Facebook Instagram Linkedin Twitter Youtube
Blog Page 271

[Today in PD] Football And Soft Power

In its first issue of 2014, Monocle dedicated a slice of the magazine to its Soft Power Survey, a run-down of countries and their ability to create and sustain influence in positive ways. For the first time in its four year history, Monocle accorded sport its own category in the metrics of the survey. Football took centre stage as perhaps the most pervasive and global of all sports. As such, Monocle stated:

“Footballers playing abroad in the top leagues, major events screened around the globe, the competitors and teams that stand out from the crowd — all these have an impact on the way a country is viewed”

Taking first place in the survey, Germany can boast a significant number of players contracted to clubs in the world’s top leagues (though what those leagues are, and the presumed Euro-centric definition of ‘top’ leave this metric open to debate), and four clubs in the ‘global rich list’. Other significant sporting achievements are also recognised, such as Olympic medals, but my focus here is football.

What is ‘soft power’? I would suggest that Monocle’s own definition, revolving around “attraction rather than coercion”, neatly summarises the concept. This, of course, includes deliberate attempts to flex such power as well as the benefits which derive coincidentally from being basically decent. This is why nations vie for the chance to host the Olympics or the World Cup; it is as much for the ‘feel-good factor’ as any tangible economic benefit or demonstration of infrastructure or clout. It is a ‘soft’ way of showing that a nation has not only arrived as a serious player on the global stage, but also that it has sufficient traction to persuade others to get behind its bid; it shows that a nation has friends as well as influence.

Is football really key to this demonstration of soft power then? And, if it is, is that a whole story? Arguably, the answer to the first question is pretty straightforward, and it is yes. Football at its best is vibrant, exciting, emotional, as much as it is a generator of capital and a means of exposure for a nation. It creates a sense of shared experience, of happiness, and, when it goes well, success. The image of a nation’s or a club’s fans dancing in the streets to celebrate a victory is not hard to summon. Collective experience is very powerful. The manner and style of victory are also crucial. The beauty of Spain’s first two international tournament victories lay more in the aesthetics of their football than any narrative of previous heroic failure. The arrival of Chile in the Monocle survey’s top thirty coincides with their team playing a swash-buckling, adventurous style of play based on Bielsa-influenced principles which stirs most impartial observers.

Football clubs can also embody values which are conducive to the growth of ‘soft power’. The ownership principles of Bundesliga clubs, which ensure that fans retain a controlling interest in the club, or the socis principle by which Barcelona, among other Spanish clubs, are run, speaks to a sense of egalitarianism and being rooted in the local. In an age of globalisation and aggressive capitalism, these models seem to stand for something fairer, more decent, and more located in the actual identity of the club than, say, the franchise system of many US sports. This is soft economic power, the engendering of positive values by association.

Footballers have also become brands in themselves, which can have soft power benefits for the nations they represent. Monocle cites the mercurial Zlatan Ibrahimovic as Sweden’s ‘soft-power superstar’, a poster boy for integration and achievement despite his self-professed humble origins. It is Zlatan’s unquestioned talent and drive that have elevated him to world-wide acclaim and financial success, and football is full of such rags-to-riches tales, often involving individuals from backgrounds whose overwhelming narrative, imposed externally by the traditional seats of power, is of social exclusion or failure. This is an attractive story, aspirational and inclusive.

However, to see football as an indicator of soft power without caveats is to engage in a certain amount of myopia. Football is a global business and dominated by brands. For every soci-run club there are countless others run by outside investors and it is hard to ignore the sense that clubs are increasingly vehicles for debt servicing or profit maximisation, run by businesspeople eager to exploit the positive associations of the sport. Government support for stadium development, or the taking-over of stadia constructed for other purposes, also allows investors to exploit a desire for soft power, benefiting from projects paid for by the nation and seeing their assets grow on the back of it.

Football also has a potential for corruption which many are quick to exploit. Whether it is scandals involving FIFA, match-fixing, or forms of exploitation of aspirant footballers such as fraudulent promises of trials or contracts, there is a very murky side to the beautiful game that speaks less of soft power than its more brutal, at times criminal, cousin.

Even the hosting of major sporting events is no guarantee of soft power. Russia, Qatar, and Poland and the Ukraine all suffered from substantiated or alleged accusations of corruption, racism, homophobia, and political violence or instability. It must be argued that shining a light on these issues is positive. However, it cannot be ignored that, in spite of these problems, the governing bodies of football saw fit to efface or downplay such negatives in order to sustain their decisions to host tournaments in those countries. Soft power gained despite such issues is merely a balm, or smoke and mirrors to hide what is really going on.

Perhaps, then, like anything, Monocle’s recognition of the soft power potential of sports such as football needs to be read against a wider narrative. There is no doubt that football does confer soft power and for many, very good reasons. To take that as a total and transparent reflection of the global game is, however, denying a very obvious reality.

Cultural Diplomacy Vine-A-Thon!

Join us over the week of 17-21 February and share Vines to showcase your culture.

During Social Media Week, the Digital Diplomacy Coalition (DDC) invites you to take part in a global digital event — a Cultural Diplomacy Vine-A-Thon.

A Vine-A-Thon is where people all over the world share Vines on a common topic during a specified time-frame using a common hashtag.

How can you participate? It’s easy! During the week of 17-21 February share a Vine which highlights your culture using the hashtag #DiploVine. We’ll retweet and revine our favorites!

What are we looking for? Creativity! We want you to use your 6 second videos to highlight your culture – Film, Fashion, Heritage, Art, Music, Food, Sport — use your imagination.

The only limit is your imagination. Show us your culture in 6 seconds on Vine!

  • Share a quick video featuring music from your country highlighting photos of bands
  • Create an animation highlighting your country’s cultural heritage
  • Film your friends performing a dance or quickly modeling local fashion

Remember to use the hashtag #DiploVine and have fun!

Social media policy guide for FCO staff

Context: why social media matters

The Foreign Secretary, in his speech on Diplomatic Tradecraft, said that diplomats should be, “well-versed in modern communication including social media”.

