i LEGON CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS AND DIPLOMACY (LECIAD) THE INFLUENCE OF SOCIAL MEDIA ON DIPLOMACY: A CASE STUDY OF US- RUSSIA RELATIONS BY GABRIELLA EWURAFUA AMPAABENG (10803824) This dissertation is Submitted to the University of Ghana, Legon, in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of MA INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS DEGREE. LEGON AUGUST, 2022 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh ii DECLARATION I, hereby declare that this dissertation is an original research conducted under the supervision of Ambassador Dr. Kodzo Alabo and all references have been duly acknowledged. …………………………………. …………………………………… Gabriella Ewurafua Ampaabeng Amb. Dr. Kodzo Alabo (STUDENT) (SUPERVISOR) …………09/08/2022……… 09/08/2022…… DATE DATE University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh iii DEDICATION I dedicate this work first and foremost to God who made it possible for me to complete this successfully and to my parents, Mr. and Mrs. Ampaabeng for all their support. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would first like to express my heartfelt gratitude to God for His protection, health, and guidance towards me which has led to the completion of this research. Secondly, I am sincerely thankful for the support of my parents Mr Ebenezer Ampaabeng and Mrs. Gladys Ampaabeng for believing in me and encouraging me throughout. I am also grateful for the opinions and suggestions from my brother Gabriel Yoofi Ampaabeng. I am most grateful to Ambassador Alabo who supervised, encouraged and demonstrated patience and understanding during the period of undertaking this study. My profound gratitude goes to the Swedish Consulate and Russian embassy as well as Hype Net and Paragon Digital for their responses which have been relevant to the dissertation. My sincere thanks also go to the lecturers and staff of LECIAD and my colleagues and friends for the encouragement, the kind words and the many laughs. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh v LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Overview of Global Internet Use ............................................................................................... 31 Figure 2: World's Most Visited Websites .................................................................................................. 32 Figure 3: Video Conferencing Platforms ................................................................................................... 35 Figure 4: Digital Around the World in 2020 ............................................................................................. 36 Figure 5:The World's Most-Used Social Platforms ................................................................................... 36 Figure 6: Social Media Use Around the World ......................................................................................... 37 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh vi TABLE OF CONTENTS DECLARATION ...................................................................................................................................... II DEDICATION ........................................................................................................................................ III ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................................ IV LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................... V TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................... VI ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................................... IX CHAPTER ONE .................................................................................................................................. 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY ............................................................................................................ 1 1.2 STATEMENT OF THE RESEARCH PROBLEM ......................................................................................... 4 1.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS ....................................................................................................................... 5 1.4 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY ................................................................................................................. 5 1.5 SCOPE OF THE STUDY ......................................................................................................................... 5 1.6 RATIONALE OF THE STUDY ................................................................................................................ 5 1.7 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ............................................................................................................... 6 1.8 LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................................................... 9 1.9 SOURCES OF DATA ............................................................................................................................ 14 1.10 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................... 15 1.11 ARRANGEMENT OF CHAPTERS ...................................................................................................... 17 ENDNOTES .................................................................................................................................................. 18 CHAPTER TWO ................................................................................................................................ 20 OVERVIEW OF THE USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA IN THE SPHERE OF DIPLOMACY ........................................ 20 2.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 20 2.1 ORIGIN AND EVOLUTION OF DIPLOMACY ......................................................................................... 20 2.1.1 GREECE ............................................................................................................................................ 20 2.1.2 ROME ............................................................................................................................................... 21 2.1.3 BYZANTIUM ..................................................................................................................................... 22 2.1.4 VENICE ............................................................................................................................................. 23 2.1.5 FRANCE ............................................................................................................................................ 24 2.1.6 19TH CENTURY .................................................................................................................................. 24 2.1.7 20TH & 21ST CENTURY ........................................................................................................................ 25 2.2 HISTORY OF COMMUNICATION IN DIPLOMACY ................................................................................. 25 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh vii 2.2.1 TELEGRAPH ...................................................................................................................................... 26 2.2.2 TELEPHONE ...................................................................................................................................... 27 2.2.3 RADIO .............................................................................................................................................. 28 2.2.4 TELEVISION ...................................................................................................................................... 29 2.2.5 FAX ................................................................................................................................................... 30 2.2.6 INTERNET ......................................................................................................................................... 30 2.2.7 SOCIAL MEDIA .................................................................................................................................. 32 2.2.7.1 SKYPE ............................................................................................................................................ 33 2.2.7.2 FACEBOOK .................................................................................................................................... 33 2.2.7.3 YOUTUBE ...................................................................................................................................... 33 2.2.7.4 TWITTER ........................................................................................................................................ 34 2.2.7.5 INSTAGRAM .................................................................................................................................. 34 2.2.7.6 TIKTOK .......................................................................................................................................... 34 2.2.7.7 ZOOM ........................................................................................................................................... 35 2.3 EMERGENCE OF SOCIAL MEDIA IN DIPLOMACY AND E-DIPLOMACY .................................................. 37 2.4 FORMS OF DIPLOMACY ....................................................................................................................... 40 2.4.1 PUBLIC DIPLOMACY ......................................................................................................................... 40 2.4.2 TWIPLOMACY .................................................................................................................................. 42 2.4.3 DIGITAL DIPLOMACY ........................................................................................................................ 44 2.5 CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................................... 45 ENDNOTES ................................................................................................................................................ 47 CHAPTER THREE ............................................................................................................................. 50 INFLUENCE OF SOCIAL MEDIA ON US-RUSSIA DIPLOMACY .............................................................. 50 3.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 50 3.1 USA-RUSSIA RELATIONS .................................................................................................................... 50 3.1.1 SOCIAL MEDIA ................................................................................................................................ 53 3.1.2 COMMUNICATION .......................................................................................................................... 54 3.1.3 TARGET AUDIENCE .......................................................................................................................... 54 3.1.4 INFLUENCE ...................................................................................................................................... 55 3.2 BENEFITS OF SOCIAL MEDIA USE IN US-RUSSIA DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS .......................................... 55 3.2.1 REACH ............................................................................................................................................. 56 3.2.2CHEAP FORM OF COMMUNICATION ............................................................................................... 56 3.2.3 SPEED .............................................................................................................................................. 