21st Century Statecraft

My previous post mentioned that social media must find its proper place in the world.  The U.S. Department of State has done a wonderful job of doing just that with its implementation of 21^st Century Statecraft.  Throughout my posts, I have urged that technology merely extends human capabilities with no inherent ethical consequences.  This new program seeks to embrace tools that leverage the “networks, technologies, and demographics of our interconnected world.”  21^st Century Statecraft merely refers to a direction the State Department is taking to accept innovative technologies and use them to expand their current capabilities.  

Source: xkcd.com

I don’t believe this is the giddy implementation of new technology so often seen by more naïve programs.  The internet has changed international relations and the State Department recognizes that.  Traditional methods of diplomacy still dominate U.S. activity and are not being replaced by digital measures.  Jared Cohen and Alec Ross were the two social media superstars in the State Departments new program.  Examples of its success can be seen with the Text Haiti 90999 initiative, which raised $40 million for the Red Cross to help individuals affected by the 2010 earthquake in Haiti.  Ross and Cohen have worked with industry leaders, such as Google, Facebook and Twitter, in developing programs using everything from viral videos to mobile phones.  

In a few interviews, Jared Cohen mentions programs that haven’t been implemented yet.  The majority of focus is on mobile applications that can enhance education, medicine and justice.  Mobile banking is being implemented to pay policemen in Afghanistan and soon conflict areas in Congo in order to bypass the corrupt systems that were stealing from payroll funds.  Programs, such as text Haiti, are assisting NGO’s in raising funds for disaster relief.  I believe we are only beginning to realize how this technology will affect diplomacy.  Cohen works for Google now, but these programs will not disappear.  He has set the U.S. on a track to embrace technology without fear.

Evgeny Morozov has criticized the U.S. government’s complete acceptance of social media.  “Diplomacy is, perhaps, one element of the U.S. government that should not be subject to the demands of ‘open government’; whenever it works, it is usually because it is done behind closed doors. But this may be increasingly hard to achieve in the age of Twittering bureaucrats.”  Morozov has a point that diplomatic measures are restricted by the transparency brought by technology.  Wikileaks may have provided the greatest example of this problem when they released thousands of diplomatic cables.  However, the threat technology causes is there whether or not we use it.  Transparency has come through in many different forms, whether it is through hacked emails or the personal Twitters of senators.  This trend cannot be controlled.  However, through using digital diplomacy, the U.S. can benefit from its services social media provides and influence the direction the technology takes in the world.

Twitter, Iran and Revolution

The world’s governments are apparently aware of both the threats and benefits created by the internet.  In attempts to control rebellions, Egypt cut off a majority of its citizens from the internet, the U.S. requested Twitter postpone their server maintenance during student protests in Tehran and Tunisia has been accused of logging the password information for activists’ social media accounts.  A lot of importance has been placed on social media’s role in social activism.  However, these actions may have garnered more interest from the media than they signify on behalf of the governments involved.  Many of these stories represent low-risk and low-resource reactions to rebellions.  The internet and social media may have had little real influence on the protests.  Whether social media assisted recent rebellions or not, the media and governments’ reaction to it has made its role important. 

In the Iranian case, Western media posted the loads of Tweets concerning the protests in Tehran as evidence of its use by activists.  As Golnaz Esfandiari stated in Foreign Policy, “Through it all, no one seemed to wonder why people trying to coordinate protests in Iran would be writing in any language other than Farsi.”  Twitter was not instrumental in inspiring or supporting activism in Iran.  I wonder what led to the frenzy that labeled Social Media as a “firestarter.”  It could be wishful thinking, previous advocates trying to validate their theories or lazy journalism.  I mentioned in a previous article that our enthusiasm for technology could stem from commercials.  However, it appears that social media companies, like Twitter and Facebook, rather avoid association with revolution.  Mistrust doesn’t help business.

