IGF 2019 WS #295 Public diplomacy v. disinformation: Are there red lines?

intgovforum.org

THE IGF IS A GLOBAL MULTISTAKEHOLDER PLATFORM THAT FACILITATES THE DISCUSSION OF PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES PERTAINING TO THE INTERNET

Theme:

Security, Safety, Stability and Resilience

Subtheme(s): 

Fake News
FoE online
Trust and Accountability

Organizer 1: Private Sector, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
Organizer 2: Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
Organizer 3: Private Sector, Eastern European Group

Speaker 1: Iskra Kirova, Civil Society, Eastern European Group
Speaker 2: Marilia Maciel, Civil Society, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
Speaker 3: John FRANK, Private Sector, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
Speaker 4: Felix Kartte, Intergovernmental Organization, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)

Policy Question(s):

Norm on preventing interference in electoral processes: How do we define foreign interference? Where are the red lines between public diplomacy [JB emphasis] and election interference? Are there situations in which foreign election interference and corresponding use of cyber-enabled tactics such as disinformation be deemed acceptable? How can disinformation be used for nefarious and legitimate purposes? What international legal frameworks govern election interference and disinformation? Finally, what can we do to mitigate these threats in order to prevent interference in electoral processes?

Relevance to Theme: Security and safety are prerequisites to economic growth and a healthy digital environment beneficial to all. To achieve security and safety requires having a set of commonly understood and followed rules of behavior in the digital space which guide actions and punish deviations from those rules. The Paris Call for Trust and Security in Cyberspace, which has been signed by over 500 entities (governments, civil society and industry organizations) worldwide, calls on the world to work together to “prevent interference in electoral processes.” However, to make progress on norms for security and safety, including noninterference in elections, we must first look to defining the scope and terminology of election interference.

Relevance to Internet Governance: Norms of behavior in cyberspace are a critical component to governing our actions online. The increased trend of interference in elections over the past decade, aided by new technologies, has led governments, industry and civil society actors to call for new norms against the interference in elections. This panel seeks to deep dive into one specific aspect of election interference, regarding the legitimate and illegitimate use and manipulation of information to influence an election.

Format:
Round Table - Circle - 60 Min

Description: Cyber-enabled threats to democratic processes continue to be a concern around the world. In 2018, half of all advanced democracies holding national elections had their democratic processes targeted by cyber threat activity, which represents a three-fold increase since 2015 and a trend that we expect to continue in the coming year.

Recognizing this threat and increasing trend, many governments, civil society groups and industry have sought to take action through underscoring the need for action in diplomatic dialogue and intergovernmental fora, such as through the Paris Call for Trust and Security in Cyberspace and the 2018 G7 Charlevoix Commitment on Defending Democracy from Foreign Threats. But to make progress on defending democracy and protecting election integrity requires better understanding the core definitions around these issues.

Foreign intervention in democratic elections, whether to promote democratic values or to achieve opposite goals, can be seen as part of those foreign policy tools – ranging from diplomacy through negotiations, provision of foreign aid or imposition of economic sanctions, etc. – that countries’ have at their disposal. Beyond great powers, regional and international organizations have a well-documented history of influencing third countries’ governments in order to promote democratic values – namely, greater peace, prosperity, and pluralism.

On the other hand, malicious actors seeking to interfere in the political climate or election of another country for nefarious purposes is also increasing in scale and impact given the development of technological tools. For both malicious actors and legitimate actors seeking to promote democracy or a particular political agenda, many of the tactics used can look similar: from disseminating rumors (false or true) to damaging rival candidates credibility, public threats or promises, public statements in support of candidates, provision of campaign funds, or increasing foreign aid or other types of assistance.

This panel (full title) “Realpolitik foreign policy or manipulation of sovereign democratic processes: where's the red line?” is intended to facilitate a discussion around foreign interference and the use of disinformation. The Paris Call for Trust and Security in Cyberspace, which has been signed by over 500 entities (governments, civil society and industry organizations) worldwide, calls on the world to work together to “prevent interference in electoral processes.” While foreign election interference is not a new phenomenon, traditional tactics can now be achieved at a much greater scale with the help of new technologies. This is why it is critical to make progress in understanding the norms and rules of the road in this space.

Throughout the course of the roundtable, experts and roundtable participants will answer the following questions: How do we define foreign interference? Where are the red lines between public diplomacy and election interference? Are there situations in which foreign election interference and corresponding use of cyber-enabled tactics such as disinformation be deemed acceptable? How can disinformation be used for nefarious and legitimate purposes? What international legal frameworks govern election interference and disinformation? Finally, what can we do to mitigate these threats in order to prevent interference in electoral processes?

