|
|
| (49 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | Ross Holland
| |
| − | Kashif Riaz
| |
| − | Kevin Harkins
| |
| − | Gavin Ross
| |
| | | | |
| − | ==Overview==
| |
| − | The Alliance for Youth Movements is a not-for-profit organisation which is "dedicated to promoting, connecting, and supporting digital activists from around the world." It also hosts annual summits on ways in which to promote digital activism <ref> "[http://www.movements.org/pages/about/]" Alliance for Youth Movements: About AYM, accessed on 8 November 2010 </ref>.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==History==
| |
| − | Alliance for Youth Movement (AYM) was formed in 2008 with a summit held in New York City. The event was organised by the US State Department partnered with MTV, Google, YouTube, Facebook, Howcast, AT&T, Jet Blue, Gen-Next, Access360Media and Columbia Law School. The aim was to encourage young people from around the world to use various digital mediums to voice their concerns over global issues such as oppression and censorship.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The AYM Summit is now an annual event, most recently being held in London on March 2010, after Mexico City hosted in 2009.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===New York City 2008 Summit===
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The founding AYM Summit took place in New York City on December 3-5 2008.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | There were seventeen leaders in attendance from their respective organisations;<br>
| |
| − | Burma Global Action Network;<br>
| |
| − | CAMBIO/Día de Solidaridad con Cuba;<br>
| |
| − | Fight-Back;<br>
| |
| − | Genocide Intervention Network;<br>
| |
| − | Illuminemos México;<br>
| |
| − | Invisible Children;<br>
| |
| − | No Más Chávez;<br>
| |
| − | One Million People Against Crime in South Africa;<br>
| |
| − | One Million Voices Against the FARC;<br>
| |
| − | The People's March Against Knife Crime;<br>
| |
| − | Raíces de Esperanza;<br>
| |
| − | Saudi Women Petitioning the Government for Driving Rights;<br>
| |
| − | Save Darfur Coalition;<br>
| |
| − | To Write Love on Her Arms;<br>
| |
| − | Genç Siviller- Young Civilians;<br>
| |
| − | Youth for Tolerance.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The Summit featured a variety of high-profile keynote speakers, including two of the AYM co-founders, Jason Liebman and Roman Tsunder. Also present were Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz, James K. Glassman, Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs,and Actress Whoopi Goldberg.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Among the topics and issues raised were "Building a Movement Against Terrorism", "Building a Global Movement", "How to Be an Effective Dissident", " Addressing Violence at Home" and "Mobilizing in a Challenging Environment".<ref>"[http://www.movements.org/pages/new-york-city-2008]", Alliance for Youth Movement - New York City 2008, accessed 15 October 2010</ref>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===Mexico City 2009 Summit===
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Due to the success of the original AYM Summit, US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, organised a second AYM summit to be held in Mexico City the following year.<ref> [http://info.howcast.com/youthmovements/aym-about]", HowCast Website - About AYM, accessed 16 October 2010</ref>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Clinton gave her support in Mexico City just six months prior to the Summit:
| |
| − | "Young people around the world are poised to lead this kind of innovative citizen empowerment, which is why the United States is supporting a summit here in Mexico of Alliance of Youth Movements, to connect up young people working to end to end violence throughout Latin America, whether it’s domestic violence or dating violence or lawlessness in the streets of your community, we must all take a stand against violence. And this is a new tool that will help."<ref>"[http://info.howcast.com/youthmovements/summit09]", HowCast Website - Mexico City 2009, accessed 16 October 2010</ref>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The event raised awareness to humanitarian issues present in Mexico, as well as highlighting success stories from the previous AYM Summit.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | However, the main goal of this conference was to encourage the use of Social Networking to "Effect Change", with particular emphasis put on Twitter, Facebook and viral video websites such as Howcast. <ref>"[http://www.movements.org/pages/mexico-city-2009]", Alliance for Youth Movements - Mexico City 2009, accessed 16 October 2010</ref>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Hillary Clinton reinforced her endorsement of the AYM, when she addressed the 2009 Summit via a video message. She said:“Young people around the world are poised to lead this kind of innovative citizen empowerment – which is why the United States is supporting a summit here in Mexico of Alliance for Youth Movements – to connect up young people working to end violence throughout Latin America – whether it’s domestic violence or dating violence or lawlessness in the streets of your community, we must all take a stand against violence. And this is a new tool that will help." <ref>"[http://www.movements.org/pages/the-summit]", Alliance for Youth Movements - The Summit, accessed 29 October 2010</ref>
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===London 2010 Summit===
| |
| − | AYM held its third annual Summit in London, UK between March 9-11 2010.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Just like the two previous Summits, several high-profile supporters from the private-sector attended, such as "Jack Dorsey of Twitter, Sir Martin Sorrell of WPP, Scott Heiferman of MeetUp, as well as top people from Google, YouTube and the World Bank." <ref>"[http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2010-03/10/meet-the-world%27s-youth-activists.aspx]", Wired.co.uk - Meet the World's Youth Activists, accessed 16 October 2010</ref>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Some of the most striking topics discussed in London were issues such as "Tech Solutions to Repressive Regimes", "Turning Video into Tangible Action", "Turning Social Networks into Real Community" and "How to Create Content and Conversation that Drives Action".
