Content uploaded by Agathangelos Stavropoulos
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Agathangelos Stavropoulos on Dec 22, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Digital Diplomacy in Asia: Should
developing countries in Asia follow the
lead of the digitalization in Diplomacy?
Dissertation Supervisor: Dr. Robert Yates
Candidate Number: 76336
Word Count: 12.473
Academic Year 2018/19
A dissertation submitted to the University of Bristol in accordance with the
requirements for the award of the degree of MSc in International Relations in
the Faculty of Social Sciences and Law.
The research conducted for and presented in this dissertation was granted
ethical approval by the SPAIS Research Ethics Committee.
2
Declaration:
This dissertation represents my original work, contains no plagiarism
has not been submitted in whole or in part for another degree and is
solely for the purpose of my Master of Science Degree in
International Relations from University of Bristol.
3
ABSTRACT:
Digital Diplomacy represents one of the most recent evolutions on the
conduction of diplomatic and international affairs. Facilitating traditional
diplomacy, Digital Diplomacy gives the opportunity of transparent
intercommunication between the states all over the world while democratizing
the information of diplomatic affairs making citizens aware more than ever.
This dissertation is targeting to show how Digital Diplomacy is conducted in
Asia and how emerging powers and developing countries can adopt Digital
Diplomacy for their benefit. The reasons behind the analysis in Asia are the
political controversies that exist, the powerful countries that are there and the
rich cultural background which influences the way of its conduction. For these
reasons outlined there are also many potential threats and risks in adapting to
Digital Diplomacy. But analyzing those threats it is underlined that the benefits
outnumber the risks and the facilitation of the diplomacy through the digital
means and the social media provides new possibilities for the political and
4
social factors of a country. Presenting successful paradigms and cases of
Digital Diplomacy such as India we present how this can become influential
for neighboring and developing countries to follow the same path. Showing
the conduction of the Digital Diplomacy through a plethora of cases in Asia
which have different political systems and social ideologies such as China,
Russia and Israel provide the explanation of how different countries
depending on their background can also achieve successfully to adopt the
Digital Diplomacy methods. This way, concluding on the beneficial factors of
Digital Diplomacy and how to surpass the potential threats, the justification of
why countries of Asia should embrace Digital Diplomacy is provided.
Table of contents:
DECLARATION:......................................................3
ABSTRACT:...........................................................4
LIST OF PICTURES:................................................6
ABBREVIATIONS LIST:............................................7
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO DIGITAL DIPLOMACY
AND ITS EVOLUTION..............................................8
1.1 WHAT IS DIPLOMACY?..............................................8
1.2 RESEARCH TOPIC AND QUESTION..............................10
1.3 DIPLOMACY AS A KEY TO THE FUTURE........................12
1.4 DIGITAL DIPLOMACY.................................................14
1.5 RATIONALE OF THE RESEARCH AND METHODOLOGY....16
1.6 SYNOPSIS.................................................................18
CHAPTER 2: DIGITAL DIPLOMACY IN INDIA AS A
PARADIGM FOR ASIA...........................................21
2.1 ASIA AND THE NEW MEDIA........................................21
2.2 UNTAPPING DIGITAL DIPLOMACY IN ASIA THE CASE OF
NEPAL............................................................................ 23
5
2.3 FROM ANCIENT DIPLOMACY TO DIGITAL DIPLOMACY IN
INDIA.............................................................................28
CHAPTER 3: DIGITAL DIPLOMACY AND THE BIG
POWERS.............................................................34
3.1 THE DIGITAL DIPLOMACY OF ISRAEL: THE
DIGITALIZATION AS PART OF POLITICAL POWER.................34
3.2 THE RUSSIAN DIGITAL DIPLOMACY: AN EARLY STORY OF
SUCCESS AND CONTROVERSIES.........................................36
3.3 FROM ANCIENT DIPLOMACY TO DIGITAL DIPLOMACY IN
CHINA.............................................................................40
CHAPTER 4 - DIGITAL DIPLOMACY IN OTHER ASIAN
COUNTRIES: FOLLOWING THE LEAD AND
SURPASSING THE THREATS..................................44
4.1 EMERGING DIGITAL DIPLOMACY IN ASIA....................44
4.2 THREATS AND DANGERS OF DIGITAL DIPLOMACY........51
4.3 CONCLUSION: THE IMPORTANCE OF DIGITAL DIPLOMACY
......................................................................................54
BIBLIOGRAPHY:...................................................57
List of pictures:
6
PICTURE 1 THE MOST FOLLOWED LEADERS IN THE WORLD FOR 2018
(6 OUT OF 10 ARE ASIAN)PHOTO WAS FOUND:
HTTPS://MEDIUM.COM/DIGITAL-DIPLOMACY/2018-IN-REVIEW-TOP-
10-DIGITAL-DIPLOMACY-MOMENTS-CE9E2745035A].............32
PICTURE 2 THE 'MOCKING-TWEET' OF RUSSIAN EMBASSY TO US
PRESIDENT.( PHOTO WAS FOUND:
HTTP://WWW.TEDMONTGOMERY.COM/REMARKS/16.7-
12/OBAMA/LAME.DUCK.HTML>)........................................36
ABBREVIATIONS LIST:
o2G: Second Generation Cellular Technology
o4G: Fourth Generation Cellular Technology
o5G: Fifth Generation Cellular Technology
oASEAN: Association of Southeast Asian Nations
oBBC: British Broadcasting Corporation
oECESG: The European Campaign to End the Siege in Gaza
oEU: European Union
oID: Identity Document
oIHH: Humanitarian Relief Foundation
oISM: International Solidarity Movement
oMADAD: MEA in Aid of Diaspora in Distress
oMEA: Ministry of External Affairs
oMFA: Ministry of Foreign Affairs
oNATO: North Atlantic Treaty Organization
oNGO: Non-Governmental Organizations
oTV: Television
oUAE: United Arab Emirates
7
oUK: United Kingdom
oUN: United Nations
oUNDP: United Nations Development Programme
oUNV: United Nations Volunteers
oUS: United States
oUSA: United States of America
CHAPTER 1: Introduction to Digital Diplomacy
and its evolution
1.1 What is Diplomacy?
For more than 2000 years Diplomacy has been the main key to define
the external relations of a state. Hershey (1911) explained how ancient Greek
city-states used to conduct their interstate agreements and policies amongst
each other as part of their policies. This in the ancient world would create
affiliations between the city-states towards common enemies and would
endorse trading among them, thus creating an early form of diplomatic
relations. This way they would represent common interests or dispute over
conflicting interests until they would find a common ground. The
unbureaucratic form of ancient Greek diplomacy and the self-sufficiency as a
target, is far from the consideration of diplomacy on its form today but the
ancient internationalism permits to understand its origins (Adcock, 1948). The
origins of ancient internationalism can help not only understand diplomacy but
in a globalized context of the 21st century can show that the new means
facilitate the way of conducting diplomacy and its impact in the international
political affairs. In the ancient world, and even nowadays diplomacy is shaped
by the adopted policies of the powerful states, thus the world adopts their
methods of conducting diplomacy.
8
Kissinger (1994) explains that diplomacy does not represent a specific
set of policies or methodology on its strategy management, but instead
depending on the morality of political beliefs of the most powerful states in
that period. More Specifically, he explains that in the 20th century in the post-
world-wars era diplomacy was influenced by the American policies which
drove the international diplomacy in more interventive strategies towards
catastrophically endemic domestic policies. This explanation permits to
understand the exogenic relations of states as a part of Diplomacy, but further
differentiate diplomacy on international or external and domestic or public
diplomacy. On a definition-oriented scheme, modern diplomacy is trying to
achieve the negotiation or the political mediation between states or countries
based on dialogue and discussion (Freeman and Marks, 2017).
In the era of Digital Diplomacy, these interstate interactions and
communications are achieved in an easier way, thus making diplomacy one of
the most important strategies. Diplomacy is built towards a day-to-day basis of
political interaction, which means that most of the times it concerns
neighboring countries or conflict of interests (Seely, 2011). In modern day,
through a digitalized concept and a globalized form of diplomacy, it is also
related with states which might be far from each other, based on the
expression and representation of common interests or conflicting interests. On
this way this dissertation will discuss, aspects of digital diplomacy and their
impact on global politics, emphasize on potential ameliorations, examine
ongoing digitalization in diplomacy and draw paradigms through successful
cases centralizing in the cases of Asian countries.
9
1.2 Research Topic and Question
Explaining the overview of Diplomacy and the amelioration of politics
because of Diplomacy, will permit the analysis of the diplomacy through new
means in politics. Such paradigms are presented through Kissinger’s work
and in the same time they explain the political involvement of politics into
influencing the diplomacy. On this way along with the social impact and the
politically powerful countries impact’ to diplomacy, we can see the influence
that diplomacy has in the foreign policy making and the connection between
foreign policy and public diplomacy (Ayhan, 2018). Diplomacy is being shaped
and is shaping a world of digital globalization and the world’s social and
political impact of diplomacy is a consignment to shape the future. This way
the analysis of potential digitalization of diplomacy through extensive analysis
of new media influence, will permit to understand the progression because of
diplomacy. In the meantime, current projects of digital diplomacy in Asia and
how diplomacy can be shaped in the future and the 21st century will be
unfolded. The extensive analysis and study of the past in combination with
analysis of the outcomes and potential benefits can show what diplomacy can
achieve in the future (Adesina, 2017). Additionally, it will show how diplomacy
will contribute on shaping the future in Asian countries as it did before and
now, we live in a globalized context of interstate interactions.
As a matter of fact, diplomacy is really linked with culture and politics
so we will analyze the impact of the diplomatic culture in some cases. Culture
10
shapes our taste and diplomacy as part of relation-defining technique can
augment and enrich the relationship of two countries and thus produce
cultural outcome, which happens in the case of India and Nepal (Pant, 2019).
Culture bring people together and diplomacy has as a target to mediate in
situations so their connection might lead to potential analytic strategies for
digital diplomacy through a cultural perspective as well. After analyzing the
multispectral connections that diplomacy has, presenting cases of
digitalization in diplomacy in general we can set paradigms which can
influence the future of that new diplomacy. Debates in International Relations
literature will help define the route of diplomacy driven through past for the
future, while as the analysis progress a question and an answer will emerge
that of “Digital Diplomacy in Asia: should developing countries in Asia follow
the lead of the digitalization in Diplomacy?
The answer will unfold itself in each chapter analyzing how and the
reasons why diplomacy shaped the world of today and thus the future. Finding
ourselves in a day-to-day interacting political world is due to the process of
diplomacy and digitalization. That means, that diplomacy had the basis of
interactions in political means in the past and with the addition of digitalization
can be the most prominent influence of world politics. Leaders interact in a
matter of seconds, whilst information is transmitted every minute across the
world, even though this can create trouble of diplomatic conflicts of interests,
this can also spread the diplomatic interaction as one of the most commonly
used strategies and policies (Manor, 2016).
11
1.3 Diplomacy as a key to the future
In the past, as stated earlier driven through Kissinger’s work (1994) the
most prominent powers used to shape diplomacy. The present-day diplomacy
is a mixture of influence through the years. The diplomacy conducted in the
21st century is mainly traditional diplomacy but the last years also Digital
Diplomacy emerged. On this way many different political aspects come
together. As an example, public diplomacy now is linked with global politics
and foreign policies (Bjola, 2018). Hocking et al. (2012) explain that the role of
traditional diplomacy will still play a crucial role through the 21st century. The
reasons behind their justification is that the new means of diplomacy still hold
the past methods of conducting traditional diplomacy and in the same time
they ameliorate the way of its conduction. Digital Diplomacy is a method of
conducting traditional diplomacy such as public diplomacy and communicating
it digitally with the foreign policy conduction (Singh, 2018).
