Comparative analysis of digital diplomacy strategies in Russia and the USA

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

The Government of the Russian Federation

Federal state autonomous educational institution for higher professional education

National Research University Higher School of Economics

The Faculty of World Economy and International Affairs

Field of Study International Relations

GRADUATION QUALIFICATION THESIS

Comparative Analysis of Digital Diplomacy Strategies in Russia and the USA

Student of the group № 162

Zarudnaia Anastasiia

Moscow 2020

Table of Contents

• 1.1 Public Diplomacy
• 1.2 Digital Diplomacy
• 1.3 Twitter Diplomacy

2. Research Question and Methods

• 3.1 US Digital Diplomacy
• 3.2 Digital Diplomacy of Russia
• 3.3 Comparative Analysis of Digital Diplomacy Strategies of Russia and the US

Conclusion

Introduction

With the increasing popularity of social networking sites most countries in the world have implemented digital instruments such as social media, web platforms or mobile applications in order to communicate with local and foreign audiences. Thus, digital diplomacy as a part of public diplomacy has emerged. Digital diplomacy is the public diplomacy practices conducted via the transformed operating environment: Internet, social networks, mobile apps, and other digital instruments. Proving the rise of digital diplomacy, the last Twiplomacy study (2018) identifies that 187 countries out of all 193 UN members have at least one official account on Twitter. Facebook is the second most popular website with official presence of 179 states. However, the ongoing debate now is how social media are used by governments agencies and what strategy is the most effective in the information age (Pamment, 2012). This research aims to answer this question by comparing digital diplomacy strategies of Russia and the US.

The United States of America remains the only superpower in the world (Beckley, 2018). In terms of political, economic, military and cultural power, the US is in a leading position, which is unreachable in short-term for most of the countries in the world. However, in all these spheres the US steadily loses its positions because of internal crises and the rise of new economic and military powers such as China and Russia. The US government experiences foreign policy crisis seeking for new modus operandi to keep its status quo. Nevertheless, the US is not the only state which can conduct military operations in the regions far from their boarders any more, Russia has shown this capacity in the Middle East as well as China is going to compete with the US in the military spending (Desjardins, 2017). The US has the most stable economy in the world, despite COVID-19 crisis experts suggest that economic decline of the US will be the same as in other countries or less (Sharma, 2020). However, there is the internal policy crisis because of unprecedented polarization between republicans and democrats that led to Trump's impeachment (Trump has been acquitted). The global perceptions of the US fluctuated in the past decades. After a decline in positive perceptions during the Bush's administration and his aggressive policy in the Middle East, Obama temporarily earned a positive perception of the country among the global publics (Pew Research Center, 2008; Pew Research Center, 2012). Today experts agree that under Trump's administration the US is less respected that led to the decrease in global perception of the US and continue to go down although the image is still generally positive around the countries (54%) (Devlin, 2018; Pew Research Center, 2020). The United States was one of the first country which implemented digital instruments in its public diplomacy and continues its development today in order to rebuild the image globally. Today the US is presented online by different governments agencies like the State Department [StateDept] or the White House [WhiteHouse] or on the level of state representatives like the President [POTUS] or Secretary of State [SecPompeo]. Nevertheless, since 2014 leadership positions of the US have been questioned because of intensive and successful Russian campaign in the information space (Manor, 2019).

In fact, recently Russia has made efforts to improve its digital diplomacy (Kolesnikova, 2019). The country has success in the foreign policy as well and aims to be one of the global powers. However, due to assertive and sometimes aggressive foreign policy like in the 2014 Ukrainian Crisis, the country's global perceptions have decreased (Pew Research Center, 2014) and decline continues today (Pew Research Center, 2018). Thus, Russia needs to enhance its image in the global information space. Furthermore the West considers Russia as a great threat in the information space due to the use of bots and trolls by using which makes attempts to undermine reality (Popescu & Secrieru, 2018).

Therefore, the digital diplomacy strategies of these countries, Russia and the US, are interesting to explore and compare. This paper examines twitters of the State Department of the US [StateDept] and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) of Russia [mfa_russia] in a 3-months period, from January to March 2020. There are several reasons why this study is relevant today. First, in the information age the instruments through which diplomats communicate are undergoing great transformation. Driven by technological advancements and overall digitalization of humanities, governments go online and implement new practices in their daily activities. It is also a challenge for states because they should adopt to new digital conditions in a very fast pace. Second, due to wide use of technological developments the information space has become an arena for the US and Russia cooperation and confrontation. Finally, despite the short history of digital diplomacy phenomenon countries have adopted digital strategies and managed to employ new instruments, acquiring initial experiences. It is important to examine the current stage of digital diplomacy development to contribute to the growing body of academic scholarship on digital diplomacy.