The FCO encourages all staff to make full use of the opportunities offered by social media to help deliver FCO objectives. Social media:

  • Allows diplomats to monitor events, harvest information and identify key influencers.
  • Can assist in the consultation process and the formulation of policy by helping us crowd source ideas.
  • Provide real time channels to deliver our messages directly and influence beyond traditional audiences.
  • Improve the delivery of our services through closer engagement with our customers and allow us to better manage a crisis.
  • Make us more accountable and transparent through open dialogue.

The importance of embedding digital tools in policy making and service delivery is set out in more detail in the FCO Digital Strategy.

 

Social media activity in the FCO

We do not expect our staff to all use social media in the same way but we do expect social media to be a core part of the toolkit of a modern diplomat.

FCO staff should feel empowered to use social media in three main ways:

  1. All staff should use social media for listening: monitoring conversations, keeping track of news and building networks as part of their day to day work.
    a) This means setting up an account with a monitoring tool. You should also consider digital tools that aggregate real time news trends from social and mainstream media.
    b) You do not need your own personal social media accounts to use monitoring tools.
  2. Policy/desk officers may use, or set up, personal social media accounts for low-key work related activity such as the building of networks, following influencers in your policy area and engaging with those groups in non-controversial areas.
    a) If you are taking up this flexibility, you may wish your profile to say you work for the FCO or Civil Service. However your profile should state your views are personal and do not necessarily represent the views of your organisation.
    b) You do not need permission to use social media accounts for work related activity but you should inform your Head of Department that you are doing so. Staff will need to take FCO security considerations into account.
    c) Examples of this engagement could include the highlighting of public information, lines or reports or relevant FCO or external events. It might also include asking non-controversial questions.
    d) Personal accounts should not be used for making policy announcements, engaging in controversy, or breaking news – that is the job of official accounts.
  3. Staff for whom active engagement and communication will be essential in the delivery of objectives should use an official FCO branded channel. This could be personal (e.g. HMA) or on a policy theme (e.g. FCOHumanRights).
    a) This can be in addition to 1 and 2 and will require sign off from line management and digital team – channels should have a clear purpose and ongoing commitment to effective staffing.
    b) Official accounts will be registered and monitored and reviewed to ensure effectiveness.
    c) All official accounts should be clearly and consistently branded and listed on the FCO website.

 

See FCO Facebook Guidance and FCO Twitter Guidance (only available through FCO intranet). These guides provide information on setting up official channels, branding and best practice.

 

What are the rules?

We should not say anything on social media that we would not say on any other public channel; this means contradict HMG policy or be politically partial or breach the Civil Service Code in any other way, bring the office into disrepute or divulge classified information.

All staff should also be familiar with:

 

Official accounts

Official accounts allow us to target key audiences, deliver our messages and information directly, engage and be open to challenge, opening up access to our officials and Ministers.

  • Official social media channels should provide relevant, useful information on UK Government activity; promote the FCO, HMG and relevant partner content in line with FCO objectives.
  • More specifically official accounts should have a clear purpose and audience and be evaluated against those criteria.
  • Below is a framework on when to seek clearance before publishing content on official channels:

 

Go ahead Established policy & press lines within your area of expertise.
Seek guidance from head of team and/or Press Office & Digital Department. Breaking news where there is press no line.

The interpretation of a change of policy where the line is being agreed.

Ministerial movements.

Rebuttal.

 
Don’t do it Subjects not in your area of expertise or direct responsibility or any classified data.

 

  • You should update social media channels regularly or it is not worth doing at all – tailor frequency, length and type of updates to audience needs and expectations.
  • You are encouraged to share interesting third party content eg media articles, NGO blogs, foreign government information but only if you are sure of it is appropriate and it is politically impartial.
  • Take into account cultural sensitivities and avoid posting anything that could be considered offensive by anyone who may see the page (including audiences from other countries).
  • Debate is good, a protracted online argument is not. Take discussion best dealt with in private offline.
  • Do not post or share anything which breaches Copyright or that could be construed as advertising or promoting a commercial company.
  • Do not disclose information that is classified or privileged, or that may put you or your colleagues at risk, whether from crime, terrorism, or espionage.

 

How to apply for an official social media account (only available through FCO intranet).

 

Personal use of social media

We have no bar on staff using social media channels but there are some rules.

  • Where your social media accounts are personal, you do not need to say you work for the FCO or Civil Service.
  • It is important to remember that when posting in a personal capacity you may still easily be identified by others as working for the FCO even if you don’t state it.
  • Stating that your views are personal is no insurance against negative media or other publicity. On personal social networks – even closed ones like facebook – you should be aware that posts can be shared outside your network.
  • Overseas, what you say will likely be seen as representing FCO/HMG views.
  • You should avoid taking part in any political or public activity which compromises, or might be seen to compromise, your impartial service to the government. The precise restrictions are specific to different staff (e.g. politically restricted grades) and you should know them already as they apply to you offline too.

See also guidance on staying safe online (only available through FCO intranet).

 

Dealing with mistakes

In making full use of social media, mistakes will occasionally happen.

  • How the FCO deals with a particular mistake will depend on the nature of the error. Your online conduct is subject to the same disciplinary rules as your offline conduct.
  • There are a few steps you should take if you make a mistake:
1. Delete the post and apologise for the mistake, explaining that the material was posted by mistake and is not an official view.
2. Post the correct the information if the mistake was factual, making clear what you’ve corrected.
3. Inform your line manager and the Press and Digital Department for advice on further handling.

http://blogs.fco.gov.uk/digitaldiplomacy/social-media-policy/

 

 

 

Social Media Helps Diplomats Engage — Online and Off

By Molly McCluskey

When Ambassador Ritva Koukku-Ronde of Finland finally took the dive into Twitter in December 2012, she was in the company of another famous diplomat who joined the same day. Her first tweet? “Dear friends of Finland, if the Pope can do it I can do it, too.”

Barring cheeky references to Pope Benedict XVI (who started @Pontifex, which now has 3.5 million followers), conversations about digital diplomacy usually contain the same corporate jargon-laden catchphrases. Social media platforms are ways to “engage the public,” “promote cultural understanding,” and “encourage informed debate.”

