Rage (or Reason) Against the Machine

Image Source

NPR had a fabulous story on communication, counter-terrorism and public diplomacy this morning. I'll summarize below, but I highly recommend visiting the source.

The story discusses the dual nature of information and communication technologies, citing examples where they've been used to promote and challenge democracy--and terrorism as well.

It also discusses "credible messengers," or people like Carie Lemack (the daughter of a 9/11 victim) or Abdullah Kemal Sharayed (a former al Qaida operative) whose perceived credibility enables them to reach out to potentially marginalized groups and counter misconceptions and conspiracy theories. This is seen as part of a larger fight against terrorism and the misinformation available online.

The key to their success is their perceived credibility, and it speaks to the realization that public diplomacy cannot be carried out by governments alone--particularly in environments and among people where governments have little credibility.

I've been reading a lot lately on the theory (or lack thereof) of public diplomacy and the importance of credibility is a recurring theme. But another major theme is the difficulty in identifying PD's actors. There are many different perspectives on whether PD involves governments, militaries, citizens, NGOs or private sector reps--and even more perspectives on whether it should.

This story demonstrates that fuzziness surrounding that question beautifully. Here we have private citizens working with counter-terrorism officials and NGOs to promote a shared foreign policy goal (discouraging terrorism) in a multi-national context. It's a mess.

But nobody ever said international affairs was a straightforward business.

Maybe we should reconsider the Coke-buying strategy...

The pre-Internet era was characterized by borders, international strife and undemocratic politics. And rumors of its death have been greatly exaggerated.

Earlier this month, I posted some preliminary stats suggesting that Internet access does not promote global goodwill toward the United States. Evgeny Morozov elaborates on that theme in Foreign Policy, where he argues that the Internet has done little to usher in an era of peace and global harmony.

Morozov also notes that Twitter has not unseated any dictators: "Tweets don't overthrow governments; people do. And what we've learned so far is that social networking sites can be both helpful and harmful to activists operating from inside authoritarian regimes." Take note, unreserved advocates of social media for international communication.

Nor can the Internet be relied upon to ensure government accountability or improve political participation. The Internet is an extension, not a revolution.

Slipping through the Net

We've all heard the claim that public diplomacy benefits from modern ICTs that facilitate rapid mass communication. But such praise is almost always accompanied by caveats, from Hillary Clinton's January address at the Newseum to James Glassman's speech at the New America Foundation.

Laying aside the inherent value of Internet freedom unto itself, let's ask the PD question: How accurate is the assumption that increased Internet freedom will lead to greater support for U.S. diplomatic goals like support for U.S. governance?

I set out to test this theory, assuming that if Internet usage does, in fact, support PD, nations with higher Internet use rates would be more likely to approve of U.S. governance. I used Gallup-Meridian data to measure the percentage of a country's population that approves of U.S. leadership. To measure Internet access, I turned to the International Telecommunication Union. I'll spare you the statistical jargon, but the countries with a higher percentage of Internet users were actually less likely to approve of U.S. governance--at least in 2008, which is the year I tested.

This could be because increased connectivity provides more opportunities for people to engage online with America's detractors. Or it could be entirely irrelevant--because soft power is so hard to measure, because approval of U.S. governance isn't static across time (or administrations), because public diplomacy takes so long to make its effects known, because so many other factors are at play...

If there truly is a negative correlation between Internet access and approval of U.S. governance, it would behoove the United States to figure out why and how to avoid it. If nothing else, my numbers add a few more caveats on the PD 2.0 fire--one more reminder to be skeptical of unbridled optimism for new technology.

Freedom's Just Another Word...

I've written before on the advantages of using information and communication technologies to promote public diplomacy objectives. Essentially, I believe that mobile and Internet technology have expanded the options available to public diplomats, and they've opened new channels of communication to non-state actors, giving them more opportunities to influence policy formation and enactment.

In recent months, the topic of Internet freedom has surfaced in the news--from Hillary Clinton's January remarks at the Newseum to a recent New York Times article on Internet impact on closed societies to ongoing coverage of the Italian court case involving Google Video and privacy laws.

In January, Clinton compared Internet-enabled information flows to samizdat--censored publications circulated in the former Soviet Union which were credited with helping to end the Cold War. As an advocate of free speech and unhindered international communication, I support information expansion, but I'd also like to caution against premature celebration of its effects.

That ICT development has opened the door to new methods of diplomacy is indisputable, but the success of such innovations is not a foregone conclusion. Diplomacy works best when it is multi-directional—not simply one hegemonic source swamping foreign nations with a torrential outpouring of its views, but a collaborative process that takes into account the history, culture, needs and objectives of all partners. New technologies, particularly those with networking and interactive elements, are uniquely adapted to facilitate such collaborations.

Multi-directional communication is a laudable goal, and can be used not only to disperse a uniquely domestic message abroad, but to collaborate with foreign nations and their citizens to identify common goals and values from which to build stronger relationships. But it is important to recognize that ICT development has not been universally positive. After all, the same tools that facilitate civil society organization have been used by al Qaeda and other anti-U.S. groups to recruit and distribute misinformation.

As Clinton noted in her speech, free information doesn't necessarily translate into free society. Nor can it be expected to automatically lead to the wide scale embrace of U.S. foreign policy objectives. Supporters of U.S. policy need to be prepared for the reality that supporting the right to free speech means supporting everybody's right to free speech, including--and perhaps especially--the rights of people with opposing views. By exporting online services to Iran, Cuba and Sudan, U.S. companies will be opening doors not only to allies, but to opponents as well. I'm not suggesting that the U.S. halt its outreach efforts; rather, I believe we should proceed, but with full awareness of the potential danger. When it comes to free speech, it is impossible to have one's cake and eat it too.

Buck Rogers Technology: Haiti Edition

It's hardly news that the recent earthquake and subsequent aftershocks have decimated Haiti's communication infrastructure. So how are residents communicating with one another and with the outside world? For a fortunate few, telephone and Internet technology are still operational. But according to this article, sometimes the old technology is best.