Additionally, with the technology and the presence of digital diplomacy,
globalization will be one of the main keys which will change diplomacy and
influence the world politics. Despite the fact that the state will be an
autonomous power and diplomacy will be centralized towards states,
diplomacy will have a global governance shape (Hocking et al., 2012). There
will always be some controversies but even in China’s case which will be
analyzed in the third chapter Digital Diplomacy is conducted and can influence
multiple states to follow it (D’Hooghe, 2007) (Garver, 2005) (Westcott, 2008).
12
Furthermore, diplomacy will continuously emerge enriching itself with
knowledge which will facilitate the communication of global politics. All these
situations, digitalization, globalization and diplomacy combined will help the
process of maturity of diplomacy (Hocking et al., 2012). This process will help
diplomacy become a policy objective and through money investment and
training towards the digitalized means in diplomacy and this “maturity” will
lead to expertise in digital diplomacy and future relevant projects surpassing
dangers (Adesina, 2017). Accordingly, Ministries of Foreign Affairs (MFA),
adapting the technological means will contribute towards this direction
emphasizing to the Foreign Policy aspects of a publicly communicated
diplomacy, thus making it more multispectral than ever (Hocking et al., 2012).
These changes in Diplomacy will potentially change the world of
politics as it is known to be conducted nowadays. More specifically, the role of
Ministries of Foreign Affairs (MFA) will change; it will evolve as an adaptation
mechanism of global changes. This means that the traditional features of the
MFA’s will adapt in the new diplomacy era and will be enriched with skills and
expertise (Hocking et al., 2012). Meanwhile, Hun Yun and Toth (2009)
express that the future of diplomacy will establish the domestication of public
diplomacy and foreign publics in other cases, giving the example of migration.
This way they underline that there will be a linkage in future public diplomacy
concepts with the public affairs which then will be connected with Foreign
Affairs, widening the targets of diplomacy in the future (Yun and Toth, 2009).
Diplomacy has always been a key to the future, the main justification of
this is because it never stayed stable but always evolved in the developmental
context of an era. This has happened from the venture of the first telegraph
13
message to the first fax machine and managed to wire into the modems of
internet era and digitality (Adesina, 2017). On this way and via multiple
approaches and analysis of diplomacy in the next chapters either from a
realist, idealist and even from an interpretative point of view can shape not
only the international relations and the global politics of today but evenly their
future.
1.4 Digital Diplomacy
The “venture” of Digital Diplomacy is of a great importance since it
seems that it has the power to form the world politics in the future and to form
policies in matter of seconds. Technological means have now a big impact in
our everyday life and as a result they gain more and more official status in the
world politics. Digital Diplomacy introduced itself in the scene of world politics
less than 15 years ago. In a long-term scale it is irrelevant to comment about
success or to try to realize the diplomatic interactions since every step and
every outcome is unpredictable. Westcott (2008) underlines that the main
impact of technology to international relations and diplomacy is the fact that it
can influence things to be done faster. Additionally, he explains that it
multiplies the voices and give opportunities which were uneven before. On
this way it constructs interests and complicates the international decision
making which is shaped in a more globalized form than in the past.
Meanwhile, the fact that can influence the part of diplomacy in
international relations and global politics is the fast circulation of information.
The reason behind that through Westcott’s (2008) specter is that since
information spread fast and we do not know whether or what percentage of
14
them are truth, they can influence decisions and policies. This implies that not
only diplomacy in its digital presence became faster and easier, but also
decision-making became faster which in some cases can be threatening for
humanity or should put itself into consideration. In other words, technology
and digital era, even though they might seem that complicates the situation, in
contrary it simplifies it (Westcott, 2008). This means, that the new means of
digital diplomacy is the simplification of the traditional diplomacy methods.
The facilitation of the communication in intrastate and interstate ways is thus
achieved by the fast enaction of the traditional diplomacy (Westcott, 2008).
These communications, to both the public and other states along with the
decision-making can be part of both public diplomacy and foreign policies
(Hanson, 2012).
Although Digital Diplomacy presents these benefits, of facilitation of
communication, Bjola (2018) underlines that there is not only the target of
public communication but its transformation and connection with Foreign
Policy strategies. The enlargement of the traditional diplomacy is though the
reason that digital diplomacy became simpler, but both a reason why it can
become dangerous at times. Westcott (2008) explained the importance of
trying to analyze the potential benefits or the results in general of digital
diplomacy, but he noted that an attempt of getting to a verdict for its results
would be wrong because it is early. Even though there have been only ten
years since then, the facilitations of digital diplomacy made the results
obvious year by year. For these reasons even the results of the effectiveness
of digital diplomacy were facilitated and were faster than expected.
15
There is a wide opinion that in contrary with many other means which
were digitalized and had not the best outcome, diplomacy has shown
incredible results (Bjola, 2018). This is happening because diplomacy is a
communicative method and strategy and as technological evolution of
communication advances, diplomacy integrates and develops itself in the
context of the new-developing methods. On this way the interaction of
technological means and the state communicate information to the public
which can show that Digital Diplomacy has a public diplomacy side. On the
meantime, digital diplomacy facilitates the communication and nowadays
even Ministries of Foreign Affairs (MFA) use this method to communicate with
other states and their minorities which are living abroad (Bjola, 2018).
1.5 Rationale of the Research and Methodology
After presenting a slight overview of diplomacy evolution and
adaptation on each era and unfolding potential future forms of diplomacy and
its influence on this dissertation a discussion of existing literature and new
digital means which develop new conducting methods such as Digital
Diplomacy will examine the relations and the impact of their interactions in
Asia. Mainly through idealistic views of scholars and realism as well as with
both qualitative and quantitative elements comparative case studies will try to
answer the question of this Thesis: Digital Diplomacy in Asia: should
developing countries in Asia follow the lead of the digitalization in Diplomacy?
Accordingly, diplomatic “ingredients” such as public diplomacy and foreign
policy of Asian states in their digitalized form will be presented on their
conduction ways further in the next chapter via the cases of India and Nepal
16
to show how can Digital Diplomacy can help and influence relations of two
countries. The analysis of digital diplomacy in the context of Asian politics and
relations will then present the reasons why it shapes the future of relations in
Asia and why developing countries or even powerful states in Asia should
adopt the conduction of Digital Diplomacy.
As a result, since the technological advancement is one of the most
prominent influencers of Digital Diplomacy and Asia is one of the leaders in
technological advancements in the third chapter, an analysis of some cases of
digital diplomacy in powerful Asian states and how they shape their strategies
in global politics will help understanding more the Digital Diplomacy. More
specifically as stated earlier digital diplomacy brings together public
diplomacy, public affairs and foreign policies while communicating publicly
internal and international affairs fact which some countries are trying to secure
as much as possible as happens with China (Bjola and Jiang, 2015). One of
the other reasons why digital diplomacy in Asia is of crucial interest is
because even though digital diplomacy is widely spread and conducted there
are still many countries in Asia which do not have the mainstream social
media (Adesina, 2017) but as an alternative they create their own social
media (Bjola and Jiang, 2015) (D’ Hooghe, 2007). Additionally, the
examination of the Asian context finds its reasons in an increasingly
influencing political background of East and Central Asia in the world politics.
The Cases of Israel, Russia and China on the third chapter will present the
future of digital diplomacy in Asia as the mediator of both instate and outstate
relations whilst how they can set Digital Diplomacy paradigms to be followed
by other Asian States. Meanwhile, this chapter raises awareness on how
17
situations of Digital Diplomacy can become a threat (Garver, 2005) which will
then be analyzed further on the 4th chapter.
Despite the fact that digital diplomacy presents many potential benefits
and facilitates the way of conducting global politics, the communication of this
amount of information can also hide multiple dangers. Shaping the future of
Diplomacy Horky (2011) exclaims that diplomacy in its technological form,
requires an adaptation of diplomats as mediators of interpreting information.
This way in the last chapter the analysis of risks of digital diplomacy will
emphasize on possible ways of securing the digital diplomacy from potential
threats and how the last years more countries have started building towards
this direction. Adesina (2017) explaining the potential risks of digital diplomacy
denotes that a second “Wikileaks” data leak would threaten the diplomatic
relations between states and would put the global political stability in doubt.
For this reason, an answer of solutions of those threats would show why
Digital Diplomacy would be of crucial importance to be adopted by Asian
states. On this way in combination with the previous chapters this dissertation
will emphasize on the Digital Diplomacy strengths and the potential influences
in Asia while trying to defend Digital Diplomacy in case of threat.
1.6 Synopsis
On this chapter of the Dissertation we analyzed what diplomacy
constitutes. Presenting Hershey’s (1911), Adcock’s (1947) and Kissinger’s
(1994) points an overview of the evolution of diplomacy showed the capability
of diplomacy to adapt in each era. On this way presenting the basis of
diplomacy we explained how its conduct changes depending on which are the
18
powerful states and the context of the era (Kissinger, 1994). Explaining the
main targets of diplomacy, the importance of representation of national
interests of a state in the whole world and the political meditation seem to be
of crucial importance (Seely, 2011), (Freeman and Marks 2017). But also, as
Horky (2011) exclaimed in the digital form of diplomacy there is a link which
requires the diplomat as a mediator towards the continuously influencing
circulation of information.
Introducing briefly the connection of public diplomacy and foreign
policies, with Digital Diplomacy which will be presented through case studies
in the next chapter, and the connection of foreign policies with digital
diplomacy (Biola, 2018), the research question unfolds. On this way the
political aspects of diplomacy come into consideration and the question
“Digital Diplomacy in Asia: should developing countries in Asia follow the lead
of the digitalization in Diplomacy? Arises. The influence of technologies in
diplomacy is helping this way to achieve the maturity of diplomacy, which
influences then the politics through the publicly communicated foreign and
public affairs (Hocking et al., 2012), (Hun Yun and Toth, 2009).
Additionally, driven through Westcott’s (2008) way of perceiving and
analyzing digital diplomacy, on this chapter the adoption of the latest into the
digital era will enact the traditional means of diplomacy in a faster
technologically advanced pace was discussed. This contributes on facilitating
diplomacy while creating more political interactions and bringing together the
traditional form of public diplomacy and foreign policies (Hanson, 2012). Thus,
introducing the influences of digital diplomacy to politics and culture in order to
be analyzed further in the next chapters in the cases of China and India.
19
Finally analyzing the reasons of the importance of conducting research
related with the influence of digital diplomacy in politics, on this chapter it was
outlined that it will be of big interest to concentrate the research mainly in the
impact in Asia since it has many technological advancements and
contradictions while the economies are rising rapidly (Adesina, 2017). While,
trying to understand Digital Diplomacy and prevent potential threats, the case
studies that will be analyzed later on in this dissertation, will be as leading
paradigms and successful cases to follow and examine how the global politics
are shaped via the use of Digital Diplomacy.
20
CHAPTER 2: Digital Diplomacy in India as a
paradigm for Asia
2.1 Asia and the new media
One of the main reasons why the ongoing analysis of digital diplomacy
will be centered in the context of Asia finds an answer on the complexity of the
continent and its history. Big countries, different political regimes and statuses
as well as a variety of rich cultural elements are some of the things which
enrich and make Asia a really interesting case for Digital Diplomacy analysis.
Historically, many countries such as China or India, have a big tradition
in diplomacy. This is important since the more a country is historically
advanced in a domain the more influences it has and the more it advances.
