Advancing Public Diplomacy in the Digital Age

The internet and especially social media have had dramatic impact on diplomatic as well as state-internal communications and relations over the past many months.  The 2010 post-election Iranprotests were perhaps the first significant demonstration of the new power of social media used by a large populace. The Wikileaks release of reams of confidential U.S.diplomatic cables just barely preceded the Arab Spring ‘Facebook’ uprisings of early 2011. All of these events have significant ramifications for traditional diplomacy, mandating changes in practices, philosophies and norms that have existed for a very long time. This has left diplomatic organizations such as the U.S. State Department and others around the world in unfamiliar waters.  The implications of new media are broad for state and for non-state actors, as the effects of technology-enabled communications will almost certainly influence all diplomatic endeavors of consequence from here forward. How policies or government actions will play in the court of public opinion, how to (attempt to) control a message, and how to win hearts and minds in a chaotic media marketplace all require a very different approach.

Public diplomacy in and of itself is still a somewhat controversial practice. While funding is being cut for diplomatic efforts in general, the harder to measure, longer term and somewhat elusive practice of public diplomacy is even more vulnerable to scrutiny and cutbacks. Yet the option for governments to go light on public diplomacy is increasingly being taken away by the omnipresence of professional and amateur media, and an instantly connected populace who are taking more matters into their own hands. The power structure has simply shifted and a new reality must be faced. Today, public diplomacy takes many forms, one of the most significant of which is through new media because it enables many of these disruptive activities, because it underpins an increasing share of contemporary life (who is not tethered to their mobile device these days?), and because it has the potential to enhance or undermine a government’s efforts.

The rules of the new media environment are significantly different from the traditionally bureaucratic character of diplomatic organizations.  Credibility and influence require giving away some control of the message. The trick is balancing the right amount of give in order to sustain a higher overall level of control. The issue is not if but how, and how successfully, diplomatic ministries around the world will adapt their dogmas and practices in light of this new power shift. 

Reality Check

To test the impact of new media channels as tools of public diplomacy, I conducted a brief, unscientific, but none-the-less telling survey of young Saudis about their media consumption habits and the influence on their impressions of theUnited States. The survey results are slanted, since all 13 of my respondents had attended university, read and spoke English, were mostly current students or working in technical fields, and were between 20 and 30 years of age – a rather elite population, but a cream of the crop group that stands to have status in Saudi civil society, and who are reachable through multiple media channels.

All respondents use Facebook, almost all use Twitter and You Tube, and 63% seek news and information about countries other than their own on a daily basis. Seventy-seven percent watch Al Jazeera daily or several times per week, 78% consume Al Arabiya, and 50% consume BBC news daily or several times per week. Exactly 0% consume U.S.-sponsored Alhurra.com with that same frequency, although 75% said they do look at it ‘only occasionally’. State Department sponsored Radio Sawa fared just slightly better, with 22% saying they listened to it a few times a week. Of those who do consume the U.S. broadcasting channels, not one person said those channels have a positive impact on their impression of the U.S. When asked if other social media had that impact, 60% of the group said yes, but the impressions were unfavorable. When asked what makes news credible for them, they all (unaided) referenced trustworthiness of the source. 

Realistically, this survey reflects just a micro sample of just one target population in one country, but it raises some interesting considerations on where the State Department has its new media work to do. Other governments should only benefit by following suit.  In fairness, the State Department and the Broadcasting Board of Governors are in uncharted waters here (as are many in the private sector), and are bound to suffer a few mis-steps in the learning curve. That they have undertaken a significant new media effort to date is laudable. But with some failures behind, they must now course correct, apply what has already been learned, keep an open mind, and seek more outside guidance in how to cultivate a better approach. This will require changing bureaucratic culture (a typically painful and slow process that in this circumstance cannot drag out), empowering more staff to publish according to guidelines but not always direct content review, staying on top of new media in other countries, and encouraging open discussion on issues of true import.

The Short and the Long Term

Noted internet expert Clay Shirky argues that the potential of social media lies mainly in its support of civil society and the public sphere, which will be measured in years and decades rather than weeks and months. He also advocates that the U.S.should “maintain internet freedom as a goal to pursue in a principled and regime-neutral fashion, not as a tool for effecting immediate policy aims country by country.” Well, sort of…

The reality is that new media need to be adeptly deployed for both short and long term situations, and regime-neutrality is a nice goal but not necessarily realistic for the United States. U.S. hesitance to call for Mubarak’s ouster did not stop young Egyptians from toppling their government – it just made us look unprepared and uncertain. The traditional State Department aim to promote civil society over the long run is and will remain a crucial objective. But today, civil societies and other actors are moving at their own speed, in timeframes than couldn’t have been imagined even a few years ago. If the U.S. wants to maintain its position of global prominence and influence, the realities imposed by new media and an interconnected world must be addressed head on. Can we muster the will and the agility to do it?