Source: xkcd.com

Social media, like all other technology, extends the capabilities of its users.  It appears that instead of treating social media as tool to be used, activists have begun to replace traditional activism with its online counterpart.  The “high-risk strategies” of sit-ins and non-violent confrontation left little room for error.  Malcolm Gladwell argues that previously successful revolutions involved incredible amounts of organization and strategy, which he demonstrates well in his books and articles.  Online activism interferes with the creation of these values and hinders the efforts of activists.  In many situations, social media has even been turned against activists by knowledgeable governments.  I see people often posting their location on Facebook and Twitter.  Similarly, locations and networks of activists are public information on social media sites.  The privacy controls that are enabled by some of these sites are weak and can be broken with little effort.

The Occupy movements have shown no form or even any strategy in their quest for change.  All I see is anger and resentment for the status quo, but no real answer to what is wrong and how to change it.  Most students that I have talked too barely understand the reason for the protests.  Perhaps even many protestors do not know what is wrong with the system and only know that something must be.  Ultimately, I think the Occupy movement has had a lot of activity without much clarity.  Given time this may evolve into a more effective protest, but at the moment there efforts are stifled by reliance on technology.  Until social media finds its proper place in activism, it will continue to hinder the efforts of people using it to incite change.

Party Pooper

Morozov is certainly the life of the party.  Innovation is currently being celebrated as the bringer of democracy and Morozov has issued a noise complaint.  I think his main target is cyber-utopians in government and the press.  However, I began thinking on where our belief in technology stems from.  Morozov believes the culprits are writers and scholars.  However, much of our enthusiasm comes from commercials.  I nerdily (yeah, I made it an adverb) get excited over Microsoft’s vision of the future videos.  They show all of the positives our future will hold because of their efforts.  Technology companies are guiding us to a bright future, where increased communication will dispel conflicts of race and religion.  Perhaps this idea that the internet is purely a source of good comes from our commercialist society.  This is just a passing thought that holds little bearing on the actual nature of technology, but it expands Morozov’s argument that we are blind to include why we are blind.  I agree with Morozov that many are blind to the negative impact of technology on the world.  Like Morozov reminds us, technology is a tool that is used by both “good” and “bad” individuals.

Warning: there are about 4 censored expletives   

I hesitantly brought up Anonymous in class to demonstrate Morozov’s grey vision of the internet.   It’s entertaining to argue with people on this issue, because it is a sensitive subject and not just in the traditional way.  Describing Anonymous as simply as I could, I stated that they are an organization of hackers that were known by their attacks on Scientology and various other groups and governments.  I expected backlash from those that knew about them.  The first criticism was on using the word “hacking.”  “Hackers” merely refers to programmers, yet I, like most, used the term out of convenience.  The second criticism was that they are not an organization, though no one could describe what term I should have used.  I’ve heard them described as a collective, but to each their own.  I have to be more politically correct dealing with IST and Computer Science majors than with students of Political Science.  

 source: www.xkcd.com

The collective known as Anonymous represents the chaotic nature of the net.  They are a destructive force, praised when they destroy something “bad” and condemned when they destroy something “good.”  Whether you agree with their actions or not, they use an odd way to assert their causes.  DDoS attacks attempt to flood so many fake information requests to a server that it fails, effectively removing an organizations presence online for a short time.  So Anonymous, proclaimers of internet freedom, fight those that would bring control to the net by silencing them.  This digresses from the majority of freedom fighters, who often quote Voltaire, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”  These were actually the words of Evelyn Beatrice Hall (the more you know), but Anonymous would add “unless you’re wrong.”

The reason that the internet is not a harbinger of freedom and democracy is because it’s a service.  Like all other services, it is offered by somebody who has intentions.  Whether those intentions are to extend the human right of free speech or control it decides the effect the internet will have on the world.  The internet grew in popularity because of the freedom it offered and now it has integrated itself so much into our lives, we believe that our freedom is dependent on it.  Maybe it was a mistake for us to offer so much for convenience, but that tends to be the direction of the world.

The Dark Side of the Internet

In The Net Delusion, Evgeny Morozov shook up a fairly popular notion that the internet is a driver for freedom and democracy.  According to Morozov, authoritarian governments have adapted to the current information age by embracing technology rather than fighting it.  Not long after he published his book, it was put to the test.  The Egyptian government’s reaction to this year’s riots turned The Net Delusion into a reality.  Egypt cut off cell phone and internet connectivity to its citizens to prevent the occurring violence from being published and to stop protestors from communicating and organizing.  The government was also known to send mass text messages, encouraging its citizens to confront “traitors and criminals.”  It hasn't been decided how this action has effected the outcome of the protests, but it seems like a common tactic among governments recently.  One NY Times reporter stated that this merely prevented slactivism, by pushing bloggers who normally would use social media to spread awareness, to take to the streets instead.

