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

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

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 16^th 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

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

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