Social media does do all of that, but more to the point, it is a way to communicate with the masses — whether it’s Kosovo striving for global legitimacy, or France sharing its famed “Map of Kisses,” or Greece posting photos of Byzantine art to promote its exhibit at the National Gallery.

However, diplomats who use social media solely to push out their message have quickly found their accounts unheeded by the very people they’re trying to reach. Instead, a range of creative and, more important, focused campaigns have proven effective at gaining ground in a digital space that grows more overcrowded each day.

Photo: Anatoliy / iStock

A blooming array of resources, from organizations devoted to digital diplomacy to consultants and conferences, can help cut through the clutter. And, of course, embassy staffers who have figured out how to promote their nations are key to successful digital campaigns.

 

Social Media Becomes Standard Practice

Maintaining a Facebook and Twitter site has become de rigueur for the city’s embassies and ambassadors (also see “Tweet This: Embassies Embrace Digital Diplomacy” in the April 2013 issue of The Washington Diplomat) — to say nothing of the many other platforms diplomats are also learning to navigate, from Flickr and Tumblr to Instagram and Pinterest.

Ambassador Nathalie Cely Suárez of Ecuador joined Koukku-Ronde on the digital diplomacy panel at The Diplomat’s second annual Country Promotion Strategies Conference (#CPS2013) last November. Stuart Holliday, head of the Meridian International Center and conference moderator, called Cely — who has more than 50,000 Twitter followers — an “early adapter and trailblazer” in the digital realm. 

Cely said her first rule of social media is that you need to like it. “If you’re doing it professionally, you need to take it seriously,” she told the more than 200 diplomats gathered at the Ritz-Carlton in D.C. for the event. “I tweet about things I care about the most.”

And the information has to be useful. She noted that the embassy developed an application — downloaded by more than 15,000 people — that helps Ecuadorians in the United States (and Americans who’ve retired in Ecuador) locate consulates to obtain visas.

The ambassador also said she balances political posts with personal observations and opinions to ensure authenticity and build a fan base that can relate to her — an aspect of social media that can be difficult for professional diplomats whose job, after all, is to be diplomatic. 

“Sometimes I’ll share something very personal if it’s relevant…. You have to develop a persona,” she said. “People need to know it’s you. People are very smart. They’ll know if it’s not.” 

Katie Harbath, policy manager at Facebook, who also spoke at the CPS Conference, agreed that being authentic will attract more fans. For instance, she suggested postings that chronicle a “day in the life of an ambassador” to give fans an inside look at what goes on at an embassy.

James Barbour, press secretary and head of communications for the British Embassy, said social media has upended traditional diplomacy — and journalism for that matter. “It’s absolutely a paradigm shift, like the invention of the newspaper.”

Barbour said that Twitter, Facebook and other platforms have changed the way communications professionals engage with journalists. “Social media can be so fantastically visual,” he said. “You do more if you tweet it than send it out as a press release.”

While the official British Embassy Twitter feed (UKinUSA) primarily shares policy and hard news updates, the embassy’s Facebook page has more of a mix, with a focus on cultural events, study abroad information and theater reviews, including a celebration of the 50th anniversary of the classic British television series “Doctor Who.”

But perhaps the most notable change in the U.K.’s social media policy is the emergence of the Northern Ireland Bureau (NIB) as a separate presence. “The rising influence of social media could not have come soon enough for Northern Ireland,” said Bronagh Finnegan, administration and public affairs officer for the NIB. “As a region that constantly finds itself trying to overcome negative and anachronistic coverage in the traditional press, our digital diplomacy campaign has allowed us to convey a more accurate picture of Northern Ireland through a prism that better reflects the reality on the ground.

“The impact of this shift is staggering as a new generation in the U.S. has a greater understanding of a region with important historic, economic and ancestral ties to America,” Finnegan said.

Social media can indeed amplify the voices of smaller groups. For example, despite its small size, Kosovo has leveraged its substantial online presence (it was recently ranked fourth in the world for its digital diplomacy efforts by the Turkish diplomatic publication Yeni Diplomasi) to push for greater recognition on the world stage since it unilaterally declared its independence from Serbia in 2008. That includes getting Internet giants like Google and Amazon to recognize Kosovo’s independence on their sites.

“We had a 17-year-old kid who managed to convince Twitter to recognize Kosovo as a country,” Petrit Selimi, Kosovo’s deputy foreign affairs minister, said at a discussion last September at Johns Hopkins University in D.C. “LinkedIn just recognized Kosovo. Our big aim is Facebook. And we’re in dialogue with Google as well.”

 

Two-Way Street

While social media has given nations an unprecedented avenue to quickly disseminate information to the public and press, for a digital campaign to succeed, it has to be a two-way street.

Finding strategies — and the time — to genuinely engage with people online is a challenge not only for ambassadors, but for world leaders as well.

A global study called “Twiplomacy” released last summer by the PR firm Burson-Marsteller found that more than three-quarters of world leaders have a Twitter account.

But the same study found that a Twitter presence did not necessarily translate into connectivity. For example, while President Obama is the world’s most followed leader on Twitter, he is not the best-connected leader. @BarackObama only mutually follows two other world leaders: Norway’s Jens Stoltenberg and Russia’s Dmitry Medvedev. Likewise, @WhiteHouse and @StateDept are followed by 132 and 99 peers, respectively, but they barely follow any other world leaders. On the flip side, Uganda’s prime minister (@AmamaMbabazi) is the most conversational world leader, with 96 percent of his tweets being @replies to other users.

“This study illustrates how Twitter and social media in general have become part and parcel of any integrated government communications,” said Jeremy Galbraith, CEO of Burson-Marsteller Europe, Middle East and Africa. “While Twitter is certainly not the only channel of communication and will not replace face-to-face meetings, it allows for direct peer-to-peer interaction.”