57 3.3 CHALLENGES OF SOCIAL MEDIA USE IN US-RUSSIA DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS .................................... 57 3.3.1 FAKE NEWS ..................................................................................................................................... 57 3.3.2 CYBER BULLYING ............................................................................................................................ 58 3.3.3 SECURITY BREACHES ...................................................................................................................... 59 3.3.4 MISINTERPRETATION ..................................................................................................................... 60 3.4 CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................................... 60 ENDNOTES .............................................................................................................................................. 62 CHAPTER FOUR ............................................................................................................................... 64 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................... 64 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh viii 4.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 64 4.1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ................................................................................................................. 64 4.2 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................. 65 4.3 RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................................................... 66 4.3.1 TRAINING .................................................................................................................................. 66 4.3.2 SECURITY AUTHENTICATION .................................................................................................... 66 4.3.3 REGULATION ............................................................................................................................. 66 ENDNOTES .................................................................................................................................................. 68 BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................................................ 69 BOOKS ......................................................................................................................................................... 69 JOURNAL ARTICLES ..................................................................................................................................... 70 INTERNET SOURCES .................................................................................................................................... 71 INTERVIEWS ................................................................................................................................................ 75 APPENDIX .................................................................................................................................................... 76 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh ix ABSTRACT Social media has now become a major part of modern diplomacy with countries all over the world embracing it as an alternative medium of communication within diplomacy. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, websites and blogs are examples of dominant social media platforms used by states and non-states alike. The use of social media in diplomacy has given rise to public diplomacy efforts, e-diplomacy or digital diplomacy and soft power and consequently transformed modern diplomacy. The aim of the study was to examine the impact of social media on the conduct and execution of modern diplomacy. The study measured the extent of social media's influence on diplomatic relations between the USA and Russia particularly and drew out some benefits and challenges as well as preferred solutions to the challenges. The research design of the study made use of the qualitative method in collecting, analyzing and interpreting data. The sampling method employed was the non-probability technique of purposive sampling because the selected sample had adequate information pertaining to the theme of the study. From the findings, social media has enhanced communication between diplomats and their target audiences while some shortcomings include security breaches and the propagation of fake news. Recommendations based on the findings include social media training courses for diplomats to enable them to stay on top of situations, improvement of security measures to protect information and data and measures to deal with propagators of false information. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background of the Study Sir Ernest Satow, a distinguished British diplomat, defines diplomacy as “the application of intelligence and tact to the conduct of official relations between governments of independent states”1, and communication is essential for the execution of diplomacy. Diplomacy is as old as time and has evolved over the years with several factors accounting for its development. Key among the factors and for the emphasis of this study is social media. Carr and Hayes in their work explain social media as internet-based channels that enable users to resourcefully engage and carefully self-present, in either real-time or non-simultaneously, with both narrow and broad audiences who benefit from user-generated content as well as the observation of communication with others2. The ability to share opinions, pictures, videos, live events, and information in real- time has practically changed the way we do everything and diplomacy is not exempt. The Internet is now vital to both private and public conversations with modern instruments such as social media, bringing masses into open and equal platforms to interact in. It is, however, wrought with benefits and challenges for individuals, states, and organizations in their efforts to maximize the emerging opportunities provided by the Internet.3 Social media came into existence in the late 1990s and rose in popularity in the early 2000s. As of 2006, Facebook and Twitter were introduced and continue to be quite popular today. Currently, there are a variety of social networking sites, and many of them permit cross-posting which allows users to reach their specific audiences without sacrificing proximate communication.4. Some examples of social media platforms are Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, WhatsApp, Instagram, WeChat, Snapchat, TikTok, among several others. The use of social media by US adults increased from 5% in 2005 to 79% in 2019, whereas, in Russia, the number of social network users increased from 60.5 million in 2013 to 79.2 million in 20195. Facebook surged from covering almost 1.5% of the world’s population in 2008 to about 30% in 20186. From the first quarter of 2010 to the first quarter of 2019, the global volume of monthly active Twitter users increased from 30 million to 330 million.7 According to Cohn and Wolfe, the percentage of the presence of UN member states on Twitter is 97%, while Facebook is the next most popular platform amongst state leaders and is University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 2 where they have their biggest audiences. Since his assumption of office in January 2017, Donald Trump has indisputably impacted Twitter and is the most followed world leader with more than 52 million followers8. He is also one of the few world leaders that personally manage their own accounts. The micro-blogging service has now existed under three presidencies, but no politician has utilized it quite like Trump.9 Notably, former president Barack Obama was also the first American leader to use Twitter. Averagely, Russia’s foreign ministry account on Twitter with handle (@MID_RF) shares 11 posts per day same as Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi (@narendramodi), with Donald Trump (@realDonaldTrump) behind by just 10 posts a day. Jair Bolsonaro, president of Brazil, Donald Trump and Narendra Modi top the chart of the world leaders with the most interactions. Social media is a powerful instrument that has played a role in the advancement of diplomacy since dynamism and communication particularly, are essential to diplomacy. In the digital age, diplomacy has come to be referred to as “Digital Diplomacy,”10 “Twiplomacy (Twitter Diplomacy),”11 “Cyber Diplomacy,”12 and “Virtual Diplomacy”13. They however fall under the broader term “E-diplomacy (Electronic Diplomacy)”14 Diplomats are progressively relying on Twitter in their daily communications with their colleagues. These interactions happen in the presence of an international audience, which adds an extra level of scrutiny that is exclusive to this method of communication.15 It has also given rise to the participation of non-state actors such as multinational corporations (MNCs), non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and international organizations, in the conduct of diplomacy. With the rise of increased internet usage and social media specifically, governments all over the world are actively engaging in social media to catch up with the trend for many reasons, chief of them all is to promote the interests of the countries they represent. The U.S.A State department in adapting to the internet age has accepted digital diplomacy as a form of soft power or smart power as described by former American president Barack Obama. As an alternative to hard power or military power, soft power coined by Joseph Nye16refers to the use of persuasion without the use of force to attract a specific audience to attain foreign policy objectives. The USA introduced the 21st century statecraft agenda which supplements traditional foreign policy tools with modernized and adapted instruments of statecraft that wholly utilize the various technologies, networks, and statistics of the interconnected world17. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 3 The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) of the United States has also been a leader in the field of digital transformation. Technology and social media can be used to conduct business, provide services, and start conversations, according to the United States government. Two hundred and sixty-eight embassies, high commissions, and consulates in one hundred sixty-eight countries have active social media accounts as part of the USA Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO). Together, they have a little over 7 million followers on their 700 plus official social media accounts worldwide.18 Russia surpassed Germany in 2011 as Europe’s largest internet market by gaining more than 54 million monthly users, a figure that is increasing at a fast pace. President Putin, at an ambassadors’ conference in Moscow, urged diplomats to take advantage of new instruments of diplomacy and argue in a more effective way that articulates the Russian stances and views on global affairs. This is based on their belief that as more people know about their country and its policies, they can better understand them and attain stability and harmony in the long run.19 Cohn and Wolfe in theor work ‘Twiplomacy’ have ranked the Russian foreign ministry on Twitter 4th out of 50 best connected world leaders in 2019.20 Some benefits of social media with regards to diplomacy include strengthening of international relations, proximity with audiences, fast and effective communications, and low financial cost. It has transformed diplomacy from statist to citizen diplomacy. It has in some cases created a turn- around in governance and politics. The Arab Spring is a case in point where citizens protested the ruling government using social media platforms to organize protests and chronicle violent events, beginning in Tunisia, and causing Egypt, Libya and other Arab countries to rebel against authoritarian governments. However, it has also affected the conduct of diplomacy by reducing the work of diplomats and forcing them to make quick decisions on issues because of the fast spread of information. The era of social media has made the world transparent, noisy and awash with chaff as well as fake news. Security breaches such as hacking and leaking of vital data is another challenge presented by social media use. An example is the leakage of diplomatic cables by Julian Assange of Wikileaks in 2010 which caused a stir in diplomatic circles. Another example is Edward Snowden’s exposé of classified information concerning global surveillance programs run by the USA National Security Agency (NSA) in collaboration with other telecommunication corporations and governments in 2013. The world is now filled with an array of voices that define social media, numerous conflicting views, and some extent of disharmony among the spheres. She continues by saying that regardless of the liberty that comes with the expression of views on social University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 4 media, freedom of expression is threatened because intolerance is abundant.21 The world has now become rife with political extremes, rage, and followers or audiences that only support or endorse like-minded opinions.22 The study seeks to examine the impact of social media on diplomacy between the USA and Russia. 