Facebook Diplomacy

In our latest class, we addressed the effects that social networking and cultural digitization have had on our society. Seeing as how popular American culture has already been widely addressed, I’d rather take a step back and consider what changes these new technologies may bring to other venues, specifically world politics. As an international relations major, dealing with the as-of-now unpredictable effects of social networking on governments and cultures around the world will undoubtedly be a part of my future career.

Exporting the internet around the globe can have positive and negative, intended and unintended consequences. On one hand, having such freedom of information exchange will likely aid idealists in repressive countries. To be able to witness the growth of the internet, a product of free exchanges of ideas, must be inspiring, especially in regions where such rights do not exist. Using the internet to create a global community also reduces the mistrust between peoples, a common driving force behind so many unfortunate events throughout history.

On the other hand, such autonomy of thought makes it extremely difficult for existing institutions to maintain, much less control, their popular image. As we discussed in an earlier class, nations that have tried to take advantage of new technologies to promote a certain image of themselves have often failed. More often, nations are granted new images as a result of collective reflection, or their existing images are reinforced as popular stereotype. It seems as though nations, like all other institutions, are more likely to be changed by the internet through collective uncontrolled forces, rather than a conscious primary effort.

But with specific regard to social networking, how do innovations such as Facebook or Myspace affect national image? The consequences originate at an individual level; nations that tout ideal expectations of its representatives suffer the backlash when those expectations meet with reality, a common occurrence on the internet. Around a year ago, the Israeli military forced its soldiers to regulate their Myspace pages, fearing that pictures of secret military facilities would be posted. About a year before that, a number of Thai citizens were given prison sentences for using the internet to defame the King. In both of these cases, the individual did not meet the expectations of authorities, and by broadcasting it to the world, created a perceived risk to national stability. In the eyes of many, even the possession of a Facebook account by government representatives shows them in an approachable light, and serves to undermine their image of authority

Consider this example I encountered just the other day: For the past few weeks, I have been working on behalf of an organization that interfaces with D.C.-area embassies. My task on Wednesday was to telephone each embassy and speak to an appropriate representative, most often the cultural attaché, to inquire as to whether or not they would be attending an upcoming event. When one of them confirmed their attendance to me, I had to enter their name on a spreadsheet, along with their official position at the embassy. In order to get their position, I entered their name on Google, hoping to find some mention of them on a diplomatic web site. To my surprise, the first link listed under each of their names was a Facebook account.

Now, to me at least, a Facebook account is something that signifies an intimate network of friends. I generally think of it as a product of the youth, whose projection of themselves often include possession of a Facebook account as a common characteristic. It is a trait I generally associate with those who haven’t entered the professional sphere as of yet. To see diplomatic representatives, some of whom are customarily referred to as “His/Her Excellency”, as a part of this youthful subculture was not only surprising, but it altered the “distinguished” image I had of them. And yet it begs the question, how can a state effectively represent itself abroad when its delegates are allowed, and accept, such personal liberties of image?