And that interaction is crucial. “You’re using it the wrong way around if it’s only one way,” Ilse van Overveld, counselor for public diplomacy, press and culture at the Netherlands Embassy, said of social media at the CPS Conference. She recommended question-and-answer sessions with ambassadors and diplomats to start a dialogue with online users. She also noted that in addition to public diplomacy officers, the Dutch Embassy is working to have diplomats who specialize in other areas, such as defense and economics, share their expertise online as well.

Fellow panelist Marc Johnson of APCO Worldwide said embassies should avoid a “push and pray model” — push a message out and pray that it sticks. Rather, he advised diplomats to genuinely engage with their audience and “find the conversations where you want to be relevant.”

For instance, experts point out that Twitter hashtags are an easy way for embassies to hone in on conversations involving their respective nations. Other social media monitoring and marketing tools such as Radian6 can help organizations keep track of what’s being said across the digital spectrum.

Overveld’s embassy uses Storify to collect its various online media postings into a coherent story. She stressed that the Dutch Embassy also works with its consulates throughout the country to build a unified communications strategy.

Lior Livak also embraces an integrated approach. He’s director of digital initiatives at the Embassy of Israel, where Twitter and Facebook are used in conjunction with a newsletter and website to ensure consistent messaging across a broad range of political and cultural topics. “We use Facebook as a political tool to complement our diplomats’ messages, and to get our point of view across,” Livak said. “But we also try to have fun with it.”

Facebook’s Harbath said postings should run the gamut, from emergency response updates during a national disaster to more lighthearted features. For example, she cited the Movember campaign, an annual initiative in November when men grow mustaches to raise awareness of men’s health issues. The Canadian, British and other embassies regularly post updates on how their diplomats’ mustaches are growing as part of Movember. “It gets people talking so the next time you post something, you have their attention.”

 

Beneficial Back and Forth

With so many platforms to choose from, and so many distinct, but often overlapping audiences, it can be difficult to know how to engage. Andreas Sandre, press and public affairs officer at the Embassy of Italy and author of “Twitter for Diplomats,” points to the embassy’s social media hub as a way to reach users in their preferred method, and discover why they’re coming to Italy — online.

“People think of Italy as Michelangelo, Leonardo [da Vinci], pizza and pasta, but we’re much more than that. People are looking at us for how to build a pair of shoes, or the engineering in the Maserati. We are our history, but we’re much more than what Italy was. Social media helps us tell the story of what we’re becoming. It lets us ask, ‘What are you expecting from us? Are we doing a good job? How are people looking at Italy?’”

Direct engagement can also lead to surprising results. For Maria Galanou, press officer at the Embassy of Greece, a chance letter to the ambassador turned into one of the embassy’s most successful outreach campaigns.

“Megan, an American student studying abroad in Greece, sent a letter to the ambassador called ‘Battling Preconceptions with Reality in Greece,’” Galanou said. “In this letter, she stated how amazing her experience in Greece has been thus far, and that what she sees is nothing like what the media portrays.”

So the embassy created a “Study Abroad in Greece” social media campaign, using Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, as well as the hashtag #studyabroadgreece. More than 25,000 social media users were exposed to the campaign.

“Our social media strategy consists of creating a relationship with our friends and followers. That is why we make sure to interact with them online,” said Galanou. “We choose our content so as to highlight the connections between the American and Greek people, and we welcome content that our friends and followers have to share.”

Although negative comments can be an unwelcome part of an embassy’s social media presence, Galanou hasn’t shied away from them. When a troll began spamming the embassy’s Twitter feed with tales of animal abuse in Greece, Galanou and the press team contacted him directly. “We reached out to him, talked to him, asked him questions, shared positive content. He responded positively but then again started the same, because he’s a troll. We also followed all the people who retweeted him, and this way we made them follow us — so our positive animal stories reached them as well, plus we got more followers!”

 

Innovative Collaboration

Galanou, Sandre, Barbour and Overveld all participate in the Digital Diplomacy Coalition (DDC), a rapidly growing, volunteer-based group that hosts local lectures, panels, happy hours and, most recently, an open house at the Embassy of Canada to showcase the various social media programs of Washington’s diplomatic corps. “DDC is a brilliant initiative and a great source of information, knowledge and networking among digital strategists and communication professionals of the diplomatic community in D.C.,” said Galanou.

Time and again, diplomats point to social media as a networking and promotional tool. Many embassies use social media to encourage their followers to attend a sporting match, celebrate holiday festivities, or simply connect in person.

The Embassy of Canada has capitalized on its prime real estate and digital savvy to take its branding campaign to the next level, so much so that since the 2013 presidential inauguration, the embassy building has had its own Twitter hashtag: #viewfrom501.

“The viewfrom501 hashtag came about through lively debate pre-inauguration festivities,” said Alexandra Vachon White, a deputy spokesperson for the embassy. “We wanted a hashtag that would highlight our unique vantage point at 501 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, and at the same time be short, easy to remember, and applicable for any future event at the embassy. It allows us, and visitors, to include more content in our tweets when referencing the embassy. Space is at a premium in the Twittersphere, and #viewfrom501 saves those valuable characters.”

And it’s extremely effective. White points to the presidential inauguration as one of the embassy’s most successful campaigns. “The 2013 Inauguration Tailgate event campaign was very well received. Our [Connect2Canada] followers on Twitter and Facebook who were not in attendance appreciated access to such a special day, and we were able to engage guests on site during the event by displaying their photos and tweets live on the Jumbotron in real time.”

Such engagement wasn’t a fluke. At the Digital Diplomacy Open House, attendees tweeted photos, links and updates using #viewfrom501, which provided a real-time experience from inside the embassy to those unable to attend, whether in Washington or around the world.

The Digital Diplomacy Coalition offers a forum for diplomats to share these kinds of tips with one another. Some embassies have the luxury of digitally dedicated staffs, while others rely on everyone to chip in online.

But given the rapid evolution of social media, there’s a constant learning curve for almost everyone involved. Finnish Ambassador Koukku-Ronde said her Ministry of Foreign Affairs is encouraging its diplomats to embrace social media, although she is still navigating this newfound terrain.

She said she tweets occasionally and tries to limit the number of people she’s following so as not to get overwhelmed. But she’s learned one old-fashioned trick that seems to get people’s attention. Taking a cue from BuzzFeed’s viral videos of cute animals, Koukku-Ronde joked that when all else fails, “use pictures of cats.”

