On April 12, 2018, Dostoevsky Library hosted a RIAC Urban Breakfast on «Facebook Wars and Twitter Protocol: What is Today’s Digital Diplomacy?»
The speakers included Oleg Shakirov, expert at the Center for Strategic Research and RIAC; Anton Gumensky, media researcher, lecturer at the faculties of journalism at MSU and MGIMO, RIAC expert; and Alexander Kramarenko, RIAC Director for Development.
On April 12, 2018, Dostoevsky Library hosted a RIAC Urban Breakfast on «Facebook Wars and Twitter Protocol: What is Today’s Digital Diplomacy?»
The speakers included Oleg Shakirov, expert at the Center for Strategic Research and RIAC; Anton Gumensky, media researcher, lecturer at the faculties of journalism at MSU and MGIMO, RIAC expert; and Alexander Kramarenko, RIAC Director for Development.
At the beginning of the event Oleg Shakirov commented on the latest tweet by Donald Trump about the intentions to conduct a missile strike on targets in Syria, noting that it would be good if the wars were only conducted on Twitter. However there is a close connection between Twitter-reality with the political reality.
Anton Gumensky described the reaction of D. Peskov, the official representative of the Russian government, to D. Trump’s tweet as showcase: "We are supporters of serious approaches, we don’t do the Twitter diplomacy." For the present, we habitually divide the world into offline and online, but in practice such a distinction is nothing more than a way to procrastinate, not to answer at once. One can not ignore digital diplomacy, what is happening on the Internet is no less serious than in reality. Moreover, digital diplomacy can be regarded as an instrument of soft power. However, there is a number of difficulties. First, there is often a discord between the genuine and the ostentatious — what we see around, and what is happening on stage. Secondly, the disappearance of safe public space. The emergence of diplomatic processes on the Internet is the growth of professional, specialized space within public space, as a consequence, the issues are escalated, and there is no freedom of action in the public space anymore. We have yet to overcome these difficulties. But we need to work on this and try to improve the effectiveness of digital diplomacy. We can both make use of the best practices of other players, as well as experiment and take risks, although this opportunity for diplomats is limited by the framework of professional ethics.
Oleg Shakirov focused on the activities of foreign affairs agencies on the Internet. Obviously, our Ministry of Foreign Affairs is actively engaged in digital diplomacy. Though today the status of messages in social networks is not completely clear. In some countries, the MFA tell their diplomats how to communicate on the Internet, these are not yet codified rules of behavior, but, nevertheless, there are attempts to create certain frameworks. MFA use Internet digital technologies to express their point of view, but they act reactively and not proactively: when certain trends occur — attempts are made to adapt. It is necessary to develop a strategic approach in this area, more efficient use of technology, analyzing available resources. The concrete actions might include: exchange of opinions between departments, interviewing staff and building a strategy based on their proposals, appointing ambassadors responsible for the digital agenda (like in Denmark and France), establishing public-private partnership.
Alexander Kramarenko followed up with a case study from the practice of the Russian Embassy in London, considered one of the most active in terms of digital diplomacy within the diplomatic corps. The "star" tweet of the Embassy was published in December 2016 after the expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats by the Obama administration, got thousands of likes and reposts, and doubled the number of the followers. On the basis of this experience, we can identify several factors that are important for the success of diplomacy on Twitter: responsiveness, integrated approach to posting a text written in an understandable language, and the image that attracts attention, as well as the audience, mainly young people. As a conclusion, it was noted that, in general, the digital diplomacy marker today is the contrast between traditional ideas about buttoned up diplomats solving issues on the margins behind closed doors, and open, honest, direct statements in social networks.
At the end of the Urban Breakfast the experts answered the questions.