Despite the historical facts of diplomacy in Asia that we are going to present
on this chapter, the current situation also has a big impact on the future of
diplomacy and digital diplomacy in Asia. Horky (2011) explains that in Asia,
countries such as India and China have been presenting great economic
growth the last years and along with the growing political influence, they will
have an impact to the augmenting digital diplomacy. Additionally, great
political powers such as Russia do also belong and influence the political
scene in Asia thus making the political background more multifaceted (Horky,
2011). In the meantime, Adesina (2017) exclaimed that it is important to
21
research the new means of diplomacy though the lens of Digital Diplomacy
whilst Asia remains a continent of contradictions and many countries do not
even have twitter or means to access social platforms. So, from this point of
view it is important on this chapter to discuss how the world’s biggest
Democracy contributes towards the direction of Digital Diplomacy and aids the
in-need neighboring countries (Adhikari, 2015). Meanwhile this chapter after
comparing two emergency situations of Japan in 2011 and Nepal in 2015 will
unveil that countries who conduct Digital Diplomacy are easier to seek for
help and contact their crisis in case of emergency (Adhikari, 2015).
From the other hand on the next chapter the contradictions that exist in
Asia will be compared after analysis. Fellow great power Israel which is also
considered to one of the most successful paradigms of Digital Diplomacy in
the world. The contradiction stands on the fact that even though Asia since its
ancient diplomacy has as a target to maintain peace (Mathur, 1963), Israel
has as target to promote their motives and justify their actions through
religious reasons and then reconstruct the country’s image through nation-
branding (Diller, et al., 1994) (Gordon, 2008). Whilst, the other contradiction
unveils how neighboring countries in Asia can have collaborative policies and
good relations under the law of Digital Diplomacy or propagandizing each
other boosting tensions for years and years. Thus, the verdict is one that
Digital Diplomacy has the means to promote national and international
interests, create and strengthen securities which can be a potential threat to
Digital Diplomacy (Pant, 2019) acquiring this way only the beneficial part of it
for the Asian countries.
22
2.2 Untapping Digital Diplomacy in Asia the case of
Nepal
Developing countries in Asia are trying the last years to reach and
follow the lead of their neighboring countries in order to achieve
advancements in the technology domains and create digital diplomacy. Great
Powers of Asia such as China and India are conducting not only their
diplomacy but also are the ones who are managing the soft power of their
neighbors (Garver, 2005). As an example, trying to digitalize the politics of a
country is also a start of leaning on digital diplomacy and one of the latest
examples is that of Nepal. The situation Nepal finds itself in the 21 st century is
a political transition, the end of monarchy, an acceleration of advancements
and a changing world (Cranston, 2013). Whilst geopolitical reasons and the
location of Nepal in the map and the Himalayas make Nepal one of the most
interesting cases in Asia since it becomes the border of China and India, the
two greatest powers in Asia at the moment. Following this, Nepal this way
becomes influenced in a game of political influence in Asia and great powers
as stated before are using their soft power methods to represent their political
interests throughout their neighbors. In the Nepal case, India seems to be
influencing the situation and Nepal is depending in many technological and
political aspects in India (Cranston, 2013). All the aforementioned in
23
combination with Chan’s (2019) article unfolds that since 2017 Nepal is trying
to get digitalized and provide better network access to the public.
Digitalization is one of the biggest steps towards any kind of independence in
the 21st century, thus its influence is of great importance. Until 2017 Nepal
telecommunications were providing maximum 2G services whilst from 2017
onwards they launched 4G and have been awaiting for 5G, this in
combination with the Digital Nepal Framework which started in 2018 and the
presence of the government in social media since 2015, established an early
developing adaptation of Digital Diplomacy in Nepal. More specifically since
2015 the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Nepal is posting regularly conducting its
Twiplomacy, but even though Nepal population is around thirty million there
are less than 150.000 people following the foreign affairs, which still shows
that there is room for progression. Additionally, earlier in 2019 Nepal launched
its first satellite, becoming the latest country that had launched a satellite
achieving independence from India’s satellites (Chan, 2019) and creating
space for more technological advancements and bigger conduction of Digital
Diplomacy.
After expressing the reasons why developing countries such as Nepal
are perusing to acquire as many technological advancements as possible and
less influence by powerful states it is important to unveil the importance of
having some Digital Diplomacy features jointly with neighboring states. Pant
(2019) presents the neighboring relations between Nepal and India. According
to his article, the two countries have been known to have really good
relations. As a matter of fact, their borders permit them the free circulation
between the two countries which can also cause international threats in the
24
Security system according to an Interpol report. But the important point where
the focus should be centralized is that Asia is rising, and this can give to all
Asian states more opportunities. More specifically, Nepal is geopolitically of
great importance since it can communicate the relations between China and
India (Pant, 2019).
With the political power shifting from West to East and so many
countries with different political interests and religious interests being in Asia
also the dangers are rising along with the possibilities of growth. External
powers such as United States are mediating in relations of countries such as
Israel and Saudi Arabia, whilst in Asia there are neighboring countries such as
Russia and China, North and South Korea along with Japan, and even Turkey
with the European borders. For these reasons, countries such as Nepal which
is in the middle of two great powers can either have potential benefits or
become a danger zone for terrorist groups who want to threat the political
stability or spread their beliefs. To prevent such cases and endorse the
national securities, Pant (2019) presents that countries such as Nepal and
India given that they present warm relations can set-up jointly Intelligence
Commissions based on Digital Diplomacy aspects. On this way they can
provide further securitization on their Digital Diplomacy and achieve a
sustainability between their relations despite the emerging dangers that may
occur because of media, fake news or wrong usage of digitality (Pant, 2019).
Digitalization emerge as a product of technological achievements and
social structures, which are considered as a powerful force for
democratization because of their capacity to diffuse rapidly the information
25
through different social media platforms. As expected, digitalization penetrate
politics and thus into foreign policy and the diplomacy of the states (Manor,
2016) (Hocking and Melissen, 2015). We mention hereby, the transmission of
natural disaster by social media in Japan in 2011, which enabled them to be
quickly activated against the upcoming consequences of the earthquake. In
contrast, two powerful earthquakes above 7 on Richter hit Nepal in April and
May 2015 and on this case, there were no previously information by social
media. The number of deaths was 9,000 and over 3.5 million people stayed
homeless. Even today, 80% of those who have lost their homes still live in
temporary housing.
Model demonstration houses have been erected in this area with the
help of 3D technology. The construction sites were used to train the local
builders. A total of 283 masters were trained, including 61 women,” says
Pravakar Thapa, UN project coordinator (UNV: United Nations Volunteers,
2015). The UN van visits rural communities to transmit and explain
construction techniques and to assist in the implementation of the measures
proposed by the authorities. An engineer advises owners to make sure they
comply with legal requirements (UNV: United Nations Volunteers, 2015). With
the aid of new digital technologies, the government recorded and identified
20,000 citizens who cannot undertake the reconstruction themselves because
they are disabled, elderly and in need of financial support (Adhikari, 2015)
(UNV: United Nations Volunteers, 2015). Although earlier information about
the upcoming earthquake did not necessarily existed as in the case of Japan,
technological upgrading and issues to record the population in need as well
as the development of sound technology digital structures to build houses
26
after the earthquake were feasible and 70% constructions were restored 3
years later. Financial resources for advancing the reconstruction works
appear to be a difficult task for the government as the third anniversary of the
Gorkha Earthquake nears. The White Paper on the Economic Situation of
Nepal was unveiled by Finance Minister who recorded the need in managing
resources for achieving reconstruction. The document also shows
mobilization of foreign aid in the reconstruction sector. Digital information
seeking financial help was effective and provided under the auspices of the
EU Humanitarian Aid Office (Adhikari, 2015). Moreover, the Indian
government has agreed to provide the huge amount of $16.2 million grant to
the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the UN Office for
Project Services in Asian Region and for socio-technical facilitation for this
purpose. Additionally, after digital mobilization a total of $4.1 billion were
pledged by donors for post-quake rebuilding. Moreover, Indian Ministry of
External Affairs (MEA) through a twitter channel offers consular aid and
information to all Indians citizens staying in Nepal (Adhikari, 2015). This way it
can be observed that the two countries not only have good relations but
additionally that the technological advancements and the social media took
their collaboration a step forward and this way great powers can encourage
developing countries in Asia to use Digital Diplomacy.
In general, developing countries or neighboring countries to the
powerful countries in Asia can benefit in many different ways from Digital
Diplomacy. This new era of diplomacy has the power of unfolding and creating
an image of the country based on the social-media relations, creating thus the
bigger picture of the country (Singh,2018). Additionally, through Non-profit
27
Organizations and NGO’s developing countries can target to sensibilize the
global public opinion for sensitive issues related to humanity or other
developmental issues (Singh, 2018). On this way they can achieve to
communicate their issues in a bigger scale and to wider audience, conducting
thus their Digital Diplomacy not only in local interest but as a world viral.
Overcoming limitations of traditional measures and achieving collaborations
on virtual embassies can create also Digital Diplomacy for cultural and
historical promotion, as happened in 2007 with Maldives and Sweden and
endorse virtually the security of the country (Singh, 2018) (Pant, 2019).
Presenting the domain of culture as a variant which influences modern
diplomacy, it is important countries with history in diplomatic affairs to
virtualize and digitalize their ancient and traditional methods or draw
paradigms of successfulness through them. A successful paradigm on Digital
Diplomacy that many Asian countries could follow is that of India, a country
with great impact on Digital Diplomacy not only in Asia but worldwide.
2.3 From Ancient Diplomacy to Digital Diplomacy in
India
Ancient diplomacy has a massive impact on how diplomacy and Digital
Diplomacy is conducted. One of the reasons is that it reveals the geopolitical
interests and the relations of the past and another reason is that it shows the
culture of conduction of diplomacy. This also can be proved through Hocking
28
et al. (2012) who claim that digitalization does not change the traditional way
that diplomacy is conducted, but it facilitates the context of its conduction.
On the previously stated, Mathur (1963) comes to add that the core of
diplomacy stays the same since the target is while avoiding distractions to
emphasize on interstate relations. As a part of the idealistic essence of
Diplomacy, he further explains that in the ancient world diplomacy was
perceived as mainly philosophical, though renowned throughout the world and
targeting of achieving peace and prosperity that was characterized through
mutual trust (Mathur, 1963). On this point it is important to highlight that
diplomacy in ancient India was related with the ideas of individual ethics, so
the target was to always conduct an ethical diplomacy. Such diplomacies
were conducted through the perception of righteousness and religion used to
play an alive role in the conduction or the perception of politics. A great
example that he denotes in order to understand the ancient system of
diplomacy is the diplomatic hypotheses of mandala as expressed by the
ancient philosopher Kautilya. On that system each king had to imagine
himself in the center having around him rings called mandalas which
represent alliances and enemies. But the main principle in the ancient India
was to avoid in any case the war via diplomatic methods and compromises.
Even before this philosophically idealistic approach of diplomacy Kautilya’s
scope was the maximization of power and self-interest and that needed a
united India, which he achieved with the enactment of the Seleucus treaty
influenced ideologically on his beliefs by previous Greek philosophers
(Boesche, 2003). This idea, of power and self-state-oriented interest depicts
29
that the conception of Foreign Policy and public diplomacy was to enforce
power in order to seem powerful and be powerful in any case, but not
destructing the peace. In other words, that in ancient India, diplomatically,
they couldn’t rely on the kindness of a neighboring state thus being always
prepared, while hoping always for peace (Boesche, 2003). The mandala
ideology of public diplomacy and foreign policy was considering as an enemy
the neighboring countries, and the enemies of enemies as allies. This shows
that Digital diplomacy and diplomacy influenced by new means are still
influenced by traditional diplomacy and sometimes by ancient ideas, since in
the modern day many neighboring countries are considered not having good
relations because of conflicting interests and as an example the India-
Pakistan relations would help prove it, even though this is not always the
case.
