UAS and Russia national branding in digital diplomacy (Case study: Twitter account of foreign ministries)
Document Type : Original Article
Author
Ph.D in International Relations, University of Isfahan
Abstract
Today, the U.S. and Russian foreign ministries are using social media such as Twitter to spread their national narratives and digital diplomacy branding. The United States and Russia are trying to take their conflicting interests into cyberspace and create a parallel world through their digital channels. The main struggle between the United States and Russia revolves around public opinion to establish their desired order through national branding in the parallel digital world. Based on this, this article attempts to answer these questions through three-step coding in the content of the Twitter of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the United States and Russia. How do the United States and Russia seek to create their national branding through digital diplomacy? And what is the difference between these two governments' approaches? In response, it is pointed out that when reviewing and studying the two Twitter accounts of the US and Russian Foreign Ministries, these ministries have tried to highlight their two national brands "concept". While America has sought to maintain its hegemonic role in the world and globalize the order of liberal democracy, Russia, in turn, has been trying to redefine its leadership role in the world and fight against the unilateralist order of America. This redefining and Russia's struggle with the desired order of America has made Russia to put the identity and historical role of the Soviet Union at the forefront of its political performance today. This is while America wants to shape the values of the world by maintaining its hegemonic role and expanding its values, and to analyze his narrative of the target governments based on American values and culture. In this article, we have attempted to identify the hidden meanings of the U.S. and Russian State Department tweets using the method of qualitative content analysis.
Keywords
فهرست منابع و مآخذ
الف. منابع فارسی
- سالدنا، جانی (1395)، «راهنمای کدگذاری برای پژوهشگران کیفی» ترجمه، عبدالله گیویان، تهران: علمی و فرهنگی.
ب. منابع انگلیسی
- Anastasiia, Z.(2020), Comparative Analysis of Digital Diplomacy Strategies in Russia and the USA, the Faculty of World Economy and International Affairs.
- Bjola, C., & Manor, I. (2018), “Revisiting Putnam’s two-level game theory in the digital age: domestic digital diplomacy and the Iran nuclear deal”. Cambridge Review of International Affairs. 31(1), 3-32.
- Cull, N. J.(2009), “Public diplomacy: Lessons from the past”. CPD Perspectives on Public diplomacy. 2(19), 1-62.
- Deos, A.(2015). “Digital Diplomacy & Social Capital: Analysing Relational Components of Trust in US & Israeli Online Social Networks”. Doctoral dissertation. University of Otago.
- Dinnie, K.(2008), Nation branding: Concepts, issues, practice, Routledge.
- Duncombe, C.(2018), 'Twitter and the Challenges of Digital Diplomacy'. The SAIS Review of International Affairs. 38 (2), 91-100.
- Fan, Y.(2010), Branding the nation: Towards a better understanding. Place branding and public diplomacy, 6(2), 97-103.
- Jordan, P.(2013), “Nation Branding: A Tool for Nationalism?”, Journal of Baltic Studies. 45(3), pp.283–303.
- Hayden, C.(2012), “Social media at state: Power, practice, and conceptual limits for US public diplomacy”. Global Media Journal. 11(21). 1-21.
- Maréchal, N.(2017), “Networked authoritarianism and the geopolitics of information: Understanding Russian Internet policy”. Media and Communication. 5(1). 29-41.
- Manor, I.(2018), “The Digitalization of Diplomacy: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Terminology”. Oxford Digital Diplomacy Research Group, 1-20.
- Manor, I., & Segev, E.(2015), “America’s selfie: How the US portrays itself on its social media accounts”. In Digital Diplomacy: Theory and Practice. Routledge.
- Melissen, J.(2005), “Wielding soft power: the new public diplomacy”. Netherlands Institute of International Relations. Clingendael
- Reshetnikova, L.(2018), “E-Diplomacy as Instrument for Establishment of Interethnic Relations”. In SHS Web of Conferences. 50.
- Su, S., & Xu, M.(2015), “Twitplomacy: Social media as a new platform for development of public diplomacy”. International Journal of E-Politics 6(1), 16-29.
- Stewart, L. G., Arif, A., & Starbird, K.(2018), “Examining trolls and polarization with a retweet network”, Workshop on Misinformation and Misbehavior Mining on the Web.
- Stukal, D., Sanovich, S., Bonneau, R., & Tucker, J. A.(2017), “Detecting bots on Russian political Twitter”. Big data.5(4). 310-324.
- Szondi, G.(2008), Public diplomacy and nation branding: Conceptual similarities and differences. Clingendael Institute.
- Tago, A. (2017), “Public Diplomacy and Foreign Policy”. World Politics.1-16.
- Zinovyeva, E.(2013), “US digital diplomacy: Impact on international security and opportunities for Russia”. Security Index: A Russian Journal on International Security. 19(2). 33-43.
)