1.2 Statement of the Research Problem USA’s foreign policy has transformed from isolationism by George Washington to containment and currently to economic aid. Like foreign policy, diplomacy has also changed over time with developments such as technology and social media within the broader context of digital media. Social media has been making many strides in contemporary times hence becoming the focus of this study. Rao in quoting a study, stated the effect of social media as a threat to democracy, tolerance, and political dialogue which consequently erodes the public sphere gradually23. Rao again points out that diplomacy now has to contend with predetermined, prismatic opinions on select policy issues, offensive responses, hate speech, vilification, and varied forms of abuse which can be overwhelming for embassies’ social media accounts24. Social media facilitate communication between a government and a foreign population. As a public relations technique, this media outlet proved efficient in influencing public opinion during Obama's 2008 campaign. Therefore, it is advantageous to use social media platforms to advance U.S.A interests overseas.25 When the local population opposes the foreign nation's existence, it is hard to achieve any foreign policy aim requiring the assistance of citizens in that country. In the case of Russia, social media may be a useful and strategic instrument for PD activities since the whole nation has appropriate internet and social media site access. These websites may be used to disseminate information globally; however, it is crucial that the material be provided in both Russian and English so that people and governments can participate actively26 These measures may improve the United States' image in Russia and dispel any misunderstandings. Some opponents consider these attempts to be propaganda. However, theorists such as Ociepka argue that it is not propaganda since public diplomacy, as it is now performed, involves its intended audience in discourse. Cox and Stokes claim that the use of social media in University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 5 U.S. foreign policy is a type of propaganda since it promotes just a favourable image without highlighting the complete policy aims of the United States. These divergent viewpoints generate a dispute over the ethics of public diplomacy.27 Social media has enhanced freedom of speech and expression of views which has given rise to a multiplicity of opinions, fake news, and political extremity, diminishing the principle of non- intervention, transparency, and undermined sovereignties. Information is easily accessible by all and in a very quick manner via the internet on smartphones, tablets, and computers which, although may be good, affects the conduct of diplomacy. Diplomats or policymakers, for instance, are sometimes forced to make quick decisions sometimes swayed by public opinion, or promptly diffuse tensions caused by fake news. Countries are kept abreast with happenings in other countries and certain cases, enemy countries. Opinions or comments that otherwise should be said behind closed doors or kept to oneself can now be discussed on social media which can incite violence or hatred in the public. Some comments or statements made on social media by high-ranking officials or diplomats can be detrimental to their job or country as it tarnishes the country or organization they represent. There is also the problem of misinterpretation of information posted by leaders. In this era of social media, governments have limited control over information flows and an example is the Wikileaks incident when the USA government secrets were leaked, showing its limited capacity in controlling information in the internet era28. Also, important to note is the fact that, the internet is a platform that never forgets and there have been several occasions where an unfortunate post from a leader has been used against him and the country or organization they represent at a later date. Thus, this study seeks to investigate the influence of social media on diplomacy with a focus on US-Russia relations. 1.3 Research Questions 1. To what extent does social media influence diplomacy between the USA and Russia? 2. What challenges do social media present to diplomacy between the USA and Russia? 3. What measures can be put in place to address the challenges? 1.4 Objectives of the Study University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 6 1. To determine the extent of social media’s influence on diplomacy between the USA and Russia. 2. To examine the challenges social media presents to diplomacy between the USA and Russia. 3. To make recommendations that will limit the challenges. 1.5 Scope of the Study This study investigates the influence and effects of social media on diplomacy with a focus on relations between the United States of America and Russia, with a period of investigation spanning from 2000 to 2020 because social media rose to prominence and has become popular within this period and continues to remain dominant. The theme of focus for the study is social media and its impact on modern diplomacy. 1.6 Rationale of the Study This research attempts to address the effects of social media on diplomacy. Several studies have been done on the relationship between social media and diplomacy, however, this study seeks to not only augment knowledge but to put into perspective the influence of social media in both the USA and Russia’s diplomatic relations over the years. It is significant also because it would aid in future strategies of diplomatic relations while taking into consideration activities of social media in modern society with a focus on USA and Russia. 1.7 Theoretical Framework This study evaluates the use of social media through the theoretical framework of the Medium Theory by Marshall McLuhan (1994)29. Joshua Meyrowitz, originally coined the term in 1985 in his book, “No Sense of Place”30 but Marshall McLuhan first highlighted the medium theory in 1964 when he first published his book “Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man”31. He formulated concepts such as “The Medium is the Message”, “Hot and Cool Media”, and “Laws of the Media”. McLuhan is of the view that technologies are any extensions of our nervous and physical system that intensify power and speed; thus, “a medium is any extension of ourselves or any new technology”32. Hence, a wheel is an extension of our feet, the phone an extension of our voice, the television an extension of our eyes and ears, the computer an extension of our brains and electronic University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 7 media generally an extension of our central nervous system.33 This means that through electronic media, the speed of communication resonates with the speed of the senses. We are progressively linked together across the world via media which includes the telephone, television and recently the personal computer and the ‘Internet’, allowing worldwide communication of people.34 As a result of this extension of capabilities, media is undoubtedly linked to human society and human actions. McLuhan in his statement “The medium is the message”35 highlights the effects of media technology itself rather than the effect of the content within the media. In his view, the medium affects the perceptions, attitudes, experiences and behaviour of users and therefore the human society as a whole and that is more important than its content. Additionally, Levinson is of the view that the impact of any communication medium is greater than the actual content of the communication medium or what it conveys. For instance, watching television has a greater effect on our lives than a specific television program does, or talking on the phone has become more innovative in human communication compared to information shared over the phone.36 A medium is not only restricted to the various technologies but rather it is the environment of the media technology which affects everyone. McLuhan also points out that a strange effect of this electronic environment is the overall absence of secrecy and as secrecy comes to an end, so do monopolies of knowledge.37 This means that as electronic media spreads and creates a global environment where secrecy or privacy becomes nearly non-existent or is eroded, people, governments or institutions that have total control of information also lose their power to influence or control information since information is easily accessible by everyone all over the world. McLuhan predicted the world becoming a global village due to electronic technology which meant that people would be able to connect with each other all over the world. They would be abreast with events and information from all over the world without being present in those places, therefore, facilitating the easy contribution of ideas, opinions, views and even extension of help in some crises or situations from people all over the world. Since electronic technology is an extension of man’s central nervous system it means that, in the same way that the central nervous system connects and coordinates with the rest of the body, electronic media also works in the global system by connecting people all over the world, thereby creating the global village. Although this theory was propounded before the rise of social media, it is a fitting theory to explain social media today. For instance, with Twitter, the limited number of characters per post (280) University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 8 makes for brief yet important posts by users to get the attention of the public quickly. It also allows for people all over the world to be abreast with events in real-time and contribute to conversations. Because the medium is the message, Twitter is used to influence targeted audiences in society through a variety of strategies, conversations and engagements of all sorts with respect to the unique way that Twitter works. Instagram which is more focused on visual content allows users to communicate with their audiences mainly through pictures and videos. Again, the use of this medium helps to influence a target audience. With Facebook, the medium is the message of social connections. McLuhan categorized media channels/platforms into hot and cool media and differentiated them by saying that hot media extends one single sense in high definition whereas cool medium extends in low definition. He explained high definition as the state of being very filled with data, so a newspaper, radio and photographs, are examples of hot media because of the enormity of data they contain. However, a medium like a telephone was considered cool media because of the meagre amount of information the ear receives, and because