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===Controversies===
| |
| − | Although there is seemingly widespread support for the AYM throughout the Western world, some of their activities, and more specifically, some of their alliegances have caused concern for controversy over the last three years.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | AYM's support of the Venezuelan anti-presidential movement 'No Más Chávez' is considered to be a disguise of the U.S. State Department's opposition to Hugo Chávez, president of Venezuela and critic of American Neoliberalism. The State Department has reportedly funded over $4 million to the Venezuelan private media over the last three years. They use the reason of the right to free speech to defend their actions. They say their objective is to "strengthen independent journalists by providing them with training, technical assistance, materials and greater access to innovative internet-based technologies that expand media coverage and increase their capacity to inform the public on a timely basis about the most critical policy issues impacting Venezuela." <ref>Buying the Press, Sri Lanka Daily News, July 29 2010</ref>
| |
| − | However, in Venezuela, there is little evidence of censorship within the media. In fact, there is a wide and fierce anti-Chávez element within the Venezuelan press. However, following the arrest of the president of a TV station opposed to Chávez<ref>Anti-Chávez TV Owner Faces Arrest, The Guardian, 14 June 2010</ref> the pressure, as well as support, has intensified from the U.S.
| |
| − | Nonetheless, AYM's support of a movement opposed to Chávez, who support economic alliegance with the U.S., questions their goals of promoting democracy and freedom, as Hugo Chávez is a democratically elected president.
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===AYM Website Launch===
| |
| − | Movements.org is AYM's official website, launching over two years after the corganisation's formation, having previously used the HowCast website as their webpage.. The website is still in testing mode with parts of the site still being developed.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Users are given access to news stories and blogs relevant to digital activism straight from the home page.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==People==
| |
| − | ===Team===
| |
| − | <ref> "[http://www.movements.org/pages/team]" Alliance for Youth Movements: Team </ref>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [[Jason Liebman]] '''Co-Founder and Board Member''' <br>
| |
| − | [[Roman Tsunder]] '''Co-Founder and Board Member'''<br>
| |
| − | [[Jared Cohen]] '''Co-Founder and Board Member''' <br>
| |
| − | [[Susannah Vila]] '''Director of Content and Outreach''' <br>
| |
| − | [[Rachel Silver]] '''Development and Corporate Partnership Manager''' <br>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==Funding==
| |
| − | Funding for the organisation comes in from various parties, in order for it to maintain its massive worldwide network and communities. Major contributors include both the UK and U.S governments, with Hilary Clinton vocally giving her, and the states, support and endorsement of the second Alliance for Youth movements annual summit<ref>"[http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2009/oct/130503.htm]" US Department of State website, Hilary Clinton, accessed 24 October 2010</ref>,held on the 14 - 16 October 2009 in Mexico City. The Alliance for Youth movements also makes the most of its corporate sponsorships in generating funds with numerous corporate organisations supporting and sponsoring the movement. Named on the movements website are all of its partners, which include;Howcast, Edelman, Google, MTV, MeetUp, Pepsi, CBS News, MobileAccord, YouTube, Facebook, MSNBC, National Geographic, Omnicom and Access 360 Media.<ref> "[http://www.movements.org/pages/supporters]" Alliance for Youth Movement, accessed 24 October 2010</ref>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==Activities==
| |