About the Author

Molly McCluskey (@MollyEMcCluskey) is a contributing writer for The Washington Diplomat.

http://www.washdiplomat.com/index.php?Itemid=428&catid=1514&id=9963:social-media-helps-diplomats-engage–online-and-off&option=com_content&view=article

Online Reputation Management for Governments: in the national interest or out of the dictator’s playbook?

By Nicholas Dynon on 31 Jan 2014 | From the channel/s: E-diplomacy, Internet Governance
inShare

Online reputation management: the practice of monitoring the Internet reputation of a person, brand or business, with the goal of suppressing negative mentions entirely, or pushing them lower on search engine results pages to decrease their visibility (Varinder Taprial, Priya Kanwar, 2012).

According to media commentary, the flourishing business of online reputation management (ORM) straddles an ethical divide between protecting against falsifications and perpetrating them.  Its techniques inhabit several ethical shades of gray, from reputation monitoring, defamation clean-up and positive content promotion to SEO manipulation, negative review removal and astroturfing practices.  But if ORM poses ethical concerns in relation to its use by private businesses and individuals, how then should its use by governments be regarded?

As a new industry, ORM is as yet unbound by codes of ethics.  It’s an ‘anything goes’ area where the virtual freedoms of the internet meet with the paranoia of businesses and the profit seeking of reputation firms.  According to communications consultant Charlie Pownall, “ORM can too easily appear to be a dark art practiced by shady search/SEO specialists and underhand PR types for organizations with dodgy practices experiencing crises or social media campaigns running amok”.  It is no wonder then that the ORM industry is itself increasingly suffering from reputation issues of its own.

In some jurisdictions at least, it appears that the long arm of the law is catching up with the more questionable ORM practices.  Last September, the New York Attorney General concluded a year-long undercover investigation into the reputation management industry and false endorsements.  In a press release, AG Eric T Schneiderman put the cat among the pigeons, stating that “astroturfing is the 21st century’s version of false advertising, and prosecutors have many tools at their disposal to put an end to it.”  As a result of the investigation, 19 companies agreed to cease writing fake online reviews for businesses and to pay more than $350,000 in fines.

ORM, dictators and the end of dissent

The incorporation of internet and social media into national foreign affairs, tourism, trade and foreign investment strategies is widely acknowledged.  Most – if not all – governments are engaged at some level in the practice of utilizing the internet to enhance and protect their nation’s brand.  The Canadian Tourism Commission, for example, claims to have been a pioneer in using user developed video content in online broadcasts, and terms such as ‘twitter diplomacy’ and ‘e-diplomacy’ are now firmly entrenched in the lexicon of international relations.

With the increasing importance of their online presence, many governments have also turned to ORM companies to protect their brands online.  In doing so, they too have entered the ethical no-man’s land that is online reputation management.  According to Virtual Social Media, an online marketing services company, “there are several professional government ORM agencies with the required experience and expertise with creative strategies to protect the fair image of the government.   Their proactive approach will enable government to contain all damaging reports well in advance and quite often even before they appear online.”  It’s a claim that many – including advocates of open and accountable government – might find disturbing.

On the one side of this divide are ORM professionals who point to the positive national outcomes that their work for governments can achieve.  Eric Schiffer, chairman of ReputationManagementConsultants.com, writes, “for our corporate clients, success is measured based on their ROI and the impact on their bottom line”, yet for his firm’s campaign for a west African government, “success is measured by the impact on their nation’s gross domestic product (GDP).”

On the other side, Thor Halvorssen, president of the New York-based Human Rights Foundation, argues that ‘reputation management’ can be a euphemism of the worst sort.  “In many cases across Africa, it often means whitewashing the human rights violations of despotic regimes with fluff journalism and, just as easily, serving as personal PR agents for rulers and their corrupt family members”.  It can also work to drown out criticism, branding dissidents and critics as criminals, terrorists or extremists.

In each case, the divide is characterized by several questions, such as whether ORM is being utilized by government in the interest of the nation (the common good) or in the interest of the government of the day (the ruling party).  It would appear that in any number of cases, it is the interests of the ruling party that are winning out.

The scale and complexity of this is perhaps nowhere more apparent than in the case of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) – a political organization boasting one of the world’s most complex in-house online reputation management machineries.

[Propaganda poster in Beijing reinforcing the CCP’s official ‘harmonious society’ narrative. From the Line 21 Project collection]

Protecting the domestic reputation of the one-party Chinese state is a vast panopticon of monitoring, surveillance, content production, opinion guidance and firewall infrastructure with a reach that would surely be the envy of any ORM company.  Network traffic from mobile data text messages (Tencent’s WeChat/微信) to microblogs (such as Sina Weibo/新浪微博) are monitored.  Search engine results are curated, with sensitive keywords censored, and whole tracts of the internet blocked.

Government authorities employ a ‘water army’/水军 of internet commentators known unofficially as the ‘50 Cent Party’/五毛党 to post comments favorable towards party policies in order to shape public opinion (CNY 0.5 is the purported payment for each post that steers discussion away from anti-party comment).  It has been estimated that up to 300,000 such commentators astroturf for various levels of government aimed at audiences both within and outside of China.  On the flipside, ‘Big V’ microbloggers (those with big followings) who post views that upset the state are routinely shut down and forced to confess their ‘irresponsible’ actions in misguiding public sentiment.  A country-wide crackdown on ‘toxic’ internet rumors has led to many arrests in the name of correctly guiding public opinion.

Managing reputations: less speaks louder than more

While the issues and debates surrounding Beijing’s internet controls are complex, considering the CCP’s grip on cyberspace through the prism of ORM does shine a strong light on the industry’s darker arts.

The end of dissent is perhaps the shared dream of dictators, authoritarian regimes and many of the businesses that engage ORM help.  The dystopian obverse of this dream is the skewing of online speech and the attempted systematic removal of truth.  Many ORM principles might read comfortably within the pages of a dictator’s guide to online statecraft, but as any good reputation specialist will argue, nothing protects a brand’s reputation more than a great brand.