The aim of the research is to identify the digital diplomacy strategies of the two countries and describe the differences between two approaches. The research question is what the digital diplomacy strategies of the US and Russia are implemented by the countries and how different the states approaches are. The study focuses on purposes of the strategies, their geopolitical and historical dimension to explain characteristic features of both approaches and identify their differences and similarities. The research covers the countries' activities on Twitter over a period of three months, from January to March 2020. Examining how these states advance their digital diplomacy practices on Twitter is a step toward a richer understanding and further development of the concept of digital diplomacy.

The object of this research is digital public diplomacy and soft power exercised by state actors in the global information space. The subject of the paper is digital diplomacy strategies of Russia and the US.

The research aims to identify and explore the digital diplomacy strategies of Russia and the US and compare different approaches of both countries. To achieve this goal this project will:

? theorize digital diplomacy through broader concepts of public diplomacy and soft power.

? explore the US' and Russia' approaches in digital diplomacy by analyzing previous research and primary sources like official documents and governments' and media reports.

? identify the digital diplomacy strategies of Russia and the US by examining twitters of Russian MFA and the State Department of the US for a 3-months period, January to March 2020.

The empirical framework of the paper draws on several categories: Tweets posted by governments from January to March of 2020; Official government documents, including the National Security Strategy of the US and the Russia's Concept of Foreign Policy; official protocols of digital diplomacy conduct. The thesis employs these primary sources to analyze foreign policy goals as related to digital diplomacy programs and practices.

The theoretical framework of this project is based on the constructivism Following the idea that the structure of international relations is made of ideas, Wendt (1999) argued that ideas constitute the power. These ideas are shared in social interactions between countries which shape and define state identities. Digital diplomacy is a tool of identity-construction.

The thesis employs a mixed-methods approach to explore and compare countries' strategies in digital diplomacy. Specifically, it draws on the content analysis of tweets collected from the MFA and State Department to explore strategies, and key topics of Twitter broadcasting practices.

Introducing the concept of digital diplomacy, the first chapter examines theoretical background for the research. As digital diplomacy is a subject of public diplomacy the chapter starts with the definition of public diplomacy and grounds it within constructivist theory. Developing public diplomacy implements techniques from related fields like propaganda and nation branding. In the information age employing digital instruments public diplomacy digitalizes and the concept of digital diplomacy emerges to which the chapter proceeds. Considering the developments in theory and practice of digital diplomacy the first chapter underlines the purposes of digital diplomacy and distinguishes public diplomacy conducting via Internet from other purposes like crisis-management. It also examines Twitter as one of the most common digital instruments used by governments to conduct public diplomacy. Attempting to find what digital diplomacy strategies have been already studied by scholars and implemented by governments, the chapter identifies the research gap. The study continues with stating the research question to fill the gap in the academic scholarship and explains the methods employed to achieve the study's aim. The empirical part of the research starts explores approaches of the US and Russia to conduct digital diplomacy, including developments of both countries in the field and governance of digital diplomacy practice. It is needed to set background for further empirical work and content analysis of twitters of State Department and Ministry of Foreign Affairs. which conducted in the last fourth chapter of the paper. By analyzing the content of tweets, the research identifies how exactly countries position themselves and what approaches they use in their digital diplomacy. By examining geopolitical and historical dimensions of tweets this study compares digital diplomacy strategies of the US and Russia.

1. Digital Diplomacy as a Part of Public Diplomacy

Introduction

Public diplomacy 2.0 or digital diplomacy emerged in the middle of 2000s when countries' interests in developing public diplomacy coincided with rapid development of social networks: LinkedIn (2003), Facebook (2004), YouTube, Twitter and Vkontakte (2006), and governments started going online (Zaharna & Rugh, 2012). By going online, governments opened a new space for a lot of opportunities. On the one hand, many common practices in public policy were just moved to the new Internet environment. On the other hand, the Internet itself has changed the way of conducting public diplomacy.

The purpose of this chapter is to introduce the concept of digital diplomacy and Twitter diplomacy as a part of it and theorize them through broader concept of public diplomacy by reviewing previous research in the field. This part attempts to explore whether there is any strategy of public and digital diplomacy already identified by researchers. The section also seeks to prove that theoretical provisions of constructivism are applicable to the digital diplomacy phenomena; that digital diplomacy and Twitter diplomacy have the same purposes as public diplomacy.