| − | The AYM invited members of the following organisations to their most recent summit in London 2010, and works with and endorses the following activities <ref> "[http://www.movements.org/.../-/Bio%20Book%20AYM%20Summit%202010.doc]" Summit Activities Guide, accessed on 30 October 2010 </ref>:
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [[AccessNow.org]]: Formed after the 2009 Iranian election, an objective is to create a team of global activists and work to provide access to areas in which internet access is denied.<br>
| |
| − | [[B'Tselem]]: who intend to "monitor, document and advocate an improvement in the Human Rights in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip." <br>
| |
| − | [[Center for American Progress]]: a think-tank designed to stimulate national debate.<br>
| |
| − | [[Digital Democracy]]: work with people who feel abused or neglected in South and South-East Asia.<br>
| |
| − | [[Enough]]: works in countries where an abuse of Human Rights or genocide occurs.<br>
| |
| − | [[Ethnomedia and Development]]: use the media to promote values like Human Rights and justice.<br>
| |
| − | [[Frontline SMS]]: allows people to network via phones which are used as communication hubs.<br>
| |
| − | [[Genc Siviller]]: founded in Turkey in 2006. Online youth culture formed as it aims to establish liberal democracy with 2 million members on Facebook.<br>
| |
| − | [[Genocide Intervention Network]]: formed 2005 with aim to aid those at risk from genocide.<br>
| |
| − | [[Halafire Media, LLC]]: privately-held media company based in California. Networks affluent global Muslim communities; with 27 million page views and over 7.5 million unique annual visitors. The website properties attract those with disposable income and want to spend and can market to them in an industry worth 170 million dollars in the US alone.<br>
| |
| − | [[Interfaith Youth Care]]: allows millions of young religious people to interact frequently.<br>
| |
| − | [[Kiwanja.net]]: provides access to technology for NGO's in the developing world. 70% of mobile phone users form third world countries. Organisation has worked in Egypt, Ethiopia, Congo and Cambodia.<br>
| |
| − | [[MEPEACE.org]]: network for peacemakers; more than a million page visits and active in 170 countries and 6000 cities.<br> [[MidEastYouth.com]]: combat oppression in the Middle East and North Africa.<br>
| |
| − | [[OneVoice]]: works in Israel and Palestine; 650,000 members and have trained 2000 youth leaders.<br>
| |
| − | [[Pakistan Youth Alliance]]: allows young people to affect change.<br>
| |
| − | [[Sisters Against Violent Extremism/Women Without Borders]]: global lobbying organisation for women.<br>
| |
| − | [[Save Darfur Coalition]]: Fouded in 2004; 180 religious, humanitarian and political organisations work to deal with Darfur crisis.<br>
| |
| − | [[Un Million de Voces Fundacion]]: A Facebook group created in January 4 2008 and demanded a march a month later. 500,000 members joined in a month alone and 12 million connected via social netowrking to protest in 200 cities in 40 countries against the FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces).<br>
| |
| − | [[Youngsters Foundation International]]: provides social network for African youths to discuss worldwide issues.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==Digital Diplomacy==
| |
| − | In its simplest terms, Digital Diplomacy is "solving foreign policy through the internet" <ref> "[http://digitaldiplomacy.fco.gov.uk/en/about/digital-diplomacy/]" British Foreign Office: What is digital diplomacy?, accessed on 19 October 2010 </ref>. Digital Diplomacy is being driven by the increase in social media sites such as [[Facebook]], [[Twitter]], [[Flickr]] and other sites. In a speech called "Britain's Foreign Policy in a Networked World", British Foreign Secretary [[William Hague]] said that he was an avid follower of Bahrain's Foreign Minister on Twitter! <ref> "[http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/news/latest-news/?view=Speech&id=22462590]" Speech by William Hague: Britain's Foreign Policy in a Networked World (1 July 2010), accessed on 19 October 2010 </ref> This is an indication that the new social networking experience is playing a crucial role in the diplomatic efforts of governments.