so little is given, the rest of the information must be completed by the listener. Hot media, however, leave little to be filled in by the audience and are, thus, low in participation, while cool media are high in participation or completion by the audience. Other examples of cool media are speech and television. The laws of media are a tetrad or a group of four parts that have simultaneous consequences in the way media is operated. First, the media or process enhances or intensifies, then at the same time it obsolesces. It then retrieves from the obsoleted media or retrieves yet another obsoleted media or process which may have been previously antiquated by an earlier process, and when it is pushed to the limit of its potential, it flips or reverses into something else substantively different38. An example here would be the radio, which obsoleted print and at the same time retrieved from it and after being pushed to its limit gave rise to the television which includes both print and radio, so people can now hear and see as against print which allowed for visual communication and the radio which allowed auditory communication. With retrieval, it should be noted that as the radio obsolesced print, it recaptured the oral texture of communication which itself had been previously replaced by print. With a microphone-P.A. system, individual speech and rhythm are amplified which obsoletes the big band, grand opera, and the Latin Mass. It then recovers group participation and finally moves from private to corporate sound bubble. Also with the example of housing, when University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 9 a private enclosed visual space is amplified, caves, tents, wigwams, and domes are obsolesced while retrieving wagon trains, mobile home clusters, and covered wagons (pioneers), and when it finally reverses it leads to high-rise corporate.39 When a medium obsolesces another medium it does not necessarily become completely obsolete, since it is still used although not as much as before, and the new medium instead becomes more prominent than the obsolete one. Raymond Williams40 critiqued McLuhan’s medium theory for being exceedingly technologically deterministic. In his assessment, technological determinism diminishes everything outside of media to an effect. He is of the view that humans adapt to new technologies that arise because it is modern. He adds that technology in itself is powerful enough to change societies and condition humans although humans use the technology. However, this can be countered by the fact that in reality people rather use these mediums or technology to influence society. Christopher Ricks also criticises McLuhan for disregarding the impact of the content of media entirely and narrowing the effect of media only to media. Yet, Levinson in his book, ‘Digital McLuhan: A Guide to the Information Millennium’, clarifies that McLuhan’s attempt to shift the focus from the content of the medium to the overall impact of the medium is as a result of his belief that content grasps our attention and is disadvantageous to us in the sense that, we are unable to fully comprehend and perceive the medium and all it entails. He contends that McLuhan’s intention in postulating that the medium is the message was to enable people to better understand the importance of media in their lives. He did not disregard the content of the media outright but rather held that the effect of the medium on society is more important than the effects of content.41 There are quite a number of criticisms about the theory as with all theories but nevertheless, it is an appropriate theory for the research because of McLuhan’s analysis of media on society as seen especially in his prediction of the world becoming a global village, with the intensification of media and the power of the media in “the medium is the message”. This theory is relevant because the study lays emphasis on social media which is captured in McLuhan’s analysis as a type of media and how it influences and affects diplomacy. The theory is also appropriate because the study examines how the diplomatic practice has evolved with the advent of social media. 1.8 Literature Review University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 10 Michael Cox and Doug Stokes in their book, “US Foreign Policy”, focus on the foreign policy of the USA with the world and their strategies. More importantly, they include a chapter about the internet and the rise of global media while highlighting the media and USA diplomacy and how the USA is making use of the internet and social media to improve public opinion and ultimately pursue foreign policy. The author of the chapter, Piers Robinson discusses public and media diplomacy aimed at projecting USA power abroad. Throughout, attention is paid to the means through which the media and public opinion can be leveraged as a source of influence for, and as a limitation to, USA foreign policy. The chapter concludes by discussing the contemporary debate concerning the impact of technological developments, including the internet and the rise of global media upon USA power and influence. An example is the leaking of a series of secret documents by Wikileaks that compromised the credibility of the USA giving credence to the fragility of information on the internet. The USA has taken social media seriously in order to try as much as possible to control information concerning the USA that goes out into the world. From the cold war era, the use of the media was a tactic used to spread liberal democracy and demonize communism and currently, social media is the latest media avenue used to influence public opinion of not only the USA but many countries across the world. It is relevant because it examines the antecedents of the media on USA foreign policy and further deliberates by expanding on public diplomacy and the media using Joseph Nye’s concept of soft power, a term that denotes non-coercive (and non-military) tactics of projecting to the world, the extent and expanse of US influence and power. Bjola and Holmes, discuss digital diplomacy at length in their book, “Digital Diplomacy: Theory and Practice”. They looked at the increasing interest and pursuance of social media as a game changer in the conduct of international relations by governments as well as other non-state actors. Digital diplomacy for that matter is described as “a way for states to manage change”, defined as “the use of social media for diplomatic purposes” and is attributed to changing the practices of how diplomats engage in managing information, developing strategies, engaging in public diplomacy, negotiations or even crisis management42. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 11 In this volume, the authors seek to discover how digital diplomacy works, its achievements and its limitations in the conduct of international relations. Leading scholars and experienced diplomats are brought together to systematically identify different strands of research on digital diplomacy and make them speak to one another. The book hypothesizes digital diplomacy, weighs its connection with traditional diplomacy, measures the furtive power dynamics that are distinctive to digital diplomacy, and seeks to reveal the circumstances under which digital diplomacy regulates, constrains or informs foreign policy. The book seeks to find out the level at which digital diplomacy shows a crucial point of departure from the interactive engagements of international actors as against a more indistinct method of protection of the status quo. The relevance of this literature is in the in-depth knowledge about Digital Diplomacy which is central to the study. In his book, “Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics”, Joseph Nye introduces a concept known as soft power and its importance without relying solely on hard power. He explains soft power as the ability to get what you want through attraction resulting from the appeal of a country's culture, political ideals, and policies rather than through coercion or payments. He looks at the changing nature of soft power and the soft power of some countries and non-state actors43. Examples of the use of soft power by the USA include young people behind the Iron Curtain listening to news via Radio Free Europe and enjoying American music, young Iranians sneakily viewing prohibited American videos and TV programs in their homes, the creation of a replication of the Statue of Liberty by Chinese students signifying their protests in Tiananmen Square, freshly liberated Afghanistan citizens requesting for a replica of the Bill of Rights in 2001.44 He relates soft power to American foreign policy and hammers on the essence of incorporating it into national strategy and also examines the practical problems of how to wield soft power through public diplomacy. Joseph Nye’s Soft Power concept is appropriate for the research because the media, social media for that matter is one of the avenues of soft power. In the digital age, social media has become a stellar way of utilizing or showcasing soft power. For a country to be attractive to the rest of the world, social media is the window or rather a door, considering the massive growth of social media today, through which the rest of the world may view these attractions. Content in the form of videos, and pictures posted on social media networks such as Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 12 others by both state and non-state actors can persuade viewers in their thoughts, actions, values, interests and several other aspects. Soft power is evidenced by this current age of digital diplomacy where governments and other organizations are trying their best to portray the countries or the interests they represent in a good light. Sandre seeks to explore the way social media diplomacy helps to create and preserve an accurate conversation between diplomats and foreign publics. “Twitter for Diplomats” is a collection of information, anecdotes, and experiences that focuses on Twitter, a social media network, that is steadily on the rise as the most powerful, engaging form of interaction between diplomats and the public. It contains accounts of foreign ministers and ambassadors and their experiences in their interaction and exploration of Twitter. He begins by shedding some light on social media and diplomacy and then makes a comparison between Twitter and Facebook. He then delves into Twitter diplomacy or rather Twiplomacy which has seen a significant increase in the number of government accounts and ambassadors on Twitter. He adds that Twiplomacy, however slow, is creeping into the foreign policy agenda as a combined e-diplomacy tool to reconsider objectives and adequately face new shortcomings. He also talks about some challenges and risks of twitter.45 Twitter for Diplomats is appropriate for the research because Twitter as predicted by Andreas Sandre has become the leading form of communication between diplomats, foreign publics and other non-state actors in current times. It has gradually forced its way into foreign policy in almost all governments all over the world. “Digital Diplomacy: Conversations on Innovation in Foreign Policy” is in three parts: the traditional mode of diplomacy versus the innovative form, the true nature of innovation and beyond innovation and social media. Andreas Sandre looks at digital diplomacy as an innovation in the administration of foreign policy and diplomacy. Technology advancements, or rather innovations, are happening whether or not governments jump on the bandwagon, but since diplomacy is about communication, it would help a great deal if technology was taken more seriously in order to reach their audiences. He talks about diplomacy 2.0, which involves diplomats tweeting and citizens contributing to discussions, and then introduces diplomacy 3.0, which is where non-state actors also directly interact with states in a more networked environment. He defines diplomacy 3.0 as the development of foreign policy into a setting that is more