The chapter includes three parts. It starts with the section “Public Diplomacy” and situates the concept of public diplomacy within the field of International Relations (IR) studies by examining it from the perspectives of constructivism. Then it explores key stages of public diplomacy development and distinguish public diplomacy from propaganda and nation-branding. The next part “Digital Diplomacy” defines the phenomenon of digital diplomacy by examining how theorists and practitioners use the term. It identifies the goals and main actors of digital diplomacy, focusing on digital instruments used by governments to counter disinformation campaigns, provide consular services or manage crises. The section also examines the changes in theory and practice of digital diplomacy through three stages of the development: web 1.0, which ended when first politician set up official account of governmental institution in social media; web 2.0 which is divided into 2 stages before and after Crimean crisis. The third part “Twitter Diplomacy” explores Twitter diplomacy which gives the name to public diplomacy practices conducted via social media. Having described Twitter as a specific social media network, the section moves further to explain why the Twitter is a convenient for conducting public diplomacy and how exactly it is used by governments of different countries. Finally, the section explores the purposes of Twitter diplomacy.

1.1 Public Diplomacy

According to Sevin (2017) “public diplomacy is fundamentally a communication tool used by states to create impact in the international political arena” (p. 37). However, every author defines the phenomenon of public diplomacy according to the research goals. For example, Paul Sharp (Melissen, 2005) highlights the purpose of the public diplomacy which is “to advance the interests and extend the values of those [countries] being represented”. Sevin (2017) defines public diplomacy as “communication-based activities of states and state-sanctioned actors aimed at non-state groups in other countries.” He focuses on the state and its long-term indirect goals, which are not to influence foreign publics, but to exploit them to successfully conduct foreign policy. Attempting to make a link between public diplomacy practice and international relations theory, constructivism to be exact, Bruce Gregory (2008) provides the following definition, which correlates with the idea that public diplomacy can produce social structures and meanings, and by doing so influence countries' identities:

It [public diplomacy] is used by states, associations of states, and some sub-state and non-state actors to understand cultures, attitudes and behaviour; to build and manage relationships; and to influence thoughts and mobilize actions to advance their interests and values. (p. 274)

Wendt, an advocate of social theory of IR, suggests that states “act toward objects, including other actors, on the basis of the meanings that the objects have for them” (Wendt, 1992, p. 396). Therefore, international relations are based on social constructs, i.e. structures and identities which are built in and through social interactions between actors. The assumption that states could change over time as well as their values, identities and national interests differs constructivists from materialist schools. Following the idea that the structure of international relations is made of ideas, Wendt (1999) argues that ideas constitute the content of power and countries' strategies, that is why without ideas there are no interests. As Wendt (1992) also notes, “Actors do not have a `portfolio' of interests that they carry around independent of social context; instead, they define their interests in the process of defining situations” (p.398). So, through interactions with other countries states “acquire identities relatively stable, role-specific understandings and expectations about self” (Wendt, 1999, p. 135). The connection between identities and interests could be described as identities are what states represent by selves and interests are states' wants (Wendt, 1999). So, interests presuppose identities because an actor cannot know what it wants until it knows who it is, and since identities have varying degrees of cultural content so will interests. Identities are based on historical, political and cultural context and constructed through social interactions and understanding itself in relation to others. Thus, taking into consideration that states could choose or modify their identity, van Ham (2008) claims that identity allows states to understand their own values and desires and to communicate them to others.

The social nature of countries' identity becomes very important for conducting public diplomacy because of its capacity to influence social constructs by shaping public opinion in foreign countries. As Sevin (2017) suggests from a constructivist perspective public diplomacy can influence the construction of country's identities by manipulating public discussions, prioritizing certain subjects and changing the discourse in the country. Bruce Gregory's definition of public diplomacy might be the best from the perspective of constructivism. He defines it as “the means by which states, associates of states and non state actors understand cultures, attitudes and behaviour, build and manage relationships; and influence opinions and actions to advance their interests and value”'(Gregory, 2008).

If relationships between countries partly determine their identities and hence countries' interests, the practice of public diplomacy depends on the relationships as well as on the states' representations of self-identities. By examining the influence of national identities on tweeting practices as part of public diplomacy Shahin and Huang (2019) argue that these practices vary according to states relationships toward each other. In addition to differences in social representation, they identify the techno-social aspect, which assumes that countries use different tools provided by Twitter (hashtags, mentions, replies or retweets, etc.) to publicly communicate with countries depending on relationships with a country (Shahin & Huang, 2019). For example, tweets of Boris Johnson, Prime Minister of the UK, in relation to the US are personalized by mentioning the US administration because of friendly relationships between the UK and the US (Shahin & Huang, 2019). However, the US tweets towards China lack any personalization because of China's identification as a rival by the US (Shahin & Huang, 2019). The role of Twitter is defined as “meaning-making”, i.e. “tweeting practices give meanings to actors in relational terms: who is a friend, who is an ally, and who is a rival…” and “…the same tweeting practices give meanings to the relationships themselves: what is a friend, what is an ally, and what is a rival” (Shahin & Huang, 2019, p. 5113).

