Blog

From “Wolf Warrior Diplomacy” To “Lone Wolf Diplomacy: The New Logic of Digital Public Diplomacy

from-“wolf-warrior-diplomacy”-to-“lone-wolf-diplomacy:-the-new-logic-of-digital-public-diplomacy

In a recent international conference I was asked- how does relationality help understand public diplomacy in today’s world? To answer this question, we must first characterize todays’ world. It is a world that is prone to crises, a world that is marked by wars, it is a complex world as a crisis in one world region sends immediate ripple effects through other regions and it is a world filled with rage. Not rage against the machine, but rage against the mechanisms of modern diplomacy. For these mechanisms, such as the UN, are all rooted in the logic of compromise and in the adoption of a global outlook in which actors, states and people are intrinsically linked to one another. Yet the age of rage rejects compromises, it abhors globalism, it denounces the UN, and it promises to resurrect a bygone era of splendid national sovereignty. 

What is truly remarkable is how the logic of separateness has supplanted the logic of relationality in digitalized public diplomacy. When digital technologies first debuted in the world of public diplomacy they were viewed as revolutionary tools that could foster ties between diplomats and peoples. Virtual embassies, virtual worlds, social media- all of these offered news forms of connectedness and new methods for managing relations. 

Yet recent trends in digitalized public diplomacy demonstrate that digital tools are increasingly used to undermine connectedness and to strengthen separateness. This is made evident when examining three current digital practices. 

The first practice is that of Domestic Digital Diplomacy in which diplomats use social media to target their own citizens. At times diplomats seek to promote a foreign policy achievement, other times other times diplomats wish to demonstrate how they contribute to national prosperity. The problem is that in the process diplomats narrate global events through a narrow national prism. The rhetoric of Domestic Digital Diplomacy is that of a national “US”. How does the Ukraine War impact “US”? How does the Chinese real-estate market “effect” US? And with this “US” comes a disregard for “Them”’- them being other nations, other people, and other actors.   

The second practice is diplomats’ use of digital technologies to market, sell and beautify war. War is beautified through images that give weapons of war an aesthetic dimension- NATO, the US, Ukraine, Sweden, France, Lithuania- all of these routinely share images of F-16 fighter jets surrounded by that majesty of the aurora borealis or the northern lights. In this way, beautiful war replaces sensible peace. 

Ukraine in particular has proven adept at raising financial support from digital publics through a host of digital technologies. In all these instances, digital publics become consumers of war, they purchase a “Brave Ukraine” T-shirt while funding another drone or another surface to air missile. By making publics complicit in acts of War, diplomats reduce opposition to War. Even more troubling is the trend of Wartime humor with Ukrainian government accounts mocking Russian soldiers being burnt alive, or Russian digital accounts celebrating the death of children in Ukraine, or NATO and British social media accounts using humor while threatening to let slip the dogs of war. 

Through all these activities, War is transformed from a regrettable last resort into a logical response to tensions between states. 

The third practice is diplomats’ growing adoption of a combative and derogatory tone online. In more and more countries, diplomats use social media to ridicule other states, to attack their neighbors and to blast the press. Some refer to these activities as “Wolf Warrior Diplomacy”. I would call these activities “Lone Wolf Diplomacy”, as these activities all undermine a collective effort to address shared challenges. 

Diplomacy has been defined as the mediation of estrangement. Increasingly, digitalized public diplomacy celebrates estrangement from the world. It is in this sense that the logic of separateness has supplanted the logic of relationality in contemporary public diplomacy. The main reason for this is that diplomats view the digital world as a “buyers market”. If digital publics relish images of war, diplomats will supply images of war. If digital publics increasingly reject multilateralism, diplomats will denounce multilateralism. What diplomats have forgotten in the fog of war, is that they have the capacity to shape how people view their world, and their nation’s role in that world. 

Relationality can be reclaimed by diplomats, and can serve as the guiding logic of digitalized public diplomacy. But this demands that diplomats do not act as hyperactive PR agents peddling antics and one-line zingers to a digital public that is increasingly afraid and filled with rage. Moreover, diplomats must once again prioritize online interactions over strategic communication campaigns that are primarily used to influence publics and shape their perceptions of events, actors and states.

Read More

How Russia and the US conducted propaganda against each other in cinema

At the end of February, the New York Times published an article entitled ‘The Spy War: How the CIA Secretly Helps Ukraine Fight Putin’. The article goes into detail describing relations between the Ukrainian special services and the CIA, which has been training elite Ukrainian special forces since 2016, and helped create secret bases and underground bunkers that are still functioning. The main idea of the article is that American aid has allowed Ukraine to hold on and continue resisting.

One might say this is no secret to anyone, but the very fact that a systemic pro-government publication openly published information that could previously be called a ‘conspiracy theory’ is important. Today, with the Russia-Ukraine conflict, we see a new round of confrontation between the special services of Moscow and Washington. And although many people will perceive this as a showdown between the powerful that is unrelated to their everyday lives, foreign policy has influenced and will influence the lives of any country’s citizens. And it affects their cultural life as well.

The ideological confrontation between the US and the USSR began to be reflected in cinema in the first half of the 20th century. Later, with the beginning of the Cold War, the role of cinema on the propaganda front became decisive. Let’s look at how relations between Russia and the US affected the cinematography of both countries, and how cinema aided and abetted in this confrontation.

Moscow streaming: How Western sanctions helped Russia regain cultural sovereignty

Read more

Moscow streaming: How Western sanctions helped Russia regain cultural sovereignty

How the Cold War in cinema began

Back in the pre-war years, Soviet cinema produced spy films in which certain sabotage or espionage groups tried to disrupt the USSR’s plans to build communism. But since the young state was opposed to capitalism in general, the nationality of the spies was not important. Anyone could act as villains. For example, in the 1924 film ‘Four and Five’, a Soviet pilot battles against five spies who want to steal a militarily significant invention. The film does not go into specifics or say where the spies came from, but it was clear to any viewer that these were agents of Western capitalism.

Though the spy genre was also actively developing in the US, movies produced in this vein were purely for entertainment and did not carry any serious political overtones. Alfred Hitchcock, who shot the fascinating picture ‘The 39 Steps’ – full of chases, plots, and special agents – also loved this genre.

However, everything changed after the Second World War, when the world was divided into two camps. The US began to fight the USSR for spheres of influence, and Hollywood – having received a specific image of the enemy – very quickly retooled and began to produce films with Cold War themes.