Conversely, nothing compromises the reputation of a brand more effectively than obvious cover-up and misrepresentation.

As Greg Klassen, recently appointed interim President and CEO of the Canadian Tourism Commission, has remarked, “when there are “sniper shots” to our country’s reputation largely through social media… we have this brand firewall that tends to protect our reputation.”  The ‘brand firewall’ to which Klassen refers is not some cutting-edge cyber barrier designed to shut down detractors but rather the innate value and resilience of brand Canada itself.

http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/online-reputation-management-governments-national-interest-or-out-dictator%E2%80%99s-playbook

 

Two-year-old skateboarder amazes the world

In case you have seen this video, you are probably wondering is it possible that the boy is only two years old – and the answer is, yes he is!

Photo: Screenshot YouTube video | @agora allow

The boy, although still wearing diapers, is very skillful with skateboard. According to media reports, he comes from a family of skateboarders.

Have a look and enjoy!

[ct_video title=”Two-Year-Old Can Skateboard Better Than You” type=”youtube” id=”lYnESaQh4jg”] [/ct_video]

How Can ‘City Diplomacy’ Influence Security?

According to Michele Acuto, we have to start studying the impact that cities and those who govern them are having on global security. That’s because their ‘proximity’ to today’s security challenges is making them increasingly important actors in this domain.

By Michele Acuto for ISN

We live, many argue, in an ‘urban’ age in which cities have emerged from the anecdotal attention of the early-2000s to become an increasingly popular catalyst for public discourse and political debate. Indeed, international scholars and practitioners do not seem to be immune to the seduction of the city. Yet, rather than talking about the ‘rise’ of the city in international relations, we should instead be thinking about ‘re-emergence’ and ‘return’: ever since the earliest days of civilisation, settlements have been deeply entrenched in more-than-local flows, economies and politics. Many key voices in urban studies and geography, like Peter Taylor or Peter Hall , have convincingly argued how the story of humanity is a story of cities. Nevertheless, international theorists have for a long time shied away from the impact that cities are having on an increasingly globalized world. But that’s beginning to change.

While this ‘urbanisation’ of international studies has been for the most part been prompted by environmental concerns, cities are also critical components of the global security agenda. The development and expansion of ‘ city diplomacy’ has woven a global texture of urban connections that have become increasingly important in shaping responses to an array of global challenges. Organizations like Mayors for Peace, for example, promote classical security matters like non-proliferation, while the Istanbul Water Consensus campaigns for water security.

This begs the obvious question, are cities really becoming more important players in international affairs? A growing body of evidence suggests that this might well be the case.

 

The Security Dimension

The intersection between the ‘rise’ of the urban age and the contemporary global security landscape presents both substantial limits and major opportunities. Urban coalitions have made efforts to act as ‘peace actors’ as in the case of the Municipal Alliance for Peace in the Middle East (MAP). This is an initiative born out of the concerted action of two domestic city networks, the Association of Palestinian Local Authorities (APLA) and the Union of Local Authorities in Israel (ULAI), to create a stable framework for Israeli-Palestinian reconciliation based on municipal-level dialogue. Beginning with a co-operation agreement fostered by the Council of European Municipalities and Regions in 1999, the MAP process was formalized in 2005. Accordingly, MAP was not the result of one city’s enterprise, but rather a collaborative effort that had to confront and accommodate the ‘high politics’ of national governments, as well as the challenges of maintaining diplomatic engagement from ‘below’.

Indeed, it’s here where processes like the MAP also begin to experience problems. Since its inception, the MAP has suffered from the reluctance of major donors to provide it with much needed financial assistance. This has undoubtedly tested the overall dynamicity and resilience of the MAP, especially when it comes to coalition building and responding to the turbulence that the international system quite often provides.

Difficulties aside, the peacebuilding role of small- and medium-sized municipalities suggests that cities – as represented by their local governments and elected leaders – can effectively engage in diplomatic and political activities. Indeed, these activities often extend way beyond short-term conflict resolution and peace brokering. Take, for example, the role that the Association of Netherlands Municipalities (VNG) has played in post-genocide Rwanda. In 2003, it helped to establish the Rwandese Association of Local Governments, an organization focused upon the promotion of local governance and reconciliation. Similar interventions in Africa, Latin America and Asia have also focused on gender issues, post-conflict reconstruction, humanitarian aid and many other key aspects of today’s security agenda.

City Diplomacy Unbound

Cities are increasingly claiming terrain and responsibility for areas of security that were once considered (perhaps wrongly) as the sole preserve of the nation-state. As Parag Khanna and I have previously noted, after 9/11 New York undertook a series of steps to beef up its own critical infrastructure protection capabilities. These include setting up its own intelligence bureau, sending police offers to Israel for special counter-terrorism training and opening overseas branches of the New York Police Department (NYPD). Similarly, after the November 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India’s security discourse focused on the need for reforms of Mumbai’s police and counter-terrorism capabilities as much or more than the state.

Cities therefore increasingly demand us to take them and their worldview far more seriously. Their proximity to the ‘everyday’ of security challenges and their growing enmeshment with key transnational actors like the World Bank, in turn, suggests that cities will play an ever-increasing role in safeguarding global security. The recently-launched Global Network on Safer Cities (GNSC) is a case in point. Led by the United Nations’ UN-Habitat office and the former mayor of Mexico City Marcelo Ebrard, the GNSC aims to equip local authorities and urban stakeholders with the tools to deliver and maintain urban security. And as outlined at the Sixth Session of the World Urban Forum, the GNSC “finds its relevance from the necessity to put together and systematize different experiences existing around the world on urban crime and violence, with the aim of advocating for safer cities and local crime prevention.” City diplomacy on security issues then seems to be firmly geared towards expanding the role that cities and city leaders play in tackling global challenges.

Growing Attention, Growing Clout?