Public diplomacy from the constructivist perspective has a productive power, i.e. power which has a capacity to produce social structures and meanings. Therefore, public diplomacy plays an important role in the process of country's identity-construction. By taking control over this process and developing public diplomacy practices countries could influence both their own and others' identities. However, to become practice that can help to win over the hearts and minds of people public diplomacy has come a long way. The next section of the research presents the road from early public diplomacy practices to the new public diplomacy.

Evolution of the concept of public diplomacy

For the first time the term `public diplomacy' was formulated by Edward Gullion at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy in 1964 (Pamment, 2012). Although separate elements of public diplomacy were used before Christ by ancient states such as Ancient Rome or Greece (Cull, 2008), the pre-history of modern public diplomacy as systematic policy started in the middle of 1800s. The research divides the development process of public diplomacy into 5 stages: pre-history (before WWI), early public diplomacy (the period between WWI and WWII), public diplomacy of the Cold war (1946-1991), transition period (1991 - 9/11/2001) and new public diplomacy (9/11/2001 - nowadays).

First period of public diplomacy development began in the middle of 1850s when the term `public diplomacy' for the first time appeared in the press: in 1856 in The Times, and 15 years later in the New York Times (Pamment, 2012). That time the term was used as synonym to open diplomacy, i.e. open-door policy during negotiations and transparency while conducting foreign policy The same idea Lenin supported when in 1917 he declassified secret treaties signed by imperial governments and published them in soviet newspapers. Thus, ordinary people would become more aware about foreign policy and governments would be more responsible for conducting foreign policy (Pamment, 2012). For example in 1883, by founding Alliance Francaise, non-profit organization supported by French embassies Today Alliance Francaise is still operating today, it is presented worldwide and has more than 1000 local centers in 146 countries (https://af-france.fr) , French government attempted to recover the country's image after the failure in the Franco-Prussian war by projecting the culture abroad and the spread of French language in neighborhoods (Nye, 2008). These activities might be considered as practice familiar to public diplomacy, which then transformed into early form of public diplomacy.

After WWI and within technological advancements the concept of public diplomacy developed and became familiar to classic definition of public diplomacy practice. Due to the spread of telegraph and the invention of radio many countries were involved into international broadcasting, which provided new opportunities to transmit the ideas abroad (Pamment, 2012). By that time media had been already considered as a means to manage public opinion, and governments started establishing their own media offices for agenda-setting and controlling discourse (Nye, 2008). After WWI propaganda already had negative connotations, because of its use by the British government during WWI. The Brits commonly used misinformation along with reliable facts (Pamment, 2012). As cited by Nye (2008) at the threshold of WWII taking into consideration the threat of Nazi propaganda Roosevelt believed that the “ability to speak to and to win the support of people in other countries” determines national security. However, that time there was no clear distinction between propaganda and public diplomacy. Indeed, public diplomacy practice had already recognized the role of media channels.

The next stage started within the Cold War is dedicated to classic or old public diplomacy. During the Cold War public diplomacy flourished and became the common instrument of foreign policy. In 1950 in the US for the first time in history the culture and public opinion were formally recognized competition spheres alongside military, political and economic ones in NSC-68 (National Security Council). Still there was a need to distinguish neutral US' practice from the negative soviet one (as it was perceived in 1950s in the US). Therefore, in 1964 former US Ambassador, Edward Gullion, formulated the definition of public diplomacy: `Public diplomacy . . . deals with the influence of public attitudes on the formation and execution of foreign policies' (as cited in Pamment, 2012). During the Cold War, the foreign activities of both blocs were based on propaganda approaches: both countries tried to turn to the side as many governments as possible and to keep them on that side by influencing minds of general public. So, Gregory (2011) underlines the developments of public diplomacy in 20^th century:

Public diplomacy in the twentieth century was viewed as a state-based instrument used by foreign ministries and other government agencies to engage and persuade foreign publics for the purpose of influencing their governments. (p.353)

At the beginning of 1990s public diplomacy entered a new phase of its development. Two factors played role in the process. On the one hand, when the Cold War finished, the US lost interest in the active use of public diplomacy and for this reason did not develop further. Thus, the American government reduced the budget of the United States Information Agency (USIA) and cut in half the resources of its mission in foreign countries like Indonesia (Nye, 2008). On the other hand, appearance of multinational actors such as numerous non-governmental organizations or terrorist groups and intensification of its activity marked the beginning of public diplomacy of non-state actors. These actors were forced to implement public diplomacy to establish itself and gain followers. In turn, it caused the development of public relations (PR) because there was a need to establish communication and increase understanding between government institutions, non-governmental organizations and general public. Nevertheless, public diplomacy remained almost ignored by the US till the terrorist attacks of 9/11/2001, when, as it is commonly believed, the new public diplomacy era began (Pamment, 2012; Nye, 2008; Melissen, 2005).