The first film that directly addressed the Cold War was ‘The Iron Curtain’, which appeared in 1948. It is based on the memoirs of Soviet GRU agent Igor Guzenko, who worked as a cryptographer at the USSR Embassy in Ottawa, Canada. Three days after the end of World War II, on September 5, 1945, Guzenko stole documents containing information from Soviet agents and handed them over to the Canadian side in exchange for asylum.

RT

It is curious that ‘The Iron Curtain’ was criticized in the US at the time. A New York Times critic called the movie provocative, and expressed concern that Hollywood had decided to get involved in the Cold War. Unsurprisingly, the reaction of the Soviet side was the same, but it was expressed more openly. Moreover, the picture caused a scandal in the music world. The film used works by Dmitry Shostakovich, Sergei Prokofiev, and Aram Khachaturian. Shostakovich even filed a lawsuit in a New York court for copyright protection, but the court rejected it, since according to Soviet law, the composer’s music was a national treasure.

Despite the criticism in the press, ‘The Iron Curtain’ raked in money at the box office and turned out to be the film that broke the dam. Hollywood stopped being shy and began to produce movies about the Cold War and Soviet spies with enviable regularity. A year later, ‘The Red Danube’ was released to the big screen – a story of Soviet citizens who found themselves in the occupation zone of Western countries and were returned to their homeland after the war. Naturally, the picture showed a lot of people who did not want to return to the USSR. Some even hid from the special services and feared the NKVD and repression.

RT

In 1950, the science fiction film ‘The Flying Saucer’ was released. Despite its name, it wasn’t about aliens, but a struggle between Soviet and American special services to obtain a flying saucer that had been designed and built by a brilliant American scientist.

The Soviet response

Curiously, the Soviet response was not symmetrical. Filmmakers did not set out to expose the CIA and other American agencies directly. Also, we must not forget that the country had just weathered the Great Patriotic War, so the lion’s share of spy genre films was about the fight against fascists. Soviet cinema produced several outstanding spy movies: ‘Seventeen Moments of Spring’, ‘Shield and Sword’, ‘Variant Omega’, ‘Secret Agent’, and others.

However, there was also a place for the modern agenda. So, in 1950, ‘Conspiracy of the Doomed’ appeared on Soviet screens – about a plot by Western special services to eliminate the prime minister of an Eastern European republic, and how the USSR came to the aid of the young communists.

‘Secret Mission’, released the same year, deserves more attention. This is a rare case when Soviet intelligence directly takes on its American counterpart, and not some collective image of Western spies. ‘Secret Mission’ takes place in the last days of the war. Soviet intelligence receives information that the CIA is going to hold secret negotiations with the Third Reich on a Western-Front surrender – which, of course, makes the leadership nervous. The USSR gives two agents the task of finding out what the US is demanding from Germany, and how this will affect the situation for the Soviet Union.

RT

Nevertheless, there were very few such cases in the history of Soviet cinema. As a rule, some collective ‘Western intelligence’ acted as antagonists, whose plans were thwarted by the protagonists, mainly due to the superiority of the ideas of internationalism, collectivism, and socialism.

Hollywood acted in a more targeted manner, and even in 1963, part of the Bond film ‘From Russia with Love’ was completely dedicated to the confrontation with the KGB.

However, there was no unanimous opinion among American filmmakers, and therefore satirical movies condemning the Cold War were also released in the US.

RT

Propaganda peace and war

Stanley Kubrick’s 1964 masterpiece ‘Dr. Strangelove, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb’, remains one of the clearest examples of anti-war cinema. This was Kubrick’s response to the Cuban Missile Crisis, which had rocked the whole world a year earlier, when the planet was on the verge of an armed nuclear conflict. It is necessary to give credit to Kubrick, who took the book ‘Red Alert’ by American writer Peter George as his film’s basis. The novel was written in a serious tone and left no doubt as to who the good guys and bad guys were, clearly dividing the characters into US protagonists and Soviet antagonists. Kubrick turned a propaganda book into an anti-war manifesto, exposing the powerful in any country as manic psychopaths who take pleasure in nuclear weapons.

Also deserving of attention is the comedy ‘The Russians are Coming the Russians are Coming’ by Norman Jewison, which came out in 1966. The film openly ridicules the mood of panic that ordinary people in small American towns easily succumb to. The picture begins with a Soviet submarine running aground off the coast of Massachusetts. Russian sailors disembark to find equipment to free the submarine from the shoal. On recognizing the sailors as Soviet, the Americans fall into an unimaginable panic, conjuring up horrific images of an imminent attack by the USSR. Jewison shot a witty comedy of the absurd, and received recognition from his American peers – the film was nominated for four Academy Awards.

RT

It is not a coincidence that two such important anti-war films were released after the outbreak of US hostilities in Vietnam. The Vietnam War greatly changed the mood in American society, and depictions of spies, where brilliant CIA agents save the world from evil KGB agents, gradually began to go out of fashion. People were naturally concerned about events that affected them personally.

At the time, the US government was making attempts to sway public opinion in favor of the war, but was unsuccessful. In 1968, ‘Green Berets’ was released, in which a journalist arrives at a base in South Vietnam and gradually rethinks the role of the US in the conflict and understands the need for American troops to participate. The legendary Western hero John Wayne even starred in the film, but that didn’t help. The picture was mercilessly panned not only around the world, but also at home, with critics ridiculing the obvious pro-Vietnam War propaganda.

RT

The end of the Cold War

A temporary truce on the Cold War front persisted until about the mid-80s, when a crisis of power occurred in the USSR after the death of Secretary-General Leonid Brezhnev. The change of three secretary-generals in three years could not but affect the economic and political stability of the Soviet Union, and this fact was used by Hollywood filmmakers. And when Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan struck a political course towards rapprochement, it became fashionable in Hollywood to make films advocating friendship between the superpowers and depicting ‘good Russians’. ‘Rocky 4’, ‘Red Heat’, and ‘Red Scorpion’ carry a universally peaceful message and speak out for ending the Cold War.

But, as always, the devil is in the details. It was at that time that the expression ‘cranberries’ became popular in the USSR, and later in Russia. This referred to the methods American filmmakers used to portray Soviet people. The Americans’ near-colonial attitude towards Russians was evident in every film like this. Russian people appeared on the screen as simple, narrow-minded fools. Thus, the idea was planted in the viewer’s mind that an American victory in the Cold War would benefit not only the US, but also the poor, intimidated, impoverished Soviet people.