From the other hand, the aforementioned situation might put in danger
what we mentioned before for the India-Nepal relations, since the Digital
independency of Nepal and the Digital Diplomacy development might set
some threats in their relations. Such threats can be fake news and terrorism,
unless collaborative initiatives of Digital Diplomacy between the states will be
made in order to avoid such potential inconsistencies and instabilities (Pant,
2019). A potential collaboration on this domain not only would help Nepal or
other neighboring countries to develop on what it concerns Digital Diplomacy,
since India is one of the most developed countries in the world on this domain
(Business-Standard.com, 2019), but it would also help India achieve steps
further in Digital Diplomacy.
30
India along with Israel and Russia have been the most prominent
leaders of Digital Diplomacy and the new media diplomacy not only in Asia but
they are also amongst the most influential countries in the whole world. The
three countries which have direct influence within the Asian continent are all
considered to be one of the best in the world in Digital Diplomacy but for
different reasons. Indian Government and Ministries of Foreign Affairs conduct
Digital Diplomacy which approaches 1.99 million followers only through
Twitter fact which is also related with the population but along with US State
Department makes them the most followed Ministries (The Pioneer, 2016).
Interestingly, on the basis of number of retweets on Twitter Diplomacy, the
Prime Minister in India ranks at a decent six in order after Barak Obama and
the Pope and is listed as one of the most effective world followers keeping the
rank three (Kakagianni-Nikolaou, 2014). Additionally, the Ministry of External
Affairs (MEA) of India have presented high engagement between the
followers and have now appeared in many different social media having
approximately more than 20 million interactive engagement through all these
platforms (Singh, 2018). This way the successful Digital Diplomacy that India
conducts presents high engagement also with the Indian Diaspora which
spread all over the world.
The successful recipe of the Indian Digital Diplomacy does not only
lean on Twitter. Since 2010 India has been trying to establish relations with
African countries through launching digital initiatives such as “India Africa
Connect” (Palit, 2018). Meanwhile to follow the rhythm of the new generations
they started opening multiple social media accounts with the latest being
LinkedIn as of 2018 (Instagram, YouTube, etc) and launching MEA
31
applications (2013) for smartphones while investing more on digitalization.
Those investments include e-book transformations, rising in creation of
websites and even a disruptive innovative communication technology called
“MADAD” which facilitates and completes work related with Consulate
Services (Palit, 2018). It is of note that the India's Ministry of External Affairs
(Adesina, 2017) created an App designed by Facebook, as a mobile
application on Diaspora engagement, which includes multiple Ministry’s and
Governmental Services, as well as other outreach activities and information. It
permits an effective connection of Indian’s Diaspora which developed different
missions and works worldwide. The App collects social media platforms and
facilitates the tasks of the Indian Diaspora especially in direct connection with
Consulates and Embassies for their mobile (Salazar, 2015) (Raghunathan,
2015).
Tracing the roots of Indian digital diplomacy only 9 years ago, in 2010 it
shows how efficiently and quickly can a country become a power in the game
of Digital Diplomacy (Singh, 2018). This shows that every country if it will get
digitalized promptly can make fast steps towards this direction and can create
a competitive level of Digital Diplomacy in the international scene. Nowadays
only on Twitter the Indian MEA has two accounts, one informing the relations
with other countries and political matters, and the other one promoting cultural
diplomacy, Indian accomplishments and nation-branding (Palit, 2018) (Singh,
2018). Communicating through social media from disruptive technological
innovations to passport and ID changes, India has done an amazing job
contacting the diaspora and emphasizing on the changing aspects, interacting
with the citizens and answering queries and questions for the generations to
32
come. Even political figures of India such as Sushma Swaraj have shown how
effective can social media be in their campaigns. In India, the Ministry of
External Affairs leading by Ms. Sushma Swaraj is associated on twitter by an
impressive number of followers (5.9 million people), as the Minister Ms.
Sushma Swaraj is very dynamic and active and give immediate responses for
administrative issues, but also for crisis requests and evacuation (Sarvjeet,
2016). Her case versus the selling of Indian Flags by Amazon Canada as a
sign of disrespect took high publicity through social media. This situation later
made her state that no Indian Visas would be granted for Amazon officials if
these products would not be excluded from the Amazon market (Singh, 2018).
It is of note that native Indians are around 1.3 billion and Indian Diaspora
more than 25 million. The Indian Prime Minister Modi take advantage of these
numbers in order to claim services.’Modiplomacy’ is then the charisma of
effective communication and personal appeal of the Indian Prime Minister
Modi (Hebbar, 2016) (India, 2016). The advancements of Indian Digital
Diplomacy are easy to be recognized and other countries in Asia especially
developing ones should follow this lead in order to promote their country and
create an image and a diplomacy-relations service of their likes.
33
3.1 The Digital Diplomacy of Israel: The
Digitalization as part of Political Power
We must not neglect that digital diplomacy could be a competitive
matter between countries. Hamas which controls the Gaza zone developed a
YouTube Video as a campaign of Hamas election. They presented Gaza as
picturesque place with beautiful beaches and emerging economy. Against it,
Israeli government states that in last year’s Gaza group was lying on being a
victim of the military Israeli forces (Manor and Crilley, 2018) (Manor and
Holmes, 2018). Without any doubt, social media pages record our empiricism
online, as well as our religion, political beliefs or other conditions or thoughts
become known and diffused. In contrast, there is a challenge to the diplomats
in which way their people are envisioned. If their users tend to support the
Palestinians, it seems unlikely that they will follow online or social media
information from Israeli government.
It is known that there is a conflict and tension concerning the Gaza strip
controlled by Hamas. At 2010, this conflict has worsened. The incident that
worsened the situation was Free Gaza flotilla; nine ships bringing
humanitarian aid to the Gaza strip due to the Israeli blockade of the occupied
zone. The incident drew attention of the international community, as basic
human violations were committed (Reynolds Scheffer, 2010). The Free Gaza
Humanitarian flotilla did not take in account the warning from Israel (Black and
Siddique, 2010) and the incident badly ended in killing nine civilians and
wounding of multiple activists (Lynch, 2010). As the incident drew attention of
35
the international community, the United Nations asked an explanation for the
episode (Aljazeera, 2010). Israel used
digitalization to advance its agenda on the Free Gaza Flotilla incident at the
website of Israel MFA (Ministry of Foreign Affairs) (Reynolds Scheffer, 2010).
Public statements supporting the Israel actions were appeared on Facebook,
on YouTube and on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) website in order to
give a response to the incident and support the identity and legitimacy of the
country. Moreover, the position of the Free Gaza Flotilla was supported by the
Free Gaza movement (Free Gaza), the International Solidarity Movement
(ISM), the European Campaign to End the Siege on Gaza (ECESG), the
Humanitarian Relief Foundation (IHH) (Terrorism Information Center, 2011).
Arresting and seizing of the flotilla, Israel found several weapons. However,
most of these weapons seem to have alternative use as metal cutters or other
instruments as the humanitarian aid was bringing building supplies to the
Gaza strip for constructions. Additionally, as the flotilla was directed toward
Israel, the Israel MFA (Ministry of Foreign Affairs) created a website page
mentioning that the Israel government was offering permanent aid to the
Gaza strip (Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2010) as a diplomatic tool for the
Israel identity (Phillips and Young, 2009) and crisis. On this way someone
can observe that Israel has been conducting Digital Diplomacy which
promoted the nation-branding fact which puts Israel on the top places in the
world on what it concerns Digital Diplomacy. Thus, the Israeli government
explains more and more and with the use of social media its position for
occupation of the Gaza strip as a form of protection for the Israel nation and a
reclaiming of the Jewish Holy Land (Diller, et al., 1994) (Gordon, 2008). This
36
also shows that Digital diplomacy was approached by the Israel under the
prism of mediated diplomacy (Shaefer and Shenhav, 2009). Moreover, they
highlighted the values of the country in order to increase their international
influence. Currently, Israel presents its identity through the
internet via the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) website. On the MFA website,
there are presentations of speeches and interviews concerning diplomatic
matters. The Israel MFA (Ministry of Foreign Affairs) created multiple social
media such as, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and Flickr (Reynolds and
Scheffer, 2010). Furthermore, the Israel MFA (Ministry of Foreign Affairs)
launched an application for the iPhone, and iPad which put in contact the user
with information coming from the Israel MFA (Ministry of Foreign Affairs)
(Reynolds and Scheffer, 2010).
3.2 The Russian Digital Diplomacy: An early story
of success and controversies
Russia has the 4th largest diplomatic mission in the planet. Without any
doubt, the necessity to create an effective inter-communication network
between its diplomatic missions was important. Moreover, communication with
other foreign publics was realized through new information and
communication technologies. In favor of the digitalization the Russian
researchers accept that Russia must adopt these new innovative
technological tools in order to be more potent and effective in international
relations (Gala ,2011) (Parlar Dal, 2017). Nevertheless, Russia adopts a
37
reactive digital diplomacy rather than a proactive by the using social media
and other internet applications (Osipova and Shakirov, 2018). This reactive
digital diplomacy attack and condemn tactics of West information and quip the
anti-Russian positions (Shakirov,2016). In this vein, the reaction of Russia
was spontaneous at 2016, when Obama imposed sanctions aiming the
Russia’s intelligence agencies and expulsed 35 Russian diplomats from the
USA, as Russia got involved in Presidential elections. Then Russia responded
within an hour in the Twitter publishing a photo labeling the President a ‘lame
duck’ (Manor, 2016).
Picture 2 The 'mocking-tweet' of Russian Embassy to US President.( Photo was found:
http://www.tedmontgomery.com/remarks/16.7-12/Obama/lame.duck.html>)
Images seem to be used commonly by Russian diplomatic missions.
The example of two Russians students opening a restaurant in Japan is
stated as a potent act of Digital Diplomacy (Shakirov, 2016). The Department
of Information and Press in Russia projected a lot of video content with
meetings and Ministry’s events to the platforms of Facebook, YouTube
38
Channel, Periscope and VK. Russians seem to believe that “pictures tell more
than 1000 words” (Shakirov, 2016). The importance of the use of images is
described by focusing on the behavioral and normative issues in a visual age
(Manor and Crilley, 2018) (Crilley and Gillespie, 2019). Crilley’s original work
on the use of images by MFAs will examine both the normative and behavioral
aspects of practicing diplomacy in a visual age.
Coming back, the ‘lame duck Tweet’ became known all over the world
and was discussed extensively between diplomats, politicians, journalists and
even academicians dealing with digital diplomacy. An in-depth analysis of the
Russian image report that Obama’s actions were irrelevant and presented the
President Obama himself as the ‘Ugly Duck” of Hans Christian Anderson
(Manor,2016). President Vladimir Putin during an Ambassadors’ meeting
declared the importance of digitalization in foreign policy. Additionally, he
stated the importance to promote Russian politic via the different innovative
social media. However, he emphasized the challenge and the information
attacks coming from the West (Shakirov, 2016) (Parlar Dal, 2017). Opposition
to the Western beliefs and positions was always a major issue of Russian
Foreign Minister. At 2014, international relations were declined over Ukraine
and Syria positions of the West. Twitter battles were set by Russian diplomats
questioning the geographical location of Ukraine (Shakirov, 2016) and
vindicating of the Crimea peninsula. So then, ‘Crimean Crisis’ was reported as
a real ‘digital crisis’ that break diplomatic relations between West and Russia
(Manor, 2018), as false information and propaganda was spread about the
occurring events in Crimea. This inappropriate disinformation is considered as
a strategic communication that was the trigger for creation of specific
39
departments in Foreign Offices of UK and other countries able to detect the
Russian bots, the propaganda and the false information in social media via
analyzing big data by algorithms (Manor, 2017)(Manor, 2018).