A growing number of lists and rankings undoubtedly demonstrate the mounting public and academic interest in the importance and future role of cities. Yet rankings, undertaking place promotion and lobbying is not where city diplomacy ends. Indeed, as the now popular case of the C40 Climate Leadership Group suggests, we may soon be paying more attention to specific networks of cities and their respective leaders’ responses to major international issues. Writing in the New York Times in November 2013, Sam Roberts highlighted a growing number of “urban manifestos”, like Benjamin Barber’s If Mayors Ruled the World, that call upon global audiences to take even more seriously local government’s rightful place in tackling global challenges. This type of advocacy will undoubtedly lead to further analysis of the importance of cities – and, indeed their engagement with cities the world over – over the coming years.

In the security domain, publications like David Kilcullen’s Out of the Mountains add further substance to claims that cities have an increasing stake in foreign affairs and international security. Kilcullen not only emphasizes the rise and growing importance of urban warfare over the past few decades, he also calls upon military and security strategists to consider how key themes like counterinsurgency and terrorism now have a distinctly ‘urban’ dimension. However, several of these ‘manifestos’ have also been roundly criticised – particularly by proponents of critical urban studies – for their uncritical acceptance of the ‘rise of cities’ and potentially dangerous rhetoric of the ‘urban age’. Purely reiterating the growing importance of cities, without further inquiry into deep urban (not just global) processes these very cities are embedded into, runs the risk of stifling debate on how to make the most of the ‘rise of cities’ in international affairs. Rather than just lobbying for cities, we should also engage them seriously in both international research and dialogue.

Overcoming superficial engagements is essential, and luckily works like Barber’s do hold some promise in this direction. That’s because cities and their elected leaders are undoubtedly making a serious contribution to tackling some of our most pressing security concerns. These include the development of new policymaking frameworks and different modes of city-to-city dialogue and cooperation. This, in turn, has opened up opportunities for new forms collective action, public-private initiatives and mediation efforts at the local and global level. As a result, many city leaders are more than just local representatives – they can also be international advocates and diplomats in their own right.

Mayors from many cities, not just the world’s largest urban centres, have also lent their voice and support to a host of common causes. In doing so, they have helped to emphasize that cities are on the frontline of today’s security challenges, especially when it comes non-traditional threats such as environmental degradation, resource scarcity, or organized crime. Nevertheless, this potential for truly transformative international action is inextricably linked to the more mundane, but yet crucial, role of cities as the texture of our everyday lives. Beyond the fascination of the ‘urban age’, then, we should understand that, before extraordinary global action, urbanism is after all about engaging with the ordinary reality just outside of our doorsteps.

Michele Acuto is currently Research Director and Senior Lecturer in Global Networks & Diplomacy at STEaPP, University College London. He is also Fellow of the Institute for Science, Innovation and Society (InSIS) at the University of Oxford.

Creative Commons – Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported

http://www.isn.ethz.ch/Digital-Library/Articles/Detail?lng=en&id=175884

Diplomacy 3.0 Starts in Stockholm

Posted: 01/15/2014 10:41 am
Follow

Digital diplomacy has been redefining itself since its inception. It has evolved from 140 characters to a myriad of opportunities embedded in the very nature of the digital era, from crowdsourcing to big data. While we have not yet outgrown Twitter and Facebook — still key ingredients for any government’s digital strategy — foreign policy is fast moving towards more innovative ways to change its elitist undertones and become a truly participatory, collaborative forum.

We all agree — although to different extents — that in a hyperconnected, networked, super-speed, media-centric, volatile world, conventional diplomacy alone is not sufficient, and new ideas are needed to better tackle the challenges we are facing. Technology is certainly a factor in what will come ahead, but innovation has to lead our efforts.

A new innovative hub is shaping up in Stockholm, where Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt has grouped diplomats and digital diplomacy practitioners from all over the globe to work together with some of the best minds from academia and research, business and the media, to produce concrete, feasible solutions for the diplomacy of the future: it’s the Stockholm Initiative for Digital Diplomacy, coming up January 16-17.

“By bringing together an international group of people at the forefront of digital diplomacy in Stockholm, we hope to pave the way for stronger networks and new methods for the diplomacy of the future,” Carl Bildt told me. “The idea is to further investigate the implications for future diplomacy of a growing culture of digital participation, and to look into what will be required of the diplomats of tomorrow. (Nobody has the answers yet, but it will certainly involve collaboration and learning from each other).”

In the past 10 years, digital diplomacy has gone through many transformations, names, tools, phases, and crisis. From a small task force incubated in 2002 by then U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell to what his successor Condoleezza Rice championed as “Transformational diplomacy,” to the era of Diplomacy 2.0 — as some have illustrated — with Hillary Clinton and Alec Ross’s “21st Century Statecraft.” Inside and outside Washington, digital diplomacy has expanded into very effective programs, involving new partners, regional and non-state actors, and the public as well. This is what British Ambassador to Lebanon Tom Fletcher calls “Naked Diplomacy;” what Philip Seib of the University of Southern California’s Center on Public Diplomacy brands as “Real-Time Diplomacy.”

Is Stockholm the next 3.0 step in digital diplomacy? It’s hard to say, as digital diplomacy is still deeply rooted in social media.

In the Swedish capital, Bildt has envisioned a start-up environment aimed at crafting a more collaborative diplomacy around technology, tools, best practices, experiences and ideas. The aim is to look beyond social media, but not away from social media tools. It’s a creative, stimulating environment built around DiploHack sessions and TEDx talks.

“By using the tools of digital diplomacy, we can reach out to people in a fast and efficient manner, particularly in consular matters,” Bildt said. “In this dramatic and dynamic world, we can also receive information from those in the know and eye-witness reports that we wouldn’t otherwise get.”

DiploHack combines the specific know-how and skill sets of diplomats, tech developers and designers, along with that of journalists, academics, NGOs, businesses and social entrepreneurs to “hack” traditional diplomatic problems in start-up style groups. It is a way to explore the mutual added value for diplomacy and technology on one hand and, through a truly collaborative process, create technology-driven solutions to traditional diplomatic challenges.

The hack environment, presentations and case studies will complement the two-day event, alongside a special TEDx titled “The New Diplomacy.”