The 1984 film ‘Red Dawn’ directed by John Milius stands apart. Milius is primarily known for writing the screenplays of the outstanding classics ‘Jaws’ and ‘Apocalypse Now’. But in 1984, he sat down in the director’s chair and shot a candid ‘cranberry’ about a Soviet attack on the US. In the film, Soviet troops invade America and build re-education camps for US citizens. Meanwhile, high school students assemble a guerrilla group to confront the invaders. Today, ‘Red Dawn’ is viewed like Tommy Wiseau’s comedy ‘The Room’ – a film is so bad it’s good. Even at the time of its release, it was impossible to watch without a smile. It is also noteworthy that the film starred a young Patrick Swayze, Charlie Sheen, and the future ‘Back to the Future’ star Leah Thompson.

RT

Meanwhile, in the USSR, the mood in the cinema was changing slowly. In 1986, ‘The End of Operation Resident’ was released to screen – the last instalment in an espionage tetralogy about a battle between Soviet and Western special services, which began back in 1968. The film was received coolly by critics. Many compared it unfavorably with the first three, but viewers were generally happy, as they finally got to see how the fate of the characters they loved turned out.

In 1987, the movie ‘Zagon’ appeared, which pitted Soviet agents against CIA operatives in a struggle to gain possession of a deposit of a strategically important mineral. Perhaps it was ‘Zagon’ that put an end to Soviet Cold War films. After its release, cinematographers no longer touched on this topic until the collapse of the USSR.

RT

A new round

The 1990s and early 2000s turned out to be the calmest in the cinematic confrontation between Russia and the US. The stable relationship between the countries did not give rise to a sharp or topical plots. Even NATO’s bombing of Yugoslavia failed to kick off a new round, although relations would never be the same after 1999.

Everything changed dramatically after 2014, with Crimea’s decision to rejoin Russia. Russian filmmakers did not wait for the appearance of American spy films about faceoffs with the CIA and other special services, but immediately began to produce films and TV series in this genre. Already in 2014, the film ‘The Soul of a Spy’ was released, which is an adaptation of a novel by Soviet intelligence officer Mikhail Lyubimov. In the story, a Russian intelligence officer tries to track down a mole in England who is working for the American special services.

Russia’s Hollywood: The legendary film studio Mosfilm celebrates its 100th anniversary

Read more

Russia’s Hollywood: The legendary film studio Mosfilm celebrates its 100th anniversary

In 2017, director Yuri Bykov shot the spy series ‘Sleepers’, which exposes a large-scale plan by Western special services, involving events that, at first glance, seem unrelated. In 2019, the series ‘Spy No. 1’ came out – about how the CIA and the FBI tried to uncover a Russian superintelligence agent in the early 90s, while the Russian side conducts an operation to secure him.

The cloak-and-dagger theme was revived this year with the release of ‘GDR’. The series, shot in a retro genre, depicts the events of the autumn of 1989 – the most important period in the history of modern Germany (on November 9, 1989, the Berlin Wall fell). According to the plot, Soviet and American special services fight to obtain the secret archives of the GDR during the collapse of the socialist regime.

Hollywood has not lagged far behind its Russian counterparts. In 2014, the movie ‘Child 44’ starring Tom Hardy was released, which was originally a crime thriller about the capture of a maniac in the USSR in 1953. The film did not receive rental certificate in Russia and turned out to be a flop in the US. Even American critics called it “an attempt to revive old-school Cold War propaganda.”

However, it soon became clear that ‘Child 44’ was just a touchstone. In 2018, ‘Red Sparrow’ starring Jennifer Lawrence was released, and although it didn’t get high ratings from critics, it was more favorably received. In 2019, in the third season of the highly popular Netflix series ‘Stranger Things’, events revolved entirely around secret Soviet bases in the US. The season was well-received – and critics refrained from labeling it as propaganda because the creators rushed to assure everyone that it was a Cold War satire, with the events taking place in 1985. And the series ‘The Americans’, which ran from 2013 to 2018, features KGB sleeper agents in the US during the Cold War. That project won universal recognition and a large number of awards.

Today, the big-screen race between Hollywood and the Russian film industry is in full swing. This is neither good nor bad. In the end, the manufacturer is trying to create a product that the viewer will buy, and the viewer is looking for what he is interested in now. Russian-American relations have become one of the main topics on the agenda of both countries in recent years. Just take the ubiquitous ‘Russian hackers’, who purportedly helped Donald Trump win the 2016 presidential election. Demand creates supply, and this rule is followed by filmmakers from both countries.

Autor knjige „Spin diktatori”: U mnogim zemljama spin diktatori se vraćaju nasilnoj represiji

Lideri u drugim zemljama su usvojili tehnike spin diktature, manipulišući medijima iza kulisa, zauzimajući sudove i marginalizujući opoziciju, sve dok čuvaju demokratsku fasadu. „Spin diktatura je privlačan model vlasti za lidere koji žele da konsoliduju svoju moć kao autoritarne vođe, ali da zadrže modernu ekonomiju i međunarodni ugled. Spin diktatori žele da ih svi vide kao kompetentne, efikasne i dobronamerne javni službenike, ali im je u redu ako se mali deo nezadovoljnih intelektualaca ne slaže sa tim, sve dok nisu promovisani u masovnim medijima. Krize koje podstiču građane da se okupe iza svog lidera su korisne u svim sistemima. I spin diktatori često ih iskorišćavaju – ili stvaraju”. Ovo su neke od odlika modernih dikatatura opisanih u knjizi „Spin diktatori” koja je nedavno objavljena i na srpskom jeziku u izdanju izdavačke kuće „Arhipelag”. Danijel Trajsman, jedan od autora knjige, u razgovoru za Istinomer objašnjava u kojim i kakvim društvima postaju i opstaju spin diktatori, u čemu se razlikuju od „tradicionalnih autokrata”, ali i koliko je tanka linija između spin i teror diktatura.
Danijel Trajsman, jedan od autora knjige "Spin diktatori"Danijel Trajsman, jedan od autora knjige “Spin diktatori”, Foto: Stefani Diani

Nakon prvog izdanja knjige „Spin diktatori” globalna politika je doživela velike promene. Pre svega, svedoci smo rata u Ukrajini koji je započeo jedan od spin diktatora opisanih u vašoj knjizi. Sa početkom rata, Putin se vratio na „tradicionalnu” diktaturu straha. Slično tome, lideri Venecuele i Turske, takođe su „skliznuli” u teror represije. U isto vreme, čini se da se recept za uspešnu spin diktaturu proširio, pa se povećava broj lidera koji svoju moć genererišu uz pomoć spina i manipulacija. Da li i dalje verujete da diktatori vide budućnost svoje vladavine u spin diktaturi ili je verovatnije da ćemo doživeti masovniji regres ka teroru straha na globalnom nivou?

