Introduction
Web-based public diplomacy is a relatively recent development. To better understand this, it is important to firstly present what diplomacy is. Diplomacy can be defined as the established method of influencing the decisions and behaviour of foreign governments and peoples through dialogue, negotiation, and other measures short of war and violence . Unlike traditional forms of diplomacy, this new-era ‘web based public diplomacy’ is revolutionary and unseen in the sense that it mobilises public citizens to act in a state’s interest, oftentimes without the consciousness of what is going on. What we see is public citizens acting as diplomatic agents who push their state’s interests upon the policymaking of other states to achieve a desired outcome . In this article, web based public diplomacy will be closely examined through the medium of social media, which has in recent years dominated the web space due to its notorious and often high user presence from different demographics. When putting this theory into practise, we will be looking closely at China - in particular the case of Xinjiang - to observe the effect foreign social media use has had, if any, at influencing the way the state has dealt with these regions.
Bottom Up Approach
Unlike traditional diplomacy which manifests through the ruling class of a country, web-based public diplomacy may push issues which were not heavily considered in a country’s foreign policy to be more carefully reviewed. Social media, in particular, has a key role in informing a domestic country’s citizens about issues occurring across the globe and taking a specific route of action. As we oftentimes see in countries with high levels of civil liberties such as the UK and US, which have a combined total score of political and civil liberties ranked at 93 and 83 respectively , citizens have a greater ability to petition their governments on issues they find important. In 2019, more than 400 pages of internal Chinese documents were leaked, exposing how China was enforcing the mass detention of Muslims in East Turkmenistan. The content ranged from private speeches of President Xijing to police instructions of what to say to returning students to the region in regards to the whereabouts of their families: “it is just that their thinking has been infected by unhealthy thoughts”. As this is made known to the public citizenry of a foreign country, social media has oftentimes raised awareness of the issue, at times causing a frenzy where the issue was previously under ongoing investigation.
68
How does social media influence state actions, with a focus on Xinjiang, China.
In the case of Xinjiang, following said frenzy, the Chinese ambassador to the UK, Lui Xiaoming, appeared on the BBC news where he was asked questions on the detainment facilities for Uighyrs in Xinjiang . This was at the same time that the British public became increasingly informed of the happenings in Xinjiang and can be said to be a response to social-media induced campaigning against the actions of the Chinese Communist Party.
Fake News
When dealing with social media, one must remember to ensure that not everything should be taken for scripture. Take for example a social media publication from December of 2019 where a German user posted a series of images and videos he claimed were from Xinjiang in China and showed China’s Uighyr Muslim minority being mistreated and tortured. Despite being framed in a different light, it turned out that the content came from 2017 and 2004, the former from Indonesia where media outlets claimed the video to show the beating of three teenagers accused of theft, and the latter an acting scene from 2004 made to replicate Chinese treatment of members of the Falun Gong spiritual movement . By the time the post was debunked, it had already amassed over 200,000 views. While this is a cause for concern on the individual level for users of social media, it is unlikely that it would influence government action directly, as western intelligence would typically proceed to verify the sources. However, in a longer-term sense, the individuals exposed to the content may proceed to pressure governments over the issue despite their views being incorrectly constructed. This leads to questions on the overall effectiveness of social media as a tool for web based public diplomacy.
Social media as a catalyst rather than a cause for change
As opposed to thinking of social media as the defining cause of change, one can be more precise in stating that social media is rather a catalyst for change. This is because the media and the accounts of individuals in society are nothing new; we see it in cable TV, magazines, newspapers and books. What social media does differently however, is change the speed to which the public is informed about particular contentious issues. Unlike ever before, millions of people can consume content in a matter of minutes . Whether this is for better or for worse is determined by the integrity and truth behind what is being consumed, however what is certain is that this revolutionises media consumption where action and awareness can be raised in a matter of days, as opposed to weeks. If we apply this to the case of raising awareness to genocide, then there is no question to social media’s effectiveness here.
Conclusion
Web based public diplomacy has emerged from the internet and traditional social media sites like YouTube, Facebook, Instagram and Twitter. These platforms herald a new form of diplomacy where authority is given to the user who chooses to raise awareness of issues, such as the detention of Muslims in the Xinjiang region of China, and where this greater public awareness consequently results in a faster government response to the matter.
69
Marko Mosquera
This bottom up approach of web-based diplomacy is revolutionary and has never been seen before. Web based public diplomacy manifested through social media isn’t without its flaws, and users should keep in mind the possibility that they may be consuming fake news, checking to see if a source has been verified before allowing it to be consumed by more people.
Ultimately, this vast number of users that social media manages is what allows us to call it a catalyst rather than a cause for change, as what would have previously raised awareness in weeks can now be done in hours. When thinking about genocide, this allows for a rapid response to a crime against humanity, as seen in Rwanda where hundreds of thousands died in a short couple-month span. Web based public diplomacy could prevent such atrocities from happening again.
Comments