Non-Virtual Guest
Published in Kommersant
(Russia) on 24 October 2011
by Elena Chernenko (link to original)
(Russia) on 24 October 2011
by Elena Chernenko (link to original)
Translated from
by Tatiana Sokolova.
Edited by Hoishan Chan.
As it has become known to Kommersant, Alec Ross, the public face of the new “digital diplomacy” and senior adviser to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, is coming to Moscow this week. It is quite an unexpected visit: In Russia, U.S. efforts on the Internet are treated suspiciously and viewed as a “modern method of colonialism” as well as an “instrument for destabilization of unwelcome regimes.”
In the State Department, on the contrary, “digital diplomacy” is considered a prospective instrument of foreign policy. New staff positions have begun to emerge recently in U.S. embassies in a number of countries, including Russia. These newly-opened positions are termed advisers on innovations, who are to bring new strategy of the State Department into life.
Intrigues of Washington’s administration
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is considered a “godmother” of “digital diplomacy.” Under this term it encompassessthe use of the newest information technologies to implement geopolitical tasks. However, at the State Department they prefer to call this new type of foreign policy 21st-century statecraft. The face of this art is 39-year-old Alec Ross, Mrs. Clinton’s senior adviser on innovations. Mr. Ross is coming to Moscow at the end of this week.
The visit will be very interesting, in Russia the State Department’s new invention is treated suspiciously and warily. The public component of “digital diplomacy,” such as the spread of ideologically inspired information via American ambassadors’ blogs, the State Department’s pages on Facebook and Twitter, YouTube channels and others, does not cause concern among Russian diplomats and the military. Nevertheless, “digital diplomacy” has another less hyped side. Kommersant’s source at the Russian ministry of foreign affairs calls it an ultramodern method of colonialism, and an informant at the Collective Security Treaty Organization describes it as an instrument for the destabilization of regimes unwelcome to the U.S.
In particular, the issue is about financing projects creating and distributing new technologies, which allow the evasion of web censorship. Among such projects there are “technological camps,” where dissidents are taught the most advanced Internet technologies, and “serious games” — social and political applications that are created for game platforms and cell phones, aimed at promoting human rights, democratization and protest behavior. Another undisclosed State Department activity (in collaboration with the Pentagon) is the creation of the “shadow Internet” systems as well as independent cell phone networks. The deployment of such systems will allow resisters of authoritarian regimes to exchange information and evade governmental prohibitions.
The critics of “digital diplomacy,” which number quite a few, even in the U.S., are alarmed that such measures can be interpreted by governments of particular countries as interference into domestic affairs, which will lead to an enhancement of the control over the Internet. Russia’s example proves that all these suggestions are not groundless. After the role of social networks in mass mobilization during the “Arab Spring” was revealed and facts of the creation of the “shadow Internet” have been made public by the mass media, at the CSTO they haven begun thinking of developing mechanisms to counteract U.S. efforts.
According to the data possessed by Kommersant, the first meeting of experts of CSTO member countries was held on Sept. 30. One of the main issues on the agenda was “the intrigues of Washington’s administration on the Internet.” The source at the Russian ministry of foreign affairs acknowledged that Moscow would like to possess the same modern diplomatic instruments, but cannot compete with Washington due to “the U.S. hegemony on the Internet and unequal competitive opportunities in the information space.”
“We won’t apologize.”
Alec Ross will have to spend much effort to eliminate the concerns of Moscow. He is intending to meet with Russian governmental officials, including officials from the ministry of foreign affairs, businessmen and students of Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University). Alec Ross himself claimed to Kommersant that the U.S. “won’t apologize for helping people to exercise their universal rights — freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, freedom of information and so on.”*
An informant at the State Department, who asked to keep his name secret, noted that in Washington they “do not understand at all why U.S. diplomatic innovations are treated so negatively in Moscow.” “We are not going to overthrow any regimes or to make revolutions! The whole issue is about how to make diplomacy more modern and effective. The freedom of the Internet is one of the main goals of American diplomacy. We do not pursue any hidden goals in fighting censorship, we just want to help people all over the world communicate freely with each other,”* he claimed.
At the same time, State Department officials, while speaking about “digital diplomacy,” insist that the struggle for Internet freedom is not its main focus. Mr. Ross told Kommersant that his department’s specialists have developed, for instance, a program for Mexican citizens to anonymously inform the police about places where drugs are sold via SMS. “When people know that it is safe for them, they use these technologies willingly,” he explained. “Another example is in Haiti after the earthquake. We provided an opportunity for people to inform via free SMS about the injured, shortage of gas, medicine or food. Also by means of SMS we gathered donations in aid of victims — over $35 billion.”*
On the whole, at the State Department “digital diplomacy” is considered a prospective instrument of foreign policy and is being deliberately promoted. As it has become known to the Kommersant, a new staff position has emerged at the U.S. embassy in Moscow. It is a position for an adviser on innovations, who will be in charge of the implementation of the State Department’s new strategy. Such positions will be soon opened in the key U.S. embassies abroad. Hence, new American projects akin to the Mexican one but developed in accordance with local qualities are likely to appear in Russia.