Da, videli smo da se spin diktatori vraćaju na nasilnu represiju u mnogim zemaljama – Rusiji, Venecueli i Turskoj, na primer. U suštini, lider gubi veru u svoju sposobnost da održi kontrolu kroz sofisticirane taktike. To nije tako iznenađujuće. Uspešno obmanjivanje i manipulisanje društvom, dok njegovi članovi postaju obrazovaniji, veštiji u korišćenju medija i međunarodno povezani, veoma je teško. Jedino mesto gde su lideri uspeli da to održe u dužem vremenskom periodu, a da je u pitanju visoko modernizovana zemlja je Singapur. Povratak na diktaturu straha je poslednje sredstvo, kada sve ostalo izgleda kao da je propalo. To znači da se mora pokušati blokirati ili obrnuti modernizacija. A pošto ljudi obično ne žele da se vrate unazad, da izgube slobodne medije, da vide kako ekonomija postaje primitivnija, to vodi ka masovnoj emigraciji – kao u Venecueli i u Rusiji od početka rata. I, iako nafta može pomoći neko vreme, to obično vodi ka ekonomskoj stagnaciji ili čak krizi. Njihova prava podrška postaje sve uža, pa se moraju sve više oslanjati na čistu silu. U isto vreme, kao što primećujete, lideri u drugim zemljama su usvojili tehnike spin diktature, manipulišući medijima iza kulisa, zauzimajući sudove i marginalizujući opoziciju, sve dok čuvaju demokratsku fasadu. Ovo ostaje privlačan model za lidere koji žele da konsoliduju svoju moć kao autoritarne vođe, ali da zadrže modernu ekonomiju i međunarodni ugled. Da li bismo mogli videti veći regres na globalnom nivou? Definitivno je moguće jer će vremenom više spin diktatura imati teškoća kako njihova društva postaju više modernizovana. U trenucima krize, stvari mogu krenuti u jednom od dva pravca – ka više demokratskom sistemu, ako diktator izgubi kontrolu, ili ka većoj otvorenoj represiji.

Povezan sadržaj
Tim Istinomera 14. 2. 2024.

Koja društva imaju predispozicije da postanu spin diktature? Da li su države koje su u prošlosti imale autokratske, represivne režime podložnije tome? Sa druge strane, da li su tradicionalna demokratska društva potpuno otporna na spin diktaturu?

Spin diktatura je oblik autoritarne vladavine koji može biti kombinovan sa relativno modernom ekonomijom i otvorenim međunarodnim odnosima. Kada su zemlje izolovane i na niskim nivoima ekonomskog razvoja, diktatori imaju malo podsticaja da koriste spin umesto straha. Sa poljoprivrednom ekonomijom, ili čak industrijskom koja se bavi masovnom proizvodnjom – strah se može koristiti da se obični građani drže van politike. Ali sa ekonomijom zasnovanom na inovacijama, idejama i međunarodnim razmenama, teror ima mnogo veće ekonomske troškove.

U državama koje su do nedavno bile autokratske, građani mogu zadržati elemente latentnog straha koje diktatori mogu reaktivirati ako odluče da se vrate na otvorenu represiju. Takođe će biti ljudi koji i dalje znaju kako da upravljaju represivnim mašinerijama. I vidimo da su demokratije koje su u prošlosti propale verovatnije da će ponovo propasti u budućnosti. S druge strane, društva koja su uvek bila pod autokratama su sklonija da se zadovolje lažnom demokratijom ako im se ponudi. Fokusiraće se na površnu sličnost između vrste izbora koje održava spin diktator i autentičnijeg tipa koji se odvija u pravim demokratijama.

Sve je manje istine, sve je više spina

Da li je fabrikovana (medijska) produkcija kriza u spin diktaturama zamena ili uvod u diktaturu straha?

Može biti i jedno i drugo. Krize koje podstiču građane da se okupe iza svog lidera su korisne u svim sistemima. I spin diktatori često ih iskorišćavaju – ili stvaraju. Ali, kao što vidimo sa Putinom, spoljna „pretnja” takođe može biti korišćena da opravda prelazak na otvoreno nasilje. U svim sistemima, ratovi obično vode ka centralizaciji moći i porastu domaćih kontrola. Spin diktatorima nisu potrebni ratovi da ostanu popularni. Tako da pokretanje rata često označava da režim regresira.

Da li možemo očekivati da će se spin diktature u bliskoj budućnosti proširiti na neke zapadne zemlje? Na primer, da li možemo očekivati da će Donald Tramp, ako pobedi na drugom mandatu, pristupiti načinu upravljanja manipulacijom sličnim spin diktatorima?

Postoje dva načina na koji nastaju spin diktature. Neke nastaju kada autoritarne države evoluiraju u lažne demokratije. Druge su rezultat nazadovanja u demokratijama. Čini se veoma verovatnim da će, ako Donald Tramp pobedi na predsedničkim izborima u SAD-u u novembru, ponovo pokušati da potkopa kontrolu nad svojom moći, politizuje pravosuđe, oslabi štampu i promoviše iskrivljenu sliku sveta svojim pristalicama – sve tehnike spin diktatora. Da li će uspeti da konsoliduje moć i podriva demokratiju zavisiće od otpora na koji će naići. U ekonomski razvijenim demokratijama sa dugim iskustvom, snage civilnog društva su moćne. Takve zemlje imaju milione visoko obrazovanih, međunarodno povezanih pojedinaca sa organizacionim i komunikacionim veštinama – u novinarstvu, pravu, državnoj službi, civilnom sektoru i mnogim drugim profesijama. To je ono što čini takve demokratije otpornim.

Koja je najbolja barijera za razvoj i uspon spin diktature u društvu?