Furthermore, Joseph Nye in his book ’The Future of Power” stated that
these new technological platforms and social media could considerably
influence the public opinion, moderate or sharpen disputes, releasing a
negative reaction in countries with authoritarian regimes or attract the
international attention to the country (Nye, 2012). The results of his research
conducted in August of 2010 have demonstrated that the new media
influences public opinion, mitigates or exacerbates intergroup conflicts,
promotes collective action, provokes a negative backlash in states with
authoritarian regimes, as well as attract international attention to certain
countries. This situation can be understood by the aforementioned situations
both in the case with USA and the so-called ‘Crimean Crisis’. In this vein,
some controversial aspects were supported by the Russian Foreign Minister
A. Krutskikh as he considered Digital Diplomacy as a threat to international
security breaking the balance in the geopolitical canvas and seeking for
responses (Gala, 2011). Despite all the aforementioned, Russia has a
massive influence especially in the Asian continent, not only countries such as
Kazakhstan speak the same language thing that can influence very much in
digital diplomacy but also Russia consists an enormous political power
located between Europe and Asia. This situation of Russia being in the top of
digital diplomacy powers can certainly influence neighboring countries
towards this direction. On this direction, The Russian Foreign Minister created
an official Instagram account containing many photos and videos from events
40
wanting to project the glamorous face of diplomacy promoting the so-called
‘nation-branding’ (Shakirov, 2016) (Sandre,2018). Moreover, in such initiatives
to facilitate and spread Digital Diplomacy Russia launched the Telegram
which is a messaging application that became very popular in certain Russian
Embassies particularly in Iran and targets the communication (Shakirov, 2016)
steps that certainly can be followed from less powerful states in Asia to boost-
up their Digital Diplomacy.
3.3 From Ancient Diplomacy to Digital Diplomacy in
China
As discussed before, Diplomacy is part of the Culture and countries
which have a historical cultural relation with diplomacy are usually examined
in order to see the common points they have in the present as well as in order
to shape methods for the future (Selbitschka, 2015). In ancient China there
were multiple ways to conduct diplomacy from mediation and trade to arrange
marriages in order to develop good relations and the so-called tributary
systems. The main points of diplomacy which seem to form the more modern
way of perceiving and conducting diplomacy came in the Han era with the
unification of China and the need to invent policies to keep and be sustainable
with the territories (Selbitschka, 2015). In its modern diplomacy and foreign
policies China is adopting a Theory of a Harmonious world, following many of
its “ancient policies” on trying to establish friendly relations, and peace in
order to achieve economic growth (D’Hooghe, 2007). China being one of the
41
biggest countries in the world and one of the top two populated had to
sustainably recreate and evolve diplomatically over the past centuries and
adapt in the Digital Diplomacy era. China’s socialist market economy along
with political reforms and the considerations as an emerging power created a
non-state actor diplomatic interaction (D’Hooghe, 2007). China’s diplomacy
has also elements of nation branding since it manages successfully to shape
the image of the country based on country’s interests. On this way the image
of one of the world’s greatest powers with a massively rising economy and
advanced technologies makes any conduction of diplomacy part of Digital
Diplomacy.
Emphasizing on the soft-power methods China is also trying to create
an image of world mediator in future problems and shaping its diplomacy as
one of the most interactive having specialists, NGO’s and businesses
impacting on the foreign policies. One can say that this business and
economic-growth oriented diplomacy have acquired for China many
multilateral and bilateral agreements (D’Hooghe, 2007). While all this situation
permitted to China the self-determination as a responsible global power and
unstoppably emerging economy shaping the face of “China Threat”. In the
meantime, China has been targeting of creating good relations with
neighboring countries and other Asian countries. This can be seen by the
investments in ASEAN which also boost up the trading economy. According to
Garver (2005) this situation though unveils potential interventions of China in
order to maintain its influence towards Central and South Asia in case that
India will gain more power. But it’s always a matter of a contextual political
background with European and American adopted policies dictating potential
42
outcomes (Garver, 2005). Despite these theorizations China at the current
stage is trying to provide win-win solutions for Asian states and promotion of
an international community (D’Hooghe, 2007) facts which can be beneficial for
other countries which are now trying or should try to pursue Digital Diplomacy
policies.
Westcott (2008) presented that about 15-20 years ago China was
trying to monitor the access to the internet and about only the 10% of the
population had access to the Internet. This case seems to attract more and
more interest since how is China conducting Digital Diplomacy when there is
no access on the Internet for everyone? Bjola and Jiang (2015) analyzing and
investigating the efficiency of Social Media in Diplomacy conduction present
that in China many mainstream social media are blocked and are replaced by
similar versions of monitored Chinese Social Media. The answer is that China
is though managing to conduct its own Digital Diplomacy via its own social
platforms and websites (Bjola and Jiang, 2015). More specifically through the
Facebook alike application called Weibo China manages not only to conduct
its public diplomacy but also to attract foreign institutions and embassies to
adopt it as part of their digital diplomatic and social communications. On this
way and under a criticized method under the terms of use and cancelation of
accounts China manages to monitor the ideas and the content posted. Users
who violate the ideas of the Chinese constitution or are trying to harm the
image of China are facing the cancellation of their account (Bjola and Jiang,
2015).
Japan in an approach of cooperating closely with China, created Weibo
embassy accounts where they mostly communicate Japanese news, social
43
affairs, travelling as well as languages and information towards the
cooperation of the two countries. Through this controversial approach China
seems to be managing their Digital Diplomacy as the government wants it to
be. In contrast with India who openly are trying to attract and get themselves
the international game of Digital Diplomacy. The difference between the two
types of conduction is that the latest are trying to integrate worldwide via using
the widely spread Social Media and reaching people throughout the world as
presented earlier through Palit’s (2018) work. The case of China shows that it
is possible even for countries who want to have a disclosure on their national
interests and information to conduct digital diplomacy (Bjola and Jiang, 2015).
Despite the fact that this can be a potential usage of Digital Diplomacy, there
is always high awareness and fear that on this way countries can use the so-
called “Dark-Side” of Digital Diplomacy to promote propaganda and
disinformation (Bjola, 2019). For many EU countries and the USA, the steps
that China takes to hide information which is considered to be a threat, or a
criminal activity are extremely restrictive and violate human rights (Schaake,
2015). While the threats of China being a great regional power in Asia are
emerging because of the mystery of their diplomacy targets, the human rights
contestation and the economic growth (Garver, 2005).
44
CHAPTER 4 - Digital Diplomacy in other Asian
countries: Following the lead and surpassing
the threats
4.1 Emerging Digital Diplomacy in Asia
Following the Lowy’s Global Diplomacy Index (2017), Russia registers
the 4th largest diplomatic mission in the world. The necessity then to establish
an effective inter-connection net between these diplomatic missions was
indispensable. Twitter and Facebook seem to be well accepted and broadly
used followed by YouTube. However, all these diplomatic missions are not
using to the same extend the digital diplomacy tools. Moreover, several
accounts seem to be inactive due to connection problems or missing interest
by the diplomatic team. Not all missions encounter the same number of
followers. First in the list is the `Permanent Russian Mission to NATO`
(652.000 followers), followed by the Russian Embassy in the United Kingdom
(46.000 followers) and then 3rd in line the Russian Embassy in Japan which
spread information on Russian culture. However, the Japan Embassy post
mainly information in Japanese language rather than in English which is not
so spread in the country (Shakirov, 2016) (Osipova and Shakirov, 2018).
Images seem to have a critical role for this information. The most known tweet
in 2016 refers to a video of two Russian students which opened a Russian
45
café in Tokyo (Shakirov, 2016). Images are potent and effective tools as they
produce feelings, emotions and memories (Manor, 2016). Carefully selected
images could reserve and spread information and values (Manor, 2016).
NGO`s photos on social media reporting disaster in Syria or Yemen due to
exterior or interior assaults by military forces sensibilize people. Photos
showing medical assistance offered to Syrians following disasters evoke the
public opinion and stimulate the interest (Manor, 2016). Financing and
coordination of programs are made by governments, NGO`s and
Humanitarian organisms. An anti-trafficking campaign was developed by the
NGO InterNews, in 12 authoritarian countries which are Ethiopia, Myanmar,
Egypt, China, Bahrein, Iran, Tunisia, Syria, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan,
Vietnam and Yemen (Kakagianni-Nikolaou. ,2014) (Factly, 2015). Nine of
these countries are located in Asia. This campaign aimed to strengthen the
activist’s actions on the internet and social media against suppression of
speech by government and protect from cyberattacks. They inform users how
to avoid the firewall set by governments at the social media sites, such as
Google, Facebook and other. However, the Office of Affairs in Middle East
developed digital tools as Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and the `Iran Program`
by bloggers in Persian language in order to circumvent the communication
and secure media platforms of the Iranians activists (Kakagianni-Nikolaou,
2014). Technology is transforming our world, as new communication issues
and interacting forms are produced. The development of digital services is
strictly associated with knowledge transfer and technological growth.
Moreover, digitalization issues are keeping apart tasks by ensuring effective
communication between distant countries and different time zones. The digital
46
economy accounted for almost 22.5% and more comparing to the global
economy (Knickrehm, M, Berthon, B., Daugherty P, 2016). This shows that
year by year digitality will evolve more and more and that Digital Diplomacy
will give the power and the opportunity to countries to rise. Most countries in
Asia were being transformed by new adopted technologies. Nowadays,
internet seems to be mandatory for most activities, although there is variability
and differences in its use between countries.
Likewise, since 2015, several Philippines Embassies developed a
mobile application (Radyo Tambuli App) for connection to its Diaspora. This
App permits daily connections with radio stations in the Philippines, Filipino
music, Filipino language lessons, children stories in Filipino and finally
connection to Embassy activities (Twitter, Facebook, email) (Salazar, 2015).
Thailand in the same mentality has adopted multiple strategies to enhance
digitalization. In this vein, adequate structures must be developed for
broadband internet services and big data centers. It is crucial to boost
people’s skills by offering basic knowledge, familiarity and education on all
new digital technological issues (Salazar, 2015). Singapore, which is a high-
income country, holds the scepter as more than 80% of citizens are using the
internet (Liang, 2016). Another high-income state, the Brunei Darussalam
shows similarly large use of internet, followed by Malaysia which is however a
middle economy. Emerging China records high internet use in general.
However, non-developed areas and Tibet have much lower internet use
compared to Hong-Kong and Beijing (Kakagianni-Nikolaou, 2014). Large and
expanded use of internet in many services recorded by Vietnam and
Philippines despite the low standard of living comparing to the above Asian
47
countries. Notwithstanding, India’s technological achievements, the country
records low internet use as only one quarter of its population is using internet
and specifically in developed towns. Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand and
finally Indonesia use less the internet and other digital services (Kakagianni-
Nikolaou, 2014). However, Bali which is the higher income
place of Indonesia, internet use is expanded (World Bank, 2017). As stated,
internet access is not widely used in Indonesia, however the Indonesian
President seems to have an important number of retweets as it keeps position
nine in the international list probably from Indonesians citizens living abroad.
Many companies are doing business using digital applications in most Asian
countries. Trade departments of Embassies located in Asia are in favor of the
advanced digital technology which permits more structured and essential
interconnections and communication nets. Nevertheless, as referred
previously digitalization trends vary significantly following countries and even
different areas in a country. Despite this fact, it is visible that Digital Diplomacy
is emerging in Asia and can help countries achieve their political goals, it is
just a matter of time before the majority adopts the digital media
communication and give this way more space for development.