*Editor’s note: These quotes, while accurately translated, could not be verified.
In the State Department, on the contrary, “digital diplomacy” is considered a prospective instrument of foreign policy. New staff positions have begun to emerge recently in U.S. embassies in a number of countries, including Russia. These newly-opened positions are termed advisers on innovations, who are to bring new strategy of the State Department into life.
Intrigues of Washington’s administration
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is considered a “godmother” of “digital diplomacy.” Under this term it encompassessthe use of the newest information technologies to implement geopolitical tasks. However, at the State Department they prefer to call this new type of foreign policy 21st-century statecraft. The face of this art is 39-year-old Alec Ross, Mrs. Clinton’s senior adviser on innovations. Mr. Ross is coming to Moscow at the end of this week.
The visit will be very interesting, in Russia the State Department’s new invention is treated suspiciously and warily. The public component of “digital diplomacy,” such as the spread of ideologically inspired information via American ambassadors’ blogs, the State Department’s pages on Facebook and Twitter, YouTube channels and others, does not cause concern among Russian diplomats and the military. Nevertheless, “digital diplomacy” has another less hyped side. Kommersant’s source at the Russian ministry of foreign affairs calls it an ultramodern method of colonialism, and an informant at the Collective Security Treaty Organization describes it as an instrument for the destabilization of regimes unwelcome to the U.S.
In particular, the issue is about financing projects creating and distributing new technologies, which allow the evasion of web censorship. Among such projects there are “technological camps,” where dissidents are taught the most advanced Internet technologies, and “serious games” — social and political applications that are created for game platforms and cell phones, aimed at promoting human rights, democratization and protest behavior. Another undisclosed State Department activity (in collaboration with the Pentagon) is the creation of the “shadow Internet” systems as well as independent cell phone networks. The deployment of such systems will allow resisters of authoritarian regimes to exchange information and evade governmental prohibitions.
The critics of “digital diplomacy,” which number quite a few, even in the U.S., are alarmed that such measures can be interpreted by governments of particular countries as interference into domestic affairs, which will lead to an enhancement of the control over the Internet. Russia’s example proves that all these suggestions are not groundless. After the role of social networks in mass mobilization during the “Arab Spring” was revealed and facts of the creation of the “shadow Internet” have been made public by the mass media, at the CSTO they haven begun thinking of developing mechanisms to counteract U.S. efforts.
According to the data possessed by Kommersant, the first meeting of experts of CSTO member countries was held on Sept. 30. One of the main issues on the agenda was “the intrigues of Washington’s administration on the Internet.” The source at the Russian ministry of foreign affairs acknowledged that Moscow would like to possess the same modern diplomatic instruments, but cannot compete with Washington due to “the U.S. hegemony on the Internet and unequal competitive opportunities in the information space.”
“We won’t apologize.”
Alec Ross will have to spend much effort to eliminate the concerns of Moscow. He is intending to meet with Russian governmental officials, including officials from the ministry of foreign affairs, businessmen and students of Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University). Alec Ross himself claimed to Kommersant that the U.S. “won’t apologize for helping people to exercise their universal rights — freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, freedom of information and so on.”*
An informant at the State Department, who asked to keep his name secret, noted that in Washington they “do not understand at all why U.S. diplomatic innovations are treated so negatively in Moscow.” “We are not going to overthrow any regimes or to make revolutions! The whole issue is about how to make diplomacy more modern and effective. The freedom of the Internet is one of the main goals of American diplomacy. We do not pursue any hidden goals in fighting censorship, we just want to help people all over the world communicate freely with each other,”* he claimed.
At the same time, State Department officials, while speaking about “digital diplomacy,” insist that the struggle for Internet freedom is not its main focus. Mr. Ross told Kommersant that his department’s specialists have developed, for instance, a program for Mexican citizens to anonymously inform the police about places where drugs are sold via SMS. “When people know that it is safe for them, they use these technologies willingly,” he explained. “Another example is in Haiti after the earthquake. We provided an opportunity for people to inform via free SMS about the injured, shortage of gas, medicine or food. Also by means of SMS we gathered donations in aid of victims — over $35 billion.”*
On the whole, at the State Department “digital diplomacy” is considered a prospective instrument of foreign policy and is being deliberately promoted. As it has become known to the Kommersant, a new staff position has emerged at the U.S. embassy in Moscow. It is a position for an adviser on innovations, who will be in charge of the implementation of the State Department’s new strategy. Such positions will be soon opened in the key U.S. embassies abroad. Hence, new American projects akin to the Mexican one but developed in accordance with local qualities are likely to appear in Russia.
*Editor’s note: These quotes, while accurately translated, could not be verified.
Previous article![]( "The Heritage of Iraq")