The addition of the word `new' to public diplomacy underlines the significant changes in the world and becomes the starting point for further development of theory and practice of public diplomacy (Figure 1). The true reason for transformation of public diplomacy is the revolution happened in three interconnected areas: communication (advent of the Internet and new media), politics (transformation of autocratic states into democracies) and international relations (the rise of soft and smart power) (Gilboa, 2001). Nowadays governments are forced to act in the new conditions and compete with the social media and transnational organizations for people's hearts and minds by using advanced communication tools. The active involvement of countries throughout the world in public diplomacy practice was also new for public diplomacy in the beginning of 21st century, because before public diplomacy was US-centered (Sevin, 2017).

Figure 1. The Old Public Diplomacy and the New

Note. From “Public Diplomacy: Lessons from the Past,” by Cull, 2009, p. 14.

The countries such as China, India, Brazil and others enrich public diplomacy practice with new approaches. The complication of public diplomacy practice and shared responsibility of diplomatic activities with non-state actors have led to emergence of quite interesting terms and practices like panda diplomacy, skate diplomacy, salsa diplomacy and so on. Finally, one interesting characteristic of theory of new public diplomacy is that it does not describe or explain how public diplomacy really work but mostly gives recommendations about how it should be conducted (as cited in Pamment, 2012).

To conclude, this brief overview of public diplomacy development explains how the concept of public diplomacy changed over time. Since its first practice the purpose of public diplomacy has not undergone significant changes. Broadly speaking, its goal is to shape foreign publics' opinion in order to influence foreign governments. Despite the complication of intergovernmental relations and appearance of new actors in the international arena, the main actors of public diplomacy are still the governments. However, as public diplomacy developed over time, it absorbs methods and instruments from areas like propaganda, public relations and marketing. The next section clarifies the difference between predecessor of public diplomacy, propaganda, and practice that came from the field of marketing, nation-branding.

Different perspectives on public diplomacy

Many researchers (Pamment 2012; Gilboa 2008; Melissen 2005; Gregory 2008; Nye 2008) compare public diplomacy within related concepts such as propaganda and nation-branding, because practice of public diplomacy overlaps with these phenomena. This section attempts to clarify the purpose of public diplomacy through comparing it with propaganda and nation-branding; and explores what functions of public diplomacy researchers identify.

Propaganda has much more long history than public diplomacy. In 17^th century this practice was used by Vatican for protection Catholic Church from Reformation (Pamment, 2012). After the years the term `public diplomacy' was formulated in the US in order to avoid pejorative connotation of propaganda. However, Pamment (2012) underlines that propaganda as practice is neutral and serves for the purpose of those organizing it. Therefore, the questions of morality should be addressed not to practice but to its practitioners. After the years the term did not undergo changes and propaganda could be defined today as `deliberate attempt to influence the opinions of an audience through the transmission of ideas and values for the specific purpose, consciously designed to serve the interest of the propagandists and their political masters' (as cited in Melissen, 2005). Public diplomacy is more complex than propaganda, while propaganda could be one of the instruments of public diplomacy conducting. Propaganda is a one-way model and does not construct a dialogue or expand foreign societies' knowledge about the country, it just `tries to tell people what to think' (as cited in Melissen, 2005). In contrast, public diplomacy assumes two-way communication process. Actors engage foreign audience by listening rather than by speaking (Cull, 2008). According to Cull (2008) listening is essential and most important element of successful public diplomacy. “Listening is an actor's attempt to manage the international environment by collecting and collating data about publics and their opinions overseas and using that data to redirect its policy or public diplomacy approach accordingly” (p. 32). Furthermore, propaganda is designed for a short period of time while public diplomacy should have a long-term nature to be effective (Nye, 2008). To sum up, propaganda is an instrument to promote ideas and values of the country abroad via short-term campaign, while public diplomacy is based on the communication process and the possibility to construct a dialogue.

In recent years, public diplomacy practitioners attempted to adopt some techniques from marketing and public relations studies. Thus, they used methods of nation-branding introduced by Anholt (1998). Nation-branding is a technique used by governments “to measure and monitor the world's perception of their nation and to develop a strategy for managing it” (Anholt, 2013, p. 8). However, there are two main differences between public diplomacy and nation-branding. Firstly, the goal of branding is to create an attractive image of the country, while public diplomacy focuses not on the image, but achievements of the foreign policy objectives. Secondly, in terms of methods and actors, nation-branding is more varied. It includes country's positive associations with national produce, long cultural traditions, stereotypes, so it involves business and non-governmental resources in the branding process (Anholt, 2013). Finally, nation-branding is a passive operation, it means that there is not any techniques to build brand image itself because brands are created by good products, to enhance international image countries should focus on the development of products rather than branding in its own (Anholt, 2013). According to Anholt (2013), nation-branding consists of strategy (“knowing who a nation is and where it stands today, where it wants to get to; and how it is going to get there” (p. 7)), substance (effective execution of the strategy) and symbolic actions.