Morozov compares the current application of technology by authoritarian leaders to the contrasting worlds of George Orwell and Aldous Huxley.  While Orwell believed authoritarian governments would establish themselves through censorship, Huxley stated that wouldn’t even be necessary.  In Huxley’s Brave New World, mind-numbing amusement could control the masses.  Governments rather have it's citizens blog and create Facebook awareness pages, rather than take to old fashion political movements.  However, Huxley also thought that psychedelics would be a stabilizing force in future volatile societies.  His views have been slightly radical at times, but his concepts of distraction have been applied by many foreign governments.

Morozov is not alone in his critical beliefs.  In 2003 the Department of Defense released a roadmap for information operations that caused quite a commotion in the “cyber-utopian” camp.  Most of the resulting fear seemed to be caused by misunderstanding of the document.  The document states that we should “fight the net” since it is equivalent to an enemy threat.  Several sections seem to be unfortunately worded and without proper context, I would worry myself.  The U.S. has always sought to control the flow of information, not for censorship but for strategic gains.  The document mostly relates the dangers of the net to  software exploitations, cyber-terrorism, and other active threats, which should be fought and defended against.  They did not seem concerned about the free flow of information.

Overall, Morozov thinks that the popular belief in Washington is that the internet will create a utopian democratic world.  However, with my personal studies in national security, I’ve seen this view in the minority rather than majority.  Similar to the DOD’s views expressed in the Information Operation Roadmap, there seems to be quite a bit of fear coming from governments.  The internet's centralizing of information has brought new threats that are more difficult to combat.  The interconnectivity of the internet has increased the reach and anonymity of enemies.  Information freedom has provided education and training that potential enemies might not have received otherwise.  While some politicians might publically tout the benefits of the internet, it seems that most know better and are taking the proper precautions.

Competition of Ideas

I love how Weidenbaum begins his book, The Competition of Ideas.  “No think tank is quite as influential as it claims to be… Not every think tank researcher is brilliant or a person of great experience and judgment.”  Dissent and argument does not disappear with more education; it becomes more ferocious.  Weidenbaum points out the flaws in think tanks that may be unobservable from the outside.  There is rarely complete agreement between think tanks or between the staff of a particular think tank.  According to Weidenbaum, this conflict raises the level of debate nationally and is a force for good.  However, there is still a need to define the role of think tanks and there are many issues to consider when doing so.

 
The think tank market isn’t just a competition between each other, but also a competition for the attention of their main clients.  The market for information and ideas is aggressive.  On more than one occasion, intellectual confrontations have turned into physical ones.  In the previous blog, I show how presidents have employed members of think tanks for their own administrations.  As always, incoming presidents tend to rely on individuals that support their own values and ideas, which discourage change and stifles debate.  Both Reagan and Bush Sr. have hired from conservative based think tanks, while Clinton and Obama have hired from liberal think tanks. 

Weidenbaum discusses this problem in a different manor.  Think tanks are charged with helping the public welfare.  This charge is not assisted by “an endless series of sharp and partisan thrusts.”  However, Weidenbaum does an excellent job at offering solutions when he presents problems, probably a habit from devising policy.  While I don’t see think tanks working together to offer truly bi-partisan research, he offers this as a possible way to increase the quality of national debate.  It’s a competitive market and sharing resources between organizations seems idealistic.  Maybe the uniqueness of the information market offers incentives for cooperation that I am ignorant of.  Weidenbaum shows his suggestion is a realistic possibility.

Simply, all we need to do is cooperate and stop focusing on hot topic research.  Maybe that’s not so simple.  Weidenbaum does a great job at assessing the world of think tanks and fishing out their problems.  It’s hard to argue against his methodical analysis and logical process.  I agree that his solutions would fix the problems currently afflicting think tanks.  However, I have a hard time believing that think tanks can be coerced into working together.  Also, in a market where they must compete for the attention of their clients, hot topics and buzz words attract money.  James McGann pointed out that after 9/11 think tanks began a heavy research focus on defense and security.  The conversation that started was necessary and helpful in alleviating issues in U.S. defense.  However, it demonstrates that think tanks will follow the money.  Unless Weidenbaum can solve these issues, I don’t see his solutions as being viable.