| |
| − | In the United States, this has been a crucial function of the foreign policy of the Obama Administration. Led by Secretary of State [[Hillary Rodham Clinton]], the US [[State Department]] has coined the term "21st Century Statecraft" to describe digital diplomacy <ref> "[http://www.state.gov/statecraft/index.htm]" State Department: 21st Century Statecraft, accessed on 20 October 2010 </ref> and is central to the diplomatic strategy of the State Department. One crucial part of the digital diplomacy strategy is the freedom of the internet around the world. In a speech on internet freedom, Secretary Clinton said that "freedom to connect" was important to stop governments from preventing citizens from viewing websites. <ref> "[http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/01/21/internet_freedom?page=full]" Foreign Policy: Hillary Clinton on internet freedom (21 January 2010), accessed on 20 October 2010 </ref> The State Department in implementing this policy are harnessing the knowledge of leaders in the internet and social networking arena such as [[Eric Schmidt]], [[Google]] CEO as well as Twitter co-founder [[Jack Dorsey]], [[Jason Liebman]] of Howcast and the Alliance for Youth Movements as well as many others <ref> "[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jason-liebman/perspective-on-digital-di_b_416876.html]" Jason Liebman: Faceboo, Twitter and YouTube Are Tools for Diplomacy (8 January 2010), accessed on 26 October 2010 </ref>.
| |
| − | One of the crucial underpinnings of "21st Century Statecraft" is the idea that through these networking opportunities, the individual at street level will be empowered. We have seen examples of this when [[Oscar Morales]] started a Facebook campaign against Colombian terrorist organisation [[FARC]]. <ref> "[http://www.metro.co.uk/news/812277-oscar-morales-how-i-used-facebook-to-protest-against-farc]" Oscar Morales: 'How I used Facebook to protest FARC' (Metro: 8 February 2010), accessed on 26 October 2010 </ref> This is an example of digital diplomacy in action as Morales is using Facebook to be able to harness an anti-FARC sentiment and send a message towards that organisation. Senator [[Richard Lugar]] has pointed out that governments theoretically will not be able to control the messages the people will hear if the internet is open and accessible to all fully which means people will become "empowered" by this type of interaction <ref> "[http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/01/06/twitter_vs_terror?page=0,1]" Twitter vs Terror (6 January 2010), accessed on 26 October 2010 </ref>. Through the 'empowerment' of people through the internet it is possible that alternate histories will be available to contrast those that are the officially governmentally sanctioned accounts. <ref> "[http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/66781/eric-schmidt-and-jared-cohen/the-digital-disruption?page=show]" Eric Schmidt and Jared Cohen: The Digital Distruption (Novemember/December 2010), accessed on 27 October 2010 </ref> This will empower people through the internet as they should be able to make a balanced judgement of what has happened in the history of their nation. This type of diplomacy is hoped will lead to, in the words of Secretary Clinton, "advance democracy and human rights, fight climate change and epidemics, build global support for President Obama's goal of a world without nuclear weapons, and encourage sustainable economic development". <ref> "[http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/01/21/internet_freedom?page=full]" Hillary Clinton on internet freedom, accessed on 27 Ocotber 2010 </ref>
| |
| − | ===Criticisms===
| |
| − | There are however many criticisms of the digital diplomacy idea. One of the most fundamental criticisms is one that is acknowledged by the supporters of this diplomatic technique. It is an acknowledged fact that through internet freedom, as well as empowering people to allow them more access and freedom to others, it also allows groups such as [[Al Qaeda]] the resources to plan attacks on the internet and proclaim extremist views and values to a much wider audience <ref> "[http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/01/21/internet_freedom?page=full]" Hillary Clinton on internet freedom (21 January 2010), accessed on 27 October 2010 </ref>. This is the double-edged sword of digital diplomacy and internet freedom as it allows groups that are not in the mainstream of public opinion the chance to have an outlet for their views globally and this could have a detrimental affect on the foreign relations of nations, which would seem not to solve foreign policy problems through the internet. While the empowerment argument is one of the strongest arguments used for the increasing usage of digital diplomacy, empowerment has also happened to groups such as the [[Taliban]] as well as Al Qaeda as technologies such as mobile phones have allowed them to recruit activists more freely and also terrorise local populations to achieve the aims that they have <ref> "[http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/66781/eric-schmidt-and-jared-cohen/the-digital-disruption?page=show]" Eric Schmidt and Jared Cohen: The Digital Disruption (November/December 2010), accessed on 27 October 2010 </ref>. This shows then that instead of freeing up the population of oppressive regimes, it may actually oppressive them even further. This is because through these new types of social networking opportunities, oppressive groups are able to intimidate their victims more freely. This again shows the double-edged sword of the digital diplomacy debate because as well as empowering people, these new types of technologies may oppressive people even further. <br>
