Diplomatic Processes via the Internet - Article Example

What is digital diplomacy? All the actions and the measures that are exercised in the pursuit of fulfilment of the objectives that are assigned by foreign policy come under the banner of diplomacy. Therefore, diplomats are to act as information providers and negotiators. Foreign policy plays a crucial role in the wellbeing of a state; it paves the way for international co-operation; it protects the rights of overseas citizens; and it offers socio-economic development. Digital diplomacy is the tool used for virtual representation; it is the incorporation of the information and communication technology for attaining foreign policy goals. Some people also define digital diplomacy as an electronic component of public diplomacy, and therefore, it is also recommended as e-Diplomacy (Nweke). With the increasing involvement ICT into diplomatic affairs, political scientists refer this transformation as “the shift in the paradigm”. It offers a much more targeted way of delivering information, and empowers the government in establishing new connections across the globe. Moreover, e-diplomacy has changed the role of diplomats, they are no more bound to carry all the official documents, as these files are always present at the distance of their fingertips. The concept of digital diplomacy is explained by some people in terms of Actor-Network Theory or ANT (Nweke). This theory represents the relationship between “actor” and “actant”, actors are all non-human elements i.e. computers, texts, hybrids etc. Meanwhile the human element is referred to as actant. Putting ANT into the context of e-diplomacy, diplomats become actants, while social media and machines maintain their position as actors. The Actor Network Theory provides the ingredients that are required to conceptualize and reconstruct the social space (Nweke). Sharing was never so easy, as it is today. People can share their views and other types of information with the whole world with the help of internet, and the social media. Intercultural dialogue has become more common, and the interaction between citizens having different nationalities is a routine. Public opinion tends to evolve with every passing moment. All these and many other alterations have been witnessed by this generation of the age of information. Matters concerning state policies are regularly discussed among the family members of the social media. In contrast to previous years, the common man of the present day is found to indulge more regularly in debates over policy matters. The right to know, and the right to express one’s opinion are the two basic determinants that have accelerated development of the social media and the World Wide Web. The basic modes of acquiring, sharing and analysing the information have changed. The opinion of a common man was restricted to his social circle or community, and his access to information was quiet limited, it was mainly restricted to newspapers, talk shows and books. These limitations hindered the growth of public opinion, which promoted the culture of controversies, misconception and monologues; consequently it hardened the lines of conflict. While viewing the world through someone else’s spectacles, most of the conclusions drawn by masses reflected a great deal of misjudgement (Permyakova, RIAC). The common man of today is far more informed than his predecessors. However, he is more prone to confusion and controversies. This is why the conservative minds are often found criticizing the access of common man to a jungle of unauthentic knowledge. Public opinion is more or less contingent, people tend to agree with what suits them or is acceptable to their beliefs, and without any doubt majority of the population in a community share similar kinds of beliefs. For example consider the response of Americans towards the Muslim world after the incidence of 9/11 (Hayden). Every individual belonging to Islamic faith was tagged as an extremist; there were anti- Muslim campaigns on the internet and social media. Similarly, the Muslim world started its anti-west propaganda, which gave birth to controversies, but it also affected the idea harmonious co-existence (Hayden). Tools for digital diplomacy Before elaborating the wide array of tools available for digital diplomacy today, it is important to understand the developments in the internet that have made the whole concept of e-diplomacy practical. Initially most of the applications of internet were restricted to one way communication, just like TV or radio. This was the Web 1.0 phase, where people could only extract information without adding any of their own. Due to this reason, the number of internet users was quiet limited; governments would usually rely on internet to deliver data for official purposes. The invention of Web 2.0 revolutionized the whole setup, and internet became a more readily accessed medium for communication. It offered, a collective group based multiple way communication. With these developments, transfer of information became more rapid; people were empowered to express their views and share what others had to say. It was this era where the concept of social media became popular, and it was this juncture where the concept of digital diplomacy started to materialize (Permyakova, RIAC). The information and communication technology (ICT) has undergone several transformations before evolving into ICT that we are aware of. There are plenty of tools and applications that are offered by Information and communication technology to carry out virtual diplomacy. The most extensive tool that is used for e-diplomacy is the World Wide Web. It is a network that connects information or the source with the receptor. This allows simultaneous retrieval of information by different computers. The content on a website can be secured, through providing limited access or it