Najbolja barijera protiv spin diktature je postojanje velike zajednice visoko obrazovanih, društveno aktivnih, međunarodno povezanih građana sa organizacionim resursima i komunikacionim veštinama – što u skraćenici nazivamo „obavešteni” deo društva. To su ljudi koji predvode pokrete za izlaganje i otpor spin diktatorima. Druga barijera su ustavne kontrole i ravnoteže i ustav koji je teško izmeniti. Viktor Orban u Mađarskoj, Redžep Tajip Erdogan u Turskoj, Ugo Čavez u Venecueli i Vladimir Putin u Rusiji, svi su relativno lako mogli da promene ustav svoje zemlje na načine koji su konsolidovali njihovu moć. U SAD-u, promena ustava je mnogo teža. Između ostalog, zahteva saglasnost tri četvrtine federalnih jedinica.

Možete li objasniti ulogu medija i medijskih manipulacija u spin diktaturi i koji je mehanizam za stvaranje jedinstvene, kolektivne istine u društvu, što je jedna od karakteristika spin diktatura?

Spin diktatori ne stvaraju uvek jedinstvenu, kolektivnu istinu. Žele da se svi slažu da su oni kompetentni, efikasni, dobronamerni javni službenici. Ali im je u redu ako mali deo nezadovoljnih intelektualaca veruje u nešto drugo, sve dok nisu promovisani u masovnim medijima. (U ovome se oni razlikuju od klasičnih diktatora straha). Često, spin diktatori su zadovoljni širenjem sumnje umesto uspostavljanjem jedinstvene istine. Nude razne razloge za nepoverenje prema opoziciji i nije im važno koji od njih svaki građanin izabere.

Ko još, osim medija, igra ključnu ulogu u izgradnji kulta ličnosti?

Tvrdimo da su kultovi ličnosti karakteristični za stare diktature straha. Spin diktatori ne nameću rigidnu zvaničnu ideologiju, ne zahtevaju da deca uče njihove izreke, ne naručuju masivne statue i murale sebe, niti podstiču neprijatno javno laskanje. Umesto toga, oni gaje „slavu”. Žele da ih građani doživljavaju kao zanimljive i kul. Naravno, žele da budu fotografisani, predmet tračeva, da prodaju robu – nešto poput modernih rok zvezda, ili čak nekih zapadnih političara kao što su Obama ili Kenedi. Možete reći da je ovo moderni ekvivalent starih kultova ličnosti, ali je zapravo prilično različito od konstruisane javne slike, recimo, Sadama Huseina ili Predsednika Maoa.

Opisali ste u svojoj knjizi da izbori služe kao rejting banke za spin diktatore, to jest, sredstvo za konsolidaciju moći. Da li države gde se manipuliše izbornom voljom građana (neregularni izbori) i dalje mogu biti nazvane spin diktaturama?

Manipulacija izborima je jedna komponenta modela koji nazivamo spin diktatura. To ide zajedno sa drugim elementima kao što su prikrivena manipulacija medijima, tolerisanje opozicionih političara i medija (ali uznemiravanje) i međunarodna otvorenost.

Povezan sadržaj

U predgovoru najnovijeg izdanja koje je na srpskom jeziku objavila izdavačka kuća „Arhipelag”, pominjete predsednika Srbije, Aleksandra Vučića, za koga kažete da koristi mehanizme spin upravljanja. Na koji način vlast Aleksandra Vučića odgovara opisu pravila spin diktature?

Mi nismo eksperti za Srbiju, ali zagovornici slobode štampe su primetili da je Vučićeva stranka uspostavila kontrolu nad mnogim TV stanicama i tabloidnim novinama u zemlji, i one pružaju laskavu sliku režima. U međuvremenu, opozicioni mediji se žale na uznemiravanje. I kompanija Meta je nedavno rekla da je zatvorila više od 5.000 „lažnih naloga” koji su se pretvarali da su pristalice Vučića i njegove stranke i objavljivali pozitivne poruke o njima. Sve ovo otežava da zaboravimo da je trenutni predsednik služio kao ministar informisanja pod Slobodanom Miloševićem devedesetih godina.

Milena Popović 21. 3. 2024.

Autor knjige „Spin diktatori”: U mnogim zemljama spin diktatori se vraćaju nasilnoj represiji

Vlast naredila Google-u da otkrije identitete YouTube gledalaca

Ako vam je stalo do privatnosti vaših ličnih podataka, možda bi bilo najbolje da bacite svoj pametni telefon i druge uređaje i preselite se u kolibu u šumi. Više nema prave privatnosti. Jer velike kompanije za obradu podataka poput Googlea sve znaju o nama. Čak i šta posedujemo, šta radimo, pa čak i šta bismo mogli raditi u budućnosti.

Udobno je misliti da ove informacije ne dele s nikim, uključujući i vladu, osim ako postoji dobar razlog, zar ne? Pa, razmislite ponovo. Ispostavilo se da američka vlada može narediti Googleu da im preda sve vaše informacije samo zato što ste gledali video na YouTubeu. Evo detalja…

Prema nedavnim izveštajima, američka vlada nedavno je zatražila od Googlea da podeli lične informacije o nekim svojim korisnicima. Možda biste pomislili da su ovi korisnici umešani u kriminal nakon čitanja ovoga. Međutim, nemoguće je sa sigurnošću znati jer vlasti nisu znale tačno koje osobe ciljaju.

Umesto toga, želele su lične informacije od svih koji su gledali određene video zapise objavljene između 1. i 8. januara 2023. Ove informacije uključuju imena, adrese, telefonske brojeve, šta su korisnici radili na Googleu, pa čak i njihove IP adrese. Ceo razlog za ovu situaciju je da uhvate nekoga na internetu pod korisničkim imenom “elonmuskwhm”.

Ova osoba je osumnjičena za pranje novca i vođenje nelegalnog poslovanja s prenosom novca. Da bi ga pronašle, vlasti su podmuklo poslale agente da putem YouTubea šalju tutorijale o mapiranju putem dronova i softvera za proširenu stvarnost. Možda mislite da je ovo normalno za hvatanje kriminalaca. Ali, video zapisi su bili javni i jedan od njih je gledalo preko 30.000 ljudi.

To znači da su podaci potencijalno desetina hiljada korisnika bili izloženi putem ovih video zapisa, koji su bili dostupni bilo kome, uključujući i vas. Ova taktika postavlja pitanja o ravnoteži između online istraga i privatnosti korisnika. Nažalost, Google je morao da otkrije te podatke. Zbog toga, ako vam je stalo do privatnosti ličnih podataka, jedino što možete učiniti je da živite u kolibi duboko u šumi.