“We live in a time of change, where we see nations closing themselves off and nationalism growing stronger,” stated the organizers of TEDxStockholmSalon, hosted during the Stockholm Initiative for Digital Diplomacy. “And this despite the lesson from history that, in times like these, what we really need is more initiatives with the prefix pan-, inter- or uni-. But there is hope.”

Bildt, who will personally take part in the Stockholm Initiative on Digital Diplomacy, said the world today needs modern diplomats: “We are continuously modernizing and improving our Foreign Service, and a modern Foreign Service must be ready to meet people in the arenas where they are present.”

 

PDcast #11: Diplomacy 3.0 & Modern Art Diplomacy

Carl Bildt is pushing for diplomacy’s digital evolution; and Hyundai sponsors the Tate Modern to promote S. Korea.

The PDcast is a weekly podcast featuring Julia Watson, Adam Cyr and Michael Ardaiolo discussing the trending public diplomacy topics. Subscribe now in iTunes.

The conversation continues using @Public_Diplomat and #PDcast. Send us your questions, comments and suggestions throughout the week, and we will use them for the next show.

 Topic 1: Carl Bildt‘s Diplohacks and the possible coming of diplomacy 3.0

To read:

Sweden’s early adopter foreign minister on crafting digital diplomacy | Wired UK, by Liat Clark

Diplohack: where diplomats admit they’re sick of talking and want a digital revolution | Wired UK, by Liat Clark

Diplomacy 3.0 Starts in Stockholm | Huffington Post, by Andreas Sandre

Topic 2: Corporations and cultural diplomacy

To read:

Cultural diplomacy in the Turbine Hall? | BBC, by Will Gompertz

 

Recommendations

Adam: Australian great white shark hunting

Australia to Launch Great White Shark Hunt | Wall Street Journal

Julia: Tunisian rappers

Check out El Général, Lak3y, Balti, Armada Bizerte

Michael: gay U.S. ambassadors & political scandal swapping

The Changing Face of Diplomacy | The Advocate

La Maison Blanche | The Economist

January 24, 2014 11:00 am by: Category: Art Diplomacy, Digital Diplomacy, Featured, Public Diplomacy, Social Media Diplomacy, The PDcast

http://thepublicdiplomat.com/2014/01/24/pdcast-11-diplomacy-3-0-modern-art-diplomacy/

 

Using Public Diplomacy As A Foreign Policy Tool

Earlier this January, President Obama gave his first-ever one-on-one interview on German television. The background of this rare interview was news reports originating last year that the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) had monitored communications of European citizens – and thereby had seemingly even listened in on Chancellor Angela Merkel’s private phone calls. In the wake of these reports, many Germans reacted with much anger towards the spy revelations. Similarly, many top German government officials – even those who are typically very “pro-American” – openly expressed their concerns that the NSA activities are potentially a threat to civil liberties and privacy rights of German citizens. Chancellor Merkel herself said the claims that the NSA eavesdropped on her cell phone “had severely shaken” relationships between Europe and the US and that such practice among friends “was never acceptable, no matter in what situation.” Prior to the interview, Obama’s general public speech on NSA reforms – during which he acknowledged that reforms were necessary, but that the NSA will continue to play an important role in gathering information from other countries – had disappointed a lot of Germans, particularly because he made clear that he would not be pursuing an international “no spy agreement,” which some had demanded.

Choosing to sit down for a personal interview, Obama used the foreign policy tool of “public diplomacy,” with the objective of trying to engage and inform the German audience about his take on the current NSA situation. He attempted to “win over hearts and minds” of the people by stating that the US does, in fact, not seek to invade people’s privacy on unnecessary grounds.

Certainly, Obama regarded the interview a crucial necessity in light of the on-going negotiations for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). In his 2010 State of the Union speech, President Obama had set the goal of “doubling US exports by 2015”; and, according to many economists, a transatlantic free trade area could bring the US closer to this aspiring, currently unlikely-to-be-achievable goal. However, there have also been many counterarguments against the TTIP on both sides of the Atlantic; particularly, Europeans have expressed concerns with regards to climate, environmental and agricultural issues such as genetically modified food. As a strong supporter of the TTIP though, Obama knows that Germany as Europe’s largest economy plays a key role in eventually making the TTIP reality. Thus, mending ties with Germany and pursuing damage control was a priority.

The risks of such an interview were that he [Obama] could be perceived as disappointing once again. Nations have always been spying on each other, and he could not give much information beyond what he had already said in his speech. Thus, it was clear from the very start that he could merely try to appeal to Germans in a personal manner.

Nonetheless, I think President Obama made a good decision in choosing to do this unusual interview. While some people were disappointed once again and had hoped Obama would call for an international “no spy zone,” the mere symbol of agreeing to an interview with a German news channel sent a strong message. When the leader of the free world takes the time to interview with someone unknown to him but very recognizable in Germany, this shows Germans that he cares and makes him – and his viewpoint – more relatable and accessible to both German policy makers and the public in general. Similar to his prior public speech, Obama discussed how the presidential directive he put forward clearly indicates what will and what will not be done with regards to overseas surveillance, assuring Germans that the NSA will not be listening to people’s phone calls or read their emails if there are no national security threats involved. So, while choosing to maintain the majority of intelligence capabilities to keep US citizens as well as citizens from allied countries safe, the interview certainly offered him the opportunity to try to “connect” with the Germans. He particularly appealed to many when he addressed East Germany’s particular experience with a spying apparatus that was out of control and assured them that he was well-aware of this unique history and stressed that such an invasion would not happen again under his Presidency. With millions of people in Germany watching the roughly 16-minute interview that aired during prime time on one of the most popular TV channels, Obama unquestionably got the exposure he had hoped for. Thus, the interview was an important and effective step to assuage some concerns and helped to rebuild trust.

About Felix Backhaus

FELIX BACKHAUS is a contributor to Catholic Journal. Originally from Germany, he is studying business at Georgetown University, in Washington D.C., the largest and oldest Jesuit university in the United States. He has a strong interest in art history.

Home

 

1...270271272...286Page 271 of 286

Канцеларија за јавну и културну дипломатију