It should be of great interest to state also the cases of two other
countries of East Asia for their digital diplomacy achievements; South Korea
and Japan. As both countries have similar political and social background and
similar aspects on the implementation of new technological tools of
digitalization, they developed effective networks. Nevertheless, tactics and
communication strategies for interacting with the public were different
(Salazar, 2015). Ultimately, in both countries, their digital diplomacy campaign
48
aims to promote the culture and specific values of the nation by social media
means.
Japan has focused on a cultural superpower, which is termed` Cool
Japan`` (Kakagianni-Nikolaou ,2014). It is a form of soft power adopted by the
government of Japan. The cultural industry of Japan was expanded
internationally. Animations, films, fashions, cuisine and especially the
Pokemon media franchise gained worldwide dissemination and international
audience (Kakagianni-Nikolaou, 2014). South Korea has focused on its
economic growth and its profil advancement worldwide. The ``Korean Wave``
(Hallyu) refers to the South Korea culture, which is exporting pop culture,
entertainment, music, movies (Kakagianni-Nikolaou, 2014). It is a kind of soft
power. This asset makes the country to be known internationally. Moreover,
through pop culture customs, habits, traditions and values of the nation are
spread. In this vein, the development of the digital platform will promote
effectively the Korean pop culture worldwide and will establish relations
between the Korean government and other countries (Kakagianni-Nikolaou,
2014) (Sarvjeet, 2016). Both countries developed strong networks
information between public diplomacy organizations but based on a different
adopted strategy to exploit the opportunities offered by social media. In this
vein, Korea has developed a well-structured network, which includes a limited
number of powerful public diplomacy agencies under the auspices of
Ministries and the Presidential Council. In contrast, Japan develops an
internal network of information in conjunction with different government
agencies, a non-profit organization and the government board (Kakagianni-
Nikolaou, 2014). Moreover, most information was given in Japanese language
49
but also in English as a second language, fact in favor of the internal
communication network. These social media are followed by people outside of
Japan which are informed of the achievements and developments within the
country. Moreover, it consists as a trusted platform of information and
dissemination of Japanese cultural products at international audience
(Kakagianni-Nikolaou ,2014). Those two cases present that it is not that hard
to promote a self-nation-branding Digital Diplomacy, this paradigm is shown
by the how the Korean pop culture literally popped-out to become one of the
world’s most progressive and viral Digital Diplomacies.
Presenting some other parts of Asia, it is important to outline that
digitalization on diplomacy is crucial for Turkey who is getting more and more
developed day by day and it needs to come into sight to the world and create
its picture (Sancar, 2015) (Köselerli, 2017). Turkey’s MFA appoint an office
focusing on cultural diplomacy matters in 2010 responsible for international
cultural activities and social relations. They created multiple social media
platforms as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube channel, Instagram, Linkedln, Vine,
Google+, in order to announce the different undertaken activities. Moreover,
an online library and the platform ‘Turkey Home’ are constructed for the
campaign of the country. Opinions of the Ministry and official statements are
advanced through this account. Social media are used from education to
business activities. Digital Diplomacy was extensively used after the failed
coup attempt in Turkey on July 15, 2016, as the Turkish government faced the
challenge to share its internal image (Ηolak and Bulur, 2017). Prime Minister
Yildirim and President Erdogan addressed to the nation on live TV and
FaceTime as well as other social media to inform about the situation (Jazeera,
50
A., 2016). The hashtag #1507mfa is used by Turkish consulates and
embassies for promotion of their activities in their host countries. Additionally,
smartphone apps, and video sharing platforms are used for this purpose.
These same platforms were used broadly after the crisis of the failed coup to
present the terrorism face in an attempt to debrief the targetted audiences
(Esen and Gumuscu, 2017) (Sevin, 2018).
In the same wavelength, Twitter is the most favorite social method for
governmental issues communication in the Middle East. King Salman of Saudi
Arabia and King Abdullah of Jordan are broadly using this platform. It is of
note also that the Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates are the 3rd and 2nd
most-followed Ministers worldwide. Qatar (97%), Bahrain (93%), the United
Arab Emirates (92%) and Kuwait (80%) show really impressive access rates
to the internet followed by Oman (71%) and Saudi Arabia (65%) (Strauss et
al, 2015) (Akdenizli, 2016). However, Middle East is often criticized for
repressing the word and even blocking access to the different social media
and the Internet, as the Middle East society is considered as a close one to
the flow of international information and communication (Akdenizli, 2016).
Moreover, in recent years, severe incidents of fake news led to a fall of their
use. As an example, in 2014 citizens of Lebanon, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the
UAE were broadly using Twitter, in contrast to a later period (3 years later)
that these numbers fell 30%. (Dennis et al, 2016). In this vein, Twitter deleted
tens of millions of fake accounts in order to gain again people’s confidence
(Northrup, 2018). This incident was used by Saudi Arabia as an opportunity
against its rival Qatar, claiming a loss of 2.4 million followers of Qatar’s Emir
depicting it as an evidence of missing confidence to their leader. As
51
discussed, social media are the cornerstone of an effective communication
and information, but it could contribute also to the spreading of the powers’
discourse. It is needed though some time in order to get conclusions in the
use of digital diplomacy in Gulf countries. But despite this fact, Digital
Diplomacy as part of the process of evolution gets more and more recognition
facilitating this way the interaction of the global politics agenda. But further
Digital Diplomacy needs further development not only in gulf countries but in
countries such as Azerbaijan and Georgia and many other states (Azerbaijan
Diplomatic Academy, 2010).
4.2 Threats and Dangers of Digital Diplomacy
Despite the fact that Digital Diplomacy can be beneficial for the states
and the interaction with the citizens, they produce a number of potential
threats. There are not only specific threats depending the case of the country
but primarily there are some general threats that come with Digital Diplomacy.
Adesina (2017) defines these threats as information leakage, the anonymity
that such media can provide and the hacking as in every technology. While
Pant (2019) adds that Digital Diplomacy can facilitate terrorism. In this vein,
the paradigm of countries which are in the border of two great powers such as
Nepal or between two continents can digitally acquire danger and become a
threat to the peace or the relations of two countries (Pant, 2019). More
specifically both the recruitment of people for terrorist purposes can be a
result of digital influence on social media, but furthermore it can also boost
52
illicit trade in favor of terrorism. Several reports highlight that illicit trade on this
way becomes one of the main money sources of radical terrorists such as the
case of ISIS (Daesh) in Iraq, Iran and Syria, whilst the so-called “Islamic
State” even has a “Ministry of Antiquities” which can be a part of
communication in such actions (Stavropoulos, 2018). Whilst Westcott (2008)
exclaims that radical religious groups have been using hacking methods for a
long time in the internet to spread their messages. This situation makes
internet and Digital Diplomacy a space where everything can be
communicated and dangerously making everyone fellow traveler (Westcott,
2008) and can also attract people to adopt radical ideologies or it can be used
for terrorist recruitment (Manor, 2016).
Adesina (2017) explaining the thoughts of Manor (2015) underlines the
impact that WikiLeaks had and explains that a potential information leakage of
this level would be catastrophic for diplomacy. The 2010 WikiLeaks leakage
impacted very much on the international relations of US and other countries
while it influenced the MFA’s in the whole world to process more the new
technologies and train diplomats in order to avoid such events in the future
(Manor, 2015). While cases such as WikiLeaks or Snowden also create
instabilities in National Security system and can create International Security
issues (Bjola, 2015). This happens because in the digital era there is no
geographical distances fact which put diplomatic secrecy in threat (Horky,
2011). In the same mindset, Westcott (2008) and Adesina (2017) express the
danger of hacking. This action reveals multiple motives behind or political
interests and that is why many times they relate it with political rivalries such
as (US-Russia) or the case Adesina (2017) presented of the Israeli Minister of
53
Public Diplomacy and Diaspora Affairs who got hacked on his personal
website.
Some other dangers as discussed earlier can be related with the so-
called “Dark-side” of Digital Diplomacy as expressed by Bjola (2019) and the
use of power for Diplomatic ‘takeover’ over developing or unpowerful states
(Garver 2005). All this propaganda and disinformation expressed thoroughly
through the “Dark-side” of diplomacy can also be boosted by the anonymity
and create an atmosphere of Digital bullying from the great powers to weaker
states. Additionally, the anonymity in the Digital Diplomacy conduction as
highlighted by Adesina (2017) can give the opportunity to express whatever
by whoever anonymously and in rare situations this can create diplomatic
conflicts over powerful states which can threaten the world peace
stabilization. It is of great importance to mention that as information can be
transferred in a matter of seconds, Twiplomacy can create tensions between
the diplomatic relations of countries or start mocking another country which is
not endorsing the diplomatic relations of two countries. Development of
computer programs which mimic internet users and disinform or give opinions
on websites. It is supposed that Russian government diffused inappropriate
comments on German Chancellor Angela Merkel influencing people about her
migration and other policies. Nowadays, Ministry of Foreign Affairs has
developed algorithms for the social media sites which automatically detect
report and neutralize the inappropriate content (Seib, 2012) (Bjola, 2019). But
another example of such situation can be seen under the Russian Digital
Diplomacy with the ‘lame duck’ case between USA and Russia (Manor, 2016).
Finally, a country having full control of their social media can be threatful for
54
humanity, as happens with China (Bjola and Jiang, 2015) since in case of
worldwide importance such as the recent fires in the Amazon Rainforest of
Brazil (BBC, 2019) it would potentially have been kept under secrecy in case
of representation or protection of national interests.
4.3 Conclusion: The Importance of Digital Diplomacy
In conclusion, highlighting the importance of Digital Diplomacy it is wise
to refer that although all these dangers emerge as technology evolves, there
are still solutions to avoid these threats in order that MFA’s can use without
any fear the social platforms to communicate and interact with people and
states. In Asia on the second chapter after examining the cases of India and
Nepal, the discussion showed that potential collaboration on the security
aspects of Digital Diplomacy between the two states would minimize the
potential threats. In the meantime, this case developed the reasons why the
Digitalization of countries such as Nepal via the launch of satellites will help
the country advance more in technological affairs and spread its Digital
Diplomacy between its own people. Accordingly, in case of emergency as we
saw in the case of Nepal Earthquakes back in 2015 the government and the
people would have more opportunities to communicate to the world and raise
the global interest and bring help as happened in the Japan case of 2011
(Adhikari, 2015). This way, these cases show that a country with the help of
technology and Digital Diplomacy can emerge and become a pioneer. In the
same wavelength even when there is the fear that the big powers conduct the
soft power of their neighbors (Garver, 2005) this in Digital Diplomacy changes.
55
One of the reasons of that is because Digital Diplomacy helps countries in
political transition, as stated earlier in Nepali case, to find “themselves”
(Cranston, 2013). This can be achieved through multiple techniques such as
nation-branding and promotion of the country as both India and Israel do well
(Singh, 2018) (Pant, 2019). For these reasons Digital Diplomacy can also
attract global attention over cases in Asia and get support or have NGO’s deal
with harsh situations.
Even the threats of Digital Diplomacy such as the “Dark-side” and the
hacking can be minimized. Training over hacking and adoption of Digital
Technologies after first acquiring the level of conducting under it can help on
that (Adesina,2017). Training also towards the conduction from the MFA’s can
also lead to even detect the propaganda as happened in the Russian case
(Manor, 2017) (Manor, 2018). While in the Digital Diplomacy era propaganda
becomes more obvious, or easier to detect and be in a place to communicate
something different or somehow acknowledge who is conducting it (Bjola,
2019) (Westcott, 2008) (Bjola and Jiang, 2015).