Think Outside the Tank

The U.S. has led the world in the thinking market for the past few decades, dangling good food and drinks to lure in top scholars. Internationally, the number of think tanks has grown exponentially since 1950.  Today, there are twice as many think tanks today than there were in 1980, with most of them residing in the United States.  It seems the U.S. will lead the industry in policy research, at least until these scholars find out Italy has better food.  I’m not sure it’s related, but the U.S. has been increasingly outsourcing its normal activities to private sector companies.  While it is common for the government to fund scientific research at Universities, since 2001 the number of contracted private defense and intelligence firms has risen greatly.  I don’t know if this shift from public to private is wise and well implemented, but it is an interesting development that will definitely have an impact on how our government functions.  

After all of these years, think tanks have evolved into an indefinable spot in domestic and foreign policy.  The term think tank refers to such a heterogeneous group of organizations that meaning is ambiguous.  This is an issue in determining credibility.  In a similar field, such as journalism, there are certain ethics professionals abide by, or at least they should.  I don’t believe that think tank standards have been established well enough.  For example, funding sources vary among think tanks.  Institutions, such as Brookings, have large endowments and need no official funds, while RAND receives most of their funding from contract work from private and public institutions.  Perhaps there needs to be a greater division among think tanks based on their source of income.  Money often defines an organization and, while it’s not a comprehensive solution, identifying think tanks based on income may move us one step closer to defining their purpose.

The recent spike in established think tanks is a phenomenon that has created a private market for information.  I see these think tanks as a natural extension of the liberal arts ideology prevalent in U.S. education and research.  In the U.S., they grew along with the United States’ international influence and leadership.  They have found a niche in helping politicians see beyond their term years in respect to policy.  Until recently, I had no idea how much they were actually used in government.  Jimmy Carter staffed his administration with scholars from the Brookings Institution and the Council on Foreign Relations.  Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush similarly used numerous individuals from different think tanks in their own administrations.  Think tanks have stabilized the hectic transitions of presidential administrations, keeping the supply of ideas and conversation fluid.

Despite the current uncertainty of think tanks place in politics, they certainly have established their presence.  NGO’s have provided services to the world in the past and think tanks provide a new role.  In retrospect, it seems like think tanks were an inevitable progression in policy research.  I hope their position is more clearly defined in politics as they continue to grow in importance.

TWIF: This year we put a 3.0 on it

Reading The World is Flat was similar to chatting with an amiable fellow at a party. Slightly drunk, we reminisce on the recent articles featured in Wired magazine and how we always non-native English speakers when calling tech support hotlines. While the conversation is mildly entertaining, it isn’t about to lay the groundwork for a social science theory. Foreshadowed by my previous blogs, you probably can guess I am not a Flathead (at least in the Friedman way). The Flatheads of the world wish us to believe that as the U.S. gets lazy, the rest of the world is arming itself with productivity and knowledge, completely ignoring many economical and geopolitical factors that still shape the world today. If I were to grant Friedman the title of genius, it wouldn’t be in the realm of predictive social science, but in the ability to make the mundane entertaining.

This book demonstrates Friedman’s ability to find witty anecdotes and metaphors for almost any situation; something often seen in his columns as well. This ability does help the technologically uninitiated better understand a basic rule of technology: it changes things. That combined with Friedman’s call for adaptability in this changing world is something I can agree with. I usually like to read his columns because they point out interesting patterns and directions shown in the world. His book was equally enjoyable to read and actually more persuasive than his articles normally are. I don’t just contribute this to the amount of space he has to make his argument, but also the integration of quotes and opinions of the businessmen most affected by the flatteners. While I’ve criticized Friedman a lot, some ideas that he argues are so basic that it is almost impossible to disagree. You do not need to be a flathead to agree that “Versatile workers have job security” and “Companies that are adaptable have better chances at survival.” In fact many of his points are well argued throughout his book and it oddly leaves room for recommendations on how to fix all of these problems… almost 400 pages worth of room… Ah! Here we go: 