could have an open access. Websites allow storage and access of information to people all around the globe. Information can also be preserved in form of web database. This tool can be used by governments for storing important documents related to public policy, which are retrieved by common man. This may include personal information of individuals or a biometric database that is only accessible by the individual himself. It may also provide answers to some of the frequently asked questions, along with other important implications of official protocol (Permyakova, RIAC). The social media is regarded as the key driver in the development of digital diplomacy. Ambassadors and other foreign office officials use this medium to communicate with citizens all around the globe. Moreover, they offer assistance in matters where citizens need their help. Some of the most commonly used platforms of the social media are Facebook; Twitter; Linked-in; Instagram; and YouTube. The invention of Web 2.0 technology was the main force behind the development of all these platforms. At the moment, there are more than eighty ministries of foreign affairs all over the globe that run official pages and accounts on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. One of the key elements in promotion of digital diplomacy via social media is that people can directly interact with government officials; they can present their own opinion, or ask them about government’s agenda (Permyakova, RIAC). Provision of online services is another tool that is regularly used by embassies. The visa information and other associated documents can be delivered online by the citizens from any part of the world. Further, embassies use internet as a tool for cultural exchange, it offers various readings, documents, videos and other sources for promoting cultural exchange (Permyakova, RIAC). ICT is also used by for intergovernmental exchange of documents; from one headquarter to the other. For instance, identification of illegal migrants can be made by sharing information of individuals who either have expired visa, or who have entered the borders without permission. By sharing such information via internet with head offices, embassies can improve their efficiency by several folds. Online conference calls and webinars are widely used by diplomats all around the world in order to address their targeted audience. Moreover, they are used by diplomats as a mode of sharing their views with masses in general, and to calm them down in the state of emergency, where visuals become more important than words (Permyakova, RIAC). A country-wise analysis of digital diplomacy The age of information has revolutionized the decorum of foreign policy, and the strings associated to it in a global arena. Different governments from all over the world are involved in assimilating to the varying international environment. At present more than eighty foreign ministries have twitter accounts, and there are more than forty ministers related to foreign affairs who run their personal account on twitter. This is a very recent shift in diplomatic paradigm, as a few years earlier, digital diplomacy was rated as extraordinary. Currently, digital diplomacy tools have become an essential part of public diplomacy, which are aimed at paving the way for communication between the foreign ministries and their target audience. Some of the facts and chronological developments with respect to digital diplomacy in various countries have been discussed below. United States of America U.S. has maintained its agenda of being forerunner in every field, especially, the ones that are related to technology and security. The office of e-diplomacy was established in the U.S. Department of State in the year 2003. However, the office remained in dormant state for almost six years. In 2009, when Hillary Clinton became the Secretary of the State, she launched “21st Century Statecraft”. The idea was to hybridise the classical way of diplomacy with the innovative tools of ICT. During this period, the Department of State was managing around 300 Facebook pages, with almost 13 million fans, while on 196 Twitter accounts, it had 1.9 million followers. It also possesses 125 YouTube channels with over 16 million views. When John Kerry replaced Clinton, these activities showed a slight deceleration, because it seems that the new Secretary of the State is still more willing to maintain the traditional touch (Hallams; Hanson; Lichtenstein). United Kingdom United Kingdom is regarded as one of the conservative states when it comes to policy matters, however, this has not been the case, as U.K is ranked second after U.S. for using innovative tools of public diplomacy. Digital diplomacy is managed by UK FCO. It holds several official accounts on Facebook and Twitter. Australia In the beginning, Australia was reluctant in comprehending the idea of digitalization of diplomatic procedure. However, after observing the rapid developments in the field of digital diplomacy, it has started to work in this area. In pursuit of strengthening the Australian digital diplomacy, The Australian Department of Affairs and Trade has been in action since the latter half of the last decade. In 2013, DFAT was operating more than sixty social media accounts, which comprised of numerous Facebook and Twitter accounts, along with three accounts each for YouTube and Flickr. Moreover it also runs Sin Microblog, Sina Blog and Youku. Though most of the development in Australia regarding digital diplomacy took place in last two years, however, it has accomplished to secure its place in 60 odd countries worldwide. The dedication of DFAT towards digital diplomacy can be observed from the fact that Australia leads in responding to queries of the people (Thomler; mediabadger). Russia While discussing foreign affairs, it is a crime to overlook the developments occurring in