The beneficial factors of Digital Diplomacy are plenty, we underlined
the importance of communication in case of danger with the diaspora thing
which did not exist before (Adhikari, 2015). In the same time collaborations
and communication between the MFA’s is easier than ever and they can
provide services to the people which in the past used to be a bureaucratic
nightmare (Palit, 2018). The promotion of the culture can also lead to potential
advantages and recreate the image of the country while endorsing tourism
and trades (D’Hooghe, 2007) which can be pursued from many different
countries in Asia following China’s lead on this case. All the aforementioned
56
show that Diplomacy is not changing radically to enter in a completely new
digital world. Digital Diplomacy is just the facilitation of conduction of
traditional diplomacy in a digital manner and much quicker way (Hocking et
al., 2012) (Bjola, 2018). Becoming on this way clear that all the countries in
Asia should embrace Digital Diplomacy, as part of maturing in their digital
process because it seems to be a part of evolution to adapt in the future of
Diplomatic relations.
57
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Adcock, F. (1948). The Development of Ancient Greek
Diplomacy. L'antiquité classique, [online] 17(1), pp.1-12. Available at:
https://www.persee.fr/doc/antiq_0770-2817_1948_num_17_1_2822
[Accessed 29 May 2019].
Adesina, O. (2017). Foreign policy in an era of digital
diplomacy. Cogent Social Sciences, [online] 3(1). Available at:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23311886.2017.1297175
[Accessed 13 Jun. 2019].
Adhikari,R.R.(2015). Rebuilding Nepal: Post-earthquake Foreign
Policy and Economic Diplomacy in the Changed Context. Institute of Foreign
Affairs Friedrich - Ebert Stiftung (FES), Nepal, - Kathmandu. iv, 95p. Talk
Programme. ISBN 978-9937-8901-6-8[Accessed at: 20 July 2019].
Akdenizli, B. (2016). Digital Diplomacy in the Gulf: Tech-Savy and
Forward Thinking? Available at: http://www.sodd16.com/digital-diplomacy-in-
58
the-gulf-tech-savy-and-forward-thinking-by-banu-akdenizli/[Accessed 19
August 2019].
Aljazeera, (2010). Tensions rise over Gaza aid fleet. Available at:
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/05/2010528431964325.htm
l [Accessed at 11 June 2019].
Aljazeera, (2016). Erdogan Resorts to iPhone’s FaceTime after Coup
Attempt, July 16, 2016, Available at:
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/07/erdogan-resorts-iphone-facetime-
coupattempt-160715233749172.html [Accessed 19 August 2019].
Anonymous. (2017). Social Media Richness in Digital Diplomacy in
Nepal, BIDD, [Accessed at: 15 July, 2019].
Ayhan, K. (2018). Connecting Public Diplomacy and Foreign
Policy. International Studies Review, [online] 20(3), pp.539-540. Available at:
https://academic.oup.com/isr/article/20/3/539/4993896 [Accessed 29 May
2019].
Azerbaijan Diplomatic Academy (2010) .Available at:
https://www.diplomacy.edu/calendar/seminar-e-diplomacy-azerbaijan-
diplomatic-academy [Accessed 19 August 2019].
59
BBC News. (2019). Amazon fires: How bad have they got?. [online]
Available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-49433767
[Accessed 29 Aug. 2019].
Bjola, C. (2015). Diplomacy as a Method of Change Management.
[ebook] Oxford: Oxford, pp.1-14. Available at:
https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:4149c6d8-9fa8-4b59-af7b-
920471379d89/download_file?
file_format=pdf&safe_filename=00_Introduction%2B-%2BMaking%2BSense
%2Bof%2BDigital%2BDiplomacy.pdf&type_of_work=Book [Accessed 29 Aug.
2019].
Bjola, C. (2018). Digital Diplomacy: From Tactics to Strategy. American
Academy in Berlin. [online] Available at:
https://www.americanacademy.de/digital-diplomacy-tactics-strategy/
[Accessed 30 May 2019].
Bjola, C. (2019). The ‘Dark Side’ of Digital Diplomacy: Countering
Disinformation and Propaganda. [online] Diplomatic Ruminations from Oxford.
Available at: http://www.cbjola.com/single-post/2019/03/08/The- ‘Dark-Side’-
of-Digital-Diplomacy-Countering-Disinformation-and-Propaganda [Accessed
28 Aug. 2019].
Bjola, C. and Jiang, L. (2015). Social media and public diplomacy: A
comparative analysis of the digital diplomatic strategies of the EU, Us and
60
Japan in China. [ebook] London: Routledge, pp.1-32. Available at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286268365_Social_media_and_publ
ic_diplomacy_A_comparative_analysis_of_the_digital_diplomatic_strategies_
of_the_EU_Us_and_Japan_in_China [Accessed 28 Aug. 2019].
Black, I., Siddique, H. (2010). Q & A: the Gaza freedom flotilla.
Available to: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/31/q-a-gazafreedom-
Flotilla [Accessed at 11 June 2019].
Boesche, R. (2003). Kautilya's Arthasastra on War and Diplomacy in
Ancient India. The Journal of Military History, [online] 67(1), pp.9-37. Available
at: https://muse.jhu.edu/article/40432 [Accessed 27 Aug. 2019].
Business-standard.com. (2019). India among top 10 countries in digital
diplomacy. [online] Available at: https://www.business-
standard.com/article/news-ians/india-among-top-10-countries-in-digital-
diplomacy-116040601327_1.html [Accessed 27 Aug. 2019].
Chan, J. (2019). Digitizing Nepal from Within the Himalayas. [online]
The Diplomat. Available at: https://thediplomat.com/2019/05/digitizing-nepal-
from-within-the-himalayas/ [Accessed 26 Aug. 2019].
Cranston, P. (2013). Lessons for Diplomacy and Development from
‘Nepal in Transition’. [online] DiploFoundation. Available at:
61
https://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/lessons-diplomacy-and-development- ‘nepal-
transition’ [Accessed 26 Aug. 2019].
Crilley, R., Gillespie, M. (2019). What to do about social media?
Politics, populism and journalism. Journalism, [on line] 20(1), pp.173-176. Doi:
10.1177/14648849I8807344. [Accessed 29 August 2019]
D'Hooghe, I. (2007). The rise of China's public diplomacy. 1st ed. The
Hague: Netherlands Institute of International Relations Clingendael, pp.9-21.
Dennis, E.E., Martin, J.D, Wood, R. (2016). Media Use in the Middle
East 2016: A Six-Nation Survey. Available at:
http://www.mideastmedia.org/survey/2016/uploads/file/NUQ_Media_Use_201
6_Final_Full_Demo.pdf [Accessed 19 August 2019].
Diller, D., Moore, J., Kern, K., Davis, J., Esber, R. G., Gross, M. (1994).
The Middle East (6 ed.). Washington: Congressional Quarterly. [Accessed at
11 June 2019].
Esen, B. Gumuscu,S. (2017). Turkey: How the Coup Failed, Journal of
Democracy28, no. 1 59–73, Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2017.0006 [Accessed 19 August 2019].
Factly (2015) Not just in Yemen, India has a stellar record of
evacuating its citizens from strife-torn countries. Available at:
http://www.newslaundry.com/2015/04/09/not-just-in-yemen-india-has-a-stellar-
62
record-of-evacuating-its-citizens-from-strife-torn-countries/ [Accessed 11
August 2019].
Freeman, C. and Marks, S. (2017). Diplomacy. Encyclopedia
Britannica, [online] pp.1-5. Available at:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/diplomacy [Accessed 24 May 2019].
Gala, G. (2012). Lessons to learn for Russia in Digital Diplomacy.
Available at:
https://www.academia.edu/11377805/Lessons_to_learn_for_Russia_in_Digital
_Diplomacy_ [Accessed 29 August 2019]
Garver, J. (2005). China's "Good Neighbor" Diplomacy: A wolf in
Sheep' sClothing. 1st ed. [ebook] Washington: Woodrow Wilson International
Center for Scholars, pp.4-8. Available at:
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/ASIAreport_No126.pdf
[Accessed 26 Aug. 2019].
Gordon, N. (2008). Israel's occupation. Berkley: University of California
Press. [Accessed at 11 June 2019].
Hanson, F. (2012). Baked in and wired: ediplomacy@State. [ebook]
Brookings, pp.1-40. Available at: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2016/06/baked-in-hansonf-5.pdf [Accessed 13 Jun. 2019].
63
Hebbar, N. (2016) Modi’s Twitter handle following hundreds of his
political rivals. Available at: http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/modis-
twitter-handle-following-hundreds-of-his-political-rivals/article8393553.ece
[Accessed: 7 August 2019].
Hershey, A. (1911). The History of International Relations During
Antiquity and the Middle Ages. The American Journal of International Law,
[online] 5(4), p.901. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2186529?
seq=12#metadata_info_tab_contents [Accessed 7 May 2019].
Hocking, B., Melissen, J., Riordan, S. and Sharp, P. (2012). Futures for
Diplomacy: Integrative Diplomacy in the 21st century. [online] Netherlands
Institute for International Relations Clingendael, pp.1-77. Available at:
http://www.lse.ac.uk/internationalRelations/dinamfellow/conf2012/HOCKING-
Futures-of-Diplomacy.pdf [Accessed 10 Jun. 2019].
Hocking, B., Melissen,J. (2015). Diplomacy in the Digital Age.
Clingendael Report. Available at:
https://www.clingendael.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/Digital_Diplomacy_in_the_
Digital%20Age_Clingendael_July2015.pdf[Accessed 20 July 2019]
Holak, E. Bulur, M. (2017). Tόrkiye FETO nόn Gerek Yόzόnό Dόnyaya
Anlattı, Anadolu Ajansı, July 14, 2017, Available at: http://aa.com.tr/tr/15-
temmuz-darbe-girisimi/turkiyefetonun-gercek-yuzunu-dunyaya-anlatti/861241
[Accessed 19 August 2019].
64
Horky, O. (2011). The Future of Diplomacy European and Global
Challenges. [ebook] Prague: Institute of International Relations. Available at:
https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/127772/PP_Forum_Horky.pdf [Accessed 13 Jun.
2019].
India, P.T. (2016). Modi now 2nd most-followed Indian on Twitter, just
1.5 Million shorts of top spot. Available at: http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/pm-
modi-now-2nd-most-followed-indian-on-twitter-just-1-5-million-short-of-top-
spot-1266735[Accessed: 7 August 2019].
Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (2010). Flotilla leaders stated
violence was premeditated. Available at: http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-
+Obstacle+to+Peace/Hamas+war+against+Israel/Flotilla_leaders_violence_pr
emeditated_31-May-2010.htm [Accessed 11 August 2019].
Kakagianni-Nikolaou. (2014). Diplomacy and Social Media. Master
Thesis, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Law Department, Thessaloniki
[Accessed at: 15 July 2019].
Karasin,I.B., Bakir,D.Ulker,M.,Ulu, A.E .(2017). The Structural Damages
After Nepal Earthquakes. IOSR Journal of Engineering (IOSRJEN). ISSN (e):
2250-3021, ISSN (p): 2278-8719 Vol. 07, Issue 06,pp. 45-54. Available at :
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5ae8/797fa53a12eb52292ba356d1918ac3f95
2b5.pdf [Accessed 15 July 2019]
65
Kissinger, H. (1994). Diplomacy. Political Science Quarterly, 109(5),
p.903.