Evolucija tehnologije na digitalnoj diplomatiji

Digital Diplomacy and the Beautification of War

digital-diplomacy-and-the-beautification-of-war

Susan Sontag famously argued that photography was violent in nature. Photographs, according to Sontag, are violent as they fracture linear time. Each photograph is like an atom torn from linear time and forever frozen. The more photographs one takes, the more he or she rips linear time into fragments that can longer form a coherent whole. Moreover, photography is violent as the photographer makes the world subservient to his or her worldview. Photographs do not depict the world, but the photographer’s view of the world. Most importantly, photography is violent as all photographs have an aesthetic dimension, even those photographs that capture scenes of violence and destruction. In this way, photography beauties wars, weapons of war and the victims of wars. For Sontag, photography’s violent nature is manifest in the language used by photographers who “load” their cameras, “aim” at their objects and take “a shot”.  

In recent years visuals have become central to the practice of digital diplomacy. Given that social media are visual mediums, and given that visuals can summon the attention of social media users, diplomats and foreign ministries (MFA) now incorporate images in most of their posts and tweets. In fact, diplomats have become visual narrators as they use images to convey elaborate and complex foreign policy messages. Moreover, diplomats have learned to speak through visuals as never before have so many diplomats created and published so many visuals daily.

The rhetoric of the diplomatic image may vary, and while some visuals serve an evidentiary purpose in that they “prove” that certain events did in fact take place. Other visuals are used to elicit an emotional response and influence the worldviews of digital publics. As the cliché goes, an image is worth 1000 words and one image of a bombed and dissolute Aleppo is more powerful than 1000 harshly worded tweets.

The past two years have seen the emergence of a new visual trend among diplomats and diplomatic institutions- visuals of war and weapons of war. What is unique about these visuals is their beautification of wars and weapons of war. Indeed, diplomats, MFAs and International Organizations increasingly publish images in which the subject is an instrument of war and destruction. Consider for instance the two visuals below posted by NATO and the British Ministry of Defense.

In both images the subject is a weapon of war. And in both images the weapon is beautified. In the first image the Northern Lights, or Aurora Borealis, seems like a coat of majestic armor surrounding a luminescent fighter jet. In the second image, the green colors of the Northern Lights are juxtaposed with the vibrant colors of the tricolor or France’s national flag. What is most important about the two images is that they both de-contextualize the subject. The British fighter jet and the French ship are not depicted in battle or during a military exercise. Both images capture the weapons of war in nature, amidst a stunning natural phenomenon. The jet and the ship are thus re-contextualized as part of nature and as natural objects or objects that are natural to our world. In this instance, the beautification of weapons of war casts them as natural rather than options of last resort or as part of humanity’s innate tendency towards violence and destruction.

Ukraine has also taken to publishing visuals that beautify war itself. Some of the visuals, shown below, capture Ukrainian forces preparing for battle set against natural beauty such as snow. These visuals depict war itself as something natural and beautiful.  Other visuals focus on warriors or soldiers such as that of a lone soldier walking down a snowy patch of land. Shot against a wintry landscape, the composition of the image and the snow tracks create a sense that the soldier is walking towards something, towards some manifest destiny. Yet, once again, nature and war are joined, and war becomes the continuation of nature by other means.

In another visual, shown below, Ukrainian forces are shot while wearing camouflage. Here, war and nature are not just joined together but they finally merge to create a single object. Much like a photographer, the Ukrainian soldier aims his or her weapon to take a shot. The soldiers’ eyes are the only body part that is exposed. And yet this image, which could have been taken mid-battle, is not menacing or alarming. It is simply beautiful, as beautiful as the soldiers’ eyes.

As noted earlier, many MFAs and International Organizations publish such images which beautify war and weapons of war. This is an alarming trend given that today’s world is one that is prone to conflict and war. Such images are violent as they rip soldiers and weapons of war from their actual surroundings and transport them to natural settings. In doing so, these images and visuals suggest that war is natural and beautiful and not a costly exercise that leads to immense human pain and suffering.

These images and visuals also negate one of the primary functions of diplomacy- to resolve disputes and crises without resorting to war. As these images populate the social media feeds of users across the world, they promote the view of war as something “good, natural and necessary” to quote scholar Susan Jackosn. These images may diminish opposition to wars and to mass investments in weapons of war leading the world closer to armed conflict while undermining the very function of diplomacy.

Read More

Monday’s Must Read List

monday’s-must-read list

Each week, I publish a list of interesting articles, essays and reports that may be of interest to the digital diplomacy community. This week-

  1. What the future holds for driverless cars (BBC News)
  2. Resistance Is Futile, But Maybe Not With AI (Bloomberg)
  3. It’s Time to Give Up on Ending Social Media’s Misinformation Problem (The Atlantic)
  4. Pentagon Technology Officials Focus on Maintaining U.S. Edge (US Gov)
  5. Technology Alone Won’t Break the Stalemate in Ukraine (Foreign Policy)
  6. Musk’s Neuralink hosts livestream showing quadriplegic playing online chess (AJ)
  7. EU funding drone technology used by Israel in Gaza war, claim monitors (EuroNews)
  8. US Catching Up With Hypersonic Missile Technology (Kyiv Post)
  9. Nvidia announces Project GR00T AI technology for human-like robots (Yahoo)

Some light reading- The Internet Is Not What You Think It Is: A History, a Philosophy and Warning by Justin Smith-Ruiu

Read More

The Drone Wars: How Ukrainian Drones Are Reshaping War Coverage

the-drone-wars:-how-ukrainian-drones-are-reshaping-war-coverage

In the early 1990s, scholars coined the term “The CNN Effect” referencing the impact that CNN had on American foreign policy. Scholars asserted that issues which rose to prominence in CNN were soon addressed by American policy makers. In this way CNN shaped the priorities of the White House and the State Department. CNN was so influential that former UN Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali remarked that CNN was the 16th member of the Security Council.

Yet CNN also impacted news coverage of wars. The Atlanta-based news station first rose to prominence during the 1991 Gulf War when its journalists were the only ones to offer live coverage of American airstrikes on Iraqi targets. While other journalists sought refuge in shelters and underground basements, or left Iraq all together, CNN journalists stayed on the air offering eyewitness accounts of the fierce attacks by US and other Coalition forces. For several days, CNN’s live coverage of the War went uninterrupted and unchallenged by other news stations. Slowly, this coverage attracted a captivated audience.

