Is Twitter the New Face of Diplomacy?

Posted by Casey@SMS on Sep 1st, 2010 | no comments

The world was shocked when it was released that North Korea joined Twitter. In a land where censorship is nothing out of the ordinary, joining a social network like Twitter seemed like an unlikely move.  The official Twitter account, @uriminzok has a surprising 10,000 followers but it doesn’t follow a single other account. With quick help from Google Translate, the Twitter feed can be roughly translated to English but this provides little help in understanding many of the tweets.  Why join a social network if one does not intend to be social?

Despite a lack of interaction via Twitter, US State Department Spokesman Phillip J. Crowley has made numerous attempts to create a dialog between the US and North Korea with pointed tweets and hashtags of #Korea. He has even gone so far as to specifically reference the country’s censorship on public communication saying, “The North Korean government has joined Twitter, but is it prepared to allow its citizens to be connected as well?”  Crowley is referencing a known penchant for the North Korean government for censoring media. It is believed that despite the government’s involvement in social media, the people of the country are actually unable to view such content. This paradoxical situation seems quite unfair to most of the world.

Twitter is not the only social media outlet North Korea is engaging in. They are also found on Facebook and YouTube. Is this a new form of diplomacy or just a new way to fight back at accusations? North Korea has yet to respond directly to any tweets or posts, yet they continue to tweet and post their own content which includes making accusations and harsh comments towards both South Korea and the United States. Social media could be just a way to progress their political agenda instead of communicate with the outside world. Until a response is given however, why not continue trying to reach out using social media as the new form of diplomacy?

Connectivity, Politics, & Diplomacy

Posted by PoliticalCampaigns on May 27th, 2008 | no comments

Here is a great post by Rob Paterson on Connectivity, Politics, & Diplomacy.

Roger Cohen writes today in the Times about the cultural split between a world view that is all about division and one that is about connectivity.

Surely this is the heart of the 2.0 adoption cycle for anyone or any organization. Is it all about “me” and my tribe or is it about “us” and how we fit into the larger world and affect each other?

My sense is that what ever your politics “Me” or “Us” is the great divide.

So how do we get from “Me” to “Us”? Maybe results will help many decide:

This cultural failure has been devastating for Clinton. As Joshua Green chronicles in an important piece in The Atlantic, Obama has used social networking and his user-friendly Web site to develop the money machine, and the youthful engagement, that has swept him forward.

Green notes, “Obama’s claim of 1,276,000 donors is so large that Clinton doesn’t bother to compete.” He gives some other Obama campaign numbers: 750,000 active volunteers and 8,000 affinity groups. In February, a month in which he raised $55 million ($45 million over the Internet), 94 percent of donations were of $200 or less, a number dwarfing small contributions to Clinton and John McCain.

Obama has been a classic Internet-start up, a movement spreading with viral intensity and propelled by some of Silicon Valley’s most creative minds. As with any online phenomenon, he has jumped national borders, stirring as much buzz in Berlin as he does back home.

If you choose the “Me” you cannot compete with another who chooses “Us”. Also if you choose me – you miss the point that the larger world cares about you:

Her most crippling blindness has been to networks, national and global, the threads that bind and have changed society. As David Singh Grewal writes in his excellent new book, “Network Power,” a core tension in the world is that: “Everything is being globalized except politics.”

Grewal continues: “We live in a world in which our relations of sociability — our commerce, culture, ideas, manners — are increasingly shared, coordinated by newly global conversations in these domains, but in which our politics remains inescapably national, centered in the nation states that are the only loci of sovereign decision making.”

The Bush administration has accentuated global awareness of this disjuncture. Connected people around the world were appalled by Bush policies — from the trashing of habeas corpus to renditions — but felt powerless to influence them.

The overwhelming global interest in the current U.S. election is tied in part to a spreading belief that America’s leader may be as important to French lives, for example, as the incumbent in the Élysée Palace.