Official US Policy on the Internet

I was privileged to be among a couple hundred students and press who attended Hillary Clinton’s on campus speech today about Internet Freedom. After the happenings in Egypt, the new protests in Iran, Yemin and elsewhere, and the whole Wikileaks broohaha, she came forward with a clear, firm policy position on keeping the Internet free. Regardless of what one thinks of Hillary, it was very exciting to be in the room. She is totally in command of her space, polished, poised and on point. A heckler was tackled by police a few feet away from her, yet she never even glanced. In the wake of the Tuscon shootings, I was impressed [although security at today’s venue was tight!].

She referenced 3 key Internet challenges – 1) Achieving libery and security; 2)protecting transparency and confidentiality; and 3) protecting free expression while fostering civility. All of these are obviously timely and are big issues associated with the Internet that are only going to increase. Her point, of course, was that the U.S. was trying to balance all of these.  With regard to Wikileaks, she flat out called it a theft akin to smuggling confidential documents in a briefcase. It was interesting to see her directly address this issue, which caused the State Dept so much embarrassment and trouble. She contended, and in my opinion rightly, that governments need to keep some secrets for good reason – security, safety of those working in risky positions, etc. She also offered that a better answer to ‘offensive’ speech online was more speech – but of the nature to express what’s right, rather than ignoring or brushing what’s wrong under the rug.

Of the many points she made, the speech was obviously a timely policy statement on how the Administration is regarding and approaching Internet Freedom in this incredibly tumultuous time. The fact that such a speech was made by so prominent a person was indicative of the importance of the issue. The State Dept has an enhanced public diplomacy campaign of tweeting in Arabic, with Chinese, Farsi and other languages spoken in internet-repressed areas being added soon. Fascinating stuff.

Facebook and the Changing of the Middle East Order

I have heard the unprecedented uprising in Egypt described as the ‘facebook revolution’.  I wonder if Mark Zuckerberg ever envisioned his campus-related social experiment having this kind of impact.  What started in Tunisia, a much smaller and previously less significant [now a benchmark] country, took just a matter of weeks to alter the balance of the middle east, perhaps permanently.  

Younger generations have traditionally been the engines of revolution. This generation has radical new tools available to them in the form of internet-based communications that enable enormous change in a short amount of time. Dictators and secretive regimes around the world now have much to fear.  The thing they have forever tried most to control, information, is out there for anyone with a cell phone to engage in – and that is most of the modern world.

Mubarek tried unsuccessfully to cut off internet access – technically, it can be done, but culturally it can’t. The failed effort lasted a day before everyone was back online. Remarkable in itself that pressure to do this from inside Tahrir Square and around the globe actually paid off. Duplicity was called out for what it was, and it caved. Woo hoo!

This unprecedented communication movement throws more traditional comms theory in a tailspin. No one was in charge.  No one had a strong agenda they were promoting except ‘Mubarek has to go, and it must be done peacefully’.  There was no calculated influence campaign, no press releases, no strategy, no talking heads on TV. The power of this movement was emotion – hope, courage, determination – and the ability to communicate those needs and feelings in real time to a huge mass of people. Granted emotion of this depth is not easily aroused, but when it is genuine, it is unstoppable.

Many questions remain, as Egyptians, other Middle Eastern nations and the rest of the world wait to see how a new order unfolds. Already this morning, one day after Mubarek left, I saw a headline about anti-government protests in Yemen, although those were evoking an aggressive government response. Do Yemenis use Facebook?  What about China?  How and where will this form of instant, emotional and sustained communication be used for other issues – from politics to the workplace?  The potential is fascinating and unsettling.  Mr. Zuckerberg, welcome to the revolution.

suddenly, everyone cares about foreign policy?

The crisis in Tunisia and full week of growing mass protests in Egypt have gripped the American public – as well they should.  The images are compelling, the consequences and potential dominoes still unknown, and the cause is something that America has said it wants – democracy in the Middle East. It is coming about in a way that is perhaps surprising, but how else are the masses to get their voices heard in dictatorial, religiously constrained regions beset by poverty?  My readings for one of this week’s classes centered on the often tense dynamic of US Presidential and Congressional foreign policies.  Articles from 8 experts all said that foreign affairs are generally an issue of much less concern to Americans, and just from my own experience I’d have to agree.

Yet history is happening right there on the television, 24×7 – Anderson Cooper has arrived and that makes this an official Big Event in the U.S.  Anything that furthers civil discourse, understanding of other governments and cultures, reveals the consequences [direct or indirect] of U.S. policies and actions, teaches civics and history, and makes us think outside our own comfort zone is, in my opinion, a good thing.

My hope is that some new interest among the millions watching the drama unfold will develop into a greater, enduring awareness. My concern is that once Mubarek is gone, which I believe is inevitable in the very near term, short attention spans will again turn inward.  We as a country have an excellent opportunity to learn and grow from what’s going on, to perhaps better understand what it is really like to live in the challenging conditions of the Middle East.  This is  not the Islamic student uprising of the late 70s.  This is a US-friendly, moderate muslim country struggling with an incredibly difficult internal situation. I hope that more Americans will further open their minds to the bigger world, and bigger problems, that go one outside our borders, but that will affect us politically, economically and morally for perhaps years to come.