networked, whereby there is horizontal interaction between state and non-state actors. This book contains a compilation of conversations University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 13 with key individuals like ambassadors, public policy experts, State Department officials, and scholars who give different perspectives on digital diplomacy, with some admonishing it and others unconvinced of the transparency it is purported to bring. He teases out arguments about whether diplomacy is losing or has lost its essence, especially with the advent of technology and the multiplicity of non-state actors, or has not really changed much as traditional diplomacy is still practiced. There are several examples of the use of digital diplomacy in foreign affairs illustrated in Sandre’s book. There are also arguments about the prospects and challenges that digital diplomacy brings with the added content from conversations and interactions with knowledgeable experts in the field of diplomacy, and all of this will be useful to the research. In G. R. Berridge’s “Diplomacy Theory and Practice”, he details the intricacies of the field of diplomacy and begins by chronicling the antecedents of diplomacy from the origin and growth of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) and all that it entails both home and abroad, to embassies, consulates, summits and conferences and delves into the stages of negotiation. Berridge also discusses public diplomacy and is of the view that it is the “modern name for white propaganda directed chiefly at foreign publics”46. He highlights the importance of public diplomacy or propaganda and outlines the roles of the embassies and the roles that ministries of foreign affairs play as coordinators and players in executing public diplomacy or propaganda. He talks about telecommunications in diplomacy and the strides that are being made in that regard. The final part of the book is about diplomacy without diplomatic relations, which looks at the ways that diplomacy is still conducted even in the event of severed relations between countries. The book is an appropriate reference tool because it is a useful source of information to appreciate the beginning of diplomacy and the way traditional diplomacy works which can help us to understand modern diplomacy today. “The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy” is a comprehensive compilation of over fifty contributors on the changing scenes of diplomatic practices. It analyses the interface between club diplomacy, which consists of a limited number of players, a vast hierarchy, low transparency and is based largely on written communication; and network diplomacy, which constitutes a relatively higher number of actors, a more substantial verbal element, better openness, and a horizontal University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 14 structure; and describes the various factors responsible for the changes and continuity in diplomacy47. It covers topics such as multilateral diplomacy, trade and investment promotion, economic diplomacy, cultural diplomacy, soft power, public diplomacy, international organizations and diplomacy, defence diplomacy and a host of others. Globalization and innovative information technologies are linked to the changes in the conduct, tools, actors and sphere of diplomacy. It also addresses new challenges brought on by current trends in modern diplomacy and gives some perceived projections into the future of the field. The Handbook is important to the study because it provides a complete analysis and description of the transition from club diplomacy to network diplomacy and the 21st Century diplomacy and all of its dimensions. Heine and Turcotte’s “Tweeting as Statecraft gives an overview of the shifting cultural, political, and social conditions of the information age and looks at how social media has changed the role of diplomacy. The newest trend in the current revolution of diplomatic practice is the growing use of Twitter. Twitter embodies the trend of public diplomacy from states all over the globe furthering interactions between diplomats and the public on a more open and singularized basis by opening new pathways for social engagement. They further look at the gains and consequences that engagement through social networks brings to the diplomatic profession. The article seeks to explain why Twitter is thriving in diplomatic circles with the existence of blogs, websites and e-mails. Several diplomats prefer Twitter because of its brief, informal, and crisp manner which is the preferred and current method of communication, especially among the youth, who opines that e-mail is even slightly out-of-date. 48 Diplomacy has changed from traditional to the public mainly as a result of real-time social media networks and the presence of multiple non-state actors. He also makes a distinction between network diplomacy and public diplomacy with network diplomacy being a representation of the entire collective efforts used by diplomatic representatives to reach out to the private and the government sectors, civil societies, and NGOs to project the perceptions and interests of their home country, and public diplomacy being the direct efforts made to foreign publics, skipping the intermediaries altogether. They also identify three levels of Twitter usage: The basic level involves posting tweets that communicate speeches, consular information, speeches and all forms of official information. The intermediate level involves heads of missions directly calling attention to keynote events and recommending University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 15 current press articles, therefore taking on a more personalized style. At the advanced level, diplomats are active participants on both international and national fronts and actively engage in controversial topics, which can be quite risky but also worthwhile at the same time.49 This article is relevant to the study because of its emphasis on Twitter diplomacy or “Twiplomacy” which is a current development in the age of diplomacy. Twitter has become a major platform through which governments communicate with their target audiences. Non-state actors such as civil society organizations, NGOs, and thinktanks among others, also partake in the engagement of the public via social networks concerning issues of diplomacy and therefore expanding the scope of diplomacy. 1.9 Sources of Data This study made use of both primary and secondary sources of data. Primary data was gathered through a structured interview and questionnaires with respondents from the Russian embassy and the Swedish Consulate. Social media experts from Hype Net Marketing, Paragon Digital Marketing and Social Media Marketing were also interviewed because of their expertise in digital media. However, the interview guides and questionnaires were formulated differently for both cultural attachés and digital media professionals because of their specific and different fields of knowledge and expertise. Structured interviews were selected because they give a much clearer and more comprehensive view of the study and facilitate easy comparison of responses from respondents during analysis. The questionnaire was added because face-to-face meetings could not be set up due to COVID-19 restrictions and respondents opted to fill out questionnaires instead. Secondary data complemented the primary data and consisted of books, journal articles and online sources such as websites and blogs. 1.10 Research Methodology The research design of the study made use of the qualitative method in collecting, analyzing and interpreting data because it constituted structured interviews and largely open-ended questionnaires. The purpose of the research is to investigate the influence of social media on diplomacy particularly between the US and Russia while adding to knowledge so the qualitative approach will be suitable for the study. Qualitative research relies on non-numerical information, and data collection is usually via interviews and questionnaires, observation, focus groups, University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 16 participant observation, audio or video recordings, documents, etc.50 “The objective of the qualitative methodology is to produce in-depth and illustrative information, and meanings in order to understand the various dimensions of the problem under analysis”51. It is also useful in understanding causal reasons, opinions and trends. Conversely, the qualitative method can be time- consuming and “is not an appropriate means for arriving at statistical descriptions of a large population”52. It can be difficult to gather data because of the specificity of the sample and “is hard to generalize from a small number of case studies”53. Nonetheless, the qualitative method is appropriate for the study because of the knowledge and expertise of respondents regarding the topic. Consequently, qualitative researchers are interested in studying and/or understanding natural occurrences. Thus, qualitative research is the study of phenomena by the researcher, who must have in-depth environmental knowledge as well as strong creativity and mental analytic abilities to gather data54. Inductive and interpretative, qualitative research generates hypotheses based on the researcher's understanding55. One of the greatest advantages of qualitative research is the capacity to create extensive descriptions of participants' mental processes and to concentrate on the "why" an event happened56. This study employs inductive reasoning because the findings led to generalizations on the influence of social media in diplomacy though the focus is on USA and Russia. The sampling method employed is the non-probability technique of purposive sampling which is also known as selective sampling or judgmental sampling, and “reflects a group of sampling techniques that rely on the judgement of the researcher when it comes to selecting the units…that are to be studied”57. This comprises the identification and selection of persons or groups of people that are particularly well-informed or experienced in an area of interest.58 The reason for purposive sampling in the study is because the selected sample, being the cultural attachés and digital media experts, has adequate information about the theme of the study. Purposive sampling allows for a lot of information to be gleaned from data findings as well as a full description of the impact of the findings on the larger population. However, although unintended, purposive sampling can be prone to researcher bias since the researcher is at liberty to choose participants. “This judgmental subjective component of purpose sampling is only a major disadvantage when such judgements are ill-conceived or poorly considered”59. Also, the subjective and non-probability nature of University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 17 sample selection in purposive sampling means that it can be difficult to defend the representativeness of the sample60. Nevertheless, purposive sampling is suitable for the study because it is necessary to be intentional with the respondents in order to get information relevant to the research. However, the research obtained data by interviewing the individuals in an environment that was content and nonthreatening for the participants. Conducting interviews provides the researcher with the chance to acquire significant volumes of data and follow-up for clarity through the use of member checking61. Each interview took around 30 minutes. The time and venue of the interview were decided according to the participant’s convenience. The research acquired the agreement of the participants before recording the interviews. The settings of the interviews were picked by the participants to minimize distractions. 