and the potential for unintended consequences. In modern terms, this implies governance structures that mandate caution, review, and adaptive regulation rather than blind trust in algorithmic outputs.

Ibn Rushd (1126–1198) defended rational philosophy against Al-Ghazzali’s critique, arguing that truth could be reached through both revelation and rational inquiry. He was also a great commentator on Aristotle, insisting that philosophical reasoning was universal and not confined to any one cultural or religious tradition.

For global AI governance, Ibn Rushd’s commitment to universality and dialogue is crucial. It underscores that AI cannot be governed by a single normative framework. Instead, it requires intercultural dialogue where diverse traditions contribute to a shared search for principles of justice, accountability, and dignity. This aligns with what I have previously described as the need for inclusive governance rooted in universal values articulated through plural traditions in the Inclusive AI governance: Universal values in a pluralistic world blog.

Taken together, these thinkers provide several governance principles:

• Ethical orientation (Al-Farabi): AI must serve the flourishing of human communities, not just efficiency or power.
• Human rational agency (Ibn Sina): Governance must protect human responsibility and interpretability.
• Uncertainty and limits (Al-Ghazzali): AI regulation must acknowledge uncertainty and prevent over-reliance on technological promises.
• Universality through dialogue (Ibn Rushd): Governance should foster intercultural exchange and shared frameworks without imposing a single cultural standard.

These principles resonate with parallel insights from Chinese and Western traditions: harmony and balance in Chinese philosophy, and virtue and rational deliberation in Western thought.

Conclusion: Wise governance for AI

The Arabic philosophical tradition gives us not only historical continuity but active resources: wisdom, reason, balance, moral ends, pluralism, transmission, and dialogue. If global AI governance embeds these, we stand a better chance of creating AI systems and policies that are human-centred, just, and trusted.

In crafting any global multistakeholder AI governance policy, I believe we should:

• Listen to Arabic philosophers, theologians, and jurists as partners, not merely sources of past wisdom.
• Encourage multilingual, multicultural normative deliberations – what does ‘justice’ or ‘trust’ mean in Arabic, Chinese, Western contexts?
• Institutionalise ethics and values, not as afterthoughts, but as foundations, from the education of AI developers, through regulation, to user norms.

In doing so, we move closer to a principle which sounds like common sense, but is often overlooked as we need wisdom more than mere knowledge to ground technology in what truly matters.

The world is changing fast—but how fast is diplomacy keeping up?

The Hili Forum in Abu Dhabi (8–9 September 2025) brought together policymakers, diplomats, and experts to explore how technology, geopolitics, and multilateral governance intersect in an era of uncertainty. How do states navigate an era where algorithms can decide who lives or dies on the battlefield? Where AI shapes both opportunities for peace and new forms of conflict? And where shifting demographics, economic power, and coalitions turn the global stage into a constantly moving, unpredictable chessboard? This report focuses on the session titled ‘Geneva vs Algorithms: Redefining Laws of War and Peace‘, which examined the role of AI and Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems (LAWS) in conflict, and how Geneva-based institutions can guide responsible governance. Reflections presented here are informed by insights from across the Forum—from debates on geopolitical instability to the rise of new coalitions, and the challenges of keeping diplomacy effective in a rapidly evolving, tech-driven world.

Diplomacy in beta on a shifting chessboard

Diplomacy today resembles a beta version: functional but still being tested, adapted, and iterated in real time

Diplomacy now operates in a fast-moving, experimental environment. Rules are incomplete, institutions lag behind, and norms are tested while technologies are already deployed. States, international organisations, and other actors must navigate uncertainty, iterate governance models, and experiment with coalitions to respond to fast-moving challenges in geopolitics, technology, and security.

Geopolitical disruption may be permanent—there seems to be little expectation of a return to a pre-existing order. The only certainty is uncertainty. Demographic and economic changes—including the rise of China, Indonesia, Brazil, Nigeria, and regions in Africa and the Middle East—are reshaping influence and opportunity. Middle powers face a delicate balancing act: when major powers clash, they may be forced to choose sides or risk becoming targets; in calmer periods, they navigate a shifting chessboard of alliances, coalitions, and partnerships.

The Global South’s voice remains underrepresented, even as legitimacy increasingly depends on it. BRICS economies are gaining influence relative to the G7, and new formations such as the G20 and other plurilateral arrangements are emerging. Yet the UN remains central to governance, with reform needed to maintain relevance. Core principles—non-intervention, international law, peace, and security—remain essential, while smaller, issue-based coalitions are increasingly prominent in economic and security affairs.

Algorithms of war and peace: Risks and opportunities

AI is not just a tool—it is a force reshaping war, defence, and international security

AI in conflict is a central concern, with risks extending far beyond LAWS. AI is integrated into target identification, decision-support systems, and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) operations. Maintaining humans in the loop is essential to ensure oversight; yet, human decision-making is slower and is becoming emotionally detached from consequences. Emerging threats include automated disinformation, rapid exploitation of cyber vulnerabilities, and convergence of AI with robotics, biology, chemistry, and nuclear-adjacent technologies. These developments illustrate systemic risk, where speed, opacity, and cross-domain interaction multiply systemic risks.

Yet AI can also save lives, but only if governance keeps pace with deployment. AI also has defensive and peace-enhancing applications, from conflict prevention and mediation to force-protection systems like the Iron Dome. As defence budgets increase and include AI, a key question is whether they will allocate sufficient resources to safeguards—red-teaming, audits, explainability research, and ethical oversight—or whether protective measures will lag behind deployment. Responsible oversight is critical to ensure AI serves stability rather than exacerbates conflict.