| |
| − | A further issue that arises from the movement of information more freely is that organisations may be publish information that could damage national security. This is one of the arguments that is one that is used against whistle-blower sites such as [[WikiLeaks]]. WikiLeaks in the year 2010 released classified documents on the internet in conjunction with news organisations of US logs in the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Almost 400,000 logs on the Iraq War were released and some 77,000 were released on the Afghanistan war <ref> "[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/world/24assange.html?_r=1]" New York Times: Wikileaks Founder on the Run, Chased by Turmoil (23 October 2010), accessed on 28 October 2010 </ref>. These unprecedented leaks have lead to some criticism from the US Government and also groups such as Amnesty International who say that by releasing the names of informants in the Afghanistan War Logs, the lives of these people have been put in danger. There has also been criticism from Christian Whiton from Fox News, who says that by releasing these documents, Wikileaks is by nature a foreign enemy of the United States <ref> "[http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/10/25/christian-whiton-wiki-leaks-ignore-threat-obama-democrats-congress-iraq-war/]" FoxNews.com: Why Do We Keep Ignoring the WikiLeaks Threat? (25 October 2010), accessed on 28 October 2010 </ref>. This shows that through digital diplomacy, while attempting to free the movement of information, information may be used against nations which could undermine their national security and threaten the lives of those on the ground. It will also make it more difficult to identify the enemy as it is likely that anonymous IP addresses will be used to mask the identity of people which will make it more difficult for the groups who've been undermined by this information to fashion a specific response. Former Clinton and Bush counter-terrorism advisor [[Richard Clarke]] has predicted a "doomsday scenario" which involves hacking of [[Pentagon]] computers, leading to refinery explosions and deletion of data of the Federal Reserve and major banks. In this scenario, Clarke envisions thousands dying, food shortages and lootings as well as the crippling of the financial system and transport infrastructure <ref> "[http://www.montrealgazette.com/technology/cyber+arrived/3722461/story.html]" The age of cyber war has arrived (25 October 2010), accessed on 28 October 2010 </ref>. In this scenario, it is clear that this is one of the most dangerous and deadly attacks on a nation without a single bomb being dropped on a major city as it requires hackers being able to navigate their way around government computers. This makes the further usage of digital diplomacy in a critical light as through the use of this technology and the freedom of information flows places many at danger if hackers find the ability to hack into government and other vital institutional networks. <br>
| |
| − | There is though another side to the criticisms of digital diplomacy. This side involves the conflicting messages that America itself gives out on the issue of internet freedom. If we analyse the case of WikiLeaks, we can see that this would by definition fit into the idea of "21st Century Statecraft" and the freer movement of information around the world. Of course by the reaction of the Obama Administration, which has been to heavily condemn the leaking of classified military information, we can see that while in theory America supports more open and transparent communications, in practice they do not support this if they believe it will damage their national security. The way in which America also looks at internet freedom in other countries is also a key way to look at how seriously America take the idea and ideals of free internet. Evgeny Morozov, who is a prominent critic of the "21st Century Statecraft" idea, has asked if America are actually trying to create a new Cold War, in this case a "Cyber" Cold War <ref> "[http://neteffect.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/01/21/cyber_cold_war]" Is Hillary Clinton launching a cyber Cold War (21 January 2010), accessed on 5 November 2010 </ref>. Morozov makes this point as he points to the repeated references that Secretary Clinton makes in her speech on internet freedom on the Cold War, such as the references to the Berlin Wall. Morozov also points to the descrepancies in American policing of internet freedom. Morozov points to what he calls "soft touch" on Chinese leaders in Clinton's speech <ref> "[http://neteffect.