The Gulf War was unique as it was the first time that television viewers had access to live, 24-hour coverage of a war. Previous wars, such as the one in Vietnam, entered the homes of millions of Americans during edited evening newscasts. Conversely, the Iraq War became a permanent fixture in American homes, one that could be viewed at any time and one that was not edited. Live coverage meant that far away audiences could experience a war as it unfolded. This was another “CNN Effect”.

Digital technologies disrupted the coverage of wars. The main reason being that social media users had become accustomed to consuming news in near-real time. Social media users did not wait for evening newscasts or morning papers to learn about events shaping their world. As such, the speed with which Wars war reported on accelerated. Social media did not offer live coverage of Wars but real-time coverage of Wars. This meant more than just greater speed but simultaneous coverage of dozens of events taking place all over the globe. The real-time coverage of Russian annexation of Crimea included real-time news reports from Crimea, Moscow, Washington, Beijing, London and Kyiv. Social media also brought with it real-time analyses of the Crimean annexation and a non-stop barrage of statements on the annexation by world leaders and diplomats ranging from Russian President Putin to NATO’s Secretary General and US military leaders. 

Yet perhaps the greatest impact of social media was that people did not seek war coverage anymore. Rather, war coverage sought out audiences and was inserted into the feeds of millions of users. Even more importantly, war coverage was tailored to the interest, beliefs and opinions of social media users thanks to the work of algorithms. News coverage was thus fragmented, and different people experienced the same war in very different ways. According to the feeds of some social media users, Russian peacekeeping troops had entered Ukraine to stop a bloody civil war that was spiraling out of control. According to the feeds of other users, Russia had mounted a stealth and illegal invasion of Ukraine bringing Europe to the brink of war. Similarly, some social media users learned about the brutality of the Russian soldiers, others saw videos of alleged Ukrainian brutality against Russian minorities.

Ukraine’s use of innovative technologies has once again re-shaped war coverage. This is thanks to the growing use of drones by Ukraine. Indeed, drones have played an important role in Ukraine’s war effort and the country now operates an Army of Drones that was created through a global crowdfunding effort. This Army of Drones is used to strike Russian tanks, infantry and even ships. Throughout the day, videos captured by drones are spread across social media platforms by official Ukrainian accounts, by foreign ministries and diplomats, by military experts, OSINT specialties (open-source intelligence) and average social media users. 

It could be argued that the Russia-Ukraine War is the first Drone War or a war that is mediated through drones. Much of the footage shared online from Ukraine is not captured by intrepid journalists, daring citizen-journalists or global news agencies who are able to dispatch reports to the front lines. Rather, this electronic footage is captured by drones on their way to a target.

Drone Wars may be unique in three ways. First, they offer wartime footage that is entirely independent of human intervention. There is no human in the loop anymore. The raw footage recorded by drones is not the result of human intervention nor is it subject to human editing. Second, in Drone War the coverage of wars goes beyond the front lines. Drone footage offers real-time footage of bases and positions deep within the enemy’s territory. Indeed, Ukraine drone footage takes viewers deep into areas held by Russian troops, sometimes as far as Moscow itself. Third, Drone Wars no longer obfuscate the nature of war. Drone footage captures the carnage, death and pain that accompanies War. Drone footage shared by Ukraine includes not only attacks on Russian tanks but also the death of Russian soldiers. Other footage depicts Russian soldiers fleeing their positions while under attack.

Drones also linger, in air and on air. They continue to record and transmit videos even when faced with harrowing scenes, the kind of scenes that human reporters would have failed to capture due to their emotional intensity. A drone lingers in the air while below people are burnt alive. The drone does not flinch, or shy away or close its eyes. It is these harrowing videos that trend online, that capture audiences’ attention and are shared extensively all day long and transmitted across multiple networks arriving in peoples’ feeds and offering a new form of news coverage.

Thus, we have moved from the “CNN Effect” and live coverage of wars, to the “Twitter Effect” and real time coverage of wars, to the “Drone Effect” of constant wars mediated by drones all day long across multiple platforms and accounts. 

Read More

Is Digital Diplomacy Disruptive?

is-digital-diplomacy-disruptive?

In a classic episode of the television show “Yes Prime Minister”, the Civil Servant Humphrey Appleby explains the logic of British diplomacy saying:

“The Foreign Office is pro-Europe because it’s really anti-Europe. The civil service was united in its desire to make sure that the Common Market didn’t work. That’s why we went into it. Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least 500 years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, French and Italians against the Germans, and the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now, when it’s worked so well?”

These remarks are important for two reasons. First, when we think about disruption we often think about digital disruption, or how digital technologies cause upheaval and transform diplomats’ norms, practices, and working routines. Yet diplomacy can cause disruption even without digital technologies as demonstrated by Appelby. It is also important to remember that disruption can also stem from ideas, concepts, and metaphors. The concept of “statehood”, the metaphors of “Alliances” or the “Global Village”, all disrupted the practice of diplomacy leading to the creation of new diplomatic entities and new diplomatic practices.

Second, disruption is never limited to one domain, arena, or market. Disruption sends ripple effects that transform other domains. Consider the iPhone that not only disrupted the cell phone market but also transformed how we communicate, how we manage personal relationships and how we document or record our daily lives.  This means that digital disruption in diplomacy is not limited to diplomacy, nor does it necessarily originate in the realm of diplomacy. Digital technologies which disrupt society send ripple effects which lead to changes in diplomacy. Similarly, diplomats’ use of digital technologies can result in societal disruption.

As such, to examine the disruptive nature of digital diplomacy is really to examine the relationship between diplomacy and society.

Consider for instance how digital technologies have disrupted news consumption. In the social media age, individuals want to learn about events in near-real time. No one waits for the evening newscast or tomorrow’s front page to learn about important events. Social media disrupted news production as it forced journalists to cover events as they unfolded. This phenomenon of “real time journalism” sent ripple effects through foreign ministries. For if they wanted to shape news coverage, diplomats also had to narrate events in near real-time. Thus, “Real Time Journalism” has led to “Real Time Diplomacy”.

This is a prime example of disruption as the practice of “Real Time Diplomacy is at odds with the routine practice of diplomacy which requires time. A relevant example took place a year ago when social media users reported that a Russian rocket aimed at Ukraine hit Poland. This was a major event as such an attack could ignite a war between Russia and NATO. Within a few minutes traditional news outlets began to tweet about the alleged rocket. Within 45 minutes of initial reports diplomats and world leaders also began tweeting about the Russian rocket.