62 Participant-selected interview settings allow the researcher to concentrate on the participant’s time restrictions, culture, space, and sentiments. The researcher developed a comfortable atmosphere in which the participants demonstrated a desire to engage and contribute information pertinent to the study subject. All interviews were at the participants’ workplace where they felt safe and secure. When researchers conduct semi-structured interviews and utilize member checking, these vulnerabilities posed by the interview process was mitigated, as will the possibility of participants making untruthful interview replies. The researcher transcribed the recorded interviews, and the transcripts and interpretations were shared with the participants through a planned phone conversation to validate the correctness and increase the validity of the study by attaining data saturation. Interviews with members may also aid in attaining data saturation63. During the transcription procedure, there were no issues with the research. Participants confirmed the correctness of the material, thus the researcher was not required to make any changes. Before data saturation, the researcher planned to do follow-up interviews with members and revise the transcripts and explanations appropriately. The researcher did not need to conduct any further interviews and was able to reach data saturation. After data collection, the findings were analyzed to discover patterns and understand the trend of social media and its use in diplomacy. Together with information from the questionnaires, data collected from the interviews were transcribed and analyzed with thematic analysis. Thematic analysis is defined 64as “a method for identifying, analyzing, organizing, describing, and reporting University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 18 themes found within a data set”65. Although the instrument of data collection was initially interviews only, questionnaires were included because COVID-19 restrictions made it impossible to meet some of the respondents physically. However, the questionnaires contained a lot of open- ended questions and some close-ended questions but since the open-ended questions were geared toward answering the research questions, the findings from the open-ended questions were analyzed. Close-ended questions were not analyzed because they were generic and were not directly related to the research objectives and questions making the research design a flexible one. The respondents were cultural attachés from the Russian embassy in Ghana, the Honorary Consul of Sweden, Head of Digital Marketing- Hype Net Marketing and Co-founder and Chief of Digital Marketing at Paragon Digital and Social Media Marketing. Unfortunately, the diplomatic missions that were initially targeted were unwilling to meet largely due to COVID-19 restrictions and the nature of the research topic. Additionally, there were inordinate delays in responses from some of these missions. The Swedish Consulate was chosen to supplement the data because the USA embassy when contacted was not forthcoming. It was also chosen because both Sweden and the USA belong to North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Ethical considerations such as confidentiality and consent were strictly adhered to. Respondents were informed of the study and were assured that the research was for academic purposes only. Permission was sought beforehand and participation of respondents was voluntary. 1.11 Arrangement of Chapters The study is divided into four chapters. Chapter one comprises the introduction which includes the background of the problem, statement of the problem, research questions and objectives, scope and rationale of the study, literature review, theoretical framework, sources of data and methodology. Chapter two looks at an overview of the use of social media in the sphere of diplomacy. Chapter three consists of an examination of the influence of social media on US-Russia diplomacy and Chapter four consists of the summary of findings, conclusions and recommendations. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 19 Endnotes 1 Satow, E. (1979). Satow's Guide to Diplomatic Practice (5th ed.). New York: Longman. 2 Carr, C. T., & Hayes, R. A. (2015). Social Media: Defining, Developing, and Divining. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 23, 46-65. 3 Diplo Foundation. (2020). Digital Diplomacy, E-diplomacy, Cyber diplomacy. Retrieved January 15, 2020, from Diplo: https://www.diplomacy.edu/e-diplomacy 4 Hendricks, D. (2013). Complete History of Social Media: Then and Now. Retrieved January 3, 2020, from Small Business Trends: https://smallbiztrends.com/2013/05/the-complete-history-of-social-media-infographic.html 5 Statista. (2015). Number of social network users in Russia from 2013 to 2019. Retrieved February 2, 2020, from Statista: https://www.statista.com/statistics/278410/number-of-social-network-users-in-russia/ 6 Ortiz-Ospina, E. (2019). Our World in Data. Retrieved December 31, 2019, from Our World in Data Website: https://ourworldindata.org/rise-of-social-media 7 Statista. (2019). Number of Monthly Active Twitter Users Worldwide from 1st quarter 2010 to 1st quarter 2019. Retrieved January 16, 2020, from Statista: https://www.statista.com/statistics/282087/number-of-monthly-active- twitter-users/ 8 Cohn, B., & Wolfe. (2018). Twiplomacy Study 2018. Retrieved from www.twiplomacy.com 9 Masket, S. (2017). The Twitter Age of the Presidency. Retrieved January 14, 2020, from Pacific Standard: https://psmag.com/news/the-twitter-age-of-the-presidency 10 Sandre, Andreas (2012) E-diplomacy beyond social media. http://opencanada.org/features/the-think- tank/comments/e-diplomacy-beyond-social-media/ 11 Cohn, B., & Wolfe. (2018). Twiplomacy Study 2018. Retrieved from www.twiplomacy.com 12 Diplo Foundation. (2020). Digital diplomacy, E-diplomacy, Cyber diplomacy. Retrieved January 15, 2020, from Diplo: https://www.diplomacy.edu/e-diplomacy 13 Studemeister, M., & Brown, S. (2001). Virtual Diplomacy: Rethinking Foreign Policy Practice in the Information Age. Information & Security: An International Journal, (7), 28-44. 14 Diplo Foundation. (2020). Digital diplomacy, E-diplomacy, Cyber diplomacy. Retrieved January 15, 2020, from Diplo: https://www.diplomacy.edu/e-diplomacy 15 Duncombe, C. (2017). Twitter and Transformative Diplomacy: Social Media and Iran-US relations. International Affairs, 93(3), 545-562. 16 Nye, Joseph S. (1990). Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power. New York: Basic Books 17 US Department of State. (2017). 21st Century Statecraft. Retrieved 02 20, 2020, from US Department of State: https://2009-2017.state.gov/statecraft/index.htm 18Prem, A. (2018). Digital Diplomacy: The British Way. Retrieved 02 20, 2020, from Social Media for Business Performance: https://smbp.uwaterloo.ca/2018/07/digital-diplomacy-the-british-way/ 19 Yakovenko, A. (2012). Russian Digital Diplomacy: Clicking Through. Retrieved February 20, 2020, from Russia Beyond: https://www.rbth.com/articles/2012/09/06/russian_digital_diplomacy_clicking_through_18005.html 20Cohn, B., & Wolfe (2019). Twiplomacy Study 2019. Retrieved from https://twiplomacy.com/ranking/the-50-best- connected-world-leaders-2019/ 21 Rao, N. (2017). The Wire. Retrieved December 31, 2019, from Diplomacy in the Age of Social Media: https://thewire.in/diplomacy/foreign-relations-diplomacy-social-media 22 Ibid 23 Ibid 24 Ibid 25 Cox, M., & Stokes, D. (2012). US Foreign Policy. New York: Oxford University Press. 26 Cox, M., & Stokes, D. (2012). US Foreign Policy. New York: Oxford University Press. 27 Cox, M., & Stokes, D. (2012). US Foreign Policy. New York: Oxford University Press. 28 Cox, M., & Stokes, D. (2012). US Foreign Policy. New York: Oxford University Press. 29 McLuhan, M. (1994). Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. New York: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. 30 Meyrowitz, J. (1985). No Sense of Place: The Impact of Electronic Media on Social Behaviour. Oxford University Press 31 McLuhan, M. (1994). Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. New York: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. 32 Ibid University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 20 33 Bobbitt, D. (2011). Teaching McLuhan: Understanding Media. Retrieved from http://enculturation.net/teaching- mcluhan, 34 Symes, B. (1995). McLuhan’s Global Village. Retrieved from http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Students/bas9401.html, 35 McLuhan, M. (1994). Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. New York: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. 36 Levinson, P. (2001). Digital McLuhan: A Guide to the Information Millennium. London: Routledge 37 McLuhan, M. (1970). Living in an Acoustic World. (University of South Florida) Retrieved from Marshall McLuhan Speaks Special Collection: http://www.marshallmcluhanspeaks.com/lecture/1970- 38 McLuhan, M. (1988). Laws of Media: The New Science. University of Toronto Press. 39 Herlea, A. (1975). Technology and Culture, 16(1), 79-80. doi:10.2307/3102369 40 Williams, R. (1974). Communications as Cultural Science. Journal of Communications, 24(3), 17-25 41 Levinson, P. (2001). Digital McLuhan: A Guide to the Information Millennium. London: Routledge 42 Bjola, C., & Holmes, M. (2015). Digital Diplomacy: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge 43 Nye, Joseph. (2004). Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. New York: Public Affairs 44 Ibid 45 Sandre, A. (2013). Twitter for Diplomats. Serbia: DiploFoundation and Istituto Diplomatico. 46 Berridge, G. R. (2010). Diplomacy Theory and Practice (4th ed.). UK: Palgrave Macmillan. 47 Cooper, A. F., Heine, J., & Thakur, R. (2013). The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy. (A. F. Cooper, J. Heine, & R. Thakur, Eds.) Croydon: Oxford University Press. 48 Heine, J., & Turcotte, J. F. (2012). Tweeting as Statecraft: How Against All Odds, Twitter Is Changing the World's Second Oldest Profession. (V. Efremovski, Ed.) The Macedonian Foreign Policy Journal, III (2), 59-72. 49 Ibid 50 Creswell, J. W. (2014). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research (4th ed.). Harlow, Essex: Pearson. 51 Almeida, F., Faria, D., & Queirós, A. (2017). Strengths and Limitations of Qualitative and Quantitative Research Methods. European Journal of Education Studies, III, 369-387. doi:10.5281/zenodo.887089. 52 Babbie, E. (2010). The Practice of Social Research (12th ed.). Wadsworth: Cengage Learning. 53 Almeida, F., Faria, D., & Queirós, A. (2017). Strengths and Limitations of Qualitative and Quantitative Research Methods. European Journal of Education Studies, III, 369-387. doi:10.5281/zenodo.887089. 54 Almeida, F., Faria, D., & Queirós, A. (2017). Strengths and Limitations of Qualitative and Quantitative Research Methods. European Journal of Education Studies, III, 369-387. doi:10.5281/zenodo.887089. 55 Almeida, F., Faria, D., & Queirós, A. (2017). Strengths and Limitations of Qualitative and Quantitative Research Methods. European Journal of Education Studies, III, 369-387. doi:10.5281/zenodo.887089. 56 Almeida, F., Faria, D., & Queirós, A. (2017). Strengths and Limitations of Qualitative and Quantitative Research Methods. European Journal of Education Studies, III, 369-387. doi:10.5281/zenodo.887089. 57 Sharma, G. (2017). Pros and Cons of Different Sampling Techniques. International Journal of Applied Research, 749-752. 58 Cresswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and Conducting Mixed Method Research. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage. 59 Sharma, G. (2017). Pros and Cons of Different Sampling Techniques. International Journal of Applied Research, 749-752. 60 Ibid 61 Cresswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and Conducting Mixed Method Research. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage. 62 Cresswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and Conducting Mixed Method Research. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage. 63 Cresswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and Conducting Mixed Method Research. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage. 64 Cresswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and Conducting Mixed Method Research. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage. 65Braun, V., Clarke, V. (2006). Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77– 101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 20 CHAPTER TWO OVERVIEW OF THE USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA IN THE SPHERE OF DIPLOMACY 2.0 Introduction The introduction of the internet together with the wave of social media has had a significant impact on almost every sector or aspect of the world and diplomacy is not exempt. This chapter seeks to throw more light on the evolution and history of diplomacy through the years to the current age of digital diplomacy to give a background of the progression of communication in diplomacy. 2.1 Origin and Evolution of Diplomacy Diplomacy is as old as time; its origins date back to about 3000 years ago. Diplomats in early times were known as orators or envoys. A key prerequisite of an ambassador at the time was to have good oratory skills since their main task was to address citizens of the city-state to which they were accredited, at the public square or ‘agora’. Ceremonies, customs, and rules of procedure were founded and institutionalized.1 The purpose of diplomacy was to facilitate communication between sovereign states and prevent conflicts from escalating into wars and ultimately prevent wars from occurring. Permanent diplomatic missions did not exist until later developments. The position of diplomats was usually restricted to aristocrats or people from the upper class in society or relatives of royals or socialites. 2.1.1 Greece One of the earliest pieces of evidence of diplomacy was recorded in Greece resulting together with the concept of alliance, from the persistent struggle for military supremacy and economic control between the two Greek city-states, Sparta and Athens. When there was an imminent war, prominent leaders were sent to negotiate but the risk of negotiations during that climate was to be killed. Subsequently, however, diplomatic immunity was introduced to solve this problem. There was also the issue of secret treaties and spying within missions and the Greeks resorted to open treaties. The purpose of diplomacy at the time was to relay messages through merchants and messengers and was premised on the observance of treaties and codes of hospitality. The Greeks University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 21 had three types of representatives known as the ‘Angelos’ or ‘presbys’, the ‘keryx’ and the ‘proxenos’. Angelos or presbys meant messenger and elder respectively and were envoys who were used for missions that were specific and short-term. The keryx was a herald who possessed special safety rights, while the proxenos was resident and informal.2 The Greeks had an extensive diplomatic vocabulary, principles of international conduct that governed international law, advanced archives, and numerous essentials of modern diplomacy. Greek diplomats and entourages benefited from diplomatic immunity. Common features of diplomacy in that era included truces, alliances neutrality, treaties, commercial conventions, and conferences.3 2.1.2 Rome The Romans introduced the sanctity of contracts which developed into the basis of treaties. During the late Republican era, the Roman laws that were applied to foreign envoys and foreigners, in general, were fused with the Greek concept of natural law which applied to all people, to produce a “law of nations.” The sanctity of contracts together with the law of nations was incorporated into the Roman Catholic Church and conserved centuries after the fall of the Western Roman Empire. Hence, the laying of a foundation to deal with the growing modernized international law doctrines that began to appear alongside Europe about a thousand years later.4 They established diplomatic missions and resident ambassadors which transcended into diplomacy all over the world and are still used today. Resident ambassadors were not necessarily natives of the sending state, building on the use of ‘proxenos’ (local citizens) by Greece in resident missions. Diplomatic responsibilities were placed primarily with a ‘nuncius’ and a ‘plenipotentiary’. A nuncius was no more than a 'living letter', while a plenipotentiary had ‘full powers’ or ‘plena potestas’, to negotiate on behalf of and bind his principal.5 Roman envoys were sent overseas by their government with scripted directives. A messenger or nuncius was usually sent, to towns. When there were greater responsibilities, a ‘legatio’ or embassy consisting of 10 or 12 ‘legati’ or ambassadors was established under a president. The ‘legati’ were leading citizens chosen for their impeccable oratory skills and were untouchable. Rome also set up sophisticated archives, that were staffed by competent archivists.6 Until the sixteenth century, the individual European states did not focus responsibility for diplomacy and foreign policy on a single administrative element and rather assigned it to new and University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 22 different bureaucracies based on location. A number of such bureaus were in charge of specific domestic issues. However, this started to change with the joint pressure of the multiplicity of global relations and growing links of resident missions which were characteristic of the early contemporary era.7 Modern diplomacy originated from the Italians. Latin was the lingua franca of diplomacy and it was one of the expected characteristics of a good diplomat at the time, among other qualities. 2.1.3 Byzantium The rulers of Byzantium (Eastern Roman Empire) sought to ensure respect for their imperial pretensions through the ceremony, protocol and formal management and training of their diplomats.8 Since Byzantium was surrounded by enemies on all of its borders and did not possess adequate military capacity, diplomacy was essential for their survival. The Byzantine elite had an important rule, which was to evade wars as much as possible because it was public knowledge that even on the off chance that Byzantium is triumphant they would lose in the long run because of its inadequate military prowess.9 In the year 740, the first permanent office dealing with foreign relations, a predecessor of the modern ministry of foreign affairs, was created. The office’s main purpose was to discover means of resolving insurgencies in subordinate regions as well as invasions from neighbouring states, in the event of insufficient standalone military power. The Byzantines established training of negotiators and interpreters and their envoys were adequately prepared for foreign missions as well as receiving foreign guests. Both negotiations and decisions were made concerning the declaration of war and the making of peace. Diplomatic customs like protocol, etiquette, formalities, etc. were established and all formal rules of the protocol were made rigid to emphasize the power of the state and give the impression that it is more powerful than it actually is. The ruler was at liberty to decide what could and could not be shown to foreigners.10 They could display their wealth and elegance in the presence of ambassadors or make it seem they had less in peculiar situations when they had to be discreet. Ringmar is of the view that the longevity of the Byzantine empire was a result of its aggressive use of diplomacy. The “Bureau of Barbarians” was set up with the sole purpose of gathering intelligence on their rivals and preparing diplomats for foreign missions. The diplomats were able to negotiate treaties, form alliances, and make friends with the enemies of their enemies. Neighbours of a state that threatened to attack were showered with extravagant gifts to persuade them to be part of the Byzantine coalition, while University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 23 foreign régimes were usually undermined through a variety of devious tactics. There was a whole stable of exiled royalty in Constantinople, that the Byzantines were prepared to reinstate on their thrones in the event of a situation that required it.11 Some contributions of the Byzantines to diplomacy include a proto Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the introduction of regular diplomatic reporting, proto intelligence service, early multi-stakeholder diplomacy, early international law, soft power and public diplomacy, and time-management.12 2.1.4 Venice Venice, with its early preoccupation with trade, in effect transformed its mercantile agents into resident envoys.13 The Venetians built on the form of diplomacy that the Byzantines used and became one of the first to create an organized system of diplomacy with their diplomats reputed to be the most refined and well-informed. New standards of honesty and technical proficiency were set.14 Some requirements of a Venetian diplomat were returning any gift or money received from the receiving state to his head of state upon his return, and sending his own cook along with him on posting due to the fear of foreign cooks poisoning him, a practice still common today. Getting to the end of the Middle Ages, the Venetians pioneered the organized distribution of newsletters in their diplomatic facility.15 The diplomatic system of Venice was remarkable in its usages and duties for the honour and dignity of its diplomatic body, its minute and continuous attention to making it influential, thoughtful and powerful, and the extension of this representation to all of Europe. From the ending of the twelfth century to the mid-seventeenth century, Venetian diplomacy attained and maintained its greatness and reputation. Diplomacy continued during this period in both the East and the West. Upon completion of his term of service in a foreign mission, an ambassador of the Republic of Venice, within fifteen days of his return was to present to the Senate a “Reliazone” which is a solemn written report on the government to which he was accredited. The original was then given to the Chancellor who kept it in the “Secreta” which was specially meant for such documents.16 Venice was particularly known for being elaborate in their reports, setting them apart from other diplomats in their report writing. In the earlier history of Venice, an ambassador could remain at his mission of posting for only two years but by the fifteenth century, it was extended to three years. The reason for the stated span was to avoid excessive personal relations between the ambassador and the foreign people.17 Venice was great University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 24 at its conduct of diplomacy to the extent other governments sought assistance in matters pertaining to diplomacy. 2.1.5 France Cardinal Richelieu was instrumental in the evolution of diplomacy by bridging the gap between renaissance diplomacy and modern diplomacy. He first established the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in France on 11 March 1626, which fully established permanence in diplomacy. French became the traditional language of diplomacy and replaced Latin. This was championed by Cardinal Richelieu through his work in the advancement of French diplomacy. The treaty of Westphalia in 1648 brought about the first modern diplomatic congress and France’s approach to diplomacy was based on Cardinal Richelieu’s raison d’état (national interest) as the ultimate purpose. The main factor that contributed to the expanse of resident missions was the raison d’état doctrine. Raison d’état was simply the furtherance of a state’s interests. This sanctioned what, in the seventeenth century, Richelieu called ‘continuous negotiation’: permanent diplomacy ‘in all places, irrespective of considerations of sentiment or religion.18 It was the surge and alliance of the grand dynastic European monarchies, coupled with their steadily consolidated administrations centred on cabinets, chancelleries, and royal courts, that led to the selection of clerks, secretaries, and ultimately independent departments with specific responsibilities for foreign affairs. Nowhere was this more apparent than in seventeenth-century France, where diplomacy, like the armed forces, was organized to meet the needs of an expansive and potentially hegemonic power. Diplomacy also acquired its aristocratic ethos at a time when the government was largely in the hands of the crown and the nobility.19 Furthermore, the French were well versed in the art of negotiations, a crucial aspect of diplomacy today. 