In the information age governments efforts are aimed at reinforcement of country's global image and to fill the information space in order to influence the minds of foreign publics. To compete with non-state actors in the information space, governments besides marketing instruments implements digital technologies in the public diplomacy practice. They start going online, maintain websites, run blogs on social media networks or even found embassies in the virtual world. All that led to the emergence of the new term digital diplomacy. Digital diplomacy becomes the instrument that allows the states to partly control the information flow and offers new instruments to enhance country's global perceptions. The findings from this section help to theorize digital diplomacy as a part of broader concept of public diplomacy, to identify the theoretical framework on which digital diplomacy emerged and based. The next section explores digital diplomacy in detail.

1.2 Digital Diplomacy

Due to recent technological advancements in the information age, public diplomacy is rapidly changing, the emergence of non-governmental actors, involvement of specialists from marketing and public relations, development of techniques and implementation of new instruments in the practice have influenced the concept of public diplomacy. Another important transformation of public diplomacy is adopting digital formats and tools. In the 21^st century the modern society is networked, information-centered and future-oriented, and “social media users are both those being watched and those doing the watching” (Manor, 2019). Thus, public diplomacy changes to meet the needs of this new society.

Evolution of the concept

Digital diplomacy practices vary from mobile app development to blogging on YouTube. Since the invention of the Internet, US government activities in the information space included global communications. For example, in 1994 Voice of America (VOA) launched its first online text-service, by the end of 1996 VOA live-streamed its audio-programs online (Cull, 2018). In 1995 the United States Information Agency (USIA) launched its first website, offering e-journals, including “Economic Perspectives”, “Global Issues”, “Issues in Democracy”, “U.S. Foreign Policy Agenda” and “U.S. Society and Values”, to the global audiences (Cull, 2018). Cull (2013) names this period Digital Public Diplomacy 1.0. In this stage the main function of digital diplomacy was to inform, to promote and spread information. Government was the main and the only actor of digital diplomacy.

In the middle of 2000s, web 2.0 diplomacy emerged (Cull, 2013). Web 2.0 platforms are those, where users generate content by themselves. Thus, in 2005 the Office of E-Diplomacy which had replaced the USIA, started Diplopedia, the wiki resource Wiki is the type of websites which content is provided by users themselves with information about countries and their policies (Cull, 2018). In the same period the State Department started its own blog DipNotes (Cull, 2018). In 2007 on the initiative of the Swedish foreign minister the Swedish embassy created the first embassy in the virtual world of Second Life Second Life is a website, the user created 3D universe developed by Linden Lab in 2003 (https://secondlife.com/) (Manor, 2019). It stood out from the rest of other governments attempts. The virtual embassy did not function as a real embassy but organized different cultural events like exhibitions, lectures, festivals and conferences and even had a sex party for which was criticized by a lot of users. This case demonstrates that not all governmental initiatives in digital sphere are approved by digital publics (Manor, 2019). In addition, governments started using popular social media which actively gained popularity during the late 2000s.

Manor (2019) divides web 2.0 time into two separate stages. The first stage begins in 2007, with the mass migration of different governments agencies to the web and lasts till the 2014 Crimean crisis (Manor, 2019). During Crimean Crisis, the states including Russia and European countries attempted to influence publics by shaping their perception of reality in the Ukraine (Manor, 2019). The 2014 Crisis revealed that digital diplomacy could be conducted not only by framing topics and explaining policies but by filling the information space with false news and crafted pictures (Manor, 2019). It set the new norm. While analyzing two stages of digital diplomacy development Manor (2019) compares the first stage with “the swinging jolt of big-band jazz music” because of the “spirit of free experimentation” which became “capella harmony” by 2013 and then transformed into “the operatic grandeur of the Russian “Kalinka” (p. 102).