Russia. The Russian government has not yet completely given any shape to its e-diplomacy. However, the online communication and correspondence on social media is carried out by the Department for Information and Press of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In 2012, while addressing to the meeting of Russian ambassadors, Vladimir Putin, the president of Russia, urged his diplomats to utilize the recent developments in the social media and information technology. Russia launched its first official Twitter account in 2011; while in 2012, “midrftube” was established, a Youtube account run by the Russian Ministry of Foreign affairs. The Russian government has been quiet conservative in accessing social media, and it tends to denounce the access of non-Russian speakers to its official Facebook account, which was established in 2013, and is only followed by over thirteen thousand followers (Permyakova). However, the picture is changing in the Russian sphere of digital diplomacy, at present more than seventy Twitter official accounts are managed by the Russian government. China China, the powerhouse of Asian economy understands the importance of digital diplomacy. The Chinese use the policy called, “Step Out, Welcome In”, for balancing out the international influence through social media. China is involved in developing websites in English language, in order to reach out to the world, and deliver its manifesto. More than three hundred thousand people in China are employed by the government to manage blogs, forums and websites (Kotoky). What are the threats to digital diplomacy? The purpose of digital diplomacy is to create a conductive environment for communication between the foreign offices and general masses. It is a method of democratizing the setup of public diplomacy. Digital diplomacy promotes the idea of transparency, transfer of information and increased interaction. If at one side this new way diplomacy is empowering people, then on the other hand it is creating probable threats to the officers of foreign ministries. The official correspondents of foreign affairs are bound to remain active and vigilant in all sorts of circumstances. Their tweets or statuses are not their personal opinions; they have to communicate the message to the general public on behalf of their Governments. The margin of error does not exist in digital diplomacy because a slight negligent act may harm the government, and public expectations. The provision of information through this channel is an important part, however, their risks attached to it, if a person provides wrong information on official accounts it may change the international scenario. Though, digital diplomacy is regarded as measure of soft power, it has several strings attached to it (Kommersant). Another problem that might hinder the progress of digital diplomacy is the threat of hacking. Cybercrime has become a major issue of discussion in policy matters. Majority of the countries keep their important information in their online protected account, access to these accounts is denied, but if information is retrieved it may create havoc for the government. Despite the threat to official security accounts; the accounts on the social media are also at stake. A hacker may release fictitious statements on the social media, while using the government’s official account. This statement is delivered to others at a speed of light, and it may turn into an uncontrolled fire. Thus, it won’t be wrong to suggest that the governments need to use digital diplomacy with caution. It must also advise the holders of the public office to avoid passing mischievous statements. Emotions must be kept intact, especially, when addressing general public. Moreover, a comprehensive protocol for the accountability digital diplomats must be enforced, to avoid undesired consequences (Kommersant). Conclusion Digital diplomacy is still in its early days; however, it has promising future. It is an efficient tool for diplomacy, if it is handled with care. It offers transparency, information and interaction. Thus the main purpose of digital diplomacy is to promote the idea of universal democracy. The innovation of public diplomacy has changed the role of diplomats, at one hand it has reduced the burden of carrying information, and on the hand it has brought them into the court of the people; they have to interact with the masses, and they are liable for answering questions raised by the public. Digital diplomacy is the power of tomorrow, because the future belongs to the one who keeps the networks intact. References Hallams, Ellen. "Digital diplomacy: the internet, the battle for ideas & US foreign policy." CEU Political Science Journal (2010): 538-574. Hanson, Fergus. "The History of eDiplomacy at the U.S. Department of State." 25 October 2012. Brookings. 23 July 2014. . Hayden, Craig. "Social Media at State: Power, Practice, and Conceptual Limits for US Public Diplomacy." Global Media Journal-American Edition (2012): 1-21. Kommersant, Elena Chernenko. "Digital Diplomacy: Threat or opportunity." 14 March 2013. Russia Beyond The Headlines. 23 July 2014. . Kotoky, Madhurjya. "Digital Diplomacy in Asia : a Review of 2013." 2014. Yeni Diplomasi. 23 July 2014. . Lichtenstein, Jesse. "Digital diplomacy." New York Times Magazine (2010). mediabadger. "mediabadger." 4 April 2012. Ranking of Governments Engaged in Digital Diplomacy Through Social Media. 23 July 2014. . Nweke, Eugene N. "Diplomacy in Era of Digital Governance: Theory and Impact." Information and Knowledge Management (2012): 22-26. Permyakova, Larisa. "RIAC." 28 September 2012. Digital diplomacy: areas of work, risks and tools. 23 July 2014. . —. "The future of digital diplomacy." 2 January 2014. Russia Direct. 23 July 2014. . Thomler, Craig. "Austrailias great leap forward in digital diplomacy." 4 November 2013. eGov AU. 23 July 2014. . Read More