2.1.6 19th century Towards the end of the eighteenth century, many European states had special ministries and departments for foreign policy management. The 1814–15 Vienna Congress allowed for the control and revision of established diplomatic practices.20 The Congress of Vienna was a conference or a meeting set up as a result of the Napoleonic wars and his desire (Napoleon Bonaparte of France) to conquer all of Europe, which was subsequently thwarted when some of the European states came together and fought him off. Afterwards, the conference was set up and University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 25 the main purpose was to safeguard their security, regulate the European system and prevent any such revolutionary disturbances in the future by addressing shared security matters and seeing to it that no one country has so much power to threaten the territorial integrity of other states. In 1815, the Congress of Vienna codified diplomacy as a distinctive institution of the new state system and set out the international codes of conduct governing diplomatic discourse among sovereign states in the interests of the nation as a whole rather than of any given dynasty.21 The Congress of Vienna ensured that issues of rank among the practitioners were codified to bring order to a growing number of diplomatic actors and interactions. 2.1.7 20th and 21st century With the establishment of the League of Nations after World War 1 and upon its demise, the United Nations (UN) after World War II, diplomacy began to change from occurring between states to including non-state actors and from bilateral diplomacy to multilateral diplomacy. Comprising 193 member states, the UN works by negotiating international accords to resolve worldwide issues such as climate change, lack of education, and human rights violations.22 The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (VCDR) was adopted in 1961 by the United Nations, to outline and formally recognize the privileges that diplomats should have in diplomatic missions in host countries. This is to ensure that they work diligently and comfortably without any harassment or fear from the host country. Currently, diplomacy involves relations not only between states but other non-state actors like NGOs, think tanks, Multinational Corporations (MNCs), media, civil societies etc. Countries now belong to inter-governmental organizations for the achievement of specific goals and objectives. Some of these organizations include the African Union (AU), North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), World Trade Organization (WTO), Association of South-East Asian States (ASEAN), Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), European Union (EU), and many others who now play an active role in modern diplomacy or what is referred to as diplomacy 3.0. 2.2 History of Communication in Diplomacy Communication is essential to diplomacy. It is practically the backbone of diplomacy because it has to do with relaying information between states. Earlier times began with signals, birds, envoys, University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 26 and changed with the invention of the telegraph, the telephone, the internet and currently social media. Communication has been constant throughout the evolution of diplomacy with only the mode of communication changing. 2.2.1 Telegraph The invention of the telegraph made it the earliest medium of communication in diplomacy. It was also known as the semaphore, teletypewriter, or mechanical telegraph. It was a device used to transmit information across distances. A telegraph is any system that transfers encoded information via signal across a distance using an electro-mechanical typewriter. Although associated with sending messages through an electric current, the word telegraph was coined to describe an optical system of sending coded messages. Until the invention of the telephone, the telegraph became the standard mode of communication in the urban areas of the US and Europe.23 The earliest form of the telegraph was invented by Claude Chappe in France in 1794. A crucial later development was by Samuel Finley Morse who created the Morse code to encode messages with the telegraph. Although it was first invented in 1794, there were subsequent advancements to it in later years and it was first introduced in diplomatic circles in 1856 at the Congress of Paris where the British representative received a coded telegram from Prime Minister Palmerston and in 1866 when the State Department sent a cable to the US mission in France.24 During this time, the telegraph was used for internal communication between diplomatic missions and headquarters, and subsequently, it became a predominant communication medium between governments. Some notable telegrams that impacted diplomatic history were: the Ems Telegram in 1870 used by Otto von Bismarck in unifying Germany and as a means of preparing to enter the Franco-Prussian war, and the Kruger Telegram which was sent by the German Kaiser, Wilhelm II to Stephanus Paulus Kruger third president of the South African Republic which caused turmoil in the UK particularly, and the Zimmerman Telegram sent originally in secret by German Foreign Minister, Arthur Zimmermann to the German foreign minister for Mexico, Henrich von Eckhardt, which was intercepted and decoded by British intelligence which revealed that he was to begin negotiations with Mexico and encourage them to enact war with the United States, and if the Central Powers won the Mexicans would be able to annex Texas, New Mexico and Arizona leading the US to enter the first world war.25 The invention of the telegraph improved the speed of delivery of messages significantly. Prior to the telegraph, communication in diplomacy was usually done through letters from an University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 27 envoy or diplomat of one state to another via journeying (merchant caravans), and distance by road could take days to months before a message was received and, in some instances, birds delivered messages. 2.2.2 Telephone The telephone is commonly known to have been invented in 1876 by Alexander Graham Bell together with the assistance of Thomas A. Watson, his colleague.26 Alexander Graham Bell got the patent in 1876 in the USA to begin the production of telephones on the market. It is important to note however that there were previous inventions of the telephone just before Bell’s but due to some restraints, largely financial, were unable to make it into the market. Antonio Meucci, an Italian innovator is recognized as the pioneer in the invention of the first basic telephone in 1849 and 1854, Charles Bourseul a Frenchman, also invented a phone. Alexander Bell was successful mostly because he was able to secure funds for the research and production of telephones. The very first telephone line, switchboard, and telephone exchange happened in 1877-78. Three years later, about 49,000 telephones were in use. Bell merged this company with others in 1880 to form the American Bell Telephone Company, and by 1885 American Telegraph and Telephone Company (AT&T) was formed, dominating telephone communications for the next century.27 The introduction of the telephone did not entirely make the telegraph outdated but rather complemented it. The telephone helped to improve diplomatic communications distinctively. It played a key role in international crises such as the 1973 Middle East war, the 1967 Six-day War in the Middle East, the 1979 USSR invasion of Afghanistan, and the India-Pakistan crisis in December 1971.28 Another major example of the use of the telephone was during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1961 which occurred during the Cold War phase. A hotline was immediately established linking the White House to the Kremlin for urgent communication between the leaders of both countries when tensions were too high. The telephone has facilitated the increase in speed of delivery of messages, reduced travel costs, established effective communication on important issues, steadily advanced delicate negotiations and created links that go beyond cultural and ideological differences and geographical distances. Some drawbacks however include eavesdropping on conversations, recording calls such as the case of the Watergate scandal in the US between 1972-1974 in President Nixon’s tenure which led to his subsequent resignation, having less time to make a decision or make a hasty decision and University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 28 not seeing verbal cues from the speaker on the other end of the phone. Nonetheless, the telephone is still used to this day and is not completely outdated even with the introduction of other forms of communication. 2.2.3 Radio The invention of the radio changed diplomatic communication by including foreign publics on foreign policy issues and shaping public opinion. This helped to move it away from a profession shrouded in secrecy to a more open and inclusive one. Rawnsley (1996) records the earliest use of radio in foreign policy when Russia in 1926, ordered Bessarabia’s return from Romania. In 1929, the introduction of Radio Moscow made Moscow the first to utilize universal radio as an instrument of foreign policy. It was first aired in four languages and progressively grew to eleven languages by 1933. The main objective was to endear to the rest of the world the Communist revolution and propagandize its achievements.29 VOA (Voice of America) was particularly instrumental in showcasing American culture and portraying America in a friendly light to the foreign public. Both VOA and Radio Moscow actively contributed to the spread of public diplomacy and propaganda. During the Bay of Pigs invasion, an event where Cuban exiles were trained by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in the US to collapse Fidel Castro’s communist government, an attempt which failed, Radio Moscow was able to broadcast and paint America black as trying to interfere in Cuba’s matters while highlighting the hypocrisy of the Kennedy administration, since George Washington, first president of the United States was all about America pursuing isolationism and non-interventionism in the beginning. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, an event that nearly brought the world into a nuclear war sparked by the siting of nuclear missiles by the Soviets on the Cuban island, which was just about ninety miles off the coast of Florida30, the VOA was instrumental in their reportage of the crisis, adding to the anxiety of Americans about Cuba. Just before the incident, the VOA was aimed at exposing, weakening and isolating the existing government with the intent of a subsequent removal and replacement by US friendly government, and so it was fundamental to the deposing of Cuba, another sovereign state. Soviet radio broadcasts also incessantly attacked American policies concerning Cuba and condemned aggression that was purported to be sponsored by the US against Cuba in preparation for a likely invasion in future.31 The Cuban missile crisis was finally resolved as both the Americans and the Soviets made use of the radio to directly communicate with each other thereby University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 29 supplementing the existing conventional channels of diplomacy and negotiation. Despite differing opinions on the shortcomings of BBC coverage of the Suez crisis, the corporation was generally influential with its radio reportage of the crisis in 1956. Within that period the Hungarian uprising occurred and there were anti-Soviet demonstrations in Poland which the BBC co