Manor highlights the major differences between two stages. These changes show that governments' approach became more advanced, structured, complex and purposeful. The first difference is the way of communication, which was linear: diplomats used twitter in the same way as twentieth-century mass media - as a means of broadcasting; then it transformed into algorithmic. So, around 2014 diplomats started to hack algorithms of social networks by employing different digital tactics, using certain hashtags, engaging with users or leaving comments on posts. Another important change is the use of digital strategies instead of tactics. Digital tactics assume that practitioners deal with the specific issue by attracting audience attention to certain problems. Digital strategies, by contrast, are long-term and could be defined by measurable goals. The third characteristic of the new stage of digital diplomacy is the transition from diplomats' intention to communicate with networks of influencers, individuals, who have a lot of connections in one network, to attempts of cooperation with networked gatekeepers, users, who sit at the intersection of two networks and hence control the information flow between different networks. This approach allows to control the information flow by passing or withholding the content in the networks. The further change is the move from argument-based to narrative-based diplomacy. Before narrative-based approach diplomats dealt with a separate question but they turned to narratives which allow to frame any event in the world in a certain way. It provides diplomats with opportunity to bring favorable order and structure in the world. Finally, digital diplomacy adopt tailored messages instead of targeted. Instead of simply reaching the target, tailored communication adapts the content to certain groups of users by specifying it for certain platforms. For instance, when the US embassy in Russia create content in Russian it is an attempt to target Russian audience, i.e. targeted communication. While in case of tailored message the main idea is the creation of content for specific media channel such as more visual content for Instagram, long read articles for Facebook or short emotional texts for Twitter. Within tailoring digital diplomacy is approaching a next stage of its development which is web 3.0 or public diplomacy 3.0 (Manor, 2019). It proves the idea of Marshal McLuhan “the Medium is the Message” means that technology is more important than the content, so it is not the user who defines what content to consume but technology itself which offers only information which is interested and useful for certain user (McLuhan, 1964).

Conceptualization of digital diplomacy

As a term digital diplomacy (Bjola & Holmes 2015) could be named differently: `public diplomacy 2.0' (Hallams, 2010), `virtual diplomacy' and `net diplomacy' (Wehrenfennig, 2012), `e-diplomacy' (Holmes, 2013). However, all these definitions are centered around the use of the Internet for conducting public diplomacy. For instance, Potter (2002) defines it as the diplomatic practices conducted via social networks, mobile apps, using web-platforms and other digital instruments in order to communicate with the audience and each other. Cull (2013) also focuses on digital diplomacy as the transformed operating environment of public diplomacy. The similar definition is suggested by the United Kingdom's Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) (2010): “It is conventional diplomacy through a different medium” (As cited in Adesina, 2017). While the US innovation advisor extends this concept to the understanding of how Internet influences international developments like political movements (Funnell, 2014). Thus, neither in the academic nor in the practitioners' community there is no clear definition of digital diplomacy. This is also confirmed by digital diplomacy scholar from Oxford University, Ilan Manor. As he argues none of the terms like e-diplomacy, public diplomacy 2.0 or digital diplomacy do not fully explain the theoretical and practical implications of the new public diplomacy (Manor, 2019). That is why the researcher insists on the use of the term `digitalization of public diplomacy' and defines it as the following:

[Digitalization of public diplomacy] relates to a long-term process in which digital technologies influence the norms, values, and working routines of diplomatic institutions, as well as the metaphors and self-narratives that diplomats employ to conceptualize their craft. (p. 15)

He also suggests that the understanding of values and logic of digital society plays a critical role in the understanding of the digitalization of public diplomacy. Manor emphasizes that digitalized diplomacy is not only about new tools but also about new factors that change the gist of diplomatic practices. digital diplomacy Despite the difference between terms like `digitalized public diplomacy' and `digital public diplomacy' and its synonyms like `net diplomacy' or `public diplomacy 2.0' in this research all terms are used interchangeably meaning the digitalized diplomacy introduced by Manor. is not another way to conduct public diplomacy, but a transformation of the public diplomacy in its core.

Many scholars agree that major objectives of digital diplomacy are conducting public diplomacy, information and knowledge management, consular activities and disaster response (Adesina, 2017; Bjola, 2017; Permyakova, 2012). Digital diplomacy aims to communicate with foreign publics, to establish two-way dialogue and to keep in touch with influencers Social media influencers are individuals, opinion leaders, who have reputation for their knowledge and expertise on a specific topic. For that they can create trends and have an impact on the audience (Influencer Marketing Hub, 2020). (Cull, 2013). The next goal of digital diplomacy is the information and knowledge management (Permyakova, 2012). While conducting digital diplomacy a lot of information is gathered and then it can be used in policy-making and strategic planning. For example, in 2011, when the video `Innocence of Muslims' was published on YouTube the content analysis of comments could have been given the information about the audience reaction in the events and then it could have been used to prevent further uprising (Al-Rawi, 2017). The third one is consular activities and disaster response (Bjola, 2017). The case in point is the Foreign and Commonwealth Office travel advice [FCOtravel] (https://twitter.com/fcotravel) which provides help for British subjects travelling abroad (Bjola, 2017). In case of emergency it is the common practice among the governments to create a special account on social media for immediate communication with authorities like Belgium Crisis center of the Federal Public Service on Twitter [CrisisCenterBE] and others (Bjola, 2017).