But what they all did was buy time. Diplomats tweeted “we are aware of these reports, we are gathering information, and we are conferring with our allies”. This demonstrates how the digital disruption of society leads to new practices and norms amongst diplomats specifically, balancing between the need to comment on events in real-time and the need for time to gather intelligence and make informed decisions.

Another relevant example is the digital disruption of governments. In a digital world, governed by the metaphors of “networks” and “connectivity”, more and more government ministries face the world and collaborate with their foreign peers. Ministries of health, the environment, energy, and culture all engage with peers from other countries.

This digital disruption of governments means that foreign ministries have lost their monopoly over managing a state’s external affairs. To counterbalance this loss diplomats now communicate with their own citizens and demonstrate how diplomats contribute to national interests thereby safeguarding their remaining territory within governments. “Domestic Digital Diplomacy” has expanded and includes diplomats’ use of social media to narrate world events for their citizens, to rally domestic support for foreign policies and to shape how citizens view their nation and their nation’s role in the world.

The digital disruption of governments has sent ripple effects downwards to foreign ministries. But the practice of “Domestic Digital Diplomacy” is in itself disruptive and has sent ripple effects upwards to society. The reason being that diplomats are now powerful discursive agents. they engage with their citizens online; they shape citizens’ worldviews and impact citizens beliefs about a nation’s role in the world. In this sense diplomats have become like journalists, editors and opinion makers that have traditionally shaped public opinion.

To summarize, digital diplomacy is both the result of disruption and the cause of disruption. Tech-induced disruption of society trickles down and reshapes diplomats’ norms, values and working routines. But diplomats’ innovative use of digital technology trickles upwards disrupting and reshaping societies.

Read More

Monday’s Must Read List

monday’s-must-read list

Each week, I publish a list of interesting articles, essays and reports that may be of interest to the digital diplomacy community. This week-

  1. White House will fight deepfakes with cryptographic verification (Cyber News)
  2. Russia using Elon Musk’s Starlink on Ukraine front line, says Kyiv (Financial Times)
  3. France uncovers a vast Russian disinformation campaign in Europe (The Economist)
  4. Biden campaign joins TikTok despite administration’s past security concerns (ABC News)
  5. ‘Lol hey guys’ – Biden joins TikTok despite security concerns (BBC News)
  6. North Korea and Iran using AI for hacking, Microsoft says (The Guardian)
  7. The Biggest Technology Trends In The Next 10 Years (Forbes)
  8. Five ways Imran Khan’s party used technology to outperform in Pakistan’s elections (Atlantic Council)
  9. China is quietly reducing its reliance on foreign chip technology (The Economist)

Some light reading- The Call of the Wild, by Jack London

Read More

Biden State Department Funds Training of 2,500 LGBT ‘Allies’

The Biden administration is using the State Department to fund LGBT activism abroad — again. According to federal spending database USASpending.gov, the U.S. State Department awarded a $15,000 grant to Washington State University (WSU) for a “public diplomacy program.” The government website explains that the program is designed to train 30 “master trainers” to become “LGBTQI+ allies, followed by these master trainers training another 2500 individuals on this theme.” WSU hosted its three-day “train-the-trainer workshop” in India at the end of September.

According to WSU’s official new site, the program’s “priority” was “promoting a better understanding of diversity and inclusion and LGBTQIA+ rights…” The three-day program included sessions on “LGBTQ+ ally training,” “What it means to be an ally,” “Evolution of language/Defining LGBTQ+ language,” “LGBTQ+ history: Worldwide, in the United States, and in India,” “LGBTQ+ individuals and faith,” and others. The workshop concluded with the U.S. Consul General of Hyderabad awarding participants with certificates of completion. The program’s stated goal was to “[i]ncrease the comfort levels of all participants regarding issues faced by members of the LGBTQI+ community and work toward a more equitable company, university, and society for all.”

Meg Kilgannon, a senior fellow at Family Research Council, commented to The Washington Stand, “Hardly a day goes by without a revelation about talent or treasure being spent on perversion by the U.S. State Department. It’s the worst kind of colonialism — sexual colonialism.” She continued, “And don’t think that promotion abroad means the home front is safe from these manipulations. American school children and college students are offered the same content. Unrest at home and abroad is exacerbated by the Biden administration’s maniacal push to normalize the dangerous and abnormal.”

This is not the first time that the Biden State Department has used American taxpayers’ money to fund LGBT activism abroad. Last year, Family Research Council published a report detailing the Biden State Department’s commitment to LGBT ideology in foreign nations, including hundreds of thousands of dollars in grant money to LGBT organizations and programs. The U.S. Mission in Botswana, for example, offered $300,000 in grant money to “carry out a program to promote greater social acceptance of LGBTQI+ persons, including among influential religious groups and traditional groups…”

Another grant was awarded to an Ecuadorian group to finance drag shows and produce LGBT films and documentaries. A similar State Department grant in Portugal was used to fund a film festival called “Queer Lisboa,” which featured drag queens and media centered on incest and pedophilia. Other instances of State Department funds going to LGBT causes include supporting “queer Muslim writers in India, paying for classes for “transgender women makeup entrepreneurs” in Nepal, and promoting puberty blockers for children in Poland.

In some cases, the State Department’s LGBT activism has strained or jeopardized diplomatic relations with other nations. Promotion of Pride month and same-sex marriage has landed U.S. diplomats in trouble with the Foreign Ministers of nations like Kuwait and Hungary, where same-sex marriage is illegal. When U.S. Ambassador David Pressman, who openly identifies as homosexual, criticized Hungary’s laws, Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó fired back, “[I]f he wishes to use his stay in Hungary to criticize the actions of a government elected by a clear majority of the Hungarian people and legitimized by the Hungarian people, he will have a very difficult job in working effectively to improve cooperation between the two countries.”

The Biden administration has also funneled funding into LGBT causes abroad via the U.S. Agency for International Aid (USAID). Through USAID, the White House has often partnered with other governments and private firms to sink further millions into LGBT activism in foreign nations. According to the Washington Free Beacon, the Biden administration has spent nearly $5 million promoting LGBT ideology in foreign nations as of June, 2023.

S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.

https://washingtonstand.com/news/biden-state-department-funds-training-of-2500-lgbt-allies

LGBT Issues and Public Diplomacy