Format
- Overview of election interference trends and threats (5 minutes)
- Context setting on public diplomacy tools in the information space (5 minutes)
- Case study deep dive (i.e. Ukraine, South America) (10 minutes)
- Moderated discussion of roundtable questions (25 minutes)
- Open mic session (10 minutes)
- Conclusion and next steps (5 minutes)

Expected Outcomes: Very few, if any discussions around disinformation and election interference have focused on the idea of defining norms of behavior around what is acceptable activity in this space. In order to make progress on the commitments of multistakeholder agreements such as the G7 Charlevoix Commitment on Defending Democracy from Foreign Threats or the Paris Call for Trust and Security in Cyberspace, we must be able to accurately define the issue and then agree as an international multistakeholder community on what is permissible behavior. This panel is intended to be a starting point to make progress on this pillar and the findings of the discussion will be used in follow-up roundtables across the future gatherings of the “Friends of the Paris Call” or other initiatives designed to make progress on cybersecurity norms against the interference of elections and democratic processes.

Discussion Facilitation:

An open mic session follows the main session to enable the audience and remote participants to join the conversation and present their experiences, opinions, suggestions, etc., on how to move the debate forward. Audience discussants will either queue at their stakeholder-assigned mics, or the panel rapporteurs will bring the mics to discussants, and rotate, with online participants having their own equal queue.

Online Participation:

We will have two online moderators to assist with the online conversation. To broaden participation, social media (Twitter and Facebook) will also be employed by the on-line moderators who will be in charge of browsing social media using a dedicated hashtag.

Proposed Additional Tools: In order to broaden the conversation before, during and after this roundtable we would like to set up a dedicated Microsoft Teams channel in which interested participants can contribute to the discussion by adding questions, sending news articles and following up with experts. During the session Teams can be leveraged for its accessibility features (such as Translator, screen viewer, dictation) to enable those with disabilities to contribute to the conversation.

SDGs:

GOAL 4: Quality Education
GOAL 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure
GOAL 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
GOAL 17: Partnerships for the Goals

Evolution of Public Diplomacy One Mutation at a Time

Joe B. Johnson, Public Diplomacy Council, April 15, 2019; JB note: More recent articles pertaining to Public Diplomacy can be found on the Public Diplomacy Council blog

Last week offered two glimpses of U.S. public diplomacy’s [JB emphasis] gradual evolution.

The State Department received confirmation that a merger between two of its three public diplomacy bureaus will move ahead.  International Information Programs and the Public Affairs bureau will become the Bureau of Global Public Affairs.

A less visible but deeper change went public Thursday, courtesy of the Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy.  The congressionally mandated body called leaders from the Office of the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs to discuss the “modernization of public diplomacy.”

Chairman Sim Farar, Commissioner Anne Terman Wedner and about 100 audience members heard four staffers from the office – called “Ripper” after its acronym R/PPR — describe three initiatives that may be transformational in nature for the 185 public diplomacy offices around the globe.

1. Realigning Public Diplomacy Sections and Locally Engaged Staff
2. Integrating Online Planning and Management Tools
3. Increasing Monitoring and Evaluation Capabilities

Boring?  For some, perhaps, but not for those who know how public diplomacy works today.

New categories for public diplomacy locally-engaged staffers’ job descriptions.

A new set of job titles for locally engaged staff focuses on audiences and resources.  Skills in research, management and evaluation will be stressed over the “how to” skills of press relations, TV production, or the knowledge of our myriad exchanges programs.  R/PPR’s four-part Strategic Framework doctrine mirrors the standard process taught at schools of public relations.

Panelists described some of the specific efforts underway.

• Every Locally-Employed Staff member’s job title and job description is being changed from one denoting a media or cultural function to focus on reaching specific audiences and reporting results.  Foreign Service job descriptions will be reconsidered in the future.
• Several current reporting and management systems are being merged into a single Customer Relations Management platform hosted in the cloud by Salesforce.com.  This is meant to simplify reporting and to allow Washington offices to pull granular data on posts’ activities, contacts and compare those to stated planning priorities.
• An audience research unit, coordinating with others throughout the department, is boosting assistance to the individual posts overseas.  An evaluation unit is assisting posts with monitoring, data collection and evaluation methods.  This has been a weak point for public diplomacy (and the public relations industry as well.)

Robert Kelley of American University asked how such important changes could possibly go forward without a confirmed Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs.  Operational control of the overseas posts lies with the regional bureaus, overseen by the Under Secretary for Political Affairs.  The ranking State panelist, Brian Heath, answered that there is a designated “senior R official,” Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Michelle Guida.  He added that the modernization initiatives are moving forward.