It’s like watching the latest episode of 24, but in Friedman’s next episode you may find out if the U.S. will sink or swim in the sea of globalization! You’ve got to give Friedman credit; he definitely knows how to write bestsellers. It was a wonder that he was able to reason a second version of The World is Flat. While the subject is large enough to deserve the amount of space he gives it, he fills it with entertaining stories rather than develop his argument. I have not read his new book and won’t began to criticize it individually, but after failing to comprehensively describe a problem with two textbook sized documents, he proves he has the gift of gab rather than an a useful analysis. I probably will catch bits and pieces of his book integrate itself into his columns, much like The World is Flat. After seeing his past writing style, those bits will probably be enough to comprehend his entire argument. It kind of reminds me of the Machead mindset where a larger number equates to better software even if there is little or no improvement.

That may be a bit harsh and perhaps The World is Flat 3.0 is more than just plus one, but both books fail to see globalization as a multi-faceted issue. It is hard for me to take it seriously when it focuses only on the integration caused by globalization and largely ignores the disintegration it causes. Friedman has admitted, almost too casually, some of the holes in his argument and states that we have a long way to go before the world is actually flat. I wish his book was a more comprehensive outline of globalization, but it has found a niche. It is better that this book exists and enlightens the average individual on the dangers brought by globalization, but it leaves a hole in understanding the complexity of the situation.

TWIF: Getting Serious

A little less entertaining, more serious, analysis of Friedman’s book:

A notion that has become popular among U.S. media is the internet is a source of informational anarchy, lowering the cost of education and diminishing comparative advantages.  According to Friedman, if the world continues on this trend, the U.S. will lose its international supremacy, while developing countries, such as China and India, will strive to replace it.  Friedman argues that elements of globalization, especially information technology, will be the primary factor in determining future power distribution.  However, Friedman’s method of analysis is from a narrow perspective, which causes him to reach many inaccurate conclusions.  Through a more comprehensive review of current international system, it is more accurate to conclude that the future international economy will be shaped more by shifting demographics and changing economic models, than technological trends.  By examining the most current trends of multispeed economic growths, growing regional trading patterns, shifting demographics and weakening global institutions, I find predictions far different than Friedman’s. 

The future international system cannot only be defined by globalization and technology.  Recently, the National Intelligence Council released an analysis of possible factors that will likely shape the next 15 years.  Among those factors are demography, globalization, the rise of new powers, the decay of international institutions, climate change and the geopolitics of energy.  Many columnists have been predicting for years that information technology will be a harbinger of international cohesion and global institutions.  To so easily proclaim now that it will be the primary driving force for international change, while ignoring these many other factors, can be explained by Richards Heuer’s observation “we tend to perceive what we expect to perceive.”  It seems that Friedman and his advocates would love their prophecies to be fulfilled.

Many of the developing world’s economies are growing at vastly faster rates than the developed world, but some countries are about to hit a wall.  China is the largest example of this, flaunting a rapid three-decade long growth spurt driven by an export led economy.  The media has published reports forecasting the impending shift in power from west to east.  However, the current economic crisis has demonstrated the shortcomings of Chinese and other East Asian economic strategies.  The decrease in western consumption, combined with the recent reduction in birthrate, will force countries like China to restructure their economy to a more sustainable model that focuses internally.  Friedman says the U.S. must be adaptable to compete with these rising countries.  I feel our economy enables us to be far more adaptable than countries like China.

Focusing on a single technological trend leads to a narrow analytical perspective, closing the mind to implications of other classical factors. Developed nations will have to resort to other sources of labor to supplement the Asian labor shortage.  From a U.S. perspective, Mexico will most likely become a major player through regional trade agreements and as a supplemental immigrant workforce, forcing the U.S to deal with the large drug cartels that currently plague the country.  Europe must deal with struggling economies, bank bailouts and possibly austerity programs, with the smaller countries counting on an improving U.S. economy to truly recover.  This reliance on U.S. economy, the restructuring of Asian economies, and shifting immigration patterns demonstrates a vastly different international model than the theories of Thomas Friedman and other cyber-theorists.