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/01/21/cyber_cold_war]" Is Hillary Clinton launching a cyber Cold War (21 January 2010), accessed on 5 November 2010 </ref> while the American administration takes a fairly hard-line stance against countries such as Iran who have been restricting internet access. While taking a neutral stance during the 2009 Iranian elections, Alliance for Youth Movements co-founder and former State Department staffer [[Jared Cohen]] contacted Twitter to stop a planned maintenance to keep Iran 'twittering' during that period <ref> "[http://www.mediabistro.com/baynewser/twitter/profile_the_kid_at_the_state_department_who_figured_out_the_iranians_should_be_allowed_to_keep_tweeting_119136.asp]" Profile: The Kid at the State Department Who Figured Out the Iranians Should Be Allowed to Keep Twittering (17 June 2009), accessed on 5 November 2010 </ref>. While this could be seen as a contradiction of the stance that the Obama Administration were planning on taking, Cohen was not cautioned by his superiors (see [[Jared Cohen]] for further details), this shows an immediate contradiction at the heart of the American policy. There has also been significant investment in attempting to go around firewalls in countries such as China by Western nations to free up internet access for those in countries like China <ref> "[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3548035.stm]" BBC News: Bypassing China's net firewall (10 March 2004) accessed on 5 November 2010 </ref> but in America itself, there have been legislative attempts to make it easier for government agencies to get around encryption online to support their counter-terrorism efforts <ref> "[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/27/us/27wiretap.html?_r=2&hp=&adxnnl=1&pagewanted=1&adxnnlx=1288735265-UgYbmcUIDusVy/2pWyeykA]" NYTimes.com: US Tries to Make it Easier to Wiretap the Internet (27 September 2010), accessed on 5 November 2010 </ref>. This would again seem a contradiction at the heart of the idea of freeing up the internet to increase the spread of information. While in no way questioning the importance of counter-terrorism operations, it surely undermines the ideal of full internet freedom for everyone if the government have the ability to use a form of 'wiretapping' online which will increase the government's ability to 'snoop' on citizens which will in the long-term harm internet freedom. Finally, the funding by the government of programmes such as the Alliance for Youth Movements (which has received funding from both British and American governments <ref> "[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/susannah-vila/the-wrong-debate-why-we-s_b_752531.html]" Huffington Post: The Wrong Debate: Why We Should Stop Debating Technology's Relevance and Start Figuring Out How to Effectively Leverage It (6 October 2010), accessed on 5 November 2010 </ref>) undermines the credibilty of these programmes. This is because they could be seen as a mere expansion of the power of these nations <ref> "[http://samibengharbia.com/2010/09/17/the-internet-freedom-fallacy-and-the-arab-digital-activism/]" The Internet Freedom Fallacy and the Arab Digital activism (17 September 2010), accessed on 5 November 2010 </ref> which again undermines the ideal of full internet freedom. It would then just seem that a process of hegemony would be taking place through the internet and digital diplomacy. Of course the links that digital diplomacy and "21st Century State" seem to have very old methods attached to them. As Morozov points out, many of the tactics that are being employed to increase the freedom of the internet are grounded in traditional lobbying methods that have been in use for decades <ref> "[http://neteffect.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/09/07/the_20th_century_roots_of_the_21st_century_statecraft]" The 20th century roots of 21st century statecraft (7 September 2010), accessed on 5 November 2010 </ref>. This could be proof that it is merely the interests of big business - in this case internet business - that are being advanced through digital diplomacy. Secretary Clinton herself as had meetings with the movers and shakers of the internet such as [[Eric Schmidt]], Google's CEO, [[Jack Dorsey]] who is Twitter's co-founder and Alliance for Youth Movements [[Jason Liebman]] <ref> "[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jason-liebman/perspective-on-digital-di_b_416876.html]" Huffington Post: Facebook, Twitter and YouTube Are Tools for Diplomacy (8 January 2010), accessed on 5 November 2010 </ref>. This is possibly the most potent criticism of digital diplomacy as it links in with the over-reaching idea of this type of diplomacy merely being used to further the position of Western ideas and the companies that the originate in. It must though also be said that this could be used in exactly the same way by other countries out with the major powers to improve their position in the international community, so this criticism is not merely a criticism of the debate through a Western view but one in which there are many different layers to this complex debate.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==Contact==
| |
| − | Alliance for Youth Movements Website<ref>"[http://www.movements.org/ Movements Homapage]", Alliance for Youth Movements, accessed 12 October 2010</ref>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==Notes==
| |
| − | <references/>
| |