That’s probably because PD professionals throughout the Department have been developing some of these ideas for ten years or more.  The initiatives are non-partisan, the costs are comparatively modest, and they promise results that Congress and successive administrations have always called for: better data on what the taxpayers get for their dollar.

Below the surface, though, the R/PPR initiatives and the bureaus’ merger all face uncertainties.

• The IIP Bureau has always striven to tailor its media support to the varied agendas of posts overseas, which are in turn driven by bilateral relations.  Our 185 public affairs sections, attuned to local audiences, have made U.S. public engagement the most effective on the planet.  Public Affairs, in contrast, must support a Secretary of State’s agenda driven most often by Beltway politics.  Can the new, single bureau find a balance that preserves support to the field?  (I’m a former principal deputy coordinator of the IIP Bureau.)
• The new reporting platform goes well beyond the contact management system for which Salesforce is known.  The Department (including the Information Resources Management Bureau) is trying to customize Salesforce to incorporate program planning and reporting of activities and results, and to do so by autumn of 2020.  The federal government’s record of success with this type of IT project is very poor.
• Finally, R/PPR’s wizards of modernization are aiming well beyond the mechanics of job descriptions and reporting tools.  They want to work a fundamental cultural change in overseas posts that are struggling to keep programs going and fill Washington’s insatiable demand for reporting.  For example, the evaluation unit has embarked on a series of trainings at individual posts, without any apparent needs assessment and disconnected from the Foreign Service Institute (where I now work).  The transformation they seek will require years and will also need a broader approach than simply training.  Can they go the distance?

The revolution in global communications makes it easy to justify changes to organization and process.  And they are needed.  The tricky part is to take the right steps and remain on course over time.

JBJohnson

Joe B. Johnson consults on government communication and technology after a career in the United States Foreign Service.  He is an instructor for the National Foreign Affairs Training Center, where he teaches strategic planning for public diplomacy. Read More

On Richard Holbrooke and the U.S. Information Agency

Thomas Meany, "The Canonization of Richard Holbrooke: Why Third Way liberals saw a glamorous, difficult diplomat as the protector of their values," The New Republic, April 23, 2019

Excerpt:

If anyone questioned the sureness of Richard Holbrooke’s [JB see] media touch during his lifetime—when he was persona very grata on cable news shows, dated Diane Sawyer, and set-designed the Dayton Accords on a remote U.S. air base to dramatize the inconvenient necessity of American power—the fact that George Packer has produced a 600-page portrait of him should lay to rest any doubt. Not every diplomat of the second-tier receives full biographical treatment, much less from one of the most beloved journalists in the country. ...

Packer relates fresh vignettes of how the hustling paid off when Holbrooke was back at the State Department in the Carter administration. After, for instance, he won the prize of youngest-ever assistant secretary of East Asian and Pacific Affairs in 1977, he took a trip to Laos, where he met the Vietnamese ambassador and blamed poor relations on Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carter’s national security adviser. News got back to Brzezinski, who was furious, and tried to have Holbrooke fired. But in a nimble coupling of intelligence and media contacts, Holbrooke had the story discredited: He had a friend in the U.S. Information Service [JB: doubtless the United States Information Service, the overseas arm of the now-defunct United States Information Agency, responsible for public diplomacy], who came up with the idea of dismissing the report as a piece of Soviet misinformation and had the CIA send a cable to the State Department exonerating Holbrooke. With his name cleared, Holbrooke then leaked details of the whole affair to right-wing talk show host Robert Novak, who mocked Brzezinski in a column for believing the Soviet fabrication.

See also:

John Brown, "Richard Holbrooke’s Public Diplomacy: The Case of the US Cultural Center in Belgrade," Huffington Post (12/22/2010); see also

The Alexander Gorchakov Public Diplomacy Fund

image from

gorchakovfund.ru

Excerpt:

The Alexander Gorchakov Public Diplomacy [JB emphasis] Fund was established in accordance with a decree of the President of the Russian Federation Dmitry A. Medvedev on February 2, 2010.

Under the conditions of globalization of world’s political, economic and social processes, the public diplomacy acquires special significance for effective advancement of the Russia’s foreign policy interests. The Fund’s mission in this regard involves encouraging development of the public diplomacy field and supporting establishment of a favorable for Russia public, political and business climate.