Knickrehm, M, Berthon, B., Daugherty P. (2016). Digital disruption: The
growth multiplier Optimizing digital investments to realize higher productivity
and growth. Available at:
https://www.accenture.com/t00010101t000000__w__/br-pt/_acnmedia/pdf-
14/accenture-strategy-digital-disruption-growth-multiplier-brazil.pdf [Accessed
11 August 2019].
Köselerli B.B. (2017). The Usage of New Media in Cultural Diplomacy:
A Case of Turkey. European Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies . Volume 2,
Issue 6, ISSN 2414-8385 (Online) ISSN 2414-8377 (Print) [Accessed 19
August 2019].
Kotoky, M. (2016). Digital Diplomacy in Asia. SODD16.
file:///C:/Users/user/Desktop/Digital%20Diplomacy%20in%20Asia
%202016%20_%20Mahurjya%20Kotoky
%20%E2%80%93%20Sodd16.html[Accessed at: 25 July 2019].
Liang,LY. (2016). Singapore’s weapon: cyber diplomacy. Available at:
file:///C:/Users/user/Desktop/Singapore's%20weapon_%20cyber
%20diplomacy,%20Singapore%20News%20&%20Top%20Stories%20-
%20The%20Straits%20Times.html [Accessed 11 August 2019].
66
Lowy’s Global Diplomacy Index (2017).Available at:
https://globaldiplomacyindex.lowyinstitute.org/ [Accessed 15 July, 2019].
Lynch, C. (2010). Turkey urges UN Security Council to condemn Israeli
attack on aid flotilla. Available at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2010/05/31/AR2010053
102860.html[Accessed at 11 June, 2019].
Manor, I (2016). The Russian Tweet Heard around the World, Available
at: https://digdipblog.com/2016/12/30/the-russian-tweet-heard-around-the-
world/ [Accessed 29 August 2019].
Manor, I. (2018). The Digitalization of Diplomacy: Toward Clarification
of a Fractured Terminology,” Working Paper No 2. Oxford Digital Diplomacy
Research Group, Available from:
http://www.qeh.ox.ac.uk/sites/www.odid.ox.ac.uk/files/DigDiploROxWP2.pdf
[Accessed at 15 July, 2019].
Manor, I. (2015) Diplomacy During #Nepal Earthquake. Available at:
https://digdipblog.com/2015/05/21/digital-diplomacy-during-nepalearthquake/
[Accessed 15 July 2019]
Manor, I. (2016). On the use of Narratives and Images in Digital
Diplomacy. Available at: https://www.sodd16.com/on-the-use-of-narratives-
and-images-in-digital-diplomacy-ilan-manor/ [Accessed 29 August 2019]
67
Manor, I. (2016). What is Digital Diplomacy, and how is it Practiced
around the World? A brief introduction. [online] The 2016 Annual Review of
the Diplomatist Magazine .Available at:
http://www.diplomatist.com/dipoannual2016/index.html?pageNumber=36
[Accessed at: 11 June, 2019].
Manor, I. (2017). The Digitalization of Diplomacy: Toward Clarification
of a Fractured Terminology, Working Paper No 2. Oxford Digital Diplomacy
Research Group (Jan 2018), Available at:
http://www.qeh.ox.ac.uk/sites/www.odid.ox.ac.uk/files/DigDiploROxWP2.pdf
[Accessed 29 August 2019].
Manor, I. (2018). Can digital diplomacy skills serve as public diplomacy
resources? The case of Brexit. Digital Diplomacy, Available at:
https://www.bidd.org.rs/can-digital-diplomacy-skills-serve-as-public-diplomacy-
resources-the-case-of-brexit/ [Accessed 29 August 2019]
Manor, I. & Crilley, R. (2018) Visually framing the Gaza War of 2014:
The Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Twitter. Media, War and Conflict,
11(4) pp.369-391 .Available at: . https://doi.org/10.1177/1750635218780564
[Accessed 29 August 2019].
Manor, I., Holmes M. (2018). International Affairs Blog. Palestine in
Hebrew: a new approach to Palestinian digital diplomacy. Available at:
68
https://medium.com/international-affairs-blog/palestine-in-hebrew-a-new-
approach-to-palestinian-digital-diplomacy-81870d523c25 [Accessed 11
August 2019].
Mathur, D. (1962). Some reflections on Ancient Indian Diplomacy. The
Indian Journal of Political Science, [online] 23(1/4), pp.398-405. Available at:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/41853950?read-
now=1&seq=7#metadata_info_tab_contents [Accessed 27 Aug. 2019].
Northrup S. (2018) The Twitter Purge and Digital Diplomacy in the
Middle East , Available at: https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-
analysis/view/the-twitter-purge-and-digital-diplomacy-in-the-middle-
east[Accessed 19 August 2019].
Nye, J. (2012). The Future of Power. Editor: Read How You Want, 16
th edition, ISBN:1586488910, 9781586488918, [Accessed 29 August 2019].
Osipova, Y., Shakirov (2018). Russian Digital Diplomacy: Origins and
Practice" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International
Communication Association 65th Annual Conference, Caribe Hilton, San
Juan, Puerto Rico, Available at:
http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p982580_index.html [Accessed 29
August 2019] .
69
Palit, P. (2018). India’s Use of Social Media in Public Diplomacy. Rising
Powers Quarterly, [online] 3(3), pp.151-171. Available at:
http://risingpowersproject.com/quarterly/indias-use-of-social-media-in-public-
diplomacy/ [Accessed 27 Aug. 2019].
Pant, S. (2019). The Rising Nepal: Digital Diplomacy With Neighbours.
[online] Therisingnepal.org.np. Available at:
http://www.therisingnepal.org.np/news/31787 [Accessed 26 Aug. 2019].
Parlar Dal, E. (2017). Russia’s Dual Roles in Global Politics as a
Traditional Great Power and a Rising Power. Vol.2 , Issue 1 ,ISBN: 2547-
9423, Available at: http://risingpowersproject.com/wp-content /uploads /
2017/07/Rising-Powers-Quarterly-Volume-2-Issue-1.pdf [Accessed 29 August
2019]
Phillips, D., Young, P. (2009). Online public relations: a practical guide
to developing an online strategy in the world of social media. London: Kogan
Page [Accessed 11 August 2019].
Raghunathan, A. (2015). Are Modi’s Twitter follower numbers
‘boosted’? Available at:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/anuraghunathan/2015/05/07/are-modis-twitter-
follower-numbers-boosted/#63f5c545476a[Accessed: 7 August 2019].
70
Reynolds Scheffer, B. (2010). Managing the Israeli Identity through
Digital Diplomacy, Master Thesis, Faculty of the Communication Department
at Southern Utah University, USA [Accessed 11 August 2019].
Salazar, V. (2015) Toward a Disaster-Resilient Region: Examining US-
ASEAN Cooperation on Disaster Management Under the Obama
Administration, SSRN Electronic Journal, doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2685509
[Accessed: 7 August 2019].
Sancar, G.A. (2015). Turkey’s Public Diplomacy: Its Actors,
Stakeholders, and Tools, in Turkey’s Public Diplomacy, ed. Philip Seib and B.
Senem Cevik, Palgrave Macmillan Series in Global Public Diplomacy
Palgrave Macmillan New York, 13–42[Accessed 19 August 2019].
Sandre, A. (2018). Russia explains Twitter diplomacy, Available at:
https://medium.com/digital-diplomacy/russia-explains-twitter-diplomacy-
54f2332e4d44 [Accessed 29 August 2019]
Sarvjeet, S. (2016). Digital Diplomacy in India: Virtual networks, Real
gains. Master 2 Professionnel, Université Paris Sorbonne, École des Hautes
Études en Sciences de l’Information et de la Communication, École Nationale
d’Administration (ENA), Paris [Accessed at:15 July, 2019].
Schaake, M. (2015). Digital diplomacy: trade and human rights in
China ‘s internet revolution. [online] ECFR. Available at:
71
https://www.ecfr.eu/article/commentary_digital_diplomacy_trade_and_human_
rights_in_chinas_internet_revo [Accessed 28 Aug. 2019].
Seely, C. (2011). Diplomacy. Oxford Bibliographies Online Datasets.
[online] Available at:
https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-
9780199743292/obo-9780199743292-0012.xml [Accessed 29 May 2019].
Seib, P. (2012). Real-Time Diplomacy: Politics and Power in the Social
Media Era. Editions: Palgrave Macmillan [on line] ISBN 10: 0230339433,
ISBN 13: 978-0230339439. Available at:
https://www.palgrave.com/gp/book/9780230339422 [Accessed 16 Aug. 2019]
Selbitschka, A. (2015). Early Chinese Diplomacy: "Realpolitik" versus
the So-called Tributary System. Asia Major, [online] 28(1), pp.61-114.
Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/44742487?
seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents [Accessed 28 Aug. 2019].
Sevin E. (2018). Digital Diplomacy as Crisis Communication: Turkish
Digital Outreach after July 15, Revista Mexicana de Política Exterior, núm.
113 [Accessed 19 August 2019].
Shaefer, T., Shenhav, S. (2009). Mediated public diplomacy in a new
era of warfare.Communication Review , 12 (3), 272-283. doi:
10.1080/10714420903124192 [Accessed 11 August 2019].
72
Shakirov, O. (2016). Russian Digital Diplomacy in 2016. Available at:
https://www.sodd16.com/russian-digital-diplomacy-in-2016-oleg-shakirov/
[Accessed 29 August 2019]
Singh, S. (2018). Digital Diplomacy: India's Increasing Digital
Footprints. [ebook] New Delhi: Society for the Conflict of Peace and Conflict,
pp.1-15. Available at: https://www.sspconline.org/sites/default/files/2018-
12/digital-diplomacy-india.pdf [Accessed 27 Aug. 2019].
Stavropoulos, A. (2018). Intercultural Diplomacy in the Past Centuries
to the Digital Era. Master of Arts in Art Law & Arts Management. International
Hellenic University. Available at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335464903_Intercultural_Diplomacy
_From_Ancient_Greece_to_Present_Day [Accessed 29 August 2019]
Strauss, N, Krukemeier, S., van der Meulen, H., van Noort, G. (2015).
Digital Diplomacy in GCC Countries: Strategic Communication of Western
Embassies on Twitter. Government Information Quarterly, 32, pp. 369-379.
[ Accessed 19 August 2019].
Terrorism information center. (2011). 2010 NCTC Report on Terrorism.
https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/2010_report_on_terrorism.pdf ISSN
1949-2103 (Electronic) [Accessed 11 August 2019].
73
The Pioneer, (2016). Digital diplomacy: India ranked seventh by
Diplomacy live. [online] The Pioneer. Available at:
https://www.dailypioneer.com/2016/india/digital-diplomacy-india-ranked-
seventh-by-diplomacy-live.html [Accessed 27 Aug. 2019].
UNV (United Nations Volunteers. (2015). Rebuilding with the
community after a disaster - Volunteer engagement in the 2015 Nepal
earthquake. Available at: https://www.unv.org/sites/default/files/UNV
%20Rebuilding%20with%20the%20community%20after%20a%20disaster
%20-%20Volunteer%20engagement%20in%20the%202015%20Nepal
%20earthquake.pdf[Accessed 20 July 2019]
Westcott, N. (2008). Digital Diplomacy: The Impact of the Internet on
International Relations. SSRN Electronic Journal. [online] Available at:
https://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/archive/downloads/publications/RR16.pdf [Accessed
13 Jun. 2019].
World Bank (2017). World Development Indicators. Available at:
http://datatopics.worldbank.org/world-development-indicators/[Accessed 11
August 2019].
Yun, S. and Toth, E. (2009). Future Sociological Public Diplomacy and
the Role of Public Relations: Evolution of Public Diplomacy. American
Behavioral Scientist, [online] 53(4), pp.493-503. Available at:
74
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?
doi=10.1.1.1033.2289&rep=rep1&type=pdf [Accessed 13 Jun. 2019].
75