This thesis focuses on digital diplomacy as an instrument to conduct public diplomacy. On the one hand, within social media networks public diplomacy gains new possibilities. Governments can reach broader audience directly at a lower cost. On the other hand, digital diplomacy practices are limited by managing social media accounts. Digital diplomacy in its public diplomacy purposes could be examined from the constructivist perspective as well. Digital diplomacy has a capacity to influence countries' identity by shaping the discourse. By being presented in the Internet and being actively involved in communication process countries could not only represent their identity but to fill the virtual space within that identity. As information space becomes a battleground counter-disinformation campaigns have become common practices conducted within public diplomacy techniques via digital instruments.

The important characteristic of public diplomacy conducted through social media networks, i.e. digital diplomacy, is the free access of the global audience to the content. It makes digital diplomacy multilateral, even though there is a target country the message could be viewed by the whole world at once it is published in the Internet. In digital diplomacy it is impossible to leave the public eye, secrets no longer exist on the Internet (Rashica, 2018). It returns to the idea from which public diplomacy started long ago, at the end of WWI, Lenin suggested to conduct open-door diplomacy (Pamment, 2012). The immediate spread and global access to information are both risk and benefit for public diplomats. On the one hand, it allows to reach many people within one click, on the other hand, it puts constraints on the content, because the message should be acceptable not only for target country but for all states in the world, i.e. content should not accidentally offend any of the states.

The instruments used in digital diplomacy practice vary from simple website to mobile apps. Websites of government agencies, including ministries of foreign affairs, embassies and consulates offer foreign policy news and other relevant information. States use social networks like Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and others to run official blogs and communicate with larger audience. In that way, they can actively engage audiences attempting to establish a dialogue. The other way is to use different digital platforms like the virtual world of The Second Life and similar ones. Finally, governments can develop mobile apps to bring themselves closer to the audience, target different group of audiences offering interesting and useful content.

With the emergence of digital tools public diplomacy transforms in order to meet demands of the networked society. It advances from one-page websites to complex mobile apps and blogs with million strong followership. This section proves that although digital diplomacy came as subject of public diplomacy, it goes beyond the traditional for public diplomacy practices. However, for this research the implementation of digital diplomacy in public diplomacy is more important, because it offers a lot of opportunities in practice, including the speed of information spread, the power with ease to fill and control the information space, etc. That is why this work focuses on public diplomacy practices of digital diplomacy. Therefore, it is logical to examine social networks because they offer a lot of simple instruments to reach wide audience for the governments like hashtags, mentions, built-in advertising. The next section introduces the main principles of the Twitter as one of the most news-friendly platforms and explores characteristic features of Twitter diplomacy.

1.3 Twitter Diplomacy

Twitter is a social networking service which was founded by Jack Dorsey, Noah Glass, Biz Stone, and Evan Williams in 2006 in the USA. The length of text in a post (tweet) is limited by 280 characters. In addition to text messages users can attach pictures, videos, and links on third-party sites. In February of 2020, Twitter has around 330 million monthly active users, 152 million of total are active every day, and 500 million tweets are daily sent (Aslam, 2020). In comparison to other social media like Facebook or YouTube Twitter does not seem to be very popular (App. 1) it has 329.5 million of users in comparison to 2.26 billion of the first-ranked Facebook (Ortiz-Ospina, 2019). Though, Twitter is used by journalists as an appropriate source of information more often than Facebook (von Nordheim, Boczek, & Koppers, 2018). It is interesting that 80% of all content come from just 10% of users, the median user in the top 10 % creates around 140 posts per month (Hughes & Wojcik, 2019). It means that the conversation on Twitter is dominated by extremely active users, so if the user actively tweets, at least 140 tweets in a month, to be exact, this user is one who set global agenda on Twitter.

Social media as a means of conducting public and digital diplomacy is rapidly gaining popularity among politicians. According to the report annually presented by Twiplomacy study (Lьfkens, 2018), Twitter is the most popular platform among politicians and the first in the number of countries represented: only 6 out of 193 UN members do not have official presence. Its format of short messages limited to 280 characters allows both to publish and consume content in a very fast way.

Twitter is available worldwide except China, Iran and North Korea where the platform is formally blocked (Jen, 2020). However, many users continue being active on Twitter and other social media, even the governments of China [MFA_China] and Iran [HassanRouhani] have official presence on the platform. Twitter is more popular in the USA than in Russia, there are almost 60 million active Twitter users in the USA, while there are only 10 million in Russia (Clement, 2020). English language domination on Twitter is a possible explanation of this difference (Devlin, 2019). In general, Twitter is officially available in 34 languages and this number increases every year (Twitter. Supported languages and browsers, 2020).

Moreover, Twitter is a news-friendly platform, because it is mostly real-time platform (what users see is what people are saying at the moment), the relationships are one-way (it is natural for media - audience relationships), and it is built around text while video and images complement textposts (Benton, 2020). Lastly, authoritative media like “The New York Times”, “The Guardian” refer to the site as a reliable information source, so it increases Twitter's trustworthiness (von Nordheim et al., 2018).