The Gorchakov Fund holds activities in the following directions with the purpose of providing support to the public diplomacy, offering assistance to participation of the Russian non-governmental organizations in international cooperation and ensuring active and efficient involvement of institutions of the civil society in the foreign policy process:

• assistance in advancement of social, cultural, educational, rsearch and management programs in the area of international relations;
• providing support to mass media and information resources with the focus of achieving the statutory goals of the Fund;
• participation in the analysis of an economic and public policy position, investment and innovation potential of Russia abroad, consulting and monitoring of current processes in the public diplomacy;
• providing financial, methodological and organizational support to interested national organizations presenting initiative proposals complying with the statuary goals of the Fund;
• raising funds on a voluntary basis from interested individuals and organizations with the purpose of achieving the statutory goals of the Fund;
• providing information and consulting services on the topics of the Fund’s expertise;
• organizing and holding conferences and seminars, exhibitions, symposia, business meetings and lectures;
• development and distribution of methodological and information materials on the topics of the Fund’s expertise;
• participation in the educational process;
• holding charity activities;
• establishing mass media and publishing activities including organizing launch and realization of information products, periodicals and research and methodology publications;
• providing support to Russian-language mass media and information resources abroad as well as to Russian mass media and information resources;
• creation of information centers on the topics of the Fund’s expertise;implementation of international cooperation and providing support to development of international ties including in the area of advancement of democracy and protection of human rights;assistance in creating a favorable for Russia public opinion abroad;
• providing support to advancement of intellectual, cultural, scientific and business potential of Russia abroad. ...

3/28/2019 Hannah Chapman: Soft Power and Media Effects in Russia’s Near Abroad [video]

PONARS Eurasia, Published on Apr 23, 2019

Image (not from entry) from, under the title:  Kyrgyzstan travel - Lonely Planet

Powerful countries use foreign media broadcasts to enhance their soft power, yet there is scant empirical evidence as to whether such efforts actually sway public opinion abroad. We propose a theory of opinion-formation and issue-framing effects of foreign broadcasts as functions of the pervasiveness and familiarity of the issues they cover. We test this theory by examining the potential effects of exposure to Russia-sourced broadcasts on views of Russia and other foreign policy issues in Kyrgyzstan, a most likely case of foreign media effects. Using an original, nationally-representative survey conducted in Kyrgyzstan in 2015, we find that the influence of Russian media on Kyrgyzstani opinions varies according to the pervasiveness and familiarity of the issues at stake, and is more limited than traditionally believed. The modest and conditional effects of foreign media in this particularly favorable environment cast doubt on the assumption that media are a soft power tool “par excellence” and call for further research on how media can be used effectively for public diplomacy [JB emphasis].

Taste of Australia 2019 launched in Vietnam

dtinews.vn, April 23, 2019

Culinary competition

The Taste of Australia 2019 will be held for the fourth time by the Australian Embassy and Consulate-General in Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh City, Danang and Nha Trang.

The event, led by Taste of Australia Ambassador, Australian celebrity chef Luke Nguyen, will include community BBQs, a twilight cinema event, gala receptions featuring performances by Australian singer Deni Hines, a NOSH Supperclub Dinner prepared by five leading Australian chefs working in Ho Chi Minh City, a public food and wine show, a showcase by Adam Liaw – Masterchef Australia Winner 2010, and the fourth annual Taste of Australia Culinary Competition.

Taste of Australia 2019 will also showcase Australia now ASEAN 2019, the Australian Government’s flagship public diplomacy program. This year, Australia now celebrates the vitality, diversity and capability of youth across Southeast Asia, including in Vietnam. 

Australian wine and food journey

Ambassador Craig Chittick said, “Taste of Australia showcases the best that Australia has to offer and brings this to the whole of Vietnam. It is a partnership between the Australian Government and Australian and Vietnamese producers, distributors, retailers, restaurants, and organisations”.

The third annual Taste of Australia in 2018 was a huge success, with 130 partners and sponsors supporting a diverse range of events across the country.

Talk Nation Radio: Foad Izadi on U.S.-Iranian Relations and Peace Activism in Iran

David Swanson, davidswanson.org, April 16; original article contains a video

Foad Izadi is a member of World BEYOND War’s Coordinating Committee based in Iran. His research and teaching interests are inter-disciplinary and focus on United States-Iran relations and U.S. public diplomacy [JB emphasis]. His book, United States Public Diplomacy Towards Iran, discusses the U.S. communication efforts in Iran during the George W. Bush and Obama administrations. Izadi has published numerous studies in national and international academic journals and major handbooks, including: Journal of Communication Inquiry, Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, Routledge Handbook of Public Diplomacy and Edward Elgar Handbook of Cultural Security. Dr. Foad Izadi is a faculty member at the Department of American Studies, Faculty of World Studies, University of Tehran, where he teaches M.A. and Ph.D. courses in American studies. He’ll be speaking at #NoWar2019 https://worldbeyondwar.org/nowar2019

Total run time: 29:00
Host: David Swanson.
Producer: David Swanson.
Music by Duke Ellington.

Download from LetsTryDemocracy or Archive.

Pacifica stations can also download from Audioport.

Syndicated by Pacifica Network.