Governance beyond the battlefield: Geneva + algorithms

EspriTech de Geneve allows international principles to meet standards and practice

The UN has been unusually active on issues related to AI in the military context. The Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) on LAWS, UN General Assembly (UNGA) resolution 79/239, and UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) resolution A/HRC/60/63, highlight global momentum. Even the UN Security Council debated AI’s impact on global peace and security. The idea of a ‘Fourth Geneva Convention’ on AI and technology was floated; on the other hand, states agreed that International Law already applies in the context of AI. However, operationalising principles of the International Humanitarian Law (IHL), such as distinction, proportionality, and precaution, is complicated by black-box AI, biased datasets, and complex supply chains.

Lessons from cybersecurity negotiations under the UN Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG) on ICTs show that international agreements can combine existing law, voluntary norms of responsible state behaviour, confidence-building measures, and capacity-building initiatives. The challenge, however, is that many states show limited willingness to implement even binding obligations, let alone voluntary commitments. Here, the role of other stakeholders—industry, civil society, academia—becomes indispensable, as highlighted by the Geneva Dialogue on Responsible Behaviour in Cyberspace, which emphasises multi-actor responsibility and implementation.

Governance must extend across the full AI lifecycle: pre-design, design, development, evaluation, testing, procurement, deployment, operation, and decommissioning. Ethics- and human-rights-by-design, explainability, enforceable limits for high-risk uses, and mandatory human oversight at critical decision points are essential. Responsibility must be shared: ‘the machine did it’ cannot be an acceptable excuse. Various stakeholders and sectors must take their share of responsibility: international organisations and governments, as well as vendors, integrators, the tech community, civil society and academia. Geneva has a rich international and multistakeholder digital policy ecosystem, including CCW GGE, UNHRC, ITU, ISO, Conference on Disarmament, ICRC, UNIDIR, the Geneva Internet Platform, and the Geneva Dialogue, to name but a few. The tech spirit of Geneva allows principles, technical standards, ethics, and diplomacy and multistakeholder engagement to converge, shaping norms and rules and translating them into operational guidance and governance frameworks. Geneva’s role is critical to ensuring that algorithms serve peace rather than exacerbate conflict.

Capacity development for diplomacy in the AI age

Preparing diplomats for the beta version of diplomacy is a priority

One cross-cutting question comes to mind: how do we, then, prepare diplomats and policymakers to operate in this ‘beta’ environment? They must navigate shifting geopolitical landscapes, complex technology risks, and evolving coalitions. Capacity-building must, therefore, focus on equipping diplomats with the knowledge and skills to respond to new technologies, multistakeholder partnerships, and emerging governance challenges. Importantly, learning is not enough; unlearning outdated assumptions is equally important.

Innovative training approaches were emphasised: scenario-based games, storytelling, and AI-assisted simulations can prepare diplomats for high-stakes negotiation and crisis situations. Engaging younger professionals is also essential: Gen Z brings technical literacy and a demand for fair, transparent governance, helping institutions prepare for the next generation of challenges. Diplomats need fluency in AI, cybersecurity, algorithmic risk, and the ways technology intersects with international law and multistakeholder governance. The AI apprenticeship programme and courses on AI governance and cybersecurity policy are necessary. Training methods must be innovative—scenario-based games, storytelling, and AI tools themselves—to simulate fast-moving crises and high-stakes negotiation. Young professionals must be involved early: Gen Z brings both technical literacy and a demand for transparent, fair governance, preparing institutions for the next generation of challenges.

From debate to action

The Hili Forum illustrated that diplomacy today is experimental, adaptive, and iterative—a true ‘beta version’, in tech jargon. Combining inspiring Abu Dhabi deliberations on changes in diplomacy with established Geneva principles about humanity and its vibrant digital ecosystem provides a pathway to ensure AI is governed responsibly. Flexible, principled, and risk-aware diplomacy can ensure algorithms serve peace, stability, and shared international security objectives. Are we up to the task?

Disclaimer: To walk the talk, the writing of this text relied on AI. While AI helped make the text more readable and engaging, the substance comes from human expertise—the participants of the Forum and the author.

The book presents unique insights about the tug of war between globalisation and nation state sovereignty in an increasingly digitised world economy. It unpacks how and why ICANN’s path to independence led to a political battle that still reverberates in current debates over digital governance.

Dr. Milton Mueller was also joined by veteran internet policy analyst Robert Cannon, and by the event moderator, Johannes Bauer, from the Quello Center.

The Ministry has already digitised 100% of its administrative procedures, linking them to a national-level system, showcasing a significant stride towards administrative reform and efficiency. Additionally, the Ministry has fully adopted social media channels, including Facebook and Twitter, indicating its efforts to enhance foreign information dissemination and public engagement.

A central component of this initiative is the “Digital Literacy for All” movement, which focuses on equipping diplomatic personnel with essential digital skills, transforming them into proficient “digital civil servants” and “digital ambassadors.”

The Ministry plans to further develop its digital infrastructure, strengthen data management, and integrate AI for strategic planning and predictive analysis. Establishing a digital data warehouse for foreign information and enhancing human resources by nurturing technology experts within the diplomatic sector are also on the agenda. These actions reflect a strong commitment to fostering a professional and globally adept diplomatic sector, poised to safeguard national interests and thrive in the digital age.

Source